Pensions Bill

Public Bill Committee, 19 February 2008.

Clause 82

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Given that we are starting this chapter of the Bill, it would be useful if I set out what it will do. It has a substantial importance in relation to how divorce and pension settlements are arrived at. If I explain the broad background to that, we may be able to proceed fairly briskly through the other clauses.

In 1999, when the Government legislated to allow divorcing couples to share pensions, we made it clear that we were committed to ensuring that divorcing couples reach fair and equitable settlements. Those provisions were extended to civil partnerships under the Civil Partnership Act 2004. Although I shall refer mainly in my speech to divorce, the provisions that we are introducing apply equally to divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership. We have ensured that, when couples divorce, they have the choice to share their pensions like other assets in a way that ensures a clean break, independence and income in later life.

However, the Pension Protection Fund compensation is not a pension and the existing pension-sharing law does not apply to it. The PPF was created in 2004 to pay compensation to people whose sponsoring employer has experienced an insolvency event and whose defined benefit pension scheme cannot pay a pension at a level that is at least equivalent to the pension paid by the PPF. The fund compensation can be taken into account when reaching financial settlements, but unlike cash, property or pensions, compensation cannot be shared when the couple or a court decide that that would be the best way in which to divide their assets.

When a member of a divorcing couple has pension rights, the court can transfer the value of some or all of those rights to the other member of the couple. That person can then buy a pension of their own to ensure their independence and security. The courts can also do that while a pension scheme is being assessed for transfer to the PPF. However, when a pension scheme has actually been transferred to the PPF, it is not possible to make an order to divide the compensation payments to which people are entitled. That means that PPF compensation could not be shared even if that compensation were the only significant asset belonging to a divorcing couple.

While there is no evidence that up to now a person has lost out, clauses 82 to 95 will ensure that sharing compensation is an option. The provisions allow the courts to treat PPF compensation in a similar way to pensions on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. A group of amendments that we shall discuss shortly would extend the provisions to Scotland.

Clause 82 describes the scope of the compensation-sharing provisions. It sets out the key principle for what follows and explains that PPF compensation is shareable—a principle that is fundamental to the compensation-sharing provisions—unless regulations make an exception such as when compensation is being paid to a survivor in respect of a previous marriage.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the thinking behind the clause. When he talks about PPF compensation, will he confirm whether the provisions will apply also to the financial assistance scheme?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

No. We shall have to look at the way in which the financial assistance scheme applies and the provisions under which it will operate.

Clause 82, like the rest of the chapter, has been drafted so that, as far as possible, compensation sharing follows the same principles and uses the same mechanics that currently apply to pension sharing. In that way, we have sought to capitalise on familiarity and avoid unnecessary additional complexity.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

As I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the thinking behind this set of clauses. It is useful to make a few general comments on clause 82 before we discuss some of the detail. It was Lord Nicholls in the case of Brooks v Brooks, to which I referred earlier, who said:

“For many married people their two single assets of greatest value are the house in which they live and, as time passes, the accumulating pension of the money-earner.”

In a previous debate about safeguarded rights, we looked at how the law has developed on pensions and their treatment in matrimonial proceedings. There was a time when they could be taken into account, but there was no power to make an order in respect of pensions specifically, and what happened is what currently happens for PPF payments—the court could, in certain circumstances, broadly take into account the entitlement in dividing up other assets of the marriage. The 1995 legislation first gave the power to attach or earmark pensions. As the Minister has said, the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 amended the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 such that what could happen from then on was the sharing of pensions. That was based on a consultation carried out under the previous Conservative Government, so clearly there was an element of consensus.

The 1999 Act made it clear that from then on, pensions sharing could take place. As I understand it, it is not compulsory and will always remain a matter of discretion for the courts at any given time and applies to occupational pensions, personal pensions, SERPS and the state pension. It is something that has come to be applied a great deal in our courts. There are some 200,000 divorce cases a year, at least, and it would be worth knowing in how many cases pension sharing takes place already. In 2000 it was thought that earmarking only took place in 300 of the then 150,000 cases per year, but I suspect that the figure for pension sharing is now a great deal higher.

It is puzzling how this anomaly came to be. It is perhaps the fault of all of us, but perhaps the Government more than us, that nobody spotted it during the passage of what became the 2004 legislation. It is clear that in certain circumstances a husband who has accumulated a significant pension in a company that then has an insolvency event could, if the timing was right, by receiving compensation payments under the PPF, avoid giving his wife a fair share of that substantial asset in the divorce proceedings. I give considerable credit to the Baroness Hollis, who, in her usual indefatigable way, raised this issue during the passage of the most recent pensions Bill—what became the 2007 Act. She tabled an amendment to deal with the issue, making the point in the House of Lords that, although it is perfectly possible to make pension-sharing orders based on the 1999 legislation, the courts cannot make any kind of order relating to PPF compensation. It strikes me as bizarre that that was not spotted at the time, but there we are. She said:

“Technically this was done because moneys from the PPF or FAS”—

I will come back to that in a minute, if I may—

“were compensation or a contribution to loss rather than the original pension.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2007; Vol. 692, c. 1121.]

To pause there, I suppose that they were treated legally as if the husband had had a road traffic accident, for example, and received damages by way of compensation, which I assume would not normally be taken into account in a matrimonial proceeding. As the Baroness went on to point out, that may represent a significant asset; she gave the example of a PPF pension of £20,000, requiring a pension pot of nearly £300,000. She said:

“The spouse’s access to a share of the pension, which may be more valuable than the home, is determined not by the circumstances of the divorce, not by the size of the assets involved, and not by any offsetting that may have taken place, but by the timing of the company’s fortunes. I do not think that that is fair.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 June 2007; Vol. 692, c. 1121.]

Responding for the Government, Baroness Morgan of Drefelin said that the Government would give the matter further consideration, hence clause 82 and following. She made the point, which the Minister touched on, that the legislation already allows that the value of any PPF compensation may be taken into account as an asset. That is a throwback to what used to be the case prior to pension splitting and pension sharing being placed on a statutory footing. In passing, I also mention that my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire has tabled a new clause dealing with the sharing of personal accounts. We will no doubt debate that later on.

The Minister’s response to my intervention about the relevance or otherwise of the financial assistance scheme is very interesting. Yet again there has been an oversight. From the Minister’s response it seems clear that the clauses do not apply to the financial assistance scheme. However, it is statistically likely that of the 150,000 people potentially affected by the FAS, some may sadly go through matrimonial proceedings. As a result of the lacunae in clauses 82 and following, compensation—or perhaps we should call it assistance—could be disregarded from the point of view of any matrimonial settlement.

The Minister will no doubt say that the holding position on that is what used to happen before pension splitting and pension sharing came in: when dividing up the matrimonial assets, the courts could take some account of any entitlement to assistance under the FAS. However, with the greatest of respect, that is not good enough. I would like to tease out from the Minister a bit more of his current thinking on how to deal with that issue. On our first morning back after a pleasant break, I hope that it will not sound too churlish to say that this problem is entirely of the Government’s own making. It was a political decision to set up the FAS as a wholly separate organisation at the other end of the country, so as not to underline too heavily the fact that it was paying out to claimants at a much lower level across the board than the PPF was paying to claimants under the scheme. Purely because of an accident of timing, it has always been the case that FAS claimants have been treated more shabbily in all sorts of ways than PPF claimants. I am sure that we will debate the matter in more detail later on.

The Government have always been at pains to say that under PPF, people receive compensation—100 per cent., 90 per cent., depending on the situation—whereas the FAS merely provides assistance. As we said when I was growing up in Yorkshire, “As cold as charity”. That is why we have a problem with the clause. Therefore, I press the Minister to say a little more about to what extent he and his officials have addressed that obvious gap in the legislation, and what he thinks are the options to deal with the need to bring the financial assistance scheme into the fold, not only in terms of compensation, which we will debate in more detail, but about how entitlement to those payments will be dealt with during the course of matrimonial proceedings.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

It is a pleasure to be back once again under your chairmanship, Mrs Anderson, after our short recess. I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few general comments about this chapter of the Bill. Clearly, the idea of extending pension-sharing provisions to people receiving benefits under the pension protection fund seems to be absolutely right. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne observed, pension sharing generally on divorce has been common practice for a number of years. Plainly, there was an oversight at some stage that led to it not being included in the initial PPF legislation.

I would like to know whether the solving of this problem has been prompted mainly by the comments made in the Lords under the last Pension Bill—and I pay tribute to Baroness Hollis—or whether particular cases have come up. Is the Minister aware of people who are currently receiving compensation under the PPF, who have been in that situation and have not been able to have the pension sharing that they wished in the unfortunate event of a divorce or separation? If so, how is he prepared to deal with such cases? It may be that no such thing has arisen, in which case it is perhaps fortunate that this is being dealt with now.

I would want to echo, at least as strongly, the comments made by the hon. Member for Eastbourne about the financial assistance scheme. Surely, given the recent changes made to the financial assistance scheme, which have finally brought it onto a more level footing with the pension protection fund, the provisions to allow sharing of benefits under the financial assistance scheme on divorce should be extended to the financial assistance scheme. Given the way in which the Government have at long last, and rightly, moved away from the concept of a core pension under the financial assistance scheme to allow wider benefits to be paid, all the rules and regulations that apply to pensions more generally and which we are seeking to extend under these clauses to the pension protection fund should apply to the financial assistance scheme. I note in passing that I have been one of those who have advocated that the administration of the financial assistance scheme should be handed over to the pension protection fund for reasons of efficiency. It is clear that the management of the pension protection fund has a good track record in getting things done quickly with cases so far. The rules that it has enables things to be done quickly, and it seems to make sense that it should take responsibility for this.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

There is a saying that failure is an orphan and success has many fathers, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that in the passage of the 2004 pensions legislation, I argued for an amendment that would have set up a mini PPF within the PPF that would have dealt with the claims that arose prior to the cut-off date for the PPF. I have always felt, from then onwards, that it would have made far more sense to have one single administration, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman takes the same view.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The hon. Gentleman has the advantage over me in respect of legislation passed in 2004, as I was not a member of the House then, but I am very happy to take his word for that and to commend him for his foresight in 2004. That seems to be quite right. I am sure that we will not always proceed in this spirit of consensus between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, but on that point, we are in agreement. I hope that the Minister can explain a bit more of the background as to why so far in the Bill the Government have chosen not to extend this to the financial assistance scheme, and at what stage he intends to bring that measure forward, o that the benefit can be shared more widely.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I want to intervene briefly to correct my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne: the financial assistance scheme office is at Monks Cross in York in my constituency and it does not regard itself as being at the wrong end of the country. In fact, but for an accident of history, we would be at the wrong end of the country and our Parliament would be based in York.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I think that the record will show that I said “the other end” of the country, and as someone who was born and brought up in Leeds, nor could I possibly be thought of as someone who thinks that Yorkshire is the “wrong” end of the country—quite the reverse.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I stand corrected, but I plead in aid of myself the fact that I have a very dodgy right ear. As you can see, Mrs. Anderson, I have had a good week away, and I am afraid that I got too much water in my ear, so I did not quite hear my hon. Friend correctly. However, there is an important issue here. I have listened to what my hon. Friend, the Minister, and the spokesman for the Liberal Democrats have said, and I think without question that the financial assistance scheme entitlements should be included in divorce settlements. However, for that to happen, the courts need certainty, because when marriages break up—and as many hon. Members know, I have been through that experience, although I am now gladly remarried—there has to be fairness between both sides. For there to be fairness, there has to be certainty, so I think that we can conclude in this debate that it is right that financial assistance scheme entitlements should be part of divorce settlements. For that to happen, we need to see these new arrangements clearly bedded down, and we need that degree of certainty as to what individuals are entitled to and therefore what they can reasonably be expected to award to their spouse.

In a sense, I am making two pleas to the Minister. First, it would represent progress if a provision covering the FAS were included in this part of the Bill. More generally, there is still much to be done to ensure that the FAS is the effective system of support for people who have lost their pension and that it can be shared between couples when their marriages have broken down.

I hope that our exchange has been useful to the Committee. The issue goes slightly beyond the measures under the Bill and you have been extremely generous, Mrs. Anderson, in allowing us to have a more general debate so I shall not trespass on your courtesy even further. However, given his reaction to what I and other members of the Committee have said, the Minister seems to have grasped our point.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I wish first to deal with a couple of extraneous points and then move to the FAS division of payments on divorce. I was asked for the number of cases of pension sharing. That is difficult to identify due to the different jurisdictions involved and how details of judgments are recorded. We do not know the number of cases, but the hon. Member for Eastbourne is probably right that it is likely to be in excess of the figure he quoted, and that it is increasing year on year.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey asked whether we had identified any cases. There is none that we are aware of, but that does not mean that there are not any because they could have been dealt with through the courts, between lawyers or in some other way. There may well be cases, but they have not come to the notice of the officials in my Department. In a sense, we are discussing unfinished business from 2004 but, as members of this Committee more than any other Committee will know, the financial assistance scheme has been undergoing a whole series of transitions in recent years, and it has not yet completed its current transition. Indeed, we shall be tabling amendments that we shall probably consider today or Thursday to deal with the financial assistance scheme.

The hon. Member for Ryedale is exactly right. The law, particularly in the area under discussion, requires certainty. What the financial assistance scheme does not have is certainty because we have not laid down its regulations, details and provisions as the scheme will stand within six months from now. We therefore need to get those provisions in place and then make reference to them by setting out the way in which we intend to bring forward pension-sharing arrangements for those who are affected by divorce and are part of the financial assistance scheme.

We want to bring forward similar provisions to those that apply to the PPF in due course for those affected by the financial assistance scheme. There is the possibility of a welfare reform Bill in the next Session, so we are looking for the ability to introduce such provisions in that Bill. If I were able now to put together the provisions in respect of the financial assistance scheme, I could draft amendments for discussion in the other place, but we cannot do that because we do not know the precise provisions of the financial assistance scheme when considering how to divide up the pension-sharing arrangements in due course. The matter is about certainty and we must make progress, first, by creating the provisions of the financial assistance scheme and, secondly, by setting out the circumstances under which we would allow the pension-sharing provisions that we want for the PPF. We cannot do that in regulations; we will have to do it in primary legislation because it will directly affect provisions in relation to divorce. That is how we intend to proceed, and I hope that that helps.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for his assurances. I take his point, and the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale, about the current uncertainties in the FAS. Will he confirm whether, in bringing forward similar proposals on the FAS to the ones that he has introduced on the PPF, he might look at some element of retrospectivity—[Interruption.]—Retrospection. If so, people could look back and apply those measures to cases that arise now. Will he also confirm that a smart divorce lawyer could read our debates, particularly our debates on the changes to the FAS, and have a reasonable idea of the funds that might be made available, so that it is possible, even now, to take them into account, in a rough and ready way, in a matrimonial settlement or a court judgment?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Let me first defend the hon. Member for Eastbourne on whether it is retrospection or retrospectivity. I think that it is retrospectivity because retrospection means looking backwards and we are not looking for the legislation to look backwards, we want it to affect things going back with. That would be retrospective legislation, and therefore I think that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is right, it is retrospectivity. No doubt we will have Guardian editorials on that point in due course. In any event, we would obviously need the consent of law officers to look at this sort of issue. They are, quite rightly, reluctant to allow retrospective legislation for all sorts of reasons that people are aware of. Essentially, it is wrong in normal circumstances for people to be subject to laws that they were not aware would be in place at the time that they behaved in a particular way. None the less, retrospectivity happens on occasion, particularly when people have been warned that legislation will be brought forward and they are on notice that it may affect them.

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about the need to enable any retrospective legislative change to affect people from here on in. I will have to make enquiries about that and I will comment in due course on whether I can do that.

Clause 83

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 164, in clause 83, page 39, line 28, after first ‘order’, insert ‘or provision’.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

Government amendments Nos. 165 to 181

Government new clause 2—Projections of numbers of those on means-tested benefits.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The amendments extend the provisions of the Bill relating to pension compensation-sharing on divorce, or dissolution of a civil partnership for couples in Scotland, and I hope that hon. Members will support them.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Again, I wish to make a short point. Will the Minister confirm that the current rules about pension-sharing apply in absolutely the same way in Scotland as they do here? Looking at some of the words that we do not tend to use in English law, I wonder whether they have a wider range of powers and whether he can give the Committee any idea of what those might be; “declarator of nullity” sounds quite dramatic, but he may have some other information on that. Most importantly, I wonder whether the 1999 legislation applies in exactly the same way in Scotland, or whether there is some strange variant of it that we need to know about.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

The first thing that I want to say, as a Member representing a Scottish constituency, is that it is good that the Government have decided to extend this benefit to cases applying in Scotland, of which there are a substantial number under the PPF and the FAS. It is perhaps a little much to expect the Minister to be a Scots lawyer as well as an English one. I am certainly neither. However, I have had no representations from legal authorities or others in Scotland wishing to object to this. Given that Scots law differs, quite markedly in some respects, to the law in England, it seems to be a sensible way to extend the provisions in a way that is broadly similar. From my reading, the effect is broadly the same as that of the legislation proposed for England and Wales. I hope that is of some help to the Minister in responding to the hon. Gentleman’s questions.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It is, indeed, of enormous help.

As far as I am aware, the provisions will have broadly the same effect, although divorce law is devolved in certain respects in Scotland and therefore there are some differences. Qualifying agreements are used in Scotland, but not in England and Wales. At present, couples in Scotland can make a qualifying agreement to set out how a pension is to be shared. We seek to extend that to pension compensation sharing. Qualifying agreements differ from court orders in that they are not orders of the court. However, they still activate pension sharing. The mechanism for the implementation of a qualifying agreement is to effect pension sharing, as set out in section 28 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999. Once the agreement has been made in the prescribed form in Scotland, it has the same effect with regard to pension sharing as a court order. That seems to be the main difference.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to the Minister for advising the Committee that that is not regarded as a court order because it is not an order made by the court. Even in Scots law, that must be a fairly simple concept to grapple with. I would like to be sure about this. Do the qualifying agreements have all the status and enforceability of court orders? This issue that will clearly keep me awake at night.

Mr. O'Brien rose—

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Without wishing to steal the Minister’s thunder, it is certainly the case that a registered minute of agreement, which is what this describes, is not a court order. However, if it is breached, it can be enforced through the courts and variations can be agreed between parties using the court system and so on. The way in which it is enforced is broadly similar.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Mrs. Anderson, you will be relived to know that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is entirely right.

Clause 84

Clause 85

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I have some queries, but I am sure that now the Minister is back on his home territory of English law he will have no difficulty in answering them. These issues are mainly to do with the business of the cash equivalent. Perhaps I can deal with clauses 85 and 86 rather than raising points regarding clause 86 specifically.

According to clause 86, regulations are yet again to be made for the calculation and verification by the board of the cash equivalent. May I ask the Minister, perhaps with growing plaintiveness, whether there is the slightest prospect of these draft regulations, or any draft regulations, being available to the Committee as we plough through our proceedings? For example, it is pretty well nigh impossible to make any judgment about how clause 85 is going to work without seeing the draft regulations. This might be a useful opportunity for the Minister to give us a reality check on where we are with all the other draft regulations under this Bill.

May I also ask a specific question about subsection (5)? It talks about “the valuation day” being such day within the implementation period as the board may specify. Again, it would be interesting to get some concept of how such a valuation day is going to be established, and what criteria the board would use in making such a determination. Obviously, if there is a big variation in the valuation day, it could make a significant difference to the amount of compensation payable under these provisions. In my habitual spirit of constructive debate, may I ask the Minister to help me on any of those issues?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am afraid that the particular regulations to which the hon. Gentleman refers are not likely to be available during the passage of the Bill, so we will have to deal with them in due course. More generally, we are seeking to bring forward regulations as soon as possible, but we do not expect regulations on many of these issues to be available during the course of the Bill. Regulations on Bills are normally drafted after the Bill has completed its progress. On particular occasions, we are able to provide drafts of regulations, but with this Bill, which is enormously complex, we believe that it is right that when regulations are brought forward, they should be available for the normal period of consultation with various stakeholder groups. That is not likely to be the case between now and June, when I hope that the Bill will complete its progress through the two Houses.

On the other issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, the valuation day is going to be set by the board. The clause provides for the rights to be valued on the valuation day, and that is just the day that the board of the PPF uses to determine the value of the rights. The board will have to take a view, and the way in which it does so will have to be set out in regulations, as will what that valuation day will be. He is quite right that that could be quite an important event for individuals, because if the valuation day is either side of a particular date, it could affect the amount of money that people are entitled to receive. However, the best way of dealing with that is by setting it out in regulations, rather than trying to deal with it in detail. The aim of the legislation is to set out parameters, and more detailed guidance will be available in regulations.

What we are doing through these clauses, in essence, is to set out a framework. This is divorce law, and divorce law is inherently there to resolve conflict. There is thus likely to be quite a lot of contesting of the detail of what that law says, so it is important that the detail is there. That means that we are setting out the skeleton framework here in legislation. In due course, we will fill that in with both regulations and guidance so that we get the level of detail required to deal with divorce conflicts. I am afraid that that will take more time.

I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more detail about the valuation day, but I have set out the way in which we propose to deal with it. He is right to say that it is important, but the definition of the valuation day provides scope for the board of the PPF to choose the day when the valuation will be made, provided that it falls within the implementation period. That flexibility broadly follows existing provisions on the calculation of cash equivalent values for early leavers and pension sharing.

I accept that that is a less than fulsome description of the measure, but I cannot say much more about it. A fixed valuation day might make it unnecessarily complex for the rights to be valued, for example, which is why we think that it is better—as with pension sharing—that whoever is carrying out the sharing exercise uses a convenient date during the period set out in legislation.

Clause 87

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am again on a search for knowledge. A lot of issues will be raised with the PPF and a lot of calculations will have to be made, some of them in respect of relatively small claims. After analysing some of the figures, it is clear that, for both the PPF and the FAS, the size of payments will range dramatically, from relatively small to relatively large. Has any work been done on the extra administrative cost to the PPF of the provisions? There will clearly be a significant administrative cost. One could establish a likely cost based on the number of divorces a year, which is sadly increasing all the time, the claims on the PPF and the number of sharing orders a year. How might that impact on the administrative levy that pays for the PPF? The Minister might not have such facts at his fingertips, so I am happy for him to write to me about them. It strikes me that there may be a not insignificant extra cost on the PPF.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Usually, the administrative costs to carry out such an exercise would be levied on the couple in a divorce settlement. The cost of the exercise would be something for them to identify. The PPF will need to work out the cost to it of the exercise and then charge for it. The hon. Gentleman referred rightly to the relatively high level of divorce in this country, but in most cases—not all, because some will be pre-retirement matters—we will be dealing with pensioners, and the divorce rate among pensioners is not as high as it is otherwise.

Not a very large number of people will be affected, so it is unlikely that the administrative costs to the PPF will be substantial and, thus, the cost to individuals who request an administrative processing of their claim is not likely to be great. The cost of having a pension share carried out by the PPF will depend on exactly what activities the board will have to undertake, but it is expected to be in the region of up to £3,000, which means that a couple undergoing a divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership will pay similar costs whether they are sharing a pension or PPF compensation.

The board of the PPF intends to charge divorcing couples similar rates as recommended by the National Association of Pension Funds, which obviously has to carry out similar exercises for divorces. I hope that I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Clause 88

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

May I apologise to the Committee and to you, Mrs. Anderson, for not being here earlier? I was not here because Mr. Speaker granted me an Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, which ended at only 11 o’clock. I know that this side of the Committee was in the very capable and experienced hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne.

I want to make a small point about clause 88, which will shadow some of the discussion that we will have about the amendment tabled to clause 89. I notice that there is provision in clause 88(3) for regulations to extend the implementation period, but not to open up the possibility of shortening it. I wonder whether the regulations could be worded to allow for the implementation period to be varied, rather than just extended. Will the Minister comment on that?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I will consider whether the regulations should be able to do that. I confess that I have not done so until now, but we are still looking at the drafting of the regulations. When we come to deal with them, I will consider whether it would be appropriate to do that.

Clause 89

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 89, page 41, line 17, leave out ‘4 months’ and insert ‘2 months.’.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in clause 91, page 42, line 24, leave out paragraph (a).

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

On the same theme that I raised on clause 88, I am curious about where the figure of four months for the implementation period has come from, given that four months is quite a long time for someone on a low income to be without money that they should regard as rightfully theirs. This is a probing amendment—we have not alighted on a specific period of two months. I will be grateful if the Minister will comment on whether that period of four months could be reduced.

Amendment No. 10 is another probing amendment to find out why the implementation period can be postponed in prescribed circumstances and why that is necessary. Again, we are looking at the matter from the point of view of people who are in straitened financial circumstances and hardship and do not have the share of a pension that is rightfully theirs.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s point and query why four months is deemed to be a reasonable time period in such cases. The Minister might have a good reason for alighting on the particular period of four months, but it seems appropriate that in such cases—particularly for those on low incomes who might need that money more quickly, such as people who are already in receipt of pensions—four months, if that is to be the period, should be the longest period and there should be an aspiration to get these things done more quickly. Perhaps the Minister has picked up on the four-month period due to the way in which arrangements work in other cases. For some people, four months could be a significant period of time and a cause of hardship, so I hope that the Minister will at least take that point on board when he responds.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The four-month time limit in the Bill is the same as that for implementing a normal pension share, so the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is quite right that we have looked at arrangements that apply in other areas and taken that as the standard. That same time limit was arrived at following consultation involving the judiciary, family lawyers and trustees of pension funds. It is important that compensation sharing does not depart unnecessarily from established principles for pension sharing. Inappropriate changes would lead to additional complexity and create confusion and uncertainty, and having different time limits would seem to run counter to our aim. We take the view that this is what would normally be the case, and therefore we would apply those criteria.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I understand that we might need to have the period of four months. However, could it be possible—or would the Minister like it to be best practice—to try to make the implementation period shorter? I am wary of setting down four months in legislation so that the solicitors and the PPF think, “We have four months, so we do not need to worry,” or, “We have three months, three weeks and three days, and that is our statutory duty,” when if things could be done quicker, no hardship would have been caused. That would be a good thing to try and achieve.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Normally the process would be done more quickly. Four months is a maximum, and the aim would be to get things done within that time. However, to implement a compensation share, the PPF must calculate how the order will reduce the transferor’s compensation, and calculate the level of compensation due to the transferee. That will take time and must be done accurately. Once that is done, the PPF must ensure that correct arrangements are in place so that the two parties receive the correct payments and are informed of their new entitlements. They should also have the opportunity to respond to the figures that they have been given, and to raise any queries about the accuracy of those figures. In divorce cases, lawyers want to query just about everything, especially if there is a level of conflict.

Where the transferor is already receiving monthly payments when the order, or qualifying agreement in Scotland, is made, it would be necessary for the PPF to give the person notice of the date that their payments will be adjusted and, if appropriate, put in place immediate payments for the transferee. The PPF makes payments monthly, in advance, on the first of every month. Therefore it must have enough time to put those arrangements for payment in place.

In that sense, the period is a maximum. As part of best practice we would want the process to be done more quickly than the maximum time, and I understand that in most cases, for pension sharing, it is possible to do so. However, two months would clearly be too short a period if, for example, a calculation was made and the amount of that calculation and the way in which it was arrived at led to a dispute between lawyers. That dispute has to be resolved, and in the meantime there are lawyers who, with their usual speed, exchange letters and do the work when something arrives on their desk.

Such processes always take time, and it is unlikely that two months would be sufficient, although I accept that the amendment is probing. I wish that we could change the culture of lawyers, but that is, I think, a bit beyond our ken. We should stick with the current basis upon which changes are made. In answer to the hon. Gentleman, best practice would be a shorter period. This is the maximum, and we want to stick with the rules as they more generally apply to pension sharing.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am reassured by what the Minister has said about best practice, and that he has noted the importance of trying to get things done right and as quickly as possible. He said that four months is a maximum, not a target to be aimed for. Having heard that reassurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 90

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, in clause 90, page 41, line 39, at end insert ‘and transferor.’.

Janet Anderson (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 90, page 42, line 12, leave out subsection (8).

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

This is a small point relating to clause 90(2), which says that a notice must be sent to the transferee. There is nothing wrong with that and we certainly expect that to happen. However, that is also a significant event for the transferor, and it seems entirely reasonable that the person who is having their pension reduced and the person to whom a pension is rightly being paid should be informed in writing about what is happening. The Minister might agree, but we shall see.

I apologise for there not being an explanatory note to amendment No. 9, but we tabled it before the explanatory note system was in place. My concern about subsection (8) is that, albeit in a few circumstances because of biology, as it were, dependent children could lose out on what would have come to them as a result of the death of one of their parents.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The clause sets out how the board of the PPF discharges its liability under a compensation-sharing order following a divorce, annulment, dissolution of a civil partnership or a nullity. It is important that the board can be certain that it has discharged its liabilities and that the parties to the divorce or dissolution are properly notified about how that has been done.

The clause makes it clear that liability is discharged when the notification is sent to the transferee that the sharing order has been implemented and that they have compensation rights in the PPF. Clearly, that cannot happen if the transferee has died, for example. Instead, we need to look at the rights of others on the death of a person. When members die, the PPF pays compensation to surviving spouses, civil partners, unmarried partners and dependent children when the scheme’s rules make the appropriate provision. That is why we need to ensure that, when the transferee dies before the transfer is complete, the correct compensation rights are created for their surviving partner or children. That is no different from the way in which the PPF would pay survivors benefits following the death of members after the transfer was completed. However, because the implementation is not complete, that is potentially a complex and somewhat technical matter, which is why the necessary provisions will be set out in regulations. Amendment No. 9 would remove the power to make those regulations.

Amendment No. 8 would mean that the board would have discharged its liability only when it had notified both the transferor and the transferee of the new rights created for the transferee by the compensation share. Clearly, it is right that both parties receive appropriate notification of the outcome, but discharging liability is different from merely providing information. It is right that information should be given to both parties on the outcome of the compensation-sharing order.

Regulations made under clause 93, which covers the supply of information about compensation sharing, can specify the information that the board of the PPF will have to provide to the parties in consequence of the implementation of the sharing order. The regulations will make sure that both parties to the divorce or dissolution receive the appropriate information about how the sharing order has been implemented.

Amendment No. 8 is thus unnecessary and has the potential to create ambiguity. We need a clear determination of when the legal process for the PPF board is completed. The clause sets out that legal process. It does not mean that the other party will not be informed. We intend to ensure under regulations that the other party will be informed, but it will not be a necessary part of the legal process for the board to have ensured that both parties were informed. Someone might have gone abroad or be difficult to contact. I have known of divorce cases in which someone has left the country and does not want to be available.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I accept what the Minister is saying, but for the avoidance of doubt—I accept that the discharge of liability is different from the passing on information—but the transferor will receive a letter or something in writing saying what has happened. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The straight answer is that that is our intention. There would be a requirement; not a legal requirement to complete the process, but that the PPF board should be in a position where it will inform both parties of the outcome of the process that they have undertaken. So information should be given to both parties, yes. However, there are circumstances—I am adding a slight caveat to it—where it is not always possible to get in contact with somebody in a divorce because, basically, they have disappeared. There will not be a requirement that that must be done, but there will be an obligation on the board to seek to inform so that both parties are properly informed.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

Again, I am reassured by what the Minister has said about the intention of amendment No. 8. I accept that it should not happen by way of my amendment and the arguments that he has given. However, I am reassured because the purpose of the amendment is going to be achieved in terms of what the Minister has said. I am also reassured in terms of what he said about amendment No. 9, because he has reassured me that the regulations in subsection (8)(b) will deal with the issue that I was seeking to address. In that case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 91

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am sorry to slow progress for just a second, but I have a couple of questions relating to this clause, about child use and pension compensation-sharing costs. The clause gives, again, very broad powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow the PPF to recover charges, and I guess that that is quite usual in the cases of pension compensation sharing on divorce. None the less, it would be useful if the Minister could give at least some reassurance that these charges will not be excessive, and that they will be in line with charges in normal such cases, so that anyone reading our proceedings can be clear that the intention of the clause is not in anyway to have punitive or excessive charges, and that whether he intends through regulations to put any constraints on the PPF in terms of the range of charges that it may or may not be allowed to levy in such cases.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The board of the PPF intends to charge costs based upon the National Association of Pension Funds’ recommended scale of charges. It is broadly accepted that that is best, so that is the basis upon which it will act. That means that divorcing couples will be charged roughly as the pensions share compensation as they would be charged to share aid pensions. The sharing order will normally apportion costs, but the clause provides for the payment by the transfer, or where that is not the case.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

For clarification, is that in terms of an hourly rate, or is it a percentage of the funds?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I can give some information about the way in which these rates are charged. The PPF intends, as I say to follow the NAPF charging rates. I have here some quite detailed charging rates about pension-sharing costs for active and deferred members, which I can pass onto the hon. Gentleman. I am looking at a table, which talks about cash equivalent transfer values. Where the cash equivalent cash transfer value is between £150 and £200—[ Interruption. ] It would probably be easiest if I passed the document around the Room. The figures are somewhat complex but, essentially, not unreasonable. As I have already indicated, the maximum is £3,000, but the figures charged depend on the cash equivalent transfer values at various different stages.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I sympathise with the Minister’s difficulty in understanding those figures. In my experience, the biggest problem is not the fees, which seem to be wholly reasonable, but the calculation of the cash equivalent transfer value. That is not mentioned in the clause and is an entirely separate matter.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The cash equivalent transfer value might well be an issue, and we must ensure that we have sufficient time to consider that. We have already discussed that matter. However, the fees set down on the right hand side of the document that I am handing round the Committee range from £150 up to £2,550 through a range of different figures. Those are the figures that run down the right hand side of the column. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the question, and I hope that with that reassurance we can move on.

Clause 92

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Again, I have a couple of points that relate equally to clause 93, so I have the chance to make them twice. Both clauses relate to provisions to allow the supply and sharing of information, and therefore presumably the transfer of information between bodies. I raised that point at an earlier stage when we talked about transferring information in other circumstances and it is an obvious one: the Minister may wish to reassure the Committee about the appropriate security provisions and so on that will be made with regard to information that is being transferred. There have been well-publicised problems about information being lost and during the course of a transfer. Therefore, if regulations are made under the clause to allow information to be passed from one body to another—for example, from a pension protection fund to another body—we must ensure that it is done in the most secure way possible to avoid any data loss taking place as a result of the clause.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that in terms of information being transferred between pension trustees and the PPF, or information being transferred further to the various transferors and transferees who will receive the payments, we will do all we can to ensure that information is properly handled. The PPF already has to handle substantial amounts of personal data, and it is right to highlight the importance of security. The PPF has managed to do that with some degree of skill. It is always the case, particularly in the light of recent events, that we should be more concerned than we have been that data can be lost. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that as a result of his comments I will draw to the attention of the board of the PPF that Members want it to be sure that its handling of data is at the level of security and competence that we have a right to expect.

Clause 94

Clause 97

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I do not wish to entangle the Minister in Scots law—in fact, it is the other Minister’s chance to be entangled in Scots law, which is welcome. Will the Minister clarify the intention of the clause? It seems that it allows the Court of Session, as well as the sheriff, to be involved in decisions about extending time limits, but it does not extend time limits. Is that interpretation correct?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Broadly, yes, but I will clarify for the hon. Gentleman to get it straight on the record. The clause amends sections 28 and 48 of the 1999 Act, which deal with the orders that activate pension sharing on pension arrangements and on shareable state scheme rights respectively. The amendments deal with orders made in Scottish courts.

When a couple divorce or civil partners dissolve their relationship, they can ask for a financial settlement. One of the options open to the court is to make a pension-sharing or corresponding order. Such an order can be made against a pension arrangement or the shareable state scheme rights. For orders made under the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985 or a corresponding provision to have effect, the person responsible for the pension arrangement must receive the order and the matrimonial documents within two months of the date of the order. If the order is not received within that period it is deemed never to have taken effect.

A party with an interest in the order may apply to extend the two-month period if it has expired and the order and the matrimonial documents have not been received by the person responsible for the pension arrangement. Applications for extensions can currently only be made to the sheriff. However, as I am sure the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey knows, some divorces in Scotland are heard in the Court of Session. Currently, there is no provision for applications to be made to the Court of Session to extend the two-month period and there is no reason why the Court of Session should not consider those applications. Otherwise, such an application would have to be remitted to the sheriff. The clause gives the Court of Session in Scotland the same powers as the sheriff to extend the two-month period. That will be a modest but worthwhile improvement, which should help the pension-sharing process. I hope that that explains the clause and that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The purpose of clause 98 and accompanying schedule 7 is to allow for interest to be charged on late payment and levies to the PPF. That proposition is so obvious and reasonable that one wonders why it was not included in the original legislation. No doubt the Minister will explain that apparent oversight.

The explanatory notes, to which I like to refer from time to time, just to ensure that the person who drafted them was not completely wasting their time, says:

“There may be circumstances in which it would be inappropriate to charge interest on late payment of levies”,

and that there would be

“power to prescribe such circumstances in regulations”.

I will not waste my breath by asking whether the draft regulations are available, but it would be helpful if the Minister said what circumstances would constitute a good reason or an excuse for not paying on time. After all, a payment not made on time is costing money to all the people who pay the levies on time.

It is clear that the Pensions Act 2004 does not contain a power for the board of the PPF to make a charge of interest. The impact assessment makes the obvious point, which is that if these monies—these interest payments—were available, they could be used for investment and, presumably, to defray the overall costs of the levy to British industry. The research paper says:

“we would expect the fact that interest would be charged on late payments would reduce the incidence of late payment”—

although I suspect that that would depend on the interest rate and how it compared with how much the company had to pay for its own borrowings—

“as schemes would aim to pay Levy bills more promptly to avoid paying interest.”

It is calculated, on a particular rate of interest, that that would have brought in about £600,000, which is, as the saying goes, better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

This matter is certainly worth pursuing. I will be interested to hear the Minister's explanation, or apology, for not putting such a provision in the previous legislation, although I appreciate that he was not the Minister responsible at the time, and I should like to know in what circumstances it would be inappropriate to charge interest in particular cases.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Further to those comments, again, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is sensible to have provisions allowing interest on late payment of levies relating to the PPF. Such provision should probably have been included in the 2004 Act, deliberations on which the hon. Member for Eastbourne was also involved in, as he said in response to an earlier point. Of course, for the sake of completeness, I am sure that Liberal Democrats were also involved in that legislation, too, so we cannot be wholly blameless in this regard either. None the less, the Government have the resources, as has been said before.

I should like the Minister to clarify whether this provision has been advanced to rectify an omission, whether there have been cases where levies have been paid late and whether there is a particular problem with late payment which the Pension Protection Fund has drawn to his attention. It will be interesting to know what information the Minister has, if any, about the extent of the problem of late payment, how late payments are being made and whether that is causing a problem for the PPF carrying out its business. In other words, having introduced these powers, does he expect that the PPF will need to use them regularly? What is the proportion of companies making late payment of levies to the PPF? Does the provision answer a significant practical problem that is currently being experienced or does the Minister regard it more as an insurance policy to ensure that it does not happen in future?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

First, I am assured that some of the levies were set in the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The 2004 Act merely created the PPF, but some of the levies were set out in the 1993 Act, for which another Government may wish to claim responsibility.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am sure that the Minister is desperately trying to shift the blame, but if the levies were being levied from 1993 onwards, what were they for if there was no PPF until 2004?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

When we came into office, we felt that protection under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 was not adequate. Given that there was broad support for the PPF, I presume that the hon. Gentleman’s party also felt that the provisions that it had put in place were inadequate. However, when it put them in place, it did not have in that Act, which provides that interest may be charged on late payment and makes sure that there is coverage for the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and the pensions ombudsman, a provision for the levy to have interest if it is paid late. Perhaps the better argument would be that we should have spotted in 2004 the mistake made by the previous Conservative Government. As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, the hon. Member for Eastbourne was a member of the Committee considering the Bill at that time, while I was not, so perhaps he should have spotted the mistake that his Government had made in 1993. However, perhaps we can all share the blame.

Let me be clear. I mentioned that the levy covers the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and the pensions ombudsman. The total general levy from occupational and personal pension schemes for 2008-09, for example, is expected to collect £42 million, but that will be divided. It will not all go to the PPF. About £7 million is earmarked to recoup one third of the deficit that has built up over the past three years. I shall return to that issue in a moment. The bulk—84 per cent.—of the ongoing £35.6 million is to pay for the Pensions Regulator, with the balance being split roughly between the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service and the pensions ombudsman. The general levy has not increased since 2005, when the Pensions Regulator replaced the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, because of a ministerial commitment that we would not increase it.

In answer to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, we need the power to tackle the late payment levies and 40 per cent. of the pension protection levy collected for 2006-07 was paid after 28 days, which accounted for about £114 million of the £271 million collected. We had quite a bit of late payment. The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly asked whether there are circumstances in which it is justifiable to pay late. One of the reasons why we have had a lot of late payment in recent years is that there has been a dispute about the amount of levy. A number of the funds involved have said that the level of risk, for example, that is included in the calculation of the levy is wrong and that they are not as risky as all that. The funds have had it looked at again and, in many cases, it has been agreed that the levy can be reduced.

It seems that there was some justifiable reason for a late payment and, in such circumstances, it would be open not to charge interest on the late payments because that was justified; the original levy that was imposed was not right. There are circumstances in which it may be right not to charge interest. Obviously, there are circumstances in which there is no dispute about the level of the levy and payments just arrive late when it would be appropriate to charge interest. I hope that I have answered the various issues that have been raised.

Clause 99

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

When I first looked at the clause, I thought that it was very techie and that we did not need to say anything about it. All it seemed to do was to clarify the technical issues surrounding the powers of the Pensions Regulator under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Funding) Regulations 2005.

One of the things that drives the regulator is the principle that the methods and assumptions used by pension fund trustees are chosen prudently. For example, if they assumed that their members would live to the age of 36, that would clearly be a bit imprudent. All of this—surprise, surprise—emanates from the European occupational pensions directive of 2003. So far, so good. The clause, as I read it, does what it says on the tin and clarifies that the regulator can use their powers under section 231(2) of the 2004 Act, where the sole ground of concern is that the actuarial methods or assumptions do not appear to be prudent. However, what gives that topical salience is the flurry of press comment in the past few days about the changes in assumptions on longevity figures being proposed by the regulator. I gather that those changes are now out for consultation until May sometime. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us a bit more about that. Potentially, those changes could have a dramatic effect on pension scheme deficits. I have seen one estimate that adds an extra £75 billion to the burden on existing schemes. Sometime this week, we will get on to risk sharing and how we can encourage various schemes to stay in business, as it were. The need for those measures is given extra urgency by these proposals.

One might say that it will cost £75 billion extra simply to reflect the fact that, for example, under the PPF’s current assumption a man will live to 87.9 years on average, which is up from 86.8 in its 2006 report and accounts. The figure being bandied around at the moment by the Pensions Regulator is 89. That is very encouraging if you are a man and, presumably, no doubt, even more encouraging if you are a woman—[Interruption.] I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove, who makes a comment from a sedentary position, that the gap between the sexes is narrowing quite rapidly, although I will not speculate why that is so. Those figures raise some important issues that go way beyond the technical issue in the clause.

Regulators have been worried that schemes have been understating or underestimating the rate at which life expectancy continues to increase. I have read some statistics, which will no doubt perk up Committee members who may not have volunteered to sit on the Committee, that say that for every hour they spend here, their life expectancy increases by a quarter of an hour. That is quite dramatic.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

This is an important point. When he says “here”, is my hon. Friend referring to service on the Pensions Bill Committee or in the whole of the House Of Commons?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Time moves more slowly in this Committee. I think that Albert Einstein would have said something about serving on a pensions Bill Committee. Time appears to move slowly here. However, broadly speaking, we all end up in the same place, whether we are sitting in a Committee, in the Chamber or in our offices, which would make a nice change from sitting here.

The big issue is how we deal with this new development. It is very encouraging that, thanks to the foresight and wisdom of successive Governments, life expectancy has increased. Of course, we know that the state pension age of 65 for men was borrowed from Bismarck, who came up with it in the middle of the 19th century. That was a time when few people made it to the age of 65 and certainly not far beyond it, although I think that Bismarck did. How do we factor that in?

I was about to say that one could argue that, if the extra costs are £75 billion, so be it. That fact must be built in to pension schemes more generally. However, it is bound to be a factor in the attitude of sponsoring employers to keeping their existing pension schemes open to new or existing members. In the same way, to take an example, FRS 17, introduced at exactly the wrong point in the economic cycle in my opinion, had an effect on undermining that commitment.

Yes, it is important that we clarify that the regulator has those powers, but it is not the Committee’s job to argue whether the EU directive was sensible in the first place. As a Committee, we need to put all this in a broader context, which is the dramatic increase in life expectancy. Ultimately, matters such as obesity and selling off playing fields will have an impact on slowing the increase in longevity, but short of a massive pandemic it seems to go up and up inexorably, which is enormously encouraging.

I have a constituent who is 111 years old. Of course, Eastbourne tends to have a slightly older population than average, but it is remarkable how many 100th birthday parties I get invited to; sometimes two a week. That says something about the health service and all sorts of related matters, such as better nutrition. It also brings a different reality with it, which is how we pay for the very long periods of retirement that people will increasingly be enjoying—hopefully that is the right word—based on a reasonable income to do so.

Therefore, the clause seems relatively modest and inoffensive, but behind it lurks the elephant in the room—to use a marvellous and much over-used analogy—which is the question of rapidly increasing life expectancy. I would be fascinated to hear what the Minister has to say on those matters.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am sorry to hear that the hon. Member for Eastbourne is not enjoying the Committee’s deliberations. Perhaps time slowing down means that he wants to spend more time in these sittings. Certainly, the record of the number of 100th birthdays in his constituency suggests that time there is speeding up, so there is a balance to be struck somewhere.

Dressed up as a technical clause, this raises an important point, rightly lighted upon by the hon. Gentleman. I do not wish to repeat his remarks, as he made many of the points that I had intended to make. However, the key word in relation to the clause is “prudent”.

The report released this week, which is now a matter out for consultation from the regulator, suggests that the regulator is doing its own work on what it considers to be prudent. Does that mean, should the clause be enacted, that the regulator will therefore effectively determine the actuarial considerations each scheme should make? Or is it a slightly looser arrangement, under which the regulator has the power to determine the prudence of the actuarial considerations? That does not mean that they have to be exactly along the lines of the examples that the hon. Gentleman gave, which have been reported quite widely this week. But, for example, a pension scheme, that made actuarial assumptions higher or lower than those made on the national average could, none the less, justify those assumptions as being prudent on the basis of its team members’ knowledge.

It would seem not quite right that uniform actuarial assumptions should be imposed by the regulator across all pension schemes. However, it is sensible and necessary, given the content of the European law, that there should be an ability to determine whether the actuarial assumptions made by the scheme are prudent.

I note, in closing, that the work of the Pensions Regulator on understanding the extent to which life expectancy is increasing has not only an implication for pension schemes in the private sector, which the clause refers to, but a significant effect on the liabilities of public sector pension schemes. That is a matter that is debated and highlighted all too rarely by Ministers. Information was recently brought forward, or at least endorsed, by the Government on the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies on a rough estimate of unfunded public sector pension liabilities. Given that, if the new actuarial considerations were applied to public sector pension liabilities what greater extent would the Minister see those liabilities taking? There is also a massive implication for the public purse that is being swept under the carpet, and I would welcome his comments on that. While the debate concerns a technical point, it has much broader implications across the public and private sectors.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

This is an important issue and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne is on to something in raising it, but listening to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey reminds me what the issue was about originally, which is not quite what we are discussing. My understanding is that it is about ensuring that members of schemes have reassurance and confidence that the funding of their schemes by employers is adequate. Of course, in the great debate about public sector pensions that does not quite apply in the same way. Many public sector pensions are unfunded; one thinks particularly of the police service. What to do about the burgeoning liabilities of public sector pensions is a major political issue for this Government and any future Government. The Minister will remember a point I made on Second Reading, which is that it will be a huge tragedy if we continue to move away, right across the piste, from final salary schemes, simply on the argument about what is affordable. I have real concerns about what future generations may be entitled to in retirement, which in a sense is linked up with this issue.

On the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne has raised, there must be a concern if the regulator is to use the new power in clause 99 to impose an actuarial calculation regime on schemes that until now everybody has regarded as being well-managed, prudent and properly funded. I would share his concern if that were the case, however, my reading—I may have it completely wrong—is that this is actually a provision to assist members of schemes who feel that employers are not contributing sufficiently. That has been a major scandal in many schemes. The new power would enable the Pensions Regulator, which is the watchdog on behalf of scheme members, to make an intervention even if the cosy relationship between trustees and employers means that they think that all is well, which has also gone on in the past.

This is a critical issue. For the reasons I have stated, we need this power in the Bill. What we need from the Minister is a reassurance it will not be used across the board to impose new funding requirements on all kinds of schemes, in response to the longevity information that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne rightly drew attention to. Those two points are different. Those schemes that the regulator feels are underfunded can now be dealt with even if the trustees and the employers think that they are funded sufficiently.

My understanding is that at the moment, the regulator cannot intervene—with this power he could, and that is important. I entirely share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. If the provision enables the regulator to interfere right across the board in employer pension schemes, particularly in the private sector, that could potentially impose funding requirements which would drive even more schemes into defined contribution arrangements and away from defined benefit arrangements. That would add to the problem of levelling down about which we are all concerned.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I thank the hon. Member for Ryedale; he has encapsulated the argument well. We must ensure that members of a pension scheme can be sure that the funding of their pension scheme is adequate. On occasion, sometimes after discussions with employers, trustees have accepted that a particular level of funding is adequate when circumstances have changed. Over recent decades we have seen actuaries who calculate the amount of liability a pension fund has based upon the data that they look at. That data is about how long people are living. Over the last decade or so we have recognised that data about how long people have lived for the last few decades will no longer reflect how long they live in the decades to come. That has implications for pension funds, which will have to provide for greater funding if people are living longer—there must be more money to pay their pensions for longer.

Actuaries have made various calculations and shared views about projections for life expectancy, and therefore how much money pension funds have to have. However, many of the calculations established, particularly during the late 1990s, were wrong and the amounts that needed to be put in were higher than expected. The result of that is that a lot of work has been done by actuaries over the last decade, seeking to get a better fix on how long people are likely to live. There is no one-size-fits-all solution to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. People in different types of occupations have longer life expectancies than others.

I represent a mining area. We still have a working pit and I am a miners’ MP—a rarity these days. In my area there are many people who have pneumoconiosis and other pit-related diseases, and life expectancy is therefore reduced as a result. The mortality rate in my local hospital, the George Eliot hospital, is very high. Various figures have suggested that that is due to a poor hospital—actually it is due to the fact that it represents an area where there is a history of particular types of disease. Therefore, if we make projections in a particular industry about how much funding we will need, we must have data about the nature of the life spans of people in that industry. The life span of a miner is now greater than in was in the past: care for their health and safety is greater, and the general health benefits and the lifestyles that people lead are better than they were in the past.

The miners’ pension funds must make calculations based not on how long miners lived in the 1970s, 80s and 90, but how long they are likely to live in the 2020s, 30s and 40s and decades to come. Provision in the fund must be made for those sorts of life expectancies. Some trustees—not in that particular fund, but in some—have taken somewhat conservative views about life expectancies. I use the word “conservative” with a small “c”. The result is that the fund is underfunded, or at least that there is some concern among members about its adequacy.

The regulator has a specific ability to intervene, as the hon. Member for Ryedale suggests, but there is also a more general issue, to which the hon. Members for Eastbourne and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey have referred: what about the concerns that the regulator may have that some pension funds may well not have made adequate provision, and how do we ensure that there is adequate provision in pension funds and that trustees are properly advised about how to approach such issues of increased longevity?

The clause addresses an uncertainty that has arisen about the circumstances in which the pensions regulator can use its powers to regulate a scheme funding requirement for private sector defined benefit schemes. The regulator has a range of scheme funding powers that it can use where there has been a breach of the legislation, or where the trustees and sponsoring employers cannot reach agreement on a key aspect of the scheme’s funding arrangements.

One of the duties of a pension scheme’s trustees is to decide which actuarial assumptions to use. They can look at particular actuarial valuations of their scheme as a result of that. Legislation requires that those assumptions must be chosen prudently. Where it appears that the trustees have not complied with that requirement the regulator has the power to specify what assumptions must be used.

The regulator has recently faced challenges to its power to intervene where the actuarial assumptions used in a valuation do not appear to have been chosen prudently by the trustees. The actuarial assumptions used in a valuation are crucial to establishing the scheme’s correct funding position, and therefore the level of contributions payable by the sponsoring employer.

The clause does not give the regulator any new powers. It clarifies what powers we assumed the regulator had. It simply ensures that the regulator can use its scheme funding powers, thereby protecting both members’ benefits and the PPF, where the assumptions chosen by trustees do not appear to be prudent. In that sense, the hon. Member for Ryedale is entirely right.

The hon. Member for Eastbourne has however raised the broader issue about the recent consultation document, which was published yesterday. I want to tell him clearly and candidly that the regulator takes its independence very much to heart and is clear that it has a role to look after the general security of the industry and make sure that trustees consider appropriate actuarial assumptions. Therefore it took a view that it wanted to publish the consultation document.

When I was made aware that the regulator was about to do that—and I saw some of the media—I approached it, and we considered the matter. Once pension fund representatives examine the document they will see that it is essentially a consultation document, to ask them their views on how those issues of increased longevity should be dealt with. It is not a diktat from on high. It is an attempt by the pensions regulator to engage in a serious process of examining actuarial projections, which are constantly changing.

That has implications for pension funds. We do not know quite what those are yet. Some of the headlines that I saw in the Daily Express and elsewhere are lurid, fanciful projections based on journalists seeking to get a headline from an issue that would probably be seen as more technical than anything else. The implications are profound and important; but they are also technical. The question is how best to make the calculations, and by what means to deal with a major change in society. It is a very welcome change: on average we are living longer. That is great, but it has to be paid for, and that sometimes is not so great, because it leads to problems over where to find the money.

We need a way to gauge how much we must pay, and that is why those actuarial issues require broad discussion. What the regulator has sought to do is set out a consultation document that says, “Look, we have an issue here. Let’s talk about it and discuss how we can best calculate this. These are our ideas, what are yours? Let’s have a proper consultation discussion about the best way in which trustees can deal with the issue and have appropriate actuarial calculations for your particular industry and, more broadly, for pension funds as a whole.”

I condemn some of the lurid headlines. I do not think that they are helpful. They are raising fears among pensioners, which is unnecessary. At the same time, however, this is a genuine issue that needs to be dealt with in a technical and serious way. What the regulator has done, independently of Government, is to put forward the idea of having a broad-based consultation on an enormously important issue to see whether we can get a consensus between trustees and actuaries about how to proceed.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am listening with great interest to the Minister. We are all grateful to him for his very discursive and useful analysis of this very important matter. However, I am not aware that he has responded to the point that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne about the big increase in childhood obesity and type 2 diabetes. Are those conditions feeding into the life expectancy figures? While I accept that people are living longer, we are all aware of the increase in childhood obesity and I wonder whether that has been factored into the actuarial figures. Perhaps the Minister could get back to the Committee at a later stage on that important issue.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Actuaries will have to take into account projections of the possible impact. I do not know whether they have decided on the projections. The extent to which they need to take them into account will depend on the type of industry in question. There are some occupations in which obesity is unlikely to be a problem. However, other occupations might need to take into account issues related to obesity. This is not a one-size-fits-all issue. It is about getting trustees in particular areas and particular occupations to be able to project what sort of longevity members of particular schemes might have and therefore what the adequacy of funding will be. One of the issues that they will consider when they make their calculations is the projections offered by the Office of National Statistics, which will deal with the sorts of points raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

In terms of affordability and what is set out in the Bill that we are currently looking at as opposed to the consultation exercise that is now going on, what kind of options for affordability is at the behest of the regulator? Is it simply to increase employers’ contribution, to change the amount of pension that will be paid out, or to stop pension holidays? In determining affordability, what kind of issues can the regulator decide upon? Can it increase employers’ contributions to beyond 3 per cent. that is set out in the regulations for lower paid workers?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

In terms of personal accounts, projections about life expectancy will obviously have a relevance. However, we are dealing with defined benefit schemes rather than defined contributions schemes. In defined contributions schemes, such as personal accounts, the amount that is built up in the pot will determine the amount that the person gets. Although it is a relevant consideration, it does not have the crucial importance that it does in the defined benefit scheme, which is, in effect, a final salary scheme. In such a scheme, the employer may well have the obligation, but it may, in some circumstances, be shared with the employee to ensure that the scheme is adequately and properly funded. If a projection by an actuary employed by a scheme says that they expect a defined benefit scheme to have a longer life expectancy, in some cases, depending on the terms of the scheme, it will sometimes predominantly affect the employer because they will have to properly fund the scheme. The hon. Lady asked whether it would affect issues such as holidays and so on, which employers might take as contributions—the answer is yes. If it looks like there is a surplus, and if new projections suggest that the surplus is not that great, a holiday or whatever the employer may have felt possible may not be possible. The level of adequacy of the funding will have been increased, because of new projections on longevity. Holidays and other things will be affected.

The reason why I am concerned about lurid headlines on whether some pension schemes are able to be paid is that in the vast majority of cases, they are not justified. In some cases, the headlines are about life expectancies some decades into the future. The provisions that must be put in place now will deal with a problem that will occur in 2050, say. The problem does not exist now, so there is plenty of time to make provisions to deal with it. When the consultation document was published, the journalists said, “We could have this problem now—the schemes are underfunded”, but that is not the case. The problem may well appear only in decades to come, so there is plenty of time between now and then to make adequate provision to deal with it.

The hon. Member for Ryedale, with his usual precision, touched on the broader issue of the move away from final salary schemes, which has been going on since the 1960s. Some 8 million people were in private final salary schemes in the 1960s; the number fell to about 5 million by 1995; and it has now gone down to about 3 million. Only some of those are open schemes. There has been a major change, and one of the things that that the Bill does more broadly is bring about deregulation changes that will encourage people to stay in, and employers to stay with, final salary schemes. I am not claiming that the Bill will reverse the process to which the hon. Gentleman referred, whereby employers move away from final salary schemes, but I hope that it will slow or steady it. In the past two or three years, the movement away from final salary schemes has steadied, and employers tend to stay with them more than before. I hope that we will further be able to steady the process—I do not think that we will reverse it—but, hopefully, we will be able to extend final salary schemes for longer. They are good schemes, so we should keep them if we can. No doubt we will have the opportunity to discuss that further when we debate shared risk.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

It is my understanding that the regulator will be enabled under the clause to impose a different actuarial calculation. That does not mean that the whole cost will fall on employers; there could be negotiations about employees increasing their contributions.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. It will depend on the scheme, so the terms of those will be relevant, but the cost will not necessarily always fall on the employer. The issues are complex—sadly, lurid headlines do not help public understanding—and they need to be explained seriously and in a way that recognises the long-term nature of some of the problems that we need to address. The clause will enable the regulator and everyone else to know that it has the powers—we always assumed that it had such powers—to say that trustees and employers cannot continue to underfund schemes, and to intervene and say that employers must have an appropriate actuarial longevity assumption in their pension scheme and ensure that it is properly funded.

Clause 100

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am slightly puzzled by the clause, which is tucked away all on its ownsome. We had significant, substantive debates earlier in our proceedings about transfers in and out of personal accounts, and I wonder what the clause is for. As I read it, it seems to deal only with transfers out of schemes set up under clause 50, but it harks back to the Pension Schemes Act 1993, so perhaps I am wrong about that. It seems to give the Secretary of State a power to make regulations under that Act to prevent transfers out of a clause 50 scheme. On what basis would that power apply, and in what circumstances?

The concerns that we have expressed in previous debates have been about transfers into personal accounts and trying to retain a Berlin wall between existing provision and personal accounts—in other words, trying to ensure that personal accounts do not undermine good and more generous existing provision. The clause seems to be about only transfers the other way, and I am I sure that the Minister can explain it—in a sentence, if he is so minded.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I will be brief, because we want to make some progress. I agree with my hon. Friend and would like the Minister to tell us what the prescribed circumstances are. I may have this wrong, as if so I apologise to the Committee and the Minister—[Interruption.] The other Minister, the Under-Secretary. Not having been able to be in the Committee throughout the whole process, I apologise if this has already been discussed and debated.

My reading of the clause is that it enables the Secretary of State, through regulations, to effectively prohibit transfers out of clause 50-type personal account schemes. If that is the case, we also need to consider what limited exceptions there may be in which transfers out are permitted. The Under-Secretary will recall that, during the public evidence sessions, I raised the question whether, when and to what extent it might be prudent to allow limited transfers out, for example in respect of migrant labour. I mentioned the importance of ensuring that a personal accounts scheme is not eventually cluttered up with literally millions of relatively small, insubstantial contributions.

The Under-Secretary is nodding reassuringly to say that I am on the right point. In that case, I shall take 30 seconds longer to say that if what I have said is the case, we need him to clarify precisely what the prescribed circumstances will be and what time frame he envisages. If I remember correctly from the questions that we put to both Ministers on when transfers out might be permitted, it will probably be 2017—five years into the personal account arrangement—before that will be allowed. That is nine years away. For the purposes of the record and proper scrutiny, we ought to have something on the record to clarify the position. We cannot just leave it where it was at the end of the public evidence sessions when the Minister for Pensions Reform was one of the witnesses.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I know that the hon. Member for Eastbourne hoped that I might dispense with the clause in a sentence. Alas, no, because it is important to clarify exactly what it does. It is right to see it as, in essence, a paving power; that is its purpose. Let me explain how it relates to the earlier clauses to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It is right to say that there is a linkage, but the clause is there for a good reason.

We discussed our commitment to banning most transfers into and out of personal accounts when we debated clause 53. Clause 100 enables the Secretary of State to prohibit personal account members from transferring pension funds to other pension schemes. Our rationale for banning pension fund transfers is to position personal accounts as an effective, complementary addition to the existing private pensions market. The Government’s policy on transfers, and their commitment to review it in 2017—that is important—was widely supported by all stakeholders, as I am sure hon. Members will recall.

Let me explain in some detail why the clause is structured as it is. I think that that will answer the points that have been raised. Chapter IV of part IV of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 gives members of pension schemes the general right to transfer out of their scheme into another one, but section 93(1B) of that chapter contains a limited regulation-making power that enables schemes to ban transfers out in some limited circumstances. However, the power is not broad enough to allow a ban on transfer out of personal accounts, and therefore clause 100(2) widens its scope.

Clause 100(3) amends section 101F of the 1993 Act to enable the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to prevent members from transferring their pension credit benefit, which we discussed earlier, out of the personal accounts scheme. We plan to exercise the regulatory power in subsections (2) and (3) only in respect of the personal accounts scheme.

There may be some minor specific circumstances where we will want to allow a certain amount of flexibility. The hon. Member for Ryedale asked for a bit more information about them. It is important to stress that this will be looked at in 2017, at the time of the review, but we can already see circumstances for which it might be appropriate to make exceptions. Of three that have been identified, one is the stranded pots issue, which we touched on before. That is where someone who is over 55 wants to aggregate all their pension pots in different schemes into one fund in order to purchase an annuity. We might want to allow some flexibility in that area when introducing the transfer out regulations.

A second identified example is unvested pension funds. If an individual leaves an exempt scheme during the pre-vesting period, they may be allowed to transfer their accrued funds into personal accounts. Those will be cash transfers, not standard pension transfers of the type that would be prohibited, and the amounts will not count toward the annual contribution limit. The third example, which we discussed earlier, is the discharge of pension shares. That, too, would be appropriate in some circumstances.

However, as I said, the fundamental opportunity to review the matter in its entirety will come with the 2017 review, which is a long way off from now but not so long after the start of personal pensions. That would be the appropriate time to look at it. We will specify in legislation the prescribed circumstances in which personal account members will be prevented from transferring out of the scheme. The legislation will not prevent other transfers between existing pension schemes from taking place. It is important to stress that. The wider position on transfers will be kept under review until later.

The clause is integral to the design of personal accounts schemes. It will allow the Secretary of State to make regulations which will do three essential things: first, keep the scheme focused on serving the needs of the target market; secondly, facilitate the smooth introduction of the new scheme, reducing any risk of market turbulence; and, thirdly, promote simplicity for employers, individuals and the personal accounts administration.

That is why the clause was included. I hope that I have answered hon. Members’ questions and that they will agree to clause stand part.

Clause 103

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Ever since I first saw the Bill, I have been fascinated by this clause and been determined to say something about it. I initially wondered whether the official printer had not made a mistake and incorporated something from wholly different legislation into the Bill, so I am keen to find out what lies behind it. I am sure that there is a story, and it is important that the Minister shares it. Why just the Poles for a start? What is the magic significance of 1 May 2004? Indeed, for that matter, what is the magic significance of 1947? I assume that the provision was designed to stop payments being made to former members of Polish forces who fought valiantly and alongside us in many theatres of the second world war, but who decided to chose to return to communist post-war Poland. I may have got it completely wrong, but there is a chunk of history here that deserves its moment in the sun—in Committee Room 10.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Well, the hon. Gentleman asked for it, so here comes the history.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Schleswig-Holstein question.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Almost. I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to visit the question, and I shall give him the history that he asks for.

The Polish Resettlement Act 1947, which is why the clause refers only to Poland, permitted a scheme to be made to award pensions to members of the Polish forces injured or killed during service under British command in the second world war. It provides an equivalent to the main war pension scheme for those forces. The current Pensions (Polish Forces) Scheme 1964 was set up on the basis that at some point after the end of the war, the Polish Government would take responsibility for members of the Polish forces. No Polish Government have, therefore pensions continue in payment for those individuals.

A European Court of Justice ruling in October 2006, on a reference from a Dutch court, found that similar residence restrictions in a Dutch scheme for paying benefits to second world war civilians were contrary to the principle of EU citizens’ freedom of movement between member states, as set out in article 18 of the European convention on human rights. That was notwithstanding member-state competence to make rules for the payment of war pensions. The ECJ held that although the objective of the residence condition of restricting benefits to those connected to Netherlands society was legitimate in principle, the condition was not a proportionate means of achieving the legitimate objective. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is following this.

Advice received from Ministry of Defence lawyers and Cabinet Office legal advisers confirmed that the residency provision in the 1947 Act cannot be justified in relation to beneficiaries who were EU citizens and had moved to Poland after Polish accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004, unless they received the same amount from Poland as they used to receive in the United Kingdom. The Polish system of war pensions is more restrictive than that provided under the 1964 Scheme, and it therefore does not provide the same benefits. The number of beneficiaries under the Polish scheme is, unfortunately, shrinking fast. It was 730 in 2007, and most beneficiaries are elderly and well settled in the UK. They may be in Eastbourne, in which case they will live quite a long time. It is highly unlikely, therefore, that significant numbers will chose to return to Poland in the remaining years of the scheme. However, some might, which is why the clause is important. The number of beneficiaries who have moved to Poland since 1 May 2004, and who have had their pensions withdrawn, is understood to be fewer than 10. That is the history. That is the reason. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Eastbourne will understand why the clause is in the Bill.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I am now even happier that Polish plumbers, electricians and builders are contributing income tax and social security payments ensuring that we can continue to afford such pensions being paid to Polish citizens in Eastbourne well over 100 years of age.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

That is a perfectly valid point and an appropriate note on which to end our brief sojourn into Polish-UK relations.

Schedule 8

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 189, in schedule 8, page 87, line 33, at end insert—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 20—Financial assistance scheme.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The new clause is one of the few changes that we need to make to primary legislation to enable us to deliver the package of changes to the financial assistance scheme that we announced in December. We will seek to make further changes as the Bill progresses, but we want to introduce most of the provisions in relation to the FAS arrangements in regulations. However, the provision before us needs to be made in primary legislation.

The change made by the new clause is relatively small, but it is significant. It changes the definition of who can be a “qualifying member” of the FAS. The current definition of a qualifying member in section 286 of the Pensions Act 2004 covers only those members who are not going to receive all their scheme benefits or who are unlikely to do so because their scheme was insufficiently funded.

Previously, when a scheme completed winding up and assets were allocated according to the relevant priority order, annuities for full scheme benefits could be purchased for some members except by the most poorly funded schemes. The FAS was set up to deal with those members lower down the priority order or in very poorly funded schemes who were not going to receive their benefits in full. Last December, following the report of Andrew Young’s excellent review, which looked at the best use of the assets remaining in schemes that have yet to wind up, we announced that we would take those assets into Government ownership. In return, we guaranteed to provide a higher level of assistance, which was broadly comparable to the compensation paid by the Pension Protection Fund. It was not the same, but it was broadly comparable. As a result, the FAS will need to take over responsibility for payments to those members who would otherwise have had all their benefits secured by way of annuity if their pension scheme had carried on winding up in the previous way and purchased annuities for them.

The new clause will enable us to specify in regulations the different categories of members who can be paid by the FAS. There are three main categories: first, those for whom an annuity or a deferred annuity has been purchased and who will receive an FAS top-up to 90 per cent. of their accrued pension; secondly, those to whom the FAS will make payments to the value of 90 per cent. of their accrued pension; and thirdly, those who would have received their full benefits from their scheme, but whose assets are being taken over.

It is important to recognise that some people would have received the full benefit but that their scheme assets are being taken over. We intend that those members will continue to receive their full scheme benefits—it is important to emphasise that—but in the form of FAS payments rather than through an annuity. Those payments will, of course, be very different from current FAS payments. For example, they will not be subject to the cap that applies to the latter. That change will enable us to introduce, later this year, the final round of regulations to deliver all the announced improvements to the FAS. That package will provide for the Government to take over the remaining assets in affected schemes and to pay all members of those schemes payments at least broadly comparable to PPF compensation.

As Members are aware, in the meantime, we are introducing as many changes as we can through regulations under existing powers. Subject to parliamentary time being available, we plan to have regulations in place by the end of May in order to make payments at 90 per cent. from normal retirement age, subject to a lower age limit of 60. By the summer recess, we plan to deliver regulations to allow early ill-health payment for those over 60. Those changes will make significant differences to the vast majority of those who have lost all or much of their pensions.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Just to be clear, at this early stage, the 90 per cent. that the Minister is now talking about is 90 per cent. not of the so-called core pension, but of the pension to which those people would have been entitled had they not ended up in the FAS. Is that correct?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It is based on the same provisions as those relating to the PPF. In a sense, the concept of the core pension did not include a number of the add-ons. As part of the package, we agreed that those add-ons will not be exactly like those in the PPF. However, under the agreement negotiated with various groups, including trade unions and the Pensions Action Group, most of those add-ons will be in place. In a sense we have gone beyond those two concepts and are now dealing with that of making fast payments. The idea of the core payment or pension is no longer appropriate to discussions. It was valid at the time, but we have moved on.

We aim to deliver the remaining parts of the package as quickly as possible. The new clause is an integral part of that process and to that end we plan to table further amendments to the commencement provisions so that that change comes into effect on Royal Assent.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

It is very good to see you back in the Chair, Sir Nicholas. I welcome the amendment and new clause and I am grateful to the Minister for explaining them. This is a big subject, so I hope that you will bear with me, Sir Nicholas, if I give it the attention that it deserves.

This has been a very long battle and some of the campaigners have not survived to see this day. I begin by paying tribute to various bodies and people, including the Pensions Action Group and Dr. Ros Altmann, who has campaigned tirelessly on the issue for at least five or six years. I also pay tribute—let me get the bouquets out of the way first—to some Ministers, including the Minister here today and the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), for turning the thing around. Lest history be rewritten, it was not that long ago—a matter of weeks, rather than months—that the line was that nothing more was to be done to help such people, so I pay tribute to the Minister and his former Secretary of State for achieving what we have achieved.

I have less kind words for the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The late Iain Macleod memorably said that he could not understand all the nonsense about never kicking a man when he is down, as that is the only safe time to do so. I am following the opposite advice and being nice to the former Secretary of State. It is too early to tell what his place in history will be, but he must deserve credit for delivering a proper solution as well as what the Americans would call “closure” on this long-running issue.

Before the Division, I was about to quote the new Secretary of State, who manfully did the Minister of State’s job for a long time, holding the line firmly on not providing proper compensation for the 150,000 people affected. In November 2006, he said to Money Marketing that although he had sympathy for those people,

“we do not believe that the taxpayer should be expected to underwrite what were private company pension schemes.”

Indeed, he spoke in any number of debates over a long period, refusing to budge on these matters.

The Government were told by the ombudsman, the Select Committee, the High Court and the European Court that they had got it wrong—all to no avail. I shall return to the court case later. Last summer, we tried to float a series of amendments setting up a so-called lifeboat fund to ensure that compensation could be delivered to pension victims, but the Government stepped in to invoke the Parliament Acts and stifle debate on the matter. However, last December, things started to happen quickly. The Daily Mail of 10 December stated:

“Gordon Brown has overruled his Cabinet over plans to bail out thousands of pensioners whose employers went bust. Ministers had promised £725million to help more than 125,000 workers...But the Prime Minister has risked a major Cabinet split by vetoing the plan.”

Happily, the then Secretary of State and the current Minister of State who is present managed to prevail. As a result we have the amendment and the new clause, some promised further amendments and the prospect of regulations.

We accept that there is limited scope to new clause 20 and amendment No. 189. When we discuss later amendments, as with new clause 20, we will give them as fair a wind as we are able to as the official Opposition. I am sure that I speak for the Liberal Democrats as well when I say that. We very much look forward to the regulations; I shall come back to the timetable that has been promised for them, because it is extremely important that there is no slippage.

I turn to the Court of Appeal judgment on the matter of 7 February. As the Press Association report put it:

“It was the latest damning judgment against the stance taken by the Department for Work and Pensions which rejected a Parliamentary ombudsman’s report.”

The report goes on to say that Sir John Chadwick, whom I remember instructing when I was a solicitor and he was at the Bar, ruled that

“the maladministration had directly caused ‘a sense of outrage, distress, anxiety and uncertainty...the loss of opportunities to make informed choices or to take remedial action’.”

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will recall that much of the alleged maladministration occurred under a previous, non-Labour Government.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The Minister is letting his recollections run away with him. There was one instance, as I recall, at the tail-end of the last Conservative Government, involving one leaflet.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The leaflet, in this case.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

We are back into semantics. I have said in debates on the previous Pensions Bill and am happy to say now that whatever share of blame that we must accept, we accept. However, I would like to think that a Conservative Government would not have spent so many months and years procrastinating, fighting a long rearguard action to stop giving those people their due.

I was about to quote Lord Justice Wall:

“Nobody reading the papers in this case could have anything but the utmost sympathy for the plight of the complainants, all of whom, it seemed to me, were decent, hardworking people who, through no fault of their own, had been—or were at serious risk of being—deprived of that for which they had worked throughout their lives, namely a modestly comfortable retirement.”

I also pay tribute to the people who brought test cases: Henry Bradley from Belfast; Robin Duncan from Jarrow, Tyne and Wear; Andrew Parr from Sheerness, who we have met on many occasions; and Thomas Waugh from Tamworth in Shropshire. Even then, the Government could not resist trying to bring some spin into the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Tamworth, I say from the Chair, completely impartially, is in Staffordshire.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Sir Nicholas, you have stopped me in my tracks. I will have to take that up with the Press Association, which is obviously convinced that Tamworth is in Shropshire. Let the record show that it is in Staffordshire.

Is it not interesting, and typical, that despite the nature of the Court of Appeal judgment, the DWP still tried to spin the result?

“We are pleased that the Court found in the Government’s favour on the key point relating to the Ombudsman’s powers.”

That was not the key point at all, but one of many, technical, legal issues. The main point was whether there was maladministration causing injustice to the victims of the wind-up issues. On that, the Secretary of State clearly lost.

In another example of spin, the DWP spokesman said that the judgment “quashed” the

“DWP rejection of the Ombudsman’s finding of maladministration in respect of official information issued on the security of occupational pensions.”

In fact, the three appeal judges confirmed that that was an irrational decision, which no reasonable Minister could have taken.

The DWP also said that the judges upheld

“the Government’s conclusion that the maladministration was not a significant contributory cause of the financial losses suffered by individuals”,

but

“ruled that some non-financial losses were caused by the maladministration.”

Again, that is a misinterpretation: the Court concluded not that no financial losses were caused by maladministration, but rather that not all the losses of the members were caused by it.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I hesitate to intervene from the Chair, but it appears that the Opposition spokesman is going into the case relating to amendments that have not been introduced. Am I right? If that is the case, I would ask him to deal specifically with the amendment, which is not that broad, and with the new clause, which is not that broad. I am trying to be helpful to the Committee—and to the hon. Gentleman, whose expertise I greatly regard.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

As always, Sir Nicholas. I was just about to leave the Court of Appeal judgment, you will be relieved to hear, save for one other point. Perhaps I could seek your guidance. The Minister helpfully set out his intentions about further amendments to the legislation and the regulations to be brought forward. I wanted to test him a little on what he said.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Because the hon. Gentleman has been so reasonable and understanding, and appreciates my position in the Chair, I will give him that discretion.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

You have also forgiven me for putting Tamworth in the wrong county. The bigger issue here, which I will not get into, is about the role of the ombudsman. There is a massive issue about the Executive’s attitude to the findings of an ombudsman—on this or any other issue—but this is not the occasion to go into that.

Before I leave behind the damning court judgment from just the other day, I shall press the Minister on whether the Government seriously intend to appeal to the House of Lords. Enough taxpayers’ money has been wasted on these matters and the Government are at least on the way to doing the decent thing.

I should like to return to the Andrew Young report, which the Minister dealt with in his opening speech, and the statement of 17 December. It is appropriate to confirm our appreciation of Mr. Young's efforts, both in his interim and final reports, and his crucial finding that a significant number of assets were still available in some of these schemes that could, perhaps, be put to better use.

It is important to tick off the issues that the Government have rightly said will now be dealt with in one way or another. I can tie in my comments on those with a question about the amendment and the regulations that have been promised. All scheme members would be guaranteed 90 per cent. of their accrued pension, so there will be no more core pension stuff; there will be a cap of £26,000; payment of assistance derived from post-1997 services will be increased in line with inflation; and the assistance repaid for the scheme’s normal retirement age, which was often a major bone of contention in some schemes where these retirement age specified was often 60. There are also the questions of lump sums and assistance where an employer is still solvent.

The Minister wrote to Committee members—I assume that he wrote to all of us—on 1 February, setting out a timetable. I want to be clear that he still feels that that is viable. He mentioned that he would table an amendment, which we are now debating, and said:

“we are still considering the most appropriate legislative vehicle for extending the FAS to schemes which wound up underfunded with a solvent employer. But the vast majority of the enhancements can be delivered through secondary legislation.”

He spoke about publishing

“draft regulations at the beginning of March”.

I think I heard him say the same a little earlier today. We were pleased to agree to an unusual two-week consultation, rather than the usual 12 weeks that normally apply to such legislation. We in the official Opposition are happy to do anything that we can to speed things along. He also mentioned having regulations have proved before the Whitsun recess—that would be some time in May—and said:

“Our aim will be to ensure that all existing cases are reassessed and paid arrears by the end of August.”

That is good news. He continued:

“our aim, parliamentary schedules permitting, will be to have them”—

the second set of regulations—

“approved before the Summer recess.”

I assume that we are still on target to do all that, which would be excellent. He went on to say:

“This should allow us to finalise the regulations later in the year to deliver the remaining parts of the package which will move us away from calculating pensions on the current basis of core expected pension to one which is broadly comparable to the PPF.”

That is the key point, because the Government simply cobbled together a brand-new notion of a core pension out of nowhere to try to justify the fact that, under the FAS, people were going to get significantly less—in most cases, less than half—of what they would get from the PPF. I am delighted that we are going to see the back of the core pension. Will the Minister say what form that important change will take?

Before I finish, it is worth noting that two memorandums have been submitted to the Committee—one by the Pensions Action Group and one by Dave Baker, who worked for Sifam Ltd—both of which talk about the need to get on and get the payments to people as soon as possible. As the Pensions Action Group says in the conclusion of its memorandum:

“It has been a long struggle to get the compensation to levels where they should be, please do not make us wait any longer than necessary to actually see the financial help that has been offered.”

There are some additional points that have just been left hanging that the Minister may feel able to deal with today or may wish to write to me about. Dr. Ros Altmann has raised with me some issues on which discussions are ongoing. One is ill health and the early retirement option for people under 60. She says:

“There are still one or two schemes that have fallen between the cracks and are not currently eligible for either FAS or PPF.”

It will be helpful to know whether officials are making progress on that. Ros Altmann has asked what will be in regulation and what will be covered by amendments to the legislation, a matter on which the Minister has been helpful. She said that

“it will be essential to ensure trustees and scheme administrators (who are often being very slow) are contacted by the FAS and told to send over the required data very quickly.”

I have one final point to raise with the Minister. He may be able to deal with it now or wish to write to me and other members of the Committee about it. A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has referred to a disparity and said that it arose in part

“because instead of speaking of a ‘core’ pension, the Minister has promised to pay indexation from 1997 onwards. This sounds like a bonus, but in fact it discriminates against those who, with their companies, paid higher contributions before 1997 to get an index-linked pension.”

He believed that

“indexation may not have been compulsory before 1997, but it was common for designers of schemes to choose between paying a higher fixed pension or a lower indexed one, for the same contributions. Those companies who made the former choice were leaving it to their pensioners to arrange their own indexation by investing the extra pension (and lump sum) as they saw fit. Pensioners whose companies made the latter choice are now to be arbitrarily penalised by the FAS. Indexation is no different from any other optional benefit which has to be paid for by contributions...Indeed, under the proposed new FAS some people who chose early retirement will receive a higher proportion of their pension than those who worked until 65 in the same scheme.”

There is clearly an anomaly that the Minister may or may not be able to deal with today.

We very much welcome the amendment and the new clause in their own right and as the shape of things to come. We are not handing out bouquets to the Government who have taken so long and so much money to resist the claims, but finally justice is being done.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

It is a pleasure to be here again under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. Like the hon. Member for Eastbourne, I welcome the new clause and the amendment that is necessary to help it take effect. It is a good statement of intent that a number of other measures and changes are necessary, as the Minister said, to enable the announcements made at the end of December to come into effect. None the less, those proposals are a significant step forward.

It is important to remember how we got here. The fact that rapid progress has been made in the past two or three months should not let us forget that, for several years, a significant number of pensioners have been affected under the old financial assistance scheme. They have felt great injustice. Despite a sense of gratitude to the Government for what is being done, some still consider that it was an injustice that took far too long to remedy. Let us not forget that we are not discussing a small group, but about 140,000 or 150,000 people.

When considering the process that has led to the drafting of the amendment and the new clause, it is right to pay tribute to a number of people. The Minister himself deserves a great compliment for his efforts to turn the issue round, as does the previous Secretary of State who clearly put a lot of effort and energy into the matter. Ros Altmann has also rightly been mentioned. It is important to refer to those active members of the Pensions Action Group, many thousands of whom have turned up in Parliament square to lobby Parliament and camped outside Downing street every few months for three or four years to continue to make their point and ensure that their agenda was brought to the attention of Parliament. Without their efforts and sustained campaign that was always presented in a measured and thought-through way that showed they had been left with a real sense of anger and injustice towards the Government, the proposals before us today would not have been drafted because that campaign would have long since been forgotten.

It is a tribute to the Minister that he has finally responded in such a positive way to the campaign. It is those people, and the efforts that they made, that have to be particularly remembered in thinking about how these amendments were tabled. Of course, the Minister, like myself and the hon. Member for Eastbourne, met a number of those people at a rather damp vigil outside Downing street in, I think, November, when happily for those people, it was the last time that they had to come to Westminster to make their case. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne observed, some people may have started out in the campaign but were unable to come this time to make their case. We must remember that also. The changes announced in December were an important vindication for the campaign that those people have been running.

Finally, and I think that the Minister confirmed this in his earlier remarks, the level of benefits will be 90 per cent. on the same terms as under the pension protection fund. [Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head as if the terms are perhaps not quite the same, but what people have been led to believe is that the 90 per cent. of their accrued pension rights is the same as under the pension protection fund.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

We have said that they are broadly comparable. We have discussed with both the trade unions and with the Pensions Action Group the level of comparability. It is not exactly the same, and I would not want people to come back to me and say that we are not providing exactly the same, but I think that everybody has accepted that this is similar enough, and broadly comparable enough, for justice to be done.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention, and “broadly comparable” has been widely welcomed, and can also do better than where people were before. For those two reasons, it has been welcomed. It is particularly welcome because the concept of the core pension, which was designed to give the impression that more was being paid out under the financial scheme than actually was, has been finally set to one side, and the Minister did so very elegantly in response to an earlier intervention.

Likewise, the changes in relation to the normal retirement age also represent a significant advance. One of the effects of the new clause proposed today is that it allows pension benefits to be paid. One of the problems in the way that the previous way that the financial assistance scheme worked is that no benefits could be paid until the entire process of getting the scheme within the FAS had been competed. One of the changes that this package of changes makes is to ensure that benefits can be paid out even before that whole process is completed.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right that this will enable us to do that, but in fact, in September, I brought forward regulations that enabled trustees to start to make payments before other schemes had completely gone into the financial assistance scheme. So, in a sense, we had already acted on some of that to some extent.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I am grateful to the Minister for that correction, and that was one of a number of regulations where there has been useful cross-party co-operation to expedite the consultation process. I make the same commitment as the Conservative spokesman, that we on these Benches will do everything that we can to expedite the process of ensuring that any future amendments of new pieces of secondary legislation that come forward can be dealt with as quickly as possible, in order to bring the matter to the conclusion that is necessary. However, that raises an important question, because in his evidence to the Committee on 17 January, the Minister understandably said:

“I shall have to bring forward more detailed regulations over a longer time, because they will be much more complex and will require further consultation. I want to put a number of amendments into primary legislation.”——[Official Report, Public Bill Committee, Pensions; c. 120.]

We have one amendment and one new clause before us today. I would be interested to hear from the Minister to what extent he foresees bringing further amendments or new clauses into primary legislation as part of the process of this Bill. I suspect that that will mean that this House will not have the ability to scrutinise them, although perhaps they will be subject to scrutiny in another place. It would be useful to hear from the Minister what his intention is in regard to that.

Also, given the concerns that have been expressed, not least in the evidence submitted to the Committee from the Pensions Action Group, in relation to these amendments, what is the overall timescale that he foresees? It is already a couple of months that that have passed since the Government made their announcement. We have the amendment and the new clause that we are considering now, but what time scale does he foresee bringing forward the subsequent amendments of primary legislation, and the necessary, more complex—as he says—pieces of secondary legislation necessary to fulfil the passage of measures? The hon. Member for Eastbourne made the point that we had agreed between the Front Benches an unusual two-week consultation period for one set of regulations and I hope the Minister will uphold his side of the bargain by bringing forward the relevant legislation as quickly as possible so that we can also do our bit from our side to speed this process up.

The fundamental question is, with the amendment and new clause before us today, combining with anything else that is coming down the track, when does the Minister foresee that pensioners entitled to receive money under the financial assistance scheme will start to draw money at the new, improved rate, under the new terms? That is the most important thing and it is clear that this amendment and new clause will not allow that to happen by themselves, there are many other changes that will have to be made, but if justice is to be done for the pensioners who have been campaigning, clearly we have to focus on when it is that justice will finally be done. Justice is not done by this amendment and new clause, though it is going in the right direction, it will be done when the money starts to be paid in the way we all agree is appropriate.

If the Minister could satisfy the Committee on some of those practical points about the direct impact on the pensioners, both of this amendment and new clause and how that combines with future changes, that will be very useful in the spirit of consensus there now is around this issue. There has to be continued friendly pressure on the Government to ensure that the remaining changes are brought forward as quickly as possible so that justice, which has been agreed, is actually delivered.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

May I begin by saying what a pleasure it is to be on the Committee under your very effective Chairmanship as well as your great geographical knowledge of the United Kingdom. I congratulate you. There has been some talk about Yorkshire and one of my hon. Friends’ lack of knowledge, but we will pass over that.

I was a volunteer to this Pension Bill Committee because this issue of compensation for people who lost their pensions through no fault of their own is sadly one that has affected a number of people in my constituency and therefore, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey has just said, while we do congratulate the Government for coming forward and seeking a redress for this long-standing problem, we do want to keep tabs on them to ensure that this process happens as quickly and effectively as possible.

We would very much like an answer to one of the questions raised by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, which is, when is the money actually going to be in the pockets of people who would be seeking assistance through the financial assistance scheme and will now be getting this enhanced package? We know that those provisions will in some way be effected in June, but at what stage will the money actually be appearing in bank accounts? This is the kernel of my question about the Minister’s new amendment.

This is an issue that sadly has affected my constituency greatly. UEF, a national company that had a large plant in my constituency, did go bankrupt before the introduction of the PPF. Many people lost their pension savings, which is a devastating blow for people at any age, but particularly those who are nearing retirement age and who had been looking forward to a comfortable retirement and who were suddenly left completely bereft of that anticipation and to begin with, before the introduction of the financial assistance scheme, were looking at a retirement in penury. It is an understatement to say that these provisions are hugely welcome to many of those people I know.

I should also like to put on record the efforts of one campaigner in my constituency who did not happen to work for UEF. Mr. Peter Wheeler worked for Kalamazoo, a business that is still in operation, but under a different guise, but he nevertheless lost his pension. It is a Birmingham business, but a lot of people who work for Kalamazoo live in my patch. Peter Wheeler was one of the supporters and campaigners, already mentioned by my hon. Friends, who put a lot of time, money and effort into campaigning for this change in the law. There were times when, despite his efforts, along with those of his friends and colleagues, things looked very bleak. Yet in his financially straitened circumstances he continued to spend money, coming down to London from the midlands—which can be very expensive—to lobby Ministers, take part in campaigns and undertake other activities to secure the profile of this issue so that it remained firmly in the ministerial in-tray as “issue unresolved”. I pay huge tribute to his part in the campaign, along with Ros Altmann and the many other individuals who have been mentioned on this side of the House, who deserve a huge part of the credit for this injustice having been sorted out.

I would also like to mention the Minister for Pensions Reform, who met with people who had a lot of faith in those meetings. It was somewhat devastating when the Prime Minister seemed, let us say, not to be playing ball on this issue. I commend the Minister for his tenacity in moments of adversity, along with the right hon. Member for Neath who, in the end, secured a proper deal on this issue. That deal is hugely welcome to a great many people whom I represent.

I know there are some people—I am not aware of any in my patch, but sadly there may well be—who have died not knowing that this respite was on offer, and that their spouse would gain some modest income in their old age through their pension entitlement. That is very sad, because people faced a very bleak future when they lost their pension saving and there was no obvious way of recouping it due to their age and circumstances. Sadly, those who have died will not know that there is some offer of help to those they have left behind. Nevertheless, it is fantastic news that this moment is about to arrive.

I am very glad that the Minister prevailed, because we have been discussing the need for more people to save for their pension, the pension crisis that looms in the UK if every single one of us does not take responsibility for saving for our old age, and the joint responsibility of government, employers and employees. The worst thing about the situation that had arisen, where private company schemes had gone bankrupt with no form of compensation before the PPF, was that it sent out the worst possible signal to young people, which is: why bother saving if, one day, through no fault of one’s own and without realising it was even possible—because previous Governments and the present Government had said that pension saving is safe, that it is the right thing to do and so on—one could suddenly find that the money one could have spent down the pub had gone down a black hole of an employer going bankrupt. It really was important to address this issue in terms of encouraging people to realise that saving for one’s retirement is the right thing to do.

While I represent a number of employers that have lost their pension saving, like UEF and like Kalamazoo, I also have part of the Rover plant in my constituency, and quite a number of workers at the Rover plant live in Bromsgrove. The parallel there was quite shocking, in that, mercifully, if it had to go pear-shaped, Rover went pear-shaped after the introduction of the PPF—only just, by a week. That was nevertheless an important week for those people who had worked very hard for Rover. Their pension contributions were therefore much more secure. There was the bizarre situation that, depending on when the bleak moment came, some people were all right and some were not. The gauntlet-running was fairly dramatic in those terms.

It is very welcome that the Government are doing this, and it makes sense in terms of the signals that we send out to our fellow citizens about pension savings. Furthermore, in the system that we had before, when a company scheme went bankrupt, some people had first call on the money—there was a schedule of who got the money first and who bought annuities. That is a hugely wasteful way of distributing assets. A great deal of money goes to people who have never worked for the company—I do not have a downer on accountants or anybody else, but nevertheless, the fees that were payable in the winding-up of a company scheme seemed rather obscene when people at the end of the pecking order for the bits to be shared out seemed to get very little. The fees seem to be very great.

The scheme that the Government propose, which corrals the money into a separate pot to be administered with those fees shared in someway, is a sensible way forward. Those of us who take an interest in this issue have been asking the Government to look at it for a long time. I will be very pleased to hear what the Minister has to say. There may be further questions, but in his admiral fashion I am sure that he will be able to answer the ones that remain, and I look forward to hearing more about that.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I want to echo the praise that has been poured not just on the Minister for Pensions Reform, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Warwickshire, but also on the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath. Also, while individuals have been named, it is worth recalling the catalyst of the change. That was the bankruptcy of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff and Sharpness, which brought the problem to the fore. In Cardiff, 800 people and I think about 200 in Sharpness—1,000 people altogether in one company—were suddenly faced with having nothing to look forward to from their pension, in many cases after 30 years of contributions. Their trade union, the Community trade union, came forward and fought and fought and fought. Yes, there were many other individuals and organisations, but if it had not been for the Community trade union focusing on particular issues, funding cases, going to Europe and so on, we may not have arrived where we are now. I want to put on the record that the many plaudits that have been awarded and the bouquets handed out by the hon. Member for Eastbourne should include the Community trade union and its general secretary, Michael Leahy. Without its work, we would not have got here.

I do not want to repeat what other hon. Members have said, but this is a significant step forward. It is hugely important. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove was right: without the pension protection fund and the FAS, people could turn round and say, “What is the point of trying to invest in a pension?” We have now sorted that and, in the gentlest possible way, I say to hon. Members opposite, that company pensions went bust before 1997 as well, but nothing was done. It was this Government that finally grasped the nettle, brought forward the PPF and the FAS, and they should be congratulated for it.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I join the tributes, particularly those paid to Community and to Unite, the trade unions that campaigned on this issue very effectively and forcefully. I also pay tribute to members of the Pensions Action Group, who I met on a rather bleak and wet evening outside Whitehall. They were people who had campaigned for a long time to ensure that they got justice.

Julie Kirkbride (Conservative, Bromsgrove)

I apologise, it is very kind to let me have a little moment. On the subject of trade union involvement, there is a gentleman called Mick Ball in my constituency from the UEF, who also played a valuable role, and I would like that to be on the record.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

The gentleman will be pleased.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

He will indeed. I, too, am grateful for his support in this campaign in which I have been able to play a small part. The issue was important, and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove is correct that the situation developed into one that was about confidence in the pension system as a whole. We have now been able to deal with that, and it was right that we should. Whether we should have dealt with it before is debatable. I do not think that it had got to the stage of creating a confidence problem before, but I concluded by the latter part of last year that it had got to that stage and that we needed to draw a line under it. I join the tributes that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath, who was effective in working on the matter and ensuring that justice was done.

Having said that, I shall deal with the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Eastbourne talked about the Court of Appeal judgment of 7 February. I say to him that the Government paid the costs of those who appealed.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

The taxpayer paid them.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

The taxpayer paid those costs. We wanted to ensure that the matter was dealt with properly. The big issue in the case was the comments of the High Court that there were restrictions on a Minister’s ability to reject a finding of the ombudsman. That was an entirely new area of law as far as we were concerned, although, of course, all judges argue that any judgment is not a new area of law, but that they are simply stating the law that already exists, which just happens not to have been stated before. That being the case, we were somewhat concerned by the statement of the lower courts and took the matter to the Court of Appeal, which has now set out its view.

We are considering whether to appeal further to the House of Lords on the position of the ombudsman and Ministers. We have made it clear that, broadly, we do not seek to press an appeal of a substantive or primary nature on other matters, which may well be secondary to the argument about the ombudsman’s report. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman about what the key point in the appeal was—it was on the broader issue of the ombudsman and Ministers’ ability to make a decision on a policy issue.

As far as the leaflet is concerned, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the judgment with care, he will see that the previous Government have some culpability, although we accept that the leaflet was distributed after the general election of 1997. A degree of shared culpability needs to be discussed, if any culpability arises, rather than simply pointing in one party’s direction.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned ill-health provision for people under 60, which Ros Altmann raised with me and other Ministers. We are considering whether we can assist those people and we are seeking to find a way to make appropriate provision, but I cannot give him a commitment on that now. We are still discussing whether and how we can resolve the matter. The point that was put to us about particular individuals was good.

There were cases in which a pension scheme collapsed and the insolvency event came before the setting up of the PPF, but the winding up came after it. So far as I am aware, that basically covers three companies: Desmonds and Sons, Pinney’s and one whose name I cannot remember. We aim to examine whether there are ways in which we can assist them, but I can give no commitments on that at this stage. I am aware that some colleagues are rightly pressing me to remedy the concerns of pensioners in those cases, and I am examining the matter with great care.

Rob Flello (Labour, Stoke-on-Trent South)

On that point, I advise the Committee that I am looking forward to bringing forward a new clause on that basis.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for indicating his concerns. I am aware of them and I have spoken to other Members who, on behalf of their constituents, have raised with me directly their concerns about this issue.

On indexation before 1997, let me say in all candour that I will look at the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire raises in relation to the letter or email that he received, but it is not our view that we can remedy all the injustices that were done before 1997. In the FAS, we have not taken the view that we will go back and assist all the various schemes that collapsed under previous Governments. Many of those just collapsed and had little or no help, or compensation. As my hon. Friend indicated, the Government have decided to provide some element of compensation. We set up the PPF and put in place a financial assistance scheme. Previous Governments did not take that view and did not help.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey raised a couple of issues, as did the hon. Member for Eastbourne fairly early on, about the process, primarily. The letter that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey received set out the position in so far as we are currently aware, so we intend to proceed on the basis that I have indicated. We need to look at a number of changes in primary legislation, which we hope to introduce in the other place. Those will extend the current temporary hold on trustees purchasing annuities with their assets. We are also considering how requirements on trustees might need to be altered to reflect the fact that the assets and liabilities of these schemes, which have not yet wound up, will pass to the FAS. We expect to bring those changes forward through other amendments when the Bill goes to the other place for consideration. So, there are a few changes, but they are not the main ones. We hope to deal with the main ones in regulation—I say “main ones” from the point of view of the pensioner.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove asked me when people will get paid, and that is obviously the question that every pensioner will be asking. During the course of this year, we hope to get all the provisions in place, but the big issue is when they will be paid at 90 per cent. On the first set of recommendations, which to pay 90 per cent. of the crude pension from normal retirement age—that is at the age of 60, as currently they are paid from aged 65—we expect to issue draft regulations on 6 March. I am grateful to the Opposition for indicating that they would agree to a two-week exceptional written consultation period so that we can move quickly. During that time, we will conduct face-to-face consultation with key stakeholders to get feedback. We will publish a further set of draft regulations before the end of March for a longer period of consultation. The precise content of the package will depend on where we need to make further changes to existing primary powers, but it will include early payment for those over 60 who are unable to work due to ill health.

There will be a final package of regulation, so we are trying to ensure that the regulations will be brought forward quickly, and we hope that we will be in a position to pay at 90 per cent. by about mid-May, or perhaps a little later. I cannot be entirely precise, but we are not talking about a long time. However, we are pushing the process through quickly, and I am making assumptions about the parliamentary process regarding how quickly, so let me give some caveats. I am hoping that we will then be able to get the other provisions through so that we can deal with some of the issues around ill health towards the start of the summer—in June, or that sort of period—with a view to making payments in the latter part of the summer. August is our aim.

A further package of regulations will need to be looked at later in the year to deliver the remaining parts of the package. That will entail a major shift from a FAS that is based on the principle of paying top-ups to annuities to one that pays assistance at the full 90 per cent. level to some members, and payments representing their full scheme benefits to others. So, some people are now receiving full payments of their pension from schemes that are able to make those payments, but payments will be at a lower level in respect of late pensioners who join the scheme because there is insufficient long-term funding. We will have to put provision in place to ensure that those who are receiving 100 per cent. of their pension continue to do so—that is important. We do not want anyone who currently gets a full pension to lose out. However, because we have taken all their assets, we will have to make those payments directly through the FAS scheme.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

On the pure mechanics of getting information, processing it and getting payments to people as quickly as possible, has the Minister given any further thought to scrapping the FAS as a separate outfit and folding all its administration into that of the PPF, which has been suggested more than once?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I have given that some thought and had some conversations with the PPF. Let me explain why there is some reluctance. If we start to make substantial administrative changes now, the costs of transition, in terms of administrative disruption, could be significant. I am thus reluctant to make changes that might delay payments.

We have looked at the issue and need to consider it more fully. However, the new scheme will not involve investment of assets as with the Pension Protection Fund. The Government are taking in the assets—to have them—and then making the payments. There is an argument for saying that the PPF should not take over something that is an entirely different sort of process. The new scheme is not holding assets and then making payments from them. It is operating more like the DWP: having a pot of Government money from the Treasury and then spending it by making benefit payments to various people. Its operation is more akin to what we at the DWP do than to what the PPF does. However, I am conscious of that view, and I have not made a final decision on whether it is possible for some people at the PPF to oversee the operation, or to see if we can find ways more effectively to administer the scheme.

The operation will be bigger than the one that the FAS currently runs because more people will be involved and the payments will be higher. I do not have a closed mind, but I want to ensure that any change that might be brought about does not cause disruption. I am a little concerned that making a decision to transfer the running of the scheme to the PPF would impose on the PPF a very different system—at least in significant respects—from the one it has been running so far, and I am concerned that shifting the administration could cause disruption in itself.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, I think that people should be starting to receive 90 per cent. by around the end of May. That is the target.

I hope that I have dealt with most of the questions. The final package of regulations later in the year will deliver post-1997 indexation lump sum payments, which is important to a number of people who planned for their retirement based on the idea that they would get a 25 per cent. lump sum, which they have not been able to get up to now under the FAS. Maintaining the value of the cap is important to a lot of people. Maintaining the value of the cap and allowing it to increase alongside inflation and under the influence of other factors is important to those at the higher end of returns on pensions—towards £26,000. We are looking at insolvent schemes and at companies that are still solvent, but with pension schemes that are not in a position to make payments. We want to deal with those schemes in the second package of regulations.

I hope that that deals with all the issues that were raised, but hon. Members can come back to me if I have forgotten anything.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move amendment No. 137, in schedule 8, page 88, line 16, at end add—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 9—Retirement Income Fund

‘(1) The Finance Act 2004 9c. 12) is amended as follows.

(2) After section 152 (meaning of “arrangement”), insert—

“152A Meaning of ‘Retirement Income Fund’

(1) In this Part, a Retirement Income Fund means a scheme for the reinvestment of savings in retirement which—

(a) is operated by or on behalf of a person authorised to operate a registered pension scheme,

(b) is a scheme in which investments are approved by HM Revenue and Customs, and

(c) meets the conditions set out in subsections (2) to (9).

(2) The first condition is that, subject to the other conditions in this section, funds held in the Retirement Income Fund may be invested and withdrawn by the member as and when he elects.

(3) The second condition is that an authorised Retirement Income Fund provider must set an annual maximum withdrawal allowance for each member, based on an assessment of each member’s life expectancy, and a member’s withdrawals from the fund in any one year must not exceed that allowance.

(4) The third condition is that, in setting annual maximum withdrawal allowances, an authorised provider must ensure that no member’s total future annual income falls below the Minimum Retirement Income level (as set under section [Minimum Retirement Income] of the Pensions Act 2008) except in the circumstances provided for in the sixth condition.

(5) The fourth condition is that an authorised provider must set an annual minimum withdrawal allowance so that each member’s total income is at least equivalent to the Minimum Retirement Income level, except in the circumstances provided for in the sixth condition.

(6) The fifth condition is that if a member chooses not to declare his total annual income to the authorised provider he must withdraw funds equivalent to the level of the Minimum Retirement Income level or his annual maximum withdrawal allowance, whichever is the lower.

(7) The sixth condition is that, where there are insufficient funds to enable the annual minimum withdrawal allowance to be set so that a member’s total income is at least equivalent to the Minimum Retirement Income level, the allowance should be set out at the highest level consistent with the assessment of the member’s life expectancy.

(8) The seventh condition is that the maximum and minimum withdrawal allowances must be set at the same level if a member’s total annual income, including his maximum withdrawal allowance, is lower than the Minimum Retirement Income level.

(9) The eighth condition is that a Retirement Income Fund, and any income derived from it, must not be capable of assignment or surrender by the member.’.

New clause 10—Withdrawal from a Retirement Income Fund

‘(1) Section 165 of the Finance Act 2004 (c. 12) (pension rules) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) (which sets out the pension rules)—

(a) in Pension Rule 4, after paragraph (a), insert—

“(aa) a withdrawal from a Retirement Income Fund,”;

(b) in Pension Rule 4, after the second appearance of the words “scheme pension”, insert the words “or a withdrawal from a Retirement Income Fund”;

(c) in Pension Rule 6, after paragraph (a), insert—

“(aa) a withdrawal from a Retirement Income Fund,”;

(d) in Pension Rule 6, after the second appearance of the words “scheme pension”, insert the words “or a withdrawal from a Retirement Income Fund”.’.

New clause 11—Minimum Retirement Income

‘(1) The amount of the Minimum Retirement Income in respect of each tax year shall be set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by order at the level of the standard minimum guarantee prescribed under section 2 of the State Pension Credit Act 2002 (c. 16).

(2) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Chancellor of the Exchequer shall consult such persons as he considers appropriate.

(3) An order under this section (other than the order that applies to the first tax year during which this section is in force) must be made on or before 31st January of the tax year before the tax year to which the order applies.’.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

There might be a faint air of dÃ(c)jà vu about the amendment and new clauses—I think that the Minister is nodding—because the Minister and I had an exchange on almost identical wording as recently as last July. The issue will not go away, and I can assure him that while this Government remain in power and bring forward annual pension Bills, we shall table such amendments. If they are not accepted, we shall deal with the matter when we are in government.

We are wholly convinced, and have been for a long time, that there is no good reason why we are the only country in the world—we established this during the passage of the previous Bill—that imposes an obligation to annuitise at age 75, or at any age. I have yet to hear a convincing argument, but I dare say that I shall hear all the old unconvincing arguments from the Minister for why that should be. It is not even as though that has always been the case. My understanding is that the obligation to annuitise was introduced only in 1976. My research has not taken me far enough to discover why the Government of the day decided at that moment that they wanted to do that, but perhaps the Minister, with his much greater resources, can enlighten us. The matter does not go back into the mists of history.

It is worth reminding the Committee that during the passage of the Bill that became the Pensions Act 2007, similar amendments were accepted in the House of Lords, so there is a natural majority in the other place, if not in this House, in favour of such proposals. They are not new, but a refinement of proposals in four private Members’ Bills introduced by Conservative Members over a long period. The most recent and distinguished was that introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). As time has gone by, the proposals have got better and better. They have now reached such a state of refinement and perfection that we find it difficult to improve on them, hence they are being recycled yet again for this Bill.

It is always slightly wacky to quote oneself, but in April 2004, when I moved an amendment, I referred to the fact that as a constituency MP I received many letters and e-mails from people who thought it iniquitous that they should be required, at or before the age of 75, to annuitise. Incidentally—this is not central to my argument—there have been recent discussions about at least changing the age for compulsory annuitisation. From latter exchanges during this morning’s debate on increased longevity, I got the impression that Ministers were thinking about that. In order to bring a little novelty to proceedings, it would be interesting to hear whether there has been any progress there.

The Pensions Commission considered annuitisation in its second report in December 2005. As I have said before in this Committee, there is an element of regarding everything that it said as having been handed down from the mountain and carved in stone tablets. However, what it said was interesting. It said that it was

“not convinced by arguments that annuitisation requirements should be waived entirely”.

We do not agree, but it is important to report what was said. It also recommended that policies to encourage later annuitisation should be considered, particularly in light of increasing life expectancy. I have made that point already, so let us hear what the Minister has to say on that.

The report also stated that, over time, the set lower age of 50 and the set higher age of 75

“should rise with life expectancy. While at present most annuities are brought well before the legal maximum of 75, this maximum would become an increasingly important constraint over time if left unchanged.”

However, it made the point that it

“is reasonable to require that pension savings is turned into regular pension income at some time. But this objective could be pursued via requiring annuitisation up to some defined level of income.”

I think that that is important.

Do not get me wrong. The Opposition have never said that we do not think that annuitisation has its merits. For some people—many, perhaps—it would have its attractions. It has the overwhelming attraction, despite the relatively poor value for money that annuities have offered in recent years, that it will look after a person’s pension income for the rest of their lives. The argument is always put that if people do not have to annuitise, they can simply spend their pension pot and fall back on to the benefits system. For us, ensuring that people do not blow their pension pots and end up claiming benefits from the state has been the only legitimate concern of any Government, and of the Treasury in particular. That is why we have been very careful with this combination of new clauses and amendments to ensure that there is a limit below which people are not allowed to touch their pension pots, which will ensure that they remain off means-tested benefits. We accept that criticism, which is why we have provided for it in our amendments and new clauses. As far as we are concerned, our amendments do not weaken that guarantee.

If people are taking the trouble to build up pension pots over a long period throughout their working lives, they should have some control and choice. I know that Ministers say that if people are given tax incentives to save in the first place, they should not be allowed to do anything with their pension pots other than pay for an annuity, and that they certainly should not be allowed to pass it on to their successors and family. That is argument B. However, we do not agree. To pick up on a point that was made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove during the previous debate, surely everything should be about restoring confidence in the pensions system and encouraging young people, who overwhelmingly are turned off the whole issue of pensions, to start saving for their pensions now. It is no good them waiting until 2012 for personal accounts to arrive, because that would result in several years of lost contributions. Anything that we can do in this Committee and elsewhere to encourage them to save for retirement has to be a good thing.

What is likely to put young people off? Seeing grown men stripping off at party conferences is one thing, but hopefully that phenomenon is a thing of the past thanks to the FAS amendments—[Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey is getting misty eyed. I hope that we will no longer have such a thing happening at Labour party conferences.

Equally, if young people are to be asked to lock away their savings for 40 years or so, and are then told, on top of that, that they will be forced to buy an annuity by the age of 75 whether they want to or not, and that that might not be a particularly good deal at the time, it is hardly likely to encourage them to save for their retirement.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I completely agree with my hon. Friend on this point about inheritability and ownership. At the tender age of 45, I am not sure whether I should still regard myself as young, but I do think that the issue that my hon. Friend has alighted on is incredibly important. I have thought for many years that if young people, and people generally, could regard their pension savings in the same way that they might regard their house, car or savings in a bank account, it would transform the attractiveness of pensions as an asset into which they would want to put—and, indeed, should be putting—their income. I commend my hon. Friend on his point about inheritability.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that encouragement, which emboldens me to speak for even longer on the subject.

New clause 11 would establish a minimum retirement fund that would have to be maintained. The level would, of course, be set by regulation to ensure that people did not go back on to means-tested benefits. I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend said—indeed, it was what I was saying—about people needing some element of control, or ownership, of their pension savings.

It is not as if I am suggesting something completely off the wall. As I said, we are the only country in the entire world that does what we do. In Canada, for example, some 50 per cent. of pensioners take advantage of a scheme that is similar to what we propose.

While I do not want to rub salt in any wounds—the Minister and I have jousted about this before—we now come to the important issue of alternatively secured pensions, on which the Government have got themselves into a frightful mess because of representations from the Christian Brethren, which is, no doubt, an admirable group of people. It is certainly a small group of people, as at the last count there were only 738 of them in the entire country. They have their own legitimate and principled objection to the pooling of risk of mortality, as I understand that they put it. They lobbied the Government—successfully, as it turns out—for a change in the law, and ASPs were introduced. Then—surprise, surprise—the Treasury got worried because lots of people who were not Christian Brethren suddenly thought that they would quite like to do the same thing. Like an ice cream salesman who sells only vanilla ice cream, the then Chancellor, who is now occupying No. 10 as he did the Treasury—gloomily—said, “Oh, you can’t have that. We meant it only for those 700-odd people,” and so the Government had to reverse their position completely in the Finance Act 2007.

Surprise, surprise, what did the Government do? They introduced a requirement to withdraw a minimum income level—it is thus not beyond the wit of man to specify a minimum figure—but they also made it clear that any lump-sum death benefits passed on to other scheme members would be taxed at up to 70 per cent. and, as if that were not a sufficient disincentive, could also be subject to inheritance tax. One could say that that loophole, if that was what it was, has been well and truly closed.

Those events indicate two things: first, what a mess the Government got into on the subject; and, secondly, that there is an appetite among people to have an element of control or ownership, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire said. Conservatives believe that pensions are people’s property. They are not the property of the Government. If we are serious about trying to encourage people to save for their retirement, giving them flexibility is an important sales point.

Other countries, such as the USA, go much further. They have rules that allow people to access their funds for certain major life events, such as buying a house or paying for education or medical treatment. We would not go that far at all; we simply say that if people do not want to buy an annuity, they should not have to and that, providing their estate is squared away regarding claiming benefits, they can pass on the pot or use it for other purposes. There is a great deal of support for the proposal, and the only people who oppose it are the Treasury and the Minister, who will no doubt read out his Treasury brief in a minute.

The Investment Management Association, for example, supports what we are trying to do. It says:

“IMA does not support the current rules to require compulsory annuitisation by age 75. While an annuity may be the best option for some retirees it is not the best option for all and the market should be opened up to allow alternatives. IMA advocates increased choice in the options available for retirement income.”

We endorse that entirely. The IMA also has something to say about new clause 18, which is in the name of the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, but we have not come to that yet. When we do, no doubt we will return to the IMA’s views.

There is a great deal of support for the concept, and the Minister’s argument c or d will be, “This is only for rich people; just a few rich people want to do this.” Rich people have rights, too, and if in Canada the measure appeals to half the relevant part of the population, perhaps it would have that appeal in this country. Perhaps the reason why the Government had to undertake such a quick about-turn on ASPs is that they could see a tidal wave of demand for such freedom. The Government are in the business of trying to deny people those freedoms and to make decisions for them; my party is firmly of the opposite view, which is why I commend the amendments and new clause to the Committee.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

The hon. Member for Eastbourne is right that he and I have debated the issue before in Committee. No Pension Bill debate would be complete without the Opposition bringing forward their views on annuitisation and wheeling out the old RIF wagon, which is as rickety now as it was on previous appearances.

I reiterate the Government’s belief that pension saving is about giving an individual an income in retirement—nothing more, nothing less. It really is as simple as that. The Government provide very generous tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement. Their value is estimated in 2007-08 at £17.5 billion. When an individual comes to take their pension benefits, they can take up to 25 per cent. of the pension fund as a tax-free lump sum. In return for those generous incentives, and the option of a 25 per cent. lump sum, Governments, ever since the 1970s, have as part of the deal required that the remainder of the pension fund be, by the age of 75, converted into a secure retirement income in life. In defined-contribution schemes, that is typically done by the purchase of an annuity. Annuities provide the peace of mind of a regular income for life regardless of how long that life may be. They provide simplicity, security and a guaranteed income, they are low risk and individuals have a choice. The hon. Gentleman kept saying that people are somehow denied choice, which I do not accept. Individuals have considerable flexibility over when to annuitise: anywhere between the ages of 50—55 by 2010—and 75 to suit their circumstances.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Will the Minister explain why we are increasing the lower age from 50 to 55, but not planning to touch the upper age of 75?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

The increase in the lower age to 55 is in line with a host of other changes that have been made across the pensions system of which I think the hon. Gentleman is already aware where we are moving the retirement age from 50 to 55. This is to keep it in line. In respect of what we have said about the upper age, he prayed in aid Lord Turner suggesting that this should perhaps be kept under review. We have said on a number of occasions that we do keep that under review, but see no case at present for lifting that age; 2010 will still leave a 20-year band within which people can make their choice.

As we know from the graphs that show the distribution, most people exercise their choice to convert their annuity into a pension income within quite a narrow range, mainly between 60 and 65. Very few people choose to annuitise pre-60, and very few indeed choose to annuitise post-67. The natural choice people make is clearly bunched around the point at which they choose to retire, and the notion that 75 should somehow be indexed to longevity is the wrong way of looking at this. The driver is when people choose to retire. This is about establishing an income in retirement. The trigger is therefore a decision to retire, and the distribution graph confirms that the annuity choice on offer generously encompasses the points at which people choose to turn these pots into income in retirement.

The most comprehensive UK pricing survey ever, published a couple of years ago, suggests that annuities today are fairly priced. Annuity rates need to be seen in the context of a much lower inflationary environment and, of course, people living longer. We welcome the Turner commission’s endorsement of the annuity policy. The h G prayed in aid some of what Lord Turner said, but at the core of his discussion of annuities, he said:

“since the whole objective of either compelling or encouraging people to save, and of providing tax relief as an incentive is to ensure people make adequate provision, it is reasonable to require that pensions savings is turned into regular pension income at some time.”

Let me turn now to new clauses 9, 10 and 11, which would establish the alternative——the retirement income fund scheme. RIF has appeared in various guises in the past, and on this latest outing it does not seem to have improved at all.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

Before the Minister moves on to the specifics of the clause, does he accept that, in the context of our debate this morning about the changing actuarial basis for life expectancy, a much simpler way to achieve at least part of the objective we are discussing would simply be to increase the age at which annuitisation becomes compulsory, in line with demographic changes?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

No, I do not, because the gearing one needs to look for in assessing the relevance of age 75 concern the choices people make as to when to retire, not how long they live. It is when one reaches the point of retiring that one’s thought is, “I now need to have an income throughout my retirement, however long it is.” That is when the decision is made. It is not made in the light of knowing how long one will live, because none of us knows that. The driver is the decision to retire, not anticipated life expectancy, because this is all about producing an income in retirement, and if anything should guide the Government’s view about where this should be, it should be movements along the line of average or median ages at which people choose to retire.

Another reason I do not agree with that argument is that, if it were the case that age 75 were the impediment that it is sometimes presented as, one would expect to see a completely different distribution on the chart. One would see a cliff edge at 75—people hanging on as long as possible until forced to annuitise. One does not see that. Very few opt to take it later. Hon. Members might think that people would wait longer, because the longer they wait with the fund before converting into a pension, the more it might be worth. Notwithstanding that, the distribution chart shows that the great bulk of people annuitise between 60 and 65.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Is not the Minister's argument entirely circular? People know that when they retire, sooner or later—certainly by the age of 75—they will have to buy an annuity and they resign themselves to doing it on retirement, because many of them have seen the returns from annuities getting worse as time goes on. That, as well as retiring, may be a driver for them to get an annuity. However, if suddenly it were announced that there were no such compulsion at 75, or at all, does not the Minister think it entirely possible that his chart would change shape altogether?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I do not and I do not accept that this is a circular argument. If there were merit in the argument that the hon. Gentleman is making, we would see a completely different distribution on that chart now, because people would be going into retirement and opting to hold on before annuitising at the last possible moment. However, they are clearly not doing so. The vast majority are annuitising at the point of retirement.

I do not accept that, if we changed the age to 78, for argument’s sake, the whole graph would shift to the right in the same way. The driver is the decision point when people move into retirement, not expectations of how long they may be in retirement. That is a different point.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I apologise for not having heard all the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne. I am familiar with the arguments that he will have outlined, but I was less familiar with what the Chancellor and the shadow Chancellor were saying about the business in the main Chamber, which explains my absence.

I am listening carefully to the Minister's argument. Perhaps I could put the position to him in a slightly different way. The chart flows the way it does because the majority of people who are realising funds from retirement annuity or personal pension investments now need to convert to an annuity to have a basic income. We are dealing, in the Bill and in the management of the pensions issue generally, with a situation where, as fewer people have defined benefits, more will be in some form of money purchase scheme. The amendments provide a golden opportunity to send a signal to that community that says that, provided they meet minimum income requirements through the purchase of an annuity at retirement, they should, having had to manage the risk of what their income in retirement was likely to be—

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is stretching my patience. An intervention should be an intervention and should be brief. That was almost a speech. If he wants to speak, he could catch my eye later.

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

I was enjoying it, but it went on a bit too long, so I take your guidance, Sir Nicholas.

The decision is clearly driven by the point of retirement and by the need to annuitise and, therefore, secure an income in retirement. I take the point that there is a change in the market and that the annuity option looks different from the way it looked 15 or 20 years ago when we lived in a much higher inflation environment with shorter life expectancies. Nevertheless, the market is fairly priced. That is not my view, but that of independent analysts of the marketplace.

There is also a great deal of choice in the form of annuity on offer. In the so-called mid-market, there is a lot more choice in the annuity field than there was before. A lot more flexibility has come into it that gives the real choice that people are looking for. The idea that the denied choice is all to do with people around 75 is a distraction from the real choices that people want to make, and are making, and which they have sufficient freedom and discretion to make under the rules as they are.

The retirement income fund would remain invested and withdrawals between a minimum and maximum amount would be permitted. An annual minimum withdrawal allowance would be set by the provider, and we presume that a member would have to withdraw at least that amount each year, although that is not clear. In setting that minimum withdrawal allowance, the provider would have to ensure that the member’s total income was at least equivalent to a minimum retirement income defined in the clause, although, again, we do not have much information on how that would be determined. Nothing appears to stop the minimum allowance being set at zero if the member’s income from other sources for future years is greater than an MRI. In those circumstances, it is unclear how the maximum withdrawal allowance would work or indeed what its purpose would be.

It would be possible for a provider to set a high maximum withdrawal allowance, because it is impossible accurately to assess an individual’s life expectancy, and there is no express requirement that the RIF must be spread over the whole of the individual's expected lifetime. So if the member’s other income outside the pension scheme is above the minimum retirement income, they could theoretically withdraw large lump sums of tax-advantaged pension savings, or they might choose not to draw any pension income and to pass the money on to their heirs.

Like previous RIF amendments, these are silent on how withdrawals would be taxed and what would happen on a member’s death. I hope that the intention is that RIF withdrawals would be taxed, but, in most cases I would expect the likely tax charge on RIF withdrawals to be less—often considerably less—than the amount of tax relief enjoyed on the funds. It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for people who take the tax relief for pension savings, but choose to convert the money into something other than an income in retirement. The terms are transparent when someone moves into such a fund. I do not accept arguments that suggest that there is unfairness and that people sometimes want their money back. That would be true if they had been lured into the fund and did not know what the terms were, but they are clear and explicit, and apply at both ends of the deal—on coming in with savings, and on coming out and drawing down income in retirement. RIF savings would clearly be tax advantaged compared with other forms of savings. I fear that the amendments are designed to allow a small group of wealthy or relatively wealthy individuals to pass their pension funds on to their heirs on death, rather than to secure a regular retirement income.

Another flaw of the RIF is the risk of running out of money in retirement because it is impossible accurately to assess an individual’s life expectancy. That is a problem with the Canadian system which the hon. Gentleman prayed in aid, and there have been many examples of Canadians running out of income in retirement. Bankers associations in Canada repeatedly warn individuals about that when they go into such schemes. That is a problem. In contrast, insurance companies can predict average life expectancy of particular cohorts. That enables them to provide a guaranteed income for life, regardless of how long that life is, by pooling the risk. That unique feature of annuities is another reason why they are an excellent source of retirement income.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

The Minister mentions uniqueness. Why does he think we are the only country in the world to operate pensions schemes in this way?

James Plaskitt (Labour, Warwick and Leamington)

Largely because this country has the largest private pension provision of income in retirement. A large proportion of the money for retirement income is drawn from private saving and private schemes, which are tax-advantaged, so the public element in support of that private source of funding is much larger than in other countries, which is why, more than 30 years ago, we settled on such an arrangement.

Annuities achieve exactly the same outcome for defined contribution pension schemes as exist for defined benefit schemes or, for that matter, state pensions, namely that pensions are paid as a regular stream of income until death and, barring dependants’ pensions, they end with the member’s death. No refund of contributions is given to the estate. It is therefore hard to understand why, in the case of defined contribution pensions, the amendments seek to allow lump sums to be paid and money to be passed on to heirs, on death, from tax-advantaged pension funds. I can only conclude that the RIF would be a complex product, aimed at being especially attractive to people with greater wealth, with the objective of using the tax reliefs granted to pension savings for other purposes at the expense of the general taxpayer. In contrast, we are committed to promoting better outcomes for all pensioners in retirement through the reforms in the Bill.

I have rehearsed and further illustrated why we do not accept the proposition of the hon. Member for Eastbourne. I hope that in light of my comments, he will withdraw his amendment.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I rise not merely to apologise to you, Sir Nicholas, for the length of my intervention, but to respond to your invitation. I should like to add the two sentences that I was not allowed to add earlier, which I am sure will require no response from the Minister. By moving from a defined benefit world to a defined contribution world, we are changing the parameters of pension provision. One of my criticisms of the defined contribution world is that, in that world, the pensioner takes all the risk. I simply do not understand the argument that, when people reach retirement age, they will be unable to take any more risks and will have to purchase an annuity. That was the basis of the Minister’s argument.

The world of annuity provision has changed, and is changing, and there are several products on the market that could help resolve some of the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne mentioned. We need to widen choice as a point of principle. Clearly, the Minister will not accept the amendments today, but my hon. Friend was right to table them and have this debate. I fear, however, that it will require the return of a Conservative Government to office to provide future pensioners with the wealth and breadth of pension choice in retirement that the Conservatives think appropriate.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am disappointed by the Minister’s response but not surprised as I have heard it all before. All I can do is endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale. This idea’s time has not quite come, but it will come shortly. I hope that officials do not put those files away too deep in the archives because when the next Conservative Government are elected, this idea will be high up on our to-do list. We may want to return to this issue at a later stage of the Bill, but for the moment, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 190, in schedule 8, page 88, line 16, at end insert—

‘Pensions Act 1995 (c. 26)

In section 7(3), at the end of paragraph (b), the word “or”.’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 191 and 192.

Government new clause 23—Appointment of trustees.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

With these measures, we seek to provide innovation in the pensions market while understanding the risks that new development might present and ensuring that the Pensions Regulator’s powers remain adequate to the task.

The amendments revise the regulator’s powers under the Pensions Act 1995 to appoint trustees. Trustees have a central role in our occupational pension system. They are responsible for running pension schemes in the best interests of members. However, there can be times when a board of trustees is not able to deal with the challenges that it faces, perhaps because it does not collectively have the knowledge and expertise it needs, or because of a conflict of interests. Under the Pensions Act 1995, the regulator has to install trustees. Where appropriate, those trustees can be independent—professional trustees that are fully independent of the employer or any other interest in the scheme. That power is a key element of the regulator’s risk-based approach to regulation. For example, the regulator recently used that power to install independent trustees in a scheme whose employer had been taken over by a new organisation that sought to install its own senior staff as trustees and to manage the scheme’s assets, so as to achieve returns to shareholders of the new organisation from those scheme assets. The regulator identified that that situation posed a serious risk to members’ benefits because the proposed trustees would have a conflict between their fiduciary duty and their duty to maximise returns to shareholders.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I have been following the Minister’s case closely. Surely the example that he gives in support of his case would be amply covered by the existing wording, “necessary”, as opposed to the new wording that he wants to introduce under new clause 23, which would be “reasonable”.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I will come to that point in a moment, but let me continue to illustrate the example that has recently become evident. The regulator took the view that in order to ensure that members were properly protected it needed to install independent trustees to safeguard those members’ interests. That case is one example of the way that developments in the pensions market can be very fast moving.

Risks in the pensions environment can change quickly. New clause 23 makes two changes. First, it would replace the “necessary” task in section 7(3) of the Pensions Act 1995 with one of reasonableness, so that the Pensions Regulator may take action to appoint trustees where it is reasonable to do so. The “necessary” test was introduced in the context of a different regulator and a different market environment. A key shortcoming of the former regulator, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, was its inability to respond adequately to the emergence of new risks. The “necessary” test requires a high burden of proof that can unnecessarily inhibit appropriate regulatory intervention. Reducing that threshold to “reasonableness” provides a more appropriate tool for tackling risks to members’ interests.

I have already illustrated how those risks can quickly change. If regulation is to be effective it must be sufficiently agile to enable swift intervention where there is justification. A “reasonable” test would deliver that: it is well known in law, it will provide the regulator with a less fettered power, and it will remain transparent and proportionate. The second change will give the regulator the flexibility to install trustees in circumstances where doing so is in members’ interests, but the case does not meet the current narrow tests for action. Those changes do not alter the fact that the Pensions Regulator has to abide by the well-established principles of fairness and reasonableness in making decisions. The use of those powers remains subject to the approval of the regulator’s independent determinations panel and is subject to appeal to the Pensions Regulator tribunal. Amendments Nos. 190 to 192 are minor and technical changes consequential on the new clause.

I close with a few words about the general context of the amendment. There have been a number of recent developments in the pensions buy-out market, with the emergence of new providers and new business models. Much of that innovation is welcome, but we must ensure that risks are appropriately managed. Traditionally, pensions have been backed either by an employer or by the capital reserves that insurers must have. That backing is critical in giving members security that their benefits will be provided as promised. We need to ensure that trustees are looking carefully at proposals for new buy-out solutions to make sure that they provide the right levels of security for their scheme members. A business model that does not have either of those sources of backing should prompt questions about the security of member benefits.

For our part as the Government, we are watching developments closely. We continue to keep the legislative framework under review to ensure that it remains effective, and that the regulatory regime is proportionate to the risks to members’ benefits and, indeed, to the Pension Protection Fund; and, of course, we remain in discussion with the regulator on such issues.

If developments in the market suggest that further changes to the regulator’s powers are required, we will consider such changes carefully, but we would not legislate in ways that could add costs to legitimate business transactions unless we are convinced that change would deliver proportionate improvements to the regulatory system.

I hope that that has been helpful in setting out the background to the amendments, and that it flagged up where our thoughts are. It is important to respond to developments in the market such as those that we have seen. As I said, some of them are welcome, but some have raised concerns. It is right that we should keep the issue under review, and that is what we are doing.

Let me just say about the necessary test, and the point raised by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, that if a range of options is available to the regulator, “necessary” is hard to demonstrate, even if installing trustees is the most cost-effective way of dealing with an issue. It is better to have a phrase that says that we need to ensure that the regulator acts in a reasonable way, rather than one that says that we have to meet the high level of proof that is required with the word “necessary”.

It may appear that the amendment will give massive extra powers, but it will not in practice. It merely clarifies the position of the regulator. In my comments a few moments ago, I demonstrated that we will keep a careful eye on the buy-out market, which is an area that we consider needs to be watched with a great deal of care.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. Before I call the spokesman for Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Minister referred to the hon. Member for Bournemouth. I believe he meant the hon. Member for Eastbourne.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Just to clarify, I represent Eastbourne, the jewel of the south coast. It was known as the empress of watering resorts in its day.

I want to focus on new clause 23. This is an important debate, and the Minister was right to set out carefully the background to it. Something that has certainly caused me concern for some time is whether the regulatory framework is keeping up with developments in the market.

Yes, there is a respectable and welcome business model for buy-outs. I met with Paternoster and Mr. Mark Wood, for example, who I believe were first into the field, but there has been a plethora of other people piling in, if I can put it like that, to what is clearly the way of the future. Indeed, on one occasion I slightly jokingly asked Lawrence Churchill of the PPF whether he thought that in due course the PPF would be needed if the buy-out process continued at the level that it might in the future.

Clearly, there is a benefit to be had with a properly regulated and properly resourced buy-out market by moving anxieties from both the sponsoring employers and the members of the schemes, as long as we can ensure certainty that they will still receive their pensions. Who knows? In due course, that might considerably reduce the need for the PPF, and that might not be a bad thing.

I am puzzled by the direction that the Minister is coming from because the argument that will be put forward by the buy-out specialists is that we are already heavily regulated. As I understand their business model, they are regulated as though they were insurance companies via the Financial Services Authority, I assume, and have significant requirements for capital and so on to ensure that they can deliver what they promise. In fact, it could be argued that they are more heavily regulated than they would be if they were regulated as pension funds.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Does the hon. Gentleman have concerns when some buy-outs are orchestrated from beyond regulatory direct control by companies based in the Channel Islands or parts of Europe?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

That is a subject for legitimate concern. I totally agree. Who knows how that market will develop as time goes on? Clearly, people are in it for the reason that there is money to be made. There is nothing wrong with that. We are all capitalists now. We believe in a fair profit. No doubt, new Labour is a firm believer in profit. I hope that it is anyway.

Assuming that we are talking about the Paternoster business model, which is substantially resourced and extremely well run by people with massive experience who know exactly what they are doing and who, in turn, are fully regulated by the FSA, we need have no concerns. However, there may be some fringe operators about whom we must be more worried. Taking the mainstream business model as it has developed so far, the regulatory framework is in place. In some respects, it is as strict as—if not stricter than—the pension regulatory framework so I am puzzled by the need for such a measure at the moment.

Nor am I entirely with the Minister’s arguments. His initial example was entirely satisfactory in respect of the necessary test under section 7 of the Pensions Act 1995, but it would be interesting to know whether that point has been taken as a matter of law. What is driving it? Presumably the regulator has said that there is a chink in the armour and has asked for it to be sorted out. That is my point about the substitution of the word “reasonable” for “necessary”. I entirely understand the legal arguments; the substitution obviously makes it significantly less burdensome to prove the need for the appointment of new trustees.

The hon. Gentleman did not touch in as much detail on the insertion of a new paragraph (d), which would state:

“otherwise to protect the interests of the generality of the members of the scheme”.

For the life of me, I do not understand why that is not covered already under section 7 of the Act. The whole point of that is

“to secure that the number of trustees is sufficient”.

Well, that is fairly obvious and simple. It is also to secure that the trustees have

“the necessary knowledge and skill for the proper administration of the scheme”,—

which is obviously for the generality of the membership—and to

“secure the proper use or application of the assets of the scheme”.

Again, that is presumably for the generality of the members of the scheme. I am not particularly in favour of putting in words that seem to add nothing to a provision. However, if the Minister can persuade me more carefully and suggest instances on which that has been a problem, I would be much more relaxed.

I return to the broader issue, which is that we are entirely with the Minister. We need to keep a close eye on this fast-moving scheme that could bring enormous security and benefits to pension scheme members, but which has to be carefully regulated. The Government of the day would have to move fast as particular matters arise that do not seem as promising or secure. We are with him entirely on, but I am still not wholly convinced that the provisions before us are the right way in which to do that.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am concerned by recent developments in the market, although I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that some of them are beneficial and might produce positive outcomes. In the broad sense, innovation in the financial sector is a good thing, providing that it brings overall benefit. As he indicated, we have seen the evolution of new types of pension vehicles suggesting that the regulator is likely to face situations in the future that might make it difficult, under the current wording, to intervene, because challenges could be made to us over whether such intervention is necessary. That wording represents a hurdle higher than the one that we are seeking to impose.

We want to ensure that there is not the ability to circumvent the regulator’s power through attempts to install trustees in pensions schemes where the actions taken by those trustees could be argued to be to the benefit of certain, but not all, members—not the generality of members. The regulator must consider the overall way in which the pensions industry operates and ensure that it operates to the benefit not just of the generality of members in a particular scheme, but of the pensions industry as a whole. It is important that the organisational design of the regulator’s power provides for sufficient flexibility to address situations that might develop in the market, as well as those developing now, so that if attempts are made to circumvent the regulator’s powers, we have in place the necessary provisions.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the regulator wants those powers, to which the answer is yes. However, I indicate to him that we are considering the matter and might revisit it, either during the passage of this Bill or in subsequent legislation, if necessary and if the market continues to develop. I am happy to meet with him to discuss some of those developments, because he will no doubt be aware of legal cases arising from some of them. However, I do not want to go into those now.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I was going to suggest anyway that this is one of those issues where there is a lot of common ground between the Government and the Opposition. We and the Minister and his officials often talk to the same people. It would be helpful, on a kind of Privy Council basis, if necessary, if we could occasionally compare notes. Something might have to be done in a great hurry, which we would be in a position to facilitate.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I am very grateful for that indication and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are happy to enter into such discussions with him. It might well be that at some stage we have to act very quickly. If we find ourselves in such a position, I shall take him up on his offer.

As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, the regulator feels that the change would be helpful, in light of the changes in the buy-out market. I hope, therefore, that hon. Members will support the amendment.

Clause 109

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 187, in clause 109, page 48, line 12, leave out ‘61’ and insert ‘60’.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 188.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

These are simple drafting amendments. Amendment No. 187 would ensure that clause 60 commenced at the right time on Royal Assent—at the same time as the clauses to which the interpretation provisions relate. We hope that it will avoid the need for an unnecessary commencement order, which would do exactly the same. Amendment No. 188 would ensure that schedule 8 commenced at the same time as clause 108, which it introduces.

New Clause 8

New Clause 12

New Clause 13

New Clause 14

New Clause 15

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a second time.

The new clause is technical and will allow employers and workers to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal against decisions made by an employment tribunal relating to the right not to suffer detriment. That appeal route is available in the context of other employment rights, and not to provide it in this context would appear anomalous. It is an important point of principle that employers and workers are able to appeal against decisions relating to both the right not to suffer detriment and unfair dismissal. Their right to appeal against employment tribunal decisions relating to the right not to be unfairly dismissed is already provided for under the Employment Rights Act 1996.

New Clause 20

New Clause 23

New Clause 24

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 25—Compliance notices.

Government new clause 26—Penalty notices.

Government new clause 27—Review of notices and references to Pensions Regulator Tribunal.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

Can I indicate to the hon. Member for Eastbourne—if he does not listen I will call him “the hon. Member for Bournemouth” again—that I am grateful for the conversations we have been able to have in recent days about some of the issues relating to employers and the offering of financial inducements to workers in order not to participate in pension schemes? I am taking forward some of the discussions we have had in a separate context. Dealing with this particular set of new clauses, I have taken the view that I would not move to criminalise employers, but it is important that we look at ways to ensure that employers do not offer their workers financial inducements to opt out of automatic enrolment schemes.

The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey spoke recently about the possibility of employers seeking to avoid recruiting those who would choose to remain enrolled, and I subsequently wrote to the Committee on this issue, setting out our reasons for favouring a pre-employment prohibition over an individual right. These amendments seek to introduce such a prohibition, addressing the risk that some employers might try to avoid their new employer duties up front, by not recruiting anyone who wishes to remain opted into a pension scheme.

They could do this, for example, by overtly advertising on this basis or by asking questions in an application form. They could also ask at interview about the applicant’s current scheme membership status and whether they would opt out of a pension scheme if they were offered the job. They could make a job offer which stipulated or implied that there was a condition on the applicant agreeing to opt out of a pension scheme. Although clause 49 would make any such provision in an agreement void in itself, they could still make that offer.

We do not expect that there will be any significant number of employers who are going to be involved in this sort of disreputable behaviour, but we want to ensure that we do not have a loophole here, and we are determined not to allow employers to sift out, in effect, applicants who would wish to join or remain in pension schemes. For employers, this prohibition would be contravened if they made any statement or asked any question that expressly or implicitly indicated that a job application might be determined by reference to whether an applicant might opt out of automatic enrolment. The Pensions Regulator would be tasked with enforcing this prohibition, and would have the power to issue compliance notices and impose other financial penalties where breaches were shown to have occurred. As with other penalties for non-compliance, these will be set out in regulations, although we intend that they should be set at the same level—that is, a proposed maximum of £50,000. For the individual, a pre-employment prohibition would mean that they could complain to the regulator if they had evidence that the employer had contravened the prohibition by indicating that the job would only be available on the condition that they opted out of membership.

We feel that an individual would be much more likely to make a complaint to the regulator than to have to bring a case directly to an employment tribunal or against a prospective employer, which is what would happen with a pre-employment right. There is a further advantage, in that the regulator would be able to consider the implications for multiple complaints received against the same employer. We will continue to discuss with the regulator the detail of how this prohibition can be effectively enforced as part of its risk-based approach to compliance. We will continue to consider the vital issue of the communications strategy which will need to ensure that both employers and individuals get the information they need to understand the implications of this measure.

The new clauses would provide an effective deterrent to the small number of employers who might seek or attempt to avoid their employer’s duties by trying to get people to opt out of automatic enrolment or opt out of the pension scheme as a condition of employment. We would, in effect, be protecting those good employers who seek to ensure that they are in a position to provide proper tension schemes for their employers. This is about creating a level playing field for all employers, without creating a specific right that individuals would be unlikely to defend.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out his stall on new clauses 24, 25, 26 and 27. We understand the need for those new clauses and will not be voting against them. They are good as far as they go and I buy into the argument about a level playing field for employers, which is important in an area with increased employer costs. We must support good employers and ensure that rogue employers cannot undercut them, which in tight market conditions can be critical and can lead to the survival or otherwise of a business, as Committee members with business experience will testify.

I have a couple of points to make on new clause 24. I was contacted recently by someone who was a trustee of a pension scheme. He has clearly been following our proceedings carefully over the internet—I do not think that he has attended the Committee—and was aware of new clause 1, which my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne and I, and other hon. Friends tabled earlier on. Although we cannot debate that new clause now, Sir Nicholas, it said that an offence would be committed if an employer offered financial inducements to opt out of an automatic enrolment scheme. The gentleman whom I have mentioned was pleased with new clause 1 and thought that it might have led to the Minister’s tabling new clause 24.

The point has been made to me that

“once an individual is in the employer’s employment, the latter will be completely free to subvert the automatic enrolment process by offering threats or inducements in relation to possible variations of the contract of employment or alterations of its term, so as to secure an opt-out from”

the personal account scheme. Nothing in new clause 24 or the other new clauses that we are considering would prevent that.

My correspondent helpfully provides a specific illustration of a practice that he tells me is current within the university employment world,

“whereby it is represented to a member of staff newly appointed on a limited term contract—typically a researcher—that if he or she opts out of occupational pension provision”

there just might be a better chance of their contract being renewed next year. I hope that the Minister is following me intently and understanding the argument. My correspondent continues:

“The plausibility of this representation has been heightened by the practice of some research councils (which I believe still continues) of providing grants on the assumption that 14%”—

considerably higher than the 3 per cent. that we are talking about in terms of personal accounts—

“will be added to the basic salary costs of a project by way of employer contributions”

to the relevant pension scheme. However, they are

“not clawing back the net saving if those employed with the funds opt out of that scheme.”

In other words, research councils are providing money to employ someone and giving an extra 14 per cent. That 14 per cent. is not going into a pension scheme and the university is renovating the science laboratory or employing another secretary or something like that. I am not familiar with that, but it has been put to me that it is a current practice. All of us should be extremely grateful to people up and down the country who, by virtue of the internet, are following in great detail the new clauses and amendments put forward by all members of the Committee, the responses of the Government and so on.

I am reasonably persuaded that there is an issue here because, at the risk of labouring the point, financial pressures on universities in this case, rather than businesses, are acute. Everything is costing more these days, so the desire to save money from any quarter is huge.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am very interested, as I see the Minister is, in what my hon. Friend is telling us. Does not it make him think that if this sort of thing happens in the groves of academe, how much more likely it is to happen in the corner bodywork shop or the fish and chip shop or the small hairdresser’s or whatever?

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, although we should not assume that universities are centres of moral virtue in every aspect. The point he makes is that we are legislating for every type of employer, large and small, in every sector up and down the country.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

On the subject of moral virtue in universities, my hon. Friend may know that at the university of Oxford, a lecturer can be removed from office for gross immorality, whereas a professor can only be removed for persistent gross immorality.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

Order. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman should respond to that, unless he can connect it directly to the new clauses.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

I am grateful to you, Sir Nicholas, for saving me from the—I will not quite say stinging—intervention from my hon. Friend, who has a delightful habit of enlivening and informing our proceedings in all sorts of ways, even if not entirely within order.

My correspondent has done his homework and has studied new clause 24 in some detail. I feel that it is a bit mean on the Minister, because this letter has come into my possession relatively recently so I have not had the chance to amend the new clause, even if it is possible to do so—probably not. My correspondent makes various proposals to amend the new clause. He has gone into some detail to try to address the points that I have made. I do not think that it would be helpful to go through the specific points that he is making; it would be difficult for the Hansard writers. Perhaps I might share the relevant points with the Minister by way of correspondence later. That would probably be a more helpful way to proceed. Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister has taken my general point. I know that conversations have been had and the Opposition welcome that from the point of view of consensus. All I ask is for the Minister to indicate in his response whether he will look at the proposals in relation to the new clause, and have an open mind to tweaking new clause 24 slightly on Report.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I will try to make a brief intervention, rather than a longer speech later. What are the two critical points? First, that is a specific problem relating to people who, traditionally, are employed on short-term contracts, which are then renewed. Second, as a consequence, it is not so much a recruitment issue, which is what the new clause refers to, but a negotiation of terms and conditions issue. That may be the area in which the new clause might be amended when the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for that brief intervention.

Andrew Selous (Conservative, South West Bedfordshire)

My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale is right. Those are the specifics of the case that I laid out. He is right to summarise it in that way. I am still considering whether there might be other cases, perhaps within the field of employment, where it might be best or necessary to amend new clause 24 slightly further. My hon. Friend is right about the specifics of the case that I have read out. I would ask for the Minister’s open-mindedness and whether we might have further discussions on the issue that I laid before the Committee.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

First, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his indication of broad support for my new clauses. He raised an issue of post-employment inducement, particularly where short-term contracts were involved, which greatly concerns me. He made some telling points. He has asked for an open mind, but I think I have a closed mind: that sounds like something that we have to deal with. I am not sure that we can deal with it here, at the moment, but I appreciate, having sight of his letter and the issues raised, that we do not want that sort of behaviour occurring. I do not think that the appropriate way of dealing with the matter would be by amending the new clause, but probably with another new clause in due course. Let me have a look at that. He raised some valuable insights, which we need to take account of. I am happy to do that and to respond positively to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

New Clause 25

New Clause 26

New Clause 27

New Clause 3

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This is an important issue, but I hope that I can take it briefly on the basis that we are all, apparently, on the same side. It is about restoring the earnings link. I go up and down the country addressing audiences of pensioners, and the one issue that I can be sure will come up sooner or later is the earnings link and the fact that it was broken in 1980. So, I shall delve into its history. It is important, however, to recognise that it is the Government’s policy to restore the earnings link, that it was our policy in our previous election manifesto—it obviously made all the difference—to do so, and that for all I know, although there is no representative present from the Liberal Democrats, they would like to do much the same. In fact, they probably would have liked to do have done it last week.

All that innocent little new clause 3 would do is make the Secretary of State announce to Parliament his intention about the timing of that important decision and the implementation of section 5 of the Pensions Act 2007 when the legislation before us comes into force. This is the ultimate probing amendment, because it tries to get out of the Minister where the Government are on that promise.

It is worth delving into the history of the issue, as I said. There is a myth that the earnings link existed for years, decades, perhaps even centuries before 1980, and then the wicked Conservative Government under Maggie Thatcher got rid of it. However, it was implemented only in 1974, following the general election in February of that year, so it lasted barely six years. The incoming Conservative Government in 1979 inherited an economy in complete meltdown, with roaring inflation, the public finances in a very bad state—

James Duddridge (Conservative, Rochford and Southend East)

Nationalisation.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Nationalisation of course, which stalks the land again and is very much the flavour of the month, and massively powerful trade union barons.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

Will the hon. Gentleman pay tribute to Lord Rooker and my former MP, Audrey Wise, for having the foresight to move the amendment that introduced the link in the first place?

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Absolutely. The Rooker-Wise axis has its place, quite rightly, in the history books, and the hon. Gentleman was right to remind us of it.

The incoming Conservative Government were faced with an almighty mess, and they decided to break the earnings link in 1980. Before Government Members start winding up their ersatz outrage, it is worth remembering that the current Prime Minister, previously the Chancellor, built his now somewhat shaky reputation for financial prudence partly on the fact that in opposition, he told the Labour party that they could not restore the link with earnings. So, when Labour came into office, they had no such promise to make, and they have done absolutely nothing about it in the years since.

Interestingly, if we fast-forward to the Turner pensions commission, in its second and final report, it recommended that the link between the BSP and average earnings be restored, starting ideally in 2010 or 2011. If we return to a point that we have debated in a different context in this Committee, the commission considered the measure to be part of a package: to fund the restoration of the link, the state pension age would be increased to 66 over two years, to 67 and ultimately to 68, starting in 2044.

We have already legislated, in section 5 of the 2007 Act, to restore the link, so all we need is a decision from, presumably, the Chancellor, if he can be torn away from his other, pressing considerations. As I understand it, the Government intend to restore the link either in 2012, subject to affordability and the fiscal position, or, at the very latest, by the end of the next Parliament in 2015. That is lifted directly from “Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system”, published in May 2006. Of course, the problem with that is that there is no certainty. As the National Pensioners Convention pointed out, by then some 3 million pensioners sadly will have passed away.

We tabled amendments to the Pensions Act 2007—this demonstrates how consistent we are on this issue, as on others—proposing that the Government announce their decision. At that stage, Ministers were not prepared to accept such an amendment, but I think that the time is fast approaching when we should be told what the current plan is. I am not normally one for quoting the Trades Union Congress extensively, but it said, in its briefing on this new clause, that it

“has long campaigned for a more generous basic State Pension”,

which is true, and that it welcomes the commitment in the 2007 Act to restore the link. It continues:

“Restoring the link with earnings is the fairest way to ensure that all pensioners share in national prosperity. This should take place as soon as possible and we continue to urge the Government to do this by 2010 at the latest in order to provide vital assistance to current pensioners.”

I urge the Minister to tell us what the plan is.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I apologise for my brief absence from the Committee. I would like to speak briefly in support of the new clause. The hon. Member for Eastbourne made some important points about the debilitating effect of the current uncertainty over the timing of the restoration of the link with earnings. The provisions in the Bill setting up the personal accounts and so on with a fixed timetable, for introduction in 2012, which we debated earlier, are designed to give a great degree of certainty on that side of the equation. The purpose of the new clause is to give a degree of certainty on the state pension side of the equation.

As a Liberal Democrat, I support very much the view expressed during the passage of the 2007 Act by my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) that the restoration of the link with earnings should be brought forward to as early a date as possible. At that stage, we proposed 1 April 2008. Time has elapsed, but there seems no reason in principle why the restoration should not take place in 2009. The Government have said that 2012 is the likely date, but it could be as late as 2015, depending on the timing of the general election and the extent of the subsequent Parliament. That provides for a great degree of uncertainty. In the time that elapses between now and 2012 or 2015 the value of the basic state pension, in relation to average earnings, will erode substantially further.

Already, the value of our basic state pension, as a proportion of average earnings—I accept that the latter has increased substantially—is lower now that it was in 1950, I think. We need to set the basic state pension on a different path so that it can keep up with earnings, which is why the restoration of the link is so important. It has been campaigned for widely outside this House. We should get on with it as soon as we can. By agreeing to this new clause, we would at least require a degree of certainty from the Government, which they have not so far been willing to give us. Perhaps the Minister is about to do so.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

It takes a certain amount of brass neck to present the Conservative party in the light of defending pensioners, particularly after what was done in the 1980s. However, we did not come into Government in 1997 with a commitment to restore the link. We took the view that we had to deal with some of the problems in the economy that we had inherited, and we sought to do so. The Government stated in their White Paper, “Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system”:

“During the next Parliament, we will re-link the uprating of the basic State Pension to average earnings. Our objective, subject to affordability and the fiscal position, is to do this in 2012, but in any event by the end of the Parliament at the latest. We will make a statement on the precise date at the beginning of the next Parliament.”

That remains the situation, and I am not going to make any announcement to change that policy. It is the Government’s agreed policy, and on that basis I reject the new clause.

However, with reference to the comments made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, it is important that we do not mislead people by suggesting that pensions are somehow at the same level as in 1950 or indeed 1918. Most people today who have retired are not reliant on the basic state pension exclusively. Most have further pension entitlements, and if they do not have a second pension, they are likely to be able to apply for pension credit. The minimum level of income to which pensions would fall would be around £119, which differs somewhat from the very low level of around £69 on which pensioners back in 1997 were expected to exist. As I said in the Chamber yesterday, even then it would probably not have bought a bottle of plonk at the Bullingdon club.

The situation for pensioners has changed, and we want to change it further, but we need to do so at the right time.

John Greenway (Conservative, Ryedale)

I intervene solely to say that it is entirely correct that we should be having this discussion under your chairmanship, Sir Nicholas. If I remember correctly, when the link was broken, you were the robust Chairman of the then Select Committee on Social Services, which in those days was against the breaking of the link.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

If I remember correctly, Sir Nicholas, you paid a price in due course for your robustness. You deserve our respect for that.

David Borrow (Labour, South Ribble)

Will my hon. and learned Friend put on the record the fact that although the link has not been restored for the basic state pension, we look forward to that being done as soon as possible, and the Government have made progress in restoring the link for the pension credit?

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

We have indeed moved pension credit upwards, and the poorest pensioners, who were our priority when we came to Government, have received the most help. We will continue to do that, and we made announcements before Christmas. We have introduced schemes such as winter fuel payment. There is a broader agenda, which we need not go into in respect of this amendment, save to say that the Government have made helping the poorest pensioners a priority. We hope in due course to be able to restore the link that the Conservatives removed, but we will do so at a time when it is appropriate and proper.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

Naturally, I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to go further, as I am sure millions of pensioners will be. It is worth remembering that if the Conservatives had won the last election, we would already have implemented that policy. However, it was not to be, and we must return to the issue.

If I pressed the amendment to a Division, the Government would vote it down, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 4

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause relates to another promise that I hope that I can get the Minister to redeem—perhaps I will have more luck with this one. It is about some transitional support and assistance for SMEs—small and medium-sized enterprises—for the introduction of personal accounts.

In its brief on the subject, the CBI makes the point that while the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill sets out clearly the likely total cost to British business of implementing personal accounts, the cost falls disproportionately on smaller firms. While the average cost of contributions is 0.6 per cent. of all labour costs, it is 0.5 per cent. for large employers and 0.9 per cent. for smaller firms. For some, the cost would be as high as 2.5 per cent, which is a significant chunk out of the bottom line. The CBI also makes the point that employers, particularly smaller employers, have a limited capacity to absorb the cost.

The Minister will be aware that the CBI, along with other organisations that I will mention in a moment, has set out its suggestions as to how to deal with that. It says that the best way to ensure compliance and to minimise economic pain is to ease the burden on smaller firms by allowing them more time to adapt. It talks about three basic principles: there should be a limited period to help firms to adapt, with assistance phased out after that period; the scheme should be simple for employers to understand and administer, and claiming should be simple; and there should be no perverse incentives that could adversely affect the growth of small business. The CBI says that a potential solution would be its own proposal for the design of the scheme, which would involve refunding a proportion of the mandatory contribution made to employees’ personal accounts for exempt schemes. That would mean that employees would be saving at the same rate, but the firm would have a little more breathing space in which to adapt.

The British Chambers of Commerce makes similar points. It has five proposals: a reduction in the first five years of employers’ national insurance; a flat rate lump sum payment to cover costs associated with implementation; repayment of ongoing employer costs in administering the system; the creation of a special training and education budget for business organisations, which is also seen as a necessity by other business organisations; and the allocation of a Government budget for communicating the changes to the business community so that it is clear that companies that have to pass on increased employment costs to their customers have done so because of the new pensions system.

In his evidence, Mr. Mike Cherry from the Federation of Small Businesses also made some important points about the federation’s concerns for smaller businesses and mainly, in fairness, about information and education. That, of course, will be disproportionately important for the smaller employer who has so much else to cope with. In his oral evidence, Mr. Cherry said:

“What concerns us considerably is the cost, as well as the administrative impact, that it is likely to have on the smallest employers.”——[Official Report, Pensions Public Bill Committee, 17 January 2008; c. 67, Q88.]

Finally, it is worth touching on the excellent and detailed work of the Engineering Employers Federation, particularly that of Mr. David Yeandle, who we all know well. It has put together a submission and a very detailed appendix to its written evidence about the case for supporting small firms and a possible model for doing that. That is all set out in great detail in the appendix and certainly bears further reading by members of the Committee.

All those things are designed to help the Government to reach the most satisfactory solution. I do not think that there is any question that Ministers are aware that the situation has to be addressed. I am sure that their finest minds have been working on it—perhaps even one or two Ministers have as well. I am looking forward to perhaps a glimpse from the Minister of what they have in mind.

Danny Alexander (Liberal Democrat, Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey)

I wish to speak briefly in support of the objective behind the new clause: to ensure that the provisions for transitional assistance are clear, particularly to small businesses. The Minister has made clear in his evidence, and at other times, that he considers the matter to be of some importance. It has been clear from the evidence that we have heard from small business organisations, and from conversations that I have had with small employers in my constituency, that there needs to be a sense that the Government understand the problems and hurdles that they will have to overcome to implement the Bill: both the financial costs that will be borne, and the significant time costs to employers, particularly small employers, of having to get their heads around the implications for their businesses.

The point was made to me at a small car saleroom that I visited in my constituency that keeping track of pensions legislation takes up considerable time at a management level. The manager told me that he would rather spend that time managing his business. It is important that the Government understand the problems that small businesses will face in implementing legislation that will benefit their employees. That is why I hope that the Minister will say more about his proposals for supporting small business in the transition to implementing the Bill. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire—I believe that he is a member of the Federation of Small Businesses—made clear in the evidence session that the matter was of concern to him, so transitional assistance for small businesses is considered important on both sides of the Committee. It would be helpful if the Minister could illuminate us further about his plans.

Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)

I agree that the co-operation of employers and their support for the changes, particularly the introduction of personal accounts, are critical. It is therefore important that we continue to engage with organisations such as the CBI and FSB to ensure that we keep employers supportive of a project that will involve some extra burdens for them. It is envisaged in the December 2007 impact assessment that it will cost micro-employers—the smallest employers—an average of £200 to implement the Bill’s provisions. That will cause small employers some concern, but it is manageable.

The new clause asks for a level of financial support for smaller employers. I join in the praise of Mike Cherry of the FSB and David Yeandle of EEF, and I am grateful to them for the work that they have done in drawing the matter to our attention. We will consider it with an open mind in the coming couple of years, but now is not the time to make a decision on it. We need to examine the detail of how we see the implementation of the personal accounts regime happening, and we will listen with care to advice from the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority about how it will be implemented and the precise issues that will face small employers, particularly micro-employers. We want to be in a position to identify how we can best provide assistance.

We are providing some assistance at the moment by phasing in the personal accounts regime and ensuring that it is introduced in a way that enables employers to measure the impact on their budgets with care. It will be phased in over three years. Only 23 per cent. of firms with fewer than five employees currently offer pension provision with an employer contribution, compared with more than 60 per cent. of firms with more than 50 employees. The key firms to work with are the small ones to ensure that we keep them on board. We are conscious of the problem and are still listening to the employers’ organisations. We are aware that they have requested some sort of financial contribution, but we are not in a position to take a view on whether that, or another way of providing assistance, is the best way of helping them.

I assure Committee members that the Government will continue to listen to representations. We are not in a position to take a decision today or in the immediate future. We need a more detailed picture of how PADA will develop personal accounts and we need to know the precise implications for micro-employers so that we can make judgments about the best way of providing them with further help.

Nigel Waterson (Conservative, Eastbourne)

I am grateful to the Minister because he has said what the employers’ organisations and I wanted to hear. He said that he will continue to engage with them at ministerial and official level, that these matters will be tackled at some point, that he has an open mind about the different options, and that those options will be worked through in the next year or two until we find a solution. I am very happy with that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Nicholas Winterton (Conservative, Macclesfield)

I have been most impressed with the constructive way in which the debate has gone this afternoon and this evening. I feel confident that we might beat the programme motion and finish before the end of the week. I look forward to seeing members of the Committee on Thursday morning.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. David.]