---

Pensions Bill

I am grateful to the Minister for the speed with which he is seeking to act and for his generosity in suggesting a consultation, which I would welcome. He is right—time is of the essence and we should get on with this. If that means that a shorter than usual consultation period is necessary, or no consultation period at all, we Liberal Democrats would be perfectly happy with that, given the imperative in these circumstances. If I have read amendment No. 22B correctly, it places a restriction on the purchase of annuities for a maximum of nine months. Subsection (1) of the proposed new clause states:"““The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for securing that, during the period of 9 months beginning with the date on which the regulations come into force, the trustees of the relevant pension schemes are prohibited from purchasing, or agreeing to purchase, annuities on behalf of qualifying members””." It was perhaps Lord Skelmersdale who came up with the nine-month period, but the Government obviously agreed to it. Does the Minister think that that is the length of time needed for the Government to introduce and act on the conclusions of the Young review? Given that the House has reached a positive consensus on this very narrow issue, it would be a shame if the limited time scale specified in the amendment meant that, although bulk annuitisation was restricted for that period, it was not until after that period had elapsed that progress was made on using the assets in those funds. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. Like our colleagues in the House of Lords, we Liberal Democrats in this place are more than happy to accept these amendments, which represent a good step forward. I wish only to register my deep sadness that they are not part of the wider lifeboat scheme that the original amendment was introduced as part of.