---

Pensions Bill

I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendment No. 28 but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu. I shall be brief. We considered that Lord Fowler’s amendment No. 28 was unnecessary, not least because we have already made commitments to keep under review the reforms enacted by this Bill. However, we have reservations about the exact terms of the amendment. Although we may have an idea about what the term ““post-legislative scrutiny”” means, we are reluctant to commit the Secretary of State to complying with a duty until there is a clear understanding of what that might entail. No final agreement has been reached about what post-legislative scrutiny would entail, so we have proposed instead that the Secretary of State present to Parliament a report on the operation of the Act that will give Parliament an opportunity to consider and debate the findings. We also took the view that 2011 would be too early for a review to be conducted, as only the measures relating to new qualifying conditions for state pensions would have come into effect by then. Many of the provisions in the Bill would not have come into effect by that date, so we suggested in the other place that the Secretary of State should present the report by the end of 2017. That would follow a period of some years when all the measures, apart from the increase in state pension age, had had time to bed in. It would also allow us to consider whether we were taking the appropriate steps to ensure the smooth implementation of the state pension age changes in 2024. It was evident from yesterday’s debate in the other place that their Lordships were dissatisfied with the proposed date for the Secretary of State’s review. We now propose, therefore, that he should present his report by the end of 2014. I understand that Conservative Front-Bench spokespersons in the other place would be satisfied with that compromise, although for completeness I should tell the House that Government amendment (b), to clause 28, is purely consequential. Clause 28 defines the extent of the measures in the Bill, and the amendment would ensure that any review of the operation of the Act in due course would take account of the provisions as they relate to Northern Ireland. I believe that the proposed amendments in lieu are sensible, and consistent with the principles of good administration. I hope that they command the support of the House.