---

Pensions Bill

As the Minister has explained, the Government amendments are, in effect, a compromise arising from the Lords debates, and on behalf of the official Opposition, I welcome them. Lord Fowler made a powerful case in the Lords for the principle of post-legislative scrutiny. In recent times, we have heard a lot about pre-legislative scrutiny, and that of course has its place. However, one can actually sustain the argument that scrutinising the effects of legislation after the event is every bit as important, if not more so. In a powerful speech in the Lords on 11 July, Lord Fowler made his case extremely well, based on his massive experience in such matters. He gave two specific examples. The first related to the Social Security Act 1986, the state earnings-related pension scheme and subsequent issues such as compensation claims and the non-issue of leaflets. In that case, he thought that post-legislative scrutiny would have made a significant difference. Lord Fowler’s second example related to some of the issues dealt with by the parliamentary ombudsman, the High Court, the European Court and Select Committees in recent times. It is not for me to rehearse all the arguments on this occasion. The issues are currently before the courts, but he uses them to show how a post-legislative scrutiny procedure could have picked up some potential problems and some of the misinformation on the basis of which the ombudsman found that there had been maladministration. Lord Fowler came in for a certain amount of criticism from the Minister in the other place for leaving rather vague the issue of who would actually perform such scrutiny. However, as Lord Fowler said:"““The amendment would give the Government maximum flexibility.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2007; Vol. 693, c. 1410.]" There is some merit in that view. Most important is the commonsense point that every time we pass pensions legislation in the House the law of unintended consequences runs through it. It was trumpeted that one of the principal aims of the Pensions Act 2004 was the protection and enhancement of defined benefit schemes. In fact, the measure accelerated the closure of such schemes to new entrants and even to existing members, so I permit myself a wry smile when I consider the arguments in the Lords about the time scale for post-legislative scrutiny. Is it not interesting that within barely two years of the 2004 Act the Government’s White Paper announced a review of its provisions? Any Government worth their salt would look closely at such legislation in a much shorter time scale than that proposed in either the original amendment or the compromise amendment. It is ironic that on this very day the Government published the results of the regulatory review. We on the Conservative Benches are keen supporters of Lord Fowler’s proposition that major legislation deserves proper post-legislative scrutiny. I join Lord Fowler in noting the fact that the new Prime Minister has said that he wants to restore the role of Parliament, and we welcome the Government’s deathbed conversion to the principle. I understand that Lord Fowler and his colleagues in the Lords are content with the amendment proposed; therefore I am too, so we shall not oppose it. However, if and when we win the next election we shall certainly carry out our own thorough review of this and other recent pensions legislation.