Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 July 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 28, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28C and 28D in lieu. This is the one remaining issue on the Bill. On Tuesday, we had a full debate on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, as we did at Third Reading, so I shall be fairly brief today. The other place has given full consideration to the reason for insisting on Amendment No. 28, which was: "““This House remains of the view that it is appropriate to impose an early obligation on the Secretary of State to arrange for post-legislative scrutiny””," and has given cross-party support to the amendment proposed in its place. It will be seen that the Government have taken note of the strength of feeling that was shown in this House on Tuesday and that they are happy to compromise on the timing of the review. We therefore propose that this should take place before the end of 2014 at the latest—three years earlier than our original proposal and three years later than proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Fowler. By 2014, it is expected that the majority of the provisions of the Act will be in operation. We have never taken the position that we would not review the operation of the legislation once it had been enacted. In our response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s fourth report, we said that we would undertake a post-implementation review once the reforms had had a chance to bed in. We do not consider it necessary to place such an obligation on the statute book but, as I said before, we are happy to give the additional assurance that a statutory requirement will provide. I understand that this compromise has the support of the other Front Benches and the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, and I thank him for that. Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 28, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28C and 28D in lieu.—(Lord McKenzie of Luton.)


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
694 c914-5 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Pensions Parliamentary scrutiny
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk