---

Pensions Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, Amendment No. 25: 25: Clause 7, line 3, after ““purposes”” insert ““, including whether a relevant benefit accrual has occurred within the meaning of paragraph 13 of Schedule 36 to the Finance Act 2004 (c. 12),”” The noble Baroness said: I hesitate to criticise the Minister, but he did not allow me to speak to my amendments to his amendment before replying to my amendments. The purpose of retabling our original amendments, which would have been pre-empted by his amendment, as is clearly marked on the Marshalled List, was to enable me to argue the points that I wished him to answer before he answered them. The Minister might think that I ought to sit down because he has anticipated everything that I want to say. Perhaps his officials will look more carefully at the Marshalled List before they produce his speaking notes in future. We were obliged to table the amendments in this way because we had prepared for this debate before seeing the Minister’s virtual rewriting of Clause 7. I will be speaking to Amendments Nos. 25 and 27, which are amendments to Amendment No. 24, and my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has prepared to speak to Amendments Nos. 26 and 32. As has been noted, Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31, which they replace, will be pre-empted. They should not still be on the Marshalled List, because they have been replaced. Amendment No. 25, as an amendment to Amendment No. 24, simply seeks to get on record—the Minister has done it—that the words ““for all purposes”” would encompass the specific example that I raised in connection with effectively avoiding relevant pension accrual in the terms of the Finance Act 2004 for enhanced protection purposes under pension simplification. ““Pension simplification”” is anything but pension simplification, but there we are. This is crucial because it has huge financial significance for those few people who are affected by opportunities for enhanced protection—I declare an interest in that. However, the Minister has put on record the fact that the words can encompass that particular avoidance of relevant benefit accrual. I should like to go a little further in relation to Amendment No. 27, which states: "““The regulations may make different provisions for different categories of jobholder””." The Minister’s response was that the period should not be too long, but perhaps I may explain why the regulations should allow for different periods. Most employees are on a weekly or monthly payroll and will see fairly quickly whether they have been auto-enrolled into something that they do not understand; they can then query why money is being taken from them. However, it is not always the case that payment is made on a weekly or monthly basis. I raised earlier the question of non-executive directors—I will leave that as open business between us at this stage—some of whom are paid quarterly. I imagine that other part-time employments pay quarterly as well. It could be three months or more before such people get their first payslip and are able to find out what has happened; in such cases, three months may not be appropriate. What happens with workers who go abroad—or, indeed, are based abroad—and the paperwork does not catch up with them? What happens with workers who are in hospital or are otherwise running behind? The purpose of the amendment is to point out that there are many circumstances when it would be right and appropriate for a longer period to be specified by the Government. The Minister pushed back and said, ““We can do longer, but we should not give people a long time because, basically, we want to keep their options to opt out restricted””. He should consider that it is perfectly reasonable to have periods longer than three months—I think that that has been referred to as the time period—for certain categories of employee. That is the point that I have been seeking to make with my amendments. I shall formally move my amendment in order to keep the debate going. I beg to move.