—Sir Robert Haldane Smith, Knight, having been created Baron Smith of Kelvin, of Kelvin in the City of Glasgow, for life, was introduced between the Lord Macfarlane of Bearsden and the Lord Robertson of Port Ellen.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Who will be invited to take part in the proposed nuclear development forum announced on 12 June; and whether it will include representatives of the bodies engaged in promoting skills and training for work in the nuclear industry.

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is considering the detailed operation and membership of the nuclear development forum. He expects that members should be invited from across the industry to make the most effective forum for ensuring progress on nuclear new build and would expect this to include those responsible for promoting skills and training. He expects to finalise and publish proposals over the summer.

My Lords, does not the Government’s welcome, if somewhat belated, commitment to a substantial civil nuclear programme make it more important than ever that we have a competent, well trained and skilled workforce for that industry? Do the Government recognise that the National Skills Academy for Nuclear, which enjoys the support of all the leading employers in the industry, is very well placed to address this issue, and should therefore be represented on the nuclear development forum? Is not the commitment of employers absolutely crucial to the development of skills training?

My Lords, I agree but, tempting as it may be, I cannot make the announcement on behalf of the Secretary of State, so we will have to wait for it. However, the National Skills Academy for Nuclear is central in ensuring that we get apprenticeships, foundation degrees and upskilling of existing workers in the nuclear force.

My Lords, is the Minister confident that there will be enough trained individuals to be safety inspectors in 2020, considering that there is such a shortage now? What are the Government doing to ensure that this gap is filled?

My Lords, the Government are fully aware of the potential shortage of skilled nuclear inspectors, which is why we allowed a 15 per cent pay flexibility last year for existing and new staff, and is why the NI was able to recruit nine new inspectors earlier this year and has an ongoing recruitment programme. Dr Tim Stone’s review will look into ways to ensure that the NI is ready for significantly increased new build in the future.

My Lords, to go a step backwards, in order to have these skills presumably the individuals concerned will have to have physics and chemistry in their background. What is being done to increase the number of qualified physics and chemistry teachers in schools?

My Lords, the noble Countess is totally correct in her analysis that that is where we need to start to address the problem. We have a £140 million programme over the next three years to encourage the teaching of science, technology and maths in schools. We also have a programme for recruiting teachers, which includes the use of golden hellos to get them into schools, as well as training existing teachers and providing an entitlement for all children doing GCSEs to study two science GCSEs.

My Lords, when does the noble Baroness expect work to begin on the first replacement nuclear power station?

My Lords, construction is expected to begin in 2013 for the first one, for commissioning between 2017 and 2020.

My Lords, what is being done to encourage more of the able and fully trained women members of the engineering profession to stay in it? They are the leaders of the future, who could well and truly be trained to take on the nuclear energy side of things.

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that, as in many other skilled professions, the lack of women joining the profession and being retained in it is a key gap. That is why we have a number of what we call engineering ambassadors, who work to encourage girls in particular to join, and why a lot of employers have programmes to try to encourage women to stay in the profession.

My Lords, at lunch today Professor Sir David King stated that we have enough uranium in this country to last for something like 127 years without importing any more, and that that good stock would be of great benefit to our nuclear industry. Many people are concerned on that issue, so does the Minister think that such good news should be more widely broadcast?

My Lords, again, the noble Baroness is right in her assessment. We always take the advice of Professor King, who was the Chief Scientific Adviser.

My Lords, will the Minister congratulate Cogent, the sector skills council which deals with the nuclear industry, on its work in trying to recruit women into that element of its footprint?

My Lords, I again agree; Cogent has done an extremely good job in attracting not just women but younger people into the engineering profession.

My Lords—

My Lords—

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats, but there is time for both noble Lords.

My Lords, how many departments of nuclear energy will be recreated in our universities? About 35 years ago, there were at least five. How many are there now, and how many do the Government propose to have in future?

My Lords, I do not know the plans of all individual universities, but I am pleased to say that at least two have started to provide undergraduate degrees in nuclear power, and a significant number provide postgraduate degrees in it. I would be happy to write if the information were available, but of course the plans are undertaken by the universities directly.

My Lords, to make teaching in schools interesting in science and technology, one needs practical and experimental work, and there is a lack of training and support for technicians’ careers in schools. Does the Minister recognise that problem, which was pointed out by the Select Committee on Science and Technology in our report last year, Science Teaching in Schools?

Indeed, my Lords. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families is very well aware of this, which is why we have put significant funding into the ability of young children to have STEM education in schools, part of which requires technicians.

My Lords, the Prime Minister was quoted in the press over the weekend as saying that there were to be eight new nuclear power stations. What output will that represent?

My Lords, the reference to eight nuclear power stations was to the ministerial commitment for new nuclear build to at least replace existing capacity. That will mean that we need eight, but of course, given that new nuclear generation has a greater capacity per generator, that is not a cap, but is simply an aspiration to replace existing nuclear.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What consideration they are giving to the possibility of extending the state retirement age beyond the present age of 65, and 68 in 2044.

My Lords, under the Pensions Act 2007, the state pension age for men and women will increase to 68 by 2046. This increase is broadly in line with projected increases in average life expectancy and is a sensible response to the demographic challenge we face today. It will be for future Governments to consider any further increase beyond 68, if evidence indicates that life expectancy continues to further increase in the latter part of this century.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which was rather limited. In the early post-war years, life expectancy after retirement was only a few years. We have seen a much greater increase in retirement years. Is it not clear that the large numbers of doctors and scientists involved in the extension of life will lead to a much greater increase than the Government’s proposed three years, from age 65 to 68, in 2046? What consideration is being given to age in pension provision, given such a change in life expectancy?

My Lords, the timetable for changes until 2046 is at the limit of our current abilities to project life expectancy. Increasing the state pension age to 68 in 2046 is broadly in line with those projected increases, which will ensure, as the Pensions Commission recommended, that each generation spends a broadly similar proportion of adult life receiving the state pension and that our state pension reforms are affordable. Following the state pension reforms, from 2020 to 2050, men will live approximately 21 years after the state pension age; for women it will be 24 years. The time spent after the state pension age over that period as a percentage of working life will broadly be even, at around 30 per cent for men and 33 per cent for women.

My Lords, I may be coming to this subject from the wrong angle, but when I started work in the steel industry in 1951 it was pretty tough. Some men were well over 70 with no pension and very poor conditions of employment. That was rectified under a Labour Government. We are not turning the clock back, are we?

No, my Lords, on the contrary, in the 2007 Act we made significant improvements to state pension provision, and the Bill that we are considering will look at automatic enrolment in private sector schemes for all employees. But my noble friend is right about the changes that have taken place. In 1911 there were 10 individuals of working age for every pensioner; today there are about four; and in 2055 there will be two. One in four babies born today is expected to live to 100. There are now 9,000 centenarians. While I hesitate to mention this, in case they are present, we expect the first 120 year-old female pensioner to be with us in the 2060s.

My Lords, what was the average age last year at which public sector employees retired with a full pension? If women will have to wait eight years longer for their basic state pension, what is the projected rate at which retirement age in the public sector will rise? If the Minister does not have the answers at his fingertips, will he let me know? Will the Government publish every year the average retirement age of public sector employees on a full pension?

My Lords, I will be very happy to seek those figures and provide them to the noble Lord, but we should not confuse the age at which people retire with the age at which the basic state pension becomes payable: those are two separate things. As the noble Lord is aware, between 2010 and 2020 there will be equalisation, currently up to 65, between men and women, with further changes after that. Off the top of my head I think that the average retirement age in the public sector is something like 62, but I will write to confirm that in case it is not right.

My Lords, what steps will the Government take to ensure that employment is available at these later ages? Many employers currently seem reluctant to retain people beyond the normal retirement age. Steps will have to be taken to ensure that employment is available. Do the Government have this in mind?

Yes, my Lords, my noble friend is right to press on this matter. I confirm that there is no national mandatory retirement age, although there is still the default retirement age of 65, which we are committed to reviewing in 2011. There are 800,000 more people between 50 and state pension age in employment now than there were a few years ago, but there are real challenges and we are working with employers to increase flexibility in employment arrangements, to make sure that there is proper skills training for older people as they wish to change their role within the labour market and to make sure that there is not discrimination in practice, although obviously we have dealt with the legislative framework to prevent that.

My Lords, for some time now the Government have been encouraging people to continue in some form of paid employment after the state retirement age. At the moment, this encouragement applies to those up to age 70. First, how many people between 65 and 70 are working and, secondly, what plans do the Government have to increase such encouragement for those beyond the age of 70?

My Lords, that encouragement is not specifically targeted at people up to the age of 70. We encourage every older person who wishes to continue in work to do so for as long as they feel able. I do not have to hand the data concerning those who are actually in employment between state pension age and 70, but I shall happily write to the noble Lord.

My Lords, once we have reached that first point of equality of opportunity, at which the statutory state retirement age is the same for both sexes, may we expect the Government to insist that insurance companies pay on the same basis of non-discrimination and equality for annuities?

My Lords, the noble Baroness is trailing the amendment that we are due to consider very shortly in Committee on the Pensions Bill. It is riveting stuff, and I encourage noble Lords to stay for it. As the noble Baroness will be aware, we do not believe that it is discriminatory that there are different annuity rates for men and women so long as those rates are based on hard evidence and facts, which take into account the differences in longevity between men and women, although the gap in life expectancies is narrowing.

My Lords, will the Government reconsider the review and carry it out a little sooner? It is sad that a lot of the people concerned will probably be dead by the time the review of the current anti-age-discrimination legislation takes place.

My Lords, I think the noble Baroness may be referring to the review of the default retirement age. As I said earlier, we have committed to do that in 2011. There may well be good arguments for doing it early, but that is the commitment that we made. We recognise that it is a potential constraint on people being able to stay longer in the labour market.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

Whether they will require all the air entering passenger aircraft to be filtered.

My Lords, most modern commercial aircraft are fitted with high-efficiency particulate air filters, which are very efficient in removing airborne contaminants such as droplets, bacteria and large viral particles. Compulsory fitting of filters for volatile organic compounds would have to be required by the regulator, the European Aviation Safety Agency, on the basis of evidence that there was a harmful substance in cabin air and that a particular specification of filter would remove it.

My Lords, I am amazed by the noble Lord’s reply because I have had an enormous amount of correspondence on this from cabin crew and pilots. Is the Minister aware that 50 per cent of the air reaching passenger cabins is unfiltered and contaminated with hydraulic fluid and engine oil containing organophosphates? Will the Government take urgent action to require internationally that all aircraft must be fitted with filters before being passed for service?

My Lords, if 50 per cent of the air reaching passenger cabins were unfiltered and contaminated, as the noble Baroness suggests, I have a feeling that there would be a major crisis in the aviation industry and that very few planes would take off. It is not correct to say that. Studies such as those conducted by the European CabinAir project have shown that the levels of chemical and biological contaminants in aircraft are normally lower than in many work environments, such as office buildings. Compulsory fitting of filters, as suggested by the noble Baroness, for volatile organic compounds would have to be required by the regulator on the basis of evidence. At present, there is no such evidence.

My Lords, in our recent exchanges in your Lordships’ House, the Minister failed to respond to the recommendation of the Science and Technology Committee that there should be an epidemiological study of pilots to ascertain the incidence and prevalence of ill health in air crews. Can he now say what the Government’s attitude is to that recommendation and why he referred to there being question marks over the veracity of some of the research conducted? What research was he speaking of; why does he dispute the findings; and will the Government now take this problem more seriously?

My Lords, we do take this seriously, and that is exactly why we have commissioned further research from Cranfield University. There is a question mark over the veracity of some of the research that has been quoted—in particular, that of Professor van Netten. We remain sceptical of that work because, in correspondence with the department, the professor was unable to give information on the chain of custody for samples that were apparently taken without the knowledge of UK airlines. As to the epidemiological survey to which the noble Lord referred, there are some difficulties with the methodology. Those need to be very carefully considered and I understand that further thought is being given to them.

My Lords, I am surprised that the Minister is not resorting to epidemiology as a backstop. Having been through interminable sheep dip and Gulf War veteran cases involving epidemiological studies, which have delayed the answers, does he not agree that epidemiological studies conducted in line with clinical studies, such as those being conducted by Dr Mackenzie Ross at University College Hospital, London, are the way to find the answer to ill health? Will he ensure that the doctor is provided with the information that she requires to conduct those studies?

My Lords, I understand the noble Countess’s question about Dr Mackenzie Ross’s approach to this matter but that researcher has not yet provided sufficient information to justify the very rare step of using CAA pilots’ addresses to recruit them for that form of research. That remains a difficulty. We need to keep a sense of proportion about this issue. If the case were as the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, made out, I think that there would be a profound problem. There is not a profound problem, and no research has yet substantiated that claim.

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept not only that there is the epidemiology problem but that the situation is made much worse because of the often insufficient distribution of oxygen in airliners? It is known to be much less sufficient in economy class than in first class. Surely that makes the matter a far more urgent one for the Government to consider.

My Lords, oxygen supply is a different question from studies of cabin air quality. Let us try to keep a sense of proportion about this. So far, on the worst estimates possible, a fume event—that is what we are talking about—takes place on fewer than one in 2,000 flights, and there is considerable dispute about what the quality of such a fume event might be. I have written to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, on the oxygen issue. There is no evidence to suggest any variation at all in the level of oxygen supply, and my understanding is that the suggestion that the crew somehow interfere with the supply of oxygen is not true either.

Well, my Lords—

My Lords, is it not relevant—

Order!

My Lords, I say to my noble friend that I feel the House wants to move on to the next Question.

asked Her Majesty’s Government:

What steps they have taken to ensure that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education is seen to be fully independent of the universities.

My Lords, in designating the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education as the operator of a student complaints scheme, under Chapter 8, Section 13, of the Higher Education Act 2004, the Government were satisfied that the OIA was able to operate independently of the higher education sector. We are confident that that continues to be the case. The OIA provides a speedy and effective mechanism for resolving student complaints.

My Lords, I am delighted that the Government have confidence in the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, but it has been quite difficult for the public to have confidence because until very recently there were seven university board members to five independent members, and one of the supposedly independent members was a professor who was on the council of a leading university. Is it not important that both the council of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator and its sub-committees should be seen to be independent of the university sector so that all those students and others who rely on the independence of its judgment can have confidence in it?

My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord’s sentiments. My reading of the situation is that of the 13 board members, seven are independent and six are nominated by higher education institutions. Whether or not some of the seven have experience of or are involved in higher education, they are not nominated by a higher education institution. In fact, one of those nominated is a representative of the NUS. I agree that the body needs to be independent and perceived to be so. It is a company limited by guarantee and, therefore, the onus on the board is to take corporate responsibility for that independence, as I believe it does.

My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that from 2006 to 2007 complaints to the adjudicator increased by a quarter? What would she say is the significance of that?

My Lords, I can confirm my noble and learned friend’s comments. It is quite interesting to analyse the significance of that. It could be because there are more issues of concern, or it could be that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is becoming more widely known and, therefore, more able to get involved with dispute resolution, which is very important. We need to keep the numbers in perspective. I believe that from more than 3.5 million students, 150 complaints were upheld, which gives us a sense of proportion.

My Lords, I understand the purpose of the noble Lord’s Question and the need for the body to be seen as independent. Having said that, I know from attending an international conference how very highly regarded the independence of the adjudicator is. Will the Minister confirm that students pursuing courses of higher education in colleges of further education have access to the independent adjudicator? If they do, will she ensure that those students are aware of any such right?

My Lords, I believe that that is the case, but it is still very early days for the office and we should be very encouraged by the enormously important work that it does. The organisation was led by the first independent adjudicator, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whom we all should congratulate on her contribution. We also welcome the new independent adjudicator, Rob Behrens, and wish him well in his role. This is not something that we take lightly. The work of the independent adjudicator is also about ensuring that institutions know how to resolve complaints locally rather than elevating them to the higher status that this body represents.

My Lords, will the Minister say why the source of the funding for the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education changed from being the Government in 2004 to subscriptions from a large number of universities? Surely in the light of this funding, students will rightly have little confidence in being treated impartially by the adjudication process.

My Lords, I am aware that there is a sliding scale of contributions made by institutions, depending on the number of students that they have. I am not sure why we would not want an independent higher education system to have a very independent and successful adjudicator. As far as I understand, the system is working very well and larger institutions are making a much greater financial contribution than the smaller ones, and we should be pleased with the way in which it is progressing.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of the complaints to the independent adjudicator have come from overseas students who feel that they are not getting value for money from their fees? Does she feel that this indicates that these fees might sometimes be too high or that the quality of service might be too low?

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on introducing overseas students’ fees into the discussion on the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education. International students do make complaints, but they are not in the majority. According to the office’s annual report, the majority of complaints come from students who are concerned about their academic status, exam results and degree award. A smaller proportion—9.7 per cent—complains about the contract.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will repeat a Statement on House of Lords reform at a convenient point after 3.30 this afternoon. For this Statement, the usual channels have agreed that the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, should have the opportunity, as the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, to speak within the initial 20-minute period set aside for the Front Benches, along with the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Tyler. As usual, there will then be another 20 minutes for noble Lords from all sides of the House to put questions. I urge them to put short questions so that the maximum number can be taken. I reassure the House that we intend to find time to return to this subject for a full debate at a later stage.

Repeating the Statement will remove time from the Committee stage of the Pensions Bill. It is hoped that the Committee stage will conclude today. If it does not, further time will be available on Wednesday 16 July. I am an eternal optimist.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 June be approved. 22nd Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move the Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Moved, That the draft order and regulations laid before the House on 11 and 18 June be approved. 22nd and 23rd Reports from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 July.—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motions agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD SPEAKER in the Chair.]

moved Amendment No. 126:

I support very much the amendment moved so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. Most of us know the arguments for and against unisex annuities. The arguments for them state that unequal payments are discriminatory, that different life expectancies are irrelevant as there is considerable overlap of the age at which most people die, that they would increase women’s retirement incomes, and that gender is increasingly less relevant compared with health and smoking for annuity pricing. In the arguments against them we may be told that women live longer and therefore their total income produces a broadly similar financial package, that they would cost more for men and therefore reduce couple income, and that they could have a knock-on effect on other areas of insurance policy such as car insurance.

As the noble Baroness argued so well, not having unisex annuities is clearly discriminatory. We do not permit discrimination in employment law, and pensions are deferred pay. In the United States and Canada, annuities bought with employment-funded sums must be unisex—in the strongholds of capitalism it is unisex—and the market may not judge by gender. A similar rule would make all DC payments unisex just as DB pension payments are. Unisex annuities are also used in the state pension system in the UK and Sweden.

Would anyone in the House believe, as the noble Baroness said, that a DB occupational pension should pay out different pensions for the same pay and years? Should a woman teacher, police officer or civil servant retiring at the same age and on the same pay as a male colleague receive a lower final-salary pension? I cannot believe that anyone in the House would support that, yet we are allowing it to happen in DC schemes because it suits and is easy for the private market. Do we think it acceptable that two office managers, a man and a woman, on the same pay and service, in a final salary scheme for 20 years and with the same pension promise, should expect, when the employer closes that scheme and switches over to a DC scheme, to receive unequal pensions for the next 15 years as a result of the employer’s decision? Is that fair? It is clearly discriminatory.

A couple of years ago the Pensions Policy Institute carried out some useful research on the effect of unisex annuities on men’s and women’s financial returns. It found that unisex annuities, despite widespread belief, would not damage men’s retirement income and could usefully improve women’s. In any case, annuity income for most pensioners is only a minor part of their retirement income, which is largely dependent on state benefits.

The PPI research showed that at 65 the best unisex rates are the same as a male annuity rate, which is 14 per cent higher than the comparable female figure. The PPI’s figures on £50,000 in 2004-05 were: £2,754 for a woman, £3,149 for a male and £3,151 for a unisex annuity. Win, win. In a competitive market where it was compulsory, the PPI calculates, the male rate might reduce fractionally by, at worst, 3 per cent and the women’s rate would improve considerably, by 10 per cent or more. Annuity rates today, of course, are somewhat higher.

It is true that women who only have access to income from their husband’s annuity might lose out if his income took a tiny drop. The identical argument was used against equal pay in the 1950s and the 1960s—that married women were dependent on their husband’s wage and would therefore lose out if other women got equal pay and possibly depressed male rates—and it took the law and Barbara Castle to say that such discrimination was not acceptable. We should say the same about pensions. In any case, three-quarters of annuities are single life, so wives are unaffected, and with joint life annuities, as I have said, there is virtually no difference between the male and the unisex rate. We expect to see women develop their own pensions. If the gains and losses are relatively tiny and it is fair to pay men and women the same final-salary pensions, it is discriminatory not to do so in DC pensions, especially as DB schemes fold into DC schemes.

Life expectancy between men and women is narrowing, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said, but life expectancy by social class is wider and widening. Presumably that is why Aviva is going for postcode rates. Let me remind the House of the statistics. Twenty years ago, women lived on average 5.7 years longer than men, and the gap between social class 1 at the top and social class 5 at the bottom was also 5.7 years. Now we are all living longer, but what has happened to the differentials? Women are living three years longer than men—down from 5.7 years—but the social class gap, to my sorrow, has widened from 5.7 to seven years. So the social class gap is now double that of the gender gap and the predictor at 65 shows the same tendency, although not quite as marked. So, if companies wish to cherry-pick they should give those of us with degrees, as a proxy for social class, less favourable terms than those without. Higher education should matter more than high heels in determining annuity rates.

Essentially the market is lazy. It finds it easier to identify gender than it does class, and too many men—although, I am sure, not in your Lordships’ House today—are happy to collude with artificial annuity rates that unfairly discriminate against women. As I say, we do not discriminate in final-salary schemes or in state schemes, and we should not allow discrimination in DC schemes—including, in the Bill we are debating today, personal accounts.

I declare my interest, which is in the register of interests, as a partner in the national commercial law firm Beachcroft, as president of the Chartered Insurance Institute and as chairman of the Life Trust Foundation.

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for her remarkable perseverance and the tremendous amount of work she has done in the area of equality. I recall that I used to be harassed—sorry, contacted—by the noble Baroness when she chaired the Equal Opportunities Commission, where she did very good work. As I think she recognised, though, we are dealing with a reflection of life expectancy—she has already conceded that point—and the price-per-risk principle that lies behind insurance products.

There is, however, some reasonably good news, as both the noble Baroness and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, have just referred to: namely, the life expectancy tables. I shall come back to social class in just a moment. The good news for us men is that our life expectancy is increasing at a far greater rate than that for women. The exact figures in the latest national statistics are that, in the past 25 years, life expectancy at the age of 65 has increased by four years for men and by two point eight years for females. Whatever one says, the noble Baroness will eventually achieve her objective because there will be an equalisation of life expectancy; it is only a matter of time.

I should also declare another interest: I have become an honorary fellow of the Institute of Actuaries. Attending actuarial meetings is a wonderful experience because the general principle is that the longer you live, the longer you will live. It is a wonderful feeling when you emerge from these highly academic meetings knowing that you are going to live longer than you originally thought you were.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, that changes are proposed in the methods used to estimate life expectancy by social class using the longitudinal study by the Office for National Statistics. I refer her—although, knowing her, she has probably already read it—to the work by Louisa Blackwell and Brian Johnson of last autumn in Health Statistics Quarterly.

We will see how the debate develops, but at present it is difficult to find support for the noble Baroness. Over their lifetimes, individuals, whether they are male or female, will receive the equivalent value in exchange for the same-sized pension pot. That is the point that leads me to believe that her amendment should not succeed.

I rise with the words of my noble friend Lady Thomas ringing in my ears: “Say something nice, won’t you, Matthew”. So I will try.

I start by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. She may not know it, but in the dim and distant past I was special adviser to Roy Jenkins when he was Home Secretary, and I remember many meetings considering and discussing the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act. We decided not to introduce this sort of amendment, but life moves on.

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baronesses, Lady Howe of Idlicote and Lady Hollis of Heigham, on this amendment, given that we agree on so much. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, the gap in life expectancy between men and women has narrowed a bit but it is still substantial. It is life expectancy at 65 that matters, because that is the age at which one generally buys an annuity. I would be surprised if the gap were as little as three years at that level, but even if it is, that is very significant. We are not talking about 3 per cent or 4 per cent; three years on an expected life of, say, 20 years, is 14 per cent or 15 per cent, as borne out by the figure given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. That is a significant difference in actuarial expectancy and the rate quoted by somebody in the market who is trying to make a profit.

I did not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, or with the PPI calculations. The best rate in the market can be 15 per cent better than the average, but by definition the best is not the average. On average, there is still a big difference. If everyone started getting the best rate, the market would then change very quickly.

We will be moving amendments to encourage the widest choice, and annuities to be offered on the most actuarially correct basis. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, talked about social class. Will we say that insurance companies have to offer exactly the same rate for every social class? To carry the argument to its logical conclusion, we would have to offer the same rate for annuities to everyone, whatever their age, otherwise it would be age discrimination. There is a genuine theoretical problem and we are in favour of not interfering with the market. If there is a genuine and significant difference in life expectancy, whatever groups are involved, then, sadly, people should be free to quote accordingly. One cannot just say that this approach is wrong and that every other way of pitching this so that it is correctly market-adjusted is right. If such an amendment were passed, insurance companies would, for perfectly understandable reasons, try very hard to find ways of not selling annuities to women. Women would not be best served; unless there were a Star Chamber, the market would not work.

I am sorry, but there is a genuine problem. Let us hope that the gap in life expectancy between men and women continues to narrow so there will not be a problem in future. As my noble friend Lord McNally said, if we are looking at social class, the people who ought to be paying the highest possible prices for their annuities are Members of this House.

I should like to add to the tributes to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for her perseverance. When I was Permanent Under-Secretary in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I was working for her noble kinsman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon. He used regularly to question me about equal opportunities in the Diplomatic Service. It was no coincidence at all that he had just come from having breakfast with the noble Baroness.

I find this amendment, introduced so ably by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, a little strange. It talks only about men and women reaching a common retirement age. Is that really what she wants? Does she not also want to cover compulsory annuities at 75? It seems illogical not to cover both aspects. I much dislike compulsory annuities, which we shall come on to with the next amendment, but I am the first to admit that it makes sense in many cases for pensioners to take out an annuity at retirement age—the Minister surely agrees.

Having got that off my chest, I agree with what the Minister said at Question Time today. I am afraid that, even if it is only three years, a difference still exists between the life expectancies of men and of women. If an insurance company is to annuitise a lump-sum pension or any saving, the subsequent annual income will need to be spread for more—possibly many more—years. It is thus inevitable that a woman’s annual income will be lower than that of a man, given the same percentage conversion rate. We have already heard figures on that and I will say nothing about my own researches unless I am driven to do so.

To insist that private companies disregard the reality, whether it be that women tend to live longer or young men to drive faster, or that people of either sex ski off piste and therefore attract bigger insurance premiums—

Smoking.

Even smoking, of which I am guilty, and of which a noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite has been guilty in the past.

How far does the noble Baroness hope that her equality proposals will go? Would private health insurers—on which the noble Lord tempts me—have to raise women’s premiums because of the possibility of prostate cancer? That would be ridiculous. As I said, why stop at sex equality? Why should not travel insurance companies be able to charge more if people plan on their winter holiday to ski off piste rather than in the normal run of things? Competition between providers already protects the consumer against unreasonable discounting on the ground of gender. Any remaining discount for women is therefore merely a reflection of the extra money that they will receive as a result of living longer.

The figures that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has produced will inevitably come together over time. I agree with my noble friend, Lord Hunt, on that and I see no reason for the amendment.

I support the amendment and commend the noble Baroness for introducing it. I have listened carefully to what has been said in opposition, but the amendment takes a large step in the right direction, because it refers not to the difference in life expectancy—that may change over time, as everybody has said—but to,

“reaching a common retirement age”.

As we are moving in the direction of a common retirement age, that is a good step in the right direction.

The amendment stipulates that,

“upon reaching a common retirement age”,

there should be equality of treatment by the financial services industry. That objective is legitimate and should receive the Committee’s support.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for the amendment. Like others, I pay tribute to her persistence on the issue, about which she feels passionately.

I am sure that everyone agrees that an unfair and unjustifiable difference in treatment of a person based on their gender is discriminatory and unacceptable. However, the Government do not believe that differential insurance pricing based on relevant and accurate data constitutes unfair discrimination. In the annuity market, that means that insurers should be allowed to take into account all relevant data on people’s life expectancies and price accordingly.

When people come to purchase their annuity, a provider will offer them an annuity rate that is based on their life expectancy. That can be affected by several factors, such as lifestyle—for example, smoking—any known health issues and gender. Recently, insurers have started to take into account a wider range of factors, such as postcodes, to ensure that they make the most accurate assessment of their customers’ longevity. In other words, annuity pricing works on an objective basis, looking at relevant factors, including gender, that influence longevity.

Noble Lords will recognise that the consequence of taking account of postcodes will typically mean that individuals in poorer neighbourhoods with lower life expectancies should get better rates than individuals in more affluent neighbourhoods—an outcome that we would presumably welcome. It is a fact that, in general, women live longer than men. The pension fund that they have accumulated needs to provide them with an income for the rest of their life, and over the lifetime of the annuity they are, on average, likely to receive payments for longer. At every age from 65, women continue to have a longer life expectancy than men. The important variable is the amount that the average person receives over the whole life of the product, not a snapshot based on the income for a small part of the product’s lifetime.

I am most grateful to noble Lords who have supported my attempt to have the whole issue looked at once again and even more thoroughly. I am particularly grateful to the Minister for his comments.

I was somewhat surprised by the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I was trying to say that with all the additional sacrifices that women will be making by giving up those extra years and joining in an equal retirement age, compared with very few extra years for men, application of the law on sex discrimination and equal pay would be justifiable at that time. Of course I would much rather that it started operating now. There is no law governing the various districts around the country, but there is a law governing equal treatment and sex discrimination. So it seems perfectly logical to continue arguing this point.

I had hoped for a slightly more encouraging reply, but I understand the point from which the Minister is coming. I very much bear in mind that, as a group, women are among the poorest of retirees. They are also among those who have played a major part in saving the state money by heading up carers in every form. This is just one other area where, by equalising the situation between men and women, one would hope to take a small step in women’s favour and in the favour of equal treatment in every other respect.

I cannot promise not to return to the matter. I think the Minister realises that I may very well return to it—I have a slightly different amendment up my sleeve for Report. I will think about it. But regardless of whether I return to the issue then or at a later opportunity, with a different Bill, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor on House of Lords reform, on which he is today publishing a White Paper. The Statement is as follows:

“In my Statement to the House on 19 July last year, I said that I would continue to lead cross-party talks on reform of the House of Lords. Those talks have included Front-Bench representatives of the main parties from both Houses, as well as of the Cross-Bench Peers and the Bishops. The talks have made good progress. I am most grateful to all those who have served on the group. I pay tribute for their constructive contributions and readiness to consider alternative proposals. Our discussions have been much informed by the work of others, including the Public Administration Select Committee, informal cross-party groups, the Cunningham report and above all the report of the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham.

“The basis for our talks was the outcome of the votes in the House of Commons in March 2007. This House voted then for a wholly elected, and for a mainly elected second Chamber and rejected all other alternatives by a large margin. The Lords took a different view. It voted for a fully appointed second Chamber. However, as I said in my Statement on 19 July last year, reflecting the remarks of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on 3 July last, work taking forward House of Lords reform had to be based on the will of the House of Commons, which is the primary chamber in our legislature.

“The proposals we make today are consistent with the 2005 manifesto commitments of the three main parties. The White Paper sets out how a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber might be created within a bicameral legislature in which the House of Commons retains primacy. The White Paper reflects the considerable consensus reached in the cross-party talks. Inevitably, we did not reach agreement on all issues. In some instances, those taking part asked that the White Paper record their difference of view, which it does.

“As I indicated to the House in my Statement on 19 July last, our intention is that the product of the cross-party talks would be the basis of a,

‘package that we would put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election and which hopefully the other main parties would include in their manifestos’.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/07/07; col. 450.]

“It has never been the intention to legislate in this Parliament. The White Paper represents a significant step on the road to reform and is intended to generate further debate and consideration rather than being a final blueprint for reform.

“The White Paper sets out how Members could be elected to a reformed second Chamber from the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. It was a key recommendation of the Royal Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, and has since enjoyed strong consensus, including within the cross-party group, that Members should serve a single, non-renewable term of three electoral cycles—that is, of 12 to 15 years. This reflects proposals in the February 2007 White Paper. Elections would be held at the same time as those for Members of this House, so as to minimise disruption to the business of Parliament.

“The current House of Lords has over 700 Members. The Government intend that the reformed second Chamber should be significantly smaller, of not more than 400 to 450 Members and maybe less, and that costs should be similar or reduced. We envisage all Members of a reformed second Chamber making a full contribution to its work and would welcome views on its size. Single, non-renewable terms would help provide a membership for the second Chamber which continued to be distinct from that of this House and hence which could bring an added dimension to the work of Parliament. It is proposed that this be reinforced by the use of large constituencies for elections to the second Chamber.

“I referred earlier to the primacy of this House. Analysis of other countries’ arrangements and our own history shows that primacy does not depend on the fact that this House is elected while the Lords is not. It is rooted in the Parliament Acts of 1911 and 1949, and the conventions which govern relations between the two Houses. With the introduction of elected Members into the second Chamber, however, we have to ensure that the mandate of this House and the government it sustains continues to hold sway. The Membership of a reformed second Chamber should be such that it could not challenge that mandate. This is why we saw considerable merit in staggered elections to a reformed second Chamber, with a third of Members returned at each election. In this way, the electoral basis of the reformed second Chamber could never, as a whole, be more recent than that of this House.

“The cross-party group considered at some length possible voting systems. The White Paper presents detailed modelling on the possible effects of each of four electoral systems for elections to a second Chamber. The systems are first past the post; alternative vote; single transferable vote; and open or semi-open list systems. The Government would welcome views on the choice of system.

“The cross-party group considered the powers of a reformed second Chamber. We took the view that it would be wrong to pre-suppose conflict between this House and a reformed second Chamber. The working relationship between the two Houses currently functions well, and we could see no reason why it should not continue to do so. Creative tension between the Houses can lead to better government, not an undermining of this House’s primacy. If conflict arose in future, it would, as now, be for both Houses to devise a way through that conflict. We identified no persuasive case for reducing, in advance of that, the powers of a wholly or mainly elected second Chamber.

“Given that the Commons voted last March for both, the White Paper does not take a view between the options of either a 100 per cent or an 80 per cent elected second Chamber. However, it includes detail on a possible 20 per cent appointed element, should the latter option be chosen. There would be a statutory Appointments Commission and published criteria for appointments. Any appointed Members would serve for three electoral cycles in the same way as elected Members.

“If the second Chamber became fully elected, there could be no seats appointed or reserved, including for Church of England bishops. But in recognition of the wide and important role played by the Lords Spiritual in the life of the nation and the special constitutional position of the church, we propose that their representation should continue in a mainly elected House. In that instance, their numbers would not contribute to the 20 per cent appointed element.

“The White Paper includes proposals on eligibility and on disqualification. Because of the long, non-renewable terms for which they would serve, we were attracted to the system discussed in the White Paper of recall ballots for elected Members of the second Chamber, with analogous arrangements for any appointed Members. This would apply only after the first of three parliamentary terms which Members would serve. The Government welcome views on this. Members of a reformed second Chamber should receive salaries, with the Senior Salaries Review Body asked to advise.

“The transition to a reformed second Chamber raises a number of important issues, not least about the future arrangements for existing Members of the Lords. Those Members, collectively, enable the Chamber effectively to fulfil its key roles of scrutinising legislation, conducting investigations and holding the Government to account. This Government, and I know the whole House, greatly value the work of the Lords and the contributions of individual Members to it.

“However, it was made clear in 1999 that the rights of hereditary Peers to sit and vote would be removed as part of the next phase of Lords reform. The Government propose that, following legislation and during the transition to a reformed second Chamber, there should be no further by-elections to fill vacancies for hereditary Peers.

“The February 2007 White Paper included a proposal from me that a reformed House should be 50 per cent elected and 50 per cent appointed. One of the many merits I saw of that proposal was that it would have enabled existing life Peers to remain for life, if they had wished to. However, that 50/50 proposal was comprehensively rejected by both Houses. The votes in this House for a wholly or 80 per cent elected House mean that the context for the transition to a reformed second Chamber has changed. There may not be an appointed element in a reformed second Chamber. If there is, it may comprise 90 or fewer Members. A discussion is therefore now required to determine how far the rights of life Peers to sit and vote during any transition to a reformed second Chamber should continue. The White Paper sets out three options for managing the transition to a second Chamber: first, for all existing life Peers to leave in tranches allied to the three electoral cycles; secondly, for all to leave on the third cycle; and, thirdly, to remain as now for life. The Government welcome views on these options”.

Oh!

My Lords, I think I know where your Lordships stand on this.

“Mr Speaker, the cross-party group faithfully and assiduously followed the mandate set for it by the Commons last March. We are now keen for there to be a wide-ranging and thorough debate, but I think all Members of the cross-party group share my view that to have got this far on such an important but highly complex issue is a considerable achievement.

“As I said in my Statement on 19 July last, our intention now is to continue developing consensus round a comprehensive package for reform of the House of Lords. Any final package would have to be put to the electorate as a manifesto commitment at the next general election. I hope that we will be able to build on the considerable consensus established already in the cross-party group, to the extent that other parties include similar commitments in their manifestos.

“An effective second Chamber plays an invaluable role in holding the Government to account and in scrutinising legislation. Our belief is that the proposals in the White Paper, and of the group, will lead to a more legitimate and strengthened second Chamber. I commend this Statement and the White Paper to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, that the Statement is being presented to Parliament on 14 July, when the French celebrate the storming of the Bastille, demonstrates that someone in the Ministry of Justice has a sense of humour, if not a sense of history. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for repeating the Statement made in another place, and for giving me an advance opportunity to read the White Paper. It is the third White Paper on this House from this Government, and there have been even more major statements on its role, Members and powers over the years.

Of course, many proposals have preceded it since the curbing of this House’s powers in 1911, when both Houses resolved that in due time the House should be constituted on a popular basis. We had the Bryce commission of 1918, the talks of Lord Longford and my noble friend Lord Carrington in 1968, the Home report, the Plant commission, and the royal commission chaired by my noble friend Lord Wakeham. One has only to read a few of the names to realise how long the debate about the future of our House has continued. For all the Lord Chancellor’s ingenuity, the problem has been neither newly identified nor finally resolved in the White Paper; there is much work to be done before a Bill could be presented.

This House is no stranger to reform. The Conservative Life Peerages Act 1958 was a revolutionary experiment in composition, enacted some 80 years after the controversy over life peerages first raged in the Wensleydale case. The Conservative Party enabled women who inherited peerages to enter this place in 1963, and in 1968 the House voted for substantial further reforms only to see those plans scuppered in another place. In 1999, half this House departed in the face of the House of Lords Act. Much as they disliked it, they accepted that as their duty in view of the binding undertakings given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, to provide for a comprehensive stage 2 reform. In 2005, further legislation reversed the first life peerages provisions in relation to the judiciary and provided for Law Lords to be excluded. So let it not be said that this House is not prepared to entertain change, accept it or adapt to it when it occurs.

I thank the Lord Chancellor, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton, who joined the cross-party talks referred to in the Statement actively when she became Leader of the House, for the care with which they conducted them. They did so with responsibility and a clear understanding of the role, authority and importance of this House in our bicameral constitution, something not always seen from every member of this Government.

Equally, I know that the cross-party talks have created resentment in this House, although cross-party talks are of course normal in a functioning democracy. Many of your Lordships felt excluded, which was unnecessary and avoidable. For my own part, I would have had no difficulty with publishing the papers or the records of the talks, and I always thought that it would be wise to have a parallel process made up of Back-Benchers examining the implications of the votes of this House on reform. There is a majority in this place for a fully appointed House, an idea that in itself presents substantial practical issues. However, the Government chose to proceed on the basis of votes in the House of Commons for an 80 or 100 per cent elected House, which made known—for this Parliament at least—the will of another place.

Of course, the Government could not and should not have ignored the votes of another place and—I must say, bluntly—neither should we as a House. If we do not engage with another place, it can impose its will on us; we cannot just sit this one out. That is why the Front Benches in this Parliament, the noble Baroness the Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers, and the right reverend Prelates accepted the Lord Chancellor’s invitation to participate actively and constructively in wrestling with the issues arising from the votes in the other place; I make no apology for that. After all, the unilateral proposals for change put forward by this Government since 1999 have not exactly had a rapturous welcome.

We started the talks with the aim of working out what the House that another place voted for might look like and setting out for both Houses to consider a potential design for such a House. The paper published today is a step towards this, but let me make it clear that it is a government White Paper, not a cross-party paper, although, as the Statement says, we found wide areas of agreement. That is hardly surprising, given the commitments of the main parties to seek consensus for a partially elected reform. However, it is equally unsurprising that we also found major areas of disagreement and it is inevitable that this White Paper will be the basis of a long and heated debate which I hope will take place in this House some time after we return from the Summer Recess. Without pre-empting that debate, I shall sketch briefly some areas of agreement and disagreement.

If there is an elected House, we must keep, so far as possible, the strengths of this House while increasing its will to use its powers. We agreed that that means no reduction in the powers of this House. We agreed that it means long non-renewable terms for Members, so that they are free of coercion and as independent as possible from threats and rewards by party Whips. We agreed that it means retaining the right reverend Prelates. It also means, in my view, “no” to a 100 per cent-elected House, because that would exclude the Cross Benchers who put a particular stamp on this House and whose expertise is so valuable to Parliament.

Any reformed House must pass these and other key tests. It must complement the other place, not compete with it; it must not be a House of opposition, but nor should it be servile; it should be no less capable of performing the key roles of the current House and it should be a House to which the people of this country can genuinely relate.

That takes me to an area of major disagreement—how an elected House should be chosen. It may surprise noble Lords to hear that the Liberal Democrats shocked us in the working party by calling for proportional representation. We prefer smaller constituencies based on our historic cities and counties, with Members chosen directly by “first past the post”. The Government sat on the fence. That is not a good basis for legislation.

Many grey areas also remain for which the White Paper has not provided adequate answers for public scrutiny. There are the difficult questions of the transition from one House another, the pay and pension arrangements for the new House and outgoing Members of the present one and, indeed, the overall costs of a reformed House. These issues cannot be fudged in a Bill.

There has been perhaps a little fudging, which is why this is not really a White Paper at all. It is a Green Paper. The Government’s mind is unclear on so much that you have to wonder why they are publishing it in the first place. Even the name of a reformed House is a mystery. Leaks a few weeks ago suggested that it would be called a senate, but even that seems to be too radical a step for this Government, and the name disappeared in the final draft. What will the House be called? The Minister and the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will have to make the Government’s position far clearer in the months ahead.

There is a great deal yet to do. There should now be a pause while both Houses, the wider public and, in due time, the next Parliament work to resolve the many questions raised by this process. That should be no excuse for suspending further work. The Executive are too strong and Parliament, for all the efforts of your Lordships over the past 10 years, is too weak to restrain them properly. We have too many laws in this country and too many lawmakers who lack the capacity or authority to prevent or improve them. We must not set our faces against change that might help Parliament to do its vital job more confidently.

As I am sure all noble Lords will agree, this is a great House, a House of ceremony and dignity, a place to which all of us feel privileged to belong. The 20th century was not the happiest for our House, but in some ways in this new century, against all expectations, we have begun to feel our way back to the heart of national affairs. The White Paper does not impede that movement, but it leaves us far from agreed legislation. The next reform of the House will be a democratic one—I am sure of that and I expect that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will agree with me—but when will it happen? Of that, I am far, far less certain.

My Lords, we on these Benches warmly welcome the Statement and the White Paper. The approach fulfils the objectives that my honourable friends at the other end of the Corridor—the Liberal Democrat MPs—voted for absolutely unanimously in March 2007, and which my noble friends in this House voted for at the same time by a majority.

I hope that I will not do damage to the reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, among his loyal supporters on the Conservative Benches if I say that I am not quite sure what the noble Lord was actually suggesting. Is he suggesting that we should have another pause in reform? If so, he is not fully taking account of the fact that the Statement makes it clear that his very constructive contribution to the work of the cross-party group was acknowledged and warmly welcomed. I am sure that the Minister will reflect that again in a moment. Although he may have problems with the detail of the White Paper, he was, I think it would be fair to say, a very constructive contributor and I pay tribute to him for that. I hope that I have not done great damage to his leadership.

I am sure that there will be a very firm commitment to reform along the lines of the White Paper in the next Liberal Democrat general election manifesto, but it is far from clear, from what has been said this afternoon by those on the Opposition Front Bench in this House and the other House, whether that remains the case for the Conservative Party. I am not sure whether it is still committed to the reform that it said it was committed to in the 2005 general election. Is it the Minister’s intention to seek an exact common manifesto commitment from all three major parties to make progress in future?

The question that the public will ask is, “Why are we waiting?”. Why do the Government hesitate? It was clear—was it not?—that when we were all expecting a general election this year or in 2009, there was a very good case for delay. Now, since the Prime Minister has made it clear that there will not be a general election until 2010, it should surely be possible for us to make some progress on this clear set of proposals.

The Prime Minister’s first Statement, on 3 July 2007, contained a firm intention to give priority to reinvigorating democracy and strengthening Parliament. Why are we in this House to be left in illegitimate limbo? In the Statement and in the conclusion of the White Paper, great emphasis was given to clear legitimacy for this House. That is surely what we should all seek. Given that the so-called Constitutional Renewal Bill has proved to be nothing of the sort, surely this is a genuine reform that can be included in the Queen’s Speech in December.

When I have previously questioned the Minister, he has said, on two occasions, that it was the Government’s intention to submit draft clauses for pre-legislative scrutiny. He seemed very sympathetic to my idea that this should be examined by a Joint Committee of both Houses; that would at least reduce the ignorance there is about the other place and this place among Members of the two Houses. Surely that is a way in which we could make some progress. We could, in the phrase of the Lord Chancellor’s Statement,

“build on the considerable consensus established already”,

and sort out some essential details. For example, we on these Benches think that it would be preferable to hold elections for the senate on a fixed date to avoid the considerable practical difficulties involved when the House of Commons is elected on an indeterminate date; we would be seeking a firm, fixed term for Members of the reformed second Chamber. It would also mean that we could avoid confusion among the electorate, who I am sure many of us recognise often vote for—or, indeed, against—a Government when they see an opportunity at a general election to do so. We surely do not want that to determine what will happen in this House. The Government are promoting a different option; why cannot we now debate those two alternatives and see which best meets the needs of this House?

Ministers have been quite specific in the White Paper on so many points that it is curious that they are havering between an 80 and a 100 per cent elected senate. No one is asking them to be absolutely determinate about that but at least some preference could be indicated. Surely they could now reveal that.

It is now 15 months since the House of Commons, for which everyone claims primacy, voted by such large majorities for reform. Surely unnecessary delay simply plays into the hands of the refusniks or reactionaries. In his Statement in the other place, the Lord Chancellor referred to the possibility that we might achieve reform by 2011. As Members of this House will no doubt recall, it was on the face of the Parliament Act 1911 that we should move towards a second Chamber based on a popular mandate. If we are to fulfil that firm commitment of 100 years ago by 2011, surely we should start now.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and offer congratulations to the team of officials, who managed to make coherent what was often less than coherent.

All that I wish to say has been said many, many times before. Nevertheless, I feel compelled to make just a few points, if only because there is very strong feeling about this issue among the independent Cross-Bench Peers. Some might say, “Well, they would, wouldn’t they?”, but I think it is more than that. There is a deeply felt concern that some of the measures proposed will have an undoubtedly deleterious effect on the chief functions of this House and on legislation more generally. More than 60 independent Cross-Bench Peers have, for example, endorsed a statement focusing on incremental House of Lords reform.

I start with the premise on which the White Paper, and the work of the cross-party group on Lords reform, is based. In no other legislation since I have been in this House has the overwhelming vote of this Chamber been so entirely disregarded. The Lords voted on 14 March 2007 for an appointed or predominantly appointed upper House by a majority of 327 votes, which represents almost 60 per cent of the votes cast on that day.

Perhaps I may also add that the two options—wholly or 80 per cent elected—which have now become the only options, were in fact voted against in 2003 and 2007 by two leading members of the cross-party working group; namely, the right honourable Jack Straw and the right honourable Theresa May. Therefore, in fact they are arguing for something that they had voted against.

It is difficult to know from where this pressure for radical reform is coming. It is certainly not coming from this Chamber, the public or the media, nor, as far as I can tell, from a significant body of Members of the other place. However, inexplicably, even the relatively minor and sensible reforms put forward in, among others, the so-called Steel Bill have been rejected by the Government in favour of this radical reform.

Crucially, I have not heard from within the working group or without it any argument that a radically reformed House would demonstrably improve the work of this House. The need for legitimacy is constantly emphasised, but we are not illegitimate as we stand—a view endorsed by the Government’s public reference to the “increased legitimacy” of the House of Lords. Legitimacy is not necessarily or exclusively guaranteed by elections. Are, for example, judges or senior academics non-legitimate by virtue of having been appointed? Furthermore, are we talking about genuinely open elections or about simply substituting the present appointments system with a more politically based one?

The process of democratic reform is achieved by greater transparency, accountability and debate, and not by the single fact of election alone. It is difficult to see how an individual elected for a 10 to 15-year period with no opportunity for re-election can offer accountability.

The potential effects of a predominantly elected second Chamber can be summarised as follows: the rise of a competitive state of affairs with the other place, which would have an inevitable effect on the primacy of the House of Commons—elected Members would, I suspect, not be content merely to delay legislation but would in time demand a veto; an increase in the politicisation of this House, no matter what voting systems are adopted; an inevitable decrease in the expertise, independence and diversity of this House—it is, for example, less likely that mid-career people, women, representatives of ethnic minorities, and, most importantly, people with disabilities would put themselves forward for a potentially gruelling election process; and, finally, its relative cost as compared with the other place, a matter on which this House has always prided itself, will be lost—an elected Chamber will involve a massive rise in expenditure.

I regret so much that, in the past few months, I have sounded much like a stuck record in the proceedings of the cross-party group, but I genuinely believe that the changes outlined in the White Paper will neither enhance nor improve the work of this House but may result in politicisation and a degree of confusion to the ultimate detriment of the crucial work that this House undertakes.

My Lords, noble Lords will have a flavour of the fascinating discussions that we have had in the 12 meetings of the cross-party working group since it was established following the free votes in the Commons. I say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that I agree that your Lordships’ House makes a huge contribution to the work of Parliament. An intention behind the White Paper and its proposals is to build on that contribution. He is right to say that there have been many reports and many White Papers on Lords reform, starting with that of Viscount Bryce and the Bryce conference in 1917-18. The noble Lord might also have mentioned the memorandum of Winston Churchill to the Cabinet arguing for some form of indirect elections, I think, during the 1920s. That illustrates to me that reaching consensus on the future of your Lordships’ House is very difficult indeed, which is why the cross-party group was established.

Of course, there is much more work to be done. This White Paper spells out the implications of the vote of the Commons and allows for a debate on those implications. I do not think that we are the poorer for that kind of process or that it was an unreasonable way in which to proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is right: it is a government White Paper, but it draws heavily on the long and detailed discussions in the cross-party group. I pay tribute to all noble Lords and honourable and right honourable Members who took part in those discussions.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, about the issue of powers. We do not want to see a diminution in the powers of your Lordships’ House within the context of a mostly elected or all-elected Chamber. That principle was agreed right at the start of those cross-party discussions. I believe that it was agreement on that principle that enabled the talks to continue in such a fruitful way.

I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he points to the importance of long, non-renewable terms of office and to the contribution made by the right reverend Prelates to your Lordships’ House, which, he argued, meant that he favoured an 80 per cent elected House. The Government have deliberately chosen not to come down in favour of either option at this stage, because the Commons voted for both options. We thought it better to produce a White Paper that allows the Commons and others to look at the consequences of that. The time for a decision will be later, but I think that the White Paper will be very helpful to that debate.

It was clear from our discussions in the working group that we were unlikely to achieve a consensus on voting systems. It seemed much more sensible to put into the White Paper a number of options and to allow a debate to take place.

On the name of the reformed second Chamber, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, is keen on the use of the word “senate”—“the senior senator from south Scotland” has a certain ring to it. Let us debate the title of the second Chamber and decide in the light of that debate.

The noble Lord then asked when that will happen. That very much depends on the debates on the White Paper and on the decisions of the political parties. This process allows manifesto commitments to be given at the next general election and subsequently for legislation to be made. That process was always laid out. The White Paper continues that and will allow the public as a whole to come to a view.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for his kind comments. He asks why we are waiting. As we have already observed, there will be many reports on House of Lords reform, which started more than 90 years ago. Seeking consensus is surely the best way forward. Surely a modus that allows for debate, manifesto commitments and then legislation is the best chance that anyone could have for reaching agreement and producing legislation to enable reform. This is entirely consistent with the Green Paper, The Governance of Britain.

I did not recognise the unkind remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, about the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill. Reform of your Lordships’ House is entirely consistent with the Government’s intention to enhance the position of Parliament vis-à-vis the Executive. We have always said that, in the light of consultation, there may well be an opportunity to publish draft clauses. Just as we would welcome Parliament’s scrutiny of and debate on the White Paper, we would welcome further scrutiny of any draft clauses that might be produced.

The cross-party group discussed the Liberal Democrats’ view that elections should be held on a fixed date. That view is recorded. However, there are strong arguments for those elections to be held at the same time as general elections. That would certainly ensure that this House as a whole had no more recent mandate than that of the Commons, which is important, given the primacy of the Commons. On the point about confusing the electorate, the electorate are well up to being able to vote both for a Member of Parliament and for Members of your Lordships’ House.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, for her contribution to the work of the cross-party groups. I was amused by her comments about coherence where there may be none; I often think about the work of Hansard when I read my speeches in the Official Report. I do not share her view that the measures in the White Paper would necessarily have a detrimental impact on your Lordships’ House. The question of legitimacy is very important. Surely the goal is to add legitimacy to the enormously important work of your Lordships’ House. That is what is intended. The question of independent Members is one of the strong arguments for an 80 per cent elected House and I am sure that she and others will pursue that option with great vigour in the future. Matters such as costs will need to be considered in greater detail when we are clearer about the way forward. We will want an effective second Chamber, but we will also need to ensure that public finances are managed as effectively as possible.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, if legitimacy is the underlying argument driving this forward, the conclusion—that we should have a 100 per cent elected House—is inescapable? Any other arrangement denies the very argument and principle that the Government have advanced. However, I must say that a 15-year term gives a fig leaf of legitimacy and no more. What in the White Paper will convince the public that an elected House on those terms will be more effective, more efficient, give better value for money, be more representative and speak more effectively for the people of this country? To describe what we have had presented to us as a White Paper defies logic. It barely can be dignified with that description. With the world economic crisis as it is, oil prices going through the roof, and food and commodity prices rising weekly, if the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, thinks that the public are hanging on for an imminent decision about reform of the House of Lords, I am afraid that he is not living in the real world.

My Lords, my noble friend perhaps has put the “price of bread” question to me. Of course, one would hesitate to say that reform of your Lordships' House is the first concern of many members of the public. None the less, the health of our democratic institutions is important. It underpins the whole nation. Therefore, measures to improve the effectiveness of Parliament are worthy of consideration. I take his point about legitimacy and a House that is 80 per cent elected as opposed to 100 per cent elected. However, we have taken both votes in the other place and presented to Parliament and the outside world the implications and consequences of that. Clearly, there will be an intense debate about whether 80 per cent or 100 per cent elected is appropriate.

As regards long terms, the aim was to have an approach and membership that are very distinct from the Commons’. I think that most of the working group believe that a non-renewable, long, one-term electoral term is likely to lead to a more deliberative approach by Members of the second Chamber, which very much fits in with its essential scrutinising role. However, we will have to see the outcome of the discussions.

My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for the very kind references to our Royal Commission report in the White Paper. A substantial piece of work was produced, which merits a lot of consideration and not detailed judgment. Having said that, all the outstanding points are those which were difficult for us 10 years ago. They are very nearly the same points. Our report at that time attempted to offer a compromise between those points, which was rejected by virtually everyone initially because no one wanted a compromise. Does the Minister think that, 10 years later, people might be prepared to seek a compromise, rather than everyone demanding exactly what they want, with the likelihood of getting nothing?

My Lords, I pay tribute again to the noble Lord for his chairmanship and leadership of the Royal Commission report. It remains a fount of wisdom and information about reform of your Lordships' House. He is right that the White Paper merits a great deal of consideration, which, I hope, your Lordships' House will be able to give it over the next few months. The noble Lord is also surely right that the lack of compromise has bedevilled Lords reform on many occasions. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, referred to the 1968 proposals, which fell, due again to a lack of compromise.

Following the votes in the Commons and the cross-party working group, let us hope that what we have now engaged in can lead to a consensus which would enable Parliament after the next general election to legislate on the basis of a settled view. That is the hope and the expectation following this White Paper.

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and welcome the White Paper. We on these Benches will play our part fully in the debates on the recommendations, including those that seek to secure a proper representation of all communities of faith in these islands. Given the evident interest in the future of these Benches shown by many noble Lords, not least during the reading of the Statement, perhaps I could comment on some of the recommendations that relate to the Bishops. While noting that there could be no continuing place for Lords Spiritual in a wholly elected Chamber, we welcome the fact that there would be a place for them within a partially elected Chamber. We therefore acknowledge that in a House with a reduced membership, consideration would need to be given to the appropriate number of Lords Spiritual, which currently stands at 26. We have long held the view that the minimum number required for an effective service to be offered to this House would be 20 and we would therefore welcome a commitment by the Government to discuss this issue with the church. In this context we would be happy to respond to the invitation in the White Paper to review the current system of selection to the Bishops’ Bench—

My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for interrupting him, but I wonder if he could ask a question. A great many Members want to come in with their questions, and we have such limited time.

My Lords, in welcoming the continuing presence of Lords Spiritual in this House, would the Minister affirm that, whatever the final outcome regarding the place of Lords Spiritual in the House, there is an assurance that there would be no fundamental change in the relationship between church and state?

My Lords, I can gladly so affirm.

My Lords, I welcome such modest progress as has been made towards the democratisation of the second Chamber, but it pains me to reflect that in the years since the late Robin Cook and I signed a cross-party agreement, so little progress has been made. Does the Minister recognise that the failure to provide for the re-election of elected Members of the second Chamber deprives the public of the prospect of holding them to account, which greatly reduces the legitimacy of the second Chamber? What considerations might ultimately tip the Government’s mind with respect to whether it should be a wholly elected or partially elected House?

My Lords, the noble Lord says that little progress has been made. In the history of Lords reform there have been considerable problems in reaching agreement on the way forward, and that is why the process we are now engaged in is so important. He could have acknowledged that the Commons were able to come to a view, which, as he knows, was not the case in the first set of free votes. On re-election, I have already outlined the reasons why the Government and the cross-party group favour long, non-renewable election terms. The White Paper discusses the possibility of recall ballots as one way of ensuring accountability. We will welcome views on that.

My Lords, like most noble Lords, I have not been given the opportunity even to skim the White Paper before the Statement was made this afternoon, but I start by endorsing every word spoken by my noble friend the Convenor of the Cross Benches, which, I know, reflects the substantial majority of opinion on these Benches. I noticed that the Minister shook his head vigorously in denial when the Convenor referred to costs. While I do not expect him to answer the question this afternoon, how does he expect the Senior Salaries Review Body or its successor to devise an appropriate salary for 450 elected Members of this House within existing costs?

The Government have frequently assured us that they were seeking a consensus. What kind of consensus is it when only two options are put forward in the White Paper— for a fully elected or an 80 per cent elected House—which totally ignore the vast majority of opinion in this House that it should continue to be fully appointed? If the Government were really looking for a consensus or, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, a compromise, surely the logical answer would be a 50:50 House. I am not saying for one moment that I would support that solution, and I doubt whether many of my noble friends on the Cross-Benches would support it, but it is surely logical. It is worth noting that that is the proposal included in the White Paper last year that was voted for by the Minister’s right honourable friend Mr Jack Straw.

Does the Minister consider that the premise of the White Paper—that there are only two options to be considered: a fully elected or an 80 per cent elected House—is a serious proposal and not a deeply flawed one?

My Lords, I do not agree. We need to go back to the reason why the first cross-party group was established: to enable both Houses to come to views on Lords reform and its membership. As we have heard, the Commons voted in favour of both 80 per cent and 100 per cent elected. Your Lordships voted only for a 100 per cent appointed House. Faced with that difference of view, and as the Commons has primacy, as your Lordships have always acknowledged, the Government decided that it was appropriate to carry out considered work on the options on which the Commons voted.

I understand where the noble Lord is coming from on compromise, and 50:50 sounds a comfortable compromise between both Houses. But, as he suggested, that proposal was comprehensively rejected by both Houses. That is why my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor has taken forward the discussions on the basis of the Commons votes.

My Lords, is not a fundamental flaw at the heart of the White Paper that it treats the major reform of one House of Parliament as a stand-alone issue with no relevance to the rest of the constitution? Whatever the wishful thinking in the White Paper suggests, is it not inevitable that the relationship between the two Houses would change dramatically and permanently, with the role, powers and responsibilities of the House of Commons being diminished? Whatever people’s views on that might be, surely it is essential now that the Government recognise the work of the Cunningham committee, to which they have already subscribed and which has been the subject of unanimous support from both Houses of Parliament. It recommended that, before any further steps are made, the issue of an elected House of Lords and its impact on the powers of the Commons and the relationship between the two Chambers is fully examined, preferably at length.

My Lords, I have been aware of my noble friend’s views on Lords reform for a long time. He puts his case very powerfully, but I disagree with him, although I certainly acknowledge—and I should have done so before—the enormously valuable work of my noble friend Lord Cunningham in his chairmanship of the Joint Committee on Conventions, which has informed the Government and the working group.

My noble friend says that an elected second Chamber would diminish the role and powers of the House of Commons. I do not share that view. All members of the working group and the Government are firm that the primacy of the Commons must and will be retained. Primacy is underpinned by the Parliament Act, by financial privilege and by the confidence that a Government must have in the House of Commons. Of course an elected or mostly elected second Chamber will feel confident in the powers it has; we should not run away from that, but at the end of the day it is still within the context of the primacy of the Commons.

My Lords, we have a system of government that is 100 per cent democratic, and I do not believe that having elected Members of this House would in any way increase that percentage.

The Government have set about this matter of achieving consensus in completely the wrong way. They have put far too much emphasis on a single vote in the House of Commons, when what was absolutely clear from that vote was the disagreement between the Front and Back Benches in both Houses and in both parties. They then set up a group that was totally unrepresentative of the Back Benches, where we had no effective say in the matter at all.

The Minister has put much emphasis on the primacy of the House of Commons. Since this matter goes back to 1911, it is not entirely clear that that primacy extends to total revolution of the constitutional situation. In some respects at present, in fact, the House of Commons is not totally unfettered. That is an important issue.

The second point is that there was a stitch-up with regard to election manifestos; the role of the manifesto in relation to this matter is extremely questionable.

My Lords, the noble Lord is being a little unkind about the Government’s undertaking. We made clear in our 2005 manifesto that we would seek free votes of Parliament, and that is what we have done. It was not simply a vote in isolation; it took place in the light of a White Paper produced after constructive discussions between the political parties. That is not an unreasonable process. The Government could quite easily have produced a White Paper and a proposal without any consultation at all.

In the light of all the problems over many years about achieving longstanding reform of your Lordships’ House, this did and does appear to the Government to be the best way of achieving political consensus between the three main parties, which I believe provides the best foundation for taking reform forward.

My Lords, is not the most surprising feature—

My Lords, does the Minister agree—

My Lords—

My Lords, this is probably the last question, and it is the Liberal Democrats’ turn.

My Lords, does the Minister agree that Tony Blair’s commitment in 1997 that no one party should have a majority in the House of Lords has contributed greatly to its effectiveness ever since? Does he also agree that if the first-past-the-post system or alternative-vote system had been in force for elections to this House, his party, the Labour Party, would have been in an overwhelming majority after the 2005 general election, at least among the political parties? Is it not therefore clear that some form of proportional representation will be essential if this House is to continue to play the role it does after we have become a partially or wholly elected Chamber?

No, my Lords, I do not accept that at all. That is why the White Paper puts forward four options in the appendices. It looks at past election results and makes predictions about how voters might have voted, although it is very difficult to come up with firm calculations. Depending on which electoral system is adopted, there might be majorities for one party if it was successful over three elections, but in most cases there would not be an overall majority.

Your Lordships' House has worked well for any number of reasons. We intend to build on that, and I believe that the White Paper will enable us to do so.

moved Amendment No. 127:

My name is coupled with that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral on these amendments. I congratulate him on putting down this series of amendments yet again. Compulsory annuities at age 75 is one of those subjects which has developed into a campaign in this House. I first observed it when, as my noble friend Lord Hunt reminded us, my noble friend Lord Higgins moved an amendment to the then Pensions Bill in 2004.

Oh!

It is true; I first observed it then. Since then the issue has arisen from time to time, not least in last year’s Pensions Bill. Make no mistake about it: your Lordships’ campaigns have a habit of getting on to the statute book. One, in particular, is graven on my heart. Over 12 years the late Lord Rugby campaigned vigorously to break the opticians’ monopoly on the sale of reading spectacles. It came to a head when I was a very junior health and social security Minister and was able to put my limited weight behind it. A suitable amendment, moved by the late Lord Winstanley, came to a vote and your Lordships agreed to it—just. The Government in another place confirmed it, and now reading glasses—cheap ones at that—can be bought anywhere. No doubt some noble Lords use them.

That simply would not have happened without the support of the Government of the day; so it is with my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendments. The Official Opposition, here and in another place, stand four-square behind the abolition of compulsory annuities, which, incidentally, do not exist, so far as I can discover, in any G8 country. It should not be possible for anyone of any age to so run down their savings as to bring them into the benefits culture. In other areas, this is actually illegal. That is why my noble friend has coupled the abolition of compulsory annuities with a retirement income fund in Amendment No. 128, in which the thought I outlined is incorporated in proposed subsection (2)(4). It is noteworthy that the minimum retirement income which must remain in the fund is set by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. So the Government of the day remain in total control, as they do now with compulsory annuitisation.

The Bill means that almost anyone working consistently from the age of 20 to state retirement age could end up with a pension pot of, I believe, around £240,000. Thus the Minister’s complaint last time we discussed this—that these amendments will only benefit 3 per cent of the very rich—just does not stand up. Another of his complaints is that a retirement income fund will be left with money in it and will form part of the owner’s estate when he dies, and that, unlike the rest of his estate, it should not be capable of being shared between his survivors and anyone else to whom he wills his residuary estate.

We should not forget that pensions have two foundations: personal savings, which under this Bill are at least 3 per cent of the employee’s annual income, and the employer’s minimum 4 per cent, which is deferred wages. Both belong to the individual, just as much as his house or the value of his ISAs or other savings. Why should they not be passed on in his will to whomever he wishes? Is not this a basic human right? It is most certainly a basic human need.

Lastly, the Government claim that, while they welcome,

“innovative ideas for retirement income products for all”.—[Official Report, 6/6/07; col. 1162.]

as the Minister said last year, there is no appetite among the insurance industry for a retirement income fund. I find that very surprising. If any industry is open to new ideas, it is the insurance industry—if, that is, the Government allow it to be. Indeed, I noticed the other day a new scheme which, while just within the existing law, seemed extremely similar to my noble friend’s retirement income fund. So just what gives the Government such confidence that there is no appetite for this among the industry? Who have they consulted? I welcome the debate to follow.

I do not know whether the noble Lord will press the amendment to a vote, but I would not support him in the Lobbies. I do, however, support his argument. What is the state’s public interest in this? It is twofold, as has already been suggested by noble Lords: first, to ensure that pension savings are privileged in order to provide an adequate retirement income; secondly, that there be no recourse to public funds. Both those objectives are met in the subsection of Amendment No. 128 referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, by an annuitisation that I calculate to be between £120,000 and £150,000 a year. After that, if an individual chooses not to annuitise but to accept the implications of adjustment of the fiscal privileges that went to build up that fund, why does the state have any public policy interest in what happens to the residual money? It is not good enough to say that that money was protected for pension savings and must therefore be used for pension provision. A mantra is a statement of faith, not an argument based on evidence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, 10 or 20 years ago this may have been a relatively rich person’s issue. It is no longer so, as we see the movement from DB to DC schemes. The noble Lord’s figures are exactly right; I did the calculations as he spoke. A woman on average earnings—£21,000—over 40 years, even in a personal account without a threshold, would have a pot of £250,000. That is with contributions only going in at 8 per cent of the total. If, more realistically, one has a DC scheme with higher rates, she might well have a pot of around £450,000. Only once the two considerations of no recourse to public funds and any necessary adjustment to remove fiscal privilege are accounted for has the state any public policy interest in what then happens. Not only is there therefore a residual pot of money, not only would the taxpayers’ interest be safeguarded, but the Treasury could actually get a profit on the result.

If that woman on average earnings with a pot of £450,000 had, after an annuity, some residual sum of £300,000—or £200,000 or thereabouts after tax privilege—it would perhaps go into a building society on which interest was paid. More likely, it would fall into her estate, on which inheritance tax after the basic rate would be 40 per cent. The state would recover for taxpayers what currently goes towards the profitability of private insurance companies. There is an additional argument that the taxpayer would not only not lose money, but returns would fall back to the country as a whole—and, therefore, to the improvement of benefits where appropriate.

I hope that my noble friend will not repeat the mantra that all Ministers, including me, have had to use on this subject at the Dispatch Box: “Pension savings are fiscally protected to provide income for retirement”. Provided that that need is met, and the fiscal protection has been adjusted, the state has no further legitimate public interest in what happens to the rest of the money. People should be free to make the dispositions they choose.

It may be that we are all eating our own words tonight. The noble Baroness gave an interesting speech, but, given that she seemed to support everything that the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Skelmersdale, said, I did not understand why she would not support them if they pressed the amendment. So be it. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, kindly reminded me of my words four years ago. One of the problems of getting older is that one’s memory is not quite as good as it was. I will go and look at the context of what I said.

An imposed limit at age 75 is clearly out of date. It might have been right to impose such a limit in 1976, but it is clearly not right now. We want change. This is a slightly odd grouping because we will come to our amendments—for example, Amendment No. 132—on the same topic later. We prefer the much simpler option of increasing the limit, which was the fourth option mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I well remember standing shoulder to shoulder with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, fighting for specific increases, but we thought that this time—we have all been round this track a few times—we would say to the Government, “You say how much life expectancy has increased since the limit was fixed, and that is the amount by which it should now increase”. Given how fast life expectancy is rising, the limit should be reviewed every few years to avoid this problem in the future.

Of course, things have changed a great deal since the 1970s. Being 75 in those days was probably characterised by the actors in “One Foot in the Grave”; for many people now “Strictly Come Dancing” would probably be a more accurate representation. However, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that his is the simplest approach. His detailed amendments cover two pages of the Marshalled List, and, I believe, contain a few grey areas. We are strongly in favour of raising the limit, but we would not do it in this way.

As I understand it, the noble Lord is not in favour of the measure because he does not like the idea of money being inherited by family members. We part company with him there. Although he proposes that the age should be increased, that is not exactly the most fundamental reform of the system, if he does not mind my saying so. As for his argument that my noble friend’s amendments cover two pages of the Marshalled List, he has been involved in this area long enough to know that almost any reform involves at least two pages of text. Indeed, I am amazed at my noble friend’s modesty.

We differ from the Liberal Democrats on this rather important point. We believe that the family is the basis of society. We are probably not talking of spending vast sums to encourage people to save money for their children to inherit. Indeed, it is in the public interest that they are encouraged to do so. If that persuaded people to save money, it would be of vast public benefit. Therefore, I am not remotely persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott.

My noble friend Lord Hunt set out the case extraordinarily well. The matter has a long history and represents a longstanding injustice. There is absolutely no reason why people should be forced to take an annuity at 75. I agree with everyone who says that, if they wish to do so, they should have that opportunity. That is their choice, and some people will exercise it, as they do not want the trouble of looking after their money. That is fine. That is their choice and they should be allowed to exercise it. However, many people will not want to make that choice because they feel it is not in their interests to do so. On a number of occasions noble Lords have indicated that they would much prefer the citizen to exercise his own choice in this matter. Rather than getting weaker over the years that we have debated this issue, that case has become much stronger. As my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale said, pensions are changing rapidly. We are seeing the demise of the final salary scheme, apart from in the public sector, and the establishment of many more money purchase schemes. It is not an issue of marginal importance or interest any more; it is a case of fundamental importance. That is one argument for a change.

The case put by the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, about age was also true. Even if you believe in compulsory annuities, no one in their right mind would put the limit at age 75 because age expectation has increased. You are now talking about 80 or 85 if you are a believer in the system, which I am not.

Let us face it: only the Treasury stands against this proposal, as in all things good in this world. The only reason it has for doing so is that people could fall back on to social security. In my noble friend’s two-page amendment, he has gone to enormous trouble to prevent that taking place. After that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, I cannot think of any sensible arguments that can be put in its place.

My noble friend and others have talked about the pension pot of money that you hope to have at 75 or whatever age. If you are coming up to 75 now, you may well find that your pension pot is under more pressure than for many years. Your investment values will have gone down, probably at a worse rate than for 10 or 20 years; the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, is a greater expert on the investments than I am. At that point, you are saying to individuals, “We don’t mind that, but we insist that you annuitise at that inflexible age”. That is totally unjust.

For all those reasons, the time has come to reform the rule, whatever the past has been. The situation as everyone has recognised it has changed. There is a question of fundamental justice here, and I hope that the Minister will at long last recognise that.

I have been listening to the debate with great interest, and of course support everything said about compulsory purchase of annuities at 75. I also understand from the description that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, gave of his amendments that there is a case for them in the light of the changing situation, with the disappearance of final salary schemes and the introduction of money purchase and so on, so that people are left with a lump sum that they have to deal with when they reach the right age.

What bothers me about all this is that I am a supporter of final salary schemes; I hate to see them disappearing. Where the workers are strong enough and have enough collective pressure, in certain circumstances they have been able to retain their final salary scheme. I would hate to see anything introduced that could further encourage their disappearance. That is one reason why I have some dubiety in my mind about the amendments. Would they make the alternative to final salary schemes more attractive than it otherwise might be? I am in favour of retention—doing everything possible to retain final salary schemes in the private sector as well as the public sector.

I understand that the issue has a long history in your Lordships’ House, certainly longer than I have been here, but just from the debates on last year’s Pensions Act I get a sense of déjà vu, or as the sports commentator said, “It’s déjà vu all over again”.

It falls to me to set out the Government’s position—maybe the Government’s mantra—on this. The purpose of pension saving is to provide individuals with an income in retirement. In order to encourage and assist people in saving for their retirement, generous tax incentives are given to pension savers. In 2007-08 this tax relief was estimated to be worth £17.5 billion.

The noble Lord is worried about drawdown of tax relief savings. Do not ISAs, for example, have incredibly generous tax relief?

Indeed, ISAs have tax relief, but not the same as provided through pension saving. That is an absolutely fundamental point. The total taxation relief on pension savings is very substantial, which is why, as I explained, the deal is that you convert it to a stream of income. There is tax relief on the way in for the individual; for the employer, there is a tax-free build-up of funds and there is the ability to take a 25 per cent tax-free lump sum. That collection of tax relief provides a significant part of a retired person’s pension pot. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, pointed out that these are a person’s assets; they own them and they should have the choice.

The Minister is moving into rather technical issues that demonstrate what I said previously: he and his colleagues are particularly concerned about avoidance. Although I cannot see what is wrong with someone pursuing the path that he is outlining, surely the answer lies in the amendment. The Chancellor, in bringing forward the order under subsection (1), could well cover the sort of situation that the noble Lord is most concerned about. I am happy to discuss with his officials ways in which we can ensure that when the order comes forward, provided that the House agrees to these amendments, there is no level of avoidance that would cause the sort of problems that he is talking about. I am also waiting to hear what the noble Lord has to say about Christian Brethren.

In answer to the first point, I do not believe that the amendment will do what the noble Lord describes. Perhaps I may expand on the issue of the tax risk to the scheme. I noted that no noble Lord who spoke in favour of the proposition—with the exception of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who talked about withdrawal of the scheme’s tax benefits—indicated in any way what tax regime he or she thought should apply to it. That was not part of the proposition advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and adhered to by others who spoke in favour of the amendment. It can make a fundamental difference to the operation of the proposal.

I reiterate that, under this proposal, if someone has income from other sources, the minimum retirement income could be set at zero. If it is set at zero, so that the provider does not have to preserve amounts in the scheme for subsequent periods, there could effectively be no limit on the withdrawal. You could take a lump sum from the scheme in one go. It would be tax-advantaged savings with some real risks as to how the tax on it might be withdrawn. The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is shaking her head, but that is how this proposition would operate. A member would be able to withdraw large lump sums of tax-disadvantaged pension savings. Alternatively, as I said, a member might choose not to draw down any pension income at all from the RIF in order to pass the funds on to heirs.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, that we have no objection to—we would support—people providing for subsequent generations, but enhancing that provision for heirs by means of the benefits of a very significant tax-advantage regime is not what that regime is for.

If the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, tabled a subsequent set of amendments to cover the point about tax privilege, and if that created no more and no less privilege in aggregate than, say, ISAs—which might seem an equitable way forward—would my noble friend change his mind?

I do not think so. The nature of the regime that would have to be established, particularly given the opportunity for withdrawing significant one-off lump sums in circumstances where someone might plan to be non-resident for a period, would require a raft of anti-avoidance provisions that would fetter the fundamentals of our current pension saving schemes.

None of these options is compatible with the basic and fundamental purposes of pension savings—to provide the member with an income in retirement. As I said, I would also like to consider the tax consequences of the amendments. These amendments do not indicate how withdrawals would be taxed. The expectation would be that a form of taxation would apply, but in most cases it would seem likely that the tax charge on RIF withdrawals would be less than the amount of tax relief enjoyed on these funds. RIF savings would clearly be tax advantaged compared with other forms of savings. Given the apparent ability of those with sufficient other income to extract RIF savings at will, there is a danger that it would become a vehicle into which other savings are recycled for tax advantage, rather than encouraging new retirement savings. It would be unfair to expect taxpayers to foot the bill for people who take the tax relief for pension savings but do not use the accumulated funds to provide an income in retirement.

It is unclear what would happen to the RIF on a member’s death but, given what is proposed by Amendment No. 140, which I shall move on to shortly, it seems that these clauses would allow a small group of wealthy individuals to pass their pension funds on to their heirs on death. There is no rationale for taxpayers to support bequests in this generous way.

One of the primary considerations of current pension provision products is that they provide an income that is guaranteed for at least the rest of the person’s life. With the proposed RIF, there is a risk of the individual running out of money in retirement. This is because it is impossible to accurately assess an individual’s life expectancy. How on earth would that be done? Insurance companies can protect the average life expectancy of particular cohorts. The noble Lord, with his expertise, does not need me to tell him that. The RIF requires an individual assessment to be made that enables a guaranteed income for life to be provided, regardless of how long the life is, by pooling the risk.

Annuities achieve exactly the same outcome for defined contribution pension schemes as exist for defined benefit schemes or, for that matter, state pensions; namely, that pensions are paid as a regular stream of income until death and, barring dependants’ pensions, that they end on the member’s death. No refund of contributions is given to the estate but everyone has the peace of mind of knowing that the pension will continue to be paid regardless of how long they live.

In essence, these amendments would benefit those who are able to take advantage of the tax relief given for pension savings to build up substantial pension pots, but who then want to use the accumulated fund for a purpose other than providing an income in retirement. In other words, the proposed RIF would provide significant tax benefits to the wealthiest in society at the expense of the taxpayer.

I will pick up on a number of points about the current range of pension pots. I take the point that, over time, more people will build up a significant retirement pot. However, the current figures show that, for 2007, a total of 445,871 annuities were sold, only 3.2 per cent of which—14,000—were for pension pots of more than £100,000. We also have figures for the first quarter of 2008, which show that 3.7 per cent of those sold were for pots of more than £100,000. I accept that that may change over time, as more people save in pensions and as personal accounts get under way. The Government have said that they will keep under review the age at which someone should annuitise in future.

What matters is not 3 per cent of the total but what the percentage is of those who have to annuitise compulsorily at the age of 75.

While I am on my feet, the Minister was good enough to say that he wanted to investigate the tax arrangements more fully than he has been able to do so far. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hunt will welcome that. The Minister referred to tax savings of £17.5 billion; that is spread among a large number of pension savers. When he does his investigation, could he ask the Treasury for figures on the number of people who hold ISAs? We would then get a better sort of comparison, especially if he also looked at the tax advantages, which do exist—he admitted that they do—for saving through ISAs. Could he also look at the alternatively secured pensions? They have tax arrangements that are somewhat different from what is currently envisaged elsewhere in the system.

Finally, all this talk of taxes reminds me that we are not debating a Finance Bill; we are tying to look at pensions as pensions. When the Minister has conducted his investigations on tax, will he be good enough to write to my noble friend Lord Hunt and me and put a copy in the Library for the general education of noble Lords?

It is not my job to investigate the tax effects of these propositions. The noble Lord said that we are debating pensions and that it is not for us to debate tax. You cannot decouple tax and pensions—they are inextricably linked.

So why did the Government invoke the issue of privilege last year when we won the vote in this House?

Precisely for that reason—taxation, as noble Lords know, is an issue not for this House but for the other place. The proposition was not acceptable to the other place; that is why it claimed financial privilege. We cannot debate sensibly a pensions issue of this nature without understanding the full range of taxation implications. My noble friend would not support one proposition at all if it did not involve full withdrawal; alternatively secured pensions—the money left in the pot when someone dies—involve a 70 per cent tax charge and the rest flows through for inheritance tax. Is that in the minds of noble Lords who support the proposition?

The noble Lord asked about ISAs. You do not get a tax deduction on the way into an ISA; you may get tax-free income.

And growth.

And growth. I hang on to the point that the range of tax benefits going into pension savings—deduction for the employer, deduction for the employee, tax-free build-up and the opportunity to get 25 per cent tax free—means that this is a much more tax-supported regime than that involving ISAs; that is why there is a requirement to take an income flow from it.

With all this talk of tax, I cannot resist getting up to the Dispatch Box.

Does the Minister accept the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable? She said that if a scheme could be designed that neutralised the tax advantages that accrued to not taking the retirement fund in the originally envisaged form—that is, retirement income—the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hunt would be acceptable. If so, there is a model involving alternatively secured pensions, which my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale has just raised, although many do not find the model particularly attractive. Would the Government accept the amendments if those tax arrangements were embedded into my noble friend’s amendments?

There is a big “if” about whether you could effectively describe the sort of regime that would cover the RIF. The proposition would facilitate the opportunity for someone to take a significant lump sum in one go as income or capital from the RIF. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, looks askance at that but the RIF, as so defined, would provide it. If someone has enough income from the RIF, the minimum level that they must take, or which has to be set on an ongoing basis, would be zero, and the maximum amount that could be drawn could be very significant indeed. That would provide the opportunity for people to plan to take that in a tax-effective way. You could structure all sorts of anti-avoidance provisions that would greatly add to the tax legislation, for which the Government would doubtless be challenged. You would need that if you are going to make this fair. That is why we do not think that it is the right use of the pensions regime.

I was looking askance because I was wondering, while I listened to the Minister’s defence, whether there are any amendments or safeguards—however guaranteed—that would ever persuade the Minister. He is simply fundamentally opposed to any change in this area whatever, regardless of what is put forward.

Because of its tax impact, I do not see the merits of building on this proposal. With the exception of my noble friend, everyone who has spoken has been silent in advancing reasons for accepting it and, unless we know those reasons, it cannot be properly evaluated.

Perhaps I may help my noble friend. When I was in the department, I argued for changes in this area but I could not persuade HMRC. The figures may well have altered now and I would not wish to go to the stake on them, but the work that I had done suggested that the tax gain on pensions represented between 45 and 55 per cent of the total value of the final pot. That was the range that we dealt with and it included the tax gain from the 25 per cent lump sum.

It depends on which taxpayer is involved and whether he is getting tax relief on contributions at the higher rate or the basic rate.

At that time, they were almost entirely higher-rate taxpayers because they were the only ones who possessed such sums. Obviously the tax privilege would be considerably less. My estimate is that it would now be between 35 and 50 per cent on average if we included basic-rate taxpayers—for example, the woman on average earnings who will over the course of a few years find herself with a pot which is much larger than necessary to float her off income-related benefits.

Perhaps I may say a brief word as one of those who the noble Lord said had been silent on this issue, although that is partly because we will move our own amendment later. I think that there is a genuine problem here and I sympathise with the Minister on that. I say to the noble Baroness that, even if overall her figures are right, the key difference between pension pots and ISAs is that, although perhaps only a small number is involved, pension pots can be worth several million pounds. I do not know of anyone with an ISA of anything like that sum. That is why I am nervous about these amendments. Potentially there is quite a big tax linkage on some of the very big pots, so I do not think it is right to say that ISAs and pension pots are totally the same.

If someone had a pot of a couple of million pounds and was seeking not to annuitise it, the tax element in it, which might be at least a third and perhaps a half, would go back to the taxpayer. It seems to me that the consequences of the noble Lord’s argument are the reverse of the implications.

We need to look at the whole picture.

Indeed; I am with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, on this. Perhaps I may recap the situation. First, I think that the question is: if I pay the tax back, why cannot I access my retirement savings as I wish? There is no reason for an individual to put substantial funds into a pension and claim the tax relief that goes with it if he does not want a retirement income at the other end. Tax relief on pension savings is not designed as a means of accumulating general savings. That is not the proposition.

Secondly, it would be very hard to work out the exact value of tax relief in any particular case, as it would depend on the profile of a person’s earnings and his tax and pension contributions over the years, plus tax regrowth on his pension investments. Therefore, this option would involve either very complex and expensive processes to work out individual figures—even if it were possible to do so—or a very high flat-rate level of tax recovery to avoid tax abuse. It would lead to the bizarre scenario where an individual saved in a pension vehicle to enjoy the tax relief but then faced the trouble of paying back the tax relief when he could have avoided all the inconvenience in the first place by saving in a savings vehicle such as an ISA, subject to the limits properly referred to by the noble Lord. Those who advocate this approach invariably want to access their pension fund taxed at their marginal income-tax rate, but that would greatly undervalue the tax relief previously enjoyed and would amount to a generous taxpayer subsidy.

I move on to Amendment No. 140. Although the amendment does not directly relate to the RIF, it nevertheless results in the same outcome—that of enabling those with the greatest means to use pension saving for a purpose other than providing an income in retirement. The amendment would remove the upper-age restriction on the payment of an annuity protection lump sum benefit.

An annuity protection lump sum death benefit was a concept introduced by the Government in the Finance Act 2004. It allows a return of pension savings used to secure an annuity, less any payments already made, to be made on a person’s death before age 75. The intention behind an annuity protection lump sum death benefit is to ensure that, should the member die early in his retirement, his family gets something back from the retirement provision that he has made.

Removing the upper-age restriction would go beyond that intention. The provision of this type of death benefit would make it attractive as an inheritance tax planning vehicle, due to the tax relief. An annuity with this form of protection typically costs more than one without it, reducing the income received in exchange for the protection offered. The extra cost of extending that protection beyond age 75 would be significantly more than under the current rules. That would make this option primarily suitable for those who could afford to take the reduced income and wished to use their pension savings for another purpose, such as inheritance planning.

The restriction on the payment of annuity protection lump sum death benefit beyond age 75 is consistent with other lump sum payments on death from pension arrangements and provides consistency between defined contribution and defined benefit pension schemes.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me about alternatively secured pensions and referred to the Christian Brethren. For those with specific objections to pooled mortality risks in annuities, ASPs provide an option in drawing a pension. ASPs are not, and have never been, limited by legislation to specific religious groups such as the Christian Brethren. Although they are not a mainstream product, the Finance Act 2007 allows that for a small minority, and if well advised, ASPs exist for people to draw an income in retirement consistent with the principle that pension tax relief should be used to provide an income in retirement and not tax-favoured inheritances. Therefore, in ASPs a product already exists to give people an alternative to annuities from age 75 consistent with our principle of tax-advantaged savings being used to secure an income in retirement.

I have been speaking for some while on this issue and I know that I have disappointed those in favour of the proposition, although I suspect that I have not surprised them. I hope that the Government’s position is very clear on this. It is important to be clear that the amendments all share a common theme: they allow those who are able to afford it to utilise the tax relief available on pension savings for purposes other than providing an income in retirement. Although innovation in the pension market is to be welcomed, and indeed encouraged, the Government are clear that it should not allow the well-off to take advantage of the system at the cost of the taxpayer. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking so long to explain the Government’s position. He said that a theme was running through these debates, and indeed there is. In this House, there is general dissatisfaction with the maximum age of 75, and we have voted on several occasions, often by substantial majorities, to remove that age limit.

The Minister also said that it was not his business to try to improve the amendment, but surely he has to accept that he has already lost the argument on several occasions. These amendments were passed last year and in 2004 substantial majorities were secured to remove the age limit of 75. I accept that last year it was not possible to debate the matter further because the other place invoked privilege, but if the Minister is listening to this place, should he not at least agree to sit down with us to see whether there is a way forward? I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, had a number of very interesting ideas. No one wants to create a serious situation for the Treasury; we just want to encourage more saving. We want to encourage people—particularly those who in the past have been deprived as regards pension arrangements—to save for their pension and to save for their later life, and perhaps we can devise a series of amendments that will achieve that.

The Minister is right that a number of people exercise the option to purchase an annuity at a comparatively early age because they know that by the time they get to 75 they will be forced to annuitise. As my noble friend pointed out, that may well be at just the wrong moment. So, of course, they annuitise in advance and they want to receive the money earlier because they know that they will be compelled to purchase an annuity. Surely there is a way, as my noble friends have pointed out from the Front Bench, by which we can at least meet some of the noble Lord’s concerns. Normally he says that discussions are ongoing; that we will have extensive consultation; and that we will find a way through. Will he do that on this point?

I am more than happy to set up a meeting with officials from the Treasury or HMRC. I do so, in all honesty, without any great hope that they will see a way through this that is satisfactory because there are real concerns, but they may be able to articulate those more effectively than I have been able to. Yes, of course, the Government listen to this House but they also listen to the other place, which has declared itself on this point on several occasions. On the crucial issue of the tax component, the other place has particular primacy.

I cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. The great clunking fist came down when the Commons discussed this amendment and so great was that clunking fist that not a single word was uttered against it in another place. The clunking fist was to invoke privilege.

I have no wish to make a comment on the voiceless clunking fist, except to say: what more could I ask? The Minister has probably gone much further than his brief, for which we all congratulate him. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, that it is important to put his remarks in context. I apologise to him if I did not mention that in the previous sentence to the one I quoted, he said that,

“there should, at the very least, be a substantial increase in the limit”.—[Official Report, 15/11/04; col. 1229.]

He went on to say that he supported the amendment and that at the very least there was a strong argument for an increase in the limit to 75, if the principle of abolishing the limit altogether was not accepted. He then voted to abolish the limit and the amendment won the day. I say to the noble Lord, please do not desert us now.

In your hour of need.

In our hour of need, as the noble Baroness says. I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is moving because in that Division she voted against these amendments as she then held ministerial office. Last year, she did not appear in the voting Lobbies and I sense that there are ways in which we can find some form of accommodation so that the voice of this House can be heard.

I thank my noble friend Lord Fowler for a powerful speech. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, shares my concern about final salary schemes. We must find a way through that in our debates. I would especially like to single out my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale on my Front Bench for emphasising that basic human right. It represents personal savings and deferred wages which belong to the individual. My noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out that there are tax implications and that we should be able to find a way through to give individuals choice, freedom and right to property, which I advanced at the outset. It would be churlish not to accept the offer made by the Minister. Therefore, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 128 and 129 not moved.]

moved Amendment No. 129A:

I thank the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment. I realise this is of great importance for a number of occupational pension schemes, particularly for those schemes whose rules even preclude any negotiation about changes to future benefits. In response to recommendations made by last year’s deregulatory review, the Government announced that they would regulate for overrides to enable scheme rules to be amended to reflect the 2005 change to the indexation cap for service going forward and for the proposed reduction in the revaluation cap in this Bill. In keeping with the recommendation from the independent deregulatory reviewers, Chris Lewin and Ed Sweeney, we have said that overrides would be exercisable provided trustees agree.

We already have the necessary powers to make these changes by regulation under existing powers in Section 68 of the Pensions Act 1995. We are committed to introducing these new arrangements in regulations in due course, which is what we will do. In fact, we have already begun work on this. Our aim is to consult on the draft regulations later this year and to have the new arrangements in place in the first half of next year. The noble Baroness’s amendment seeks to introduce further regulations on overrides. It would not be appropriate to introduce a further regulation-making power to make changes to scheme rules when sufficient powers already exist. Furthermore, to introduce unnecessary legislation would hardly be in the spirit of the deregulatory review. As I said earlier, we already have powers to introduce what we have proposed and what we think will be appropriate in the circumstances. Further legislation to achieve that is not necessary.

Moreover, if we were to adopt the amendment and regulations were made using the powers provided for in the amendment, it appears that schemes’ rules would have to be amended. The drafting of the amendment suggests that that would be compulsory. However, that is not the primary reason for asking the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. We have provision, and we are working on introducing regulations under it.

Will the Minister help me with the meaning of “in due course”?

I repeat what I said. We are committed to introducing these new arrangements in regulations in due course, which is what we will do. In fact, we have already begun work on this. Our aim is to consult on the draft regulations later this year and to have the new arrangements in place in the first half of next year. That is what “in due course” means in this context.

I thank the Minister for that response, which at least confirms that the Government will proceed with the minimalist recommendations of the deregulatory review from last year. He has, however, failed to take the point that although the Government have wisely provided for indexation capping both for pensions in payment and for deferred pensions, employers cannot achieve it except by agreement with trustees, who always extract a price. The Government make a big fanfare about giving these things to employers, but in fact it achieves nothing for them. The Government are offering regulations that may free up scheme rules but do not actually help employers very much at all. If that is all that is on offer, I will go back after Committee to those who have asked us to raise this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 129B:

I found the noble Baroness’s speech very interesting. In talking over the proposals of Con Keating of BrightonRock briefly, although not specifically, with Lawrence Churchill of the PPF—I do not wish to attribute any views—I certainly did not recognise the noble Baroness’s monopoly or timidity arguments for saying that the Government would resist this. I have heard neither of those. Before my noble friends responds, perhaps the noble Baroness could help me on who insures the insurers. The point about the PPF is not that it wants to be all-encompassing. It has carefully gone to a risk-related levy in order to encourage funds to have a predictable and sensible approach to risk as faced with the DB schemes. I think we all recognise that there are complexities with hybrid schemes. The trouble with moving into the insurance market is that of the reinsurance proposals behind it. I am not sure that some companies which would like to move into this market place have sufficient resources for reinsurance. As I say, it is not a field I am comfortable with, so I will defer. Ultimately, we could easily have a fallback on the PPF or, almost, a version of why FAS had to be set up.

There are two answers to that. The Financial Services Authority or an equivalent EU supervisory body would regulate that body, which would be the case if reinsurance needed to be put in place as part of the risk management arrangements. The important distinction is the financial services compensation scheme. As I argued in my opening remarks, if there was a failure, that scheme would provide better benefits than would the PPF. The PPF is typically referred to as producing a 90 per cent benefit, which it does not. On average, it produces an 80 per cent benefit and often produces a 60 per cent benefit if a pension scheme has to go into the PPF. If a pension scheme had to go into the financial services compensation scheme, those PPF rules would not apply, so a higher degree of assurance would be provided through that compensation scheme than exists via the PPF.

I had a good discussion with the people at BrightonRock, who were kind enough to explain things. The more I talked to them, the less I liked this model. Quite frankly, they were very unconvincing as to what assets or strength they had behind them. In this situation, just to say that you could get reinsurance is not good enough. When one thinks about it, it is almost like a competing fire brigade to the existing fire brigade. We are not just talking about a monopoly. It reminds me of the old joke about Screaming Lord Sutch, who asked, “Why is there only one monopolies commission?”. For a very good reason, there is only one fire brigade that everyone has to pay for. After Northern Rock, I do not share the noble Baroness’s confidence that it is all right for the matter to be left to the FSA. I do not want pension funds to land up in the financial services compensation scheme. With a considerable amount of effort in this House, we set up the PPF. It is not exactly a lender, but it is a good underwriter of last resort.

De-risking pension schemes for employers is not the same thing necessarily as de-risking pension schemes for pensioners and employees. From the past year or two, we all should have learnt that it is much too easy to talk about reinsurance. Some of the very big insurers in America cannot meet their obligations and that ultimate risk is a very serious problem. I would be much more comfortable sticking with the PPF.

Before making my only intervention in this debate, I declare, first, my interest as chairman designate of BrightonRock, which, I would hasten to add, is not to be confused with any other rock. I should also make another declaration of non-interest: I am not a member of the Society of Turnaround Professionals, although I hold its lifetime award for achievement. That is not so very special when one bears in mind that I was once standing backstage at the Oscar ceremony when Mickey Rooney came off stage and immediately deposited his Oscar for a lifetime award in the trash can on the grounds that he thought that it would be more properly identified as a death-time award.

In the case of our friends at BrightonRock, there is one very important distinction, which may answer part of the concerns of the noble Baroness. It is not just intended to be an insurance company but would have a very big role as an interventionist in bringing to bear corporate rescue activity into the parent companies behind the sponsorship of the pension schemes concerned. There will be a proactive role to address the problem which is giving rise to the potential call which would come upon the PPF. That is a very important point and a most fundamental part of the BrightonRock concept.

I shall answer the noble Baroness’s concern on whether it will get the funding necessary. The due diligence for this, effectively, will be dependent on demonstrating exactly that point of financial viability to the City, which we are looking to at present for a substantial fundraising, being handled by City professionals, aimed at achieving full financing capability by the end of September. The arrangements that that implies require us to demonstrate that viability. If we do not demonstrate it, we will not be in business. If we do, it will be because the market has decided that we are able to cover it.

I would also remind Members of the Committee that the most successful corporate rescue ever mounted in this country was for Lloyd’s of London. It was beset widely by failure of reinsurance, but where the reinsurance was capable of being replaced and mutualised to an extent, that overcame the problem.

My final point is that we who have put this BrightonRock scheme together, having read very carefully the Pensions Bill, take the view that it is coming from the wrong direction in a very important respect. It starts from the supposition that the problem that has to be addressed is the failure of management of the pension schemes. I would respectfully suggest that it is not; it is the corporate failure of the sponsoring companies behind them. That is not properly addressed and, in many ways, the Bill tends to put obstacles in the way of the orderly approach to and correction of those problems. BrightonRock would seek to overcome those problems in the way I have indicated.

These concerns worry us greatly because we believe that the future viability of the pensions industry depends on an address to the corporate financial management of the sponsoring companies and not to the fundamental managements of the pension schemes, which we think are generally pretty good. In the world of corporate rescue where I have seen pension schemes fail, the failure usually has come many years prior to the time when it acknowledges the failure as a result of the collapse of the sponsoring company and its inability to maintain the funding.

The position demonstrated in the recent risk-sharing analysis in the risk-sharing consultation on 5 June was completely wrong when it said that the risks here are longevity and health improvement. They are not the risks which undermine the future viability of pensions. They are the risks of solvency to the sponsoring companies. In this respect, the Government and everyone in this country, all pension beneficiaries, need every bit of help that they can get in securing it, which is where what we are talking of would help. The easement of this arrangement by the manner of this amendment would greatly assist in the creation of the management of this company. I believe that it would make a positive contribution towards the Government’s own desire to come at it from the point of view of the corporate financing side, which is where the issue really lies.

I hope that the noble Lord will not take this the wrong way, but is he quite sure that his speech and remarks are appropriate? To start with, he very properly declared his interest, but he is in the middle of a major fundraising, for which he presumably has a financial interest. I wonder whether it is in the right traditions of this House for him, effectively, to promote the prospectus of the company. I would ask him to think again about that.

I shall seek direction on that, but my concern is the challenge to whether this would be useful in the context of what the Bill sets out to do. I have sought to correct what I thought was a misunderstanding on the issue. I am not financially involved at this stage of the process; I will be if and when it becomes a live project, but at the moment I am not seeking to promote it in that sense—only to noble Lords, not outside this Chamber.

I should like to come in on that. If one is promoting a fundraising, one is not going to make any money, but if the fundraising raises money when it does, that really is splitting hairs.

Perhaps I can assist the Committee. In his enthusiasm for his project, I think that my noble friend may not have realised that we are not debating the specific proposition he has in mind. I sought to draw on the essence of the proposition in order to tease out whether the principles are those which could result in ineligibility being established, while recognising that there will be all kinds of questions if any particular company comes forward with a scheme such as that which has been promoted by BrightonRock, one that has interesting features which should be explored. However, it is not for this Committee to get into the detail of the specific proposition—where the money comes from or anything about the success of the particular operation. I am sure my noble friend did not intend to intrude in that way on the Committee’s deliberations.

I support those comments and I am grateful to my noble friend. I am concerned here with the benefits of this amendment on behalf of whichever company comes to create this function. It may or may not be the one about which I have spoken and it was identified before I rose to speak. I am concerned with the principle because other companies will come into this field to provide similar services, and it is appropriate that this amendment should be supported on their behalf too.

Perhaps I may start by acknowledging that in my view the noble Baroness was not in any way seeking to promote a particular company but was talking about the generality. I am not sure whether the effect of what the noble Lord, Lord James, said was the same, and I hope that he will reflect on his words. In the end he has to make his own judgment about how and what he speaks on.

The proposed new clause would amend Section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004. That section deals with eligible schemes for the Pension Protection Fund. It would exempt certain schemes from the PPF if they had guarantees from what the amendment calls an “authorised insurer”. I understand that the amendment has been tabled to explore whether schemes that purchase an insurance product along the lines of the one being promoted by BrightonRock also need to have protection for their members under the PPF. The Minister of State for Pensions Reform and I have met representatives of BrightonRock, including the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath. We listened with interest to their proposals on how a product intended to insure schemes so that they could pay scheme members in the event of the insolvency of their sponsoring employer might work. I understand that BrightonRock wants schemes that have purchased one of its products to be exempt from paying levies to the PPF and for scheme members not to be covered by the protection offered by the PPF.

The removal of the protection of scheme members by the PPF is not something to be considered lightly. There are some defined benefit schemes that are not eligible for protection by the PPF which include unfunded public service pension schemes, local authority pension schemes and schemes that provide only for death benefits. Broadly speaking, these schemes already have very secure provision for the protection of their members’ pensions. The likelihood of such schemes requiring PPF assistance therefore is zero. Anticipating that new schemes of this nature could emerge, Parliament ensured that the Pensions Act 2004 has a regulation-making power in Section 126 that allows the list of exempt schemes to be extended. The PPF and the Department for Work and Pensions have also identified a limited number of instances where the risk of a scheme calling on the PPF is extremely unlikely, such as where a scheme has no active members. In these cases, schemes may apply to the board of the PPF for a waiver of their pension protection levy.

Let me remind noble Lords that the PPF is funded by a combination of compulsory levies charged to all eligible schemes, any assets remaining in schemes which transfer to the PPF at the end of an assessment period, and the proceeds from the investment of these levies and assets. So if schemes are not eligible for the PPF or are not required to pay a levy or both, this has an impact on the financing of the fund and the protection it provides to millions of scheme members. BrightonRock suggests that it will only ever be marginal in terms of the number of schemes covered relative to the PPF’s universe. This may be the case, but any change to legislation would open up the market to other competitors, moving away from a “marginal” impact that would clearly have an impact on the financing of the PPF and the protection it provides.

We also need to bear in mind that the Pension Protection Fund is a relatively new institution and it is important that scheme members, people receiving compensation and people due to receive compensation in the future have confidence in the PPF’s financial security and long-term sustainability. However, the Government keep the PPF under review and already have the power to make regulations to exempt certain schemes from the protection provided by the PPF or to waive the pension protection levy if that is desirable. At this stage, however, my ministerial colleagues and I do not consider that it would be right to open up a market in the way suggested by this amendment.

If in the future we opened up the market to products like those of BrightonRock, we would need to be confident that the entry of BrightonRock and others could provide long-term security for those taking out such policies. Confidence in these insurers will be equally important to those members remaining under the wing of the PPF. The noble Baroness said that protection would come from the FSCS, but I would say to her in response that it does not come without cost either in that that protection would also have to be funded.

In conclusion I want to emphasise that there are already powers to exempt schemes if we want to do so in the future, so we do not need the amendment. However, we are not minded currently to open up the market in the way suggested.

Can the Minister explain why the Government are happy with insured closed schemes but are drawing the line at insured open schemes?

What we are not yet happy about is the model which suggests that open schemes with ongoing liabilities would be protected by a third party. We are not sufficiently confident about the extent of that cover, and that is not to impugn BrightonRock or any particular entity. The Pension Protection Fund is not seeking to hold a monopoly position, but it is a fairly new institution that is building confidence with people in the pensions arena, and it should be entitled to do so. I also return to the point that in a model such as BrightonRock—the noble Lord, Lord James, indicated in his contribution that he was speaking more generally, but others would allow that there is a risk of cherry-picking—we would really need to understand exactly how secure the covenants were, particularly as some of the entities involved are not UK-based. In one particular case, it is regulated out of Malta.

That is where we are, but I stress to the noble Baroness that the powers are in place should there be a view to use them.

I thank the Minister for his response. He said that the PPF is trying to build confidence. What the PPF is doing is convincing the employer community that it is a very expensive route to dealing with the issue of scheme insolvency. That opinion will be expressed by almost any employer with a defined benefit scheme who has received this year’s fees demand and has been looking at what is happening to the costs in this area. There is potentially an issue here, which is why there is an incentive to look at other options.

One of the points I sought to make is that I hope that the department’s mind is not closed because it is too close to the PPF. The fund is the department’s own invention, so of course it is rather protective of it, but I was hoping that the Minister would demonstrate that he is open to open market solutions. I say that because we believe that open market solutions often produce innovation and thus dynamism in a given situation. I completely accept that there are big practical issues to be dealt with, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, said. I was not advocating the BrightonRock proposals but the use of market-based solutions as an alternative to state-based solutions. That may indicate a doctrinal difference between us.

The Minister for Pensions, Mike O’Brien, is on the record as saying that he welcomes innovation in the market. Obviously there needs to be a full analysis of the innovations and of the risks, but certainly our mind is not closed to those kinds of solutions.

The Minister reassures me. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]

Clause 89 [Additional State Pension consolidation: Category A and graduated retirement benefit]:

moved Amendment No. 130ZZA:

I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 130ZZEA and 130ZZEB, which are amendments to government Amendment No. 130ZZE in this group. This is getting ridiculous.

I thank the Minister for introducing his amendments and for circulating the note which was euphemistically headed “simplification of state second pension”. As he has demonstrated in his opening remarks, this is anything but simple. I learnt more from reading the note than I ever need to know about S2P. I cannot pretend to understand the precise technical impact of all the amendments in this group, but if the department’s note is an accurate reflection of what is planned, then we are broadly content with what the Minister is proposing.

However, there is one exception, which is dealt with by my amendments. I was alerted to this by the reference to actuarial equivalence in the department’s note. When I found out that it was in connection with contracting out—in this case the contracted-out deduction—I was put on full alert because the Government are not to be trusted in this territory. Paragraph 21 of the department’s note on these amendments refers to the way in which the contracted-out deduction will be arrived at. It states:

“The current intention is for the Government Actuary’s Department to consult on the proposed assumptions in the Summer of 2011 to ensure that consolidation can be based on the most up to date information on life expectancy, earnings and earnings growth. These assumptions will be used for the consolidation calculation”.

That seems entirely rational, and we support it. However, it is not what the legislation contained in these amendments says. Instead, proposed new Section 46A of the 1993 pensions Act, as inserted by Amendment No. 130ZZE, says nothing about consultation. Subsection (5) says only that the Secretary of State “may” require the Government Actuary to prepare a report; the Secretary of State is not required to involve the Government Actuary. Subsection (7) says, in effect, that even if the Government have a report from the Government Actuary, they are under no obligation to take it into account when issuing the regulations for determining actuarial equivalence.

The Committee may feel that this is just a technical issue, but very similar provisions on actuarial equivalence already exist in relation to the contracted-out rebates which are set on a quinquennial basis. I know that the Minister recalls our previous discussions on this, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, will remember the debates we had on the order setting out the contracted-out rebate in 2006 after the last quinquennial review. At that time the Government Actuary reported, after consultation, that the rebate should be set at 5.8 per cent, although many of the consultees argued for a higher figure, some for higher than 8 per cent. The Government then plucked the figure of 5.3 per cent from thin air, citing something that was not found in the legislation or indeed in these amendments. They called it “sustainable affordability”—that is to say, if the Treasury says it cannot afford it, the Government will ignore actuarial equivalence determined by the Government Actuary’s Department.

The legislation, which is drawn in very similar terms to the amendments before us, did not stop the Government from acting in that way at the last quinquennial review, as the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, will recall. The government amendments give them carte blanche to carry on operating in exactly the same way, and possibly even to invent new bits of doctrine to sit alongside “sustainable affordability” and not do the right thing.

My amendments are modest. They would ensure that the Government of the day, when coming to these difficult and complex decisions, would be guided by what was right for the rights-holders when their rights were being consolidated, not what was convenient for the Treasury. I would replace the word “may” with the word “must” in subsections (5) and (7) of new Section 46A.

Will the Minister comment on the processes that will be used to assure the calculations on a quality basis when the single additional pension amount is arrived at? The department’s note makes it abundantly clear that no ordinary mortal could check the calculations attributable to his particular circumstances. Those calculations will fix an entitlement for all time for post-2020 retirees. Would the department, for example, use specially commissioned audits of the calculations? The ordinary audit of the National Insurance Fund will not give assurance of the granular level of the individual’s own rights and entitlements, and it is at that level that we need confirmation to exist.

We have seen too many government systems collapse in the face of complexity and fail to deliver what they need to. Child maintenance is a prime example, but anyone who has tried to check a contribution record extracted from NIRS2 will find that that is not a simple process either. The calculations that are involved in gathering these various entitlements and deductions are even more complicated, which is why I particularly want the Minister to reflect on the assurance processes that will ensure that individuals get that to which they are entitled once the actuarial rules have been set.

It would be churlish of me not to support these amendments, particularly as the noble Baroness has so kindly made the speech for me and referred to me several times. She asked whether I remember the debates on the order in 2006. I think of little else; I find them far better than counting sheep. I have only one question for the Minister. Could he please explain what the difference is between “affordable sustainability” and “sustainable affordability”?

I will pass on that last question, if I may.

The noble Baroness’s amendments would make it a requirement that the Secretary of State obtain a report from the Government Actuary advising on the method for determining actuarial equivalence and that the recommendation in the report be adopted. Incidentally, I am not surprised that the noble Baroness referred to contracted-out rebates; I thought that they might just be raised in the context of this issue.

Determining the method of actuarial equivalence will clearly require a great deal of expert knowledge. That is why we have made provision in the Bill to obtain a report from the Government Actuary’s Department. I assure the Committee that it is fully our intention to make use of that provision, and we will make a decision based on that advice.

I can, however, see considerable merit in the amendments. But there is a slight concern, about which we need to talk to the Government Actuary. It is suggested that the draft amendments compel the Government to accept the Government Actuary’s advice. That depends a bit on whether there is going to be a range of advice or a single proposition, and whether that places the responsibility for determining actuarial equivalence on the Government Actuary rather than on the Secretary of State. We would like to discuss that further. Subject only to that, I am hopeful that we can bring back on Report something that has the same effect, if not the same wording, as the noble Baroness’s amendments, because we are fully in agreement.

The noble Baroness rightly raised the issue of quality assurance. There are two strands of the work. There is the calculation of the growth of the additional pension before the contracted-out deduction. Of course that is a calculation that happens currently when people retire, but it is being done specially in 2012 to try to get this system under way. There are already systems in place that cater for that, but we would certainly consider the use of the NAO to quality-assure these calculations. That has not yet been looked at in detail. The suggestion is helpful and we will take it forward.

That is as much reassurance as I can give the noble Baroness. I hope that, on that basis, she will feel able not to press the matter today.

I am delighted. I look forward to seeing the amendment that the Minister produces on Report.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

moved Amendments Nos. 130ZZB to 130ZZD:

moved Amendment No. 130ZZE:

moved Amendment No. 130ZZF:

moved Amendments Nos. 130ZZG to 130ZZL:

moved Amendment No. 130ZZM:

moved Amendment No. 130ZZN:

I understand where my noble friend is coming from; obviously we all wish to see this simplification, particularly regarding the very complicated issue of protected rights when people are not in contracted-out schemes, or, indeed, contracted-out schemes in the future.

My noble friend is pursuing three or four objectives which sometimes clash with each other and are not reconcilable. I understand that this is an awkward bit of protected rights and there is therefore a different rule when it comes to the rest of the annuity; people can end up having two types of annuity. As we were saying earlier regarding the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, women live longer, and we also wish to ensure that couples, particularly women, have protection and do not need recourse to income-related benefits, particularly pension credit, in widowhood. They are best protected against that, until the happy day when women have an annuity or pension in their own right of sufficient size, comfort and affordability, by having joint lives on their husbands’ pensions—in other words, survivors’ benefits. But we are stripping out even that benefit, which is available through protected rights.

That push to simplify is at odds with the push to keep as many people as possible off income-related benefits in older age. I do not have an easy solution: this is a problem that one hopes will diminish over time as more women carry their own pension. However, if we want to keep widows in particular off income-related benefits, we may do more to help them by changing the annuity rules rather than the pension credit rules. At the very least, spouses should be required to sign their spouse’s annuity forms so that they know what they are signing up to when they choose a single life annuity. From now on, such spouses will be even more vulnerable to having to receive income-related benefits than in the past.

I acknowledge the issue that my noble friend has raised concerning vulnerable survivors. The best way in which to help people make the right choice is to ensure that they have access to clear and appropriate information. My noble friend will be aware that we are working to facilitate and encourage improvements to the information on annuity choice so that people have the information they need. In particular we are working with the Pensions Advisory Service, supporting it on the development of its web tool to provide people with information about choosing an annuity. This is an important issue and we need to get the balance right.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 91 [Scope of mechanism]:

[Amendment No. 130ZA not moved.]

Clause 91 agreed to.

Clause 92 agreed to.

Clause 93 [Activation of pension compensation sharing]:

moved Amendment No. 130ZB: