Civil Partnership (Contracted-out Occupational and Appropriate Personal Pension Schemes) (Surviving Civil Partners) Order 2005

I thank the Minister for introducing the orders. We are happy to support them, as they tidy up the loose ends of last year’s Civil Partnership Act. I could use the opportunity today to ask some detailed questions about whether the Government have any commitment to rationalising and simplifying the pensions system. The orders add another layer of complexity to an existing system that is marked by complexity, as we debated a little earlier in Committee. We do not object to the orders because we support the completion of the civil partnership regime, but they underline the mess that pensions have got into in this country. I shall not go further on that today, because we have the opportunity of the Adair Turner commission to look forward to later this year. This side of the Committee certainly looks forward to that. I shall raise just one specific question that arises from the issue of complexity. What plans do the Government have to ensure that those contemplating entering into civil partnerships are aware of the financial consequences of the Act? Consequences are not always benign for all parties. It is important that people know what they are letting themselves in for. The Minister may well say that they are broadly the same as for those people contemplating marriage, which can be paraphrased as, ““Let the would-be-marrieds beware””. I am not sure that is a satisfactory answer in the context of the novel regime of civil partnership. I have two further aspects to address briefly. First, regulatory impact assessments show the continuing contempt that the Government have for the RIA process. The RIAs attached to the orders are exactly the same as those produced for the Civil Partnership Bill, as it was last year. No attempt has been made to make the RIAs specific to the orders before the Committee. The best that I can say about that is that it is lazy. Will the Minister give the impact of each of the orders before us today in terms of the ongoing and one-off costs to the Government and to the private sector? It is becoming a point of principle, because we are so often asked to approve orders on the basis of RIAs that are virtually meaningless because they relate to an earlier Act or because they have not been properly updated. More importantly, is this the end or just the beginning of pension orders under the Civil Partnership Act? That links to the specific question that I have been asked to raise with the Minister by Stonewall. One of the orders deals with contracted-out occupational pensions, but no mention is made of occupational pension arrangements that are not contracted-out. As I understand it, the practice notes known as IR12, issued by HM Revenue and Customs, provide that survivor pensions are to be paid automatically to survivor spouses but that trustees have discretion as to whether payments are to be made to surviving partners, whether same-sex partners or heterosexual partners. Will those practice notes be changed to give surviving civil partners exactly the same rights as surviving spouses? Or will some further order be necessary to achieve that? Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to explain how the two regimes of contracted-out and non-contracted-out occupational pensions will work in the light of the Civil Partnership Act.