Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill

There is a slight sense of a work in progress about this group of amendments, which is to be entirely expected when trying to translate into legislation the Kelly Committee proposals and to refine the IPSA legislation that we passed earlier in the year. On pensions, I must say that I was disappointed in Committee that there had clearly been so little prior consultation with the trustees of the pension fund about the shape and detail of the legislation. It seems slightly bizarre that the amendments then tabled apparently had not been thought through properly in conjunction with the trustees such as to allow us to hear what they had to say. However, that was the start of a process that, by and large, has been productive, which is very good news. However, even today the Government amendments before the House are subject to amendments tabled on behalf of the trustees, so clearly the process of reconciling their views had not reached a conclusion when those amendments to the Bill were tabled. We heard today that the Lord Chancellor is prepared to accept further amendments tabled on behalf of the trustees, which is good news, because it suggests that we are close to the point at which the two views can be consolidated into a single whole to be put before the House. However, I must say that most Members are not expert in this area and need, I think, the advice of those with much greater experience in order to understand some of the complexities of pension law. Nevertheless, even the least expert Member—probably me—recognised that the previous scheme, which did not provide for board-level representation of recipients of the pension scheme benefits, was out of kilter with what is considered good practice elsewhere. That obviously needed to be dealt with, hence the amendments before us. I still do not understand entirely one slightly arcane point, although I hope that when I have heard the contribution from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), I will understand it better. It concerns the distinction, in terms of language, between a "pension or future pension" and a "benefit or future benefit", which I understand to be the language of the Pensions Act 1995—if I have got it right. I am not sure whether I understand what possible impact there could be of changing the language from one to the other, other than for the purposes of consistency. If that is the case, I should say that I am normally in favour of consistency, but I shall be interested to hear the arguments on either side. That said, it is not a critical factor, and largely I appreciate the work that has been done, the progress that has been made and the stance taken by the Lord Chancellor. I shall deal with the amendments relating to IPSA. As I have said from the start, I believe that there are still unanswered questions about the role of the compliance officer. We discussed the matter in Committee, and I was simply told that my concerns had no foundation—and no foundations there remain, because the Lord Chancellor has not put down any amendments about that role.