I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) in the amendments he has tabled. Each and every one of them is important. Given that we are having a reflective debate on Report, I hope we will get a reflective response from the Economic Secretary at the end of our debate on this group.
Let me start where it seems to me that there has been a strong measure of agreement across the House—on the importance of having good, regular and accurate pensions information for scheme members. I think we could all agree that what should underpin our pension schemes—this relates to new clause 2—are higher standards of governance, openness and administration. Such underpinning, then, should be provided in this Bill’s provisions for those public service pension schemes in the future. There is bound to be greater confidence and trust in the schemes, along with better understanding of them, if members are given more information.
2.30 pm
We have all used Lord Hutton’s report as our starting point for the purposes of the Bill. Lord Hutton pointed out:
“Not all public service pension schemes communicate with members on a regular basis. Currently it is a requirement of defined contribution schemes in the private sector that they provide members with an annual benefit statement: this is not the case for defined benefit schemes”
—which, of course, the majority of public service pension schemes are. Lord Hutton also proposed, in his recommendation 18, precisely what my hon. Friend has advocated in new clause 2:
“All public service pension schemes should issue regular benefit statements to active scheme members, at least annually and without being requested”.
I must say that I thought my hon. Friend let the Economic Secretary off a little lightly when he said that he was not expecting the Government to accept the new clause, but was merely seeking an indication that they would table an amendment of their own in the House of Lords. That would certainly be satisfactory, but it would be desirable if the Government said “We accept the principle and we want the practice, so we will legislate accordingly by adopting the new clause.” It must surely be a matter of common sense and consensus that members being kept informed about their schemes so that they can plan for their retirement must be a good thing; and that good thing can be guaranteed in the Bill. I see no serious case against new clause 2.
I think that Lord Hutton’s proposal for a national board for the local government pension scheme is consistent with the bid for better standards, better information and better understanding among scheme members. The employers’ side, the Local Government Association,
the union side, and members of unions such as the GMB all agree that Lord Hutton was right to make that recommendation, but we are still waiting to see it enshrined in the Bill. I hope that the provision for better standards and information for scheme members that we hope the Government will introduce will include provision for a national board.