HL Deb 17 November 2004 vol 666 cc1530-3

283 Clause 166, page 114, line 42, after "liabilities," insert— ( ) the likelihood of an insolvency event occurring in relation to the employer in relation to a scheme,

283A The Commons agree to this Amendment with the following Amendment—

Line 2, at beginning insert "except in relation to any prescribed scheme or scheme of a prescribed description,"

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 283A to Lords Amendment No. 283.

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, an amendment to Amendment No. 283 was tabled in the other place by the honourable Member for Northavon. The amendment followed NAPF concerns that the board would be required to undertake a complex and costly assessment of risk for small schemes which would be completely disproportionate to the amount collected. The amendment sought to enable the board to make exceptions to the rule requiring it to set a risk based levy for all schemes, and to set just a scheme based levy for small schemes with fewer than 100 members.

I think we all agree that administrative burdens for the PPF and schemes should be kept to a minimum. However, we considered that the proposed amendment in the Commons was unsuitable primarily because, in order to meet the restrictions it would lay down, the board would still need to assess the insolvency risk posed by schemes—the very process we are seeking to avoid. In consequence, the other place agreed with Amendment No. 283 and made a further amendment to it. With your Lordships' consent we seek to exempt small schemes from the consideration of insolvency risk in setting the risk based levy. The board would still be required to impose a risk based levy on all schemes, but for small schemes only the board would have to consider only the level of underfunding.

I could elaborate on that explanation. Primarily we think that this is fairly straightforward because the board would need a PPF valuation in any case. This valuation would give the board all the information it needed to establish underfunding risk. We do not think this would be a complex administrative task. We believe that it meets, so far as we can, the spirit of the original discussion in your Lordships' House. Therefore, we propose to amend the amendment offered in the other place by the honourable Member for Northavon. I hope that your Lordships will accept it.

Moved, That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 283A to Lords Amendment No. 283.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Lord Higgins

My Lords, it may be worth taking stock before we engage in the details of the individual amendments. We enter in effect a final sprint of what has most certainly been a marathon, with the prospect of a photo finish as we approach the finishing line of the Queen's Speech, and with some danger of a dead heat because unresolved matters still remain and there is some danger that one will lose the Bill. However, the prospect of going through the whole thing again in the next Session of Parliament is not one which I view with equanimity.

The Bill arrived in this House in a deplorable state for the simple reason that the programming Motion in the other place had not given the Commons the opportunity to sort out many problems in the Bill before it arrived here. Noble Lords spent some 40 hours debating improvements to this Bill. We can look back with some satisfaction at the improvements that we have made. However, the Bill most certainly ought not to have arrived in this House in this state. There is a growing tendency for the other place not to scrutinise legislation and to leave it for us to do.

What I considered quite sickening yesterday was the fact that the Minister in the Commons moved a programming Motion on the consideration of our amendments—which had been discussed for 90 hours in this place—to conclude the business within four hours and to split it up into individual chunks. Having moved that Motion, the Minister had the nerve to say, on the first debate which took place, that he could not give a proper answer due to shortage of time. This really is a totally unsatisfactory situation. It constitutes a growing danger that Parliament generally needs to take very carefully into account.

When the Bill arrived from the Commons there were 248 clauses, 12 schedules and 235 pages. By 10 June it had grown to 310 clauses, 13 schedules, 316 pages and two volumes. By Third Reading it had grown to 326 clauses, 13 schedules and 366 pages, albeit still in two volumes. The growth of the Bill was quite extraordinary. Up to Third Reading 442 amendments were agreed in your Lordships' House. Many of them were amendments tabled by the official Opposition which the Government accepted, for example, the one tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes a few days ago. Indeed, the Government accepted one of the amendments on which we divided the House limiting the initial period in which the levy would be introduced. The Government accepted a number of other amendments which we shall discuss in a moment.

As regards Amendment No. 283, and the related amendments, we suggested fairly late in the proceedings on the Bill that if there was a likelihood of an insolvency event occurring in relation to an employer, it should be a compulsory rather than optional factor to take into account when assessing the risk based nature of a scheme. I see that, while accepting that amendment, the other place has amended it slightly to read, except in relation to any prescribed scheme or scheme of a prescribed description", which we can see very clearly means that almost anything can be done. However, what I believe is intended is to exclude small firms.

I was initially of the view that all the schemes, of whatever size, should have both a scheme-based and a risk-based assessment. However, I am persuaded by the arguments put forward for excluding very small schemes. I welcome the amendment. It reflects the co-operative way in which the Bill has been handled throughout our proceedings. Together with the amendment, the change that the Government propose improves the Bill. I am glad that they have seen that it is the right thing to do.

Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay

My Lords, the last thing that I propose to do is to follow the noble Lord in an athletic metaphor. As he was a member of the British Olympic squad 50 years ago, I am sure that he could still outrun me by a great distance on that.

We are obviously pleased that the Bill is now nearly finished, and that many of the amendments agreed in this place have been accepted in the other place. I would probably put the issue about timetabling and hours a little more positively than the noble Lord. I thank God for this place, and that we are able to spend the time and do the work and scrutiny that, for a variety of reasons, are not possible down the other end, particularly on a long and technical Bill of this sort.

We are happy to accept the amendment, as in the case of a number of other amendments coming back from the Commons that substantially reflect what was proposed in this place.

On Question, Motion agreed to.