|
Clause 8
Commencement
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Caplin: With regard to the provisions set out in clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4, which we have dealt with in Committee, when I announced the details of the armed forces pensions scheme last September I said that we planned to introduce the new pensions scheme arrangements for new entrants on 6 April 2005. That remains our intention, subject to this legislative process. We are also planning to introduce the new
Column Number: 173
armed forces compensation scheme arrangements, covering all personnel, from that date as well. As indicated, those dates are subject to legislation.
Under clause 6, the Royal Patriotic Fund Corporation is now working with its professional advisers on the creation of a new charity, to be the transferee of its properties and liabilities. It is expected that the commencement order will be made at the earliest opportunity, once an appropriate transferee is established. As I said earlier, I will be happy to ensure that the House is informed about that.
Mr. Howarth: I do not want to delay the Committee on a two-line clause, particular as new clause 8 deals with the transitional arrangements, which are of concern to all hon. Members. However, consequences flow from what the Minister announced.
It is true that the Bill is simply enabling legislation. It has been confirmed to the Committee that the coming into force of the legislation has been fixed at 6 April 2005, but nothing in the Bill says when it is intended that it should come into force. We have only the Minister's word for it. The Minister is being ambitious in seeking to bring in pension arrangements in April next year. I should be grateful if he would give us some indication of how he reckons to organise their coming into effect.
On 7 April 2005, the Minister will be faced with those who have newly joined the armed forces, who will be subject to pension arrangements under the new scheme; but everyone else—about 200,000 other people—will be subject to the arrangements that apply under the present scheme. However, he will be in some difficulty at one point—it is not an insuperable difficulty, as it can be dealt with by fiat and ex gratia payments or similar means.
If we happen to be engaged in hostilities, it is unlikely that those who join on 6 April next year will be sent straight to the front line, but in three or four months' time they may be. A new recruit who is killed when on operations—or even if he was killed in a training accident, which could happen even sooner—would give rise to an attributable benefit. If two soldiers are injured or killed and one had just joined up and had no alternative but to come under the new system but the other was already a member of the armed forces and had not yet had the option to change to the new scheme, their widows would be eligible respectively for a one-and-a-half times salary death-in-service benefit or a four times salary death-in-service benefit. That will clearly give rise to substantial anomalies, which will be picked up by those who follow such things.
We shall go into the transitional arrangements in more detail later, but now that we know that 6 April 2005 is the decisive date, it would help if the Minister were to say how far he has proceeded in drawing up the rules and how much time he will give people to decide. That is not much of a problem for compensation, but it clearly is a problem for pensions. If he can give the Committee an early indication now, it would be helpful. After all the delays to the implementation of the new proposals, I do not complain that the Minister is trying to make progress swiftly. I have publicly
Column Number: 174
acknowledged that he has grasped the nettle on the matter, so I shall not chide him unduly for continuing at a pace. However, he will recognise that some practical issues must be addressed. It would be helpful if he could tell us how he plans to put the procedures in place in order to meet the commencement date that he has just cited.
Mr. Caplin: I am happy to try to do that. I shall not deny that it is a tight programme, both in terms of completing the passage of legislation—that may not happen until October—and of implementing the new pensions arrangements. I shall focus on the pensions arrangements, because the compensation arrangements apply to everyone.
On pensions, I should repeat that it is a new scheme for new entrants. There will be an opportunity for existing members of the armed forces to exercise a choice, and we are considering the new arrangements for personnel management, which will enable that choice to be made as easily as possible. Ultimately, individuals will decide what is best for them, with their families and partners. I am confident that we can achieve the timetable that we have set out. We are already undertaking a communications process; I do not know whether it was for my benefit, but when I was in the west country a few days ago, the leaflets advertising the pensions scheme were on everyone's desks. I am pleased that they are at least being distributed. We have a communications strategy in place. Obviously, we are holding back slightly because we want it to get through some part of the legislative process—although I am not pre-empting in any way the right of both Houses to have their say on the legislation, which I regard as an important part of the parliamentary process. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not go into too much detail, but I can reassure him on the points that he made. Perhaps we shall have a fuller debate on the matter under new clause 8.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Orders
Amendment made: No. 14, in
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Caplin: I should like briefly to introduce clause 10, which establishes how the Secretary of State's enabling powers will be used to support secondary legislation—in other words, through the statutory instrument process. That process is consistent with other public service schemes and provides a greater degree of parliamentary scrutiny than is available under the current pension arrangements for the armed forces. I consider the best approach to be one of
Column Number: 175
practical balance of parliamentary scrutiny and the need for regular updating of obscure rules—we discussed those at length under clause 1. I believe that the alternative approach that would, for example, demand more parliamentary time, would be more likely to result in delaying the improvements that we want to introduce.
Mr. Howarth: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation and for his ritual protestation that the scrutiny of the new arrangements proposed under the Bill will be more extensive than that under the current arrangements. I take that point entirely on board. However, I do not think that he dealt with amendment No. 14, and it would be helpful if the Minister could give some indication of what he had in mind in that amendment. It is yet another sweeping generality; that is a characteristic quality of the Bill, on which I might have more to say later.
10.45 am
Mr. Caplin: For a moment, I thought that I was in a parallel universe. I recall that we debated amendment No. 14 under, I think, clause 1. I am sure—I will go through Hansard in a moment—that I put the details requested by the hon. Gentleman on the record at that time.
Mr. Howarth: We will all have enjoyable lunchtime reading to remind ourselves of the events that took place at the outset of the Committee, which was a full two weeks ago. We will be able to refresh our memories.
The substance of the matter goes to the heart of some of our complaints. The Minister has said that a greater degree of transparency and of scrutiny will be made available to Parliament than has hitherto been the case. Nevertheless, he knows that there is widespread concern that everything is being done by secondary legislation and that very little is on the face of the Bill.
Subsection (5) states, quite rightly, that an affirmative resolution is required in the House for anything that
''adds to, replaces or omits any part of the text of an Act''
and that a draft of the instrument has to be laid and approved by an affirmative resolution of the House. However, so little is explicit in the Bill and the powers granted to the Secretary of State are so extensive that it is hard to imagine any textual amendment that might be required that would give rise to an affirmative procedure. We really need to consider subsection (4), which states:
''A statutory instrument containing an order under this Act is to be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''
In other words, it will be subject to the negative procedure. I am at one with the Minister that such detailed legislation cannot be encompassed in every detail on the face of the Bill, but we are disappointed that no cardinal points are included. The clause illustrates the practicalities of what will happen when
Column Number: 176
the Government finally table in an appropriate legislative form the detailed schemes that they have already provided in the form of the framework documents.
It is disappointing that we could not have had some cardinal points enshrined in the Bill and that those cardinal points could not be subject to the affirmative procedure. Something as fundamental as the early departure scheme, which we will discuss later on, should have been on the face of the Bill, along with a number of key points, the variation of which is regarded by many of us as a material issue.
Even at this late stage, the Government would be well advised to think about how they might address that issue when the Bill comes before the other place. In the other place are the serried ranks of gentleman whose rank exceeds that even of the Minister himself. They have huge experience and are unconstrained by obeisance to him—they have left the services, gone to the other place and are now completely free agents. I suggest to him that, in anticipation of what might happen at the other end of the Corridor, the MOD might consider drawing up some of the cardinal points—I would not call them the immutables—that could be subject to change in due course, but, ideally, only after proper debate in the House under the affirmative resolution procedure. If he does not do that, I fear that the serried ranks of generals, air marshals and admirals might get to work on the proposals and say that they want further protection, notwithstanding the fact that such protection has not been available in the past.
The Bill is new, the Government are proposing a new scheme and we face a new beginning. That is why they would be well advised to take the position that I have described.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
