| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Malcolm Wicks: I was disappointed that no one noticed; indeed, I was disappointed that I did not notice. I should have said that new clause 17, which amends section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, provides for any members' liabilities that are transferred out of the scheme not to be included in the calculation of that debt.
The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) asked about new wheezes. I suppose that it is a reasonable description in this period of hayfever. We are advised that a general, continuing moral hazard power is inconsistent with human rights. That remains the case. Some of us in some political parties must have regard to
18 May 2004 : Column 909
human rights and we believe that the new clauses are sufficiently broad to cover all circumstances. However, I take seriously the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead echoed. We need to be careful and ahead of the game.
Mr. Frank Field: Did my hon. Friend notice that the plea for general powers came from the Liberal Democrat Benches? He said that they might go against the European convention on human rights, yet the Liberal Democrats are the strongest defenders of the European conventions.
Malcolm Wicks: Life is full of joyful irony and I am pleased on this occasion to be regarded as something of an old-fashioned Liberal.
We were asked why a time of two years had been set. There will never be a clear scientific answer to that sort of question about where to draw the line. The power is primarily intended to protect the PPF and scheme members from transactions that occur when the scheme is or may be in jeopardy. Establishing a broad and flexible power creates a balance between certainty and protection. It should allow the regulator to achieve protection, but limits the time scale when the power can be exercised. A scheme's funding position is most likely to be in jeopardy in the period before an insolvency. The insolvency may be the trigger for the involvement of the new PPF. Outside that period, the regulator may use the power in clause 17, which has more limited scope.
Let me deal with the points of the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Fallon)—now sadly only one oak, due to natural calamity. I believe that others have been planted. I hope that that is the case, otherwise we shall table a new clause to that effect. He expressed a proper concern about whom we mean by connected or associated persons. As an old-fashioned Liberal, I believe that we should not be draconian about that. I am advised that section 435 of the Insolvency Act 1986 defines the relevant test. It provides that the regulator may require a contribution to be paid only when it is reasonable to do so. Subsection (5) deals with factors to assist in determining who may reasonably be required to pay. Let me try to reassure the hon. Gentleman that this is not an unreasonable catch-all. We only want to go after the people whom we are required to go after. Perhaps I can spell that out to the hon. Gentleman in a letter, to give him reassurance in response to his perfectly reasonable questions. Indeed, I think he raised some other points to that effect.
Within the new regulator, we shall have the admittedly slightly quaintly named determinations panel, which will be at arm's length from the main regulator's powers, and which will provide a check and a balance. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) said earlier, if people are not satisfied with a decision, they may seek permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal on a point of law. I hope that I have covered most of the points that have been raised and I urge the House to accept the new clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
18 May 2004 : Column 910
New Clause 13
'(1) This section applies in relation to a restoration order under section [Restoration orders where transactions at an undervalue] in respect of a transaction involving assets of a scheme ("the transaction").
(2) The restoration order may in particular—
(a) require any assets of the scheme (whether money or other property) which were transferred as part of the transaction to be transferred back—
(i) to the trustees or managers of the scheme, or
(ii) where the Board of the Pension Protection Fund has assumed responsibility for the scheme, to the Board;
(b) require any property to be transferred to the trustees or managers of the scheme or, where the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme, to the Board if it represents in any person's hands—
(i) any of the assets of the scheme which were transferred as part of the transaction, or
(ii) property derived from any such assets so transferred;
(c) require such property as the Regulator may specify in the order, in respect of any consideration for the transaction received by the trustees or managers of the scheme, to be transferred—
(i) by the trustees or managers of the scheme, or
(ii) where the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme, by the Board,
to such persons as the Regulator may specify in the order;
(d) require any person to pay, in respect of benefits received by him as a result of the transaction, such sums (not exceeding the value of the benefit received by him) as the Regulator may specify in the order—
(i) to the trustees or managers of the scheme, or
(ii) where the Board has assumed responsibility for the scheme, to the Board.
(3) A restoration order is of no effect to the extent that it prejudices any interest in property which was acquired in good faith and for value or any interest deriving from such an interest.
(4) Nothing in subsection (3) prevents a restoration order requiring a person to pay a sum of money if the person received a benefit as a result of the transaction otherwise than in good faith and for value.
(5) Where a person has acquired an interest in property from a person or has received a benefit as a result of the transaction and—
(a) he is one of the trustees or managers or appropriate persons who entered into the transaction as mentioned in subsection (6) of section [Restoration orders where transactions at an undervalue], or
(b) at the time of the acquisition or receipt—
(i) he has notice of the fact that the transaction was a transaction at an undervalue,
(ii) he is a trustee or manager, or the employer, in relation to the scheme, or
(iii) he is connected with, or an associate of, any of the persons mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)(ii),
then, unless the contrary is shown, it is to be presumed for the purposes of subsections (3) and (4) that the interest was acquired or the benefit was received otherwise than in good faith.
(6) For the purposes of this section—
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |