The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Chair:
Mr
George Howarth
†
Brazier,
Mr Julian (Canterbury)
(Con)
†
Bridgen,
Andrew (North West Leicestershire)
(Con)
†
Brine,
Mr Steve (Winchester)
(Con)
†
Bruce,
Fiona (Congleton)
(Con)
†
Buckland,
Mr Robert (South Swindon)
(Con)
†
Burns,
Conor (Bournemouth West)
(Con)
†
Eagle,
Ms Angela (Wallasey)
(Lab)
†
Hodgson,
Mrs Sharon (Washington and Sunderland West)
(Lab)
†
Lloyd,
Stephen (Eastbourne)
(LD)
Mahmood,
Mr Khalid (Birmingham, Perry Barr)
(Lab)
Paisley,
Ian (North Antrim)
(DUP)
†
Perkins,
Toby (Chesterfield)
(Lab)
†
Selous,
Andrew (South West Bedfordshire)
(Con)
†
Smith,
Miss Chloe (Norwich North)
(Con)
†
Soulsby,
Sir Peter (Leicester South)
(Lab)
†
Webb,
Steve (Minister of State, Department for Work and
Pensions)
†
Wilson,
Phil (Sedgefield)
(Lab)
†
Wood,
Mike (Batley and Spen)
(Lab)
Eliot Barrass, Committee
Clerk
† attended the
Committee
Second
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Tuesday 13
July
2010
[Mr
George Howarth
in the
Chair]
Draft
Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations
2010
4.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve
Webb):
I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Occupational Pension Schemes
(Levies) (Amendment) Regulations
2010.
The
Chair:
With this it will be convenient to consider the
Draft Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified
following Transfer) Regulations
2010.
Steve
Webb:
Good afternoon, Mr Howarth, and welcome to our
debate on two sets of draft regulations, which were laid on 1 and 2
March respectively.
The
Government are committed to encouraging a savings culture, an important
part of which is giving people the confidence to save into pensions
through an effective protection regime. As the Committee will know,
Parliament legislated, with cross-party support, for a new regime by
creating the Pension Protection Fund and the pensions regulator. I am
pleased to say that those bodies are delivering better protection for
scheme members, helping to renew confidence. Through the two sets of
draft regulations, which the previous Government consulted on and,
indeed, tabled, the United Kingdom Government will meet the
requirements of a European Commission ruling and ensure that the
protection regime operates
effectively.
The
first set of draft regulations deal with the Pension Protection Fund
and a state aid issue. I hope that members of the Committee will bear
with me if I am somewhat careful in my replies to some detailed
questions; it is because litigation is ongoing on the state aid
issue.
The PPF
opened for business in 2005 to protect members of eligible pension
schemes that are mostly final salary, defined-benefit schemes. It does
so by paying compensation to scheme members where the sponsoring
employer becomes insolvent, leaving their pension scheme underfunded.
The cost of PPF compensation is financed through a pension protection
levy on those eligible schemes and through residual assets of pension
schemes transferring into the PPF. Schemes eligible for the PPF also
pay an administration levy to meet the fund’s running
costs.
A
small number of schemes are exempt from paying the PPF protection levy
or the PPF administration levy. The members’ benefits in
defined-benefit pension schemes that have a Crown guarantee do not
require the protection of the PPF. The Crown guarantee in that instance
is a promise given by a public authority to stand behind the
liabilities of a pension scheme, should the scheme wind
up in deficit. The precise nature of the Crown guarantee and what it
protects varies depending on the scheme and the promise
given.
In
some cases, however, the Crown guarantee covers only a part of the
scheme, certain members or certain benefits. Such schemes, which are
known as partially guaranteed schemes, only pay an administration levy
in respect of the part of the scheme that is not covered by the
guarantee. Schemes where all members or benefits are covered by the
Crown guarantee are not eligible for the PPF, so no levy at all is
payable in respect of such schemes. However, it is important that the
Government do not unduly distort competition in competitive markets
through state aid. In many circumstances, Crown guarantees for pension
schemes are not a problem, because the sponsoring employers do not
operate as commercial undertakings in a competitive market. However, in
2009, the European Commission
reported—
Ms
Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab):
Before the Minister moves
away from that point, will he assist the Committee by listing those
schemes that are subject to a Crown guarantee, so that people can get
their heads around that concept? It might aid the Committee’s
understanding.
Steve
Webb:
I am very happy to give the Committee such a list.
The significant point is that, whereas BT—the specific case that
I am about to discuss—operates in a competitive environment,
some of the other schemes where Crown guarantees apply are not in a
competitive environment, so the issue of state aid does not arise. I
shall come back to the hon. Lady shortly with a list of such
schemes.
A
specific case has prompted the regulations. In 2009, the European
Commission reported on an investigation into whether the Crown
guarantee for certain liabilities that BT had to the pension scheme
gave rise to an incompatible state aid. The Commission decided that
non-payment of the PPF levies by the BT scheme could not be justified
under EU rules because it relieved BT from charges that its competitors
have to pay and was therefore state aid. As a result of that decision,
the UK Government were required to cease the incompatible state aid and
ensure that the scheme paid the full PPF
levies.
Following
consultation on draft regulations last autumn, the previous
Administration made regulations by negative resolution in February 2010
to remove the exemption from paying the PPF protection levy. Hon.
Members may recall that that is the levy set by the board of the PPF
and is intended to raise £720 million in the current financial
year from all eligible schemes. The levy is one of the ways in which
the PPF funds the compensation payments payable to members of schemes
in the PPF. The first set of regulations will complete that action and
remove the exemption from the PPF administration levy—a much
smaller sum—where it gives rise to incompatible state aid. That
second levy funds the running costs of the PPF and will raise a much
lower amount—£22 million in 2010-11—from all
eligible schemes. The regulations will complete the implementation of
the commission’s
decision.
To
recap, earlier this year the House approved regulations relating to the
much larger protection levy as it relates to companies such as BT.
Today we are doing the tidying-up exercise of dealing with the
administration
levy, which is a much smaller sum. The regulations have already been
accepted in principle by the House—the regulations complete the
process. I should say that the Commission’s decision in respect
of the BT pension scheme applies only to that scheme; however, the
Commission will expect the UK Government to apply the same reasoning to
schemes in a comparable legal situation where the facts are the same.
Although the regulations principally affect BT, because of the history,
in the event of another company finding itself in the same position,
the same principles will
apply.
The
second set of regulations relate to the powers of the pensions
regulator, which was established under the Pensions Act 2004 as an
arm’s length body responsible for regulating workplace pension
schemes. It started operations in April 2005. Parliament, with
cross-party support, gave the regulator powerful tools to address the
danger of what is called avoidance activity. That is the risk of
sponsoring employers deliberately manipulating their affairs to avoid
their statutory debt to a pension scheme, leaving the Pension
Protection Fund to pay compensation to scheme members—in other
words, where there is insurance, they may try to make sure that someone
else meets the cost. Such activity would have serious cost consequences
for the schemes that remain responsible for paying the PPF
levy.
One
of the regulator’s main powers to deal with avoidance activity
is the contribution notice, which requires a company or an individual
to make a cash contribution in respect of the scheme, up to the value
of the employer’s total debt to the scheme. The grounds for
using that power include circumstances where a sponsor employer has
committed an act that is aimed at avoiding its liabilities to the
pension
scheme.
The
Pensions Act 2008 amended the contribution notice power to close a
loophole. Broadly, the problem was that under the 2004 Act, the
regulator could issue a notice only in relation to the scheme where
which the act of avoidance occurred. A sponsor employer could avoid a
contribution notice simply by transferring the members to another
scheme. Requiring the employer to pay funds to the original scheme
would not assist the transferred members, so a contribution notice
might not be justified. Parliament agreed legislation, with support
from all sides of the House, to permit the regulator to direct the
notice to either the original or the new scheme. That means that the
funds from a contribution notice follow the
members.
The
draft regulations, which are required under the 2008 Act passed by the
previous Administration, simply set out how the regulator must
calculate the amount to be specified in a contribution notice where
members are transferred from a defined-benefit scheme to a
defined-contribution pension scheme. There are important safeguards,
including that decisions to use the powers must be made by the
regulator’s determinations panel, which is independent of the
evidence-gathering part of the regulator. In my view there is no undue
impact on business, and consultation responses supported this. The
regulations will provide certainty for business on how the power
works.
The
shadow Minister asked about other schemes that might be covered by a
complete Crown guarantee. Some examples off the top of my head include
the mineworkers’ pension scheme, the four railway pensions
schemes, the Greenwich hospital scheme—obviously,
she will be familiar with that one—the National Library of Wales
scheme and the National Museum of Wales scheme. Intriguingly, I am more
than willing to write with a full list from my exhaustive knowledge of
such schemes. I hope that that will be
helpful.
4.39
pm
Ms
Eagle:
I think this is the first time that I have attended
a Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Howarth. It is very welcome to
have a local Member of Parliament presiding over us
today.
I
start by making a declaration of interest with respect to the first set
of regulations. My civil partner is an employee of BT and, as such, is
a member of one of its pension schemes.
The Minister
has succinctly and helpfully set out the background to what I hope are
non-contentious regulations. The two sets of regulations are quite
different, but it is important that we have the chance to consider
them. I have no intention of dividing the Committee on either. Mr
Howarth, you may not be surprised about that, since on closer
inspection, it is clear that I signed one and was involved in the
detailed work to bring it about—a little consistency in life is
usually important—and that my colleague Lord McKenzie was
responsible for signing the other. Will the Minister give us an update
on what has been going on while I have been away? I also intend to ask
him some questions that I think will be helpful to those who read the
record of these issues.
The Minister
is right to set out the background to the Draft Occupational
Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment) Regulations 2010, which involve
the smaller administration levy rather than the much larger PPF
payment. He is also right to point out that that background really
began in 1984 with the privatisation of BT. I think that section 68 of
the Telecommunications Act 1984 is engaged here. If one looks at the
chronology, the PPF was subsequently established with all-party support
by the Pensions Act 2004. In my view, that does a superb job in seeking
to regulate the complex area of pensions. Pensions are becoming more
complex by the day with the different existences and the shift from DB
to DC schemes. The law does a good job in trying to protect
members’ interests. Their experience has some bearing on the
second set of regulations, which I will tackle after I have asked a few
questions about the
first.
First,
is the Minister impressed with the work of the pensions regulator? I
would be interested in his comments, as the new Pensions Minister, on
that. The first set of regulations were the result of an EU
investigation, which began in 2006, into unjustified state aids. That
finished in 2008-09 and led to the creation of this set of regulations,
the final piece of regulation to comply with the EU’s
decision.
The
regulations do not apply to BT only; they are more generic, though they
apply to the administration levies only. Will the Minister enlighten us
on the circumstances in which the regulations may be called into use?
Does he anticipate that the only trigger will be a European Commission
pronouncement about unjustified state aid, or does he intend to be more
proactive as a Minister in looking to pre-empt European Commission
activity in that area? He gave us a few examples in his list of partial
Crown guarantees. I am not sure that he gave us the whole list. It
would be interesting to know
whether the Department has an entire list of partial
Crown and total Crown guarantees for pension funds that it intends to
keep an eye
on.
Steve
Webb:
Given that, as the hon. Lady says, the report of our
proceedings is monitored externally, it is important for the sake of
clarity that the lists I mentioned are complete Crown guarantees. Those
were the ones on the
list.
Ms
Eagle:
Does the Minister therefore see a problem with
partial Crown guarantees as well? If so, I think that a larger list of
pension funds may be affected. It is important, for the understanding
of the Committee, that we get on the record which pension funds those
are.
The
regulations will allow for a partial in-year payment of the levy.
Clearly, that is less important with the smaller administration levy
than with the larger PPF levy. The regulations will allow a whole-year
payment to be made even if they come into effect halfway through the
year. We were slightly delayed in dealing with the regulations, so does
that now mean that there is no issue with the financial year? Will BT
have to pay the whole of the levy for 2009-10, or is it just paying
forwards? Given the delay that we had in getting the
regulations—the final piece of the jigsaw—before
Parliament, it is not clear whether the problems with partial payment
have been resolved by the time
lag.
The
Minister said that the company involved has challenged the EU decision.
When I last looked, the case was before the first level of the European
Court. Can he give us any more information about its progress? More
importantly, will he tell us more about what would happen in the event
of a successful challenge to the European Commission’s decision,
particularly with respect to repayment of levies already charged? I
know that the regulations allow repayments, but I would be interested
to hear the Minister say more about it, particularly about whether
there is any limit on the number of years that could be repaid, as we
know that EU legal challenges can go on for rather a long time. Will he
also say something about the level of the administration levy? We
always tried to keep it as stable as possible, and I am interested in
whether he can give us an indication of the current Government’s
intentions regarding the levies.
The PPF is
now administering the financial assistance scheme. Will the Minister
provide a view on whether the costs for doing that can be separated,
with no cross-subsidy between the two? Those who have to pay the levy,
whether the administration levy or the PPF levy, wish to be reassured
that there is no cross-subsidy in the moneys they paid to run the
regulator between one sort of pension scheme and another, particularly
between the FAS and the schemes that are still solvent. Finally, will
the Minister say a few words before the spending review on his views
about the PPF, and whether he is confident that he can ensure the
preservation of the administrative capacity of that important
organisation during the challenges
ahead?
I
now move on to the Pensions Regulator (Contribution
Notices) (Sum Specified following
Transfer) Regulations 2010.
Again, they derive from the regulator’s
experience of looking at the potential loopholes in the organisations
with which it was dealing. They aim to prevent, as the Minister rightly
pointed out, the development of quite
sophisticated avoidance activity that seeks to freeload—that is
the only way to describe it—on other people’s payments to
the Pension Protection Fund. The regulator had come across some cases
and did its best to prevent the development of loopholes, whereby
companies that had seriously underfunded their pension schemes
attempted to offload the liabilities on to the Pension Protection Fund
for various nefarious purposes.
Clearly,
the capacity of the scheme and the levy system, which Parliament
introduced in 2005, would be at stake if the regulator were unable to
prevent the growth of freeloading by those seeking to avoid their
pension responsibilities by offloading them on to the PPF and schemes
that are doing the right thing. The pensions regulator requested extra
anti-avoidance powers from the previous Government because
of the appearance—I say no more than that—of avoidance
activities. As the Minister pointed out, those activities involved the
bulk transfer of members from one pension scheme, to which the
contribution could apply, to another, which made it difficult for the
pensions regulator to allow the contribution notice to follow the
members. That loophole clearly needed to be closed and I was pleased
that we were able to develop the regulations to do so at the request of
the pensions
regulator.
How
many contribution notices, if any, has the pensions regulator issued
since the election? What is the evidence that the closed loophole will
deter bad behaviour? Is the pensions regulator contemplating closing
other loopholes? The key to minimising the effects of, or preventing,
this type of avoidance activity is to be eternally vigilant. Is the
Minister convinced that, in the straitened times we face in this age of
austerity, the pensions regulator is confident that it has kept, and
will be able to keep, its eye on the ball? Pensions liabilities can
mean large costs for some companies, and I know that the Minister
agrees that it is important that we ensure that those that have taken
on or acquired liabilities are not allowed, almost as a matter of
choice, to escape
them.
Will
the Minister also say something about the change to the definition of
indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index?
Will it have any implications for the level of the PPF levies or the
administration levy? It takes huge amounts of money—up to
£100 billion—directly out of the pensions assets of
employees.
To
sum up, the Government are right to proceed with both statutory
instruments. I do not think that anyone who wishes to ensure that the
pensions promise is tied in and believed more would oppose either. I do
not propose to divide the Committee and I will be interested to hear
the Minister’s responses to my
questions.
4.53
pm
Fiona
Bruce (Congleton) (Con):
My question relates to the shadow
Minister’s very first question. The Minister has kindly agreed
to provide a list of schemes with a Crown guarantee and I am interested
in the rationale behind their application: is it the case that they do
not function in a competitive market, or is there a broader reason for
them?
4.54
pm
Steve
Webb:
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wallasey and my
hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for their comments, questions and
support for the regulations.
The shadow
Minister asked if I am impressed by the work of the pensions regulator.
I very much support its work. It is an arm’s-length body, so it
has a proper degree of independence from Government. The crucial thing
about it, however, is that, where it is succeeding, schemes that pay
the PPF levy and honour their obligations do not have to pay extra
levies to make up for people who are trying to avoid their liabilities.
When the regulator ensures that companies are funding their schemes at
an adequate level—albeit on a scheme-specific basis and with
flexibility—it is protecting the interests of all those paying
pension protection levies who have ongoing liabilities. That is
entirely appropriate and important work, and I pay tribute to the
regulator for doing
it.
The
hon. Lady asked whether there were other schemes that may be affected
lurking out there. As far as we are aware, there are not. Obviously,
the regulations have been written in a general way, but they clearly
refer to schemes with a partial Crown guarantee operating in a
competitive environment—a pretty unusual combination. If she
knows of any other schemes in the same circumstances, I would be
grateful if she told me. We do not anticipate this situation arising
again—
Ms
Eagle
rose—
Steve
Webb:
I fear the hon. Lady is about to tell me of a scheme
that we missed. We have written the regulations clearly because the
issues of principle at work here would apply in similar cases as
well.
Ms
Eagle:
I was wondering in what category Royal Mail would
find itself if it were privatised by the current Government. If the
Minister does not know the answer off the top of his head, will he
write to me? I assure him that if there is another scheme out there,
somebody will find it and report it to the EU
Commission.
Steve
Webb:
Indeed, so the work may be done for us. On the Royal
Mail, it would depend on the settlement at the point of privatisation
and what guarantees were given. Obviously, I cannot speculate about
what those would be.
Ms
Eagle:
It is certainly true that, if Royal Mail were
privatised in certain ways, its very large pension fund could easily
find itself in this category.
Steve
Webb:
I cannot speculate on the terms on which any
privatisation would take place. The regulations we are debating today
will apply consistently to any scheme that satisfies the tests, is
operating in a competitive environment and has a partial—I
stress “partial”—Crown
guarantee.
The
hon. Lady asked about the timing. The regulations would require BT to
pay the administration levy for the whole of financial year 2010-11,
and the scheme is liable in EU law to pay for the years dating back to
when it first became eligible. The PPF will set the administration levy
level for 2011-12 early next year—obviously, it has not been set
yet. She asked if the levy was being used to cross-subsidise the
administration of the financial assistance scheme. The PPF levy is used
solely for the purposes of the PPF.
Ms
Eagle:
On the cross-subsidy question, when I was the
Minister, I found that, although I was satisfied that that was true,
there was always scepticism among pension schemes, particularly those
that had to pay the PPF levy. Transparency and openness on that point
are important, so that the schemes that have to pay the levy can be
confident that there is no cross-subsidy and we can show that that is
the case. It is not about the current Minister—or me, when I had
the privilege to do the job that he now has the privilege to
do—being assured. There was scepticism “out
there”—if I can put it that way—particularly on
the part of those companies paying the levy in difficult times. Does he
have any observations on how to bolster confidence that there is no
cross-subsidy?
Steve
Webb:
I hope my assurances are sufficient to bolster
confidence.
Ms
Eagle:
Oh yes, of course.
Steve
Webb:
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s
reassurance. It is worth remembering that the scale of the financial
assistance scheme is a far smaller, so we are talking about a smaller
scale of activity. The PPF levy is used for the PPF, which is what it
is meant for.
The hon. Lady
asked about the court case and BT. There are two issues: first, as I
mentioned earlier, the trustee of the BT pension scheme has instigated
proceedings in the High Court to obtain clarification on the scope of
the guarantee—appropriately, that started this morning, which is
partly why I have to be careful about what I say. Secondly, BT brought
an action against the European Commission, seeking to annul its
decision. That case will be heard in due course by the Court of First
Instance. In the event of that court, or the European Court of Justice
on appeal, annulling the Commission’s original decision on the
BT pension scheme, the PPF would have the power to review any decision
it takes—pursuant to the draft regulations—to impose a
full levy on the scheme. That is an update on BT and the legal
action.
Moving
on to the other regulations, the hon. Lady asked about the use so far
of contribution notices. As I understand it, the regulator has used the
power on contribution notices only once. She will be aware that the
regulator has a range of powers, and the goal is not to have to use
them. The ideal situation is that people are aware of the
regulator’s powers and realise that the regulator is prepared to
use them and, therefore, they act accordingly. These are very much last
resort measures.
The hon. Lady
asked if the regulator is planning other measures. I suspect that is
what gets the regulator out of bed in the morning, although I cannot
speculate. The goal of making sure that pension schemes honour their
obligations and are adequately funded is constant and ongoing work. The
Department, as the hon. Lady knows, is in close contact with the
regulator, who none the less acts independently. These matters are kept
under constant review, but I am not aware of specific proposals due to
be brought
forward.
The
hon. Lady also asked about the change from RPI to CPI indexation. The
Pension Protection Fund, like any other scheme, will have to take
account of that change, which will clearly affect costs and
liabilities. The PPF will want to review its levies in the light of the
impact that change has on the overall funding position of a scheme.
However, that is a matter for the PPF within the statutory framework we
have established for it.
Ms
Eagle:
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the change from
RPI to CPI indexation implies a very large reduction in the liabilities
of existing pension schemes, because the benefits and the definition of
indexation have been made much less generous? That therefore implies
major reductions in the administration and PPF
levies.
Steve
Webb:
It is for the PPF, not for me, to set the levy,
taking account of its future liabilities, which will obviously be
affected by the change to CPI indexation. It is worth point out that
the scope of the impact of the change to CPI indexation s not as
comprehensive as some said. In the wider pensions world, there is, for
example, a cap on the indexation duty, such as a cap of 2.5% on some
liabilities. Since both CPI and RPI currently exceed 2.5%, it does not
matter which index is used for simple statutory indexation—the
indexing is still 2.5%. In addition, the requirement to index only
applies to certain portions of liabilities, and there is nothing
retrospective about the change—the indexation of deferred
entitlements will remain based on the RPI up to the point of change;
the changes will only apply thereafter. Having said that, there will be
an impact on the future liabilities of the PPF. When the PPF board sets
its levies it will take account of that, along with all the other
factors.
Ms
Eagle:
It is important that the PPF has to make those
calculations. It has a direct bearing on the cost to those who pay the
compulsory levies—the administration levy as well as the PPF
levy. Will the Minister tell us the calculation he made before making
the announcement about the reduction in liabilities that the shift from
RPI to CPI will
cause?
Steve
Webb:
I assume the hon. Lady is asking about the PPF. The
impact on the change in indexation will vary from scheme to scheme,
from member to member, according to, for example, how much of their
working life is covered by rights already accrued under the RPI regime.
We have done no specific calculation for the PPF. That is for the board
of the PPF to do, and I strongly suspect that it will take it a bit of
time, as it is obviously a complex matter.
As the hon.
Lady says, CPI indexation will result in lower increases in general in
pensions in payment, which, other things being equal, will tend to
reduce the PPF levies. On the other hand, there might be lots of other
factors at work. We cannot say unambiguously that levies will go down.
If they did, as she rightly said, it would reduce the burden on other
schemes and other
employers who want to keep their final salary schemes going or who have
outstanding liabilities. I am sure she would welcome
that.
Ms
Eagle
rose—
The
Chair:
Order. Before the hon. Lady intervenes, could I
just say that the point we have been exploring is straying rather far
from the statutory instruments before the Committee? The Minister has
responded, but I hope that we do not develop that point too
far.
Steve
Webb:
Thank you, Mr. Howarth. As you say, I have sought to
respond to the issues as they have been raised. Obviously as things
stand the legislation relating to the PPF and the FAS still specifies
the RPI. We will bring forward legislation to deal with that as soon as
we can.
Both orders
tidy up arrangements which the House has already agreed. BT is the
example in the first set of regulations, but it is not purely about BT.
The instrument deals with the administration levy in a way that is
consistent with the way in which we have already dealt with the pension
protection levy. It is a tidying up exercise in a much smaller part of
the system. The second set of regulations ensures that the regulator
can use effectively the powers that Parliament intended him to
have.
I realise
that I have not dealt with the question asked by my hon. Friend the
Member for Congleton about some of the schemes that I listed. Obviously
each has a unique history, but there has often been state involvement
in industries such as mining and railways. When the status of an
industry or the position of employers has changed, the state has
sometimes provided some form of guarantee, perhaps as reassurance to
the work force at the time—indeed, the hon. Member for Wallasey
mentioned the Post Office and the Royal Mail, which might be an issue
in future. In each case there is a specific reason why some sort of
Crown guarantee has been given. I hope that I have responded to all the
questions now, and I commend the regulations to the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Resolved,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft Occupational Pension Schemes
(Levies) (Amendment) Regulations
2010.
Draft
Pensions Regulator (Contribution Notices) (Sum Specified Following
Transfer) Regulations
2010
Resolved,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Pensions Regulator (Contribution
Notices) (Sum Specified following Transfer) Regulations
2010.—(Steve
Webb.)
5.7
pm
Committee
rose.