---

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not persuaded by that argument, although I take the point of the need for as much certainty as possible in good faith in certain situations.

If the regulator exercises a function, it may vary or revoke it. If it does not exercise a function, there is nothing to vary or revoke. In that sense, the regulator may revisit if it has already taken some action; if it has not taken action, it is still open to it to do so. I am not sure that we can take that matter much further, as we are dealing with an array of circumstances.
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column GC321
 

Perhaps it would be helpful to say to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that if they have circumstances in mind in which it would be helpful to see how the clause would run, they may write to me. I would be very happy to put that into the summer discussions and come back with an answer. It would be helpful if the noble Viscount could produce two or three examples of his concerns, so I can see what they would look like. At the moment, it is very blue sky, and I do not know whether we are talking about a difficulty with an individual trustee or a serious problem with a merger and acquisition, such that 5,000 pensions are at risk. I do not know at what level the noble Viscount is concerned, so perhaps he could write to me.

Viscount Trenchard: I thank the Minister for her reply, and I shall write to her with an example of what I mean.

Lord Skelmersdale: That turned into quite a clause stand part debate—so I hope that with a bit of luck we can get away without having a clause stand part debate.

I believe that the point that my noble friend Lord Trenchard was making was that it does not actually matter why or what the particular point is on which the regulator changes its mind, but that there should be transparency as to what is going on and what is allowed. I shall have to look very carefully at Hansard for the Minister's response to Amendment No. 174 because, after that discussion, I have forgotten it. I would not dream of asking her to repeat it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]

Clause 95 agreed to.

Clause 96 [The Pensions Regulator Tribunal]:

On Question, Whether Clause 96 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Higgins: This is the lead clause with regard to the Pensions Regulator Tribunal. I am very happy to see the references throughout to the Lord Chancellor who, happily, after the events of 48 hours ago, remains. His continued existence was supported by a very large majority of the Chamber.

The other thing that puzzles me about the provisions is that although we have a splendid clause dealing with the references to the tribunal, appeals on points of law, redetermination—and then the whole of Schedule 4, to which we shall come in a moment—nowhere in the Explanatory Notes does it actually say what the Pensions Regulatory Tribunal will be tribunalling about. There are a large number of references to references, but not what the references relate to or what kind of references will be made. I look in vain for any suggestion as to what they may be. No doubt there is a simple answer and we shall be told why this body is to exist.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Basically, anyone who is discontented with the warnings of either the
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column GC322
 
regulator or the Determinations Panel in particular may appeal on fact or in law to the Pensions Regulator Tribunal. I do not know whether that is enough of an answer. I have a long answer describing the functions, but we do not necessarily have to do the pay and rations stuff, which is basically the appeals procedure—and quite rightly so. It is analogous to and modelled on the Financial Services and Markets Appeals Tribunal (FINSMAT). It will probably be based with FINSMAT, using the same premises, support staff and tribunal members, although there may be some further appointments of members with pensions knowledge. The tribunal will also hear references from determinations made by the regulator or the Determinations Panel. It will be a court of appeal which will act on fact or law—and cases could be sent back to be reconsidered as appropriate.

Lord Higgins: I am grateful for that. I just did not understand why the Explanatory Notes might not have said that.

Clause 96 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [The Pensions Regulator Tribunal]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 175:

Page 253, line 24, after "State" insert "and the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland"

The noble Baroness said: I shall be brief. This is a technical amendment concerning the distribution of decisions made by the Pensions Regulator Tribunal. As drafted, paragraph 12 of Schedule 4, which lists the rules and procedures surrounding the decisions of the tribunal, requires that copies of those decisions must be sent to the Secretary of State. As the tribunal's remit extends to Northern Ireland, the amendment specifies that copies must also be sent to the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland. I am sure Members of the Committee will welcome the amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Schedule 4 shall be agreed to?

Lord Higgins: I shall be brief. I am slightly puzzled that there are provisions in this schedule for the tribunal to be established and the Lord Chancellor to appoint a panel of persons acting as chairman of the tribunal. But at page 250 he also appoints a president. I am not clear what the relationship is between the president on the one hand and the panel of chairmen on the other. I had assumed that the tribunal would generally operate under one of the members of the panel of chairmen, and that he would preside. But it seems to be that occasionally—I am not clear when—the president will preside.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The president is the chair of the chairmen.

Lord Higgins: So does he preside only over the panel?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: He may also be a chairman in his own right. He will be the most senior of
 
15 Jul 2004 : Column GC323
 
them. I shall give the noble Lord an example. Wearing another part of my departmental hat, I am responsible for the appeals functions of various matters. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, has been president of the Council of Tribunals and it may well be that when one is discussing the Leggatt reforms, for example, with Judge Harris, it is important to have someone who is the chairman of the chairmen to speak for that body. That is the simple explanation. It may also be appropriate that that person also sits as a chairman in his or her own right.

Lord Borrie: The Employment Appeal Tribunal, which has a lot of work, has a lot of chairmen—some of whom are women, of course—hearing cases in particular panels. But there is also a president, who gives more time to the whole panoply of operation and administration and is someone to whom government and others look when they want to ask questions about the Employment Appeal Tribunal generally.

Lord Higgins: I am most grateful for both explanations. The only other point that I have on the schedule relates to remuneration and allowances. I should have thought that normally one would specify levels of remuneration and how much someone was going to be paid, rather than leaving the matter completely open.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have been heavily involved in appeals procedures, and I have never come across a specification. As an example, there might well be people on the disability panel who have very different levels of background, experience and so on. They may have very different time commitments. In such cases, the remuneration has always been determined by the Lord Chancellor, not in any public way. If the noble Lord has a particular question, I could probably find out and give him Privy Council terms. However, I do not believe that such details would normally be on the face of any document.

Lord Skelmersdale: I hate to prolong the debate, but if and when the Government get their way and abolish the position of Lord Chancellor, given that this Bill represents a very legal operation, it would be unusual to say the least if it followed the formulation in the Constitutional Reform Bill and the references to Lord Chancellor read "Secretary of State" instead. I do not believe that that would be appropriate. Who is it intended shall replace the Lord Chancellor in this Bill?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Should Parliament so decide, it will be whoever takes over the legal functions of the Lord Chancellor, which I would expect to be the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. However, as I have already been teased on the subject twice this morning, I should not want to go beyond that, until we see the outcome of Parliament's decisions.

---