---

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I shall try to answer all of the questions put by noble Lords. If I fail to answer any particular points, I shall write to both noble Lords who have spoken.

The new control framework enhances the existing measures in terms of extending the ways in which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, recognised in terms of the need to monitor the effectiveness and to inspect. That included not only the extension of satellite monitoring to vessels over 15 metres, but the registration of buyers of first-sale fish, the designation of single authorities within members states for co-ordinating the collection and verification of information on fishing activity; and reporting to and co-operating with the Commission. There is quite a list of other measures which are being absorbed into this.

We will be able to detect if a device has been tampered with or detect false position reports—and we will take the appropriate action to deal with that. The statutory instrument is intended to be laid within the next fortnight and we are not aware of any devices that will be fitted, or could be fitted, under this measure that would allow an enforcement loophole. All English patrol vessels spend a total of 921 days at sea each year and satellite tracking will enable better targeting of where they are being deployed.

Noble Lords raised the issue of the devolved administrations. Legislation is in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland and an announcement will be made soon by the Welsh Assembly. Insurance, which was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, is the responsibility of vessel owners and that will remain the case after the three-year warranty expires, as the noble Baroness thought. It is one of those areas where, perhaps, those involved in the industry may be interested to read the noble Baroness's words.

This instrument applies to English vessels wherever they are. All vessels, including third country vessels, must have this operational device when they are in EU waters. Coastal member states will be able to detect any loss of transmission and take appropriate action.

The new control agency that the Commission has identified will develop joint control and inspection procedures across the EU, assist member states to
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 475
 
comply with their obligations and assist with planning the deployment of means of control and inspection at sea and on shore. I understand the points made by both noble Lords regarding the fact that previously the devices could be blocked by putting buckets over them. My understanding is that that is not possible and is one of the reasons why we have carefully gone through the procurement procedure to ensure that these devices best meet the tamper-resistant requirements of the regulations.

The noble Baroness referred to the negotiations during that procurement procedure, which, as the noble Baroness recognised, reduced the unit cost from £3,300 to £2,400 per unit. She also raised the issue of other member states. The regulation from the Commission does not specify precisely how tamper-proof provision will be achieved, but the member states must ensure that the requirements are met in full. Regarding false position reports—the device that we have selected cannot be manually overridden.

Both noble Lords sought from me almost a guarantee that the Commission had managed to come up with a system that would be absolutely guaranteed. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is a robust position and that all member states are being required to comply with it. It would be difficult for any member of any government in any member state to say that this regulation could never be breached or flouted. That would be foolish. It is robust, and we are very grateful for the support given to it by noble Lords.

Perhaps I may write to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. I suspect that I need to consult a map with shading on it rather than risk my knowledge of the exact position of the sea areas involved around the whole European Union. I should rather write to noble Lords.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—I am not chasing her on that point—I think that she indicated that it was all EU waters. I hope that I heard her correctly but I shall look at Hansard tomorrow.

My second point is: where will the new commission be based? Will it be in Spain? I thought that that was mooted at one stage and, from the nods that are coming my way, I think I am right but I simply wanted clarification.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I did confirm that.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 2.15 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 2.11 to 2.15 p.m.]
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 476
 

Pensions Bill

Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Schedule 7 [Pension compensation provisions]:

[Amendments Nos. 169 and 170 not moved.]

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 171:

Page 295, line 41, at beginning insert "Subject to sub-paragraph (3A),"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 171, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 174 and the associated amendments in the group.

There are three elements to these amendments to paragraph 23 to Schedule 7. The first—new paragraph 23(1)(a)—will allow the Secretary of State, through regulations, to provide for PPF compensation payments to be made to surviving partners. The second is a group of amendments to prescribe that the widow or widower of pensioners, postponed pensioners, and deferred and active members will not be entitled to compensation in such circumstances as may be prescribed. The third—new paragraph 23(1)(b)—is intended to clarify the circumstances in which the regulations may provide that the PPF board will be able to pay compensation to surviving dependants.

I shall explain the thinking behind paragraph 23(1)(a) first. The Bill currently makes provision for compensation to be paid only to surviving spouses. During the Committee stage in the Commons, an amendment put forward by Steve Webb sought to extend this provision to surviving unmarried partners. My honourable friend the Minister for Pensions, Malcolm Wicks, agreed to consider the proposal further.

On reflection, we considered that we did not want to close the door to payments to unmarried partners. Although among current and soon-to-be pensioners marriage remains overwhelmingly the norm—around 13.3 million out of a total population of 14.6 million of those over the age of 50 are married or widowed—there is an increasing preference among younger age groups for cohabitation without marriage. Further, about three-quarters of private sector defined benefit scheme members are in schemes that provide benefits to unmarried partners—that is, three-quarters of members and not three-quarters of schemes; the proportion of schemes is low because often very small schemes do not have this provision.

Given that, we felt that an amendment to the Bill was essential, and I hope that your Lordships will welcome it today. Without such an amendment, the PPF would be unable to cover a key feature of the pensions promise in the majority of schemes—a feature that will only increase in importance in the future. I think I am right to say that such a change was recently made to the MPs' pension scheme.

We also had to consider that, because marriage is not an option for same-sex couples, the PPF will provide no security for those in long-term same-sex relationships. Many of the same arguments apply here:
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 477
 
a more significant number of co-habiting same-sex couples is in younger age groups, although the numbers remain small, and the majority of pension schemes will pay benefits to surviving same-sex partners. I think that something like 75 per cent of schemes do that. Therefore, we have ensured that the power is wide enough to cover same-sex partners and civil partners.

The detail will be set out in regulations but we expect to provide, first, for members of schemes that make any provision for unmarried survivors. Surviving civil partners and surviving unmarried partners will receive 50 per cent of a member's total compensation. In other words, if the scheme already makes such a provision, that will continue under the PPF.

Under schemes that make no provision for unmarried survivors, surviving unmarried partners will receive nothing but surviving civil partners will receive 50 per cent of a member's total compensation. That is because, for the first time, they will be treated as though they were in a spousal relationship for the purposes of this provision. We always intended that the PPF would pay compensation to surviving civil partners, and I think that in Committee I gave notice that I would be returning to this point as we worked through the amendments.

The second part of the amendment has been introduced to maintain consistency between surviving spouses, civil partners and unmarried partners. These amendments provide regulation-making powers to provide that the PPF will not pay compensation to a widow or a widower in prescribed circumstances. The power will be used to provide that compensation which will be paid only to those widows or widowers who would have received survivor's benefits under their scheme. These amendments ensure that the PPF is not more generous than the schemes, though spouses will not be assessed against scheme rules.

Through regulations, we will pay surviving spouses 50 per cent of a member's total compensation entitlement where the scheme would have paid surviving spouses benefits. In other words, the scheme may have paid 60 per cent or 70 per cent, but we will not take that degree of detail into the PPF. Everyone entitled to survivor's benefits—widows, widowers, civil partners in due course, and unmarried partners if they had that protection in their original scheme—would receive 50 per cent. We simply cannot go into the complexity of replicating the detail of each scheme and continue to fund that in the PPF.

I turn to the third part of the amendment, the proposed Section 23(1)(b). This amendment seeks to clarify the categories of dependants to whom compensation may be paid. The entitlement to compensation is to be prescribed in regulations. The first of the categories is composed of dependants of prescribed descriptions of individuals who were members of a scheme or who had rights in respect of such a member—such as individuals who were eligible for survivor's benefit under the scheme—before the
 
4 Nov 2004 : Column 478
 
assessment date. So no one who would have received it under the old scheme would lose it under the PPF.

The second category comprises dependants of individuals who became entitled to benefits in respect of a member—for example, those who became eligible for survivor's benefit—on or after the assessment date but before the board assumed responsibility for the scheme. The final category comprises dependants of individuals who became entitled to compensation under paragraph (22).

Essentially, those categories, which are entirely benign, allow us to capture the dependants of all individuals who are or may become eligible to receive PPF compensation. I believe that these amendments will form an important part of the security, propriety and decency that the PPF will offer to members of eligible schemes. I am confident that your Lordships will welcome these changes. I have taken a little time to spell them out because, given the Civil Partnership Bill, I think it important that people know what we are proposing. I hope that, with that explanation, your Lordships are happy to accept the amendment. I beg to move.

---