| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful for that response which has helped to illuminate the situation. No doubt the salaries of those on the FAS will be somewhat lower than the salaries of those on the board of the Pension Protection Fund. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 281:
"( ) for or in connection with—
(i) the review of, or appeals against, any determination, or failure to make a determination, in connection with the financial assistance scheme, or
(ii) the investigation of complaints relating to the financial assistance scheme,
and for the establishment of a body or the appointment of a person or persons to hear such appeals or conduct such investigations;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 Nov 2004 : Column 715
Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 282:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is in effect a probing amendment. Clause 284 is a very short clause concerning the financial assistance scheme. Clause 284(3) states:
"Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision . . . (h) providing for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter in relation to the financial assistance scheme".
What on earth does that mean? What is its purpose? It seems quite strange. What power is such a person to have in exercising his discretion on matters about which we know absolutely nothing, other than that they are in relation to the financial assistance scheme? As I said before, there are certain points in a Bill where one thinks that the draftsman has finally had a nervous breakdown, and this seems to be one of them. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, having had my attention drawn to the paragraph by the noble Lord, I cannot help but think that if Earl Russell were here, he would tell us an anecdote about the poor law. I am afraid that my historical knowledge does not allow me to do anything so eloquent.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I much enjoyed and will much miss Earl Russell's comments on what he called Humpty-Dumpty clauses in which, I remember vividly from most of them, income should be treated as capital and capital as income whenever the Government see fit. He sought to demolish that with good humour, asperity and wit. I then tried to explain that it was all about capital lump sums being paid back in instalments and, if one did not treat them as income, one was stuck, so one got round all the rules. It persuaded me, but I am not at all sure that it persuaded Earl Russell, whom we very much miss.
The amendment seeks to remove a provision which allows regulations setting up the FAS to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in any matter relating to the FAS. It is a bog-standard provision frequently used when taking regulation-making powers, to make explicit the range of ways in which those powers may be used. Section 183 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993—an Act passed by the noble Lord's government—contains a similar provision in relation to most regulation-making powers within that Act.
I do not encourage the noble Lord to move an amendment to it tonight, but Clause 313(4) has the same power. It reads:
"A power conferred by this Act to make subordinate legislation includes power to provide for a person to exercise a discretion in dealing with any matter".
Again, that is a bog-standard provision to deal with the regulation-making powers in the Bill. However, the provision has been repeated in Clause 284. This is where the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asks why, if it is in Clause 313, it is not overriding and we need to put it into Clause 284. It is because Clause 284 contains wide powers, and it was thought best to present a full
8 Nov 2004 : Column 716
picture of the range of the powers within the clause itself. It might not have been necessary; I suppose that Clause 313 might have done it for us.
Let us look at how the FAS in particular may benefit from the provision. There may be cases in which it is sensible to allow some discretion, within guidelines, to help us to deal with a wide range of individual circumstances. An example is where scheme trustees are required to provide certain information within a set period—say three months—but the FAS manager has the discretion under the power identified by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, to allow a longer period in certain cases where there are particular difficulties.
I reassure noble Lords that the provision certainly does not offer a blank cheque for the use of discretion in matters relating to the FAS. As with all other powers under the Bill, the FAS regulations would set out clearly where and within what limits discretion would be exercised. It goes without saying that such discretion would have to be exercised in accordance both with public law principles and the European Convention on Human Rights.
I do not know whether I have reassured the noble Lord by saying that it is a fairly bog-standard requirement or that we are also taking the power later in the Bill. However, the main point of substance is that regulations will specify and constrain how the power is to be exercised. I have given one such example, which I hope will satisfy him. It is a sensible discretion. With that, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, we shall have to look forward to the regulations and see what they specify. As in other cases, no doubt the noble Baroness will let us have a draft. I was not a member of the previous government—I spent most of my time as the chairman of the Treasury and Civil Service Committee criticising much of what they did—so I do not think that I can be held responsible. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 283 and 284 not moved.]
Clause 292 [Stopping disposal of assets of institutions administered in other member States]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 285:
Page 241, line 8, leave out from "may" to second "an" in line 11 and insert "on an application made by the Regulator with respect to UK-held assets of the institution grant—
(a) an injunction restraining a defendant, or
(b) in Scotland,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 292 relates to stopping the disposal of assets of institutions administered in other member states. In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 286 and 287.
8 Nov 2004 : Column 717
Article 19(3) of the European Directive on the Activities and Supervision of Institutions for Occupational Retirement Provision 2003/41/EC(IORP) Directive requires member states to put in place mechanisms to prohibit, in accordance with the provisions of Article 14, the free disposal of assets held by a depositary or custodian located within its territory at the request of the pension scheme's home member state.
Amendments Nos. 285, 286 and 287 are technical, replacing "claim" with "application". They are necessary to provide consistency in the terminology used in the context of applying for an injunction where such cases may arise in the UK. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, given that this matter is a requirement under EU legislation, and knowing other countries' sloth in putting EU legislation into law, has the Minister any information as to what extent this is reciprocated across EU countries?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, not offhand. I said to the noble Lord during previous discussions that officials from our regulation team are meeting officials of other countries who are doing the same job in terms of cross-border schemes and so on to ensure that there is a common understanding of "home" and "host" and how one deals with issues as to where the scheme may be registered in the home country of an employer who may be in a different country with employees in, perhaps, two or three different countries.
Those technical discussions are underway at the moment, but this matter will have to apply in all member states from 2005, whether they like it or not. But we are in the process of trying to obtain consistency of terminology at the moment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |