|
Mr. Waterson: I think that the Minister is getting ahead of himself. I have not moved that amendment yet.
Malcolm Wicks: No; what was on the hon. Gentleman's mind in relation to that amendment was obviously communicated to me by some strange mechanism. I am sorry to have anticipated him. Perhaps I was wrong in thinking that it might be helpful to anticipate. It is probably best for me to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendments and sit down.
Mr. Waterson: I suppose that if we continued like that, there would be no need for me to say anything at all; the Minister could conduct both sides of the debate. Who knows? That might even be a step in the right direction. As long as it was not the Minister with the pillow over his face, we might all be a lot better off.
I do not think that the amendments can be criticised at all on grounds of practicality. The Minister seems to accept the fundamental principles behind them, although perhaps he would like to tinker with the list of consultees. The industry will be puzzled about why the principles at least could not be accepted. However, I do not want to detain the Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 250, in
clause 65, page 42, line 23, leave out paragraph (10).
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 252, in
clause 68, page 43, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
Mr. Waterson: The Minister is like a coiled spring, waiting to leap on my arguments about the amendments and hack them to pieces. However, if he can contain himself, I shall explain my intentions, which, hopefully, approximate to the intentions set out in his speaking notes. Clause 65(10) and clause 68(2) have almost the same wording. It is curious that, having gone to all the trouble to arrange for the regulator to publish draft codes of practice or draft statements of procedure, both of which are important for a range of organisations, the clause says in a limp way that it is up to the regulator to publish a code
''appearing to it to be appropriate.''
What is behind that?
There is only a limited number of ways of publishing codes. The regulator may stick them on the website. It is bound to have a website; everyone does these days. I do, and I am sure that the Minister does, too. I hope that hard copies will be available for old-fashioned people who like the feel of paper. What possible range of options can the regulator be looking at when deciding how to publish the draft codes or the draft statements of procedure? I hope that the Minister will enlighten me.
Malcolm Wicks: I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. It might be useful to repeat what I said earlier about enabling flexibility—the corner-stone of our approach—that allows for publication by either or both paper and electronic means. If members of the
Column Number: 169
Committee want an idea of what that looks like, we have left on the Table copies of the OPRA document on guidance for scheme auditors and scheme actuaries. That will reassure the hon. Gentleman that the draft codes and statements will be available in a printed format.
The clause allows that a code that relates to duties of, for example, actuaries may also be sent to the appropriate professional organisations for onward distribution to their members. Clearly, we would not go to the trouble of specifying the need for codes without ensuring that they were published and distributed properly. As members of the Committee will appreciate, it makes no sense for any code to be published in such a way that those to whom it is directed are unaware of its provisions. That would not suit us, the regulator or the regulated community, and neither would it be in the interests of those whom ultimately we want to help. Given those reassurances, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
Mr. Waterson: On the basis of the Minister's reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 66
Revocation of codes of practice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Waterson: The clause was bound to provoke me because it deals with the Secretary of State interfering again in the regulator's business. I cannot begin to understand why the Secretary of State should have a power to revoke a code of practice. I accept that the regulator should have the power to revoke one of its codes of practice, but it is a little wishy-washy to refer to the revocation being made with the consent of the regulator.
The philosophical difference between the two sides has surfaced before. The Government are setting up a gleaming, shining new regulator with new powers and functions and a probably much-enhanced staff and budget. The Conservatives believe that we should let it get on with it. Having set it up and given it the best possible start in life, the Secretary of State should not start micro-managing such matters. It mystifies me why the Secretary of State should have a view on a code of practice, other than that of any essential consultee, as Secretaries of State have better things to do. The clause should be removed altogether and it should be made clear that the regulator can revoke its code of practice. The Minister mentioned a possible scenario—it is difficult to credit—that something might need to be done in an emergency. It is the regulator, which should know its own business, not a politician, that should be in charge of this sort of issue.
The Chairman: I call Mr. Nigel Waterson—I am sorry, I meant Mr. Malcolm Wicks.
Malcolm Wicks: We agree sometimes, Mr. Griffiths. Clauses 64 and 65 place a duty on the regulator to
Column Number: 170
issue the codes of practice and to consult. The Secretary of State must lay codes of practice before Parliament as they will be commenced by order of the Secretary of State. Clause 66 permits that Minister to revoke codes, also by order. Opposition Members expressed their concern that that gives too much power to the Secretary of State, and I hope I can reassure them that that is not the case. The procedure is designed to enable a flexible approach to legislation; it was one of the underlying purposes of allowing the regulator to issue codes of practice in the first place.
However, such an approach must still have appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, which is why codes can be stopped by resolution of either House. As codes are commenced by order, they must also be revoked by order and the procedure ensures that there will be no confusion about whether codes of practice or any particular version of a code are current. An order to revoke a code may not be made without the regulator's consent, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. That is what subsection (2) is about.
The measure will ensure that we strike precisely the right balance between the regulator staying at arm's length from Government and retaining sufficient parliamentary accountability for its actions. It should also allay any Opposition concerns about the Government's ability to interfere in the regulator's activities. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Waterson: I am not reassured, but as we want to make progress I am happy to move on.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 67
The Regulator's procedure in relation to its regulatory functions
Amendment made: No. 46, in
clause 67, page 43, line 4, after 'power' insert 'by direction'.—[Malcolm Wicks.]
Clause 67, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 68 and 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Standard Procedure
10.45 am
Mr. Pond: I beg to move amendment No. 198, in
clause 70, page 44, line 39, leave out 'was' and insert 'is'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 47, 48, 50, 55 to 57, 60 and 61.
Mr. Pond: The clauses we have just agreed to set out the standard and special procedures that the regulator will use. The purpose of specifying the different procedures is to ensure that the regulator's powers, which are varied, are nevertheless used proportionately and fairly, and that they comply with the requirements of the Human Rights Act.
Column Number: 171
Clause 70 relates to the standard procedure, which is fairly straightforward. Since we have not yet discussed either the standard or the special procedure before discussing the Government amendments, I shall explain the standard procedure. If the regulator has a case in which there is no immediate risk to scheme assets or members' benefits, and the regulator intends to exercise one of its regulatory functions, it must tell those likely to be directly affected by the regulatory action. Those affected will vary, depending on the action. They will be invited to make representations about the proposed action. The regulator will consider those representations and tell the individuals concerned what it has decided to do through the issue of a determination notice, which will be published probably electronically under clause 63 so that it will be available to any interested parties.
The regulator cannot take the action, however, until after the period for making a reference to the tribunal has expired, except in certain cases detailed in subsection 5. There are many Government amendments to the clause, which are largely technical, and correct drafting errors and ensure that the references to the Pensions Act 1995 are correct.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 47, in
clause 70, page 45, line 6, leave out '3' and insert '3(1)'.
No. 48, in
clause 70, page 45, line 10, leave out '4' and insert '4(1)'.
No. 49, in
No. 50, in
No. 51, in
clause 70, page 45, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) the power under section 9 of that Act to exercise by order the same jurisdiction and powers as the High Court or the Court of Session for vesting property in, or transferring property to, trustees in consequence of the appointment or removal of a trustee;'.
No. 52, in
clause 70, page 45, line 17, at end insert—
'( ) the power under section 30(2) of that Act to exercise by order the same jurisdiction and powers as the High Court or the Court of Session for vesting property in, or transferring property to, the trustees where a trustee becomes disqualified under section 29 of that Act;'.
No. 53, in
clause 70, page 45, line 20, after 'power', insert 'by direction'.
No. 54, in
clause 70, page 45, line 23, after 'power', insert 'by direction'.
No. 55, in
Column Number: 172
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
