Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


The Earl of Buckinghamshire: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his clear and reassuring reply. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 142 [Annual increase in rate of personal pension]:

[Amendment No. 220 not moved.]

Clause 143 [Section 142: supplementary]:

[Amendment No. 221 not moved.]

Clause 144 [Power to reject notice choosing appropriate personal pension scheme]:

[Amendment No. 222 not moved.]

Clause 145 [Levy]:

[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 224:


Page 94, line 14, at end insert:
("( ) Regulations made by virtue of subsection (1)—
(a) in determining the amount of any levy in respect of the Regulatory Authority, must take account (among other things) of any amounts paid to the Secretary of State under section 168(4) of this Act or section 9 of the Pensions Act 1995, and
(b) in determining the amount of expenditure in respect of which any levy is to be imposed, may take one year with another and, accordingly, may have regard to expenditure estimated to be incurred in current or future periods and to actual expenditure incurred in previous periods (including periods ending before the coming into force of this subsection).").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, subsection (a) ensures that civil penalties imposed by the authority must be taken into account when determining any levy.

Rather than give the authority direct control of income from fines, we have provided for those amounts to be taken into account when the levy is set by the Secretary of State. The Bill provides for levy receipts and fines to be paid to the Consolidated Fund because the Secretary of State will control the authority's funding and it will have to agree its budgetary requirements with him. That will ensure that the authority's expenditure is subject to the full public accounting procedures and value-for-money scrutinies. To pay fines directly to the authority would place the money raised outside that system of control. Also, if the authority is allowed to bolster its budgets by increasing the number and size of the penalties it imposes, there would be a clear danger of jeopardising the authority's objectivity.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and my noble friend Lord Buckinghamshire expressed considerable interest in the use which would be made of money received as a result of civil penalties imposed by the regulatory authority. At the time we explained that they would go to defray

14 Mar 1995 : Column 838

the costs of the authority. That intention is now placed beyond all doubt by the explicit provision introduced by this amendment.

With regard to subsection (b), when setting the rates of the levy for any year, it will be necessary to estimate the costs that will be incurred during that year.

Once the accounts of each organisation have been finalised, the total expenditure actually incurred will be compared with those estimates and with levy income. Any shortfall, or excess, will then be taken into account in setting future levies. That will ensure that all amounts collected by the levy will be used for the purposes laid down and surpluses will not simply disappear into the Consolidated Fund. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 225:


After Clause 145, insert the following new clause:

("Pensions on divorce, etc

.—(1) In the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, after section 25A there is inserted—
"Pensions.

25B.—(1) The matters to which the court is to have regard under section 25(2) above include—
(a) in the case of paragraph (a), any benefits under a pension scheme which a party to the marriage has or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, and
(b) in the case of paragraph (h), any benefits under a pension scheme which, by reason of the dissolution or annulment of the marriage, a party to the marriage will lose the chance of acquiring.
(2) In any proceedings for a financial provision order under section 23 above in a case where a party to the marriage has, or is likely to have in the foreseeable future, any benefit under a pension scheme, the court shall, in addition to considering any other matter which it is required to consider apart from this subsection, consider—
(a) whether, having regard to any matter to which it is required to have regard in the proceedings by virtue of subsection (1) above, such an order (whether deferred or not) should be made, and
(b) where the court determines to make such an order, how the terms of the order should be affected, having regard to any such matter.",
and, in section 25(2) (h) of that Act (loss of chance to acquire benefits), "(for example, a pension)" is omitted.
(2) Nothing in the provisions mentioned in subsection (3) applies to a court exercising its powers under section 23 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (financial provision in connection with divorce proceedings, etc.) in respect of any benefits under a pension scheme which a party to the marriage has or is likely to have in the forseeable future.
(3) The provisions referred to in subsection (2) are—
(a) section 203(1) and (2) of the Army Act 1955, 203(1) and (2) of the Air Force Act 1955, 128G(1) and (2) of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 or 159(4) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (which prevent assignment, or orders being made restraining a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning),
(b) section 82 of this Act,
(c) any provision of any enactment (whether passed or made before or after this Act is passed) corresponding to any of the enactments mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b), and
(d) any provision of the scheme in question.").

14 Mar 1995 : Column 839

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it seems a considerable time since we debated this matter. I should like to say just two things. First, I again thank my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor for his help in this matter, and my noble friend the Minister. I am grateful to them for their help and sympathetic understanding. I should like to say on behalf of my noble friend Lady Elles, who is unable to be here today, that she supports the amendment. I know that she is pleased, as am I and I am sure everyone in the House is, that the Government have accepted this principle. I beg to move.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved as an amendment to Amendment No. 225, Amendment No. 226:


After Clause 145, line 27, at end insert:
("(1A) Where the court determines to make an order under this section, such an order may bind a person who is not a party to the marriage but who is, or is likely to be in the foreseeable future, liable to pay any benefit under a pension scheme to a party to the marriage.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we are not sure whether this amendment is providing belt and braces, given Amendment No. 175. It may be valuable to have an alternative phrasing which the Bill team can clear up later. I ask the House to support the amendment in the spirit of Amendment No. 175. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am prepared to accept the amendment. We shall sort out the wording between the two amendments.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister.

On Question, Amendment No. 226, as an amendment to Amendment No. 225, agreed to.

On Question, Amendment No. 225, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 148 [Amendments consequential on Part IV]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 227:


Page 95, line 39, leave out ("amendments consequential on this Part") and insert ("general minor and consequential amendments").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 6 [Amendments relating to Part IV]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 228:


Page 129, line 32, at end insert:
(".—(1) Schedule 9 (transitory modifications) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraphs (ii) to (v) are omitted,
(b) in sub-paragraph (3) (a) (i), for "provisions mentioned in paragraphs (i) to (v)" there is substituted "provision mentioned in paragraph (i)", and
(c) sub-paragraph (5) is omitted.
(3) Paragraphs 3 and 4 are omitted.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

14 Mar 1995 : Column 840

Clause 15l [Parliamentary control of orders and regulations]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 229:


Page 96, line 40, leave out from ("contains") to ("must") in line 41 and insert ("any regulations made by virtue of—
( ) section 56(4),
( ) section 70(6), or
( ) section 105(1)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 230 not moved.]

Schedule 7 [Repeals]:

Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 231:


Page 129, column 3, line 43, leave out ("84(6)") and insert ("84(10)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 231 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 232 to 236 and 238 to 246. These amendments are designed to bring the contents of Schedule 7 into line with the amendments made to the Bill in Committee. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page