Programme motion, Consideration of Lords amendments in the Commons
- Speaker
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ian Pearson)Labour- Quote
- I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
- Time
- 16:48
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Conservative- Quote
- With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendment No. 10A. [Interruption.] May I ask Members who are not staying for the debate to leave quickly and quietly?
- Time
- 16:48
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Ian PearsonLabour
- Quote
- One of the central threads of the many debates that we have had in both this House and the other place was the principle of transparency, particularly in relation to the use of powers set out in the Bill. I wanted to be clear that transparency has been and always will be crucial to the scheme, and the Government are committed to acting openly when exercising the powers. The amendment seeks to insert into clause 5 this provision: “The Treasury shall lay before Parliament a copy of any direction given in subsection (4).” Clause 5 includes a direction-making power, and we discussed the matter at some length in the Public Bill Committee. I would like to make it clear that the Government do not envisage using the direction-making power in the Bill to interfere in the day-to-day running of the reclaim fund and the management of its money. This will be the sole responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, which will regulate the reclaim fund for prudential purposes. I want again to stress first and foremost that it is not the case that the reclaim fund is a public sector body. The Bill sets out how the reclaim fund will be constituted. It does not establish a reclaim fund; that is a task for the industry. The reclaim fund is clearly independent of Government. As I have explained on previous occasions, the direction-making power that we are taking is an ultimate sanction that the public will expect us to have to ensure that the reclaim fund functions in accordance with its articles of association, in particular in those areas that the Financial Services Authority will not regulate for prudential purposes. This is a power to be used only in exceptional circumstances, to require the reclaim fund to comply with its statutory requirements under legislation—no more and no less. We recognise that concerns remain about the transparency of how the power may be used. We have reflected on that, and we are content to agree to amendment No. 7A. Concerns about transparency have also been voiced in relation to the definition of dormancy. The reserve power for the Treasury to amend the period of inactivity required before accounts can be considered dormant was originally introduced by negative procedure, in line with other powers contained in the Bill. However, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee subsequently considered the power and recommended that, since the definition of a dormant account is central to the purpose of the Bill, the power to amend the 15-year period should be subject to the affirmative procedure. We have listened to those comments, and are happy to agree to Lords amendment No. 10A, in accordance with that recommendation. I believe that these amendments are straightforward, and I take this opportunity to thank again the Members who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill has received general support from all parts of the House, and I am sure we all look forward to its enactment and to resources being made available for the wider benefit of society.
- Time
- 16:48
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Mark Hoban (Fareham) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- May I begin by echoing the Minister’s concluding remarks? People are looking forward to implementation of the Bill, and we welcome amendments Nos. 7A and 10A and the Government motion to agree. As the Minister said, the definition of dormancy is central to the Bill, and people are rightly concerned about any relaxation there might be in that definition, because they are rightly concerned about how they maintain their rights to what is effectively their money. It is right for the Government to have conceded that any changes in the limit should be dealt with through the affirmative procedure. On amendment No. 7A, as the Minister said, the Treasury has powers under the Bill to give directions to the private company that will operate the reclaim fund. There was considerable discussion in this House and the other place about what checks and balances should be in place to control the use of the power by the Treasury to make sure that it is subject to proper scrutiny, and various attempts were made in both this House and the other place to introduce some controls. The last time we debated this Bill in the House, I tabled amendment No. 12, which would have required the Treasury to publish a direction within 28 days, and the Minister said: “I am inching towards what the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) had to say.”—[Official Report, 3 November 2008; Vol. 482, c. 64.] I am pleased that he has inched so far. Although he has not quite adopted the wording of my amendment, the Government came pretty close to doing so in the House of Lords. I am grateful for the changes the Government have introduced as a consequence of the debates in this House and the other place, and we welcome the amendments.
- Time
- 16:48
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Jeremy Browne (Taunton) (LD)Liberal Democrat- Quote
- Although the Bill has the word “Dormant” in its title, it seems to come back to life frequently. We now again have an opportunity briefly to discuss this important Bill, which has, throughout proceedings in the other place, in Committee and in this Chamber, commanded the broad support of all political parties. That is also true of these two amendments. We support Lords amendment No. 7A, which will add transparency to the process here in Parliament in a way of which we approve. Perhaps more importantly, we support Lords amendment No. 10A. It is a key consideration, because the 15-year period for dormancy is inevitably somewhat arbitrary, and in time it may be judged that a period of 10 or 12 years, or longer than 15 years, is more suitable. The provision is central to the legislation, and it would be inappropriate for a change of that centrality to take place without our having an opportunity to reflect on it and discuss it. I am pleased that the Government have chosen to take such an open-minded approach to the proposals that have been made, and the Liberal Democrats share the objectives that have been outlined both by the Minister and by the Conservative spokesman. Lords amendment agreed to. Lords amendment No. 10A agreed to. PENSIONS BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2) Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A (Programme motions), That the following provisions shall apply to the Pensions Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 7th January 2008 (Pensions Bill (Programme)): Consideration of Lords Amendments 1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at this day’s sitting. Subsequent stages 2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put. 3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Frank Roy.]
- Time
- 16:48
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗