---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 59: 59: Clause 19, page 8, line 38, leave out from ““scheme”” to ““satisfies”” in line 39 The noble Lord said: We have been told several times that, in order to be deemed a qualifying scheme, a United Kingdom occupational money purchase scheme must have rules that assure an employer contribution of at least 3 per cent of qualifying earnings and total contributions paid by the employer and jobholder of at least 8 per cent, including tax relief. In other words, it must be as good as or better than a personal account. However, I am confused, because the Pensions Act 2007 legislates for the repeal of contracting-out arrangements for money purchase schemes currently provided for under the Pension Schemes Act 1993. The Explanatory Notes state: "““However, in the event that this has not occurred when the employer duties commence, subsection (2) enables regulations to be made to modify the contributions required for money purchase schemes that are contracted out … It will not be possible to increase the minimum contributions required for money purchase schemes, including the scheme established at Clause 58, without amending these sections””." Why can this not be done under the procedures in the 2007 Act? There is plenty of time before 2012, when the Government are adamant that personal accounts will roll out. As I understand it from government amendments, a hybrid scheme, no matter where it is owned, can be a qualifying scheme as long as it is managed in the United Kingdom, but if it is both owned and managed overseas, it cannot qualify except in certain circumstances. Government Amendments Nos. 76, 77, 79 and 80 to Clause 25—I except Amendment No. 78 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—make provision for non-UK-based schemes potentially to qualify if they are properly regulated. My noble friend Lady Noakes will speak about them. What does that mean for schemes that have their being in the European Union or the EEA? I should know the answer to this, but could schemes operating in and under the regulating powers of, for example, France or Germany still qualify? It seems from Clause 17 that they could. However, just because it is an occupational retirement provision within the meaning of the IORP directive does not help me very much. The definition of the IORP directive in Clause 86, while technically correct, is not exactly clear. IORP should be set out in full—““institutions for occupational retirement provision””—and not as an abbreviation, especially as I am told that is so called by practitioners. I hope that these schemes are to be regulated to the standards that we have in the United Kingdom. What, therefore, are the differences, if any, between the IORP regulations and our own Pensions Regulator? Although I have not put down a specific amendment to this effect, I would also like to probe paragraph (c) of Clause 17, which allows the Secretary of State to prescribe a pension scheme that has its main administration in jurisdictions that are not in an EEA state. Will the Minister give me an undertaking that such schemes will not be prescribed unless their regulation is at least as stringent as ours? After all, by definition, they are not covered by the IORP. I beg to move.