Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 2 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Pensions Bill.


Pensions Bill

As the noble Baroness has explained, the effect of these amendments would be to limit the Secretary of State's role in considering conflicts of interest in relation only to appointments made within the initial period, and the corporation's role in conflict only to appointments made after the initial period. I would like to take this opportunity to explain our reasoning for both the Secretary of State’s and the corporation's continuing role in conflicts of interest. As has been discussed, we know that appointments to the trustee corporation in the ““initial period”” will be made by the Secretary of State. After this period, the trustee corporation itself will be responsible for making appointments. Clearly, it is important, bearing in mind the responsibility they will have for investing the contributions of scheme members, that there are sufficient checks on whether any conflicts of interest exist among members of the trustee corporation. The corporation itself will have an interest in potential conflicts of interest for the individuals who are members of the corporation, whether or not the appointment is an initial or a later one. They must act together in scheme members’ best interests, but a conflict of interest for an individual member could restrict their ability to carry out that legal duty. Equally, even though the Secretary of State will not have a responsibility for appointments beyond the initial period, he will always retain a level of responsibility as ““settlor”” of the scheme. Following this, the trustee corporation, as a public body, will always be accountable through the Secretary of State to Parliament. Given the accountability of both the trustee corporation and the Secretary of State for the scheme, it is right that both should have power to ensure that there is nothing which could compromise the integrity or reputation of the trustee corporation. I am bound to say to the noble Baroness that I do not see any of these involving great processes of administration, but I think that they are important safeguards, both in the public interest and for the corporation. I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
703 c324 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Audit Advisory services Conflict of interests Government assistance Low incomes Public appointments Workplace pensions Pensions Non-departmental public bodies Unfair dismissal Pensions Advisory Service National employment savings trust scheme
Legislation
Pensions Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk