---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 130DS: 130DS: Clause 100, page 48, line 38, at end insert— ““( ) provision enabling the Board to set off against any PPF compensation payable to a party to pension compensation sharing any charges owed to it by that party under the regulations;”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 130EL and 130EM. A principle that underpins pension sharing on divorce and dissolution of civil partnership is that the parties involved should meet the costs of that undertaking. I am sure we would all agree that that is only right and fair. Following that principle, Clause 100 sets out how the board of the PPF may recover its costs of implementing compensation shares. The PPF expects that the costs will be similar to those of pension schemes, and so divorcing couples will be charged roughly the same to share pension compensation as they would have been had they been sharing a pension. The parties to divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership will normally agree the apportionment of the costs which will be set out in the order. The clause also provides a regulation-making power, which we intend to use so that the implementation of compensation sharing can be delayed where the costs have not been paid. The three government amendments I have tabled are intended to ensure that the PPF does not bear the cost of implementing a divorce settlement. As far as practicable, these provisions on recovering costs apply in the same way as those which apply to the costs of pension sharing. Amendment No. 130DS simply ensures that regulations can allow the PPF to recover its costs by adjusting future compensation. That is consistent with the approach followed in pension sharing. It ensures that the PPF can recover the costs; ensures that expensive legal action to recover costs is avoided should the parties responsible fail to pay the charges; and thereby helps to ensure that the PPF levy payers do not end up footing the bill. Amendment No. 130EL is purely technical. It simply ensures that the clause containing consequential amendments ends up in the right place. Finally, Amendment No. 130EM inserts a new clause. This is required because the PPF is also responsible for implementing any pension sharing orders that the trustees of a scheme have failed to implement at the point of transfer of the scheme to the PPF. Currently, there is no provision allowing the PPF in this situation to recover its costs from the parties to the divorce or dissolution. This new clause corrects that by making similar provision to Clause 100. To reiterate, these three amendments ensure that the PPF and those that fund it do not bear the costs of implementing a divorce settlement. As a matter of principle, those costs should be borne by the parties to the undertaking; these amendments will ensure that is the case. I therefore beg to move.