---

Pensions Bill

It seems to me that Amendment No. 130EM is the substantive amendment in the group. It is a new clause allowing the PPF to recover charges in respect of pension sharing. The whole point of the PPF is to administer failed direct benefit pension schemes in as close a way as possible to those schemes it has taken over. For several years it has made two charges on existing schemes—in other words, before the takeover: one charge is for its annual running costs and the other, usually a much high cost, is based on the likelihood of it taking over a particular scheme and is on a rising scale depending on the scheme’s deficit level. A high deficit incurs the maximum and a scheme which is 140 per cent funded incurs none at all. In other words, if the PPF is running properly, there should be enough money for the PPF not to need any extra money in regard to pension sharing, which one hopes will be a pretty rare event anyway. When does the Minister believe that the provision in Amendment No. 130EM will be needed? I note that the original concept is to be introduced by regulations requiring parliamentary approval. In other words, the new clause is an enabling power. Does the Minister expect to lay regulations early after Royal Assent or will he wait until the burden on the PPF is such that this money-raising power is needed because the annual running charge is no longer sufficient? Is it really necessary to have this extra provision? Why cannot the annual running charge be increased without this new provision?