Skip to main content

1-20 of 27 results for legtitle:"Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2006"

Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

We on these Benches have no complaints in principle with the orders, but we have a number of questions. Following the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, and to save the Minister time, I believe that the Government have announced today that they are pursuing an appeal on the court ruling on...

Member
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c86-7GC
House
House of Lords

I am yet again grateful to the Minister for explaining these orders so clearly. Although putting them all into one speech makes life just a tiny bit more complicated than it would otherwise be, I pretty well understood what he said. The noble Lord ranged widely over the background to...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c85-6GC
House
House of Lords

I thank both noble Lords who have participated in this debate and for what I think is their support for these orders. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale resisted—

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c87GC
House
House of Lords

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap)Order 2007. The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies)(Amendment) Regulations 2007 and the Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2007. As...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c81-5GC
House
House of Lords

I forgot to ask this. There is a report in the current edition of Personal Pensions, stating that both the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator rule out the possibility of a merger. It quotes the Pension Protection Fund extensively as saying that it is not in favour of...

Member
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c88GC
House
House of Lords

I did not mean to be grudging and I apologise to the noble Lord if it came across that way. I was about to say I am delighted that he resisted the temptation to talk about payable tax credits, and I shall certainly resist the temptation to remind him that...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c87-8GC
House
House of Lords

The point of my question and the answer the Minister has just given is that there is something like a £200 million gap between the ceiling at the top and the actual gross levy at the bottom. Therefore one must begin to wonder whether the ceiling is a bit on...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c91GC
House
House of Lords

I understand the noble Lord’s point, but that presupposes that the involvement of private equity would lead to the weakening of employers. Often it might be argued that the involvement of private equity could have the reverse impact. It is difficult to generalise on these things, although I acknowledge that...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c90GC
House
House of Lords

That is correct. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, asked about the number of schemes. In my introduction, I said that there were 147 schemes covering a total of 102,000 scheme members in an assessment period at the end of February 2007. A further 80 schemes are expected to enter an...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c89-90GC
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I can help the Minister here. Even if, overall, private equity is helpful, I think everyone would agree that introducing a lot of debt into a company means there is more risk if things go wrong. The reason it is relevant to pension funds, given that most defined-benefit pension...

Member
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c90GC
House
House of Lords

We have to look at this over a longer period. Particularly in the early years, there will be a build-up of schemes in the assessment phase and potentially then under the protection of the fund. I would imagine that there will be a convergence of the levy and the ceiling...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c91GC
House
House of Lords

Must the Minister be quite so grudging?

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c87GC
House
House of Lords

I do not know whether it is. I shall certainly seek advice on whether there is anything meaningful that I can say other than the assurance that I gave in relation to the review currently under way and write to the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked about...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c89GC
House
House of Lords

The noble Lord is quite right, I did not deal with that. I will try to do so now. The ceiling is one of the protections that are available to ensure that the PPF can only call upon a certain level of funding. It is the cap on which a...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c90-1GC
House
House of Lords

I commented on the fact that the ceiling order was a ceiling. The Minister will remember. The ceiling order constructed a ceiling, and I do not think he has answered my question about how close to the ceiling the actual takings of the PPF were last year.

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c90GC
House
House of Lords

They are not against it?

Member
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c89GC
House
House of Lords

Draft SI on Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap). Lords debate on a motion to consider. Agreed to on question. Debated with draft SIs on Occupational Pension Schemes (Levies) (Amendment), and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling). Grand Committee held in the Moses Room.

Lead member
Lord McKenzie of Luton
Answering member
Lord Skelmersdale
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Date
15 March 2007
Reference
690 c81-91GC
House
House of Lords

Draft SI on Pensions Act 2004 (ppf payments and fas payments) (consequential provisions)(SI 2006/343). Lords debate on motion to approve. Agreed to on question. (Debated with draft SI on pensions protection fund (pension compensation cap)(SI 2006/347)

Lead member
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting
Answering member
Lord Skelmersdale
Department
Department for Work and Pensions
Type
Debates on delegated legislation
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
678 c879-85
House
House of Lords

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 9 January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee]. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this order I shall speak also to the Pension Protection Fund (Pension Compensation Cap) Order 2006. I remind noble Lords that the Pension Protection Fund,...

Member
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
678 c879-81
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11 January be approved [14th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Evans of Temple Guiting.) On Question, Motion agreed to.

Member
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
678 c885
House
House of Lords