Clause 9 - Functions exercisable by the
Pensions Bill
3:30 pm
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 124, in
clause 9, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
'(g) the duty to monitor the costs of enforcement of this Act upon occupational pension schemes and their sponsoring employers.'.
This is an echo of a point that has been raised once or twice already. It was inspired by our friends at the National Association of Pension Funds, who take a close interest in our deliberations. The amendment seeks to impose an extra duty on top of the six already set out for the non-executive committee. Again, we enter the lists argument: once one starts to put lists in the Bill, there is a compulsion to keep adding to them. However, I do not think that the Under-Secretary can claim all wisdom on such matters. The people who will have to work with the regulator and with the non-executive committee would be thoroughly reassured to have this requirement in the Bill. There are real concerns about the likely burdens and costs involved in enforcing the Act, and they are not the creatures of my fevered Conservative imagination.
I should have thought that the non-executive members would be the ideal people to flag up that sort of thing. Hopefully, they would bring their own experience of the real world from outside—they might have actuarial, investment or other backgrounds—which would not only help to make the regulator successful and effective, but reflect back the concerns of the people whom they are used to working with in running the schemes.
I can almost hear the Under-Secretary telling me about the philosophy of this particular list. If we are to have a list with no fewer than six headings, why not have another heading?