Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 188, in

clause 33, page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (7).

This is another probing amendment. It would remove subsection (7), which says that the clause does not apply if the actuarial valuation that established that the assets were insufficient to meet protected liabilities took place before the Bill came into force. I understand that that is a way of commencing the clause, but presumably the clause cannot commence until the Bill becomes an Act.

Perhaps I am missing something—it was midnight when I was looking at the clause—but it seems that the actuarial valuation referred to in subsection (3) is obtained by the PPF board. As the board does not exist until the Bill comes into force, I am not clear as to how it can obtain an actuarial valuation, and so I am not sure that subsection (7) is relevant. However, I have probably missed something, and the Under-Secretary will probably explain.

Mr Chris Pond (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Gravesham, Labour)

Let me explain that the clause is designed to give the regulator the same standing as insolvency practitioners to pursue any debt due to a pension scheme by reason of transactions that it suspects were made at an undervalue—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at Two o'clock.