Clause 123 - Effect of Board assuming responsibility for a scheme

Part of Pensions Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 9:30 am on 30th March 2004.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Nigel Waterson Nigel Waterson Conservative, Eastbourne 9:30 am, 30th March 2004

I beg to move amendment No. 411, in

clause 123, page 77, line 42, at end insert—

'(7) The trustees or managers of such a scheme shall be discharged from any further liabilities of whatsoever nature; and they will in addition receive an indemnity and hold harmless agreement from the Board.'.

The clause sets out the effect of the board's assuming responsibility for a scheme. It is important to realise that the board does not take over as the trustee of a pension scheme—it is a crucial distinction. Instead, all the property of the scheme is transferred to the board. Under subsection (2), the scheme is to be treated as having been wound up. It seems to us, therefore, that it needs to be clear to the trustees that once they no longer have any assets under their control they will be free from further liabilities. Subsection (2)(b) contains a general discharge from their pension obligations, and pension obligations are defined in subsection (4).

I am told, however, that there may be other circumstances in which trustees will remain liable for obligations that they have entered into, even if those involve assets that have been transferred to the board. For example, if they have entered into a lease they might still be personally liable as trustees under the lease covenants, even though the board might also become liable under subsection (2)(a). We think that it should be made clear that those obligations would disappear once the assets were taken over. It may also be worth while to make it clear that no further claims can be brought against the trustees before the pensions ombudsman. Ministers may want to consider that; perhaps we shall consider the possibility later in the Bill.

I included in amendment No. 411 a requirement for the board to give the trustees an indemnity and hold harmless agreement. I can see no good reason for the trustees, having relinquished, or being advised to relinquish, their responsibilities, not to be given a very wide indemnity by the PPF.