HC Deb 14 July 1987 vol 119 cc1034-5

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

I think that I am right in saying, but I ask my right hon. Friend to reassure me, that the provisions of clause 21 cover Government approved personal pension schemes, provided that they comply with the conditions laid down in paragraphs (a) to (e)—that is, the conditions elaborated in clauses 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. Would I be right in thinking that if they are contracted-out schemes, they are also regulated by the 20 statutory instruments which emanated last week from the DHSS? If I am making an ignorant mistake, I hope that my right hon. Friend will forgive me, but I think I am right in saying that contracted-out schemes would fall under both sets of conditions. If that assumption is correct, may we hear to what extent these provisions have been agreed with the DHSS so as to make certain that there is no risk of incompatibility with the conditions laid out in the 20 statutory instruments?

Mr. Norman Lamont

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. They are controlled in this double way. Clause 21 is just an introductory provision. The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is also yes. These matters have been discussed and agreed with the DHSS.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams

Can we take it that there is no risk of any of the provisions in the clauses of this Finance Bill producing any friction or incompatibility with what has emanated from the DHSS?

Mr. Norman Lamont

That is what I was seeking to imply to my hon. Friend. That is the objective, and we hope that it has been achieved.

Mr. Blair

As I understand it, the Financial Secretary is saying that there would be no conflict between the statutory instruments and the provisions in the statute. If there was such a conflict, I presume that the provisions of the Finance Bill would prevail.

Subsection (2) states that nothing in subsection (1) will prevent the approval of a scheme which makes provision for insurance against a risk related to the non-payment of contributions. Does that refer to cases where, for example, due to illness someone is unable to contribute for a period? Is that insured against under the terms of the scheme? Does that represent a change from the present law?

Mr. Norman Lamont

I am advised that the answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question is yes. I am afraid that I do not know whether it is a change. Clause 21 relates to benefits from voluntary contributions only. Protected rights from minimum contributions is a separate matter for the DHSS. There is no incompatibility.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to