HL Deb 18 October 2004 vol 665 cc144-5GC

(1) This section applies if the Regulator receives a request from the competent authority of a member State for assistance in prohibiting the free disposal of UK-held assets of a European pensions institution that has its main administration in that member State.

(2) The court may—

  1. (a) on a claim made by the Regulator with respect to UK-held assets of the institution, grant an injunction restraining a defendant, or
  2. (b) in Scotland, on an application so made, grant an interdict prohibiting a defender (or, in proceedings by petition, a respondent),
from disposing of, or otherwise dealing with, assets to which the claim or application relates.

(3) If the court grants an injunction or interdict under subsection (2), it may by subsequent orders make provision for such incidental, consequential and supplementary matters as it considers necessary to enable the competent authority that sent the request to perform any of its functions in relation to assets subject to the injunction or interdict.

(4) If the institution is not a party to proceedings under subsection (2) or (3), the institution—

  1. (a) has the same rights to notice of the proceedings as a defendant (or, in Scotland, as a defender or, as the case may be, as a respondent), and
  2. (b) may take part as a party in the proceedings.

(5) In deciding any question as to costs or expenses, a court before which any proceedings take place—

  1. (a) may take account of any additional expense which it considers that any party to the proceedings has incurred as a result of the participation of the institution in pursuance of subsection (4)(b), and
  2. (b) may award the whole or part of the additional expense as costs or (as the case may be) expenses to the party who incurred it (whatever the outcome of the Regulator's claim or application).

(6) For the purposes of this section— European pensions institution" has the meaning given by section 280; UK-held assets" of a European pensions institution are assets of the institution held by a depositary or custodian located in the United Kingdom, and here "assets", "depositary", "custodian" and "located" have the same meaning as in Article 19(3) of the Directive.

(7) The jurisdiction conferred by subsections (2) and (3) is exercisable by the High Court or the Court of Session."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 281 [Interpretation of Part]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 330A:

Page 212, line 46, leave out "pensions" and insert "pension schemes (within the meaning of that Article)"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 281, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 282 [Persons entitled to more than one Category B retirement pension]:

On Question, Whether Clause 282 shall stand part of the Bill:

Lord Higgins

Clause 282 is concerned with persons entitled to more than one Category B retirement pension. In terms of drafting it would be difficult to envisage a more unintelligible clause than this one. Perhaps the noble Baroness will give a brief description, on the record, of what it does, because it is not at all clear on the face of the Bill. I am not asking for a lengthy explanation, but some explanation might be helpful.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham

The clause restores the choice that existed in legislation before April 1992. We want to put payments back on a statutory footing. The clause is straightforward: it ensures that where a person, normally a woman who marries after state pension age, is entitled to more than one category B pension, based on her spouse's national insurance contributions, usually because she is a widow, she should be able to choose which one she wants to receive. So that is a best-buy option which, at the moment, we are covering by extra-statutory provision.

It was available until April 1992, but provision to allow people to make that choice was inadvertently omitted when contributory benefits legislation was consolidated into the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. We discovered the omission in 2001 and, as I said, have been allowing the more beneficial category B pension to be paid on an extra-statutory basis. We seek to regularise that situation. In practice, no one has lost out or will lose out, but it is sensible to bring it within the framework of the law.

Lord Higgins

I am all for including extra-statutory concessions in legislation. They used to bedevil me when I was at the Treasury. That is helpful, but it is a shame that it could not have been done in a more intelligible way. However, no doubt it will ensure that the matter is dealt with properly rather than by making a concession. I am grateful to the noble Baroness.

Clause 282 agreed to.

Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 331:

After Clause 282, insert the following new clause—