22/03/2017

:00:00. > :00:19.Order. Urgent question. To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if

:00:20. > :00:22.he will make a statement on recent changes to aviation security.

:00:23. > :00:25.Secretary of State for Transport, Secretary Chris Grayling. The safety

:00:26. > :00:29.and security of the travelling public will always be paramount

:00:30. > :00:33.concern and this government will not hesitate in putting in place any

:00:34. > :00:37.measures we believe are necessary, effective and proportionate. That is

:00:38. > :00:42.why yesterday we took the decision to step up some of our aviation

:00:43. > :00:46.security measures in response to potential threats to aviation as set

:00:47. > :00:49.out in a written ministerial statement yesterday afternoon.

:00:50. > :00:54.These new measures will be applied to all inbound direct flights to the

:00:55. > :00:57.United Kingdom from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi

:00:58. > :01:07.Arabia. We have explained this decision at all levels with our

:01:08. > :01:09.partners in the region. We have also spoken to European partners such as

:01:10. > :01:11.Germany and France with significant interest in aviation and other

:01:12. > :01:14.partners elsewhere whose travellers and carriers may be affected. The

:01:15. > :01:17.House will be aware the US government made a similar

:01:18. > :01:20.announcement shortly before regarding the rights to the United

:01:21. > :01:22.States and we have been in close contact with them to fully

:01:23. > :01:26.understand their position. Whilst the United Kingdom has some of the

:01:27. > :01:31.most robust security measures in the world, we can never be complacent.

:01:32. > :01:35.That is why we continue to work in conjunction with our international

:01:36. > :01:39.partners and the wider aviation industry, to keep security under

:01:40. > :01:52.constant review. And to ensure that when you

:01:53. > :01:57.measures are done so in a way that can keep the level of disruption it

:01:58. > :01:59.may cause to passengers to a minimum. Passengers boarding flights

:02:00. > :02:01.to the United Kingdom from the countries I've just listed will not

:02:02. > :02:03.be allowed to take any phones, laptops and tablets larger than a

:02:04. > :02:05.normal sized mobile phone. This is to assist both airlines and

:02:06. > :02:10.passengers. A length of 16 centimetres, width of 9.3 and a

:02:11. > :02:14.depth of 1.5 centimetres. Passengers are advised to take some simple

:02:15. > :02:18.steps that check-in to prepare, by placing these personal electronic

:02:19. > :02:22.devices into their hold luggage before going Central 's security.

:02:23. > :02:27.Normal cabin luggage restrictions will apply. Passengers should check

:02:28. > :02:30.on the line for further information. My department is working

:02:31. > :02:33.round-the-clock with the industry to ensure that passengers get the

:02:34. > :02:39.information they need, when and where they need it. While we would

:02:40. > :02:42.do everything we can to minimise the disruption to people's journeys, we

:02:43. > :02:46.do understand the frustration this may cause, but he will understand

:02:47. > :02:51.that our top priority will always be to ensure that public safety is

:02:52. > :02:55.maintained. Mr Speaker, these new measures are concerned with flights

:02:56. > :02:59.into the United Kingdom. The UK is not advising against flying to and

:03:00. > :03:04.from these countries. Those with Immonen travel should contact their

:03:05. > :03:10.airline for further information. -- with Immonen travel.

:03:11. > :03:14.UK airports have been informed and my officials have asked them to

:03:15. > :03:17.consider stepping up their own contingency arrangement should they

:03:18. > :03:21.be needed. I know the whole house will recognise the fact that we face

:03:22. > :03:24.a constantly evolving threat from terrorism and must respond

:03:25. > :03:27.accordingly to ensure the protection of the public against those who

:03:28. > :03:31.would do us harm. The changes we are making to our security measures are

:03:32. > :03:35.an important part of that process and I assure the House we will

:03:36. > :03:39.continue to work closely with airlines, airports and the wider

:03:40. > :03:49.travel industry in the coming weeks to ensure passengers know what is

:03:50. > :03:51.expected of them. I ask for their patience as these new measures bed

:03:52. > :03:54.in. Mr Speaker, I will continue to keep the House updated on

:03:55. > :03:57.developments. This is a major change to our aviation security regulations

:03:58. > :04:02.and carries with it serious potential for delay and confusion

:04:03. > :04:05.for UK passengers. First they a minister explained why the UK and US

:04:06. > :04:10.ban were announced within hours of one another, yet provide for

:04:11. > :04:14.different countries, airlines and in effect different devices? The United

:04:15. > :04:21.Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Morocco are countries all affected by the US

:04:22. > :04:26.ban but not included in the UK's. No US operator is affected but six

:04:27. > :04:29.British airlines are. Size restrictions on electric items

:04:30. > :04:32.differ between the two. The Washington Post reports that US

:04:33. > :04:36.officials have been discussing new restrictions for over a fortnight.

:04:37. > :04:40.When exactly did ministers first learn of these potential changes?

:04:41. > :04:44.Does he agree that to avoid passenger confusion and delay on

:04:45. > :04:47.effort should be made to harmonise these and for what specific reasons

:04:48. > :04:53.did he exclude fewer countries than the US?

:04:54. > :04:59.Passengers presently booked to fly from an affected airport are unclear

:05:00. > :05:04.about what the band will mean in practice. For those who fly on the

:05:05. > :05:07.hand baggage only fares, what procedures are in place to

:05:08. > :05:14.communicate changes before turning up to security at a busy airport?

:05:15. > :05:17.Will UK passengers have to buy luggage to carry electronic devices?

:05:18. > :05:23.What discussions has he had with insurers, who do not routinely cover

:05:24. > :05:28.electronics carriage in the hold and what assessment has he made in

:05:29. > :05:32.regard of theft and damage to devices? Efficacy, have restrictions

:05:33. > :05:40.been put in place in response to specific threats that differs in

:05:41. > :05:43.nature to the Al-Shabab attack that took place more than a year ago and

:05:44. > :05:49.did not result in the loss of an aircraft. Have these measures be

:05:50. > :05:56.made in addition and what evidence does he have in placing problematic

:05:57. > :06:04.items in the hold is safer than the capping, especially with devices

:06:05. > :06:08.with lithium ion batteries? Aviation security is under constant review,

:06:09. > :06:12.can he assure us that all has been done to make sure regulations are

:06:13. > :06:22.effective, consistent, and put the passenger first? We respond in

:06:23. > :06:31.aviation security to the evolving threat we face from terrorists.

:06:32. > :06:36.There are some things that we don't and I will not give him full details

:06:37. > :06:40.of the background to the decision taken, it is in response to an

:06:41. > :06:44.evolving threat and he would not expect me to do that but we have

:06:45. > :06:50.taken steps we have taken for good reason. In terms of differences

:06:51. > :06:53.between the United Kingdom and United States approach, their

:06:54. > :06:59.approaches for them. What we have done is consider evolving

:07:00. > :07:03.information, reached the decision about what we believe is in the

:07:04. > :07:10.interest of the UK and protection of citizens. He asked about why this

:07:11. > :07:14.does not affect UK... US operators and the answer is they do not

:07:15. > :07:20.currently fly to destinations affected and other airlines do. We

:07:21. > :07:23.have applied our change to the requirements on airlines, to all

:07:24. > :07:30.airlines that fly the route, UK and non-UK. This is a matter we keep

:07:31. > :07:35.under review and have done for some time and we have taken the decision

:07:36. > :07:40.because we believe it is the right one to take against a background of

:07:41. > :07:43.the evolving threat. He asked about hand baggage only and that is a

:07:44. > :07:47.matter for the airlines to resolve. We have been in discussion with them

:07:48. > :07:53.as they are preparing to implement the change and it will be for them

:07:54. > :07:57.to establish how to handle bat in context of passengers booked in hand

:07:58. > :08:03.baggage only and it will be a matter for the individual airline to decide

:08:04. > :08:07.how to do it. Insurance, I will write to the association of British

:08:08. > :08:11.insurers to ask them to be mindful. He makes an important point about

:08:12. > :08:16.the risk of theft. We will ask the industry to be careful to take that

:08:17. > :08:25.into account and be realistic about this. Otherwise, we have taken the

:08:26. > :08:29.decision we have taken in a way we believe is necessary to protect the

:08:30. > :08:36.safety of UK passengers, but he will understand that the background to

:08:37. > :08:39.every decision of this kind inevitably is not based on matters

:08:40. > :08:48.we can automatically put into the public arena.

:08:49. > :08:53.Having just returned from a police cancelled trip we saw the effect on

:08:54. > :09:00.the economy in Egypt on the continuing ban on flights to region

:09:01. > :09:03.and we met first-hand with the Egyptians and they have concerns

:09:04. > :09:09.they are singled out in some way, which might be the reaction of other

:09:10. > :09:13.allies made today. Will he commit to discussing with other ministers a

:09:14. > :09:16.diplomatic offensive to go to these countries and explain why these

:09:17. > :09:24.actions are being taken and they are not being single that? Will he

:09:25. > :09:26.liaise with his colleague in the Department for International

:09:27. > :09:29.Development to provide extra assistance to these countries at

:09:30. > :09:34.their airports because this will cause further disruption and some

:09:35. > :09:38.have not got the capacity to introduce a new security measure? I

:09:39. > :09:43.can give him a categoric assurance we are already in dialogue with

:09:44. > :09:49.those countries. That we will take care to ensure we do everything to

:09:50. > :09:56.help at the other end at their airports. We already cooperate

:09:57. > :10:00.closely. This is not a question of singling out countries. We would

:10:01. > :10:03.never embark upon a process of singling out countries. The

:10:04. > :10:09.decisions we take our taken on the basis of what we believe the risks

:10:10. > :10:17.are and where we believe we need to take steps to protect UK citizens.

:10:18. > :10:20.Safety must of course be the priority but there are too many

:10:21. > :10:25.loose ends here. Does the government have evidence the security risks to

:10:26. > :10:31.flights from the countries listed are greater than those on flights

:10:32. > :10:37.other countries, otherwise why have flights from these countries alone

:10:38. > :10:41.been targeted? Why have the UK and USA apparently reached different

:10:42. > :10:46.conclusions, I assume from the same intelligence, about the countries

:10:47. > :10:50.from which in cabin electronics present the greatest risk, or of the

:10:51. > :10:55.differences about something other than intelligence? If the presence

:10:56. > :10:58.of electronics on aircraft flying from countries listed is a security

:10:59. > :11:04.threat, why are there no restrictions on electronics in hold

:11:05. > :11:08.baggage from those countries? What thought has been given to people

:11:09. > :11:15.carrying electronics on board who change planes in countries not

:11:16. > :11:19.affected? What liaison has there been with the countries listed with

:11:20. > :11:22.countries not listed and with airlines, all of whose confidence

:11:23. > :11:27.and cooperation will be crucial to the effectiveness of the measures

:11:28. > :11:32.introduced? What action is he taking to ensure passengers get clear

:11:33. > :11:39.information about what they are and are not allowed to take on board, to

:11:40. > :11:44.ensure delays are minimised? Safety has to be the priority but there

:11:45. > :11:49.really are too many loose ends. If there really are security grounds

:11:50. > :11:52.for the restrictions he has introduced, he has to be clearer

:11:53. > :11:57.about what those security grounds are, otherwise both the UK

:11:58. > :12:03.Government and US government will remain open to suspicion that they

:12:04. > :12:07.are unreasonably singling out countries in the Middle East and

:12:08. > :12:12.North Africa, rather than thinking through properly what precautions

:12:13. > :12:18.can actually keep flights safe from terrorism, wherever the aircraft fly

:12:19. > :12:23.from. I have to take issue with the last point. The party opposite was

:12:24. > :12:26.in power 13 years and his predecessors on the front bench

:12:27. > :12:31.understood there are things we cannot set out in public that lie

:12:32. > :12:39.behind decisions taken in the interests of passengers. That has

:12:40. > :12:43.not changed through all the years. I understand his desire for

:12:44. > :12:48.information, but the reality is we have an evolving security threat to

:12:49. > :12:51.aircraft, we take decisions when we believe necessary, to protect

:12:52. > :12:57.citizens. It is nothing to do with singling out countries nor what the

:12:58. > :13:01.destinations are, the decisions we take are purely and simply based on

:13:02. > :13:07.an evolving security threat and what we believe is the right way to

:13:08. > :13:10.protect UK citizens. The US administration will take its

:13:11. > :13:15.decisions about how to protect its citizens. We do not always have to

:13:16. > :13:19.take the same decisions on behalf of both countries. We have done what we

:13:20. > :13:24.think is right for the UK. You've raised other points. Transfer

:13:25. > :13:30.passengers, the rules will apply to transfer passengers. As is the case

:13:31. > :13:35.now, they will normally go through a further security check and subject

:13:36. > :13:41.to the same gate checks and if they have a laptop, tablet, a large sized

:13:42. > :13:48.phone, it will be placed in the hold. The airlines individually are

:13:49. > :13:52.working with our support to provide the best information to passengers,

:13:53. > :13:57.as will the Foreign Office and government agencies that play a role

:13:58. > :14:01.but first and foremost our priority in response to a security threat is

:14:02. > :14:11.to provide the best protection for citizens. Why are they safe in the

:14:12. > :14:18.hold? As I said and I hate to be

:14:19. > :14:22.disingenuous in terms of repeating answers, but I cannot discuss the

:14:23. > :14:26.detail of that evolving security threat. We have taken what we

:14:27. > :14:36.believe is the right decision in the interests of protecting citizens.

:14:37. > :14:40.We cannot second-guess the security intelligence the government has

:14:41. > :14:45.received and the safety of citizens is the primary concern of the SNP

:14:46. > :14:49.and Scottish Government, who will work closely with UK Government to

:14:50. > :14:56.ensure proportionate measures are in. Can I ask him what discussions

:14:57. > :15:00.have taken place with the Scottish Government and did those include a

:15:01. > :15:06.commitment to keep them and transport Scotland up to date with

:15:07. > :15:12.events? Will those who are impacted by booking previously just with hand

:15:13. > :15:17.baggage, who may be facing extra charges, have mitigation put in

:15:18. > :15:21.place or compensation, and finally, what additional resources will be

:15:22. > :15:32.available to UK airports if required to take forward these measures?

:15:33. > :15:37.On that latter point, the impact on UK airports is not an immediate one

:15:38. > :15:40.because these new rules do not apply to UK airports but we have asked

:15:41. > :15:47.them to think practically ahead in case matters change. In terms of

:15:48. > :15:50.liaison with the Scottish Government, the minister for

:15:51. > :15:55.aviation and officials were in contact with the Scottish Government

:15:56. > :15:59.yesterday and the Scottish minister and my honourable friend have yet to

:16:00. > :16:03.fix a time to speak book will do so today and we will keep the Scottish

:16:04. > :16:09.Government informed. With regard to people who booked hand baggage only,

:16:10. > :16:12.we have been in discussion with airlines and we expect the airlines

:16:13. > :16:17.will work a system that ensures people are not worse off as a result

:16:18. > :16:23.of the changes. I commend my right honourable friend

:16:24. > :16:27.for ensuring the paramount importance of our national security

:16:28. > :16:37.and safety of British citizens travelling. Gatwick Airport in my

:16:38. > :16:41.constituency, I am also grateful for him talking with the airport

:16:42. > :16:46.authorities and tour operators in my constituency. Can I seek assurances

:16:47. > :16:50.he will continue to keep them involved as this evolving situation

:16:51. > :16:57.develops? I can give him that guarantee. We

:16:58. > :17:01.are talking to the industry as a whole and it is my hope we won't end

:17:02. > :17:06.up having to take further steps but we need to be mindful of the

:17:07. > :17:14.evolving security threat and security of British passengers will

:17:15. > :17:19.be top of our priority list. I am reassured security is paramount

:17:20. > :17:23.and it must remain so, but could the minister please clarify exactly how

:17:24. > :17:26.passengers will know what arrangements they have to make for

:17:27. > :17:31.individual journeys and is he still looking at the situation at overseas

:17:32. > :17:37.airports where it is known there are security concerns?

:17:38. > :17:42.We have a widespread effort to ensure we provide protection to

:17:43. > :17:48.citizens in the UK and when they are in other countries. We do extensive

:17:49. > :17:53.security liaison work with other countries including the region

:17:54. > :17:56.affected, and I am grateful to all countries we work with for the

:17:57. > :18:02.cooperation and support they provide. It is in all our interests

:18:03. > :18:07.we continue to maintain aviation and tourist flows and to provide

:18:08. > :18:11.economic benefits to all parties that good aviation brings and we

:18:12. > :18:13.will do everything to work with partners to ensure we have a safe

:18:14. > :18:21.and aviation sector as we can. I think we all accept circumstances

:18:22. > :18:25.change and threats will change over time. Could the minister confirm

:18:26. > :18:28.whether or not there is a time limit to these changes and is there a

:18:29. > :18:32.specific date when they will be reviewed?

:18:33. > :18:37.In terms of time limits... The change will be implemented, going

:18:38. > :18:41.forward from now by the airlines. They are being asked to have that

:18:42. > :18:46.changes in place within a very short period of time. They and we will

:18:47. > :18:49.have a communication job to do to people returning who will be

:18:50. > :18:53.affected by this, there is a need to do that well. In terms of time

:18:54. > :18:57.limits, we hope this is a temporary measure but we will keep it on under

:18:58. > :18:59.review and keep these measures in place as long as they are necessary

:19:00. > :19:03.to secure the safety of our passengers.

:19:04. > :19:06.I accept the Secretary of State may not be able to answer these two

:19:07. > :19:11.questions, but why does this only apply to direct flights? Are other

:19:12. > :19:17.countries under active consideration to be added to the list?

:19:18. > :19:22.I think all I can honestly say in response to the questions is we keep

:19:23. > :19:26.these issues under constant review. The decisions taken this week we

:19:27. > :19:30.believe are the right ones, in the face of the evolving terrorist

:19:31. > :19:34.threat. Thank you Mr Speaker. I think the

:19:35. > :19:43.Secretary of State for his update. Many of my constituents working at

:19:44. > :19:46.NATS, for those starting their journeys at regional airports, how

:19:47. > :19:50.will the communication start Tommy 's journeys?

:19:51. > :19:53.It will be very much the responsibility of the airlines going

:19:54. > :19:56.forward to explain this. We will provide whatever support to them.

:19:57. > :20:01.Perhaps if I could extend my thanks to all those people in the UK

:20:02. > :20:04.airlines and international airlines, with whom my department has been

:20:05. > :20:08.working in the last few days. They have been enormously helpful and

:20:09. > :20:13.cooperated in what is a difficult change for them and I think we

:20:14. > :20:16.should be very grateful to them. Can I ask the Secretary of State

:20:17. > :20:23.about flights from this country... Is he confident that if a terrorist

:20:24. > :20:27.try to get a laptop or an iPad onto a plane here they would be detected

:20:28. > :20:31.and there would be absolutely no chance of getting it throughout

:20:32. > :20:34.security? Well, Mr Speaker, our airports and

:20:35. > :20:39.security industry I believe are among if not the best in the world.

:20:40. > :20:42.I think we should be proud of how well our airports are protected.

:20:43. > :20:46.What I would say to him is the decisions that we take and will take

:20:47. > :20:50.in the future will be based upon our assessment of what is necessary at

:20:51. > :20:53.any particular time, and our judgment is the changes we are

:20:54. > :20:58.making today is what is necessary at this moment in time given the

:20:59. > :21:05.evolving threat. My right honourable friend is

:21:06. > :21:07.absolutely right when he says security must be the Government's

:21:08. > :21:09.top priority, something I am sure people will feel comfortable within

:21:10. > :21:11.the long run. My honourable friend mentioned minimising disruption and

:21:12. > :21:15.frustration for passengers. I want if he could tell us what discussions

:21:16. > :21:20.he's had with the Home Office counterparts that border force to

:21:21. > :21:22.minimise disruptions when on Monday this week Gatwick only had five

:21:23. > :21:28.scanners working from the very many they had.

:21:29. > :21:31.Obviously that is disappointing if there is a temporary problem at the

:21:32. > :21:36.Apple. Gatwick, my experience of travelling through there in recent

:21:37. > :21:38.times, is its pretty good. I think probably something must have gone

:21:39. > :21:44.wrong on that particular day. What I would say to him is I know all of

:21:45. > :21:47.our airports and those in the board border agency will work with the

:21:48. > :21:51.airlines to try make sure that any steps we take to address security

:21:52. > :21:59.issues are done so in a way that minimises the maximum possible

:22:00. > :22:02.extent. The Secretary of State is absolutely

:22:03. > :22:05.right to take whatever measures are necessary to protect the public from

:22:06. > :22:12.the threat of terrorism. But further to the question put by the member in

:22:13. > :22:15.respect of Egypt, he mentioned to Messier, which has already been

:22:16. > :22:20.suffering because of the travel ban. This will be an added burden on

:22:21. > :22:23.those travelling from Tunisia is the Tunisian authorities came to the

:22:24. > :22:28.Government and asked for assistance with the initiation of new scanner

:22:29. > :22:34.equipment would we be willing to help them provide that kind of

:22:35. > :22:38.equipment? Well, Mr Speaker, I'm grateful to

:22:39. > :22:42.the right honourable gentleman for his supportive comments. We already

:22:43. > :22:45.provide extensive support and will continue to do so. My honourable

:22:46. > :22:50.friend the Minister is due to be visiting there in a couple of weeks'

:22:51. > :22:54.time. We are already in contact with the Tunisians and with the Egyptians

:22:55. > :22:59.and we will do what we can to help them, both with this issue and

:23:00. > :23:03.related issues, but will always put the safety of our own citizens

:23:04. > :23:09.first. Further to the point made raised by

:23:10. > :23:13.the member for Devon East there are about 100,000 people employed in the

:23:14. > :23:18.tourist industry and Shah Mel Sheikh. This could lose their jobs

:23:19. > :23:23.if the flight ban continues. Does my right honourable friend consult with

:23:24. > :23:27.other people I see sitting on the Treasury bench to ensure the impact

:23:28. > :23:31.of that degree of unemployment and the impact that could have on the

:23:32. > :23:34.wider supply chain jobs that could lead to further radicalisation of

:23:35. > :23:39.people in the south Sinai are considered?

:23:40. > :23:44.What I would say to my honourable friend is we have extensive

:23:45. > :23:49.conversations with the Egyptians. We have the situation in Sharm El

:23:50. > :23:54.Sheikh under permanent monitoring by my right honourable friends in the

:23:55. > :23:58.Commonwealth office and Home Office, who are in regular contact about

:23:59. > :24:01.these issues, as is my own department. Fundamentally, whilst I

:24:02. > :24:05.would love to see us resume flights to Sharm El Sheikh at the earliest

:24:06. > :24:09.opportunity, we can only do so at a point where we are confident about

:24:10. > :24:12.the security and safety of our own people. I'm sure once they have that

:24:13. > :24:17.confidence we would want to resume those flights.

:24:18. > :24:21.The Government is of course right to act swiftly in response to

:24:22. > :24:26.intelligence regarding terror threats but a number of very

:24:27. > :24:33.important questions remain. I think as another member noted, some

:24:34. > :24:36.passengers will change planes in third countries. What discussions as

:24:37. > :24:39.he had with his counterparts in other countries about the

:24:40. > :24:42.implementations of these restrictions for transfer

:24:43. > :24:48.passengers? Well, Mr Speaker, I said yesterday

:24:49. > :24:52.as we took the decision, we have already had contact at ambassadorial

:24:53. > :24:56.and add some places at ministerial level with our counterparts in other

:24:57. > :24:59.countries. They will each take their own dishes decisions about what is

:25:00. > :25:04.necessary, but we are clear what is right for our citizens. -- their own

:25:05. > :25:10.decisions. Other countries will be contemplating what their best steps

:25:11. > :25:15.are in terms of their rent citizens. As this is an evolving threat can my

:25:16. > :25:19.right honourable friend confirmed that countries and indeed airports

:25:20. > :25:23.could be added, and indeed removed from the list the Government has

:25:24. > :25:29.public should, should the British intelligence services so recommend?

:25:30. > :25:32.We will obviously keep this and other security issues in relation to

:25:33. > :25:36.our aviation sector under review. We will take whatever steps in future

:25:37. > :25:41.are necessary to provide that protection. It is my hope that this

:25:42. > :25:44.new set of measures will ultimately prove to be temporary, but first and

:25:45. > :25:50.foremost our focus will be on the security and safety of our

:25:51. > :25:53.passengers, and so that will be a deciding factor on what we do in the

:25:54. > :26:01.future. The US ban will be enforced on

:26:02. > :26:04.Saturday, following 96 hours notice. He said earlier airlines here

:26:05. > :26:10.implemented over a short period of time. Has he given the airlines in

:26:11. > :26:14.the UK an indication of a firm deadline by which he expects

:26:15. > :26:19.implementation of the UK ban? We are expecting this to be

:26:20. > :26:22.commended in the same time frame. I am sure the Secretary of State

:26:23. > :26:27.would agree on a day like this it should be about reassurance. That

:26:28. > :26:33.threats are reacted too, that passengers shouldn't be panicking

:26:34. > :26:36.about these announcements. What steps will be taken to reassure

:26:37. > :26:41.passengers as well as inform them of government is doing?

:26:42. > :26:45.Let me be clear to the House again. We are not saying to people not to

:26:46. > :26:49.travel to these countries. We are not saying to people cancel your

:26:50. > :26:54.flights or cancel your holidays. We want aviation to continue as normal.

:26:55. > :26:57.We are simply taking additional security measures to make sure that

:26:58. > :27:01.that aviation is safe for those people who travel and there is

:27:02. > :27:06.absolutely no change to Foreign Office travel advice, no changed of

:27:07. > :27:08.advice to people about how and when they should travel. This is purely

:27:09. > :27:15.about making sure when they travelled they are safe.

:27:16. > :27:20.The Secretary of State has said that anyone who is travelling with a hand

:27:21. > :27:24.baggage only dig it would not be charged or out-of-pocket and

:27:25. > :27:28.encouraging the airlines to take the right course of action. With the

:27:29. > :27:31.Secretary of State considered doing something further to make sure that

:27:32. > :27:35.no one is going to be charged for putting hand baggage in the hold?

:27:36. > :27:39.Mr Speaker, this is something we are in discussion with the airlines

:27:40. > :27:43.about. This is not about inability to take hand luggage into the cabin.

:27:44. > :27:47.If somebody arrives at the gate with one of these items in their bag it

:27:48. > :27:51.will be put in the hold. It's not about saying you can't have hand

:27:52. > :27:54.luggage. So some people may choose to put their handbag into the hold

:27:55. > :28:03.it is simply about the device itself.

:28:04. > :28:07.Thank you to the Secretary of State. I am not seeking any information

:28:08. > :28:13.from him on the nature of the, but I am compare concerned diplomatic

:28:14. > :28:19.diplomatic relationships with allies. I have returned Egypt and

:28:20. > :28:23.its security arrangements are that jeopardises the longer term security

:28:24. > :28:27.of UK citizens. That is precisely why these are

:28:28. > :28:31.difficult issues and why we will do everything we can to strengthen our

:28:32. > :28:35.partnerships with those nations and to send a very clear message that

:28:36. > :28:40.not saying to people as a result of this change stop flying on those

:28:41. > :28:43.routes. This is about saying, actually, you should have more

:28:44. > :28:46.confidence in flying on those routes because I believe the measures we

:28:47. > :28:54.are putting in place today should protect your safety, rather than

:28:55. > :29:00.have the opposite effect. I commend my honourable friend from

:29:01. > :29:03.Luton for raising this up important question. We are approaching Easter,

:29:04. > :29:07.a time when many families will be taking flights, many of those

:29:08. > :29:11.families will be nervous flyers or have nervous fliers among those

:29:12. > :29:14.families. What reassurance can be given to those families, taking

:29:15. > :29:17.flight from other destinations, not once listed, that the terrorists are

:29:18. > :29:21.not just going to go we can no longer fly and use our laptops in an

:29:22. > :29:25.appallingly offended way on these flights, we will go to another

:29:26. > :29:27.country that doesn't have a ban. What reassurances can those

:29:28. > :29:29.countries have? The reassurance I would give to

:29:30. > :33:47.Point of order. Previously on a business question I pointed out the

:33:48. > :33:53.Lib Dems and Labour have been fined for conduct in the 2015 election and

:33:54. > :33:56.I drew attention to the fact the Tories were under investigation and

:33:57. > :34:03.the Electoral Commission expressed concerns finds were not a deterrent.

:34:04. > :34:17.The leader of the house dismissed me with a how dare I raised that? Now

:34:18. > :34:22.that the Tories have been fined a record ?70,000, how can I make sure

:34:23. > :34:27.the record is correct that the SNP is the only major party not find at

:34:28. > :34:34.the election and there were no financial shenanigans. Thank you for

:34:35. > :34:38.the point of order and characteristic courtesy in giving me

:34:39. > :34:45.advance notice of his intention to raise it. I would say first of all

:34:46. > :34:50.he has found his own salvation by putting what he regards as the

:34:51. > :34:57.factors of the mass of the record. Where they will permanently reside.

:34:58. > :35:00.Doubtless to the great delight of the honourable gentleman and

:35:01. > :35:07.possibly of other people in Caol Marnoch. Secondly, -- Kilmarnock.

:35:08. > :35:11.When the honourable gentleman says what can be done to secure an

:35:12. > :35:21.apology from the leader of the house, I fear that that may be a

:35:22. > :35:28.case of optimism triumphing over reality. I was here at the time. The

:35:29. > :35:34.leader of the house is responsible for what he says. I think the leader

:35:35. > :35:37.of the house offered a robust response in the course of what might

:35:38. > :35:43.be thought to be a knock-about exchange. I have always thought the

:35:44. > :35:49.honourable member for kill Marnoch is a steely fellow himself, but if I

:35:50. > :35:53.am mistaken on that front, can I commend him the benefits of

:35:54. > :36:00.acquiring at least one of the characteristics of the rhinoceros. I

:36:01. > :36:05.am referring not, of course, to aesthetic beauty, but two notable

:36:06. > :36:11.resilience. We will leave it there for now. If there are no further

:36:12. > :36:24.points of order, at any rate not for the moment, we come now to the

:36:25. > :36:28.presentation of a Bill. Order. I'm sure honourable members will await

:36:29. > :36:34.with anticipation and a degree of excitement the presentation of bill

:36:35. > :36:40.in the name of the right honourable gentleman for Leicester East, Vista

:36:41. > :36:53.Keith Vaz violent crime sentences Bill. -- Mr Keith vows. Order, we

:36:54. > :36:59.come now to the Ten Minute Rule Motion. Mr Tim Farron. I beg to move

:37:00. > :37:03.leave be given for me to bring in a Bill to make provision for the

:37:04. > :37:09.holding of a referendum in the UK and Gibraltar on the proposed terms

:37:10. > :37:13.for the United Kingdom to leave the European Union and connected

:37:14. > :37:17.purposes. In June last year a narrow majority voted for the UK to leave

:37:18. > :37:22.the European Union. I regret the outcome but I am a Democrat and

:37:23. > :37:27.accept it. A week from today divorce proceedings will begin and the

:37:28. > :37:31.country faces a greater period of uncertainty than most of us have

:37:32. > :37:38.experience. One thing is certain, democracy did not end at 10pm on the

:37:39. > :37:42.23rd of June last year. The Secretary of State for Exiting the

:37:43. > :37:45.European Union aid the case eloquently for what is now this

:37:46. > :37:51.proposal from the Liberal Democrats and others and used the phrase a

:37:52. > :37:55.first mandate referendum and then a second decision referendum and said

:37:56. > :38:00.and I quit, the aim of the strategy is to give the British people the

:38:01. > :38:05.final say, but is also to reinforce the legitimacy and negotiating power

:38:06. > :38:11.of the British negotiating team, end of quote. I could not agree with him

:38:12. > :38:16.more. It is a great shame he does not agree with himself any more. In

:38:17. > :38:21.rejecting a second referendum on independence to Scotland last week,

:38:22. > :38:26.the Prime Minister said, I quote, I think it will be fair, I am sorry,

:38:27. > :38:29.would not be fair to the people of Scotland because they are being

:38:30. > :38:32.asked to make a crucial decision without all the necessary

:38:33. > :38:36.information, without knowing what the future partnership would be or

:38:37. > :38:41.what the alternative of an independent Scotland would look

:38:42. > :38:45.like, end of quote. She is now asking the United Kingdom to proceed

:38:46. > :38:50.to forge a relationship with the rest of Europe and the world on

:38:51. > :38:55.exactly that basis, a decision taken last June and without as she says,

:38:56. > :39:02.all the necessary information. Without knowing what the future

:39:03. > :39:06.partnership would be. The Secretary of State for exiting the EU original

:39:07. > :39:11.case stands. We started the process last June with democracy, so we must

:39:12. > :39:15.end it with democracy. I accept we have had our mandate referendum in

:39:16. > :39:19.which the British people voted to leave but voting for departure is

:39:20. > :39:22.not the same as voting for a destination and the government

:39:23. > :39:27.should give the British people a decision referendum to be held when

:39:28. > :39:33.the negotiation is concluded say that the people have all information

:39:34. > :39:36.and know what our future partnership will be, because it is the people

:39:37. > :39:42.who are suffering. The people must have their say over what comes next

:39:43. > :39:47.and this Bill would enshrine in law their right to do so. Last week when

:39:48. > :39:52.debating even the right of Parliament to have the final say on

:39:53. > :39:56.the Brexit deal, the government displayed ludicrous inconsistency

:39:57. > :40:00.and double standards. They asked us to take back control but the first

:40:01. > :40:05.thing they do is undermine the principle of democratic

:40:06. > :40:10.accountability. By refusing to allow a meaningful vote in this House. The

:40:11. > :40:15.detail or general nature of the deal this government may reach with the

:40:16. > :40:21.EU is currently completely unknown and a mystery to us and to them, yet

:40:22. > :40:27.the British people are now told they must simply shrug and accept any old

:40:28. > :40:32.deal, irrespective of its content or quality. When a deal is done it will

:40:33. > :40:37.be signed off by someone. The only question is who? Will it be the

:40:38. > :40:44.politicians, will it be the people? My party believes the deal should be

:40:45. > :40:49.signed off by the people. There were no plans, instructions, prospectus,

:40:50. > :40:55.vision offered to voters by the campaign. I did not agree with the

:40:56. > :41:03.case for Scottish independence in 2014 but credit where credit is due.

:41:04. > :41:06.There was a 670 page prospectus of what Scotland outside the United

:41:07. > :41:09.Kingdom would look like will stop believers did not present the

:41:10. > :41:15.British people with a prospectus. All they gave us was a lie on the

:41:16. > :41:19.side of a bus. The pro-independence campaign in Scotland presented the

:41:20. > :41:26.Scottish people not just with the option of departure but also with

:41:27. > :41:29.the option of destination. The Scottish people voted against

:41:30. > :41:33.departure and destination, but if the result had gone the other way

:41:34. > :41:38.there would have been no need to hold a people'svote on the final

:41:39. > :41:43.deal of independence from the UK. I still believe it is impossible for

:41:44. > :41:46.this government to negotiate a better deal with Europe than the one

:41:47. > :41:53.they currently, we currently have is a member of the European Union, but

:41:54. > :41:58.these negotiations will happen and a deal will be reached. Surely it is

:41:59. > :42:02.the only right and logical step to take to allow the people to decide

:42:03. > :42:08.whether it is the right deal for them, their families, jobs, their

:42:09. > :42:12.country. No one knows what the final deal will look like, but what we do

:42:13. > :42:16.know is the Prime Minister has already given up on the United

:42:17. > :42:22.Kingdom's membership of the single market without even putting up a

:42:23. > :42:27.fight. In January, after months of saying Brexit means Brexit, she

:42:28. > :42:31.finally came clean. Brexit means jumping out of the single market,

:42:32. > :42:36.the biggest marketplace, with all the consequences that will have for

:42:37. > :42:43.jobs and our economy. The Prime Minister is entitled to make that

:42:44. > :42:48.choice, but let us be clear, it is a choice, one of the reasons why I was

:42:49. > :42:52.astounded that the right honourable gentleman for is lit in North and

:42:53. > :42:56.many in his party, but not all, made the decision to vote with the

:42:57. > :43:02.government on Article 50 because this House did not vote to enact the

:43:03. > :43:07.will of the people, this House voted to interpret the will of the people

:43:08. > :43:12.and just like the Conservative Party in 2015 in their manifesto, I

:43:13. > :43:17.passionately believe ending our membership of the world's biggest

:43:18. > :43:22.free market will do damage to this country, it is vital for our economy

:43:23. > :43:26.and that is my my party and others refused to stop making the case that

:43:27. > :43:31.this deal must include membership of the single market. The Prime

:43:32. > :43:34.Minister had the choice to pursue a former Brexit that united our

:43:35. > :43:39.country and reflected the closeness of the vote and sought to heal

:43:40. > :43:44.divisions between leave and remain. She could have fought to keep us in

:43:45. > :43:48.the single market if she wanted to. She has chosen not to, she is

:43:49. > :43:55.pulling is out before negotiations have begun will stop yes, narrowly,

:43:56. > :44:00.the British people chose Brexit, but nobody voted for severance,

:44:01. > :44:04.irrelevance and decline that this exit from the single market will

:44:05. > :44:10.bring. It is this Conservative government that has chosen this

:44:11. > :44:15.Brexit. The referendum vote does not give the government a mandate for

:44:16. > :44:20.absolute severance from Europe. For 40 years the anti-European crowd

:44:21. > :44:25.have been saying words to the effect of in 1975I voted to be in the

:44:26. > :44:30.common market, I didn't vote to be in the European Union. Now we turn

:44:31. > :44:34.that on its head because in June, people narrowly voted to leave the

:44:35. > :44:39.European Union, but nobody voted to leave the common market. They were

:44:40. > :44:45.simply not asked. Nor did they vote to place a question mark over the

:44:46. > :44:50.status of friends and neighbours and loved ones to happen to be born in

:44:51. > :44:54.another part of the European Union. The action of this government and

:44:55. > :44:58.unwillingness to guarantee the rights of EU citizens living here is

:44:59. > :45:03.shameful and contrary to British values of openness and tolerance to

:45:04. > :45:09.refuse to do so. What I am seeking to do is to reinforce and strengthen

:45:10. > :45:12.the will of the people to allow the people to exercise their democratic

:45:13. > :45:18.rights and duties by giving them a choice over what we and our children

:45:19. > :45:22.will have to live with for generations, to either accept the

:45:23. > :45:28.deal the government cheese, or to say thanks, but no thanks, and opt

:45:29. > :45:33.to remain in the European Union. The gate has been opened, the direction

:45:34. > :45:37.is set, but the only way to achieve democracy and closure for both leave

:45:38. > :45:42.and remain voters is for there to be a vote at the end and if the Prime

:45:43. > :45:47.Minister is so confident what she is planning to do is what the people

:45:48. > :45:54.voted for, then why not give them a vote on the final deal? What is she

:45:55. > :45:58.scared of? What started with democracy cannot end with a stitch

:45:59. > :46:04.up. The deal must not be merely rubber-stamped, it must be agreed by

:46:05. > :46:10.the people. The question is that the honourable member have leave to

:46:11. > :46:20.bring in the Bill. As many who say aye. On the contrary, no. I think

:46:21. > :46:29.the ayes have it. He will bring in the Bill. Tom Brake, Norman Lamb,

:46:30. > :46:33.Greg Mulholland, Mr Mark Williams, Heidi Alexander, Geron Davis,

:46:34. > :46:41.Caroline Lucas, Jonathan Edwards and myself.

:46:42. > :47:08.The terms of withdrawal from the European Union referendum bill.

:47:09. > :47:18.Second reading, what day? 12th of May, 2017, sir. 12th of May, 2017.

:47:19. > :47:20.Thank you. Order, we come now to the programme motion. The ministers

:47:21. > :47:32.move. Move formerly. Thank you. The

:47:33. > :47:39.question is as on the order paper. As many of those who say aye, on the

:47:40. > :47:43.country no? I think the ayes habit. The clerk will proceed to be the

:47:44. > :47:50.orders of the day. Pension Schemes Bill laws as amended to be

:47:51. > :47:54.considered. We begin with new clause one, with which it will be

:47:55. > :47:58.convenient to consider the new clauses and amendments listed on the

:47:59. > :48:05.selection paper. To move new clause one, I call Mr Alex culling --

:48:06. > :48:10.Cunningham. We believe this is a good bill and goes a long way to

:48:11. > :48:18.regulating trusts and looking after interests of members. Sadly it does

:48:19. > :48:23.not address the issue that has been ruled out of scope of the Bill but I

:48:24. > :48:27.am pleased to report Stockton Borough Council backed it but Tory

:48:28. > :48:32.councillors abstained on that vote and so clearly they are not happy

:48:33. > :48:36.with the government, either. That said, we feel there are areas in the

:48:37. > :48:38.Bill that could still be improved and scheme members even better

:48:39. > :48:45.protected and informed. After the Commons committee stage we

:48:46. > :48:48.failed to convince the Government that having reviewed the Minister 's

:48:49. > :48:51.argument we still believed there were a number of issues we needed to

:48:52. > :48:55.cover at report stage this afternoon. The first of those I am

:48:56. > :49:02.forced to bring forward is the new clause one, the return to the issue

:49:03. > :49:05.of a last resort to master trust. The written statement read received

:49:06. > :49:12.on Monday, I think the removal of this clause is significant. I was

:49:13. > :49:16.surprised that he felt it was not. Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, this

:49:17. > :49:22.new clause looks to ensure that in the event of a master trust

:49:23. > :49:26.failing... Sorry, excuse me, I've lost my place. This new clause looks

:49:27. > :49:30.to ensure in the event of a master trust failing there is a thunder of

:49:31. > :49:34.last resort, some money in place guaranteed the scheme members are

:49:35. > :49:38.not left out of pocket through no fault of their own. This would in

:49:39. > :49:42.effect act as a final underpinning of the promises that have been made

:49:43. > :49:47.to scheme members. Giving them recourse to legally establish a

:49:48. > :49:54.funding organisation committed to making good on scheme members to

:49:55. > :50:04.use. When debated the ministers failed to add this to the Bill,

:50:05. > :50:09.placing an unnecessary burden... The risk of collapse is minimal, the

:50:10. > :50:17.existing master trust would pick up any persons affected the Government

:50:18. > :50:21.consulting the industry on a panel of White knights who would commit to

:50:22. > :50:24.stepping in to ensure all scheme members are protected. I'm glad we

:50:25. > :50:30.have the Minister on record, saying there is no chance of their master

:50:31. > :50:33.trust going bust under the regulatory regime this Bill creates.

:50:34. > :50:38.It's clearly a gamble he is willing to take. On this side of the chamber

:50:39. > :50:42.we are not prepared to gamble with peoples pension savings. We believe

:50:43. > :50:47.that in order to best protect scheme members we need strongest possible

:50:48. > :50:51.regulatory environment in place, unlike the minister we are not

:50:52. > :50:56.content to leave things to chance. We have support from the industry

:50:57. > :51:00.itself on these proposals. For example the chair of standard life

:51:01. > :51:08.has called on the Government to be the founder of last resort because

:51:09. > :51:11.it is, they say, their foulups have led to these failures of master

:51:12. > :51:14.trust. The Minister plans for a panel of

:51:15. > :51:19.white knights. Does that suggest he does accept that there is a chance

:51:20. > :51:23.that a master trust might slip through his regulatory regime and

:51:24. > :51:29.leave scheme members unprotected? If he does, why not go the whole way

:51:30. > :51:32.and put the proper guarantees on the face of the legislation? There is

:51:33. > :51:37.simply no guaranteed that another trust will choose to pick up one

:51:38. > :51:41.that is failing. Why would they? What obligation do they have, and

:51:42. > :51:46.why would it be in their interests to do so? There have been a few

:51:47. > :51:51.pragmatic actions in this area but nothing, nothing is guaranteed.

:51:52. > :51:54.We all know the pensions industry and financial services industry have

:51:55. > :52:00.seen plenty of failures. At the Minister can tell us what happens if

:52:01. > :52:07.a large master trust fails and the data is in MS takes months to

:52:08. > :52:11.transfer members to a new skin? We cannot hope another trust will

:52:12. > :52:14.simply pick that up but instead we must intervene now to ensure a

:52:15. > :52:18.proper back-up plan. The Government must prepare for the worse case

:52:19. > :52:23.scenario and nothing I've seen so far convinces me that ministers are

:52:24. > :52:27.doing so. This is why there needs to be a

:52:28. > :52:30.thunder of last resort, because we must predict what could possibly

:52:31. > :52:36.happen, even if there is only the slightest chance, and ensure we have

:52:37. > :52:40.protection in place. I ask again, why won't the Minister provide

:52:41. > :52:44.people all over this country with a 100% assurance that the Bill without

:52:45. > :52:48.this provisional is enough to protect members? He must guarantee

:52:49. > :52:54.that no master trust will be in a situation whereby it has failed and

:52:55. > :52:58.has insufficient resources to meet costs, if he is to ignore our

:52:59. > :53:02.sensible amendment. In the absence of greater clarity, it is essential

:53:03. > :53:08.that this new clause remains in the Bill.

:53:09. > :53:13.I now turn to new clause two on the issue of member nominated trustees

:53:14. > :53:16.the master trusts. I would remind the House all the investment risk

:53:17. > :53:19.lies with the member and not the sponsor or the provider of the

:53:20. > :53:22.scheme and they should therefore have representation at the

:53:23. > :53:28.decision-making levels of the scheme. The pensions act 1995

:53:29. > :53:34.introduce the requirement for company pension schemes to have

:53:35. > :53:38.member nominated trustees. If the scheme's sole trustee of the

:53:39. > :53:41.company, including the employer rather than individuals, scheme

:53:42. > :53:48.members will have the right to nominate directors of that company,

:53:49. > :53:55.member nominated directors. The 2004 pensions act enshrined the act that

:53:56. > :53:59.at least one third of scheme trustees. The pensions regulator is

:54:00. > :54:04.clear that master trusts are covered by this legislation, which is why

:54:05. > :54:09.some already have member nominated trustees. What the TPR offers in

:54:10. > :54:13.explanation is that that exemption that can be taken by master trusts,

:54:14. > :54:19.given the reason having Paul of members poses problems of choice. We

:54:20. > :54:26.find that an inadequate reason for exemption. The greater the number of

:54:27. > :54:31.members, then surely the bigger the of choice. We agree independent

:54:32. > :54:34.trustees can adequately represent the interests of members if they

:54:35. > :54:39.have no stake in the investment process. What's more, they are paid

:54:40. > :54:43.and chosen by the master trust. This exemption seems like a convenient

:54:44. > :54:46.way of denying the right to representation of those who have a

:54:47. > :54:50.material interest in the performance of the master trusts. So we are

:54:51. > :54:56.returning with an amendment that seeks to give members the law they

:54:57. > :55:03.should be entitled to. My references apply equally to M MDs. The

:55:04. > :55:07.Association of member nominated trustees is adamant that master

:55:08. > :55:12.trusts must be obliged to have member representation on their

:55:13. > :55:15.boards. It is no surprise that a master trust are lobbying against

:55:16. > :55:20.this, but these companies are mostly profit-making entities. I'd say it

:55:21. > :55:25.is that their own best interests that they have scheme member

:55:26. > :55:30.representation in order to win the confidence of the scheme members.

:55:31. > :55:34.The role of the trustee boards is sometimes underplayed or

:55:35. > :55:38.undervalued. The association said, "Members are particularly comforted

:55:39. > :55:43.by having a member nominated trustee for their scheme. It helps them to

:55:44. > :55:47.feel reassured their retirement interests are truly being met and

:55:48. > :55:51.also they are being ripped off with excessive costs and charges." They

:55:52. > :55:54.are the only ones who have no personal interest or gain other than

:55:55. > :55:59.that of the members interests. Shared action also agree the saver

:56:00. > :56:06.should be able to subject decisions made on their behalf to healthy

:56:07. > :56:15.degree of scrutiny and challenge. Ensuring effective governance of

:56:16. > :56:19.pension schemes remains a challenge, whilst there is a clear absence of

:56:20. > :56:25.member nominated trustees in the majority of master trusts. However,

:56:26. > :56:29.while some companies choose to operate to contribution scheme, most

:56:30. > :56:33.auto enrolled members will not find themselves paying into one. Instead

:56:34. > :56:36.the vast majority of people will find themselves saving into a master

:56:37. > :56:42.trust or a group personal pension arrangement. In these schemes member

:56:43. > :56:45.representation is on-board more rare and at this point I would like to

:56:46. > :56:50.refer back to the concerns TPR made about master trust governance.

:56:51. > :56:56.In January 20 13th the pensions regulator said, "We have identified

:56:57. > :57:00.a number of characteristics that if present may prevent master trust

:57:01. > :57:04.schemes from delivering good outcomes. These are,

:57:05. > :57:06.conflict-of-interest as a result of the relationship between the

:57:07. > :57:12.provider and trustees. Decision-making powers resting with

:57:13. > :57:16.the provider rather than trustees. A lack of independent oversight in

:57:17. > :57:25.some master trusts. Unlike traditional schemes, they are

:57:26. > :57:28.unlikely to be involved in the decision-making processes." The Bill

:57:29. > :57:33.may go some way to addressing these concerns but doesn't go far enough.

:57:34. > :57:38.If we can build greater trust in the system, increased diversity and

:57:39. > :57:41.bring a range of different perspectives and experiences and

:57:42. > :57:46.highlight areas that are of interest to members. Once again we find no

:57:47. > :57:50.real impediment to this amendment. The law require master trusts to

:57:51. > :57:54.have master trustees applies. Exemption exists but it is not

:57:55. > :57:56.required and in our view should be overridden.

:57:57. > :58:04.Continuing with the theme of engaging with new members, clause

:58:05. > :58:07.three. New clause three requires that one year on from the

:58:08. > :58:11.incorporation and registration of master trust by the pensions

:58:12. > :58:14.regulator the Government will fully review member trustee and

:58:15. > :58:18.representation, member engagement and annual General meetings for

:58:19. > :58:22.members. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure there is a

:58:23. > :58:26.review of the new master trust governance and member engagement

:58:27. > :58:30.processes. The pensions regulator guidance stressed the importance of

:58:31. > :58:33.understanding and engaging with members, in order to define

:58:34. > :58:40.objectives to this scheme and setting an appropriate strategy. For

:58:41. > :58:47.example, the TPR quote both practice of occupational trust they schemes.

:58:48. > :58:50.TPR has stacks of advice on these issues the master trusts to follow

:58:51. > :58:54.but we want a commitment from the Government that they will ensure

:58:55. > :58:56.that master trusts are operating in the interests of and the potential

:58:57. > :59:01.of a printout conflict-of-interest, of a printout conflict-of-interest,

:59:02. > :59:05.the profit motive, doesn't get in the way. We need to make sure there

:59:06. > :59:10.was an opportunity for experienced eyes to take a good look at the

:59:11. > :59:14.system a year after its creation. If there are risks, they must be

:59:15. > :59:19.accounted for and one way to do this is to perform a government

:59:20. > :59:22.inspection of the system. Now I attended new clause four which

:59:23. > :59:26.requires master trusts to hold an annual member meeting and sets out

:59:27. > :59:30.ways to ensure members are properly given the opportunity to be

:59:31. > :59:33.involved. It is now common practice for

:59:34. > :59:38.pension funds to hold a meeting with members on an annual basis. Good

:59:39. > :59:43.member communications provided at the right time and in an accessible

:59:44. > :59:48.format are vital if members are to engage and make decisions that lead

:59:49. > :59:52.to good outcomes in retirement. In the committee debate the minister

:59:53. > :59:55.suggested that "Documents relating to the governments of the scheme,

:59:56. > :00:01.such as the trustees annual reports, the chap's statement and statement

:00:02. > :00:04.of investment principles have to be provided on request." Having to

:00:05. > :00:09.request information for what you're paying for is the wrong way around.

:00:10. > :00:13.Let's not forget that many master trusts are profit-making, so members

:00:14. > :00:15.should be given information as a matter of routine and not of

:00:16. > :00:20.request. An annual meeting for members

:00:21. > :00:23.ensures that trustees and administrators can be made human and

:00:24. > :00:31.accountable, rather than some distant, bureaucratic, faceless

:00:32. > :00:34.place. When deciding on the format of communications they should take

:00:35. > :00:38.account of innovations in technology that may be available to them and

:00:39. > :00:43.appropriate to their members. This would allow the more engage members

:00:44. > :00:46.to hear a presentation from trustees and senior executives about how the

:00:47. > :00:51.scheme has managed the retirement assets over the previous year and

:00:52. > :00:52.what plans the scheme had to deliver strategy and manage risk into the

:00:53. > :01:02.future on behalf of members. The pension regulators guidance

:01:03. > :01:07.accompanying its new DC code highlights one way that

:01:08. > :01:11.multi-employer schemes can stay close to members. Through the clause

:01:12. > :01:13.master trusts would be brought into line with normal practice in the

:01:14. > :01:20.corporate sector and among the growing at number of pension

:01:21. > :01:26.schemes. I want to return to new clause five, to the issue of groups

:01:27. > :01:30.currently excluded from master trust savings, carers, the self-employed,

:01:31. > :01:35.those working multiple jobs and people on low incomes. As it stands

:01:36. > :01:38.the Bill does not expand the successful auto in Roman policy and

:01:39. > :01:42.it could have made a real difference to a number of groups who evidence

:01:43. > :01:48.suggests are not saving adequately for their retirement. The minister

:01:49. > :01:52.and I debated this in committee so I shall turn to this issue only

:01:53. > :01:57.briefly. As I recognise them, the Government has announced a review

:01:58. > :02:03.relating to the operation of auto enrolment. Currently the scope of

:02:04. > :02:06.that review is too broad. The evidence speaks for itself. Too many

:02:07. > :02:10.people are not putting enough away to guarantee the secure and

:02:11. > :02:15.dignified retirement that the Labour Party has always worked to provide

:02:16. > :02:25.and continues to strive towards today. 37% of female workers, 37% of

:02:26. > :02:31.workers with a disability and 28% of black and ethnic minority workers

:02:32. > :02:35.are not eligible for master trust enrolment. In committee the minister

:02:36. > :02:41.suggested gender equality was not an issue under auto enrolment savings.

:02:42. > :02:46.I suspect they were referring to the participation rate which is fairly

:02:47. > :02:50.equal between genders. The statistics have quoted however Rick

:02:51. > :02:54.Waite relate to those who are not eligible. Perhaps the Minister can

:02:55. > :02:58.look again at this issue and right if he has evidence to the country.

:02:59. > :03:03.On the specific groups I would like to press the minister on the issue

:03:04. > :03:05.of carers, who as he knows make such a vital contribution to our society,

:03:06. > :03:14.public services and economy. The minister suggested he would like

:03:15. > :03:17.Cerys to be included under the review of auto enrolment but

:03:18. > :03:27.accepted they are not currently specified. -- carers. Can I push him

:03:28. > :03:31.to include carers under the review now and it would be a comfort to

:03:32. > :03:35.them if they knew the situation was being looked at by the government.

:03:36. > :03:39.Turning to the self-employed, I know the government have had a lot to say

:03:40. > :03:51.about the self-employed, though I note they have gone quiet on the

:03:52. > :03:55.issue in the past week. With those with multiple jobs it is good they

:03:56. > :04:00.are included and I was interested in the minister's point that those

:04:01. > :04:07.earning over 6000 could access master trust savings. Could the

:04:08. > :04:11.minister right to me or maybe say to the house and clarify the policy on

:04:12. > :04:16.this point and tell the House what the government is doing to ensure

:04:17. > :04:21.eligible people are aware of this particular right under the law.

:04:22. > :04:25.Those on low income will need to be addressed. I hope the government

:04:26. > :04:29.will go further than freezing the trigger threshold as appears to be

:04:30. > :04:35.their approach and lower it to ensure many more are included in

:04:36. > :04:39.master trust saving. I met with Royal London last week and they

:04:40. > :04:44.posed the question why every pound earned is not taken into account for

:04:45. > :04:54.employer and employee contributions, is this something the minister would

:04:55. > :05:01.add to the review? Share action have contacted me about auto enrolment at

:05:02. > :05:07.and said they believe the second phase needs to be focused on

:05:08. > :05:11.governance, choice and communication, getting people

:05:12. > :05:14.engaged with their pension savings. Does the minister agree? Given his

:05:15. > :05:20.responses on the expansion of eligibility for auto enrolment I

:05:21. > :05:25.fail to see why the government wouldn't accept the clause. Should

:05:26. > :05:31.he be committed to enfranchising these groups into master trust

:05:32. > :05:36.savings why not make it clear in the legislation today? I turn to

:05:37. > :05:41.amendment one which applies to the whole industry and that is the issue

:05:42. > :05:45.of transparency. Opening the second reading debate on the Bill, the

:05:46. > :05:49.Secretary of State said, transparency is a key area, hidden

:05:50. > :05:55.costs and charges often they wrote pensions. We are committed to giving

:05:56. > :06:00.members site of the costs that affect pension savings. On that we

:06:01. > :06:07.agree and I am pleased he put it on the public record that costs erode

:06:08. > :06:13.savers' pensions. That is a line in the 2015 Dutch central bank report

:06:14. > :06:17.which said, investment costs are an important determinant of pension

:06:18. > :06:21.fund performance, and high investment costs can impact

:06:22. > :06:24.beneficiaries consumption as to reduce the net rate of return on

:06:25. > :06:29.investment and subsequently raise the costs of providing pensions.

:06:30. > :06:35.Despite this the Secretary of State's statement, the government

:06:36. > :06:39.have resisted any attempt to do something, always missing something

:06:40. > :06:45.may be done but never doing very much. The government hides behind

:06:46. > :06:48.the issue of complexity but it has been glaciated with the investment

:06:49. > :06:58.association the tools to deal with that. The area of pension funds

:06:59. > :07:01.ready to be analysed is the local government pension scheme. It is due

:07:02. > :07:05.to be endorsed by the minister to ensure they deliver best value for

:07:06. > :07:11.sponsors and members. The architecture to get the data analyse

:07:12. > :07:14.it and present it is the same process of discussion with a view to

:07:15. > :07:21.being built on the former platform for which other projects including

:07:22. > :07:24.value for money analysis needed for all workplace pensions and that can

:07:25. > :07:29.be delivered. I believe the minister is a fan of this work and I would

:07:30. > :07:35.hope he and the government would rise the easiest and most efficient

:07:36. > :07:41.way to ensure the data for master trust is adopted is to adopt the

:07:42. > :07:54.investment cost templates sanctioned by the DC LG and data points agreed

:07:55. > :07:58.with association members. The purpose of this amendment is to lay

:07:59. > :08:03.down the reporting obligations of master trusts. At the moment they

:08:04. > :08:10.only report on administration and asset management fees. The amendment

:08:11. > :08:15.requires additional reporting off implicit costs. The only obstruction

:08:16. > :08:20.to this process is the government. It is contradictory. Why have it in

:08:21. > :08:23.one section of the system and not in another? We believe the government

:08:24. > :08:29.is holding back the scheme member from getting best value. The

:08:30. > :08:32.employers in master trusts cannot deliver under current arrangements.

:08:33. > :08:40.There is nothing simpler than setting out a requirement for the

:08:41. > :08:44.reporting of explicit and this implicit costs. Members must be able

:08:45. > :08:53.to discern the impact of trading on funds. The minister said, what

:08:54. > :09:02.members mentioned makes the point not that active fund managers have

:09:03. > :09:07.more costs. This is what was actually reported. Comparing the net

:09:08. > :09:14.return on a ?20,000 investment over 20 years, assuming that both funds

:09:15. > :09:22.had the same return before charges, and invested in a typically low-cost

:09:23. > :09:29.fund would earn ?9,554, and improvement of 28.4%. More on a

:09:30. > :09:38.?20,000 investment than a typical active fund and this number could

:09:39. > :09:42.rise to ?14,439 or an increase of 44.4% once transaction costs have

:09:43. > :09:46.been taken into account. The evidence is clear, investing in a

:09:47. > :09:51.low-cost passive fund delivers more returned than an active fund, which

:09:52. > :09:55.is why it is important to have the reporting requirements changed. We

:09:56. > :10:01.can look to the Netherlands experience. It is a requirement of

:10:02. > :10:04.Dutch funds to report on administration and management and

:10:05. > :10:08.transactions. The Society of pension professionals agree and they say the

:10:09. > :10:12.key is to ensure information given to consumers is sufficient to

:10:13. > :10:15.empower them and provide customers with comparisons to enable them to

:10:16. > :10:22.choose the best product and providers. This amendment helps the

:10:23. > :10:31.government. Master trusts and scheme members to match the best in

:10:32. > :10:34.practice reporting model. Another two is another to increase

:10:35. > :10:38.transparency and ensure members are properly informed. In this case if

:10:39. > :10:45.triggering event the pension in place. The minister replied to the

:10:46. > :10:50.tabling of this amendment with the assumption members were passive

:10:51. > :10:54.recipients. He said, remember, my members do not take an active

:10:55. > :10:59.decision to join, they join through the employer and are not engaged in

:11:00. > :11:04.the scheme, their employer is the conduit. Such a paternalistic

:11:05. > :11:07.approach to citizens a disservice. The government rejects attempts to

:11:08. > :11:14.reform the Bill to make it member focused. This approach labels

:11:15. > :11:17.members as passive and not engage participants get the government

:11:18. > :11:22.policy is to place responsibility on the individual to take care of their

:11:23. > :11:27.pension provision. They seem to be standing in the way of members being

:11:28. > :11:33.given information that would allow them to make informed decisions. Why

:11:34. > :11:39.is this policy so contradictory? The pension pot is theirs, not the

:11:40. > :11:44.employers' so they should buy right have natural justice and be

:11:45. > :11:50.informed. Here we seek to ensure the information flows through the

:11:51. > :11:55.communication chain. If they found out such an event happened,

:11:56. > :11:59.something that affects their cash, and only found out second-hand, it

:12:00. > :12:03.is bound to result in lower levels of trust. How would honourable

:12:04. > :12:08.members feel if no one told them there was an issue over their

:12:09. > :12:13.pension? It is a simple chain. If it can go to employers, it should go to

:12:14. > :12:19.members and in this electronic age there is no good reason for that not

:12:20. > :12:25.to happen. I would like to turn to amendment four in relation to pause

:12:26. > :12:32.orders, which is about responsibility to scheme members. A

:12:33. > :12:36.pause order is put in place by the regulator if they are satisfied

:12:37. > :12:45.making the order will help trustees carry out an implementation

:12:46. > :12:50.strategy, and during the committee stage of this Bill labour submitted

:12:51. > :12:54.an amendment because it felt there was not enough protection in the

:12:55. > :12:58.event of a master trust being pause. I give the example of a hypothetical

:12:59. > :13:02.elderly woman who relied on her pension from the master trust and

:13:03. > :13:07.had little income without it. A pause order can last up to six

:13:08. > :13:12.months whereby the master trust can opt not to pay up pensions,

:13:13. > :13:16.potentially six months that elderly people would have to find

:13:17. > :13:21.alternative means to survive and that is not acceptable. I referred

:13:22. > :13:24.to a circumstance where an elderly woman has not been informed of the

:13:25. > :13:30.order as there seems to be no requirement for anybody to inform

:13:31. > :13:36.her. I pose this question to the minister, and I was grateful for his

:13:37. > :13:42.reply in which she said existing legislation ensures the regulator

:13:43. > :13:43.will notify any person who is to be affected by action is exercised

:13:44. > :13:50.through the statutory internal procedures. I hope he will clarify

:13:51. > :13:57.when the scheme member would be informed. I think it is appalling

:13:58. > :14:02.pensioners are denied access to their own pension money in such

:14:03. > :14:06.circumstances. I have been assured members are protected in this

:14:07. > :14:13.situation, even in the event of an order. If this is the case, why

:14:14. > :14:17.would the master trust be unable to make payments to pensioners who

:14:18. > :14:22.might be vulnerable. It strikes me as bizarre that this government is

:14:23. > :14:27.calm about the potential repercussions on the vulnerable if

:14:28. > :14:32.payments stopped. The minister said stopping payments would only happen

:14:33. > :14:36.in rare circumstances. I hope he will take the opportunity of telling

:14:37. > :14:40.the house what the circumstances could be and provide members with an

:14:41. > :14:45.assurance they will not lose out during a pause order. We would amend

:14:46. > :14:53.the clause and his sister pensioners are able to receive payments. I

:14:54. > :14:58.submitted the new amendment three because I am concerned the pausing

:14:59. > :15:00.of payments under an order is fundamentally against the aims of

:15:01. > :15:06.what auto enrolment sought to achieve. The Bill as it stands would

:15:07. > :15:10.mean if an order was put on a master trust it would no longer receive

:15:11. > :15:17.contributions from the employer or employee and I note there is a

:15:18. > :15:20.similar amendment from the SNP. I believe we are trying to achieve the

:15:21. > :15:24.same things but not as they chat among themselves at the moment but I

:15:25. > :15:29.am sure they are trying to achieve the same things. Whilst I agree with

:15:30. > :15:35.the measure that master trusts would be in no fit state to continue

:15:36. > :15:40.taking contributions, I do not agree that as a result members will get

:15:41. > :15:45.contributions back into their pay packet and employers let off making

:15:46. > :15:51.contributions. This amendment insures contributions made by the

:15:52. > :15:55.employee and employer are not lost. This is important when we look at

:15:56. > :16:00.low earners and a potential six-month pause order could see them

:16:01. > :16:06.lose out on vital contributions. The minister may think a pause order is

:16:07. > :16:14.unlikely to last six months but it can. The amendment proposes that in

:16:15. > :16:20.the event of an order the employer would maintain the contributions

:16:21. > :16:28.until the order is lifted. Maybe the contributions could be said by

:16:29. > :16:32.themselves, it could be argued, but why, through no fault of their own

:16:33. > :16:37.should they lose contributions to their pensions? Does the minister

:16:38. > :16:42.agree workers should not lose out on contributions during a pause order?

:16:43. > :16:47.I am concerned that if we don't put the measures in place to protect

:16:48. > :16:53.people, even with the small chance something might go wrong, we will

:16:54. > :16:58.have failed them. I am concerned the lack of transparency in this scheme

:16:59. > :17:04.is a problem and concerned the problems lie with ensures companies

:17:05. > :17:09.and master trusts and I am concerned about the low-paid, person with

:17:10. > :17:13.multiple jobs, the self-employed, carers, who have not been looked

:17:14. > :17:20.after by this Bill and I am concerned the government have missed

:17:21. > :17:32.out on the fonder of last resort clause. I look forward to his

:17:33. > :17:39.response -- funder of last resort. The question is the new clause one

:17:40. > :17:45.be read a second time. I rise to move new clauses six, seven, eight

:17:46. > :17:51.and nine, and amendments, five, six, seven, eight and nine. There is much

:17:52. > :17:54.in this Bill I would commend. It introduces regulation for master

:17:55. > :17:59.trusts that will help shake confidence in pension savings,

:18:00. > :18:03.typically for auto involvement. As that committee stage we sought to

:18:04. > :18:09.work with the government to bring forward clauses and amendments to

:18:10. > :18:14.enhance the Bill as well as dealing with other shortcomings in pension

:18:15. > :18:17.is appropriate to the Bill. I am disappointed the new clauses ten and

:18:18. > :18:25.11 were not selected for debate. The minister knows my view that my

:18:26. > :18:31.approach is to work constructively where we can to encourage consumer

:18:32. > :18:36.participation and whilst there is much elsewhere, I would like to see

:18:37. > :18:37.greater clarity delivered on, I congratulate the government and the

:18:38. > :18:48.list of bringing the Bill forward. It is an important step forward

:18:49. > :18:52.atten Hans egg the appeal of auto enrolle. It is important that we

:18:53. > :18:56.take the opportunity of this legislation, to make sure that we

:18:57. > :19:03.have the appropriate regulatory steps in place. I would encourage

:19:04. > :19:07.that when we do review it, we look positively how we can take it

:19:08. > :19:12.forward, for part-time workers, those who have been excluded, many

:19:13. > :19:16.with multiple job, particularly Westminster and the self-employed.

:19:17. > :19:22.Charting a way ford that builds pension entitlement in the way that

:19:23. > :19:26.builds consensus, perhaps avoiding the screeching U-turn we saw from

:19:27. > :19:30.the minister's colleague the Chancellor in recent days.

:19:31. > :19:36.Mr Deputy Speaker, this is a serious subject, and this bill should be

:19:37. > :19:43.seen as part of a wider debate, as how we increase panion savings. --

:19:44. > :19:47.pension. I was struck to read in the Government's Green Party paper on

:19:48. > :19:53.defined benefit schemes that the average defined benefit scheme

:19:54. > :20:02.payment is as little ass ?7,000 per annum. We have a paper highlights

:20:03. > :20:08.income changes threatening pension freedom. It is clear that

:20:09. > :20:13.collectively, there is more to do to encourage trust and confidence in

:20:14. > :20:17.pension save, and in particular, that all are encouraged to save at

:20:18. > :20:22.an appropriate level to ensure dignity in retire. E. We on these

:20:23. > :20:27.benches will work with the Government on this agenda.

:20:28. > :20:35.In the meantime, this bill is a welcome step forward. I hope that in

:20:36. > :20:39.the spirit of engaging positively, the minister will give careful

:20:40. > :20:43.consideration to the amendment that we have tabled. There should be seen

:20:44. > :20:48.as clauses an amendment that seek to improve the bill, they are not any

:20:49. > :20:53.any way shape or form wrecking amendments. Let me start with new

:20:54. > :20:56.clause six, this new clause makes provision for the Secretary of State

:20:57. > :21:01.to restrict exit fees paided by member, it is not clear to us why

:21:02. > :21:06.master trust members should have to pay any exit charges. It is welcome

:21:07. > :21:12.that the government are placing a 1% cap on exit fee for current members

:21:13. > :21:16.and no exit fee for new member, however, why the threat of exit fees

:21:17. > :21:21.for existing members? We know that large fees have been charged on exit

:21:22. > :21:25.in the past, and it is clear we need to protect savers. I asked the

:21:26. > :21:29.minister to confirm at earlier stage there's would be no exit fee for an

:21:30. > :21:33.individual leaving a master trust. The minister responded, that when a

:21:34. > :21:38.master trust was closing, it could not Levy a charge, but I would

:21:39. > :21:44.appreciate if he would make it explicit that fees should not be

:21:45. > :21:48.levied in all case, as far as new clause 7, 8 and 9 are concerned. 7

:21:49. > :21:55.would require the Secretary of State to make provisions to amend Section

:21:56. > :21:59.75 of the Pensions Act 1995, in order to protect unincorporated

:22:00. > :22:03.business, those at risk of losing personal assets, including their

:22:04. > :22:06.homes. New clause eight would require within six months calendar

:22:07. > :22:11.time from the date of which this act comes into force, the Secretary of

:22:12. > :22:15.State must conduct a are view of the actual mechanism used to value

:22:16. > :22:21.pensions schemes liabilities under Section 75 of the pensions act 1995.

:22:22. > :22:26.A new clause nine, would compel the Secretary of State that must by

:22:27. > :22:30.regulation exclude from the calculation of the act, the orphan

:22:31. > :22:37.debt and any non-associated multi-employer scheme.

:22:38. > :22:45.Mr Deputy Speaker, these am momentment would help deal with the

:22:46. > :22:50.situation of plumbers in Scotland. -- amends. The scheme is managed by

:22:51. > :22:55.a group of directors and appointees from the association of plumbing and

:22:56. > :23:01.heating contractors in England and Wales. The scheme has over 36,000

:23:02. > :23:08.members and assets is in excess of 1.5 billion. Under Section 75 of the

:23:09. > :23:12.Pensions Act 1995, employers can in certain circumstances become liable

:23:13. > :23:18.for what is known as a Section 75 employer debt. The debt is

:23:19. > :23:22.calculated on a basis which tests whether there would be sufficient

:23:23. > :23:27.assets in the scheme to secure all the member benefits by buying

:23:28. > :23:33.annuity contract from an insurance company. Legislation specifies a

:23:34. > :23:38.debt becomes payable when the employer becomes insolvent, winds

:23:39. > :23:41.up, changes legal status or ceases to have active members in the

:23:42. > :23:46.scheme. While we must be mindful that the purpose of these rules is

:23:47. > :23:50.to protect pension benefit, however, the way they are currently framed

:23:51. > :23:55.creates problems for some stakeholder, we are sympathetic to

:23:56. > :23:59.the concerns raised... I will happily give way. Does he I degree

:24:00. > :24:04.with me it is because of such examples of those he has already

:24:05. > :24:08.touched on of unincorporated businesses, that it so pertinent

:24:09. > :24:12.right now as to why the Government has to bring forward a solution now

:24:13. > :24:17.rather than wait for the opportunity to pass? I am grateful for my

:24:18. > :24:24.honourable friend and she is right, I mean these are complex issue, that

:24:25. > :24:27.is why we make the the suggestion we are willing to work with the

:24:28. > :24:30.Government on this, we have to find a solution to this, at the end of

:24:31. > :24:33.the day ordinary people who have done the right thing, are being

:24:34. > :24:38.faced with losing their house and that cannot be right. It is an issue

:24:39. > :24:42.that has to be resolved. There are a number of options for the government

:24:43. > :24:46.to consider, each one has complications for the pension

:24:47. > :24:50.schemes and members, we would urge the UK Government to weigh up the

:24:51. > :24:57.interest of employers with the need to protect benefits for pension

:24:58. > :25:00.schemes. The former pension minuter in in the other place indicate shd

:25:01. > :25:06.woe would look at how a solution could be reached. We need the same

:25:07. > :25:17.assurances from the minister he will work to find a solution and use the

:25:18. > :25:23.bill to bring forward a solution. Mr Deputy Speaker, their main concern

:25:24. > :25:27.is for unincorporated businesses, who are at risk of losing their

:25:28. > :25:31.personal asset, for government to conduct a review of the real methods

:25:32. > :25:36.used to value pension schemes liabilities, as they believe the

:25:37. > :25:44.calculation of Section 75 employerer debt on a full anew the I basis is

:25:45. > :25:49.detrimental to schemes given current circumstances. They argue that

:25:50. > :25:53.orphan debt and multi-employer schemes should be excluded from the

:25:54. > :26:00.calculation of Section 75 employer debt and they suggest provided the

:26:01. > :26:05.scheme is deemed to be prudently funded the PPF acts as guarantor of

:26:06. > :26:08.last resort. They believe any changes in legislation should apply

:26:09. > :26:14.are the speck thetively to all employers from 2005. It would be

:26:15. > :26:20.helpful to get the Government's view on this request. Mr Deputy Speaker,

:26:21. > :26:24.snip F met with the minister and advised SNP MPs that the minister

:26:25. > :26:28.confirmed that the objectors may have been incorporated within the

:26:29. > :26:32.green paper. We are interested to hear the Government's view as to

:26:33. > :26:37.whether or not it has identified the solution. Briefly I want to make

:26:38. > :26:42.passing reference to my two new clawses that have not been selected

:26:43. > :26:46.for debate. I wanted to signal my disappointment and put it on the

:26:47. > :26:53.record. Firstly beginning with new clause ten, this new clause would

:26:54. > :26:56.require the ebbing is triof state to require... State ten pension age

:26:57. > :27:01.equalisation, we have disappointed that a pension bill has not been

:27:02. > :27:08.brought forward to deal with this. Give way on that please? I will

:27:09. > :27:12.happily give way. Does the honourable member agree with with me

:27:13. > :27:19.that Government are ignoring this opportunity much like they are

:27:20. > :27:23.ignoring the women themselves? We don't discuss clauses we have not

:27:24. > :27:29.chosen, we have to deal with what is before us, I know you want to stay

:27:30. > :27:34.an order, not the ones that have been o mid. Thank you Mr Deputy

:27:35. > :27:39.Speaker. I am happy for the guidance you have given me. I wanted to put

:27:40. > :27:44.on the record we have missed the opportunity today and I hope and I

:27:45. > :27:50.know we will have the opportunity to raise this issue again, so I will

:27:51. > :27:58.skip on from making any further reference to these two issues. We

:27:59. > :28:02.believe the we need to build on new opportunities such as autoenrolment.

:28:03. > :28:06.By giving pensions thoughtful time and consideration can the Government

:28:07. > :28:10.get this right. With I alarm bells ringing over injustices facing it

:28:11. > :28:15.and concerned we could see a hike in state pension age, the contemplation

:28:16. > :28:21.that the triple lock would be reviewed is deeply troubling. We

:28:22. > :28:26.know, if I may say so by delivering an independent Scotland we can

:28:27. > :28:30.deliver the dignity in retirement our Marine Le Pennioners would need.

:28:31. > :28:35.Amendment five would mean the financial sustainlet must be taken

:28:36. > :28:39.into account, when assessing a master trust scheme's financial

:28:40. > :28:44.sustainability. The ABI have told us insurance companies hold a

:28:45. > :28:49.significant amount of capital under the European regulatory framework.

:28:50. > :28:52.Our view, it would not be reasonable not nor is it necessary for insurers

:28:53. > :28:57.to hold separate or additional capital on top of this in order to

:28:58. > :29:02.meet their new obligation as trust providers under the bill. We would

:29:03. > :29:08.like to hear assurances from the Government that insurers will be

:29:09. > :29:14.exempt if they adhere to requirements. As far as amendment

:29:15. > :29:18.six and seven are concerned. 6 allowings for exceptions to the

:29:19. > :29:25.requirement for scheme funders... For which it is a scheme funder.

:29:26. > :29:29.Amendment seven makes provision for the Secretary of State to define

:29:30. > :29:32.restrictive activity by regulation including a list of actives

:29:33. > :29:35.restricted to minimise the loss of master trust scheme funders.

:29:36. > :29:40.These amendments a knowledge there must be circumstances where the

:29:41. > :29:48.scheme funder requirements within the bill should not apply. The --

:29:49. > :29:52.already restricted by virtue of the existing regulation, the ABI have

:29:53. > :29:56.said in particular the proden shall regulation authority riles mean

:29:57. > :30:04.activity of the scheme funder not directly related to master trust

:30:05. > :30:08.fund are not threatened. The ABI have said this is sensible and a

:30:09. > :30:13.pragmatic approach. It would be useful to understand what a

:30:14. > :30:16.requirement will need backbench met for firms fob exempt from the scheme

:30:17. > :30:22.funder requirement. It would be helpful to gain assurance that the

:30:23. > :30:28.Government is committed to working with the industry. As far as

:30:29. > :30:31.amendment eight and nine, they provide the regulator with an

:30:32. > :30:37.alternative to stopping payment to the scheme under sub section B of a

:30:38. > :30:43.pause order. Nine is consequential to 8678 the bill created a new power

:30:44. > :30:47.enabling the regulator to make a pause order requiring activety to be

:30:48. > :30:55.paused once a trust has experienced a triggering event. This includes

:30:56. > :30:59.accepting new members making payments, accepting contribution and

:31:00. > :31:03.discharging benefit. We accept the impact as there is no mechanism

:31:04. > :31:08.plays on outgoing contribution to be collected and held on behalf of the

:31:09. > :31:11.save. We would contend this is unacceptable a member be penalised

:31:12. > :31:17.through no fought of their own and in effect lose wages in the form of

:31:18. > :31:21.employer contributions due to events out with their control. The society

:31:22. > :31:25.of pension professionals have said it will be necessary to ensure that

:31:26. > :31:29.the period of effect of a pause order cannot start before the

:31:30. > :31:33.trustees receive notification of the pause order. This would then mean

:31:34. > :31:38.that any controversial order could only occur after the trustees are in

:31:39. > :31:42.receipt of the order. Without this, the they argue that the trustees

:31:43. > :31:45.could be in breach of a pause order through no fault of that own. If a

:31:46. > :31:49.direction is not complied with during the period between one, the

:31:50. > :31:54.date the regulator makes the order and two, the date they notify the

:31:55. > :31:59.trustees of it. For example, if new members joined the scheme in that

:32:00. > :32:05.period, contrary to direction under clause 32 five A. The Government

:32:06. > :32:10.should clarify if the intent to take action to protect savers now were

:32:11. > :32:14.disappointed at amendments were defeated at earlier stages. Mr

:32:15. > :32:18.Deputy Speaker, I look forward tore happening the minister respond, we

:32:19. > :32:22.have sought to work with the Government in hand with the bill we

:32:23. > :32:26.have in front of us today that we broadly welcome. We affirm or

:32:27. > :32:31.position of working with the Government to create an environment

:32:32. > :32:36.where workers can with have faith and trust. We should have a desire

:32:37. > :32:40.to develop the landscape for pension savings and to achieve a situation,

:32:41. > :32:43.that all pensions from their provision and the state pension

:32:44. > :32:46.could have dignity and security in retirement.

:32:47. > :32:50.This bill helps us awe long that road as far as regulation of master

:32:51. > :32:54.trusts is concerned. There is more to do to enhance autoenrolment and I

:32:55. > :33:00.look forward to working with the Government to take steps to include

:33:01. > :33:03.those currently excluding from pension safes, particularly the

:33:04. > :33:08.self-employed and part-time workers, in closing, while I welcome this

:33:09. > :33:13.bill today, I also reflect on the necessity of having had to put down

:33:14. > :33:16.a motion last night, on the issue of frozen pension after the Government

:33:17. > :33:20.had brought forward a statutory instrument to freeze the pensions of

:33:21. > :33:24.hundreds of thousands of British pensioners who have been denied

:33:25. > :33:26.their rites. In pushing this through, the Government have denied

:33:27. > :33:32.the right to members of this house to debate this matter. I encourage

:33:33. > :33:36.all honourable members and right honourables to send it and as

:33:37. > :33:38.believe we can demonstrate broad cross-party support against this

:33:39. > :33:42.measures the Government will have the grace to bring forward the

:33:43. > :33:46.debate on this matter, before recess. This EDM has been signed by

:33:47. > :33:49.members from six parties, including the government. I would encourage

:33:50. > :33:51.the Government to listen to this matter as part of the process of the

:33:52. > :34:10.bill today. Thank you. Auto o a youed Thank you very much,

:34:11. > :34:14.Mr Deputy Speaker. I would like to thank the, well I would like to

:34:15. > :34:18.thank the honourable members for their amendments. I would like to

:34:19. > :34:24.say, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I hope all would agree in this House, that

:34:25. > :34:29.have been following this debate here, and in committee, that the

:34:30. > :34:34.attitude of the Government has been to oppose all amendments just for

:34:35. > :34:40.the sake of it. I give honourable members my word that that everything

:34:41. > :34:47.has been considered. But it's Government's job to consider the

:34:48. > :34:52.kind of o lobbying from comes from the many oxes that the honourable

:34:53. > :34:57.member for Stockton North mentioned several times and I have also met

:34:58. > :35:02.with most of them as I'm sure the honourable member from Ross Skye has

:35:03. > :35:06.as well but it is the Government's job to weigh up everything and make

:35:07. > :35:11.a decision. I mention that because I hope all agree that it is the

:35:12. > :35:17.position that the Government finds itself. But I'm really quite

:35:18. > :35:20.disappointed that we are, today, really almost exclusively revisiting

:35:21. > :35:25.exactly the same amendments that we saw at committee and my arguments

:35:26. > :35:27.remain unchanged. That doesn't mean I'm going to sit down anyhow and

:35:28. > :35:30.ignore contributions from the previous speaker. I don't think that

:35:31. > :35:34.would quite be the correct thing to do. The honourable gentleman, feel

:35:35. > :35:42.free. No, I intend to go through in detail and try and answer some of

:35:43. > :36:10.the questions which have been actually asked in very good faith

:36:11. > :36:15.and try and answer them in exactly the same way. This is new clause 1,

:36:16. > :36:18.as discussed in the other place, extensively discussed on committee

:36:19. > :36:21.and very much considered by my officials and myself, this, would

:36:22. > :36:24.require - Prince polyit would require the Secretary of State to

:36:25. > :36:26.establish - principally it would require...

:36:27. > :36:30.On the case of t the surface of t it seems a compelling argument. -- on

:36:31. > :36:33.the face of it, on the surface of t and I must say having met with

:36:34. > :36:36.Baroness drake and others before the Bill came to this House, considered

:36:37. > :36:39.it very open mindlessly and I thought of all the points made it

:36:40. > :36:43.was the most significant. I would also like to place on record, if I

:36:44. > :36:46.may, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the distributions from the mobile Lords

:36:47. > :36:50.has been very useful. I make that completely on a cross-party point of

:36:51. > :36:54.view. Particularly I would like to pay tribute to Baroness Drake, a

:36:55. > :37:00.person I have met several times to discuss this with, but there are

:37:01. > :37:05.disagreements, there are honourable disagreements, where the two

:37:06. > :37:07.positions - and neither are ridiculous positions, all would

:37:08. > :37:13.agree but in the end the Government has to decide and that's why I'm not

:37:14. > :37:18.able to give the Opposition the comfort it expects or is asking for

:37:19. > :37:22.on this. I would like to state very clearly that the whole purpose of

:37:23. > :37:26.this regime, introduced by this Bill is intended to mitigate the very

:37:27. > :37:29.risk that the honourable gentleman is concerned about and he is

:37:30. > :37:35.honourably concerned about because it is a concern and very cliches

:37:36. > :37:41.have been used in different opportunities in these Bills and as

:37:42. > :37:51.this Bill has gone through, usually involving nuts and sledge Hammers

:37:52. > :37:55.and other such matters but I would prefer, if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker

:37:56. > :37:57.to say it is a question of being proportionate or not being

:37:58. > :38:00.disproportionate. And I think that really summarises it up. Because the

:38:01. > :38:07.master trust, because before it is actually authorised in the first

:38:08. > :38:12.place, Mr Deputy Speaker, it has to have a regime, where the pensions

:38:13. > :38:16.regulator has to be convinced that it thoos meet costs of triggering

:38:17. > :38:21.events. Remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I'm sure you do, that this is not

:38:22. > :38:25.involving the pensions money, this is involving the scheme, the actual

:38:26. > :38:34.organisations that'p running the funds, so the pensions regulator has

:38:35. > :38:36.to ensure that the organisers of the trust has sufficient cost of

:38:37. > :38:39.triggering the event and therefore, should it fail, they have the money

:38:40. > :38:43.to transport it out to another scheme. The regulator will monitor

:38:44. > :38:47.this situation on an ongoing basis to ensure the funds remain

:38:48. > :38:52.available. Currently, it is very interesting, in the markets, Mr

:38:53. > :38:56.Deputy Speaker, the market is responding well to deal with

:38:57. > :39:00.existing master trusts that wish to exit before authorisation. It is

:39:01. > :39:05.interesting that the regulation itself, the threat of what will an

:39:06. > :39:09.act, the threat of this bill, is making smaller masser trusts

:39:10. > :39:13.consider whether they wish to be in this new world, this new regulated

:39:14. > :39:18.world and several master trusts have left the market already in an order

:39:19. > :39:21.fashion. The regulator is confident that there are currently none that

:39:22. > :39:28.could not afford to transfer out members. I feel that's a very

:39:29. > :39:30.important point. And I do hope the honourable gentleman from Stockton

:39:31. > :39:33.North will take that into consideration when deciding whether

:39:34. > :39:39.to press this amendment. We're working with the regulator on

:39:40. > :39:42.non-legislative measures to address concerns of potential liabilities

:39:43. > :39:47.and trustees of receiving schemes that might arise if a master trust

:39:48. > :39:50.should end up in wind-up and honourable members should be aware

:39:51. > :39:53.that we do have this system of regulation to make sure precisely

:39:54. > :39:58.that this doesn't happen. Interestingly enough I'm afraid I'm

:39:59. > :40:02.taking, in a ditch way a survey that I believe the honourable gentleman

:40:03. > :40:05.from Stockton North mentioned in committee from Pension Professional.

:40:06. > :40:10.They found 50% of those surveyed said they did not want a scheme of

:40:11. > :40:14.last resort as opposed to the 31% of who said they did. It's very

:40:15. > :40:19.interesting, the honourable gentleman mentioned in his speech

:40:20. > :40:23.the Standard Life's view. I accept the fact that it is the view of

:40:24. > :40:26.industry players that they would much rather help the Government step

:40:27. > :40:33.in and deal with it. That's very natural. #3r0b8 if I was in their

:40:34. > :40:37.position, I would. But we have also spoken toins stugss, people involved

:40:38. > :40:41.in inrollment and people involved in master trusts, etc and my impression

:40:42. > :40:50.is clearly there's plenty of players who would bite the hand off nigh

:40:51. > :40:56.schemes that they could get hold off because from their point of view

:40:57. > :40:59.they are making on members, which would involve them in very little

:41:00. > :41:02.costs because there are already running the schemes and they have

:41:03. > :41:06.the set up and everything else. I would say quite clearly that they

:41:07. > :41:12.seem to be desperate to take on these schemes, I give way.

:41:13. > :41:16.The minister is taking great comfort from the existing measures that are

:41:17. > :41:21.in place but there is still no 100% guarantee that there'll be somebody

:41:22. > :41:25.to pick up the costs of in the event of a trust failure. We could see a

:41:26. > :41:31.new trust go through authorisation process and it could still fail

:41:32. > :41:37.through bad management, fraud, whatever. Who is going to pick up

:41:38. > :41:40.the pieces in that situation? Mr Deputy Speaker, we have to deal with

:41:41. > :41:44.the reality of the situation and that is not happening. Yes, anything

:41:45. > :41:49.can happen. We all know in life things happen. This Parliament deals

:41:50. > :41:54.with things that happen all the time that no-one could possibly expect

:41:55. > :41:57.the day before. I'm convinced, as the minister for pensions, that the

:41:58. > :42:02.regulation that's taking place, the view of the industry that the

:42:03. > :42:07.regulator takes, that we have had regular views, with, and speaking to

:42:08. > :42:12.the type of institutions that with willingly take on failing master

:42:13. > :42:17.trusts that there is no need for the Secretary of State to have, in his

:42:18. > :42:21.desk drawer armoury, the money or the weapons to deal with it This is

:42:22. > :42:26.a problem that really does not exist. And the honourable member

:42:27. > :42:31.says it's all left to chance. Well, it isn't left to chance. We've got a

:42:32. > :42:37.finite number of master trusts that exist now. We know - well, thanks to

:42:38. > :42:42.the support of the Government and the Opposition and general support

:42:43. > :42:51.of this Bill, that this Bill will be enacted I hope as quickly as

:42:52. > :42:55.possible. So it is a finite open. It is not the contingent liability that

:42:56. > :43:00.will happen in years to come. We know hopefully in two years, it is a

:43:01. > :43:03.clear regulatory system in place and the regulator is clear about what

:43:04. > :43:09.trusts do exist. So we have all taken really quite a lot of care it

:43:10. > :43:14.make sure that this is not going to happen and I do feel that the

:43:15. > :43:16.measures suggested in this amendment are totally disproportionate to the

:43:17. > :43:21.problem and for those reasons, I would ask the honourable member to

:43:22. > :43:26.withdraw his amendment, which I don't think he will, but I do ask

:43:27. > :43:32.him. A little honesty from the despatch

:43:33. > :43:35.box I'm very pleased to see at least I have served to amuse the

:43:36. > :43:46.Opposition front bench on this case. But if I may turn to new clauses 2,

:43:47. > :43:53.3 and 4 which are in the honourable gentleman' from Stockton North's

:43:54. > :43:55.name to do with engagement and during committee and in

:43:56. > :43:58.conversations on and off the record involving everyone who is concerned,

:43:59. > :44:01.I have made it clear - which I'm sure you would expect, that member

:44:02. > :44:03.engagement is important and that members should be encouraged to

:44:04. > :44:06.develop a strong sense of ownership in their pension saving but I do,

:44:07. > :44:10.howover, remain of the view that these amendments are unnecessary. --

:44:11. > :44:14.however. And I know the honourable gentleman is expecting me to say

:44:15. > :44:21.this because these are points that we have, we have discussed before. I

:44:22. > :44:28.would like to - I think my main rebuttal point would be to remind

:44:29. > :44:34.the honourable gentleman that - to remind the honourable gentleman that

:44:35. > :44:38.the majority of master trusts are subject to the rules on trustees in

:44:39. > :44:42.the regulation of governments and those regulations require that the

:44:43. > :44:46.schemes must have at least three trustees and the majority have to be

:44:47. > :44:53.independent to provide service to the scheme. There must be an open

:44:54. > :44:56.and transparent appointment process for recruiting independent trustees,

:44:57. > :44:58.I agree but current arrangements ensure members have access to

:44:59. > :45:03.appropriate information to make decisions about their pension

:45:04. > :45:06.scheme. These include a mandatory annual benefit statement. For most

:45:07. > :45:12.members a statutory money purchase illustration. That gives the members

:45:13. > :45:15.a projection of their pension in retirement and what the honourable

:45:16. > :45:20.gentleman says on request, he says it should be be on request but it is

:45:21. > :45:24.available the trustee's annual report, the chair statement and the

:45:25. > :45:29.statement of investment principles and the pensions regulator provides

:45:30. > :45:32.guidance on trusteesees for communicating effectively and

:45:33. > :45:39.transparently with their members. I would remind members in the House

:45:40. > :45:46.that all trustees have these fiduciary duties. And other legal

:45:47. > :45:50.requirements. Some master trusts are developing innovative ways for

:45:51. > :45:54.engaging with members without overly prescriptive statutory requirements,

:45:55. > :45:57.many of which I would like to say respectfully are of a general era,

:45:58. > :46:00.than holding general meetings where people are expected to travel all

:46:01. > :46:05.over the country and things like that. I would like to, very quickly,

:46:06. > :46:10.discuss the points made about the auto inrollment review. If I may sum

:46:11. > :46:14.prize by saying the purpose of the review -- summarise by saying the

:46:15. > :46:17.purpose of the review is to discuss the points brought up by the

:46:18. > :46:20.honourable member. We are looking very extensively about self-employed

:46:21. > :46:25.people being included in it, by people of lower income. He mention

:46:26. > :46:28.careers and I would like to point out that all careers now who are

:46:29. > :46:31.employed are exactly the same as other people who are employed if

:46:32. > :46:36.they fit into the criteria, they won't be. I wouldn't exclude at

:46:37. > :46:42.looking at everything out. But it is a broad review, it is far, far braid

:46:43. > :46:50.than it has to be as far as the law is concerned. If I may refer briefly

:46:51. > :46:54.to the already honourable member's nements new clause 6 where he wants

:46:55. > :46:58.to introduce a power to cap exit charges. We have said, as I have

:46:59. > :47:05.said before, the power already exists because we are shed lating

:47:06. > :47:09.the pensions act 2014, as amended by clause 41 of this bill and where by

:47:10. > :47:13.existing powers the regulations are there to cap or ban early exit

:47:14. > :47:19.charges in occupational schemes, including master trusts. And

:47:20. > :47:23.existing members members of occupation schemes, of course are

:47:24. > :47:28.eligible to the pension freedom if they have their charges capped at a

:47:29. > :47:32.maximum of 1%. I do not think it is fair to exclude all charges because

:47:33. > :47:39.the fact is that there are cost involved with exit. The new clauses

:47:40. > :47:44.7 I, 8 and 9 introduced very eloquently, as ever, by the

:47:45. > :47:47.honourable member from Rosses is Skye, they are seeking to make

:47:48. > :47:51.changes in the provisions of the pension act which addressed the

:47:52. > :47:57.issue of employer debt and defined benefit scheme. As he said, I've met

:47:58. > :48:01.with representatives fted Plummers UK scheme and I have met with

:48:02. > :48:06.stakeholders generally, employers and polies and I would like it make

:48:07. > :48:10.it very clear that the issues raised on the green paper in sustainability

:48:11. > :48:13.in our defined benefit pension schemes, there is a round table

:48:14. > :48:17.represented from the relevant schemes to look at precisely what

:48:18. > :48:22.changes to legislation may be needed. And it is a complex and

:48:23. > :48:24.technical problem and there is no perfect solution because each

:48:25. > :48:31.involves one of three parties taking responsibility for the debt.

:48:32. > :48:39.The retired ones or the PPF. Each of have has its own problem, I do give

:48:40. > :48:44.the honourable gentleman my work. I would like to congratulate him and

:48:45. > :48:48.the work his colleagues have his party have done, it is not on deaf

:48:49. > :48:53.airs and we will make progress on it. I trust the honourable member

:48:54. > :48:58.will in fact withdraw those amendments. The new clause.

:48:59. > :49:02.The honourable member for Stockton North, we have dealt with in

:49:03. > :49:05.committee, the minimum requirement for annual reporting of

:49:06. > :49:12.administration, etc, it is just something that we will have agree to

:49:13. > :49:14.disagree on. We are committed to making regulations requiring

:49:15. > :49:18.informational charges and trap axion costs to be provided to members in

:49:19. > :49:24.the course of this Parliament. We will consult this year on the

:49:25. > :49:29.publication of such information to members, the only consultation is

:49:30. > :49:33.how, and not if in concerning disclosure, I also have read the

:49:34. > :49:37.financial conduct's authority asset management market study. Sometimes

:49:38. > :49:41.think the honourable member and I are the only people who have read it

:49:42. > :49:48.in full detail, I am fully commend it. I have told the FCA and we it

:49:49. > :49:52.will -- fully fwend to take action o on that. The Government processes

:49:53. > :50:01.the necessary primary power and it is swell on its way to achieve the

:50:02. > :50:05.stated purposement for that I would urge the honourable member to

:50:06. > :50:12.withdraw his amendment. On scheme funder requirement, I will deal with

:50:13. > :50:18.next. I have listened very carefully to that, he adds to the requirement

:50:19. > :50:20.we put down in clause eight, that the mastertrust scheme has

:50:21. > :50:25.sufficient financial resources for the scheme funder, but it is not

:50:26. > :50:31.required, as the regulators assessment must take into account

:50:32. > :50:34.matters specified in regulations which include insolvency risk,

:50:35. > :50:37.enforceability of any funding commitped and whether the scheme

:50:38. > :50:44.funder is subject to capital requirement. I do not believe we

:50:45. > :50:48.need to expand the range of activity beyond that, because amendment six

:50:49. > :50:53.and seven would expand it so that, it would expand the range of

:50:54. > :50:57.activity that a scheme funder can undertake.

:50:58. > :51:01.The Government's amendment we put four wad at committee mean that the

:51:02. > :51:04.scheme funders no longer restricted solely to these activity related to

:51:05. > :51:10.the mastertrust and I would remind him, as he has mentioned the ABI,

:51:11. > :51:13.they welcome the cross-party consensus that needs to address the

:51:14. > :51:19.issue and the common-sense approach the Government has taken to reflect

:51:20. > :51:22.its concerns, in short, these amendments are not needed and I urge

:51:23. > :51:27.very much the honourable member to withdraw them.

:51:28. > :51:32.About the trigger events Mr Deputy Speaker. Amendment two requires the

:51:33. > :51:35.trustees to notify scheme members that a triggering event has occur

:51:36. > :51:40.confidence and of other information to be set out in regulation, I am

:51:41. > :51:43.sure you are aware Mr Deputy Speaker, a triggering event is a

:51:44. > :51:50.change in circumstanceses that poses a threat, a risk to the scheme, and

:51:51. > :51:53.it is very important that I accept the fact, that members are informed

:51:54. > :51:58.well ahead of something that directly impacts on him. Trustees

:51:59. > :52:02.can inform members at the point of triggering events if they judge it

:52:03. > :52:07.is appropriate. The bill requires if the scheme does proceed to wind it

:52:08. > :52:10.it must inform members, I feel this is well meaning but inappropriate,

:52:11. > :52:14.could be very costly and could indeed frighten members for no

:52:15. > :52:19.reason, because the. System is well in place they would require later on

:52:20. > :52:24.in the process to be informed. I would again ask the honourable

:52:25. > :52:32.member to withdraw his amendment, as I would with pause orders mentioned

:52:33. > :52:38.by the honourable member for sock on the north and the member for Ross,

:52:39. > :52:42.Sky and locker. I have mastered it by report stage which is beyond the

:52:43. > :52:46.call of duty. The amendment would require these

:52:47. > :52:53.distributions which can't be paid into a mastertrust in the interim

:52:54. > :52:57.period, to be basically held by the employer in a special account or

:52:58. > :53:04.something like that. That is the amends from the honourable member

:53:05. > :53:07.for Ross and Skye, in one sentence. It, the honourable member for

:53:08. > :53:10.Stockton North removes the position to halt payments to members from a

:53:11. > :53:14.scheme during a pause order, I just would like to make clear, the

:53:15. > :53:17.Government's position is that employees should retain their

:53:18. > :53:21.contributions they made during a period, and receive a refund from

:53:22. > :53:24.their employer, if those have already been ducted but can't be

:53:25. > :53:28.paid over for the scheme, into the scheme. I think we have made it

:53:29. > :53:33.clear, always, we, everyone would agree it is a rare and time limited

:53:34. > :53:41.situation, which has a low risk of occurring, and it is quite a big

:53:42. > :53:47.burden, that would go with it. The, yes. On this issue and the issue of

:53:48. > :53:50.pause orders and payment, I was referring to impayment from the

:53:51. > :54:00.pension, we are talking about the payment of pensions not the refund

:54:01. > :54:04.of contributions to the employee. Yes, I do, thank you very much for

:54:05. > :54:08.clarifying that. I think the honourable member for Stockton

:54:09. > :54:12.North. The trustees can decide when they have to decide when they wish

:54:13. > :54:17.to notify members of a pause order. It is not like it doesn't exist, I

:54:18. > :54:20.would remind the honourable member that the T PR can direct the

:54:21. > :54:26.trustees to notify the members at any time if they deem it necessary.

:54:27. > :54:31.I really they is an important point. So, that power is already there. It

:54:32. > :54:37.is not as if it is going away. Having said all that, I have really

:54:38. > :54:41.considered everything, but I think I have made the arguments myself, and

:54:42. > :54:45.I would trust and hope the honourable member would withdraw his

:54:46. > :54:48.amendment. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am satisfied that the bill has been

:54:49. > :54:53.improved by amends made at committee and I would like to say largely in

:54:54. > :54:59.response to opposition argument, once it becomes an act I think will

:55:00. > :55:03.provide an effective protection for the millions saving in mastertrusts

:55:04. > :55:09.largely as a result of the success of autoenrolment. I hope today this

:55:10. > :55:18.House will be conten tent to leave it unamended. Division, clear the

:55:19. > :56:11.lobbies. Order. The question is that new

:56:12. > :56:17.clause one be read a second time as many of that opinion say aye. The

:56:18. > :56:25.contrary no. Tellers for the ayes Nick Smith and Jeff Smyth. For the

:56:26. > :56:28.noes Chris Pincher and Chris Eton Harris.