text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Orders of the Day - Pensions Bill - After Clause 18
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  
  The relevant Hansard debate is <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-07-17b.193.1">here</a> (not the same URL as the vote).  This is a vote on an amendment which has already been passed by the House of Lords.  The Lords amendment is paragraph 16 <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmbills/146/07146.5-11.html">here</a>; it says:
  
  <blockquote><li>Insert the following new Clause [after Clause 18]â
   	
  <li>âFinancial assistance scheme: qualifying pension schemes</li>
   	
  <li>(1)    The <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051986.htm">Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (S.I. 2005/1986)</a> are amended as follows.</li>
   	
  <li>(2)    In regulation <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051986.htm#9">9</a>, sub-paragraph (1)(c) is omitted.</li>
   	
  <li>(3)    Regulations <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051986.htm#11">11</a> to <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2005/20051986.htm#13">13</a> are omitted.â</li></blockquote>
  
  The effect of the Lords' amendment was to remove the requirement that an employer had gone insolvent before their pension scheme qualified for government bail-out.
  
  The Commons rejected this amendment without a vote, but then voted on <a href="http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2007-07-17b.229.1">a possible replacement amendment</a>:
  
  <blockquote> Financial Assistance Scheme: eligibility where employers remain solvent
  
  <li>To move the following Clause:â</li>
  
  <li>The Pensions Act 2004 (c. 35) is amended as follows.</li>
  
  <li>In section 286 (financial assistance for members etc.) insert after subsection (2)â</li>
  
  <li>"(2A) Conditions prescribed under paragraph (c) in the definition of "qualifying pension scheme" in subsection (2) shall not exclude schemes which have been wound up in the absence of an insolvency event as referred to in Part 2, provided that such wind-up began before 11th June 2003."</li></blockquote>
  
  They rejected this amendment as well.
  
  
  
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  