| Pensions Bill
|
|
Malcolm Wicks: This has been a useful preliminary discussion of some important issues. The hon. Member for Eastbourne rightly notes that staff who are working for the existing body, OPRA, have rights to transfer to the new body—the regulator. As he said, those two bodies will be covered by TUPE. I take on board his important question. As we are using an existing body as the foundation for a new body, how are we to ensure that it is genuinely a new body—not one that throws away all the good practices of the past, but one that has, to use the hon. Gentleman's term, a new culture? I am exercised by that question. In another life, when I was Under-Secretary of State for Lifelong Learning and we created the learning and skills councils, there were those who were concerned Column Number: 015 that that would be a re-badging of the then TECs, and others who thought that it might be a re-badging of the Further Education Funding Council. I shall not say any more about that—but these are important issues in public policy.I am satisfied that we can get the right balance on continuity. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive remarks about the work of OPRA, which are justified given the framework in which it has been operating. On visiting OPRA recently, I was impressed in different ways. Colleagues there are some of our major champions of the need for change and some of the keenest and most expert supporters of the concept of the new regulator. There has been much change in that organisation in the past year or so. I also understand that in terms of the leadership of the regulator, at both professional and board level, we need to make some judgments about the right mix of continuity and change. We intend to make those judgments. When there is news about important appointments, we shall try to bring that to the Committee. I am satisfied that we can get the change we want. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne implied, there is no need to take the OPRA troops out into the fields and re-educate them in a Maoist fashion—or rather, given their location in Brighton, to take them on to the Sussex downs or the beaches. We do not need to fight this battle on the beaches; there are others way to do it. The hon. Member for Eastbourne raised the important issue of how we make sure that new, and in many respects recalcitrant and tougher, regulations do not become too invasive for the generality of organisations. There is no one single answer to that. Throughout our deliberations on pensions and in the Bill, we have tried to get the right balance between imposing new duties and introducing easements to lighten the load. We have been in discussion with the industry about the kind of information that will need to be given to the regulator. We fully take on board the hon. Gentleman's point about the need to get that balance right. On costs, the hon. Member for Eastbourne found himself in the interesting position of not accusing—that would be too pejorative a word—but suggesting that we may be being too conservative—not a charge that we normally face. We have costed the proposals thoroughly from the bottom up. Given the new powers, we have asked what is needed, and we are convinced that the costings are right. For the most part, schemes will be required to provide to the regulator information that is already readily available. People from a sample of schemes have been asked to provide the information that is likely to be part of the scheme return, and they have been broadly supportive of that, and what it requires. They have expressed no significant concerns about possible costs to them. We are keeping that under review, not only in the early days. I thank the hon. Member for Northavon for his broad support—although I expect that his remarks Column Number: 016 will quickly disintegrate into devastating technical criticism and proper scrutiny, which we will do our best to cope with. During our deliberations, we will be able to tease out the respective roles of the new regulator and the FSA. I can see why many in the outside world might ask proper questions about them, but we are convinced that there is a distinction to be made between the work of the FSA and that of the regulator. We obviously want to ensure that those distinctions are clear, but that the two organisations work closely together where necessary.The hon. Member for Northavon made a useful point by noting how many different organisations there are in the pensions world. At first sight, questions may well be asked about whether we really need all those organisations. We are not in the business of inflating the number of organisations for the sake of it. However, we will be able to demonstrate to the Committee why the tribunal has to be at some distance from the body that it adjudicates, and I know that the hon. Gentleman will take that factor on board straight away. During our discussions, we will also be able to demonstrate why the regulator and the pension protection fund have different functions, but nevertheless need to work very closely together. They need to work closely together because the more effective the regulator is in regulating company pension schemes, especially those at risk, the less demand there will be on the resources of the pension protection fund. Furthermore, for the pension protection fund to do its job properly, it needs first-class information and intelligence about the state of health of company pension schemes. In large part, that information will come from the regulator. This is an important question, and there will be different detailed opportunities to return to it.
10.15 amMr. Webb: Will the Minister try to clarify the relationship between the roles of the pensions ombudsman and the regulator? Will there be circumstances in which people could go to either of them, or both? Malcolm Wicks: There will be separate discussions about the ombudsman. However, the role of the regulator is to keep a close watchful eye on the range of schemes, particularly on the basis of information and intelligence, so that it can scrutinise using the new powers, and some existing powers that it will take over from OPRA, which we will discuss later today, or perhaps on Thursday. There is also OPAS, the Office of the Pensions Advisory Service, which members of pension schemes with concerns can ask to consider the issues and reach agreements with company pension schemes wherever possible. Failing that, there is the right to go to the ombudsman in more serious cases. As we will see later, in addition to the existing functions of the pensions ombudsman, the PPF needs an ombudsman's function and we shall make proposals about that. The hon. Member for Northavon can add that to his list of complexities to make important debating points about, but we shall seek to justify why that new office is important. Column Number: 017 Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2004 | Prepared 9 March 2004 |
