|
Malcolm Wicks: On the first point, the regulator will issue scheme return notices—that is, the requests for information—to each scheme. On the frequency of scheme returns, they will be not more than annual and not less than triennial. The frequency is to be determined by the regulator, but will be based on risk factors. Those schemes that are well run and well administered may be required to complete returns less
Column Number: 127
frequently than those schemes where risk factors are present, so the approach that we are suggesting is proportionate.
A scheme return notice will require provision of all registrable information in relation to the scheme, and any other information in relation to the scheme that is requested by the regulator to enable it to exercise its functions. The emphasis is, therefore, on proportionality. As in all things, we want to get the balance right between proper scrutiny of all schemes and more scrutiny of those schemes that might be at risk. That is our approach.
On the second question, which was the suggestion that the provisions could be voluntary, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood. Would it be helpful if I wrote to him on the textual points? My understanding is that we are not talking about a voluntary provision, because that would undermine the whole purpose of the Bill.
Mr. Osborne: Well, it certainly would. I should be grateful if the Minister would write to me and explain it. I hear what he says about wanting some flexibility. Presumably, that means that well run schemes do not have to provide the same amount of returns.
Malcolm Wicks: I apologise if I am not intervening at the appropriate time, but I want to give the hon. Gentleman more information on his substantive point. Scheme returns will also be issued. We often forget about the personal pension providers but, as a generality, they are likely to be issued every three years. However, defined benefit schemes—the core of the Bill—will have a scheme return each year. I am generalising, but they have a higher risk for members.
Mr. Osborne: The flexibility concerning annual returns has now evaporated. It was important for the Minister to clarify the position.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39
Duty of trustees or managers to provide scheme return
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Malcolm Wicks: The clause is straightforward. As we noted, clause 38 established that the regulator will issue scheme return notices, which is a request for information that we have described. Clause 39 sets out the duty on trustees or managers to provide a scheme return to the regulator by the specified date. It is very much the other side of the coin to the clause to that we have just agreed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 128
Clause 40
Scheme returns: supplementary
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of the clause is to make clear the duties of the regulator, trustees and managers in respect of scheme returns. As such, the clause has effect for the purposes of clauses 38 and 39 that have both been agreed, and specifies the meaning of such important technicalities as ''return date'' and ''scheme return''. It is straightforward.
Mr. Osborne: I have only one query for the Minister about what, as he said, is an otherwise fairly straightforward clause. Subsection (4)(a) states:
''A scheme return notice in respect of a registrable scheme . . . must require all registrable information in relation to the scheme''.
That is common sense. However, subsection (4)(b) states that the notice
''may require other information which the Regulator reasonably requires for the purposes of the exercise of its functions in relation to the scheme.''
In other words, it introduces not a get-out clause, but a wide-ranging power for the regulator to require other information. What is the point of devising a scheme return, consulting the industry about the information that should be on it and making a decision about what information is needed to do the job, but then suddenly deciding that the regulator can ask for any other information which it ''reasonably requires''? Presumably that is the regulator's own definition, provided of course that it was accepted. The provision seems clearly wide-ranging and I should be grateful if the Minister would explain why.
Malcolm Wicks: In a sense, we discussed earlier what is reasonable information. I gave my assurance then that the regulator will act honourably in relation to such matters. There will be broad parliamentary scrutiny of the regulator's work on an ongoing basis. A scheme return notice issued by the regulator must be in writing and must specify the details of the information that the regulator requires from the scheme. Such information must include all details of the registrable information and any other information required by the regulator to enable it to fulfil its functions. This is not a catch-all; we could not ask for any sort of information, but only anything that it might be sensible to ask for. During the next 10 years or so, who knows how pension schemes might change and what sort of information might need to be captured?
3 pm
In line with the recommendations of the Better Regulation Task Force and the National Audit Office report, it is essential for the regulator—I wish it would regulate these notes a bit—to collect and hold up-to-date information on schemes in order to enable it to develop the risk-based approach. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept those assurances.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 129
Clause 41
Register of prohibited trustees
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Osborne: I was wondering whether the Under-Secretary or the Minister would stand up. I detect a little ministerial confusion. As we have moved on to an important new concept—the register of prohibited trustees—will the Minister or the Under-Secretary set out exactly what is envisaged with that register and how it will operate?
Mr. Pond: I am happy to do so. As we will discuss the issue further when we come to the next clause, I thought that the Committee would like to move on, and I was giving it the opportunity to do so.
Having discussed the register of schemes, we move to the register of all persons whom the regulator has prohibited from acting as trustees. OPRA already has a register of the trustees it has disqualified. I have a copy of it here and it is readily available on the internet. That register only includes details of trustees disqualified by OPRA, not those people automatically disqualified from serving as trustees. We think that that might mislead those using the register to check on trustees.
Those people are not automatically included because it is not possible for the regulator to know who should be included as everyone with a criminal conviction for dishonesty, everyone who is bankrupt and everyone in a voluntary arrangement is automatically disqualified. There would, of course, be human rights implications in publishing such a list, given that the majority of people on it would not be and never would have been trustees of a pension scheme.
To make clearer the distinction between prohibition and disqualification, the register will not list all automatically disqualified trustees, merely those prohibited, as detailed in clause 29. The names of the trustees and those already disqualified by OPRA will appear on the register. Further provision on the accessibility of the register is provided in clause 42.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Accessibility of register of prohibited trustees
Mr. Pond: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in
clause 42, page 25, line 24, leave out 'a' and insert 'an occupational trust'.
This is a drafting amendment, which merely clarifies that the provisions relative to the register of prohibited trustees, to which we just referred, apply to occupational trust schemes.
Mr. Jim Cunningham (Coventry, South) (Lab): On a point of order, Mr. Griffiths. There is a gale blowing through the window. Will somebody do something about it?
The Chairman: I think that something is being done about it. I wondered why everybody had their coats on
Column Number: 130
at the back. I was feeling quite warm down this end.
Mr. Pond: Thank you, Mr. Griffiths. The cold winds of change are blowing through the Committee.
Subsection (2)(a) refers to a scheme, and subsections (b) and (c) to occupational trust schemes. The amendment brings all three in line so that all the references are to an ''occupational trust'' scheme.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Information relevant to the Board
Mr. Osborne: I beg to move amendment No. 193, in
The point of the amendment is to produce an element of proportionality. The clause is short but states:
''The Regulator may collect any information which appears to it to be relevant to the exercise of the functions of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.''
The whole point of the pension protection fund is to safeguard the interests of members. We want it to have the information that it needs to do that job. However, the clause introduces a wide-ranging power, which seems to be a bit of a theme. Although we will discuss powers to enter premises, we are currently discussing powers to request and collect information from people. When Governments of any political persuasion seek to take new powers on themselves, it is important for Opposition MPs to at least ask them to justify it. The amendment that I have tabled is commonsensical and I look forward to the Minister accepting it.
| 
