---

Pension Protection Fund (Investigation by PPF Ombudsman of Complaints of Maladministration) Regulations 2005

Again, the Minister has explained the three orders in some detail. I confess that I have very few specific questions on them. However, we must consider occupational pension schemes against the background of what has been happening since the Government came into office. We all know about the Pensions Commission’s first report and Adair Turner’s chairmanship of the commission. We look forward to his second report. I have been away, but I have been trying to keep up with the news, especially on pensions. I get the impression from my reading that the commission’s second report will not provide a blueprint for action for the Government, but will put forward a series of options that will start a general debate on pensions, according to the Secretary of State. I thought that we had been having a general debate on pensions for something like the past two and a half years. I described a few minutes ago the attitude of the Government to pensions as lackadaisical, and I believe that to be so. That attitude is added to by the various actions that   the Government have been taking, not least the £5 billion of tax relief being removed from pension schemes. The Pensions Commission stated:"““HM Treasury believed that it could increase tax on pension fund investment return (through the dividend tax changes in 1997) without endangering the continuity of the system  . . . in retrospect the action both of Government  . . . and employers were predicated on assumptions about the sustainability of long term returns which were over optimistic””." The chairman of the Pensions Regulator, David   Norgrove, said that Gordon Brown’s decision to remove the dividend tax credit ““didn’t help either””. You can say that again. The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants stated:"““the withdrawal of the tax credit is, in our view, the most important single contributory factor to the problems that currently afflict schemes””." Given that, it is small wonder that the head of the National Association of Pension Funds, Christine Farnish, said that all final salary pension schemes in the private sector could close within five years. She added in an interview on the ““Today”” programme:"““The next big wave of change will be closure of these schemes to existing members””." I accept and appreciate that this is not a general pensions debate, although one is badly needed, so I shall turn to the orders. The first, concerning complaints of maladministration, refers to the ombudsman if there has been a complaint of that nature about which there has already been an investigation and decision by both the board and one of its committees. I can understand why the ombudsman is to determine the matter if the board run out of the legal time limit to determine the complaint. However, even with what the Minister said, I fail to understand why the ombudsman is to second guess the board. All the other orders are, to my mind, straightforward and proceed rationally, including provisions on the ombudsman’s powers and duties. For example, I am sure that it is right that his decisions should not be time-limited. I assume that the amendment order corrects a mistake. Indeed, the Minister said something about that. I think that he said that in the making of the original order, it was realised that it was about to be wrong, or words to that effect. Why was the original order not delayed slightly, in order to correct it? The third order again gives the ombudsman the power to second guess the reconsideration committee. Why should any person who is sent or required to be sent a copy of the reconsideration decision have the right of appeal, given that the matter has already been considered by the board and reconsidered by the appropriate committee? I would also be grateful, as a non-lawyer, if the Minister would expand a little on Regulation 7(4), which provides that no person can be compelled to give evidence or to produce any document that he could not be compelled to give under civil proceedings before a court. I understand that this is under tribunal rules, but it would nonetheless be helpful if the Minister could explain what sort of papers are in question. As I said, this would all mean something to lawyers, but not to an aggrieved pensioner, and the order is about aggrieved pensioners.