---

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

This is probably not the time or place and I suggest that is certainly not the day for a general debate about pensions. I have one general question about the operation of the Pension Protection Fund, given that the noble Lord spoke in his introduction about how it was operating before we got on to the details of these orders. The Minister may not be briefed now, so I would be more than happy if he writes to me, but on experience so far, how does the volume of problem cases appearing since the PPF started compare with the expectations and planning that went on his department when the PPF was set up? Can we have a progress report on how it is coming out? That would be of great interest to the pensions industry and to the House. Turning to the details of these orders, we broadly support the principle of the ombudsman and how he operates, as we did during the progress of the Bill. I have some specific questions. David Laverick, the Pensions Ombudsman, was quoted quite extensively in Pensions Week last week about whether he would be taking on the roles of PPF ombudsman and of financial assistance scheme ombudsman. He said that he had serious concerns over the lack of resources, if he were to take on that role in addition to his position as the PPF Ombudsman. He said:"““If I were to undertake such work I would need additional staff and they in turn would need to be accommodated””." The DWP was quoted as saying that the Government were in negotiations with him about that additional role. It said that it would take that into consideration in making a final decision. Obviously the Committee would be very interested to know where that discussion has got to. Can the Minister tell us how that is developing? As far as the details of the orders are concerned, I think the Minister will forgive me if I say that there is a certain element of reading into the record. I do not criticise him for that, but in what circumstances do we envisage that the ombudsman will hold hearings in private? Can I invite the noble Lord to stand back a little bit from his brief? I have heard him several times saying something about serious adverse consequences, but what situations are involved in layman’s terms? How could it arise that a hearing would be held in   private? In particular, if complainants ask that hearings should be held in public, it seems to me that there should be a considerable presumption in favour of justice being seen to be done publicly. Under what conditions will the wishes of the participants in that situation be overruled?