---

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

I am not in a position to respond to the noble Lord here about the actual amounts, nor do I know whether the information is held in a form in which I could give it to him. However, I will examine the matter and see whether I can find some further information. The noble Lord raised a point about hearings in private. I agree with him and hope that it will be rare, but there might, for instance, be a discussion about someone’s ill health, and it would be appropriate for it to be discussed behind closed doors. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, asked me about the appointment of the ombudsman. I can confirm that the Pensions Ombudsman has been appointed as the PPF Ombudsman. That does not have to take place; the offices can be separate. However, it makes sense, certainly in the first instance, for the same person to be appointed. As regards resources, discussions are continuing between my department and the ombudsman, and we will want to make sure that the ombudsman is able to carry out his responsibilities in an efficient and cost-effective way. We anticipate that costs relating to the ombudsman will be relatively low. It may be of interest to the Committee that the expenditure by the Pensions Ombudsman was less than £1.8 million in 2004–05. That covered disputes for the vast majority of occupational and personal pension schemes. I hope that I have responded to most of the questions raised by noble Lords. I commend the orders to the Committee. On Question, Motion agreed to.