---

Malcolm Wicks: A rather whimsical reference was made to the absurd notion that the Bill as a whole is a work in progress, but my speech on this group of amendments—there are many of them, including Government amendments—is indeed a work in progress. It began as an extraordinarily long speech, but in view of the time and of the other debates that Members want to have, I am in something of a quandary as to how much detail to provide. I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) in particular will bear with me if I confine myself to some key points, given that we have to get through a certain amount of business by 7 o'clock. I thank him for his reasonableness.

Amendment No. 1 seeks to move primary responsibility for appointing members of the regulator from the Secretary of State to the chairman of the regulator; moreover, it would not allow members to be staff of the regulator as well. This raises some difficult accountability issues. In order to strike the right membership balance, it is important that the Secretary of State should have this role, but he must consult the chairman of the regulator in selecting its members. We rehearsed these arguments in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for Tatton accepts that that remains our position.

Amendment No. 2 provides that the regulator must have a member who is a

"representative of an occupational pension scheme subject to the pension protection levies".

That would impose an undesirable limitation on the flexibility provided in the Bill—a limitation designed to ensure that, instead of moving towards a more
 
18 May 2004 : Column 919
 
representative membership, appointments to the regulator are based purely on the skills and knowledge required, and on the relative merits of each candidate.

The new regulator will have a number of statutory objectives, which are contained in clause 5. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 seek to add to those objectives. We have nothing against the idea of those extra objectives, but in developing the new regulator's objectives we have been mindful of the criteria set out by the Better Regulation Task Force, which suggest that regulators should be proportionate, targeted, accountable, consistent and transparent in their approach. Providing further objectives does not add very much to what we are about. The Bill gives the regulator the flexibility required to operate a risk-focused approach to regulation; that will itself minimise the regulatory burden on the well-run schemes to which the Opposition amendments refer. I therefore consider amendment No. 5 unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Tatton to withdraw it.

Amendment No. 6 would oblige the regulator to work with the board of the pension protection fund to minimise the levy payable by occupational pension schemes. We want to minimise the levy, which has to be appropriate and in large part risk-based, so we are very mindful of the issues that have been raised.

Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that the information collected under the clause is proportionate to the benefits obtained from it. The clause already provides that information so collected must appear to the regulator to be relevant to the exercise of the functions of the PPF board, so I do not believe that the amendment is necessary.

As to the open access to information by members of the public, I should like to write to the hon. Member for Tatton. I said in Committee that it seemed a reasonable question, but on further exploration, we believe that opening up to the wider public could also open up certain risks that we are worried about—perhaps certain unscrupulous people looking at the health or ill health of certain schemes. We have concerns about that, but given the time restrictions, I would prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment, and I support the Government amendments.

Mr. Webb: I had not planned to intervene in this short debate and I would not have done so were it not for the fact that there are 32 Government amendments in the group. As far as I am aware—I was listening carefully—the Minister has not explained any of them.

David Cairns (Greenock and Inverclyde) (Lab): They are technical.

Mr. Webb: It may be, as the Parliamentary Private Secretary suggests, that they are all technical, but who knows? Clearly, the briefing material on other Government new clauses has also referred to technical amendments, but I presume that they were mainly grouped with those Government new clauses. I feel that asking the House to nod through 32 Government amendments is too much. I would be happy to give way if the Minister wanted to reassure me that, whether consequential or inconsequential, they are all
 
18 May 2004 : Column 920
 
completely technical amendments. It is wholly unsatisfactory to have 32 Government new clauses nodded through without the slightest explanation for the benefit of the House. I am still hoping that the Minister will put me right. [Interruption.] I can say no more. It is deeply regrettable that we have reached this position and I want to put that on the record.

Mr. Osborne: I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I was expecting the Minister, after dealing with my amendments, to turn to his own, but he obviously has nothing to say on the matter. Since he has not explained what they are for, we cannot really vote for or against them.

I have listened to what the Minister had to say about my amendments and we had similar debates in Committee. As I explained, it was our intention primarily to reduce the regulatory burden on pension schemes, and we believe that the Bill will add to, rather than diminish, that burden. We felt that it would be useful as a statutory objective to have a requirement to reduce the regulatory burdens on the industry or keep them to a minimum. However, we have been round the course before. I look forward to receiving the Donald Rumsfeld-like letter about the human rights of scheme members and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4

Regulator's functions

Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 181, in page 2, line 25, leave out from 'Act' to 'and' in line 26.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 182, in clause 9, page 4, line 36, leave out

'or in any corresponding provision in force in Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 183, in clause 48, page 33, line 41, leave out sub-paragraph (iii).

Amendment No. 184, in clause 48, page 34, line 12, leave out from '(c. 49)' to end of line 17.

Amendment No. 185, in clause 67, page 47, line 13, leave out

'or any corresponding provision in force in Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 186, in clause 67, page 47, line 43, leave out

'or any corresponding provision in force in Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 187, in clause 91, page 64, line 38, leave out

'or any provisions in force in Northern Ireland corresponding to this Act'.

Government amendments Nos. 97, 98, 119 and 121.

Amendment No. 189, in clause 177, page 119, line 35, leave out

'or any corresponding provision in force in Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 190, in clause 177, page 120, line 6, leave out

 
18 May 2004 : Column 921
 

'or any corresponding provision in force in Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 191, in clause 267, page 193, line 42, leave out paragraph (e).

Amendment No. 192, in clause 280, page 200, line 10, leave out lines 10 to 40.

Amendment No. 193, in clause 280, page 200, line 8, after 'England', insert 'Northern Ireland'.

Amendment No. 194, in clause 281, page 200, line 41, leave out Clause 281.

Amendment No. 195, in schedule 1, page 206, line 12, leave out

---