Professor Steve Webb (Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Work & Pensions; Northavon, Liberal Democrat)

I have a brief observation and question on the supplementary powers of the regulator under clause 6. One of the biggest failings of OPRA, which may not have been its fault—it might only have been to do with its remit—was the lack of reliable information about pension schemes. When we consult the pensions scheme registry, which came under OPRA's remit, the information was always way out of date and incomplete. We will deal later with how many people have lost out, how much they have lost and how we will deal with them, but that issue has been bedevilled throughout by the fact that nobody knows how many people are affected, what they have lost, or how many of them have had their schemes wound up or underfunded.

I am seeking some assurance from the Minister about something that is not explicit in clauses 5 or 6. Although on one hand we are saying, ''You shouldn't overdo the regulation and put too much burden on the schemes,'' the pendulum could swing too far if we are not careful. Does he not accept that the regulator must ensure that there is reliable information, particularly on schemes winding up, underfunding and people who have been affected by such events? Presumably, there will have to be reliable information to feed into the pension protection fund. There has been a dearth of reliable information on such matters, and policy making has suffered as a result. Can the Minister assure us that, either specifically in the Bill or through guidance from the Secretary of State, the regulator will be required to ensure that there is damned good information about occupational pensions? Sadly, that has been all too lacking so far.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

I was not sure whether the Minister was going to commend clause 6, pithy and short though it is. Evidently, he is not.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I shall, at some stage.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Well, let me get my retaliation in first.

I am rather intrigued that, unlike the PPF, which will be allowed to borrow money—that raises a host of implications that we will deal with later in the Bill—the regulator will not be allowed to borrow. What is the reasoning behind that distinction? The Minister may be able to point me to a precedent. Perhaps, even more embarrassingly, it will be a Conservative precedent, but this is an amazingly open extension of powers. We go to all this trouble to examine the powers and functions line by line, and then, blow me, we find that under clause 6, the regulator can apparently do almost anything he wants, over and above those powers and functions.

Mr Chris Pond (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions; Gravesham, Labour)

Tory precedent.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Well, there you go; I walked right into that. However, in the interests of the democratic system, it would be good to know what the reasoning behind those provisions is.

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

I am eager to justify clause 6, although it is not particularly exciting, whereas all the other clauses are. It suggests rather more for itself by way of supplementary powers than is the reality.

First, I will deal with the question posed by the hon. Member for Northavon. I hope that the brief answer is yes, but the more detailed responses and questions will no doubt come when we consider clauses 34 to 40. Those include provisions on registrable information and the powers of inspection. I take the point that in the past we have not been able to gather the necessary information, and we need the database and the intelligence. We seek to obtain them.

Clause 6, on supplementary powers, may appear to be rather wide and potentially overwhelming. However, let me explain which powers the clause confers on the regulator. First, any use of that provision is automatically limited by reference to the regulator's functions. Secondly, and rather more plainly, it enables the regulator, for example, to lease office space, print publications and purchase stationary. In other words, it enables it to do all those ancillary and administrative functions that support the organisation in its regulatory duties. I hope that hon. Members are reassured by that.

Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)

Is the Minister's understanding and advice that if someone were aggrieved by an action of the regulator that appeared to be outside the powers in the Act, there would be no basis on which the clause could later be used as a shield against any complaint by such a third party?

Mr Malcolm Wicks (Minister for pensions, Department for Work and Pensions; Croydon North, Labour)

No, this is more about post-it notes than the wider power. The hon. Gentleman must have known that this was coming—and he will learn his lesson—but that provision replicates paragraph 2 of schedule 1 to the Pensions Act 1995, which was passed in those dark days. It has operated successfully for OPRA's lifetime, and ask the Committee to allow clause 6 to stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.