Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 210, in

clause 52, page 34, line 44, at end insert

'unless there is a prior successful application to a justice of the peace to have the warrant revoked.'.

This is a probing amendment about the use of warrants that the regulator might obtain. It would amend subsection (5), which says:

''A warrant under this section continues in force until the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is issued''

by stating the obvious, and merely adding:

''unless there is a prior successful application to a justice of the peace to have the warrant revoked.''

I assume that that is the case anyway, but I want to check with the Government.

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

The amendment seeks to make specific provision that the warrant issued by the justice of the peace could be revoked beyond the period conceived as appropriate. It is undesirable, for the reasons that I shall give once I have explained the overall effects of clause 52.

The clause replicates the powers in section 100 of the Pensions Act 1995, which allow the regulator to apply to the court for a warrant to be issued. The warrant enables an inspector to enter premises, with force if necessary, and search for and take copies of documents. Before issuing a warrant, a justice of the peace will have to be satisfied by the regulator that either there is a document on the premises that was requested by the regulator under clauses 46 and 49 and it has not been produced as required, or, if it were requested, it would not be produced or would be destroyed.

The regulator may also request a warrant when a criminal offence, such as theft, is suspected, or the power can be used to enforce compliance when a request for information has failed, or to prevent the documents from being altered or destroyed.

Enabling inspectors to search premises, and enabling the regulator to apply for a warrant to search for and copy documents—forcibly, if necessary—is vital. It ensures compliance with the power to request information, which otherwise schemes could wilfully ignore, depriving the regulator of the full picture of the scheme. That could mean that regulatory action that might need to be taken would not be taken, and members' benefits would be put at risk. Without the power to search forcibly for documents and copy them, which a warrant provides, vital evidence could be destroyed, altered or moved. That could deny the regulator vital proof of wrongdoing that could be used as justification of regulatory action or used in a court case as evidence, thus putting members' benefits at risk. It is unacceptable if regulatory action cannot be taken or for criminal behaviour to go unpunished.

However, the regulator will apply for a warrant only in the most severe of cases, where there is evidence to suggest that there is a considerable risk of documents being altered or destroyed. It is recognised that in the vast majority of cases, schemes will send the regulator the information requested. That means that the power will be used sparingly. Hon. Members might wish to note that OPRA applies for an average of only five warrants a year. None of its applications for a warrant has been refused.

I hope that it is apparent why the amendment is undesirable. The first that a person would know about a warrant being issued in respect of their premises would be when the regulator's inspector came knocking at the door with the warrant in hand. If that person had the power to apply for the revocation that the amendment would provide, he could reasonably refuse entry on the basis that he had reason to appeal the warrant. That would present the person with the opportunity—after the inspector had

been sent away—to destroy or remove the documents that the regulator sought. The amendment would make the power conferred by the warrant futile. I hope that with that understanding, the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

I did not want to render the whole clause futile, as the Under-Secretary alleged. Better drafting might have made it clear that some time might elapse in the process. For example, if the warrant had not been exercised for a couple of weeks but was hanging over the individual, they could apply for it to be revoked. However, I take the Under-Secretary's point about the use of warrants. It has been useful to have him set that out on the record, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.