Schedule 1 - The Pensions Regulator
Pensions Bill
2:30 pm
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I beg to move amendment No. 122, in
schedule 1, page 173, line 27, leave out subparagraph (1).
The amendment makes such obvious good sense that I hardly need to speak in its favour. However, as I tabled more than 500 amendments to a previous Bill and only one was eventually accepted by the Minister, perhaps the odds are against me today. The amendment would remove paragraph 35(1) of the schedule, which is obviously a blanket exclusion provision. It makes it clear that neither the regulator nor any person who works for the regulator can be held liable for damages caused to a third party
''in the exercise or purported exercise of the functions''
under the Bill. ''Purported'' is a wonderful lawyer's word. I am sure that that goes down well with the Treasury, but there is ample scope, even by inadvertence, for massive damage to be caused to third parties by the provision.
I shall cite one example. I refer to page 3 of the fact sheet, which the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) did not have to go the trouble of printing out, although some of us did print out the regulatory impact assessment. It states:
''The Pensions Regulator will only share information with other bodies where it is permitted to do so by legislation.''
It is true that provisions in the Bill to which we shall refer in more detail at an appropriate time set out with some clarity the circumstances in which information on, say, particular registers can be disclosed to other people and when it cannot be disclosed. The notes that the Minister helpfully provided state boldly:
''Disclosure of restricted information is an offence.''
That is also true. It is set out in the Bill. No matter how well run the regulator is, there will always be the possibility of errors
''in the exercise or purported exercise of the functions of the Regulator''.
We can envisage situations in which people suffer considerable harm because the information has reached the public domain or people who would not usually be entitled to receive it. I am pressing the Minister to explain the reasoning behind such a blanket exclusion. Does he not accept the principle that, when the regulator makes a mistake—honest or otherwise—and damages are caused to a person, which in our legal system must be proved, there should be some recourse?