Clause 47 - Inspection of premises
Pensions Bill
3:30 pm

Photo of Mr George Osborne

Mr George Osborne (Tatton, Conservative)

We come now to the range of powers that the regulator will have to enter premises, get warrants and so on. I repeat what I said earlier that Parliament should rightly be concerned when Governments take upon themselves new powers to enter private property and compel individuals.

Just as those of us who have studied history know that debates about excise men created great interest in the 18th century, so debates about the powers of the pension regulator create great interest in today's society. Amendments Nos. 204 and 205, which relate to two different clauses but would achieve the same thing, put a bit of a check on the regulator. They state:

''Where such an inspection''

in the terms of these clauses

''is carried out . . . and no further action is taken by the Regulator following such inspection, the owners or occupiers of the relevant premises are entitled to claim from the Regulator the reasonable costs of such inspection.''

That is a reasonable duty to place on the regulator. The arrival of the inspectors, and their poring over files, could seriously disrupt the employer's business for a number of days. It is reasonable that the regulator should reimburse at least some of the costs incurred by the company if it turns out that there was

nothing for them to have covered up. That is also a useful check on the regulator; if it needs to inspect someone's property it should double-check and say, ''Hold on, are we absolutely sure that we need to do this?'' Over time we have put more restrictions on the ability of the police to inspect property. This is a small check on the regulator's powers.

Annotations

No annotations

Sign in or join to post a public annotation.