Clause 62 - Disclosure of information by the Inland Revenue
Pensions Bill
9:45 am
Mr Nigel Waterson (Eastbourne, Conservative)
I am not declaring an interest in this instance—not so far, anyway. We should not pass this sort of provision on the nod, because the principle is important. I am open to all the arguments about tracking down fraudsters and detecting benefit claimants' unjustified claims, but we have to be careful whenever we allow such pooling of information.
The clause refers to information moving in one direction, from the Inland Revenue to the regulator. I am not sure where the equivalent provision is for information going from the regulator or the PPF to the Inland Revenue—no doubt the Under-Secretary will able to point that out if it is in the Bill; we may have just passed it. I am sure that there is a two-way street.
Can the Under-Secretary tell the Committee what the limits are, in regulation or primary legislation, on the Inland Revenue giving this sort of information to the regulator? I am not suggesting that the new improved regulator should not receive information that is crucial to the issues that it will be tackling, but I assume that Inland Revenue legislation quite properly restricts the nature of the information that the revenue can pass to outside bodies such as the regulator. That is my sole concern.