It may be helpful if I mention my concerns first, and the Under-Secretary then helps me, rather than doing things the other way round.
I am rather bemused by clause 59. I do not know whether it is just an example of sloppy drafting, but it is bizarre. Some tight rules are, quite properly, set out on the disclosure of information. We talked in previous debates about how important it is to have rules governing that. Opposition Members even tried to introduce amendments about the consequences, such as compensation or damages, if information were disclosed improperly or inappropriately. However, having gone to all that trouble, I find it odd that the clause seems to drive a coach and horses through the rest of this part of the Bill.
The clause says that despite section 56—currently clause 56, which we debated last week and which is fairly clear—restricted information can still be disclosed
''for the purpose of enabling or assisting the Board of the Pension Protection Fund to exercise its functions.''
Perhaps we will get an echo of that when we come to the clauses dealing with the PPF. However, on what basis can it decide to disclose information that would not normally be other than restricted? If it is to have that power, should it not be set out in some detail in this part of the Bill? Is not this an attempt by a draftsman to leave a large opening to allow the previous clauses, particularly clause 56, to be trampled over in a relevant case? I am rather puzzled about the purpose of the clause, and I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's help.