Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 77B: 77B: Before Clause 123, insert the following new Clause— ““Disclosure in the public interest In section 87 of the Pensions Act 2004 (c. 35) (other permitted disclosures), insert at the end of subsection (2)— ““(i) if, and to the extent that, having regard to the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of any person, the disclosure is necessary in the public interest.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a slightly strange amendment for the Bill. Over the summer, my eye was caught by an article that appeared in Professional Pensions headed: "““TPR removes authority for 29 schemes from GP Noble””." The article stated that the schemes were under the control of Nottingham-based GP Noble, but are now under the trusteeship of Independent Trustee Services. Official Pensions Regulator documents confirm this fact. A spokeswoman for the regulator quite rightly declined to comment on individual cases, as this is restricted information under the Pensions Act 2004. That is a correct interpretation of Section 82 of the Act, which makes it quite clear that restricted information must not be disclosed, "““by the Regulator, or … by any person who receives the information directly or indirectly from the Regulator””." However, although disclosures are allowed under Sections 84 to 87, nowhere, as far as I can see, does the Act say that, if the press discovers that the regulator is working on a case or has decided to pursue a particular course of action, that information is restricted. The regulator took exception to the article to which I referred and threatened to take the journalist who wrote it to court, which could have resulted at best in a fine up to the statutory maximum or at worst in a fine plus imprisonment for up to two years under Section 82(5). Furthermore, he ordered her to reveal the sources of her story, something that journalists never do and are frequently protected in law against, not least in Section 59 of the Data Protection Act, from which the amendment is copied. Through its lawyers, Professional Pensions contested this rather high-handed approach by the regulator, saying that the article did not contain, "““any information obtained by the Regulator in the exercise of its functions which relates to the business or other affairs of any person””." That is identical to the words found in Section 82(4) of the 2004 Act. As far as I know, the regulator then calmed down, although I have no knowledge about whether he intends to pursue the case. I hope that the Minister will tell us that he has backed down completely. I contend that, had the Pensions Act been clearer in what it would and would not allow, this spat between the publication and the regulator, which no doubt cost Professional Pensions and maybe the journalist concerned a considerable sum of money, would never have happened. I believe that the press should be able to publish information that it discovers as long as the information does not come from the regulator’s office. This amendment seeks to achieve that. I beg to move.