Pensions Bill

My Lords, the noble Baroness seeks clarification that the regulator will consider the guidance available to a party at the time of an act if considering a contribution notice on grounds of material detriment in respect of that act. I agree that the parties should have certainty that changes to the regulator’s guidance that take effect after a party has taken a particular decision cannot be considered by the regulator if it examines that decision. The regulator is already bound by public law obligations to have regard to all relevant considerations when determining whether or not to issue a contribution notice on grounds of material detriment. This would include any guidance that was in effect at the time and would not include any guidance that was not in effect at the time. I hope that, in a roundabout way, this addresses the point that the noble Baroness is stressing. The proposition is that someone looked at the guidance at the time and decided that they did not need to apply for clearance because they were safe in the terms of that guidance. I should have thought that that provided the protections that the employer or person would need. Again, I should like to think a little more about that to ensure that the specific point raised by the noble Baroness is covered. I understand the import of it. If somebody has refrained from going for a clearance that would have been available to them relying on the guidance, I am then trying to see the circumstances in which that could give rise to a contribution notice, given the filters that are there, including references in the amendment to ““have regard to”” and reasonableness. I should have thought that that would offer the appropriate protection. If the noble Baroness will permit me, I will reflect again on that because these are intricate questions and I do not want to mislead as I know people are relying on what we are placing on the record.