Pensions Bill

When we discussed the regulator’s powers in Committee I made a commitment to consider what more could be put in the Bill. This undertaking has been met, but it is necessary to have some residual regulation-making powers, which the noble Lord’s amendment would remove. These regulation-making powers are proposed so that the Government can adapt legislation to new risks and review in the light of operational experience. However, the Government do not intend to use the power to reframe the statutory defence. These are residual powers taken to deal with unforeseen circumstances. This is an important safeguard in a fast-evolving market. Business is also served as the Government would be able to amend the factors or the defence if they had unforeseen effects, and to protect PPF levy payers from risks . The regulator will act within the boundaries set out in the Bill. Should these be found to be inappropriate at a later time, or to not cover all risks, the regulator must follow due process to change them by affirmative procedure. The significant refinements we have developed in consultation with some key representative stakeholder over the summer fully explored the proposed legislation including these powers, and the balance was considered to be right. I understand the noble Lord’s concern in our earlier discussions about retrospection and whether clearance statements could be overturned as a result of these amendments. Perhaps I can reassure him on the following points. Should any changes be made as a result of the powers, they would not have retrospective effect; no act that occurred before any changes came into force would be considered under the changes; no clearance application would be reopened as a result of the changes to the legislation. I hope that those specific assurances will satisfy the noble Lord.