---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 38: 38: After Clause 41, insert the following new Clause— ““Guidance on the appropriate level of a penalty (1) The Regulator must prepare and publish guidance as to the appropriate amount of any penalty under sections 39 and 40. (2) The Regulator may at any time alter the guidance. (3) If the guidance is altered, the Regulator must publish it as altered. (4) No guidance is to be published under this section without the approval of the Secretary of State. (5) The Regulator may, after consulting the Secretary of State, choose how he publishes his guidance. (6) If the Regulator is preparing or altering guidance under this section, he must consult such persons as he considers appropriate. (7) When setting the amount of a penalty under sections 39 and 40, the Regulator must have regard to the guidance for the time being in force under this section.”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that when considering making penalties appropriate for the size of the relevant firm, as the Minister just mentioned, he will also consider issuing guidance on the appropriate level of a penalty. It is only right that firms should know what they may be in for should they disobey pensions law. This amendment is a last-ditch attempt to put one of the safeguards in the Bill that the Minister promised would apply. The proposed new clause is based on the Competition Act 1998, which explains its rather lengthy drafting. In Committee, the noble Lord prayed in aid the Macrory review to justify the penalty regime the Bill sets up. One of the recommendations of that review, which the Government claim to have implemented in full, was transparent enforcement. The advantage of such transparency is clear: better information about penalties will lead to better compliance. Therefore, I cannot see any objection that the noble Lord might have to the principle behind my amendment or, indeed, the amendment itself. What possible situation could justify withholding guidelines on the penalty regime from employers, or what could excuse arbitrary deviation from such guidelines? Since my previous group of amendments failed to win the Government’s total approval, I hope that they will accept this one as a palliative measure. With such flexibility and the potential for such enormous penalties built into the Bill, clear and binding guidance is critical. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.