| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 218:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 179 [Calculation, collection and recovery of levies]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 219 to 221:
Page 135, line 9, leave out "a financial year" and insert "the period for which the levy is imposed"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 187 [Fraud compensation levy]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 222:
"(6A) The Board must in respect of any fraud compensation levy imposed under this section—
(a) determine the schemes in respect of which it is imposed,
(b) calculate the amount of the levy in respect of each of those schemes, and
(c) notify any person liable to pay the levy in respect of the scheme of the amount of the levy in respect of the scheme and the date or dates on which it becomes payable.
(6B) The Board may require the Regulator to discharge, on the Board's behalf, its functions under subsection (6A) in respect of the levy."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 188 [Information to be provided to the Board etc]:
[Amendment No. 223 not moved.]
Clause 189 [Notices requiring provision of information]:
[Amendment No. 224 not moved.]
Clause 190 [Entry of premises]:
[Amendment No. 225 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 226:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 227 not moved.]
4 Nov 2004 : Column 507
Clause 195 [Restricted information]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 228 to 230:
"(1A) Subsection (1) is subject to—
(a) subsection (1B), and
(b) sections 196 to 201 and 233.
(1B) Subject to section 200(4), restricted information may be disclosed"
Page 148, line 18, after "of" insert "subsections (1) and (1B) and"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 199 [Other permitted disclosures]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 231:
Page 149, line 40, at end insert "or of the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3150 (N.I. 4)),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 151, line 11, leave out from "Sections" to "except" in line 12 and insert "195(1B), 196 to 199, 201 and 233 do not apply to tax information which is disclosed to the Board as mentioned in subsection (3), and such information may not be disclosed by the Board or any person who receives the information directly or indirectly from the Board"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Reviewable matters]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 233:
"29 Any determination by the Board under section 187(6A)(a) (occupational pension schemes in respect of which any fraud compensation levy is imposed) or the failure to make such a determination.
30 The amount of any fraud compensation levy payable in respect of an occupational pension scheme determined by the Board under section 187(6A)(b)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 214 [Publishing reports etc]:
Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 161, line 36, leave out "absolutely privileged" and insert "privileged unless the publication is shown to be made with malice"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, moving on to a different subject altogether, the purpose of this amendment is to establish why the PPF ombudsman should have a right of absolute privilege and to suggest that he should not. The clause provides that for defamation purposes any matter published by the PPF ombudsman shall be "absolutely privileged". Elsewhere in the Bill, in Clauses 87 and 203, privileges are conferred on the regulator and the board of the PPF respectively, but those privileges are not absolute but qualified.
It is not immediately obvious why those other bodies should have qualified privilege when the PPF ombudsman has absolute privilege, and I await the
4 Nov 2004 : Column 508
Minister's explanation for that. Absolute privilege is very wide-ranging and places an emphasis on freedom of speech above any person's right to an action for defamation. We believe that absolute privilege for the PPF ombudsman goes too far and that the balance between freedom of speech for the ombudsman and the protection of the reputation of those mentioned in his or her response is wrong.
We agree that the ombudsman should be able to express his or her views freely, but we cannot see why he or she should be able to publish defamatory statements that are motivated by malice. We do not believe that it is necessary or desirable to grant an absolute privilege to the ombudsman to achieve the object of enabling him to do his work. Therefore, in this amendment we suggest that the clause be amended to delete the absolute privilege and insert a qualified privilege—that is, a privilege for publication unless the statement is shown to have been made with malice. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it may be helpful if I explain the intention behind Clause 214, which provides for any matter published by the PPF ombudsman to be absolutely privileged for the purposes of defamation. This includes reviewable matters or maladministration and extends to the ombudsman's annual report.
The noble Baroness asked why we had chosen those words, rather than more qualified words. The provision is broadly equivalent to the one in place for the Pensions Ombudsman now, under Section 151 of the 1993 Act. We are doing nothing particularly new here but are broadly rolling over an existing provision. I accept that this provision is slightly different from the provisions for the Pensions Regulator and the PPF board under Clauses 87 and 203, where we have said that any publication is privileged unless the publication is shown to be made with malice. That is because those bodies—particularly the board—are not quasi-judiciary, whereas the ombudsman is.
Clause 214 began its life as an opposition amendment, Amendment No. 535, in the other place. When the amendment was tabled by the Opposition, it proposed "absolute privilege". The Government took the Opposition's concerns on board and came up with this amendment. I believe that the remarks of Peter Carter-Ruck have already been read into the record.
With the explanations that the amendment originated from the Opposition in the other place, that we believe that the ombudsman is different from the PPF board and the regulator because he has a quasi-judicial function and that the provision is, broadly, a rollover from the provision in the 1993 Act, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |