In an expanding regulatory state, with its own rules for each quango, civil liberties are drowned out by unaccountable civil servants exercising draconian powers, without checks and balances. Such would be the story that the Pensions Regulator faces: since the entity has, on the face of it, threatened a journalist with imprisonment and demand that she give up her sources:
A spokesman for the regulator said: "We take an open and transparent approach, but in certain instances information is protected in law to protect the confidentiality of those who we regulate, and avoid jeopardising investigations.
"We made it clear to the magazine, prior to its publication, that the information they had obtained related to an ongoing investigation and we considered it to be restricted. After publication we wrote to the editor requesting further information, and sought to prevent further breaches."
Their letter appears to have as required:
Ken Young, the regulator's head of communications, also wrote to the
publication's editor-in-chief, saying: "Breach of these provisions [in
the Pensions Act] is a criminal offence. It is for this reason that we
take such a serious view of your story.
"We are now considering whether there has been any potential breach of
the restricted information provisions and what (if any) action to take."
Therefore, the article revolves around a young journalist who alleges that she was contacted by someone within the Pensions Regulator, who demanded that she hand over her source pertaining to information on their actions. Without knowing any further details, it is difficult to view this as arbitrary, gven the follow-up on their powers.
The Pensions Regulator has overarching powers that allow some civil servants to act extralegally: always a danger, when quangos become too powerful. Yet, this should be viewed as the individual against the state, and not just a defence of the fourth estate: we need a proper defence of freedom to expression, one that cannot be curbed every time a quango gets uppity.