Clause 18
Pensions Bill
3:00 pm
Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Eastbourne, Conservative)
I see that. I do not suggest that this is the beginning of some slippery slope to a police state, any more than we have one at the moment but without the police, but there is a genuine issue here. I hope that whoever runs this body will have the good sense to meet regularly with us. If consensus is to mean anything, it needs to be a continuing process. I regard the position on freedom of information as being counter consensual in that sense.
I hope that we can get round that by having regular meetings with this bod or bods who will tell us their troubles. We do not want to sweep into office in two or three years’ time to find that they have been advising Ministers that this whole thing is doomed to fail miserably. We will keep coming to the seminars, because we are sad people with nothing else to do, but also because they can be quite interesting. But I urge the Minister to reconsider that point.
I am grateful for the Minister’s openness on the appointment procedures. I am delighted to hear that he has Egon Zehnder on the case. I shall be interested to see what comes from his discussions with that firm. I assume that the usual rules about political affiliation will be observed. I was grateful for his confirmation that the appointment can be made only after Royal Assent. I suppose that any money can be spent only then too. I hope that Egon Zehnder is aware of that.
There is a serious point about marketing experience. David Norgrove or Laurence Churchill are both excellent and incredibly able and competent men, but a different animal is needed here. I am not suggesting PY Gerbeau, but we are looking for someone with a bit of pizzazz and salesmanship and a marketing strength which is not required in something like the Pension Protection Fund, which in effect has a captive audience. That is the point that I was trying to make, if I can put it in a nutshell.
I think that I am happy with the Minister’s assurances about consumer representation. He clearly stated that the Government were also grateful for the input from Which? and others. As I said in my opening remarks, I can understand the argument that we should not necessarily state in the Bill precisely who should be taken on. The Minister reassured me enough that I shall not press the amendments. I accept that the wealth and variety of experience referred to in the amendments, as well as consumers’ views, will be taken into account. That is a win for our point of view.
I mentioned earlier the £21 million which, according to the RIA, has been budgeted for the delivery authority between now and the next Bill. I should have done so earlier, but let me say that I shall be immensely grateful if the Minister will write to us with a breakdown of how that figure was reached.
I was satisfied by what the Minister had to say on conflict of interest—he confirmed what he had had in mind. However, as he says, the great bulk of such potential cases would be based on a financial conflict of interest.
I am happy not to pursue any of the amendments tabled in my name; of course, I cannot speak for the Liberal Democrats. However, I would like to vote at the appropriate moment on new clause 5.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.