Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 4—Winding up of Personal Accounts Delivery Authority—

‘The Authority shall be wound up as soon as the chairman has certified that the Authority has completed the task of setting up the structure for administering personal accounts, and in any event no later than April 2012, and the criteria for such certification shall be specified in regulations.’.

Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I wish to raise a specific matter on new clause 4, and some interesting issues arise from the mere existence of clause 21. I shall turn to them in a moment.

New clause 4 is, in a sense, the stake through heart of the delivery authority. It may be overkill, which I am sure is what the Minister will say. It is intended to ensure that there will be a moment when the delivery authority stops and the board starts. I have made the point in other contexts that we want to be sure that the delivery authority will not slowly morph into the personal accounts board. The two bodies must tackle distinct issues, different skill sets are needed and they will have completely different roles. One will produce advice and consider the whole design of the scheme and how it will be set up, and the other will be in the business of running it capably and efficiently and meeting the criteria that will presumably be stamped in the next Bill. That was what we wished to deal with in amendment No. 21.

This is to make it absolutely clear that the delivery authority will be wound up as soon as its task has been performed, and no later than April 2012 in any event. Prior to that, the chairman can certify that it has completed its task and its role is at an end. That was in new clause 4.

Clause 21 is interesting in that it is based on meeting the condition in subsection (3), which is that

“as a result of the abandonment or modification of any relevant proposals about personal accounts, it appears to the Secretary of State that it is no longer necessary for the Authority to continue to exist.”

That has the feel of some serious cold feet on the part of the Department. To go to such lengths in a long clause to ensure that the concept of personal accounts can be abandoned at some point in the future—[Interruption.] It is a very important clause. I am keen to draw out from the Minister why the Government are being so ultra-cautious.

To push the issue of consensus drivers back to the Minister, it is important that we should all try to present an image of confidence and enthusiasm about the future of personal accounts if we are to engagethe target audience—or even the vast majority of the population, as the Government now seem to be doing—in them. What have they in mind in using the words abandonment or modification? It would have to be a pretty significant modification to require the winding up of the delivery authority. Do they intend that it should be taken over by some other body? Is it another example of the Treasury’s final control over whether this goes ahead? There have been rumours for some time that the current Chancellor is less than enthusiastic about personal accounts and might take a different line as and when he becomes Prime Minister. I do not expect the Minister to comment on that, but it is  important that he tell the Committee what the concerns are. Which issues created the lack of confidence that produced subsection (3)?

James Purnell (Minister of State (Pensions Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; Stalybridge & Hyde, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman really does not need to worry. The subsection is there only out of respect for the Opposition, in that they might not support the personal accounts Bill that we are hoping to introduce. If that Bill did not command the support of Parliament, we would need to wind up the delivery authority, so this represents prudence. We are not taking Parliament for granted—which, as he knows, we do not like to do—but are including the measure so that we will not have to legislate again in order to get rid of the delivery authority.

I do not know whether that gives the hon. Gentleman sufficient reassurance. He also made a more general point about the phasing of the delivery authority. He and I might have slightly different views about how the process will work, so let me set out how we see it. The first of the three stages will be the advisory delivery authority, the second will be for it to have the power of executive authority over certain matters to be described and decided in the next Bill, and then we will go over to the personal accounts board. As we said in the White Paper, we do not plan to wind up the delivery authority until its job is done. There might be some overlap between the authority and the personal accounts board. It would be sensible to expect a large degree of continuity between the delivery authority and the personal accounts board. That does not mean that everybody who works for the authority would work for the board, as different skills might be needed, but we are keen to maintain the expertise of the authority during the transition to the board. That might give it a good incentive to provide us with advice.

Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I can see the argument for some overlap. After the previous legislation, however, I remember that people who worked for the old pensions regulator and moved to the new regulator found that a different culture had been introduced through the 2004 Act. Does the Minister envisage that employees of the new authority will be TUPE’d across to the board? In the instance to which I just referred, there were concerns about people who had worked for the old regulator having an approach that was different from what was needed for the new, more aggressive regulator.

James Purnell (Minister of State (Pensions Reform), Department for Work and Pensions; Stalybridge & Hyde, Labour)

I think that that issue will be addressed on a case-by-case basis, but there should be some continuity between the authority and the board. We will have plenty of opportunity to debate the arrangement as part of the next Bill that we hope for.

I hope that I have set out the three stages that we expect. It is important that the Secretary of State should wind up the authority, rather than the chairman having the power to wind it up, as we are not sure that that would be the right approach. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the comfort that he needs on that amendment.

Nigel Waterson (Shadow Minister, Work & Pensions; Eastbourne, Conservative)

I am comforted by that.