Clause 21
Pensions Bill
12:45 pm
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)?