---

Pensions Bill

My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I was coming to. There is an argument that because personal accounts are an ultra-cheap, ultra-simple alternative, they will not compete with existing occupational schemes because they are designed in a different way and they do not provide the additional flexibility and levels of outcome that occupational schemes provide. However, that assumption has not, to my knowledge, been tested anywhere. As my hon. Friend points out by using the airline analogy, it is possible that there will be a knock-on effect, as budget airlines had on full service airlines. My concern, and the point to which I would like the Minister to respond, is this: are we trusting to luck and hoping that the difference in design will do the trick, or do we have concrete evidence to guarantee that it will do the trick? If it does not, and we do not have that concrete evidence, trusting to the differences in design will not be enough to ensure that there is no levelling down. We will need more. If that is not new clause 6 and its associated amendments, then what is it? We must have solid guarantees or solid evidence that the differences in design will make a material difference. I hope the Minister will be able to offer us those assurances.