---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 110B: 110B: Clause 58, page 29, line 33, at end insert— ““(1A) A scheme must be established and capable of operation not later than 1st April 2012. (1B) If the Secretary of State believes that he will be unable to comply with subsection (1A) he must lay a report before Parliament setting out— (a) the reasons for the delay, (b) the date on which he expects the scheme to be established and capable of operation, and (c) what arrangements he intends to make to promote pensions saving prior to that date.”” The noble Baroness said: The Minister will be relieved to know that, for today, this is a probing amendment. The amendment would insert two new subsections into Clause 58, and it is designed to tease out the timing of the introduction of personal accounts. An amendment addressing timing was tabled by my honourable friends in another place following a less than confident interview given by the chief executive of the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority—PADA—in which he said about the achievability of 2012: "““The honest answer is that I don’t know””." Doubtless, the DWP has by now told him that honesty is not what he is paid for. That interview was around six months ago. It appears from statements made on the Bill in another place by the Minister’s right honourable friend Mr O’Brien that, since then, the chief executive, Mr Tim Jones, has prepared a report on implementation. Mr O’Brien said: "““He now has a credible set of plans that are consistent with starting to deliver the scheme from 2012””.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/08; col. 1205.]" At that stage the Minister refused to release Mr Jones’s report, although about a month later 10 pages of double-spaced waffle were placed in the House of Commons Library. I do not know whether that was meant to reassure Parliament but it gave little meaningful information and no reassurance whatsoever. The Minister in another place was particularly interesting on what 2012 actually meant. Most people had assumed that 2012 meant April 2012, which is the date I have included in my amendment, because to implement the scheme other than at the same time as the tax and national insurance years begin would be pretty difficult, not to mention chaotic. The transitional costs on employers would jump up from the £350 million that the DWP has estimated for implementation because it would be extremely difficult to do it at any other point during the year. According to Mr O’Brien on Report for the Bill in another place, "““the plan is to start to deliver in the course of 2012. The scheme will not suddenly appear on one day in 2012 and all be in one place””.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/4/08; col. 1207.]" The report from PADA deposited in May is similarly vague in referring to a ““launch in 2012””. These are weasel words. They can easily encompass getting the scheme into its preparatory stages—issuing documentation and the like—but not being open for business in the sense of being able to accept contributions. That is what we mean by a scheme being in operation. I hope today the Minister will be much more specific about the start date and I have a number of specific questions for him. When will the first contributions be accepted? Is there any possibility of a start date other than the beginning of a tax year? Is there a precise project plan with timelines which lead to full implementation in 2012 and, if not, what will be delivered and when? I should say that the pretty little diagram on page 8 of the PADA document is not what I am talking about. Are robust project management arrangements in place? Has the Office for Government Commerce vetted the plans and, if so, what has it found? Is there a risk register for the project and, if so, will that be made available to Parliament? Why is it not possible to share the detailed planning arrangements with Parliament? I hope the Minister is not going to get out his usual fig leaf of commercial confidentiality to hide behind. I could go on with my questions but the Minister knows what is needed to inform those outside his department who need to know what will be delivered by PADA. He does not need to hide behind formulae devised by his officials—he just needs to tell us how it is. My amendment first requires that the scheme is capable of operation by 1 April 2012. I accept that ““capable of operation”” can have a multitude of meanings but the Minister knows what I mean by this and it is not a mere launch. The second subsection says that, if the Secretary of State thinks that he will be unable to comply with that date, he should lay a report before Parliament setting out the reasons for the delay and the date that he expects the scheme to be established and operating. It is important that employers and others have some certainty about what timescales they are intended to be operational within. The proposed new subsection also requires the Secretary of State to say what he intends to do to promote pension savings prior to the introduction of personal accounts. This is important because for every year that pension savings are deferred, especially for younger workers, there is a big impact on the amount realised at the end of the period or going into decumulation. There are options open to the Secretary of State to explore here. The introduction of personal accounts is a major project carrying significant implementation risks which need to be managed. We have considerable doubts about the Government’s ability to deliver major projects, and that applies to the Government’s quangos as much as to the Government themselves. We regret the lack of openness and transparency about the development of personal accounts to date; indeed, we regret the lack of a wholehearted commitment so far to a substantive delivery date in 2012. This is the Minister’s opportunity to reverse the policy of ““Tell them as little as possible”” and to replace it with a policy based on honesty and openness. I beg to move.