---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 112C: 112C: Clause 61, page 31, line 26, leave out subsection (5) The noble Baroness said: We are still in Clause 61 but this is a slightly different point. Amendment No. 112C proposes to repeal subsection (5) of Clause 61. We have just been discussing what restrictions on personal accounts, if any, should be placed in the Bill. The Government have generally signalled in their emerging policies that they do not want anything in the Bill. This amendment is different and subsection (5) is a completely different part of the clause. It is predicated on there being limits and restrictions of some nature set under the order-making powers. However, subsection (5) allows the Secretary of State to repeal the section and thereby to repeal his or her ability to set by order the limits that would apply. The only parliamentary control on this section would be the affirmative procedure, which we have already had the pleasure of discussing today, and I shall not repeat the views of these Benches on the efficacy of that procedure. We can obviously have a healthy debate, as we have partly had today, about what sorts of limits are appropriate for this scheme, bearing in mind the different desires of different groups of individuals and businesses. However, it is difficult to see whether there would be any circumstances in which the Secretary of State would give up the power to set limits and restrictions, thereby allowing the personal accounts scheme to extend beyond its target market without any reference to Parliament. The personal accounts scheme will be a public body operating with huge financial clout. The way that it operates could create market imperfections and we believe that it would be irresponsible of the Government to dispense with their ability to set limits. If it were ever determined that the personal accounts pension scheme should be allowed to set its own rules as to what moneys it would accept and on what terms, that would be tantamount to giving it licence to demolish the private sector pensions industry. The Minister may well say that the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading are well placed to handle such issues, but there really is no reason why the Government should create a body which might turn into an unconstrained near-monopoly. The Government have a duty to ensure that their quango does not act in that way; hence, they need to retain the full powers in Clause 61 and there should be no possibility of them not having those powers to exercise. If the Government ever thought that it was appropriate for the personal accounts pension scheme to operate without limits—we find it very difficult to see how that position could ever be reached unless, by then, the personal accounts pension scheme had swallowed up all private sector savings—we do not believe that it would be right for this mechanism to be achieved by way of an affirmative instrument. Instead, it would be right to come back to Parliament by way of primary legislation at whatever opportunity presented itself so that at that point Parliament could consider on the normal basis whether it was right for the Government to give up their powers. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he has any good reason for including the power in subsection (5). I beg to move.