UK Parliament / Open data

Pensions Bill

Proceeding contribution from James Purnell (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 18 April 2007. It occurred during Debate on bills on Pensions Bill.
Well, there are infinitely more Members on the Labour Benches. The amendments deal with the role and operation of the delivery authority and have allowed us to discuss important issues to which I will turn later in my speech. In their substance, however, they treat the delivery authority as though it would take decisions on personal accounts, whereas all that we are setting up under the Bill is an authority that can advise the Government so that the Government can take those decisions. Although I realise that these are probing amendments, on the issue of whether we should set objectives for such an advisory authority, it is quite clear that those objectives should be for Government—exactly as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said in his introductory remarks. I want to turn to the points that the hon. Gentleman made. First, on amendment No. 3, he has slightly misunderstood the kind of guidance that we are talking about. As I said, the delivery authority is going to be advisory. It will support the Government in understanding the operational and commercial implications of policy options. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State is able to issue appropriate guidance from time to time, but a lot of that guidance is going to be fairly trivial. It will be on the format and presentation of the advice, and who should be consulted within the Department for Work and Pensions or other parts of Government. To specify that such ad hoc guidance must be subject to a length parliamentary process would impede the ability of the authority and the Secretary of State to move flexibly and quickly. Indeed, to suggest that for this initial short phase we should have a 40-day delay every time we want to issue guidance would be verging on the sclerotic and would be quite disproportionate. It is quite right that that advice should be given on a basis that people can look at. We want to make sure that we continue on the basis of the open and consultative process that we have had to date. But it would be a mistake for a formal relationship and formal commitments in relation to publication and consultation with Parliament to be included in the Bill. With respect to new clause 7, we agree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to do. As he was kind enough to say, he has, one might say, plagiarised—

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

459 c380 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber

Legislation

Pensions Bill 2006-07
Back to top