Pensions Bill

I thank the noble Baroness for her thoughtful and helpful contribution, which has allowed this short debate to take place. I hope that I can assure noble Lords that we consider the role of the chairman and non-executive members to be crucial to the effective operating of the authority. Not only will they bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the authority, but they will also, in carrying out the non-executive functions, provide an important independent role. The Secretary of State will be looking for candidates of the highest calibre when making these public appointments. That will include ensuring that a non-executive does not have a conflict of interest that is, "““likely to affect prejudicially the discharge by him of his functions as a member of the Authority””." That is made clear in paragraph 2 of Schedule 6. Sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) define a conflict of interest and state the parameters that the Secretaryof State must use in deciding on the suitability of non-executive members. Amendment No. 89 proposes that the Secretary of State must consider a direct or indirect conflict of interest when appointing the chairman or another non-executive. The inclusion of ““direct or indirect”” in the criteria that the Secretary of State should consider does not add anything. As I have explained, the definition of conflict of interest is to be found at sub-paragraphs (6) and (7) and it includes direct and indirect conflicts of interest. Paragraph 2 already provides sufficient assurance that the non-executive members will be free from a conflict of interest. I therefore do not want to include that additional requirement. Amendment No. 91 proposes that the delivery authority should notify the Secretary of State ofany declaration made under paragraph 13. That paragraph relates to disqualification for acting in certain matters—in particular, at meetings of the authority, the chairman or other non-executives, or any committee or sub-committee. Paragraph 13 already provides assurance that,in carrying out its work, the authority and any ofits committees or sub-committees should follow appropriate procedures in terms of transparency and accountability. That measure is especially pertinent when considering the work of committees. As the Bill makes clear, the authority can invite people who are not members or employees to sit on a committee. It will be for the delegated authority to decide how it uses that ability and whom it might like to invite, but it is likely that persons may include, for example, individuals who work for organisations representative of consumers, employers or the pensions industry. In the same way as noble Lords declare interests before speaking in the House, it is right that persons invited to sit on committees of the authority should also declare any direct or indirect interest in a matter that is being considered. Such a declaration by noble Lords does not devalue their contribution; so it will be in committees of the authority. It is of course right that any such declaration is recorded appropriately. The Bill makes provision for any declaration to be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. To requirethe authority to inform the Secretary of State every time such a declaration is made seems an overly bureaucratic measure, although I understand why the noble Baroness raises the questions in debate here for clarification. The provisions in the Bill enabling the Secretaryof State to request necessary information from candidates or post-holders when assessing whether non-executives have a conflict of interest are an appropriate requirement that provides sufficient safeguards. I understand the point that the noble Baroness makes regarding the difference between declaring an interest and there being a conflict of interest. I imagine that procedures would be routinely in hand to ensure that conflicts of interest are recorded and handled in a transparent and appropriate way. Having provided that information, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.