Pensions Bill

I do not think that I will respond to the latter point; it depends on how amenable the Minister is as we proceed through Committee and the later stages of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for his comments. Six months may be too frequent. I note that he has said that the ABI isan interested party. Frankly, so is practically every interest group which gives us detailed briefing, whether it is a consumer group, a trade union or whatever. I have no problem in representing theviews of a significant part of our financial services sector which would be significantly affected by a government Bill. The Minister says that the funding et cetera is not for this Bill but that we need to keep an eye on costs as they start to emerge, which they will during this preparatory stage. There is potentially a gap between what we are doing here, setting up accountability for what will happen in the personal accounts scheme when it is delivered, and what will happen once we get another Bill some time in the next Session. I am not entirely convinced that everything will roll over into the next Bill, although clearly we will look at these issues in at least as much detail. There is still the need to see the costs as they emerge. It could be quite some time. The next stage is to have another body on which to focus our attention. Having read Hansard, I will think about what the Minister has said, but for the time being I log up that I am not 100 per cent on the same page as the Minister because I think that he is not dealing with an information gap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 107 not moved.] Schedule 6 agreed to. Clause 20 [Initial function of the Authority]: [Amendments Nos. 108 to 110 not moved.]