Clause
67
Winding
up of the
authority
Question
proposed,
That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Waterson:
Briefly, I have a couple of points to
make. The story begins with section 23 of the 2007
Act, which as far as I could make out had a narrow winding-up provision
that would arise only if a particular condition was met. That
condition, in subsection (3), was that the winding up was
necessary
“as a result of
the abandonment or modification of any relevant proposals about
personal
accounts”.
We
seem to be moving on, but will the Minister confirm where we are in the
present clause? It seems to take winding up to a new place, removing
entirely the condition in the 2007 Act, which gave only narrow reasons
for the dissolution of the authority by the Secretary of State, and
make it much more straightforward.
We have always said, on this
Bill and the 2007 Act, that we do not think the authority and its
successor body should just morph seamlessly into one another. There are
different sets of skills and challenges to starting a scheme and
running it later on, and perhaps a different set of personalities would
be needed. We would have to review that in due course. It is worth
getting clarification from the Minister that that is what the clause is
intended to flag up and the basis on which a winding up would be
approached.
Will the
Minister also confirm what seems to be clear: that the clause will give
more flexibility for transferring assets not just to the Secretary of
State, which was in the 2007 Act, but to another body, presumably the
successor body?
Mr.
Plaskitt:
The distinction between the two bodies that the
hon. Gentleman seeks is indeed clear. As we said, the clause will make
adjustments to the current winding up provisions for the authority, as
previously set out in section 23 of the 2007 Act. Those provisions
included a condition for the winding up of the authority to be
triggered if the next legislative stage, in which we are now engaged,
did not happen. Clearly, that condition will become redundant once,
subject to the will of Parliament, the Bill is enacted. Clause 67
therefore removes the condition and replaces it with a straightforward
provision allowing the Secretary of State, by affirmative order, to
provide for the winding up of the authority.
The authority will not be
responsible for running the personal accounts scheme,
as the hon. gentleman rightly identifies, but will instead be
responsible for delivering the scheme infrastructure and business
processes. Once that infrastructure is in place, the responsibility for
running the scheme will pass to a separate trustee corporation.
Equally, although the authority may assist the pensions regulator in
building the systems for employer compliance, the regulator will be
accountable for the operation of the compliance regime. As a
consequence, the clause also extends the provision for transferring, on
wind-up, the property rights and liabilities of the authority to allow
them to be transferred to persons other than the Secretary of
State—for example, to the pensions
regulator.
Finally,
when the authority is dissolved, the clause makes provision for the
removal from statute of the legislation contained in this Bill as it
relates to the
authority.
I hope that
that clarifies why the clause is in the Bill. I hope that I have
reassured the hon. Gentleman and that he agrees that clause 67
should stand part of the
Bill.
Question
accordingly agreed
to.
Clause 67
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Further
consideration adjourned.—[Mr.
David.]
Adjourned
at three minutes to Seven o'clock till Thursday 7 February at half-past
Nine
o'clock.
| 
