Pensions Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply and the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, for his support for my amendment. If I had not heard the Minister’s final sentence, asking me to withdraw the amendment, I might almost have thought that she was agreeing with exactly what I was trying to achieve. If the delivery authority is to be as committed to transparency as the Minister would have us believe, why can we not include in the Bill a provision that states that its proposals will be laid before Parliament? I accept that there exists a body of proposals at the moment, but other proposals could arise later, which may or may not be made available. Neither of us is interested in the administrative guidance on how to lay out advice to the Secretary of State—that is not important. What is important is the extent to which guidance is given that constrains or affects the way in which the issues are to be developed. The Minister said that commercial confidentiality was the key and that the authority would deliver the design of infrastructure, which was not appropriate to be in the public domain. However, that is not what my amendment dealt with. It dealt with the proposals and the guidance that the Secretary of State gives to the delivery authority. It was not aimed at advice going in the opposite direction to the Secretary of State—we debated that in the context of the Freedom of Information Act amendment in Committee. The amendment is about being open and transparent not just with stakeholders but also, importantly, with Parliament, which does not want to lose sight of the development of the scheme as it progresses. The Minister has not addressed the transparency issues that I raised. It is such an important issue that I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 40. Clause 35 [Winding up of the Authority]: