---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 67: 67: Clause 21, page 9, line 45, leave out subsection (3) The noble Lord said: The purpose of the amendment is to find out a little more about how a complicated part of this Bill will work. Rather like the previous amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes, subsection (3) of Clause 21 allows for a scheme to qualify for auto-enrolment even though some of its members may not meet the test scheme standard as laid out in Clause 22. That allows for a great deal of, in this case, helpful flexibility. Defined benefit schemes are becoming ever rarer and, without that flexibility, the Bill would be another nail in their coffin. However, this clause will help to keep these schemes open only if that flexibility is properly understood by employers and is clearly and consistently applied by the Government. Can the Minister give us a clearer idea of the Government’s intentions? How many members must fail to meet the test scheme standard before the scheme fails? How bad must the shortfall be before it is considered over the top? The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in another place made an accurate point: "““Requiring an individualised calculation in respect of each member of the scheme … would place a significant burden on any employer seeking to meet the test, with a risk that the whole scheme would fail if even one member’s pension did not meet the standard””.—[Official Report, Commons, Pensions Bill Committee, 29/1/08; col. 255.]" However, this argument failed to convince the Government that some flexibility should be applied in the clauses relating to the money purchase schemes that we have just discussed. I seek more clarification on all this. I beg to move.