---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 110C: 110C: Clause 58, page 30, line 12, leave out subsection (12) The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 110D. Both amendments concern the rules of the personal accounts pension scheme. Clause 58(12) contains various matters which the rules of the pension scheme must not contain; namely, its object and purpose, trustee appointments or removals, meetings, committees and exclusion of liability. I can see why this Bill, with the order creating the pension corporation, will set up the current view of how those things should work, but over time we will find that the Bill is deficient in some respects and that some things specified for good reasons at the outset will no longer have any relevance or, worse, actually create problems. However, I can see no reason for the Bill to face permanent restrictions on the ability of the pension scheme to evolve over time through rules. Surely it should not be necessary for the Secretary of State to be involved in every new order on things such as the appointment of trustees or committees. Amendment No. 110C, therefore, deletes subsection (12) in the interests of the long-term efficiency of the operation of the scheme. Clause 59(4) is slightly different. Under Clause 59, an order may allow the trustee, rather than the Secretary of State, to make rules, but subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to impose a lot of restrictions and conditions on their exercise. Our fundamental position is that the Secretary of State should not micromanage the affairs of the new pension scheme. We hope that the trustee corporation will be chaired by a person of substance and that the other trustees will similarly be highly competent and respected. We think that they should be left to make up their own mind about rules. Why does the Secretary of State have to have the power to set up conditions and prohibitions? Amendment No. 110D removes subsection (4) on the basis that the need for those restrictions has not been established, and it is certainly not argued or explained in the Explanatory Notes. These two amendments would streamline the Bill and enhance the standing of the trustees, both of which are good things which I hope the Minister can support. I beg to move.