---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 112Z: 112Z: Clause 66, page 33, line 7, leave out paragraph (b) The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 112Z, I shall speak also to the other three amendments in the group. These probing amendments relate to the trustee corporation’s financial powers. Amendment No. 112Z deletes Clause 66(3)(b). The trustee corporation will have billions of pounds of pension contributions swelling its coffers, so why should it ever need to borrow money? Amendment No. 112ZA deletes subsection (4) of the clause and Amendment No. 112ZB deletes from that subsection the reference to investing money. That returns to our theme of the independent operation of the trustee corporation. Why do the Government think it necessary to keep control of the corporation in that way? I can just about see why consent control is required in relation to borrowing, if borrowing is required, but I cannot see why the Secretary of State should have a new role in relation to investment. That is what the trustee corporation will be doing—investing tonnes of money. Surely it is neither practical nor desirable for the Secretary of State to be involved in these decisions, especially as one of the core competences of the trustee corporation will be to steer and oversee investment policies. That is not a core competence, as far as I am aware, of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Lastly, Amendment No. 112ZC deletes subsection (5) because I did not understand what it meant. I invite the Minister to explain it. Perhaps it means that the trustee corporation can borrow and invest in its capacity as the trustee of the scheme but not otherwise without consent. If that is the case, is the Minister satisfied that it will always be clear in what capacity financial transactions are being undertaken? Money is, after all, fungible, and how can distinctions be made? I look forward to the Minister’s explanations and I beg to move.