---

Pensions Bill

I must have misheard the Minister, because I thought that he said that Amendment No. 113QA referred to Schedule 9. Of course, it does not—it refers to Schedule 6. The substantive difference in paragraph 6(6) of Schedule 6 to the Pensions Act 2007 that these two government amendments give us is that now PADA may appoint other executive members as employees. First, is that not putting the cart before the horse? Surely it is employees who might be appointed as executive directors under PADA, not vice versa. In any case, is it not the case that under the Companies Act all executive directors are automatically employees? I do not know the answer to this—perhaps PADA does not fall under that Act. If it does, is this amendment really necessary? As for Amendment No. 139C, removing the words ““employees who are”” from paragraph 7(3)(a) seems a little odd, since all employees, including executive members under Amendment No. 113QA, are to be paid pensions allowances or gratuities under paragraph 8(2)(a) of Schedule 6 to the 2007 Act, which these two amendments do nothing to alter. All that seems required is the removal of the word ““other”” in that paragraph heading, so that it reads ““Terms and conditions of employees””. Paragraph 8(3) would then surely become otiose. I have three little questions on the amendment. Paragraph 1(4) of Schedule 6 to the 2007 Act says: "““Both the Secretary of State and the Authority must aim to ensure that the Authority has neither less than 3””—" which I understand it has at the moment— "““nor more than 9 members at any time””." How many executive members are intended to be appointed? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, will be able to answer that. Secondly, what skills are still to be required? Thirdly—I assume that the answer is yes—will a finance director be included among the maximum number of nine?