UK Parliament / Open data

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 83: 83: Schedule 6, page 58, line 4, at end insert— ““( ) The number of executive members shall not be more than half the total number of members of the Authority.”” The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 83, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 86. Both amendments seek clarification of the membership of the delivery authority. Amendment No. 83 would add a new sub-paragraph to paragraph 1 of Schedule 6, so that the authority will have a majority of non-executive members. The Minister will be aware that it is the norm in listed companies under the combined code on corporate governance that at least half the board should be non-executive, not counting the chairman. If we include the chairman, who is normally counted as non-executive in government Bills, even though he generally works well beyond non-executive limits, that means that public sector boards have a majority of non-executive members. There are lots of examples from recent legislation, with which I am sure the Minister is familiar. The chairman of the delivery authority is not explicitly called a non-executive in this Bill, as he would be in other Bills, but there is a sideways reference to him in paragraph 2(1), which implies that he is non-executive; hence my amendment, which, in line with public and private sector practice, would require that, excluding the chairman, there could not be more executive directors than non-executives. Concerns have been expressed about the delivery authority being independent of government and understanding all the competing interests. It normally falls to the chairman and the non-executives to rise above the detail and to ensure that stakeholder interests are well served, which is why the composition of the authority is of particular importance. Amendment No. 86 deals with paragraph 1(4), which says that, "““the Secretary of State and the Authority must aim to ensure that the Authority””," has in the range of three to nine members. My amendment simply says that the authority ““shall”” have that number of members, which is the normal formulation found in other Acts. Why does this Bill have to be different? Since appointing members is not an onerous task, why should there be any excuse for not having three members? Can there ever be an excuse for having more than nine members? I beg to move.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

692 c1221-2 

Session

2006-07

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber

Legislation

Pensions Bill 2006-07
Back to top