Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 95: 95: Schedule 6, page 59, line 13, leave out paragraph (d) and insert— ““(d) is unfit for office by reason of misconduct,”” The noble Baroness said: The amendment would delete Schedule 6.3(5)(d) and replace it with revised wording. Currently, the Bill has a ground for removal of a non-executive member from office if he is ““guilty of misbehaviour””. That raises all sorts of questions. What does guilty mean? Must there be a criminal offence? I do not believe that there is a specific offence of misbehaviour. If there is not to be a criminal offence, how is guilt to be established and on what burden of proof? What does misbehaviour entail? I used to misbehave at school. Does it involve things like throwing bread rolls or using a catapult in class; or are we talking about some kind of disreputable personal conduct? What and on whose value scales? We encountered this wording in another recent Bill, the Statistics and Registration Service Bill. In another place, the Government wisely replaced the words that appear in this Bill with the words that I propose in my amendment, "““unfit for office by reason of misconduct””." That is what my amendment is about. I beg to move.