Pensions Bill

I will withdraw the amendment, but I still have difficulty, not least with the Minister’s answer, which I will have to read with great care. I have difficulty because, as the Minister admitted, the Telent case did not need the ““necessary”” test. I accept that the ““necessary”” test is used in legislation covering another regulator. If the Minister could give me the reference at some stage—he does not have to do it now—I would be grateful. There is no doubt that the regulator must have the power to remove trustees, either individually or as a block, in certain circumstances. We all agree on that. The question remains, how does he classify his judgment? Should it be ““reasonable””, which has been defined in many cases on the statute book by the courts? I will look extremely carefully at what the Minister has said, and I will be particularly interested to read his—what will it be?—17th or 18th letter, with the reference to the legislation about another regulator. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 109 agreed to. [Amendment No. 134B not moved.] On Question, Whether Clause 110 shall stand part of the Bill?