Pensions Bill

My Lords, this serves to illustrate what I said when we were talking about the Government’s amendments—that we are talking about convenience, rather than justice. It may well suit those who indulge in the sort of transactions that are described in the code, whereby convenience should be placed above justice, because they will be able to negotiate in those circumstances and know the rules that they are playing by. However, we should not contemplate letting out onto the wider public this rule that the decision on what constitutes material detriment should be decided by someone against people for whom there would be almost no effective right of appeal. Keeping these questions within the bounds of the code becomes very important when we have allowed such latitude, because we believe that those bounds will be kept to. It will be important that going beyond code will happen only in the most exceptional circumstances and that we should not let that grow up as a casual operation because we are allowing the regulator a position that is not appropriate in wider forum. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 78C, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78B, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 78D, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78B, not moved.]