Pensions Bill

My Lords, the groups led by Amendments Nos. 78R and 78S seem to me to be entirely composed of consequential amendments that should have been tacked on to this group. If the noble Lord has found something wonderful to say about them, he need only wave me and I will give him a chance to do so by moving them. The amendments propose various ways in which the defence may be improved. It seems odd that the defence should not be triggered until a warning notice has been issued. By that stage, the procedure is already well advanced and the person subject to it may feel themselves to be on the back foot. The next question is whether the defence covers only contribution notices based on the material detriment test or whether it will cover also those issued under Section 38(5)(ii) of the Pensions Act 2004 where, again, the Government do not seem to have applied the new defence to those contribution notices. Other than that, we are dealing again with the general question of whether it is fair to place on an individual the requirement that he has documented his past in quite the detail required to comply to make the defence viable. If the question that arises is within the code as currently drafted, I do not see the problem. It arises only with matters outside. I can happily leave that, because it is a matter where I am already taking things on trust. I beg to move.