Pensions Bill

My Lords, I am grateful for the support from my noble friend Lord Lucas on the difference between ““might”” and ““likely””. We disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott; in the business world, it is normal to proceed on the basis of what is likely to happen and not of stress-testing for things that might conceivably happen. Whether or not my alternative formulation is the right one, I am not absolutely sure, but I am very uncomfortable with the use of the ““might”” formulation. The Minister said that my test introduced uncertainty. I suggest that requiring companies to have to prove material detriment in the context of considering all possible ““mights”” is imposing a potentially impossible test for people to satisfy in order to establish this defence. The Minister knocked down my example because dividends are not in the draft code, a fact of which I am well aware. However, we all know that the draft code might not be absolutely conclusive. My point was really to draw out how scenario analysis and acts can be put alongside each other and the difference that can be had from analysing from a ““might”” and a ““likelihood”” perspective. I am not entirely happy with what the Minister has said, but I should like to consider it carefully because now is not the time to press this any further. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment No. 78N, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78B, by leave, withdrawn.