Pensions Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78B, Amendment No. 78NA: 78NA: Before Schedule 9, line 110, after ““P”” insert ““or any other persons”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this would amend condition B of the material detriment defence. Under condition B, if there is a potential detrimental effect, P has to take all reasonable steps. My amendment says that the steps could be taken by P ““or any other persons””. This is not a particularly good amendment; it was drafted on Friday to meet the tabling deadline. It should have said, ““by any other person or persons””. More importantly, there are other points in Section 38, such as whether we are considering P alone or looking at what other persons have done. In the defence section, P is given a way of showing that it is not reasonable to issue a contribution notice because he has carried out due diligence and taken reasonable steps on that basis. Why is it necessary for P himself to have carried out the due diligence and taken all the steps that are necessary? If two parties are involved, why is it necessary for each of them to have carried out all the steps? Why is it not reasonable for P to look at what others are doing and not necessarily take action himself? My amendment would reflect the commercial reality of avoiding duplication in transactions. Provided that someone has done due diligence and/or taken actions, that ought to be the end of the story. I beg to move.