Pensions Bill

moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78B, Amendment No. 78P: 78P: Before Schedule 9, line 110, leave out ““all reasonable steps to”” and insert ““steps which would reasonably”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment focuses on condition B. Condition B kicks in if, as a result of condition A, it is considered that the act or failure might have a detrimental effect. P has to take, "““all reasonable steps to eliminate or minimise the potential detrimental effects””." My amendment would replace the concept of taking ““all”” steps with one based on taking steps which would reasonably eliminate or minimise the detrimental effects. Why is a person expected to take all possible steps? Is a belt-and-braces approach mandated as a necessary precondition to establishing the defence? Surely it is only reasonable that the person applies reasonable mitigation. For example, if the transaction might result in a potential deficit, is it necessary for the person to make additional contributions and provide other financial support such as guarantees, or can they take just some of those steps? Is it absolutely necessary to do everything that could possibly be done, or is it enough to take reasonable steps? I beg to move.