Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)

I thank the Minister for his remarks and explanations. I will look carefully at his replies in Hansard, given the technical nature of the debate—in fact, I think it is fair to say that about all the debates we are having. In closing, I emphasise that these amendments are united by a single, simple concern that decisions of very large fiscal consequence are being taken within a framework that we believe lacks sufficient clarity, transparency and accountability. It has been helpful to have this debate, and I hope that view is shared by those who have contributed, particularly on this side of the Committee. I will pick up on a number of points. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for these amendments. It is fair to say that they have had slightly more lukewarm support from my noble friend Lord Fuller, but I appreciate his thoughtful comments, particularly on Amendments 18 and 19. Again, we will look carefully at his responses in Hansard. I am of the opinion that at my peril do I get caught between the opinions of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I listened carefully to the exchange about the quality of reports. My noble friend Lady Noakes made the very good point that it is important to have reports that are full of clarity and are understandable to those who are new to this or do not understand it. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, some reports may be very clear to read, but reports vary, as my noble friend Lord Fuller rightly said. It is an important point to raise. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, made a very fair point about subsection (3)(a) of the proposed new clause in Amendment 16, picking up on the description of risk elimination and seeking to change it to risk appetite. I might even add a third one: risk minimalisation. That is probably the wrong term, but it is a serious point. It may be that the term I have used, risk elimination, is the right one but refers to minimal risk. He made a very fair point which I will take away. To conclude, the Local Government Pension Scheme is open, long-dated and underwritten by the public sector. Yet we believe that, over time, the practice has drifted towards assumptions and behaviours more consistent with a closed insurance arrangement, often without those choices being clearly articulated or justified. When prudence becomes the default, rather than a consciously chosen balance, the costs fall quietly but heavily on employers, taxpayers and local services. Therefore, if the Government believe that the current framework already achieves that balance, explaining why would be valuable—this debate has been valuable as far as it has gone. If not, I suggest that these amendments offer a measured and constructive way of restoring discipline, transparency and trust in a system that matters enormously, I believe, to local government and to taxpayers alike. However, for the moment, I wish to withdraw my amendment.