I do not want to tempt you to rule me out of order, Mrs. Anderson, but I have been asked a question about a clause that we have not yet reached. Briefly, the purpose of stating the age of 65 in clause 21 is that it ties it clearly to the current state retirement age. It is not the age at which people will choose to start drawing pensions, but the age at which the state system currently indicates that state pension is payable.

Returning to amendment No. 23, I was trying to point out that it would require employers to assess their schemes against every individual member in the scheme, which would be very administratively complicated and, undoubtedly, hugely expensive for employers. Members will be aware that we are committed to a programme of deregulation for pensions, and some important elements of that deregulation are contained in the Bill. The amendment would run completely counter to the deregulatory reform agenda, so although the hon. Member for Eastbourne says that he is not sure that he wants to sign up for principles legislation, we do not want to sign up to his amendment, which would cut against the drive to deregulate and simplify the rules relating to schemes. The amendment would represent a big step backwards.

The amendment could also inadvertently lead to employers levelling down pension provision—the very thing that the hon. Gentleman seeks to avoid—as they would be forced to abandon good pension schemes because only one member’s pension did not meet the standard. That point is interesting with regard to the lengthy discussion that we had on clause 18.

We recognise, however, that there might be concern that a test based on collective pensions across the scheme could mean that some individuals lost out. To limit that risk, we intend to use the regulation-making power in clause 20 to put in place safeguards that prevent excessive distortion of the scheme’s average test by high earners and all differentiated benefits. Therefore, when developing the quality tests for defined benefits schemes, we sought an appropriate trade-off between protecting members’ interests and minimising burdens on business, and we believe that we have struck the right balance.

The measure is in the interests of simplification, which I think the hon. Gentleman would expect us to support. I have tried to explain precisely what “as a whole”, which he teased out of the language, actually means. In relation to a further point that he made, the word “broadly” will, of course, be clearly explained to employers in the plain English guidance that will be delivered in due course. With those reassurances on the points that he raised, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.