---

Pensions Bill

I would like to add a brief contribution to this well focused amendment. There is a much broader debate to be had about generic advice and the Thoresen report, and the consultation and work that has been done will inform that process later in the year, but what is so attractive about this amendment is that it is saying that there are groups of people who are very clearly at risk. The two main policy levers and drivers behind this reform are getting auto-enrolment and the contingent employer contribution behind that. Auto-enrolment must succeed for this policy to make progress in the longer term. The Government sensibly are already indicating that come 2017 the whole thing can be looked at again and some in-flight adjustments can be made, and I welcome that. But there are at-risk groups which are identifiable right now. For people over 50 who are in social rented housing and on a low income, all the odds stack up. This group is easily identifiable from departmental records. We know where they live and we know the risks are likely to be greater. If they go inadvertently into auto-enrolment without thinking about it carefully, they could pop up in 2017 as a group whom we have collectively failed. It is not for the want of knowing in advance that they comprise a group that can be collectively failed. It would not be good for the continuation of a policy that, it is hoped, has a lifespan of 50 years or more, in order to address some of the points that the Turner commission drew to our attention as policymakers. It is not in our or anyone else’s interests, be that a future Government or whoever, for the policy to fail. This is an understandable, measurable and identifiable group of people. We may hear from the Government that, ““Face to face for everyone is too big a task””, which I understand, but they cannot argue that in terms of the specific group of people who are identified in this amendment. Like the noble Baroness who has just spoken, I think the wording may not be perfect, but my noble friend has identified an important issue. We can argue about whether generic advice has a wider role to play in the longer term. Personally, I think that the work that the FSA is doing is exemplary in terms of the financial exclusion research, the promotion of policy and the attempt to give help and succour to people in the longer term on a broader perspective across the United Kingdom, as we all understand that the economy is less benign and that people are facing straitened financial circumstances. The Thoresen work, as deployed and advised by the work that is being done by the FSA, is very good. A perfect model is available to the Government in the form of the positive and constructive bits of Thoresen, along with the valuable work done by the FSA under my old friend Mr Chris Pond, who has had a distinguished track record over all these areas over many years. His work demonstrates to me—I have talked to him at some length—that the FSA is willing to play a major part in dealing with some of these issues and is capable of doing so. The FSA is also working with Citizens Advice. My noble friend is right to refer to that, because that body would be perfectly willing to take on contracts. It works in these areas and gives detailed advice on financial and other matters, which demonstrates that it has the skills, background and ability to deliver the policy. The department must know the overall figures that we are dealing with for the 50 year-old age group. That group will not be a huge number out of the 7 million target audience. If we identify them, with the advice available to the Government that I have just described, then the work that Chris Pond and the FSA are doing around Thoresen, combined with the capabilities that are clearly available in the 430 citizens advice bureaux and the 16,000 volunteers who are available to us, is unquestionably something that policy-makers in this House at this stage should be asking the Government actively to consider. It should not be for everyone; let us start with this group. Let us identify them, give them all face-to-face interviews if they need them and see what we can do for them. I am sure that that would have a beneficial impact on the whole of this reform and at least enable us to say in 2017, ““Well, we did what we could and we gave the best advice possible””. If the result in 2017 is failure, it will not be for the want of trying.