---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 39: 39: Clause 9, page 6, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) The noble Lord said: This is yet another probing amendment, this time to ascertain who the prescribed person is to be in Clause 9, which covers advice to jobholders. It could, after all, be the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority in the first instance of personal accounts. I hope that it will not be, because the trustee should be up and running by the first enrolment date. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that, as far as he is currently able, given that PADA has not yet got to grips with the trustee issue, except in the most general terms. It could be the employer, but given that only in extreme cases will they be registered under the FSA, he can hardly be expected to explain the information to employees and not be criticised when he gives the wrong advice. It could also be the scheme manager, which would apply to personal pension schemes or occupational pension schemes. Who is the registered person in this clause? On reflection—and we have all had plenty of time to reflect, even the Government, as their amendments in the Marshalled List show—I rather wonder if it would not be a good idea to add a new paragraph to subsection (2). That would then read: "““Regulations under this section must state—""(a) what information must be given;""(b) in what circumstances it must be given;""(c) how and when it must be given””—" and the new one would be: "““(d) by whom it must be given””." Alternatively, if the Government have already decided this, there is no reason that I can see why ““by whom”” should not be in the Bill. Another point occurs to me: will the information be sent directly to the employee by the prescribed person or will someone else, such as the employer, be expected to pass on the information to the employee? That is a repeat of the post-box scenario I mentioned before dinner, but of course it applies in a totally different context. Further, we have not talked much about agency workers so far. Who does the Minister believe is the employer in that situation? Is it the agency or the temporary employer? Incidentally, I might well have asked that question during our debate just now on the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis. It does not matter when the answer is given as long as we get it before Report. I beg to move.