---

Pensions Bill

As explained, the proposed new clause seeks reassurance that we will not be asking employers to provide advice and to ensure that employers who provide information in order to comply with a regulatory requirement are protected from any liability should a jobholder bring a claim against them. We agree with the proposition. I can confirm that employers will not be required to give advice. The distinction between advice and information is important. I was not aware that I was reluctant to accept that distinction earlier; we think it is clear. However, there is no requirement now that people who join a pension scheme should receive advice, and that will not change with the introduction of automatic enrolment. Indeed, I go further: on the whole we do not believe that regulated advice will be necessary. The employer contribution will make the decision to save simple for most people. Some individuals may wish to seek guidance—for example, those considering paying off large, high-interest debt first—and that is the case for any financial decision. As I have said in response to a previous amendment, we may require employers to provide basic information to workers, such as which scheme they have been enrolled in, but not to provide advice. On the issue of liability, the proposed new clause aims to protect from any legal claims employers who provide information to jobholders. The employer will only ever be required to provide information of a type that we will prescribe in regulations. They will not be required to comment on the information provided. It is therefore difficult to envisage how an employer could be held liable for an individual’s decision to remain in pension saving, given that the actions they take relate simply to fulfilling a statutory duty. Furthermore, holding an employer liable is particularly unlikely as the individual will receive information from the scheme on an ongoing basis about their savings and will be in a position to opt out at any time. I hope that offers the reassurances that the noble Baroness requires, but I suspect it does not. I think that she and I are on the same page in what we believe to be the position and what the outcome should be, but it is not necessary to put that in the Bill in the terms of the proposed new clause.