---

Pensions Bill

moved Amendment No. 118ZA: 118ZA: Clause 78, page 39, line 32, leave out ““relevant person under subsection (3)”” and insert ““agent”” The noble Lord said: I may be exemplifying some of my confusions as to what the Minister said earlier. It seems to be months ago, but it is probably only weeks, that I asked him who was to be responsible for agency workers with regard to auto-enrolment. His answer referred me to Clause 78—that it was the responsibility of the person who actually pays the workers. The noble Lord gave me the impression that he expected that person to be the agent, rather than the person for whom the work was done. My amendments would transfer that responsibility in all cases to the agent handling the worker. This would have many advantages. First, a defining characteristic of agency workers is that they tend to change jobs frequently and with very little notice. One can imagine an agency worker who wished to opt out of pension provision having to sign a form at each and every new employment—perhaps one should say ““sub-employment”” in this case—and because of the delay in returning his contribution, he might experience considerable fluctuations and uncertainty regarding his take-home income. Let me take an example of an agency finding a gang of workers who are to spend three weeks picking apples in a cider orchard. As I understand the matter, although the agency provides the workers, it is the farmer who pays them, so, under the Bill, the Minister says that it will be the responsibility of the farmer to pay 7 per cent to the trustees; in other words, his 4 per cent plus the workers’ 3 per cent. We still do not know the mechanics of this but, for now at least, I shall pass over that fairly vital matter. The point is that the apple pickers may well have finished their work in the orchard by the time that the monthly payment is due to the trustees. Will there not be a huge temptation for the farmer to hang on to the money and not register the workers? As the latter are probably used by the same agency for agricultural or horticultural work throughout the year, I believe that the agency should always be responsible. That way, the worker would not miss out on pension saving, which is, after all, the Bill’s very proper objective. It would surely be easier for the paperwork on existing pension pots for salary levels and opt-in or opt-out preferences to be handled by the agency. The cost of the pension contributions could be passed on to the hiring company—in this case, the farmer—with ease by being factored into the agent’s commission. I tabled Amendments Nos. 118ZA to 118ZC to make the agency responsible in every case. Although the noble Lord will not like my drafting—he never does, which is a little odd because it is only rarely that I disagree with his—I hope that, for once, he sees the sense of what I am suggesting. I beg to move.