Pensions Bill

I am disappointed with the approach that the Minister seems to be taking, which is that the regulator will create lots of de novo processes existing in isolation. The regulator is probably the least appropriate body to deal with small and medium-sized enterprises, which will form the majority of the organisations with which it is required to interface. The Minister gave us a mantra of, ““Educate, enable and enforce””. I do not suppose that the regulator has any idea of how to educate or enable small and medium-sized enterprises, let alone micro-enterprises, whereas other parts of government have a little more existing expertise. I am very disappointed with that response. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, rightly challenged the Minister on costs. Major employers are very clear that they would regard it as quite unfair for their levy payments to be diverted to funding the cost of compliance across the whole auto-enrolment sphere. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the purposes for which the levy is raised and would be completely inappropriate. However, the Minister says that that is work in progress, like so much of the Bill. That is a very unsatisfactory way to proceed and gives no one any assurance that the scheme will operate fairly, cost-effectively or in a sensitive way for the generality of employers, small and large.