Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. Auto-enrolment has, initially, clearly been a success and the Government deserve credit for implementing the policy. But we should recognise that we are just at the beginning: although it has been up and running for 18 months, we are just approaching the point in April this year when smaller and medium-sized employers, those whose largest PAYE scheme covers between 50 and 249 employees, have to commence their duty.
There have already been a range of changes to the process, implemented by regulations, resulting from a review of early live running. Those changes mostly came into force last November, although some are due this coming April. The consultation on the draft regulations also canvassed views on other changes, including the proposition of excluding a certain category of worker from auto-enrolment. It sought more information on three situations, identified that it had a substantive response to the use of an exception, and committed to publish the results, with government proposals and a further consultation. When will the results be published? Will it be before Report? At the very least, can the Minister provide us with a list of the circumstances being considered, if those extend beyond the three identified in the briefing note, which states:
“The initial evidence suggested that there is a case to re-examine the appropriateness of the employer duty in some, very carefully specified, circumstances”?
However, as my noble friend has clearly set out in the amendment, the power taken in Clause 37 is a very wide one.
The circumstances covering someone handing in their notice, where the notice spans the automatic enrolment date, and where an active scheme member gives notice of retirement and stops making contributions could, it is suggested, be the subject of specific amendment. As for those individuals with fixed or enhanced protection for their lifetime allowances, the Minister might tell us how an exclusion might be framed so that the employer could operate without input from the worker. That those circumstances need to be addressed to avoid detriment to workers is clear, but at present the encouragement from HMRC is to do so by opting out. If the system for exemption depends on the worker lodging the existence of enhanced or fixed protection, perhaps with some validation from HMRC, I am not sure that that is a more effective route than the worker simply opting out.
If the rationale for Clause 37 is based on just those three circumstances, I am bound to say that it is not overly convincing. If we are to understand that a range of other circumstances have been identified which justify the clause, we must be entitled to know what they are. The Government must be aware of them from representations that they have already seen. The briefing note sets down some core policy principles against which suggested exclusions are to be tested. One of these is:
“Are the individuals unlikely to benefit from pension saving?”.
This has echoes of some of the challenges to auto-enrolment when the policy was first originated and being developed, particularly around older women just approaching retirement.
It is entirely reasonable that there will be changes to the operation of auto-enrolment arising from practical experience, but we should be cautious of wide powers to remove the employer duty of enrolment. That is the cornerstone of the policy. Of course, we are mindful that the duty has already in practice been narrowed by aligning the starting point with the level of the income tax personal threshold, thereby removing thousands of the low-paid from its benefits. We are also mindful that there is a subtext to the overall Bill about generating savings for the Treasury, so my noble friend is right to be cautious about this clause.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, it is now two years since the rollout of automatic enrolment began and we are seeing how it works in practice. Automatic enrolment is a blunt instrument, since everybody who meets the relevant tests is automatically enrolled. There is emerging evidence that we should consider refining and targeting, but it is impractical to make refinements by amending primary legislation every single time. A degree of flexibility is an integral part of future-proofing the policy. This clause provides that flexibility, with a power to exclude prescribed types of workers from the scope of automatic enrolment.
I should respond to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. The inclusion of all employers, whatever their size, is part of the broad consensus that continues to underpin support for automatic enrolment. That is Her Majesty’s Government’s position. I will come back to the specific points, which have rightly been raised, at some point.
We need to take the oddities out of the system and this clause enables us to do just that. Automatic enrolment is not always appropriate. Indeed, in extreme cases, pension saving could lead to an individual incurring a financial penalty. Until now we have relied on opt-out as a solution: an individual can opt out of automatic enrolment if pension saving is not right for them. However, a problem remains: inappropriate enrolments, opt-outs and refunds still cause work for employers and frustration for the individual. We need to consider how we can remove, or at least reduce, the administrative burden in cases where automatic enrolment serves no purpose.
The Government’s consultation on technical changes to automatic enrolment last year shows significant support from employers, pension providers and financial advisers for limited, carefully crafted exclusions which help individuals where automatic enrolment has no benefit or makes no sense. We are currently looking at the evidence from that consultation with a view to publishing proposals when a power is on the statute book. So far, the evidence suggests some clear examples. One straightforward example is that people with enhanced or fixed tax protection status could face a tax surcharge if they make any further contributions into a pension. As well as this, automatic enrolment may be illogical for leavers, since it may make no sense to force an employer to enrol a worker into a company pension scheme if they are serving out their notice.
Any exclusion is likely to be sensible and uncontroversial, which is why the Government suggest that a negative resolution in these circumstances is an appropriate use of Parliament’s time. In terms of the breadth of this power, we have been clear from the outset that the intention of this clause is not to exclude entire employment sectors from automatic enrolment or to carve out a particular size of employer; that is a specific statement in relation to this.
We know that undersaving is most prevalent among low-to-moderate earners, those who work for employers who have not provided an accessible pension scheme or those who do not pay into one. These are the core policy objectives on which the consensus was built and to which we are still committed. We are not considering exclusions to the automatic enrolment duty simply because some employers tell us automatic enrolment is an inconvenience. This is about exceptional situations where it makes sense to take a person outside the scope of the Bill, hence the exemption. Although I can understand the aim of the amendment, it is trying to stop the Government from doing something that we have no intention of doing. As noble Lords will know, it would not ultimately constrain future Governments in any event.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, mentioned Beecroft. We have already firmly rejected proposals to cut micro-employers out of auto-enrolment. Workers in those firms have as much right to save for their retirement as anyone else; we have been quite clear about that. Measures have been introduced, such as the timetabling for the introduction of auto-enrolment meaning that smaller businesses, with fewer than 50 workers, are not affected by the reforms during the lifetime of this Parliament. This provides an additional breathing space. That is how we are seeking to tackle this and intend to make allowance.
On the words “in some other way” in the clause, which have been the focus of remarks by noble Lords, the power is there to exclude people for whom pension savings make no sense. We want to be sure that we can deal with future situations in which exclusion is clearly justified. The drafting of this power enables us to react to unforeseen circumstances. That is critical, particularly as we are dealing with such a complex and technical area. On what happens next with the power to make exemptions, the Government’s intention is to publish draft regulations for consultation later this year.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked whether this was about saving tax, or tax relief. We are looking at the use of this power. Saving money for the Treasury will not be one of the factors we consider. Although, of course, general consideration of the management of fiscal balances is sensible, the primary purpose here is to ensure that employers of all sizes, and employees, take the opportunity to engage with pensions and save for their retirement. Ultimately, in the long-term, that is in the best interests of the Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions—indeed for all of government—and, chiefly, the people themselves.
I understand the thrust behind the amendment and that it is important to get those remarks on the record, but with those reassurances, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to consider withdrawing it.
Baroness Sherlock
I have a question to add to that. I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation as to why the Government feel they need to have some flexibility to deal with circumstances as yet unknown, but I do not think that the Minister addressed what the problem is with the specific amendment I moved. After all, the amendment does not seek to prevent the Government from having those powers; it simply says that the Government may not make regulations in such a way as to exclude categories of business such as small and medium-sized businesses from auto-enrolment. What is the Government’s particular problem with this amendment?
Lord Bates
I will come to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, in the first instance. We have said that there are three categories, which he rightly referred to: tax protection, leavers and retirees. Those are the issues that we have identified. We are, of course, having a consultation. One of the challenges we invariably have is that we phrase a piece of legislation and make certain statements on the record in terms of the progress of that legislation through the House. We give certain assurances and then put something in to say, “This is to cover for unforeseen circumstances”, to which the legitimate question is: “What are those circumstances?”. The legitimate response to that has to be that they are unforeseen at present.
Responses to the consultation are currently being processed. They will be dealt with and published later this year and could reveal examples that we have not actually identified at present. This is a new policy and a new area and we therefore need to look at this. As I made my remarks about unforeseen circumstances, I gave examples of areas where it would be unacceptable to exclude people from the terms. We have rejected these exemptions and certainly would not want to introduce them. We have identified casual staff and teachers with second jobs, for instance, as being examples of people for whom we would not want this provision to apply. However, there will be further consultation on this issue and I ask noble Lords, if not quite to trust the Government, at least to accept that sufficient assurances have been put on the record. We recognise that there is broad consensus, but this needs to apply to everybody. However, this is a young policy in general terms and therefore flexibility is still required.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I do not want to labour this for too long but it is important that it is clear. As regards the range of circumstances under consideration—in addition to the three of which we have already had notification—will we get any details, or at least the headlines of those circumstances, before we get to Report? On the three that have been identified, does the Minister accept that you could deal with those—particularly two of them—through specific legislation rather than giving a power to the Secretary of State? I come back to my point about the enhanced and fixed protection provisions for the lifetime allowance. Do the Government have it in mind to craft an exclusion for those circumstances? How does the Minister see that working?
Lord Bates
The short answer is that it is not easy. As the noble Lord will well know, given his experience as a distinguished Minister in the previous Government, it is not easy precisely to craft provision in those areas. We will seek to produce further examples by Report, following the responses received to the consultation. However, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that none of the responses has suggested that small employers should be excluded from the scheme. I know that is at the heart of the concern and, I hope, is at the heart of the reassurances which I have sought to give.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response, but confess that I am still a little uncertain about what the Government’s position is. I understood him to say that it is the Government’s policy that all categories of employer should be included and that the Government are still consulting and categories of person may emerge who they do not yet know about who they may wish to exclude in the future, and therefore they need to keep this open. So the question I am left with is: are the Government open to the possibility that somebody may make a compelling case for excluding a category of employer by size? If they are not, there is no reason for them not to accept this amendment. If they are, then, frankly, their assurances are not worth the time that they have been given today. I am disappointed that the Minister has failed to address the specific amendment. However, as we are in the Moses Room, and I do not have the option to do anything other than withdraw the amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Lord Bates
“Alternative quality requirements for UK defined benefits schemes
(1) The Pensions Act 2008 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 23 insert—
“23A Alternative quality requirements for UK defined benefits schemes
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that a defined benefits scheme that has its main administration in the United Kingdom satisfies the quality requirement in relation to a jobholder if any one or more of the following is satisfied—
(a) the scheme is of a prescribed description and satisfies the quality requirement under section 20 in relation to that jobholder;(b) the cost of providing the benefits accruing for or in respect of the relevant members over a relevant period would require contributions to be made of a total amount equal to at least a prescribed percentage of the members’ total relevant earnings over that period; (c) in the case of each of at least 90% of the relevant members, the cost of providing the benefits accruing for or in respect of the member over a relevant period would require contributions to be made of a total amount equal to at least a prescribed percentage of the member’s total relevant earnings over that period.(2) For this purpose—
“contributions” means contributions to the scheme by, or on behalf or in respect of, a relevant member;
“relevant earnings” means earnings of a prescribed description;
“relevant members” means members of the scheme of a prescribed description;
“relevant period” means a period specified in or determined in accordance with the regulations.
(3) A percentage prescribed under subsection (1)(b) or (c) must be at least 8%.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1)(b) or (c) may make provision—
(a) about how to calculate whether the requirement is satisfied, including provision requiring the calculation to be made in accordance with prescribed methods or assumptions;(b) requiring benefits of a prescribed description to be disregarded in determining whether the requirement is satisfied;(c) that a scheme only satisfies the requirement if the scheme actuary certifies that it does; and for this purpose “scheme actuary” has the prescribed meaning.(5) Section 13(3) (meaning of “earnings”) applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of that section.
(6) The Secretary of State must from time to time review any regulations in force under subsection (1).
(7) A review must be carried out—
(a) during 2017, and(b) after that, no more than three years after the completion of the previous review.”(3) In section 24 (quality requirement: UK hybrid schemes), in subsection (1)(b), for “23” substitute “23A”.
(4) In section 28 (certification that quality requirement or alternative requirement is satisfied)—
(a) after subsection (3A) insert—“(3B) This section also applies to a defined benefits scheme that has its main administration in the United Kingdom and is of a description prescribed under section 23A(1)(a).”;
(b) in subsection (4), after paragraph (d) insert—“(e) for a scheme within subsection (3B), means the quality requirement under section 23A(1)(a).”(5) In section 29 (transitional periods for money purchase and personal pension schemes), in subsections (1) and (3) omit “for money purchase and personal pension schemes”.
(6) Section 30 (transitional period for defined benefits and hybrid schemes) is amended as follows.
(7) In subsection (3), at the end of the substituted subsection (2) insert—
“A reference in this subsection to a scheme does not include a scheme to which section 30(11)(a) or (b) applies.”(8) In subsection (5), in the substituted subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), after “defined benefits scheme” insert “other than a scheme to which section 30(11)(a) applies”; (b) in paragraph (aa) (inserted by section 38 of this Act), after “a hybrid scheme” insert “other than a scheme to which section 30(11)(b) applies”; after paragraph (c) (inserted by section 38 of this Act), insert—“(d) becomes an active member, with effect from the automatic enrolment date, of an automatic enrolment scheme which is a defined benefits scheme to which section 30(11)(a) applies, or(e) becomes a defined benefits member , with effect from the automatic enrolment date, of an automatic enrolment scheme which is a hybrid scheme to which section 30(11)(b) applies.”(9) After subsection (10) (inserted by section 38 of this Act) insert—
“(11) In subsection (2) references to a scheme do not include—
(a) a defined benefits scheme that satisfies the quality requirement in relation to the jobholder by reason only of section 23A(1)(a), or(b) a hybrid scheme if—(i) the appropriate paragraph of section 24(1) for any provisions of the scheme is paragraph (b) (those provisions are referred to below as “the defined benefits section”),(ii) the defined benefits section satisfies section 23A(1)(a) as applied by section 24(1)(b), and(iii) the defined benefits section does not satisfy any of the other requirements mentioned in section 24(1)(b).””
Lord Bates
My Lords, this introduces alternative quality requirements for defined benefits schemes being used for automatic enrolment. It will simplify the task of determining whether a defined benefits scheme is good enough to provide both increased flexibility for employers and protection for members’ benefits.
By way of context, I should first explain that currently, if an employer wishes to use a defined benefits scheme for automatic enrolment, the scheme must either be contracted-out, and provide benefits broadly equivalent to the state second pension, or provide benefits broadly equivalent to, or better than, a hypothetical “test scheme”. There is a separate test for money-purchase schemes based on minimum contributions, set at 8% of qualifying earnings.
These amendments add to these arrangements in two ways. First, they make it possible for certain schemes that are defined benefit in legal terms, but actually have a defined contribution structure, to be assessed against the money-purchase scheme requirement.
The Government will define the schemes to which this could apply in regulations but an example might be one where contributions are set out in the scheme rules—as with a money-purchase scheme—but there is a guarantee over investment performance that means it does not meet the strict legal definition of a money-purchase scheme. Such a scheme might well meet the money-purchase quality requirements but it would be difficult to show how it satisfies the test scheme standard. That is because the benefits are not defined in a way that is comparable with the test scheme benefits.
These amendments also—
Lord Bates
My Lords, these amendments allow for two simpler alternative tests for a scheme to demonstrate that it is of sufficient quality. These were developed following last year’s consultation on technical changes to automatic enrolment, asking for views on whether there is a simpler way to determine whether a defined benefit scheme is good enough for automatic enrolment.
As well as calling for a general simplification in these rules, responses to the consultation highlighted that once the contracting-out period ends in April 2016, all those schemes that are currently contracted out, and so considered good enough, must satisfy the test scheme standard. This is considered unnecessarily complex and burdensome, particularly as, until the end of the contracting-out period, the schemes will have satisfied the higher standard of the reference scheme test. The alternative tests provide for a scheme to be used for automatic enrolment if the cost to the scheme of the future accrual of benefits for active members would require contributions that are at least equivalent to one of two prescribed percentages of relevant earnings. The first will apply at the aggregate level, looking at the scheme as a whole, and the second will apply at the individual level and must be satisfied for at least 90% of relevant members. Moreover, in order to provide assurances about the quality of schemes satisfying this alternative test, the amendment ensures that the prescribed amounts will not be lower than 8% of relevant earnings, in line with the minimum level for total contributions into a qualifying money-purchase scheme.
We are mindful of the need to strike the right balance between increasing simplicity and flexibility and ensuring adequate member benefits across all qualifying schemes. This balance will be one of the key issues to explore as we consult stakeholders on the detail of the alternative tests, and will also be reviewed in 2017 to ensure that the legislation is working as intended. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these amendments. I have two questions. He may have answered them but, although I listened hard, it is hard to be sure. First, will he confirm whether the Bill, with these amendments, will qualify the existing accrued rights protections in any way? Secondly, will he assure us that, given the variations in definitions of pensionable pay, the new defined benefit scheme qualifying tests will be of no lesser standard than the certification alternative requirements used at the moment for employers using money-purchase schemes but using an alternative definition?
Lord Bates
I certainly give the noble Baroness the assurance that she rightly seeks with her second question: there will be that minimum standard. In answer to her question as to whether the amendments will qualify in any way the existing accrued rights protections, nothing that we are doing in this clause or in the regulations that we plan to make under it will have any impact on accrued rights.
Lord Freud
“(4) In subsection (5), in the substituted subsection (2)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “or a hybrid scheme, or” substitute—“(aa) becomes a defined benefits member, with effect from the closure date, of an automatic enrolment scheme which is a hybrid scheme,”;(b) after paragraph (b) insert—“(c) becomes a money purchase member, with effect from the automatic enrolment date, of an automatic enrolment scheme which is a hybrid scheme.””
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I just want to say a few words about the culture within the financial services companies and how difficult it is, given that culture, to have any compliance rules that staff will obey if their jobs depend on selling products. I think it was the whistleblower Dave Penny, who worked for Lloyds TSB, who gave a long list of tricks of the trade that he had tried to warn against. We all know the fines that that company had to pay for using those tricks in both PPI and bond selling. Mr Penny said:
“A supposedly strict compliance regime is meaningless if the management style is putting immense pressure on staff to sell, sell, sell. To keep their jobs, staff will always find ways around compliance”.
That has not gone away just because of the massive fines and compensation that these companies have paid. Only a couple of months ago, a woman in her 60s received a cheque from her son for £35,000. She planned to put that into a stock market investment. That same day that the money arrived in her current account, she was called by a Lloyds employee, who told her that the money could be at risk—an extraordinary claim to make about funds left in the care of a clearing bank. The Lloyds customer said, “The woman at the other end of the line said that my money might not be safe in my current account over the weekend and recommended that I transfer it to a savings account where it would be less easy to steal. I was naturally very worried about this and the bank did not really explain why my money would not be safe in my current account. The whole thing caused me a great deal of distress and eventually my husband intervened, and called the bank to say I did not want to transfer my money to a savings account and went ahead with my original investment plans”.
Of course, there is a financial incentive to place money in an investment account in a bank, no matter how low the interest rates compared with a current account, which is the sole reason why that employee made the effort to contact that person. I realise that that is not of direct relevance to these amendments, except to say that compliance will not work unless you deal with the issue of the culture in these companies. We will see all these tricks of the trade happening again, particularly as the Government are going on the pot-follows-member formula. This will give many more opportunities for companies to salami-slice their charges as each of these small pots is transferred.
Lord Bates
My Lords, this has been a useful debate with lots of high-quality and thoughtful interventions. I will try to follow that standard by putting some remarks on the noble Lord’s amendments on the record, and also on my noble friend Lord Freud’s Amendment 70.
As your Lordships will be aware, we launched our recent consultation on charging in October 2013, following on from the Office of Fair Trading’s September 2013 market study into defined contribution workplace pensions. That study raised concerns, which the Government share, about the weakness in the buyer side of the market—a point made powerfully by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, in recounting those examples—the complexity of the product and a lack of transparency, which hinders consumers’ abilities to compare schemes. My noble friend Lord Lawson, a distinguished economist, mentioned the principal agent problem, which has at its heart, in an economic context, asymmetry of information. Transparency must therefore be part of the play which somehow levels the playing field between one side and the other.
Our consultation sought views on how the total cost of scheme membership, including transaction costs, might be captured, reported and managed. My noble friend Lord German rightly said that perhaps it was not an “either/or” solution, but more of an “and” solution. That was reflected in the consultation’s remit, which presented not just one idea but alternative measures to improve the transparency and disclosure charges, as referred to by my noble friend Lord Lawson with regard to his proposed new schedule: a cap on charges on default funds of defined contribution workplace pension schemes, a point made powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Browne; a ban on active-member discounts and commission; and an extension of the ban on consultancy charges to all schemes used for automatic enrolment. Quite a wide-ranging consultation was launched.
By November last year we had 160 written responses from the evidence received. We will be publishing our response to this consultation shortly. In fact, Steve Webb, the Minister for Pensions, will be updating the other place on his response to the issue of a cap on charges on Thursday this week. I know how the machinery of government works; that does not quite deliver what we want before us in Grand Committee as we consider the amendment. But that information will be in the public domain, and I am sure will be a source of debate for others to draw upon on Report. I will offer some reassurances in the interim.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Before the Minister moves off that point, I am conscious that if the FT report of Friday 17 January was based on information that should not have been in the public domain, the Minister will be constrained in what he can say. Those of us who have been in that position understand that. However, does the expected update from the Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, relate to the very consultation that has been reported in the FT as being postponed—I think it says shelved for at least a year—potentially indefinitely? Is the Minister prepared to address the specific piece of evidence which suggests that officials briefed members of the industry that that was the case—last week, it is said, which presumably was the week before last?
Lord Bates
The noble Lord was a very experienced Minister and a much more senior one than I will ever be.
Lord Bates
The noble Lord will therefore know that our position is that we do not comment on speculation in the press, even when it is in the Financial Times, and that the Minister’s announcement, which will be given to the House later this week, will be delivered first to the other place, and therefore we will have to respond to it.
Lord Lawson of Blaby
I am glad to hear that Steve Webb will make a statement in another place on this range of issues. Will my noble friend go further and say that the statement will accept the problem of the principal agent position as it affects pension funds, as was outlined in the contributions made by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and myself, in this debate, and that it will put forward a remedy?
Lord Bates
After making deferential remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I have to make even more deferential ones to the noble Lord, Lord Lawson. The direct response is that I am not privy to the content of that statement, confirmation of which has been received only recently. However, addressing the principal agent problem which he so eloquently outlined for us was at the heart of the consultation process which was launched back in October, and was at the heart of what the OFT was driving at in its review. Therefore, in responding to that consultation, I reassure my noble friend that he will find—I hope—that this offers the reassurances he seeks. If not, he is at liberty to bring this matter back on Report, should he choose not to press his amendment at this stage.
On the definition of charges and transaction costs, Schedule 17 gives the Secretary of State the power to restrict administration charges by regulation. In the consultation we proposed specifying a broad definition of charges to encompass any expense that does not result in the provision of pension benefits for a member. We also asked for views on whether transaction costs should be included within a charge cap. Any charges that are restricted—even those under a possible cap—will have to be defined in regulations. These regulations will, of course, be subject to public consultation and we have accepted the DPRRC’s recommendation that these regulations be subject to the affirmative procedure on first use. Government Amendment 70 will achieve this.
With regard to the noble Baroness’s Amendment 62H on the Henry VIII power in Schedule 17, we have noted the comments and recommendations put forward by the DPRRC. However, we believe that it is vital that the Government’s ability to regulate effectively in this area is not inadvertently undermined by future legislation that could not have been foreseen. We are back to an earlier point.
Lord Bates
My Lords, ensuring that schemes deliver good value for, and are run in the best interests of, their members is a primary concern for this Government, so we welcome this discussion, which was set out with great insight and clarity by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. We agree that the issues highlighted by these amendments—scale, fiduciary duties and conflicts of interest—are important ones to consider. However, we do not agree that simply encouraging the creation of large, trust-based schemes is the right approach to ensuring good value for members.
We are interested in testing how far scale can help schemes to deliver better quality and lower charges for members. Last year we published a call for evidence on defined contribution quality standards, in which we sought evidence about how a scheme’s size can influence outcomes for members. As noble Lords are no doubt aware, the issue of scale is not straightforward, and most responses to our call for evidence saw benefits to members in both large and small schemes. We are currently considering the responses to the call for evidence alongside the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading, and will respond in due course.
We would have concerns about compelling schemes to merge in the way that this amendment suggests. Determining what is in all members’ best interests would be extremely challenging for the Pensions Regulator, which simply would not have the capacity or information needed to scrutinise every small scheme and consider whether it should close or merge. There could also be European Court of Human Rights issues in relation to property rights because to force a scheme merger could lead to some members losing out.
Turning to the idea that all schemes should be trust-based, in our call for evidence we set out the importance of ensuring that schemes are governed in members’ interests; of course, we recognise the vital role that trustees play in achieving this. However, we disagree that simply imposing a trust-based structure on all schemes is the way forward. Neither the presence of trustees nor fiduciary duties are a panacea for poor governance. This is shown in the findings of the OFT, which identified governance weaknesses in trust-based schemes of different sizes. The Law Commission’s current consultation on fiduciary duties notes that legal duties are,
“insufficient to ensure good outcomes for members”.
In addition, the amendment suggests that in scheme governance, trustees’ decisions should take precedence over an employer’s decisions in any circumstances. This does not provide any opportunity to balance interests, and would apply even if the trustees’ decisions are unreasonable. Such a broad requirement could lead to significant financial difficulties for employers, which would not be in anyone’s interests.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, highlights the importance of identifying and avoiding conflicts of interest. The Government agree that this is an important area; in our call for evidence we suggested that all schemes should have a governance body that must be able to act freely in members’ interests. The noble Baroness referred to the Australian scheme, as did the noble Lord, Lord Browne. She was very dutiful in reading it over Christmas. I suggest that she would find the Australian pension code less onerous to read if she was reading it in Australia, but she was probably shivering here with the rest of us.
The Australian regulator’s new power is interesting but it is not translatable to the UK pension system. Following the Cooper review, which has been referred to, the Australian pensions regulator—APRA—has been given new powers to drive schemes to merge.
We are interested in this approach and will monitor how it is used and how effective it is, but it should be remembered that the Australian pensions landscape is significantly different from our own. It is our understanding that the APRA does not intend to use the power to target all small schemes but to focus, for example, on cases where there is a link between underperformance and an absence of scale.
The noble Lord, Lord Browne, argued that you need to drive up scale in order to increase consolidation, which has an effect on charges and therefore brings a benefit to members. Scale is not necessarily a determinant of value: bigger schemes are not always better. Consolidation is already happening. For example, in 2012 around half the active members of private occupational defined contribution schemes were in schemes with 10,000 or more members; in 2000 this figure was one in eight. The number of active members in small and medium-sized private occupational defined contribution schemes decreased from 0.3 million to 0.1 million between 2000 and 2012—a reflection of the greater regulatory requirements and burdens that are placed upon scheme managers, as well as the challenge of finding trustees who will undertake the work.
Finally, turning to the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about independent governance committees and whether they would have a fiduciary duty to members, the OFT has recommended a model of independent governance committees to address a number of problems that stem from weaknesses in the buyer side of the market. As part of the consultation on fiduciary duties, the Law Commission has asked about the duties that should apply to members of independent governance committees. Its tentative view is that members should be subject to legal duties to act in the interests of members. We are working with regulators and stakeholders on requirements for independent governance committees, and will respond in due course.
This has been a helpful discussion but I hope that my responses will enable the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
Perhaps I might engage with the Minister on the issue of whether or not larger pension schemes provide better returns to their members. I do not intend to delay the Committee long on this issue but I have before me a page and a half of significant research that challenges the assertion made by the Minister. I will say only this: recent NAPF research shows that a person in a larger scheme will get a 28% larger pension pot than a person in a smaller scheme. Indeed, research from Australia supports the assertion that fund size has a positive impact on the performance of not-for-profit superannuation funds there. I shall arrange for the Minister to have access to this research but I could not let that assertion remain unchallenged.
Baroness Drake
I thank my noble friend Lord Browne for his supporting contributions in this debate. I thank the Minister for his response but he has not actually answered my question—I did listen; perhaps I missed it but I do not think so—which was: can the Minister confirm that this Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to retrospectively change the terms of existing pension contracts to embrace any new quality or governance requirement? It is a pretty key point because it goes to the heart of what the Government can or cannot do unless they take those powers to themselves. A lot of people are quite interested in whether the Government are taking those powers so that when they decide what the quality and governance requirements are, they have the power to retrospectively apply them to existing pension contracts.
Lord Bates
Perhaps I can seek some clarification from the noble Baroness on the nature of her question; I apologise for not responding to it directly. The whole point of what we are introducing is that we are seeking to tackle the issue of the quality of schemes. Therefore it would stand to reason that if one is seeking to improve the quality of schemes, it would be wrong to disbar those who were in previous schemes from getting the benefits of those improved quality standards. That provision is therefore there: it will be necessary to enhance the quality of schemes. I might be missing something; I am sorry if I am.
Baroness Drake
The Minister has got the sentiment of my point. I was looking for firm clarification that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to put in place those quality and governance standards, once they are decided, to existing pension contracts, because they are contracts.
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness has a high degree of expertise in this area, which is respected on all sides of the Committee. I wonder if I could write to her on the specific point on which she is pressing me, with a response on the record. If she wishes to press it further, she can of course come back to the issue on Report.
Baroness Drake
I thank the noble Lord for his offer to write to me on the matter. Maybe having it in writing will be better, because the efficiency or ability of any requirements under the Bill will be heavily influenced by the extent to which they can retrospectively apply to existing pension contacts. However, if the noble Lord is going to write to me on that point, I will also deal with other matters.
We need to get a sense of perspective on this. Auto-enrolment potentially affects 20 million people in this country. The whole of the private sector workforce, when it is engaged in employment above a certain income level, is a huge community of people; it is a great statement of trust between the working population and the Government. People are saying that they accept the argument that the people must take responsibility for providing for our income in old age, but they have the right of a reciprocal entitlement to know that the Government are doing what is necessary to ensure that those who have discretion over their savings and are managing them do so in a way which is in their interests and to high standards of governance.
I am afraid that I do not buy “balance of interests” at all on this issue. If you come into the market to provide a pension product under auto-enrolment, you cannot sell or manage a product that does not meet the needs of the savers. You would not say, “Well, I will leave the brakes off a car in the interests of not making the employees redundant”. You have to sell a product that meets the interests of the members and is designed and managed with the interests of the saver at heart.
The independent governance bodies, or committees, are very weak as they are proposed. There are lots of people commentating to that effect. As proposed, they have fewer new powers—or no powers—for resources, for information, or for appointment of members to the board. It is in the gift of the companies themselves. As currently advised, they have no powers or capacity to address conflicts of interest. I know that this issue of governance is a work in progress. The Government are considering the matter and are due to report further. The OFT says that it has more work to do on its recommendations. The Law Commission is looking into this.
What cannot be dodged at all, in my view, is that any governance structure, requirements or arrangements for a private pension system that does not put the identification and resolution of conflicts of interests in the interests of the saver at its heart will be flawed. Successive Governments will keep picking up the consequences of that. There must be some—cross-party or whatever—biting on the principle that if you give the market a huge demand side that it could never have created itself under a voluntary system, that carries with it the requirement for a high standard of governance. The Government must say that those who enter the market under auto-enrolment to provide pension products must operate on the basis that any conflicts of interest are resolved in favour of the beneficiary or saver.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Whitty has explained, the purpose of this amendment is to ensure that the objectives of the Pensions Regulator, as set out in the Pensions Act 2004 and as to be amended by Clause 45 of this Bill, can be applied appropriately to charities.
We on these Benches are sympathetic to the aims of Clause 45 and recognise that there is a balance to be struck between the requirement on the Pensions Regulator to ensure that there is enough money in pension funds to meet their liabilities and the need to ensure that burdens are not placed on employers, with requirements so tough that they are effectively forced out of business and thus rendered unable to make any future contributions to said pension funds. However, as my noble friend pointed out, there are real concerns among those responsible for managing the finances of charities and other non-profit organisations over whether the clause, as drafted, is fit for purpose.
Charities have charitable objects that effectively circumscribe their purpose and activities. I declare an interest as the chair of some charities now and having been formerly chief executive of three different charities. I also remind noble Lords of the interest I declared previously as a non-executive director of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
As my noble friend has pointed out, charities do not necessarily aspire to grow as companies do. They may happen to grow, if demand is there and money is available to fund their activities. They may aspire to grow, to increase the number of people that they work with in line with their charitable objectives. However, they may not. In my time, I have presided over charities that grew but I have also taken decisions that effectively reduced charities by refocusing them on core objectives and ensuring that they were sustainable. While charities generally do grow, they also need to be sustainable, and that is what my noble friend is addressing here.
This is not a negligible issue. Registered charities employ around 850,000 people. The voluntary sector, according to the Charity Finance Group, contributes £11.6 billion to UK gross value added, compared, for example, to the contribution made by agriculture, which is just £8.3 billion. As my noble friend pointed out, there is a significant issue with charity pension funds. The Charity Finance Group estimates that the top 50 charities are carrying almost £5 billion in liabilities. I am advised that those liabilities, and the actions that have been required to flow from them, are driving a significant number of charity mergers. This is having an effect on the architecture of the sector, not just on the individual charities and their employees. Those charities are understandably nervous about any shift in direction or emphasis that is not appropriate to their circumstances.
I have personal experience of the fact that charities have often suffered at the hands of legislation or public policy that was based on the assumption that most organisations were either public or private and did not take into account the often quite different structure and funding arrangements of charities. The noble Lord has had significant involvement with charities and will understand that point.
If the Government are not minded to accept this amendment, can the Minister tell the Committee how the Government envisage “sustainable growth” being applied by the regulator to charities? What reassurance can he give to worried finance directors of charities? Can the Minister remind the Committee of what relationship, if any, there is between his department and the regulator when it comes to deciding how best to interpret their objectives as set out in statute?
Lord Bates
My Lords, this amendment relates to the proposed new objective for the Pensions Regulator. The Pensions Regulator oversees the scheme funding regime for defined benefit pension schemes. This regime requires, among other things, the regular evaluation of a scheme’s funding position and a formal recovery plan to plug any deficit identified.
In undertaking this evaluation, the Pensions Regulator is guided by a number of objectives set out in the Pensions Act. It is therefore important, in reference to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that when we talk about this new requirement, it is placed in the context of the six or seven different measures that the Pensions Regulator will take into account in determining the funding rate that is necessary for the scheme to make up any deficit. While some consideration of sponsoring employers is implicit in these objectives, the new objective will make it explicit that the regulator must consider them, alongside members and the Pension Protection Fund, in deciding upon the suitability of deficit recovery plans and other decisions related to scheme funding.
The new objective responds to concerns expressed by sponsoring employers which felt that they needed to be recognised in the regulator’s statutory objectives, given their importance to defined benefit schemes. The current wording of the objective refers to sustainable growth, as the Government believe that the best protection for scheme members is a strong, healthy employer standing behind its scheme now and in the future. Whether that is a charitable organisation or a commercial organisation, its health must be the first objective in order to keep a sustainable body behind the scheme. Sustainable growth can benefit both the organisation and pension scheme members via a potentially stronger employer covenant underpinning the pension promises made.
Lord Bates
“Pension Protection Fund: compensation cap to apply separately to certain benefits
(1) Paragraph 26 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (Pension Protection Fund: compensation cap) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1)(b), for “sub-paragraph (2)(a) or (b)” substitute “sub-paragraph (2)(a), (b) or (c)”.
(3) In sub-paragraph (2)(a)(ii), for “paragraph (b)(i) does not apply” substitute “neither of paragraphs (b) and (c) applies”.
(4) In sub-paragraph (2)(b)—
(a) before paragraph (i) insert—“(zi) benefit A is attributable to the person’s pensionable service,”;(b) in paragraph (i), after “one or more other benefits” insert “that are attributable to his pensionable service”.(5) In sub-paragraph (2), after paragraph (b) insert “, and
(c) this paragraph applies if—(i) benefit A is attributable to a pension credit from a transferor,(ii) at the same time as the person becomes entitled to relevant compensation in respect of benefit A he also becomes entitled to relevant compensation in respect of one or more other benefits that are—(iia) under the scheme or a connected occupational pension scheme, and(iib) attributable to a pension credit from the same transferor,(“benefit or benefits B”), and(iii) the aggregate of the annual values of benefit A and benefit or benefits B exceeds the compensation cap.” (6) In sub-paragraph (5), after “sub-paragraph (2)(b)” insert “or (c)”.
(7) The amendments made by this section are to be treated as always having had effect.”
Lord Bates
My Lords, the four amendments I will speak to fall into two groups of two. The first two, Amendments 64A and 72A, relate to the application of the PPF compensation cap to individuals who have entitlement to both an occupational pension and a pension credit arising from a divorce or civil partnership dissolution settlement. It has come to light during the drafting of the Bill that the way in which the PPF currently applies the compensation cap to this group, while in line with the policy intent, does not comply with legislation. When compensation is calculated, these two entitlements are kept separate. It was the intention that the compensation cap would also be applied separately and this is what the PPF is currently doing. However, the legislation, as currently worded, requires the two amounts to be added together and the total capped, leading to a significantly lower payment. These amendments simply bring the existing legislation into line with the policy intent and the actual practice of applying the cap separately. They also allow the change to be applied retrospectively to cover past calculations and for them to come into effect from Royal Assent to reduce the period in which the practice and the legislation are out of alignment.
The second set of amendments—Amendments 67A and 67B—relates to the provisions in the Bill that establish a long-service compensation cap in the PPF. Those provisions in Clause 47 already make provision for how the long-service cap will apply in the calculation of PPF compensation for individuals in the PPF when the long-service cap legislation is commenced. The amendments deal with how the long-service cap should be applied when a scheme is either undergoing assessment by the PPF or winding up when the long-service cap is introduced. When the legislation commences, a scheme could be in the PPF assessment period—that is, being considered for entry to the PPF, or the scheme could be in wind-up.
Members of schemes in the assessment period will see their payments increased to reflect the long-service cap. However, any valuation of the scheme’s liabilities as part of the assessment period will continue to be based on the current cap structure. Any scheme that winds up outside the PPF, after being in assessment or not, will allocate its assets against the current cap structure. I hope that is absolutely clear. I beg to move.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very helpful explanation of these amendments. He may have answered the question that I am about to ask in his final sentence but I did not quite catch it, and I apologise for asking him to repeat it. In relation to the cap, for schemes currently in assessment, do the current PPF rules and levels of benefits or the more generous rules apply?
Lord Bates
The answer is that the current provision applies if a scheme is wound up outside the PPF. Schemes will increase payments where appropriate to reflect a long-service cap. However, the scheme’s liabilities will continue to be measured against the old cap. This is to prevent the actuary having to recalculate the scheme valuation, leading to delays and extra costs. I hope that that is helpful to the noble Baroness and thank her for raising the point.
Lord Bates
“Public service pension schemes: transitional arrangements
(1) Section 18 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (restriction of existing pension schemes) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) Scheme regulations may also provide for exceptions to subsection (1) in the case of—
(a) persons who were members of a public body pension scheme specified in the regulations, or who were eligible to be members of such a scheme, immediately before 1 April 2012, and(b) such other persons as the regulations may specify, being persons who before that date had ceased to be members of a scheme referred to in paragraph (a) or to be eligible for membership of such a scheme.”(3) In each of subsections (6) and (8), after “(5)” insert “or (5A)”.”
Lord Bates
My Lords, this group of amendments makes a small change to the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and a number of consequential amendments to this Bill so that members of public body pension schemes can benefit from the transitional protection provided for by the 2013 Act as it was intended, but in a way that delivers much greater administrative savings.
The Public Service Pensions Act delivers the commitments made in another place by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, that those members of the larger public service pension schemes who are less than 10 years from their normal retirement age in April 2012 should not be impacted by the Government’s reform programme. He was clear that this transitional protection should also extend to members of the smaller public body pension schemes; for example, those administered by the UK Atomic Energy Authority, the various research councils, or the Homes and Communities Agency. The larger schemes are those that cover the major public sector workforces: the Civil Service, judiciary, local government, teachers, the NHS, firefighters, the police and the Armed Forces.
As part of the Government’s reform programme, the intention is for the smaller schemes to be consolidated into the larger schemes wherever possible to allow for savings to be made from reduced administration and management costs, without affecting the value of members’ benefits. However, the current phrasing of the Public Service Pensions Act limits those eligible for transitional protection in the larger schemes to,
“persons who were members of an existing scheme, or who were eligible to be members of such a scheme, immediately before 1 April 2012”.
This means that moving transitionally protected individuals who do not meet this criterion from smaller schemes into the larger schemes would cause them to lose their protection, and the Act currently provides for them to remain in these smaller schemes.
This amendment removes the necessity to leave the smaller schemes in place to provide for transitionally protected members who do not meet this criterion, leading to unnecessary administration and management costs. It will have no impact on the value of members’ benefits and they will continue to receive the transitional protection as set out in the Public Service Pensions Act. Amendments 71, 72 and 73 are consequential amendments to allow the Treasury to commence the provision by order. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, we have discussed protected persons status previously in relation to the statutory override provisions, but it might be helpful in the context of this debate briefly to restate the position.
The status of “protected persons” was created when rail and other public sector industries were privatised, and new pension schemes were created to ensure that ongoing pension provision was made. Protected persons status gave members of certain schemes protection against their new employers providing pension benefits that were less favourable than those offered prior to privatisation.
However, there was never any intention by the Government for protected persons status to protect pension benefits already accrued in the event of a future employer insolvency. The amendment would oblige the Government to provide the full pension of those members of the railway pension scheme who have “protected persons” status in the event of their employer becoming insolvent. This would also apply to benefits accrued after privatisation.
There is, of course, a need to protect members of schemes where the sponsoring employer is insolvent. Since the Railways Act 1993, successive Governments have created a stronger pension-protection regime. This regime crucially includes measures that increase the security of members when their occupational scheme is underfunded and the sponsoring employer of the scheme becomes insolvent. It is that regime which is intended to provide protection to members of defined-benefit schemes. The status given to protected persons, on the other hand, was focused on ensuring that their pension benefits after privatisation were at least as favourable as those before. When it comes to protection in the case of employer insolvency, it is right that members of the railways pension scheme are treated the same as other members of occupational schemes in a similar position.
The railways pension scheme is a multi-employer sectionalised scheme. The different sections of the scheme are covered by the full provisions of the pension protection regime. The sections have to meet the funding requirements, debt requirements and compensation arrangements. They are covered by the Pension Protection Fund and pay the pension protection levy. This means that the scheme has been making specific payments to provide its members with protection in the event of any of the sponsoring employers becoming insolvent.
I am aware of the situation of the members of the Jarvis sections in the scheme. Of course, we have enormous sympathy for them and for any individual who is placed in the stressful and depressing situation not only of losing their job but of potentially seeing a limitation on their benefit entitlements. It is right that the full range of protection requirement rules should apply to the sponsoring employers of the railways pension scheme.
If this amendment were made, the Government would be responsible for covering a scheme’s liabilities if the employer became insolvent. Sponsoring employers would therefore not have to worry about the liabilities of certain members. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, rightly referred to moral sensibilities, which of course we have, but there is also the danger of moral hazard if the Government were to stand in that way. Finally, the amendment is retrospective, which would mean that insolvencies that have already occurred would have to be unpicked and arrangements that had already been made would have to be revisited.
This seems like a fairly negative response but of course legislation has been passed in the intervening period. I pay tribute to the then Government for introducing the statutory system of protection for scheme members and the levy, which Jarvis contributed to prior to its insolvency. In that sense, Jarvis members enjoy a higher level of protection even now as a result of the Pension Protection Fund. I understand the sensitivity of the issue and I do not underestimate the distress that has been felt by those members and their families, but this is not something that the Government feel able to accept and I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing his amendment.
Lord Bates
My Lords, this Government recognise the importance of supporting individuals in making decisions about their retirement income choices. These choices can be bewildering and the implications of choosing an unsuitable product can be devastating, as the noble Lord has very clearly set out for us in moving this amendment. That is why the Government continue to lead on and to support a whole range of initiatives aimed at driving up standards among providers, providing guidance to trustees and education to members. As well as the ABI code of conduct, we welcome the new Pensions Regulator guidance setting out expectations for what trustees should provide for their members. In addition, the Money Advice Service is further developing its support for those approaching retirement to help them engage with how their personal situation relates to products and services which might be appropriate to their needs.
However, we need to understand whether this activity is making a significant difference in terms of value to the consumer. The Government will therefore be assessing the ABI evaluation of the code of conduct planned for later this year, and the Pensions Regulator will be assessing the impact of the new guidance this summer. We will also be looking at other indicators to assess the extent of change in the market.
Wider regulatory activity includes the Financial Conduct Authority’s thematic review of annuities and consideration of a market study. The review will assess the extent of detriment to consumers of not shopping around—the numbers presented this afternoon have been quite startling and stark—and will consider other indicators of risk, such as insurers’ retention rates and whether profits in the market are high or unreasonably high. The FCA will report later this quarter. In addition, Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Department for Work and Pensions are currently reviewing the broad range of available research and statistics on decumulation to explore the impacts and interactions between market and consumer behaviour and government policy.
Our concern about the noble Lord’s amendment is that, while rightly highlighting a key issue, it would increase the risks for consumers and place additional burdens on employers. I will deal first with the risk for consumers. By sending all members to an annuity broker, we would effectively be pushing them away from regulated advice routes, as brokers, unless they are also FCA-regulated advisers, are not required to ensure that the product is suitable for the consumer. At this point, it is worth saying that the range of options available to somebody facing retirement are bewildering but are also many: there is not just the open market option but whether they should be retiring at all or whether they should be using the flexibility that is available, whether they should be drawing down on a pension pot rather than actually purchasing a new version of it, and what type of annuity—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)
That is very helpful from the Minister but, if he is going to do that, he is going to have to look at the artificially high base of alternative income—the £20,000 a year you have to have before you are allowed to enter into these arrangements, which was based on not being a charge to public funds but which is unreasonably high. I fully support the Minister’s argument but it follows that he must actually look at his minimum alternative income requirement.
Lord Bates
Those points about alternative income requirement are correct but there are a number of reasons, not just those, as to why annuity rates are historically low, to do with interest rate levels.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
The Minister may not have understood my point. He was, quite sensibly, making the point—I entirely agree with it—that people should be able to consider alternatives to annuity arrangements, such as draw-down and the like. All I am saying is that to do that, and not to have to cash in, you have to have, under Treasury rules, a minimum of £20,000 in alternative regular income. That is on the grounds that you need to protect people against falling into a charge on public funds if they exhaust their private savings. That figure seems to be artificially high and the Minister will need to look at that again.
Lord Bates
Okay, I have the right answer now: £20,000 is needed for flexible draw-down but not for capped draw-down or trivial commutation of benefits. There are different elements of it. My point, from which I have probably strayed into a trap—I should have stuck to the script—was that there is a range of choices, not simply the annuity rate which people face. That is why it is vital that all members engage early. That is the reason for the wake-up programme which is now being organised, to encourage people to engage with what they should be considering later on.
Also, making brokers the first port of call for all would create a captive market for one part of the industry, without effectively adding to consumer protections. Another risk to consumers is that they could fail to engage with options other than annuities that are more appropriate to them.
The noble Lord’s amendment suggests that a brokerage service would have to provide information on alternative at-retirement services, but it has to be recognised that brokers are not impartial. They make their money if the member buys an annuity, but not if they choose to draw down or defer, or to commute. While it is right that schemes should play a central role in informing consumers of their options, we would be wary of making this part of the qualifying criteria for automatic enrolment. The duty to enrol into a qualifying scheme does, of course, fall on the employer, and so to require them to take this step would be an unwelcome, additional burden.
I make it clear that we are committed to ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make good choices and that the annuities market works effectively for consumers and so, in this respect, we welcome the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has perhaps chided my honourable friend Steve Webb for raising this matter on annuities but, in many ways, he was doing just what the noble Lord is doing: saying that this is an area which needs to be discussed and debated. In many ways, this debate enables us to do that, but so do the reviews which are taking place and to which I have alluded in my response. I trust that, as part of that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, briefly, I listened to the Minister with great interest. I regard the amendment as important because, in a sense, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; it is when you are taking the benefits of the saving.
The Minister’s reply, it seems to me, says that in addition to all the complexities which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, set out, there is actually a whole load of other complexities about whether you should be having an annuity at all. My question is simply as follows. Until now, when we have often had final-salary schemes around, these decisions have been largely managed. However, we are increasingly moving into a position where most people will be on money-purchase schemes, and this will become normal; we will have to engage with these issues. Given the complexities which the Minister has so helpfully set out, is the Government’s view that the obligation to work this out is on the consumer—the person taking the pension—with some information provided somewhere, or is the obligation on the pension provider to provide information which covers all these options? Where does the responsibility primarily lie to advise the person at the point of retirement? I thought it was not quite clear enough as to where that lies in what the Minister said.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I will ask another question associated directly with that. To what extent does the Minister expect the Money Advice Service to take on some of this responsibility, given the slightly bumpy ride it has had so far? Or do the Government—and here I declare an interest—expect an organisation like the Pensions Advisory Service to take on some of this responsibility? It has to be free, independent, impartial and professional. Those are the only two organisations of which I am aware which might fit that role at the moment.
Lord Bates
I am grateful for the interventions of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness. The Money Advice Service and the Pensions Advisory Service are, of course, important. However, the argument we are having at present is about saying that individuals need to focus on this issue. It is their responsibility. It is vital to them. That is what the debates about transfers and auto-enrolment are trying to do.
However, we are wary of putting the responsibility for providing information to members solely in the hands of annuity brokers. It is better to drive up standards by ensuring that all the players in the annuity market—providers, schemes, trustees and consumers—are engaged. That is why the Government have led in support of a number of different initiatives to address this important issue and will continue to challenge the industry if there is no significant improvement.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Browne would require the Government to lift the restrictions on the National Employment Savings Trust, or NEST, on transfers made before 30 August 2014, and to notify the European Commission that they wish to lift the ban on the transfers and the contribution cap. Following this, and within 14 days of the notification, the Government would be required to make a Statement to Parliament.
The Government’s decision to legislate now but not to lift the restrictions on NEST until 2017, and to refuse to lift the ban on transfers in and out until pot follows member commences, is cause for real concern. Crucially, it cannot be in the public interest for the Government to proceed in such a way. Incidentally, I am sure that the Minister has noted the recommendation from the Work and Pensions Select Committee that the restrictions be lifted without delay.
I agree that there was a good case for having restrictions before it was clear how the market would progress, but these restrictions are no longer justified. The auto-enrolment market is now well under way and NEST has not taken all the business, which had once been a concern among some. Indeed, the restrictions have meant that NEST has been able to get less of that low and medium-earning segment than it otherwise would have done, which will contribute to the increase in the number of small dormant pots.
While the contribution limit will be lifted from 2017 by legislation, the restriction on individual transfers in and out of NEST will be left to coincide with the beginning of pot follows member. Whether the income cap is such a problem up to 2017, the continuing ban on transfers in and out will be. The DWP’s own research found that more than 80% of employers want one provider. However, the ban means that any employer who is thinking about using NEST but currently has a pension scheme of any type will be discouraged from using NEST because they cannot transfer in the pension assets in their current scheme. The Government are encouraging employers to use NEST but, by refusing to lift the ban on transfers in and out right away, they are discouraging those employers who currently have a scheme elsewhere. In this way, NEST is being disadvantaged against many of its market competitors.
Our amendment would enable employers who currently have an existing pension scheme to take their employees with their existing savings into NEST. While there remains a ban on transfers in and out, those employers cannot use NEST, or can use it only by leaving any existing pension pots in a stranded place, with a different scheme. Has the Minister considered that aspect of the Government’s decision?
It appears that what the Government are actually doing is ensuring that the restrictions on NEST remain until every employer has staged. By the time the NEST restrictions are lifted, auto-enrolment will be complete. There are a number of significant problems with the Government’s position. First, as the pensions industry acknowledges, NEST provides best-practice standards, which has obliged the insurance companies to improve their standards. Yet NEST is disadvantaged in competing for many of the low and medium-earning savers for whom it is designed. That may well result in customer detriment for many of those workers. Secondly, the Government’s proposals fail the public interest test. If large numbers of low and medium-earning employees cannot use NEST, it is thereby being prevented from delivering its public interest obligation. Thirdly, restricting NEST impacts on its financial position and makes it harder to pay back the state aid earlier and thereby allow it to reduce its charges even further. This again undermines NEST’s public interest obligation and its mission to deliver a low-charge, high-governance pension proposition. Finally, the rest of the industry is reported in the pensions press as increasingly not having the capacity or, possibly, desire to cope with all the employers who are still to stage in. Having had, it is said, the advantage of the NEST restrictions in place while larger employers move in, the rest of the industry is perhaps less interested in the smaller end of the market.
I trust that the Minister will be able to explain why the Government have so far refused to lift the restrictions. However, whatever has been said in the past, I urge the Minister to accept this amendment; but if he cannot do so today, I hope that he will take it away and reconsider before Report the strong case for these restrictions to be lifted—not in a few years’ time but now, before auto- enrolment is complete. I beg to move.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, for giving me the opportunity to update the Committee on all things NEST.
As noble Lords know, the National Employment Savings Trust was established to support automatic enrolment, providing access to a quality, low-cost scheme for a target market of low-to-moderate earners and smaller employers. We are now just over one year into automatic enrolment and NEST has around 800,000 members and 2,500 participating employers. Opt-out rates are low, with only 8% of individuals enrolled into NEST choosing not to save for their retirement. NEST is already very successfully doing what it is there for—supporting automatic enrolment.
However, we are approaching a peak in the staging profile. Between April and July this year, 27,000 medium-sized employers will start to enrol their workers, and from April 2015 more than 1 million small employers will do the same. We anticipate around 65% of these small and medium employers will use NEST. By the end of staging we expect NEST to have admitted around 750,000 employers and to be providing a pension saving vehicle for between 2 million and 4 million members.
This implementation challenge is what we need NEST to focus on. We need to ensure that the millions of people currently not saving sufficiently for retirement are provided with an opportunity to do so, and that NEST plays its part in starting to make pension saving the norm rather than the exception. For this reason, during the implementation of automatic enrolment, it is critical that NEST focuses on the key task of getting employers and workers on board without distraction. That is why we announced that we will be lifting the annual contribution limit and transfer restrictions currently placed on NEST by April 2017, when implementation for all existing employers is complete.
I am pleased to advise the Committee that, following an invitation from the European Commission, the Government submitted a formal notification earlier this month of their plans to lift these two constraints. The Commission will provide its response in due course. Once this has been received, the Government intend to consult on draft regulations and bring forward secondary legislation later this year to lift the constraints in 2017.
These regulations will provide certainty that beyond 2017 NEST will be on a similar footing to other providers and its members in the wider pensions market. It will enable NEST to support the successful implementation of automatic enrolment but will send a clear message to employers that these constraints will not have any bearing on them in the longer term, helping them to make an informed decision about automatic enrolment scheme choice for their members.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the introduction of automatic enrolment is a success. Effective implementation is important for building and maintaining consumer confidence in the reforms. Removing the annual contribution limit and transfer restrictions by April 2017 is the right approach.
The noble Baroness asked if the ban on transfers stopped employers from choosing NEST. NEST already has 800,000 members and 2,500 participating employers. Given that the overwhelming majority of employers that have staged so far are large employers, the evidence suggests that the constraints have not unduly deterred employers from choosing NEST.
This is an operational capacity issue for NEST. The restrictions on transfers in and out of NEST were designed to enable NEST to focus on its primary objective of supporting the introduction of automatic enrolment. Between April and July this year, an anticipated 10,000 to 15,000 medium-sized employers will start to use NEST to meet their automatic enrolment duty. It will not stop there, with more than 1 million small employers starting to enrol their workers from 2015.
I hope that those comments and updates, and the responses to the questions that the noble Baroness rightly raised, will enable the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, I was not going to intervene in this debate but I must challenge something the Minister said. It is as though the ban on transfers and the contribution cap were originally put in place because otherwise there would be a distraction from the fundamental purpose of NEST. That was absolutely not the position. There was a lot of detailed discussion. My noble friend Lady Drake would have been involved in that.
When the legislation was introduced, the imperative was to try to get a consensus of employers, trade unions and the providers, to make them feel comfortable with auto-enrolment. That certainly means that the Government of the day conceded things to get that consensus, so that the thing could move forward. However, those restrictions were not put in place because NEST would be distracted from the very important task that it was given without them.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
I support my noble friend, as that is precisely my recollection too. During a series of meetings with the organisations, the temporary cap came up because of the fear among pension providers that they would lose significant sums of money they had under management and the associated fees. The sole reason for doing it at the time was to get consensus to get it off the ground. Distraction was not a word that was ever uttered, and I must have been in about three years’ worth of those negotiations.
Lord Bates
These recollections will be there. I take it that it was in the mind of the Government that NEST had a huge task to focus on in actually attracting people who had never saved for their retirement before to start saving. That was a major responsibility, and issues were debated around that time relating to the effect that NEST’s creation would have on the market. Certain things were considered. It would be wrong to say that it was the only thing that was considered in terms of restrictions and the need to focus, but it was certainly one of the things which should have been focused on.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham
Does the Minister have any evidence that NEST—its chair, chief executive or board members—wanted this limit?
Lord Bates
I do not have any information to hand on that. However, we have got the point that I was perhaps overegging this by saying it was the only thing, and I need to recognise that other factors were perhaps considered when it came to putting this restriction in place. There was no sinister purpose, it was simply to say that there was a huge task to be undertaken and to ensure that NEST’s systems and operations could actually handle this. We do not want to put excessive burdens on NEST so that it fails when so many are dependent on its success.
Baroness Drake
Will the Minister also accept that volumes are critical to the success of NEST and to its charges, and that there is a fine balance between accommodating the concerns of other operators in the industry and not maintaining constraints so long that it undermines the efficiency of the NEST project as a whole?
Lord Bates
The noble Baroness makes a important point in relation to this and I would not dissent from it. NEST has a vital role to play and we want it to be a success. However, it is new, and a new system is coming online, so this ought to be done through learning from experience in a gradual and incremental way rather than as a big bang, of the sort which has had its problems in the past.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I thank all my noble friends who have contributed to the debate and am grateful to the Minister for his graciousness in revising his position. It is quite possible that my noble friends are in a better position to decide what the Labour Government intended by these measures than he perhaps is, despite his knowledge and his current position, since they were involved in shaping it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
My Lords, I think confusion may have arisen between the discussions that the previous Labour Government had on this and the discussions that we had in Committee on the previous Pensions Bill, which introduced NEST, or at least some revisions to it. I shall check the Hansard record but I distinctly remember discussing this point with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and making an astonishingly similar argument about the importance of making sure that NEST got its primary role right before we moved on to other aspects and transfers. I shall look forward to writing him a letter—I hope—pointing him to the exchange that we had three years ago.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
I look forward to the letter and its contents in due course. We were relaying the origins of NEST in the first place. These issues—the restrictions—were not intended by the then Government that introduced it to avoid NEST being distracted.
Lord Bates
Lord Bates
“(a) regulations under section 3, 17, 18(3) or (5), 19, 20, 29, 31 or 33,”
Lord Bates
My Lords, in moving Amendment 68, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. Government Amendments 68 and 69 respond to recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They provide that regulations made under certain powers in the Bill would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration of the powers in the Bill and subsequent report.
As I do not wish to detain noble Lords for too long, I thought it would be helpful to briefly outline the regulation-making powers affected by the government amendments. They would provide that the regulations made under the following clauses would be affirmative: Clause 17, which provides for regulations to prescribe the rate at which deferral increments will be calculated for the single-tier pension; Clause 18(3), which provides for regulations to modify the amount of state pension to be used when calculating the deferral increase due where a person has been resident overseas during their period of deferral; Clauses 19 and 31, which provide that regulations may be made to disqualify a prisoner from being paid a single-tier pension or bereavement support payment; Clause 20, which provides for regulations to exclude people who are not ordinarily resident in Great Britain or a specified territory from entitlement to the annual uprates of the single-tier pension; and Clause 33, which provides for regulations to prohibit the offering of incentives with the intention of inducing a member of a defined benefit pension scheme to agree to a transfer of their rights to another pension scheme or arrangement.
Turning now to the other amendments in this group, Amendment 68ZA would make regulations under Clause 17(5) affirmative. As I have already said, Amendment 68 provides for regulations under Clause 17 to be affirmative so this amendment is not necessary. Amendment 68B would make regulations under Clause 42 affirmative. Clause 42 provides for regulations to be made to enable the recovery of Pension Protection Fund levies for past periods. This is a technical area relating to ensuring compliance with EU law on state aid, following a decision by the European Commission and a subsequent ruling of the General Court in respect of the BT pension scheme. This found that partial exemption from the PPF levies due to the existence of a Crown guarantee constituted unlawful state aid. The Government understand that BT has appealed the ruling of the General Court to the European Court of Justice.
Regulations were made in 2010, following the Commission’s decision, to ensure payment of the levies going forward. Clause 42 simply provides for regulations to allow recovery of outstanding levies relating to the period from 2005-06 until 2010, when the regulations took effect. In agreement with the Commission, an escrow account was set up pending the final legal outcome and already holds the maximum amount of risk-based pension protection levy that could be due, plus applicable recovery interest. The Government are not aware of any other scheme in the same position as BT, so any regulations would have limited application.
Given the limited scope of this power and the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s intentions during the passage of the Bill, we consider the negative procedure appropriate in this instance. Any regulations made under this power would simply ensure that the prompt payment to the PPF of the levies for past periods is possible should BT’s final legal challenge not succeed. This will ensure that the UK is in compliance with state aid law and so avoid possible fines. I therefore ask noble Lords not to press their amendments. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Harris of Richmond) (LD)
My Lords, if Amendment 68 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 68ZA by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Browne of Ladyton
My Lords, I speak to government Amendments 68 and 69, and to Amendment 68ZA, for what that is now worth, and Amendment 68ZB in the name of my noble friend Lady Sherlock and myself. As the Minister pointed out, Amendment 68ZA is now unnecessary in the light of government Amendment 68.
We welcome the government amendments in this group. As the Minister explained, they have been tabled in response to some of the recommendations made by the DPRRC. I am pleased to see that the Government have come to accept the DPRRC’s recommendation that Clause 17 powers relating to the effect of pensioners postponing or suspending state pensions should be affirmative; that was the purpose of our Amendment 68ZA.
Amendment 68ZB is purely a probing amendment, and has been remarkably successful in drawing from the Minister an extensive explanation of the regulation-making power under Clause 42, and why the Government felt that it was appropriate that it should proceed by the negative resolution procedure. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation and, in the light of his full explanation, which is now on the record, I will not press that amendment.
Lord Bates
Lord Bates