Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I am concerned that there are well-intentioned measures in the Bill designed to ensure that there is capital adequacy in these schemes. One hopes that they will work but how will any regulator know in advance what capital is actually adequate? The circumstances in which wind-up could take away people’s pensions, even if the assets are ring-fenced and protected for the members, are those in which there is no other mechanism for covering the wind-up costs. That is where the members’ pensions would be at risk.
Indeed, we saw this a number of years ago with defined benefit pension schemes, which is precisely why we ended up with the Pension Protection Fund. The Government put in well-meaning legislation that required minimum funding standards for defined benefit schemes which were supposed to ensure that members’ pensions were safe even if the scheme or the employer failed. Unfortunately, the situation with the schemes—due to lack of competent administration in some cases but not all; sometimes due to market movements as well—led to members losing their pensions, and the only real protection that ended up being available was this backstop insurance in the form of the Pension Protection Fund.
Yes, we need capital adequacy. Yes, the Bill is really important. But I would be really grateful if my noble friends the Ministers explained why the Government do not feel this is necessary, or how proper protection for members in extremis can be provided. For example, will NEST guarantee to take over these liabilities? Is there some other plan? I would be grateful for some reassurance from my noble friends.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)
Amendment 18 requires the Secretary of State to,
“make provision for a compensation fund or for the funding to be provided by another source as a last resort”,
in circumstances where the scheme has had a triggering event and has insufficient resources to pay the costs referred to in Clause 8(3)(b)—that is, the costs of complying with duties imposed under the Bill during a trigger event, and the costs of continuing to run the scheme for a period of six months to two years—and a prohibition on increasing charges during the trigger period applies.
The amendment speaks to the heart of what the Bill is about: protecting members. Along with a number of other amendments, it seeks to add further protections and, perhaps, test us a little on the extent of the measures the Government have provided for in the Bill as introduced. I welcome both the focus on member protection and the opportunity to explore the specific measures in the Bill which provide the members with security should the scheme decide to close or start to fail. The amendment would mean that if a scheme experienced a triggering event and had insufficient money to pay for the costs associated with the options the scheme may pursue following a triggering event, other funds must be provided. It also goes further to say that it is the Secretary of State who must provide a compensation fund or for the funding to be provided by another source.
In responding, I will touch on a few areas. I will outline, first, the measures which provide that sufficient funds must be held; secondly, some of the costs and complexities that would be introduced into the system should a compensation fund or other funding be required; and, thirdly, the compatibility with the regime provided for in the Bill.
I turn to the measures which provide that sufficient funds will be held. First, the main provisions in the Bill requiring schemes to hold certain funds are in Clause 8, which provides that for the scheme to be authorised it must satisfy the regulator that it has sufficient resources to meet certain costs. This includes the costs of complying with the requirements under the Bill once the scheme experiences a triggering event and those of running the scheme for a period of between six months to two years, in the event of a triggering event occurring. The Government believe that these measures are sufficient and that this is an appropriate regime for the types of funding in question here. Further, members’ savings are protected via the restrictions on using members’ pots to pay for these costs provided at Clause 33. We therefore consider that the amendment is unnecessary.
However, it would be helpful to explore the counterarguments or challenges as to whether this is adequate risk mitigation—in particular, to explore any suggestions that there is still some risk in relation to: the period before the authorisation regime is up and running; the calculation of those funds to ensure they are sufficient at the point of need; the availability of the funds at the point of need; and the funds diminishing over time. Finally, what happens if the lack of these funds leads to the regulator withdrawing authorisation and creating a triggering event? Let me set out how those risks are addressed within the regime.
In respect of the period before the regime is up and running, paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides that the scheme funder is liable for these costs. It places this liability on the scheme funder when a triggering event has occurred in an existing scheme and the liability for those costs does not lie elsewhere. The prohibition in relation to increasing members’ charges applies during this period, so members are protected. If the funder should be in financial difficulty, the matter should be pursued via the normal court channels or insolvency processes. It is not the members’ money which is at risk in these scenarios; it is the running costs of the scheme and payment for activities during the triggering event period.
We also know that other schemes may well rescue the failing scheme, as has happened before, to protect the reputation of the industry. This is a different dynamic from what would be the case in non-money purchase schemes, where the debt is about money needed to pay member benefits and where funding obligations to pay for the promised benefits would attach if another entity took over the scheme. The master trust industry can support the movement of members—some trusts are willing to do so—or take over failing master trusts, so government intervention is less warranted where an industry solution may be possible. This might be an appropriate point to deal with the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the identification of receiving schemes. They will be on a list kept by the Pensions Regulator, and some industry players may wish to step in and identify themselves.
On whether the funds available to the scheme will be sufficient, regulations will set out matters that the regulator must take into account when deciding whether it is satisfied that those funds are sufficient. We anticipate that these will include matters that will support the establishing of the assets needed to cover these specific costs, such as the business plan, the size of schemes, the costs of contracts and the value of assets, the nature and level of assumptions made in that business plan, the security of the scheme funder and the state of the scheme administration. Also covered will be the range of potential assumptions that may be used in arriving at the figure required.
Regulations may also specify the information that the regulator must take into account and requirements relating to the financing of the scheme or funder, such as requirements relating to assets, capital or liquidity. We anticipate that these will include matters such as how the funds are to be held to ensure that they may be accessed for specific purposes only, so that they are safe in the event of the funder becoming insolvent. In this way the Bill provides that to be authorised, a scheme must hold sufficient funds for those costs and that these funds must be held appropriately.
The supervision part of the regime focuses on ensuring that the funds remain sufficient and are not eroded over time, and that the Pensions Regulator can act swiftly should a drop occur in the funds held. There are measures in the Bill that work together to provide that this requirement to hold funds to cover the costs of the triggering period is an ongoing requirement, and one that the regulator will be able to supervise. Clause 19 states that if the regulator stops being satisfied that an authorised scheme meets the authorisation criteria, it may decide to withdraw the scheme’s authorisation.
Further, alongside the information-gathering powers that the regulator has under the Pensions Act 2004, Clause 14 requires the scheme and funder to submit annual accounts, while Clause 15 gives the regulator the power to require schemes to submit a “supervisory return” and Clause 16 places a requirement on certain persons to report “significant events”. We anticipate that these significant events will include matters in relation to the funds held under Clause 8. Through these means, the Pensions Regulator will have a stream of data in relation to which it can make further inquiries to ensure that it remains satisfied that the criteria continue to be met, and it can take action if that ceases to be so.
If the regulator becomes concerned that the assets are no longer sufficient to satisfy it that the criteria are met, it may issue a warning notice to withdraw authorisation, which is a triggering event, and will have access to the pause power and direction-making powers under the triggering-events part of the Bill. In this way, the Pensions Regulator can act quickly and decisively as soon as any risk arises, to diminish risk and prevent the situation deteriorating any further. On the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about which liabilities the receiving scheme will have for debt in the existing scheme, the Bill imposes no liabilities on the receiving scheme for debt in the existing scheme.
This approach caters for a number of different structures under which the master trust schemes have been set up. It ensures that the regulator can make a scheme-specific assessment of the funds that must be held to cover the requirements. It helps ensure that the risk of the scheme not holding these funds, or of the funds being eroded, is minimised.
In addition to the consideration that this risk is already dealt with via the Bill’s provisions, I will turn to a second matter: the costs and complexity that this amendment could introduce into the regime. As soon as compensation is added to the regime—based on the concept that where the funds are insufficient, someone else will step in—an element of moral hazard creeps in, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, acknowledged. Master trusts are businesses set up to provide a service to a number of employers. Many are set up to make a profit; some are not-for-profit, but all are selling or marketing their services to employers and must take responsibility for providing protection to their members. I would also be concerned about the added cost of delivering a compensation fund. Noble Lords have left it for regulations to establish whether this fund or requirement would be a government-funded compensation scheme or a levy-funded compensation scheme, or on whom any additional sourcing requirement would be placed. So this would be a broad regulation-making power.
In terms of what type of compensation may be envisaged, if it was levy-based there would be additional administrative costs to consider, as well as additional costs to the schemes that would presumably need to contribute to it as well as holding funds for their own scheme for a very low risk, as my noble friend Lord Flight pointed out. These would be funds that the scheme could not use for its own risk mitigation. The type of risk we are looking at here does not warrant the introduction of a compensation scheme. Members’ pots or promised benefits are not at risk. Clause 33 provides protection when a trigger event occurs, as it prevents charges being increased or new ones being introduced. It is about the risk of the scheme being unable to meet costs related to paying for activities under the trigger events such as wind-up, bulk transfers, finding a new funder or suchlike. The cost and complexity of a new compensation fund is not warranted.
A third matter is that I am not convinced that the amendment is compatible with the wider regime provided for in the Bill. There would be some significant challenge in ensuring that this provision did not lead to unintended effects: if, for example, the other source of funding was to place a requirement on a specific person to provide the costs as a last resort. The regime has been specifically crafted to ensure that all types and structures of master trusts can comply with the requirement. This has been specifically designed to ensure sufficient flexibility in enabling schemes to comply with the obligation.
Baroness Altmann
Will my noble friend write to me with some clarification on how costs would be covered? If a scheme fails and records are in disarray, how would the costs of wind-up be covered? I accept that they cannot come out of the members’ pots. If the company running the scheme or the employer has failed, where will the money come from to make sure that members’ current pension funds are transferred over and the costs of administering the transfer, executing the bulk transfer and clarifying the records are met? Currently it would seem that the members’ pots will be in limbo. The money cannot come out of their pots, but there is no one else to pay.
Lord Freud
The money cannot come out of their pots, but the Pensions Regulator will be looking to transfer those pots to another master trust. The protection that this amendment and my noble friend are suggesting is almost conditioned by what we watch in the defined benefit market. This is a different situation, where there are protected pots. There may be costs in a catastrophic situation, but they will not fall on members, and it is not the job of government to protect non-members from getting into a mess.
Lord Flight
Is it not very simple? The manager of the master trust would go bust just like any other business can go bust. It would go into liquidation and, to the extent that it owed debts to the suppliers of electricity or other such things, they would suffer.
Lord Freud
My noble friend has put very bluntly what I was trying to say in a subtle and gentle way. If the landlord or another supplier to the scheme finds itself out of pocket, for instance, that is what will happen. It will go through the normal insolvency process, but it is not the job of the Pensions Regulator or the Government to be concerned about that. Our concern is purely with the members’ pots. Are they protected and is there a process to transfer them to someone who can look after them properly? I hope that is what I have been able to explain in an overlengthy reply. I hope it has enabled the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Drake
I shall try to pick up some of the Minister’s points. There was a lot of detail in his reply. I am conscious of the time. I shall start with the risks that we are trying to mitigate; there seems to be a lot of confusion about them. The risk this Bill is trying to mitigate is that the costs associated with managing scheme failure and winding up the scheme fall on the members, so their pots are drained to pay for them. Their pots are not protected. We are talking not about the equivalent of a DB benefit provision or a Financial Services Compensation Scheme provision on an annuity, but about the specific risk that the Explanatory Notes and all the associated documents from the Government in support of the Bill identify that it is seeking to mitigate. Members’ pots should not be raided to pay for a master trust failure.
The Minister set out in great detail how the authorisation regime, the supervision regime and the scheme failure resolution regime will work very effectively to protect the members against that risk. That was very clearly laid out. I complimented the Explanatory Notes and other documents at Second Reading. It is possible to clearly follow the regime proposed. However, the regulatory regime cannot ensure that the capital adequacy and supervision regime will always ensure sufficient resources in the scheme to finance the cost of failure in respect of wind-up and transfer costs. That is the risk we are trying to deal with. It is not the function of a regulator, whether it is the PRA, the FCA or anything else, to eliminate all risk. It cannot possibly do so, unless there is an unlimited guarantee from the taxpayer always to remove risk in a regulated system.
This amendment seeks to address what happens when the regulatory system around capital adequacy or resolution through transfer of another scheme does not work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, at the moment there is only one place to go, which is back to the members’ pots, which will be drained.
If I heard the Minister correctly, he said that there would be no liability for debt placed on the receiving scheme in a transfer situation, so he is saying that if there are insufficient resources in the failing master trust they cannot be offloaded on to the receiving scheme on transfer. They are still floating around to be paid for, so we cannot put them there and we cannot put them on the financial resources in the capital adequacy regime because that has failed, so we are still waiting for someone to pick up these costs because the only thing exposed at the moment is the members’ pots. In that situation, no regulator can guarantee whether there is a suitable master trust that will pick up all the members. It may want to cherry pick some and leave a rump behind. We do not know how this will play out. What has to be possible is that the capital adequacy and supervision regime does not always work and, if there is any one occasion when it does not work, the prohibition clause—Clause 33—cannot work because prohibition on increasing member charges when a failure takes place can operate only if someone provides the resources to fund that prohibition on increasing the charges.
There is no provision in the Bill or in any other policy document from the Government that states that, if a scheme fails in extremis and there are not the resources in place, there is no one to fund the prohibition order on increasing charges as a result of managing that failure other than the members’ pots.
Lord Freud
I want to be very clear. There was a useful dialogue between me and my noble friend Lord Flight. I would like to repeat what I said. I am not saying that no one will lose money if something goes wrong; what I am saying is that it will not be the members because their pots are protected.
We have bankruptcy or insolvency proceedings for other people when they get into financial trouble, but that is a separate matter. The members are protected. What we are worried about in this Chamber is the position of the members, and Clause 33 provides that fundamental protection. It is not open to the failing scheme funder to raid those pots; that is prohibited, and we have a regime to prevent it happening.
Just because someone somewhere loses money around this process does not mean that we need a compensation regime. I want to make that utterly clear, because there seems to be a concern to see that nobody can lose money. If people mess things up, they may lose money—but members will not lose money.
Baroness Drake
I accept the clarification from the noble Lord. The amendment—which at this stage is partly probing, although underlying it is a principle that is a matter of substance—was not intended to prescribe the model. It does not say it has to be a compensation fund—it could be a provider of last resort—but there needs to be an explicit provision in the Bill that makes it clear what happens to protect the members’ pots when the supervisory and capital adequacy regime fail in a failing master trust. I do not believe that the Bill addresses that at the moment. I am not arguing for a particular model; I am arguing for a principle of absolute clarity as to how members’ protection against exposure to meeting the cost that I described—the risk that the Bill seeks to mitigate—will be addressed in an in extremis position.
It is not a plaintive request—I say to the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that I am not a plaintive request person. I am standing here quite firmly because potentially 7 million people are going to be affected and, over time, there will be trillions of pounds under management. This matter is worthy of interrogation, rather than us simply hoping.