Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 13th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart of Edgbaston. I am sure noble Lords will join me in congratulating her on her excellent maiden speech. I know that we can look forward to many more thoughtful, powerful and productive contributions from her in the future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, will leave a footprint in this House—fear not. Her battle for the position of women in politics, business and pensions will continue. The noble Baroness has had such a distinguished career in public service: 20 years as MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, including as Health Minister and on the Joint Intelligence Committee. Now, as chair of Wilton Park, she is dealing with conflict resolution, a skill that I hope will prove particularly valuable in the context of some of the conflicts we encounter in this House—on Brexit, for example. As a non-executive director in the Cabinet Office, she is and will be a real asset to the House. I am delighted to see her here.

It is a pleasure to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, whom I met and became friends with through her dear late husband, Derek Scott, with whom I worked on pensions policy in No. 10 when he was the then Prime Minister’s chief economic adviser. Her law degree and her near-PhD on pension issues have definitely stood her in good stead. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, Derek was personable, intelligent and with a really good sense of humour. All three of us were vehemently opposed to Britain joining the euro. Indeed, his warnings about the dangers of monetary union to European financial stability and the costs of bailing out weaker members such as Greece proved prescient around the time of his tragic death aged just 65 in 2012. I have no doubt that Derek would be so proud of the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, and all that she has achieved—as, of course, are her sons, Ben and Alastair, and her wider family. I look forward to many more contributions from the noble Baroness, as do all noble Lords, I am sure.

I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Field of Birkenhead, whose maiden speech we have also heard today. I look forward to many more contributions from the noble Lord, not only on education, apprenticeships, modern slavery and national unity but on today’s subject: pensions and social security. He is, as many others have commented, a legend in his field.

The Bill before us today is vital to protect pensioners. Clearly, using earnings growth for the period May to July 2020 would make it impossible to uprate many important benefits that pensioners rely on. It is right that the Bill gives the Secretary of State discretion to increase the state pensions by an amount considered “appropriate” in light of the economy and other matters. It would be wrong to freeze state pensions in the current environment, especially when so many older people are struggling with the effects of lockdown, restrictions on their daily lives, or having to spend more on care, for example.

The UK state pension is already the lowest in the developed world relative to average earnings. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and have called, as he has, for a double lock, increasing by the best of prices or earnings. In fact, as others have said, the triple lock is not just problematic for intergenerational fairness; there is an element of intragenerational unfairness. The triple-lock construct is not entirely suitable for the purpose of preventing poverty in later life. It is more of a political construct than a rational economic policy tool to protect later life. The 2.5% is arbitrary and, in particular, does not apply to pension credit, which has to be increased only in line in with earnings, rather than the triple lock. The triple lock protects only the full basic state pension of £134.25 a week and the full new state pension of £175.20. It does not apply to SERPS or the state second pension. So it benefits the youngest pensioners most, rather than the oldest and poorest. I urge my noble friend the Minister to reassure the Committee that the pension credit will not fall behind the new state pension in any way. I also urge the department to look again at how we protect the oldest and poorest pensioners.

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned the issue of frozen pensions: the 4% of UK pensioners who have no right to an increase in their state pension. I know that this is a difficult issue for the department but it might be one, in the light of the pandemic and of Brexit, that we wish to reconsider.

I also ask my noble friend to look at other benefit upratings which are particularly important. One that I have commented on before is bereavement benefits; in particular, having an allowance for children that lasts longer than 18 months and disregards their parental status.

Finally, I ask my noble friend to consider particularly the position of women, the disabled and the lowest earners; in particular, the older women trying to live on far less than the full pension, even though they are entitled to a share of their former spouse’s pension after either divorce or bereavement. Could my noble friend update the Committee on the work being carried out in the department to identify what has gone wrong with the system which is meant to ensure that women receiving below the minimum have their pensions increased when their spouse reaches his state pension age, and whether remedial measures are about to be put in place?

Covid-19: Over-60s

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The answer to the noble Baroness’s question needs to come from the Department of Health and Social Care. I will talk to my colleague and ensure that a letter is written to the noble Baroness with the answers to her questions.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad my noble friend agrees that people in their early or mid-60s are fit and healthy, and most are able to work. However, some are genuinely unable to do so. In light of the near 20-year differential in healthy life expectancy across the UK and looming rises in unemployment, might the Government consider a bit more flexibility in the state pension and allowing early access, perhaps on health grounds?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

It will come as no surprise to my noble friend that the Government at this point have no plans to review early access to state pensions, as I have already said. Where people have health conditions and are in receipt of universal credit, however, depending on the circumstances, they may be able to receive an additional amount.

Pension Protection Fund (Moratorium and Arrangements and Reconstructions for Companies in Financial Difficulty) Regulations 2020

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for laying these amendments and for the excellent way in which she introduced them. I also support the amendments and believe that many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, are particularly relevant. It is clearly important that the Pension Protection Fund has some recognition—or as much as possible, if you like—in the new environment that has created the moratorium and various super-priorities. It is important that the Pension Protection Fund retains creditor rights where it can to avoid gaming of the fund, which otherwise could be overwhelmed with extra liabilities that are picked up by other pension schemes.

I agree with my noble friend that it is important to ensure that these regulations are able to act in the interests of the Pension Protection Fund and to balance that against the need to preserve functioning and ongoing sponsors during the current emergency. Can my noble friend help the Committee understand what powers this grants to the Pension Protection Fund? I recognise, and we discussed through the passage of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act, that there is a limit on the power of the Pension Protection Fund. I appreciate the Government’s amendments, which have introduced some representation, but, for example, if trustees, as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, prefer to approve a high-risk restructuring strategy but the board of the Pension Protection Fund believes the risk is too high and would result in higher costs to it when the company fails—as the board believes would be most likely given the balance of risks that that restructuring would entail—would it have the power to override the trustees and to refuse to agree the proposed course of action and, ultimately, ensure that the company fails sooner rather than later, or would that not be within its powers under the new system?

Equally, if the management of the company wishes to try to sell assets that have already been pledged to the pension scheme and apply to a court to permit this—I understand the corporate insolvency Act permits the authorisation of the sale of such assets and the PPF must be informed or consulted—does the PPF have powers to protect itself against such a transaction on which the funding of that defined benefit scheme had previously been based? What representations might it be able to make in the court environment? Does it have the power to demand detailed information or to conduct its own investigations into the financial position of the company when it is aiming to restructure or undertake some asset sales? Does the Pension Protection Fund have the power to investigate the impact of any loans or other restructuring agreed in a moratorium that might be beneficial to favoured lenders or, ultimately, to the owners of the company, who might end up taking over a restructured operation, having jettisoned the pension fund to the detriment of the funding of the pension scheme when it goes into the PPF?

How do the Government plan to deal with schemes when banks or other lenders to a company during a moratorium attempt to leapfrog ahead of the pension scheme on insolvency, should that occur. At what stage does the Pension Protection Fund have any power to prevent this happening or to be able to intervene to represent its interests if it believes such loans are suspect or may be intended to game the PPF? I have given prior notice of these questions to my noble friend and was grateful to hear that Ministers have some ability to override some of the potential risks to pension scheme members and to other pension scheme members.

I know that it is important to make sure that the Pension Protection Fund—

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, there is a five-minute limit.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I apologise.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to government Amendments 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 31, as well as to my related Amendment 2. First, I thank the Minister and her team for their close engagement with us on the Bill and their time, patience and occasional willingness to change their minds.

The government amendments are a good example of mind-changing. As the Minister said, they remove the instances in Part 1 of first-use-only affirmative procedures; that is a very good thing. The DPRRC’s report on the Bill in February this year was concerned about the use of these procedures. It pointed out that the powers in the regulations remain exactly the same on subsequent use. In Committee, I strongly urged the Government to remove this type of procedure; I very much welcome the fact that they have now done this. All the subsequent uses of the negative procedure have been withdrawn by these amendments.

However, one negative procedure remains: what is left of Clause 11(8) in line 18 on page 7. This is the subject of my probing Amendment 2. Subsection (8), as amended by government Amendment 3, prescribes the negative resolution procedure for regulations under Clause 11(2)(e). Subsection (2)(e) seems a little opaque. It seems to allow the Secretary of State to add persons or categories to those whose fitness and propriety TPR must assess. On 22 June, the Government confirmed to me in writing that this was the case. They believed that this was largely an operational matter and that the negative procedure provided

“appropriate scrutiny as well as opportunity for debate if desired”.

This is a mischaracterisation of the negative procedure, which in practice barely merits the label “scrutiny” at all. Possibly because I did not ask them to, the Government did not address why subsection (2)(e) was necessary at all or give examples of what kind of persons or categories of persons are envisaged in subsection (2)(e) and what role they may play in the schemes themselves. Any additional involvement of these persons or categories of persons may give them significant influence over the conduct of the schemes.

It is obviously desirable to have these new entrants assessed for fitness and propriety. The issue here is the Secretary of State’s decision to add persons or categories to the list without constraint, restriction or proper scrutiny. I would be grateful if the Minister could address these points when she replies.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s amendments to this Bill and congratulate my noble friend on her initial speech, in which she so clearly explained what the Government intend to do. I also congratulate her on the way in which she has engaged with Members across the House and, together with the Bill team, has listened to the concerns expressed at previous stages of this Bill. I particularly welcome the change from the originally proposed first-use-only affirmative procedure and the comments made by my noble friend on the importance of, for example, the cooling-off period before pension transfers occur.

I must admit that I also support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I share his concerns and would welcome an explanation, such as he has requested from my noble friend when she comes to respond, of why only this area—assessment of whether somebody is fit and proper to run a CDC scheme—should be left to the negative resolution procedure and be wholly at the discretion of the Secretary of State without what we would normally consider to be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny in this important area. The CDC framework is completely new for this country. I therefore think that colleagues across the House who have expressed the same concerns are right in suggesting that it is important that we have as much scrutiny as possible.

I have an amendment in this group—Amendment 13—regarding the accuracy of pensions data that needs to be submitted to a CDC scheme. I will not move it at this stage; I will come back to this subject during debate on a later group with my other amendments.

I welcome the current government proposals and hope that my noble friend will listen to some of the concerns expressed. I look forward to hearing contributions from other noble Lords and colleagues as we go forward in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to support Amendment 32, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have added my name. I should add that I also wholeheartedly support Amendment 8, but I will restrict my comments to Amendment 32.

While there seems to be general support for the introduction of this new type of pension—collective money purchase schemes, or CMPs; I am going to try very hard not to call them CDCs as we go through this—they are not without risk. As we discussed at some length in Committee, one of the greatest risks that is often raised in respect of CMPs relates to intergenerational fairness. Indeed, at the extreme, in a situation where no returns are being earned but pension levels are maintained for existing pensioners, the pensions being paid would be dependent on the funds being put by new joiners, as in a Ponzi scheme. That is very extreme, as I say, but it demonstrates that there is the possibility of one cohort being disadvantaged by the treatment of another cohort. If existing pensioners are paid too much, those currently paying in will suffer, and if the scheme is overcautious in what it pays out to pensioners, pensioners will suffer and current workers will gain.

This is not theoretical. We only need to look at what is happening in the Netherlands to see that the question of whether to cut benefits when returns are not as good as expected is a real and current issue. In a standard defined contribution scheme, the risk is not pooled, so the issue does not arise. In a defined benefit scheme, the matter is dealt with by the employer making up the difference. However, in a CMP, there is no possibility of that happening. If you want to maintain the level of pensions when returns are low, the future pensions of those still contributing will be impacted and vice versa, so the issue of intergenerational fairness is specific to CMP schemes.

It is also worth pointing out that CMPs have implications for not only intergenerational fairness but fairness more generally. For example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, pointed out, if someone wants to transfer their fund out of a scheme, how do you value their share? The benefits that arise from the scheme are uncertain, being targets only, so if you value a transfer based on the target benefits, which seems to be what is proposed, that will not take account of the risk that those benefits may not be achieved. In that situation, the person transferring out is getting a better deal than those staying, unless that risk is taken into account in the transfer valuation. The issue is complicated further because of the pooling of longevity risk in a CMP. For example, if someone has just a couple of years to live, there would be a strong incentive for them to take their money out to the detriment of those staying in.

Given that fairness is the single most commonly raised risk that relates to CMPs, it is curious that there is no explicit mechanism in the Bill to deal with it. In our previous discussions, we were pointed in the direction of Clause 18 to see how the matter is dealt with, but in fact that clause sets out only how benefits and so on will be calculated and says that regulations will be made in that respect; nowhere does it mention the critical question of fairness. I imagine that that is because it has been based on other pension legislation, which, as I said, does not suffer from this risk.

Amendment 32 introduces as very simple means by which to ensure that intergenerational fairness and fairness more generally must be assessed by the trustees. Given the importance of this issue, I urge the Minister to consider it really seriously.

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the aims of the two amendments in this group. Amendment 8, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Sherlock and Lady Bowles, was expertly moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and deals with situations where a pension scheme may not have enough money to meet its obligations and there is a risk that it will need to draw on the funds in the members’ pension pot rather than have money coming in from outside.

As I mentioned in debate on earlier stages of the Bill, I am particularly concerned about the situation where a scheme has had a triggering event or is winding up and may not have sufficient administrative budget to cope with, for example, a significant IT failure in which member records are lost or transposed from one to another so that it is an enormous job to unscramble each member’s entitlement. The costs of that work can be significant; if no reserves are in place to meet those costs and the employer is in financial difficulties, what will a CMP scheme be able to do to fund the costs of sorting out the records? It is true that the aims of the CMP scheme as set out in the Bill will be to have central estimated assumptions for guiding benefit adjustments to ensure that there is no difference of treatment between different members, but on the particular issue that I am referring to and that Amendment 8 refers to, the continuity strategy outlined in the Bill is supposed to have money to meet a triggering event, including its costs, but may not do so.

Therefore, as I understand it, the thrust of this amendment is to ensure that the Pensions Regulator requires a separate capital buffer, or that an insurance arrangement will cover the costs incurred in winding up, or that, in exceptional circumstances, the costs required to administer the scheme are met other than from members’ funds. When we set up this new regime, it is important that we make sure that we cater for eventualities that we do not expect to happen but which we know could in theory happen. Having seen with defined benefit schemes the devastating impact of scheme wind-up without sufficient resources and the amounts of money taken out of defined benefit schemes when an employer has failed or walked away from the scheme—those cases have reduced the amounts available for pensioners, in some cases to zero—there is a real need to look at some catastrophe insurance, disaster-type insurance or capital buffer of some kind to make sure that we have catered for that before it happens.

I think it would be wise for my noble friend to consider what else might be done over and above what is in the Bill. I also look forward to her answer to the specific question asked by noble Lords about what would happen in practice should a scheme require money that does not currently exist within the fund, other than in members’ entitlement pots, to cover the costs of wind-up. Of course CMP does not give each person an individual pot, but if the overall assets have to be raided to meet these costs, their pensions will be impacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Noakes on the way she introduced this amendment.

There are valid concerns around the wording of the good intentions of this Bill to introduce criminal offences or financial penalties for avoiding employer debt or risking member-accrued benefits. But it is right to express some concerns that this should apply only if the person is either an employer or associated with the employer, so that professional advisers cannot be held criminally liable, nor banks just making loans in the ordinary course of business, nor even insurers for mistakes made in underfunding the pension scheme.

I welcome the long-overdue extension of the Pensions Regulator’s powers contained in this Bill, which can punish wilful or reckless behaviour and non-compliance with contribution notices and so on. I also welcome the intention to deter bad practice by scheme employers, and indeed scheme trustees from undermining their pension scheme. It is right to have a criminal offence, but, as currently written, the provisions under Clause 107 could criminalise anyone who deals with a pension scheme. I do not believe that is the intention, and it could leave parties reluctant to deal with a business because of its pension scheme, which could in turn jeopardise the ongoing solvency of the company. Therefore, I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that this will not be the outcome of this legislation.

Some might say that advisers should surely share the responsibility were there to be attempts to avoid pension debt. I have some sympathy with this. So, once again, will my noble friend reassure us that this Bill will not see those acting in good faith being caught out by the actions of an employer, or even perhaps of complicit trustees who might act in ways that are detrimental to the scheme? I hope that this reassurance can be forthcoming.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann and the strong case they have made for these amendments. Noble Lords may recall that at Second Reading on 28 January I expressed some doubts about the scale and nature of the penalties in this Bill, which include a civil penalty of up to £1 million. I am still concerned that increasing them, especially the new criminal element, will deter the respectable people we need from becoming pension scheme trustees.

The world has been changed by the challenges of the coronavirus, as we have just heard. According to Patrick Hosking in the Times yesterday, using figures from pension experts Barnett Waddingham, FTSE pension deficits have soared by £45 billion to £210 billion since the start of the year, so that companies that have a deficit are now a good deal further away from closing it. This is an enormous strain on mostly well-run companies and schemes and reflects years of low interest rates caused by QE and turbulent equity markets. Who would want to get involved in pension administration? Yet its success is at the heart of the British savings system and vital to the future livelihoods of millions of hard-working people, often of modest means, up and down the country.

The Bill rightly reflects the need to plug a hole revealed by the Philip Green case and the furious debate in Parliament before Sir Philip was persuaded to pay up. However, as is often the case with legislation that responds to scandals, it is wide-ranging and takes enormous powers. It goes too far in my view towards burdening business at the expense of other stakeholders. The result will be less willingness to become a trustee and more administrative and other costs for pension schemes paid for, in the end, by the unfortunate pensioners, and the risk of more businesses being pushed into the Pension Protection Fund. This is the background to my unease with Clause 107 and why I moved an amendment in Committee with the help of my noble friend Lady Noakes, and why I now support her and my noble friend Lady Altmann with these amendments.

The criminal offences in Clause 107 are widely drawn. They try to catch bad behaviour by anyone who might be involved. But I maintain that this may have appalling perverse effects, injecting great uncertainty into what is permitted behaviour by those involved in pensions administration. My principal concern is with trustees, having been one and knowing what fine judgments one is called to make, but also with financial advisers, actuaries, accountants, insurers, property consultants and even secretarial support, all acting in good faith. It is one thing to provide for criminal sanctions against an employer, but wrong to extend this in such a vague and general way. A number of suggestions were made in Committee as to how one might tackle this, but disappointingly the Government have not listened—or not so far.

These new criminal offences will have a chilling effect on trustees and others involved, as my noble friend Lady Noakes explained, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to agree to think again and to narrow the very wide offences in this Bill to provide some comfort, either in this House or when it proceeds to the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden [V]]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 50 I will also speak to Amendment 51 in my name. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, for their support and the Minister and officials for the time they have given to discuss the issue on a number of occasions.

Both these amendments relate to a similar concern: shareholders of companies with pension deficits removing excessive value from companies and thereby increasing the risk relating to their pension schemes. We had a long discussion about this in Committee, so I shall try not to duplicate that too much, but I will briefly explain the issue for those coming to this for the first time. I suggest that events since Committee have conspired to make the matter more rather than less relevant.

The Bill introduces a requirement that the regulator should be notified in advance of notifiable events and that the notification should be accompanied by a description of how the notifiable event might impact the pension scheme and what is being done to mitigate that impact. The Bill does not say what those notifiable events will be; they are to be prescribed in future.

However, it is understood that the Government intend these to be, first, the sale of all or a material proportion of the assets or business and, secondly, the granting of security on a debt in priority to a debt of the scheme. An email I received from the regulator describes the purpose of the notifiable event regime as being to act as an early warning system so that it is alerted to corporate actions that may have a detrimental impact on the scheme and that it may otherwise not have been aware of.

The easiest way for shareholders to remove value from a company is through either a dividend or a share buyback. While the regulator will be able to find out about these after the event, it has no way of seeing them in advance. Once the money has gone, it is too late; it is very hard to recover, especially if it has gone abroad. We have seen high-profile examples of companies going under after large dividends have been paid, leaving pension schemes with deficits—BHS and Carillion being just the two most high-profile ones. It is not a theoretical risk and, sadly, recent events have made such situations only more likely.

The Government rightly argue that we should not restrict the payment of normal, reasonable dividends; I completely agree with them. Restricting the payment of normal, non-excessive dividends could have a negative effect on the company and therefore on the pension scheme. Anyway, many dividends end up in pension schemes. It is only excessively high dividends, compared with the deficit repair payments, that I am trying to catch here. Even then, I am asking only that they be notified in advance so that the regulator can consider whether they have a negative impact on the pension scheme. I am not trying to block them, despite some noble Lords wishing that were the case.

Secondly, the Government also rightly argue that we should not overburden the regulator with too many unnecessary notifications. Again, I agree with them, so I have changed the amendment we discussed in Committee so that Amendment 51 now allows the regulator to set the level of dividend at which it should be notified. Share buybacks are a less common action, so I suggest that they should always be a notifiable event.

Amendment 50 simply says that any company with a pension deficit should notify a share buyback to the regulator in advance. Amendment 51 says that a company with a deficit should notify the regulator in advance if the dividend is bigger than the deficit repair contribution and the deficit repair period is longer than a period to be specified by the regulator.

It is interesting to note that if a company borrows more than £50 million under the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme, the Government forbid it to pay dividends, make a buyback or pay a bonus. They have taken that view presumably because they are worried that if it pays a dividend or a buyback it will increase the risk of non-payment of the loan.

By contrast, we are allowing companies that owe large sums to their pension schemes and deferred salaries to their employees to pay whatever they want without even a notification. That feels slightly like “one rule for us”. I do not think that the Minister will accept these amendments, and I would prefer not to push them to a Division. The Bill allows the Government to prescribe events as notifiable events in the future. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has kindly confirmed to me that the Government will keep the issue of dividends and share buybacks under review, and take appropriate action if they or the regulator feel that they are becoming a potential problem. If the Minister could kindly confirm that understanding for the record, I will not seek to divide the House over these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for moving these two important amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 50, which requires share buybacks to be notified to the regulator if a company is responsible for a pension scheme in deficit.

The case for accepting this amendment seems quite overwhelming. The noble Lord has been extremely reasonable in only requiring notification of a buyback. Equity buybacks are sometimes used by companies to distribute to shareholders what is considered surplus cash where management believes that it has no better use for that money. That suggests that sometimes, management believes that the current share price is undervalued. Of course, the buyback improves reported earnings per share and flatters financial statements, but these measures are sometimes used as a yardstick to determine top executives’ pay or bonuses. Many receive a large element of their compensation in the form of stock options, and a buyback can offset the dilution of existing share values and any potential reduction in earnings per share that might otherwise come from their options. Therefore, buybacks could be considered a ploy to boost reported earnings per share or share price levels.

It should be remembered that although the buyback may increase earnings per share, it does not increase the fundamental value of the company. Even more worrying, sometimes, companies engage in buybacks funded by increased borrowing. One of the reasons given for taking on the increased debt to fund such a buyback is that it is more efficient, because the interest on the debt is tax-deductible, unlike with dividends. However, clearly, this will reduce the financial resilience of the company when the debt must be repaid or the gearing level rises, leaving less money available to fill a pension deficit.

A company’s financial difficulty results from lack of cash, not lack of profits, and for a company which sponsors a defined benefit pension scheme with a deficit, the buyback would allow shareholders to enjoy rewards at the expense of pensioners. Ultimately, if the cash has gone into buying shares, it is no longer available to fill the deficit. The buyback itself cannot be argued to generate future growth, because a company’s investing its cash in the business would be a reason to suggest that it will be better off as a result of that decision. However, where spare cash is simply given to shareholders to boost share prices and potentially boost management remuneration, this requires some oversight by the regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 52 is in my name and those of my noble friend Lady Sherlock and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. The Bill enables the introduction of an ecosystem of public and commercial pensions dashboards. When built, the dashboard service will find and display, for view by all individuals, all the information about their occupation, personal and state pensions in one place. The Secretary of State can mandate all pension providers and schemes, including the state, to release their data on an individual. That mandate will cover the financial data of many millions of people.

The intention is that the dashboard will contribute to better decision-making by individuals about their long-term savings. Unfortunately, the evidence shows that that will not automatically translate into engagement and good decision-making by everyone. Structures will need to exist around the dashboard which support people making choices and protect them from detriment. That is why Amendment 52 is important. The amendment ensures that a dashboard service should not go beyond the finding and displaying for view information on a consumer’s savings into allowing financial transactions to take place through the dashboard before Parliament has had the opportunity to consider the matter and approve this through primary legislation.

The long-term savings market is particularly vulnerable to consumer detriment, because of the asymmetry of knowledge and understanding between the consumer and the provider, consumer behavioural biases, the complexity of products, and the irreversible nature of many pension decisions. There is a plethora of reports from different regulators confirming this. Allowing transactions on commercial dashboards, such as the transfer of assets, could provide new opportunities for detriment. The impact of scams, mis-selling, provider nudging and poor decision-making could increase if an individual’s total savings are displayed in one place, the dashboard allows financial transactions, and the wrap of consumer protection is not fit for purpose. For some vulnerable customers, poor decisions could be more costly if the impact is across all their savings, and if people are scammed, they could be scammed out of everything.

Before transactions are authorised, Parliament needs to understand how the dashboard is driving behaviours, of both consumer and provider, and how consumers will be protected. In this market, the consumer demand side is weak, and, increasingly, regulatory focus is on provider supply-side controls to protect consumers’ interests. Commercial dashboards could make it much easier for firms that have attractive front-end offerings to capture consumer assets through, for example, encouraging early consolidation and the transfer of pension pots. It is to be remembered that pension transaction decisions are mostly irreversible, and poor decisions can be financially life-changing in their impact.

Dashboards are not a silver bullet for removing consumer risk. Most individuals do not proactively engage with their pensions until they have to. When they do, they can be price insensitive and vulnerable to nudging, inertia and judgments detrimental to their retirement income. We now see that vulnerability in the drawdown market following the introduction of pension freedoms, as the FCA has confirmed.

Consumers reveal powerful behavioural biases which have more impact on financial capability than lack of knowledge and information. They take what the FCA describes as the “path of least resistance”, even in the face of information available to them. If someone is looking to consolidate all their savings, rather like Alice and the Drink Me bottle, if there is a button on the provider’s commercial dashboard that is marked “Transfer All Savings”, they are more likely to press it.

The FCA rules have not prevented mis-selling. Regulated advice failed the Port Talbot steel workers. The FCA report on the financial advice market’s support to pensions does not make good reading. In a dashboard service which allows financial transactions, protecting individuals’ data, and who can hold, access and use it, are questions of major importance. This amendment does not argue against allowing financial transactions longer term over the dashboard, but it recognises that the consumer protection issues are of such importance and magnitude that the decision to allow transactions must be preceded by the approval of Parliament. Neither Government nor Parliament can be agnostic on the matter. The state supports the long-term saving system with more than £40 billion of tax relief and mandates employers to enrol millions of workers into a pension scheme.

The Government must ensure that the dashboard service makes a positive contribution to retirement income outcomes for the consumer and the public good of the UK. I am arguing that people should have the freedom to make good decisions and be protected from poor decisions that they cannot reverse. This is something that the FCA often tries to do, and I am sure that if one put the issue to some of those Port Talbot steel workers, they would agree. Some of those steel workers learned a cruel lesson: poor pension savings decisions are irreversible. In Committee on 2 March, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, commented:

“I do not believe that I expressed a categorical Government intention to include transactions on the dashboard. I said that we would make that incremental step only after the most careful consideration and public consultation, and assessment of all the risks. I freely acknowledge that risks exist in that quarter.”—[Official Report, 2/3/20; col. 209GC.]


My case, and the sheer weight of the evidence, is that such are the potential risks that Parliament itself should have its say and that scrutiny by secondary legislation in the affirmative is not sufficient. Furthermore, the very nature and extent of the protections required may, because of their nature, require primary legislation. This is not an area of settled policy and it is a matter of significance for many millions of citizens. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If he does not, I intend to push it to a vote. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I have little to add to the wise words of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on Amendment 52. There are significant dangers should there be an easy transaction button on a pensions dashboard right from day one. However, perhaps I may speak briefly to my own amendments, which have been kindly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles: Amendments 56 and 59.

Amendment 56 is probing in nature and seeks to amend Section 119 of the Pensions Act 2004 to provide that regulations may be imposed that would require information from occupational pension schemes to dashboards to be accurate and up to date. Further, the amendment would ask the regulator to impose requirements for regular data audits, accuracy checks and error correction reports.

--- Later in debate ---

Given the issues of public good and consumer interest in play here, this amendment asks no more than that the Government, in exercising their duty of care to what will be millions of consumers, ensure that the MaPS service is up and running for a year before commercial dashboards enter the market, and that the Secretary of State has reported to Parliament. I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment. If not, I intend to push it to a vote.

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly in support of Amendment 63. I have also added my name to Amendment 65. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has just outlined, consumer protection has to be paramount. There has to be significant concern that, once a dashboard is up and running, we will need to learn lessons before further activity takes place. If we have a public service dashboard for a minimum of a year, we will have chances to learn lessons that otherwise might not be learned—particularly in light of such issues as data concerns, types of protected benefits and requirements for MaPS guidance. I am most grateful to the Minister for accepting the concept of requiring MaPS advice or guidance before any transfers. This is an important issue. I therefore hope that the Government will recognise the necessity of ensuring that private dashboards do not start before the public dashboard has been tried, tested and reported upon in Parliament.

The principle of Amendment 68, tabled by my noble friend Lord Young, is right. I would just advise caution on the issue of data accuracy and the lack of data standards, and the fact that it may simply not be possible for a dashboard and the data to be ready in the timescale he is suggesting, but the thrust of it and having an end date is absolutely the right way forward.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This amendment is very simple. It seeks to ensure a period of a year from the establishment of the publicly operated dashboard before competing commercial dashboards are allowed to operate. This may seem a small point, but it is quite important. Dashboards are a new concept and will include large amounts of sensitive and complex data from many sources. We do not yet know how they will used, whether the current design concepts are suitable in practice and whether changes will need to be made to ensure that they operate well and safely. Therefore, it must make sense for the system to be tried out in one place, with proper controls, and reviewed and reported upon, before we open it up to the commercial world. This period of a year will allow us to see how a dashboard is used and whether any unforeseen problems and consequences arise.

I am grateful to the ABI for its commentary on the amendments to this Bill, but I am afraid that I disagree with it on this matter. The ABI is right that making dashboards as accessible as possible is desirable, but that must be done in a way that ensures that unforeseen consequences are avoided. As I mentioned in an earlier debate today, a bad dashboard is worse than no dashboard. A year’s grace period to ensure that what the noble Lord, Lord Young, called the plumbing is working well, and to make any tweaks, seems a common-sense safeguard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham [V]]

My Lords, I will add a brief footnote to the powerful case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She referred to the Railways Pension Scheme. As Secretary of State for Transport from 1995 to 1997, I am familiar with the scheme, which has grown in the intervening years to be one of the UK’s largest funds and which I believe to be well run.

I shared with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott the concerns of the RPS; namely, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has said, that the draft DB funding code that will emerge as a result of this legislation would oblige the various schemes under the RPS to de-risk with lower returns. As the noble Baroness has explained, these would have to be made good by the industry, if it could afford it, or its employees, or the schemes would be closed to new members.

I was encouraged by my noble friend’s helpful reply, dated 17 June, which said:

“Those employers and schemes who are already following good practice and planning for the long term should not need to change and we would not expect such schemes to require significant additional funding.”


However, I shared the letter with the RPS and, despite this, it believes that the powers in the Bill are too loosely expressed and that more specificity would ensure that the subsequent regulations got off on the right track. If the Minister cannot accept the amendment, can he make a commitment that there will be a distinction between open and closed schemes, to be followed up in the subsequent regulations? Will he ask his officials to discuss these concerns further with interested parties in an endeavour to find an acceptable way through as the Bill completes its passage through both Houses?

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 71, to which I have added my name. I have little to add to the excellent words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham.

I stress to my noble friend the Minister that this is a really important amendment. The Government’s recent White Paper called for pension scheme funding which enables the best deal for members, supports the economy and does not place extra burdens on business. If those are the objectives—and I think they are the right ones—they will be at odds with the draft DB funding code that may emerge from this legislation, which seems to want to drive DB schemes on a path to so-called de-risking, aiming for a particular date of maturity. This concept is simply inappropriate for an open scheme.

The regulatory approach for schemes such as USS or the Railways Pension Scheme would see their ability to invest for the long term, which must be in the members’ best interest, become much more difficult. There does not seem to be sufficient recognition of the difference in liquidity profile and investment horizon of an open, relatively immature scheme compared to a closed scheme. Indeed, this would pose an existential threat to the survival of all remaining 1,000 or so open schemes. In the face of quantitative easing, increasing exposure to gilts and fixed income assets makes little sense while central bank policy is designed to force bond yields lower. Forcing schemes to compete with central banks to buy ever more expensive bonds is the most expensive way to fund these pension commitments.

The Bank of England’s pension scheme is an ideal example. It follows a lowest-risk approach, investing solely in gilts and other such supposedly safe assets. It does not match its liabilities, but it is open and entails a contribution rate of between 40% and 50% of pensionable salary. Should such pension contributions be required without any upside potential for a diversified investment strategy that can take advantage of the wide range of investment options available from infrastructure assets, building housing for rental and other areas where pension schemes with a long-term horizon are ideally placed to take advantage—for example, our own infrastructure, in which other countries’ pension schemes have significantly invested—schemes such as RPMI would require such significant contribution increases that members could not afford it and would opt out, and employers could probably not afford it either.

Therefore, I urge my noble friend to look carefully at this really important issue and to recognise explicitly that there are different needs for open DB schemes relative to those that are otherwise closed.

[Baroness Drake [V]]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 71. Given the hour, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, with her usual skill, has captured the issues clearly and succinctly. It is clear that there is genuine concern among those running DB schemes which are materially open to new members with strong employers, such as the sections of the Railways Pension Scheme and the Universities Superannuation Scheme. They fear that they will be forced to de-risk unnecessarily, with all the implications that that carries and all the potential detriment for both employers and employees in the scheme.

The amendment seeks to address two issues: first, that it should not be government policy to require trustees of pension schemes materially open to new entrants with strong employer covenants to adopt a strategy that will result in them de-risking their investments unnecessarily and prematurely, for all the reasons that other noble Lords have clearly articulated; and, secondly, that the Secretary of State, in exercising powers under Schedule 10 to make provisions through regulation on the funding of defined benefit schemes, should make provisions that are consistent with the policy in the White Paper statement that running on with employer support could be an acceptable long-term strategy for a materially open scheme. The amendment is consistent with any reading of the government policy in the White Paper, but it seeks to ensure that it happens.

Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. We have never, ever suggested that the universal credit system is 100% perfect, but it has absolutely delivered in terms of paying the increased numbers we have. She has raised universal basic income on previous occasions. Our position has not changed: we have no plans to bring it in because it would disincentivise people to look for work and the cost would be astronomical.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

I congratulate my noble friend on the tremendous work of her department in coping with the unprecedented number of new universal credit claims. Could she confirm that more than 1 million people have been able to receive an advanced first payment, giving them support in just a few days? Does she agree that this has been vital to prevent hardship during this crisis period?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

The Government have worked at pace to ensure that money gets to people in a timely manner to avoid hardship and as many difficulties as we can. I can confirm that 1 million applications for advances have been made available to people who need them quickly. The advances are interest-free and repayable over 12 months at the moment, but as of next year this will go up to 24 months.

Universal Credit

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am not sure that I agree with the noble Baroness about the complexities of the changes. As we have made clear all along, we are trying to make the universal credit system replicate the world of work. However, I am aware that people on low incomes have difficulties, and I assure the noble Baroness that the Government want to do all they can to help them.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend expand a little on the previous question and explain how the structure of monthly payments compares with the legacy system, which had much shorter time- scales?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Universal credit is simpler and fairer than the legacy system. It is designed to target resources at those who need them the most and to provide support for people who cannot work. There is a monthly reconciliation, which we are absolutely clear is better than the annual reconciliation.

Automatic Enrolment (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for laying these statutory instruments, and for her excellent introduction. I also congratulate the Government on protecting the principle of auto-enrolment, which has been so successful in bringing millions more people into the policy of pension saving and provision for retirement. This principle has been preserved for all sectors by extending the application of auto-enrolment to this group of maritime and seafaring workers.

I also congratulate the Government on protecting the principle of automatic enrolment during the furlough scheme. This principle is so important and, by deciding that automatic enrolment—at least at the minimum statutory level—will be protected through the current crisis in the furlough scheme, the Government have shown an excellent example of considering the longer term amid a short-term emergency.

We have the lowest state pension in the developed world. That makes supplementary saving essential, and the principle of extra private provision, supported by employers and taxpayers, is an important one throughout our society. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and other noble Lords on all the work that they have done over the years to introduce and protect this policy.

Perhaps I may raise one issue that my noble friend is aware I have particular concerns about. It is the position of low-paid workers who are being automatically enrolled into net pay pension schemes through their workplace. They do not get the tax relief that they would in an alternative scheme, and therefore they are paying an extra 25% for their pension. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, these workers clearly are those who are most in need of every extra penny that they can earn. I know that this net pay policy is one that I know my noble friend the Minister and the department have been looking at, and I urge the Government to take seriously the proposals to address this issue.

I fully support these statutory instruments and I congratulate the Government and my noble friend. I look forward to continuing the successful policy of auto-enrolment into the future.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

This is a rather technical amendment in many ways. I declare my interest as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association, one of the unions that would be affected by a change in the law such as is suggested here.

Members generally pay into pension schemes on the basis of putting so much in for an accrual rate, which gives them a pension. But if pensions go into the lifeboat, the amount that people can get out is limited. This ruling was originally done for a very good reason: to stop boards of directors awarding themselves large pensions, then a company going bust while they transferred the liability for their excesses into the lifeboat. However, it had an effect which I do not think was foreseen. There are a number of people in the private sector who have quite high earnings and are in pension schemes—at that time largely in DB schemes—and they were affected by this ruling. In short, it meant that people were paying into a scheme but not getting out what they had been paying in for. They were given a promise but it was not honoured, because of the cap that was put in place.

Amendment 80 seeks to review this cap. I accept that it is a complicated matter and would be more than happy if, in responding, the Minister can say that she is prepared to have this added to the subjects we are to discuss at the meeting which has been promised. I recognise that if we were to change the law, we cannot just abolish it. We would need to look at things; in particular, I suggest that we would need to erect some safeguards with reference to accrual rates, so that we would not allow an accrual rate above a reasonable level—possibly 2%. Any person affected would also have to be able to demonstrate that they had paid into the pension scheme over a number of years, and had not been awarded a lump sum of years just before the company went under. There would also have to be maximum contributions for tax relief. In other words, you could not suddenly have a huge contribution going in and building up a large amount of pension.

The amendment is basically aimed at enabling workers who have paid for a pension scheme but happen to be high earners to look forward to getting what they have paid for. I point out that, at the moment, the main people affected would be those who used to work for Monarch. But I would not like to predict where, for instance, the British Airways pension scheme will be 10 years from now. The Spanish company that is now the owner of BA might well be in a position where, for some reason or other, it is not able to fully honour the pension agreement. It is better to look at it now than to do so then.

I also make the point that most high earners in society are covered by public sector pension schemes. The people who work in the health service, for instance, are covered by the health service scheme; senior civil servants are covered by the civil service scheme; most people in the nuclear industry are covered by a public sector scheme. It is often forgotten that even in private schools, the staff are actually in a government-backed scheme. There is a lot of debate going on at the moment because the costs for private schools that pay into the Department for Education-funded scheme have increased considerably. None the less, teachers in private schools are covered by a public scheme.

As I said at the beginning, I ask only that the Minister would kindly agree to add this to the agenda. It is a problem that is capable of being solved. It is not quite as simple as my amendment suggests—I accept that—but putting forward this amendment was basically the only way of dealing with the scheme as it stands. Quite a bit of legislation, in the form of statutory instruments, would be needed to cover the way in which any deviation or loosening of the scheme was governed, because it is emphatically not the intention of this amendment to free up pension schemes so that irresponsible boards of directors could award themselves large pensions. This is to do with workers who have paid into a pension scheme for many years and are unwittingly caught by the cap because their employer is unable to fulfil its pension obligations.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

I have added my name to this amendment. I support my noble friend and echo his request to the Minister for a meeting to discuss this issue further. I understand that it may not be possible to arrange immediately, and needs careful consideration, but, given the rulings in court cases and so on, it may be worth trying to address some of these issues, which are clearly causing distress to an important, albeit small, number of people.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, we have some difficulty with this amendment. We are more than happy to put it on the agenda for a meeting, although I recall earlier sessions when I think the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, convened a meeting with the pilots’ association for us to range over this. At that stage neither we nor the Government were particularly happy with any change—or the sort of change suggested here.

There is an issue about affordability for the PPF that has to be taken into account. We should also bear in mind that funding for the PPF comes from a levy on these other pension schemes, so the higher costs go the greater the hit on those schemes. As I understand it, the proposition is that it would cover not only those who receive a payment in future but all those currently receiving capped payments. It would free up those amounts, too.

I do not know whether the noble Lord has an impact assessment for this proposal; if so, we should certainly see that. Although he partially dismissed it in his speech, when the scheme was designed the moral hazard issue was very much in mind—heavy hitters and senior people in organisations are better able to control the destination of their pension funds and remuneration, and there should be a mechanism in there to ensure that the options were not open-ended. At the moment the cap bites, I think, at something like £40,000, so we are not talking about people with minimal pensions. I think the average payout from the PPF is about £4,000, so there is a big contrast. Having said that, I am more than happy to join a discussion to review these issues—but I am not convinced that we would change our position.

The PPF has done marvellous work over the years, enabling people to receive an income when there would have been nothing. It is a very good organisation. We may check to see whether its view now is different to its view previously, but I doubt it, so the onus is very much on the noble Lord to come forward with an impact assessment to say how much this would cost if we did it. Having said that, we on this side would not be able to sign up to it.

[Baroness Altmann]

I echo that praise for the Pension Protection Fund. It has been a marvellous success story and has rescued so many people. It is run efficiently and with care for those who claim on it. I cannot praise it highly enough.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, let me begin by thanking the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for this amendment. I believe that the intention is to improve member protection in the event of employer insolvency. The amendment would remove the Pension Protection Fund compensation cap currently applied to payments for members who were under their scheme’s normal pension age when their employer became insolvent.

It might be helpful if I first explain that the Pension Protection Fund is a compensation scheme and, as such, was never intended to meet the full pension promise made to every member of a failed scheme. Members over their scheme’s normal pension age and those who were in receipt of survivors’ benefits or an ill-health pension broadly receive full protection. Everyone else receives broadly 90% of their scheme benefits, subject to an overall cap. This means that the cap applies to early retirees as well as deferred members, ensuring that Pension Protection Fund compensation is calculated on the same basis for members of the same age in the same scheme.

It is worth mentioning that the Government are defending the cap before the domestic courts. Their position in this litigation, and current policy, is that the cap meets important objectives and should be retained. First, the cap helps to give greater protection to those who have reached their scheme’s normal retirement age at the time of employer insolvency. These members are likely to have fewer opportunities to supplement their income in other ways. Secondly, the cap helps to control the costs of the fund—costs that may otherwise fall on levy payers. Finally, as we have heard, the cap is intended to encourage people with influence over the schemes to fund them responsibly and to discourage excessive risk-taking. Key decision-makers have an incentive to ensure that their schemes stay out of the Pension Protection Fund because the cap is likely to have a direct impact on the compensation that they would receive.

The level of the cap was set after much research and analysis. The current full amount is around £40,000 at the age of 65. Members under their scheme’s normal pension age initially receive 90% of the capped amount, which equates to around £36,000 at the age of 65. Nevertheless, this far exceeds the estimated average defined benefit pension of around £8,000. Only a few members of the Pension Protection Fund are affected by the cap. The nature of the cap means that it affects predominantly high earners; abolishing it would, therefore, mainly benefit those high earners.

In conclusion, the cap is a necessary and proportionate means of achieving a number of significant policy aims in relation to the Pension Protection Fund compensation scheme. I hope that this provides sufficient reassurance to noble Lords, and I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. At the same time, we would be more than happy to add this issue to the agenda for our meeting, which has been arranged for Thursday 12 March at 10 am.

--- Later in debate ---

The BMA’s briefing tells us that the scale of the pensions problem and its impact on the NHS workforce and patient services cannot be underestimated. It is, unfortunately, being felt across the country. Waiting times for cancer and routine care are the longest on record. A&E performance is the worst since records began, and 11 million patients are experiencing unacceptable waiting times for GP appointments as doctors continue to be forced to reduce their work to avoid huge, disproportionate tax bills. There is an urgent need for the Government to address this situation. Amendment 83 calls for a review of the annual allowance and taper; Amendment 86 calls for the current short-term mitigations to be extended into the future on a permanent, statutory basis. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I want to put pressure on the Government. As she ably described, this could be approached in a number of different ways. I hope that we can put pressure on the Government, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about how this situation can be resolved.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I support Amendments 83 and 86. Noble Lords have already explained the problems in great detail. However, this crisis dates back more than two years. NHS hospitals and regional authorities have been trying for some time to deal with the fall-out of the taper and to find a resolution, but so far there has been no action. The Government promised action within 30 days last December, and we are still waiting. The doctors and medical staff in this scheme were given a promise, but it has not been honoured because of flawed attempts to save money on pension tax reliefs for so-called high earners. Yet the costs resulting from the unintended consequences of the legislation—I understand the thrust of that legislation—in paying locums, cancellations and inadequate NHS services may well outweigh any savings that might have been achieved by trying to clamp down on high earners.

I was at a BMA consultants’ conference today, giving a presentation on pensions. In a room seating around 400, those consultants decided to have an emergency vote and it was unanimous in favour of urgent government action, such as Amendment 86 being introduced. There was clear anger around the room at what they feel is a betrayal of their terms and conditions of service. They had no warning of the changes in tax relief, which were said to affect only those earning more than £150,000 a year; in fact, the way that the cliff edge and the threshold work means they have hit people earning a lot less than that. They were given no chance to mitigate their losses. In the private sector or in other government schemes some mitigations have been offered, but not for the NHS.

In any case, the rules of this taper make it impossible to predict what tax bill you might incur as a result of being asked to take on extra work because it depends on your current year’s earnings, which you will not know until the end of the current year. The Government could consider using last year’s earnings; at least one might have a fighting chance of knowing what extra work one might be able to take on. The scheme-pays arrangement, whereby it is possible that staff will not have to pay the charge, is a loan at around 6% interest that rolls up every year. Some consultants in their 40s were explaining to me today how that feels so penal. One could imagine changing that interest rate, for example.

The bottom line is that even the NHS pension scheme was unable to provide the staff with the information that they, or their advisers, would have needed to predict what the tax consequences of the work they were doing might have been. If they do not know what the impact will be, it is logical that they are not going to do the work. I understand that the plan in the Budget may well be for the Government to increase the threshold and introduce a bit more flexibility. I can assure the Committee that if that is the plan, it will not solve the problem.

The proposal in Amendment 86 is a practical way in which doctors can be reassured that if they carry out extra work, especially in the current extreme medical environment that we may well be facing, they will not be penalised taxation-wise and pension-wise for doing so. This amendment might not fit precisely in the Bill, but I would be grateful to hear from my noble friends what the reaction is to the proposed method of dealing with this problem. If the Bill represents, as the BMA said in its briefing, a valuable opportunity to find a resolution to this long-running problem then I hope that it will be able to address the issue, and put our NHS and our most valuable medical staff back on an even keel.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, this issue has been rumbling around for far too long and it is time to try to get a solution to it, particularly, as many noble Lords have explained, because of the pressure that the NHS would have been under anyway but for the recent crisis. My noble friend Lord Warner made a strong case with his proposition and we would certainly like to reflect on it. I know that the problem is that lots of people have reflected from time to time on a possible solution. That reflection goes on, but we do not yet have a solution. But Report on this Bill will be coming up shortly, and of course we have a Budget of some sort not far in the distance.

I have a couple of questions. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Warner or the Minister can help with them. Was the one-off payment that the NHS made to cover the annual allowance taxable, and what might the consequences of that be? Under the scheme-pays arrangement, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, hinted, if the problem is the penal interest rate then what is to stop those rates being adjusted, and who controls them?

We also need to bear in mind in all this is that these rules, unless I misunderstand them, have general application in the tax system. We need either to find a way of having some special arrangements or to accept that the adjustments we make here would have to be run for the tax system generally. We will need to work through the consequences of that. I am conscious that this contribution has not added one bit of sense to a practical solution, which is what we need to reach. Maybe, at the end of the day, we simply need to rank the solutions that we have on the table and choose the best, even though that may not be optimisation.

I am sure we all remember the pressure about this—I certainly remember pressure from the old Luton and Dunstable Hospital about it—and the real adverse effect that it causes on the delivery of services. We cannot continue to allow that to go forward; we simply have to drive through a solution to this. That is the challenge; presumably, the Treasury has ultimate responsibility for meeting it. But if it will not then we should, with the help of my noble friend Lord Warner and his expertise in these areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

I take my noble friend’s point on the specific proposals in Amendment 86 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, which I have signed. However, were the amendment to be redrawn to suggest that an extension of the current arrangements for 2019-20 be brought forward also into 2020-21, would that address my noble friend’s concerns about the unauthorised scheme payment and the charges to the scheme? We could time-limit this but also address the urgency, because even if something is reported in the Budget, it is unlikely that the staff will have the reassurance for the forthcoming tax year, which is only a few weeks away.

[Lord Warner]

I just want to amplify the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. Those of us who have been around in government for some years know that the announcement of review reports in Budgets do not necessarily mean that anything in those reviews will be rapidly implemented. My suspicion would be that any such reviews would have a longish period of consultation and would not appear in the next finance Bill—that is a likely outcome. Building on what the noble Baroness said, I need to go back to my clients—if I may put it that way—who will want to know what the position is. If I prove to be right over what happens on 11 March, would the Government be willing to consider something along the lines of buying two to three years for the NHS doctors? Will they help me get the wording right, so that it does not fall into the elephant traps that the Minister has set out? When we get to Report, we cannot just leave this; we have to come back to this issue with some credible solution. I would be delighted if the announcement on 11 March delivered a quick response, but if we do not deliver a response that covers the next two financial years, we will put the NHS in great peril.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

93: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Suitability of pension schemes for automatic enrolment
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision to require that, where an employer makes arrangements by which a jobholder to whom section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 applies, or a worker to whom section 9 of that Act applies, becomes an active member of an automatic enrolment or other pension scheme, the employer and the trustees, managers and administrators of the scheme have ensured that it is suitable for low-paid jobholders or entitled workers such that they are treated fairly in connection with their contributions. (2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that employers, trustees, managers and administrators have assessed the scheme they use for auto-enrolment to ascertain that it treats low paid staff fairly and does not force them to pay additional contributions to replace tax relief they have lost.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, noble Lords will understand that I believe that this amendment is vital to the ongoing success of automatic enrolment.

I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for the work that she did with the original Pensions Commission, which set up automatic enrolment. It has been a success. My amendment seeks to build on auto-enrolment by introducing protections particularly for low earners—at least 70% of whom are women—and provides that the Secretary of State must make regulations that require the trustees, managers, administrators and employers of these workplace pension schemes to ensure that the scheme is suitable for low earners and treats them fairly.

I seek to introduce this into the Bill because, currently, more than 1 million women who are earning below the personal tax threshold, which is around £12,500 in any one job, are required to pay—unwittingly and unknowingly in probably all cases—25% more for their pension because their employer has chosen a particular pension scheme that is not suitable for them because it charges them so much extra.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, referred to addressing pensioner poverty and undersaving. Clearly, the fact that the lowest earners in the country have an extra 25% added to the cost of their pension, which has to come out of their pay, makes them more likely to have affordability issues and could, potentially, lead to them opting out of the pension because of the extra costs. These are, generally speaking, the people who most need help to build up a pension for later life and who are at greater risk of pensioner poverty. That is what the auto-enrolment system was meant to address, given that we have the lowest state pension in the developed world.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand my noble friend’s desire to see resolution of this issue and I know that she has raised it with the Treasury. For the reasons I have given, I am afraid that I cannot accept her amendment, but I hope she will welcome the new Government’s manifesto commitment to carry out a comprehensive review into how best to fix this complex issue. The Government believe this review is the right way to move forward, and Treasury colleagues will make announcements on the next steps in due course. My noble friend is always very supportive and constructive in her approach to policy issues. I hope she will therefore help us to fulfil our intention of identifying how best to address the operation of pensions tax relief, both as we proceed with the comprehensive review and, in the first instance, if I may suggest, by withdrawing this amendment.

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend for his response. I welcomed, very much, the commitment in the manifesto to look at this issue. However, I hope he will forgive me if I suggest that this is not necessarily a matter just for the Treasury. Tax relief is, of course, a matter for the Treasury but the duties of schemes, trustees, IGCs and employers is a matter for the Pensions Regulator. Also, auto-enrolment falls under the Department for Work and Pensions. Might it therefore be possible—I humbly request this of my noble friend—to go back to the department to consider whether this issue of suitability could go broader than just tax relief? It could include all sorts of other areas: for example, an employer might choose a scheme that the majority of the workforce might not like to be in, but there is no mechanism for them not to be put into it.

If that is considered too difficult, I certainly take the point on low earners. This is a probing amendment and I would, for example, be happy to specify those earning below the personal tax threshold—that is really what we are talking about and it could be addressed. I understand and recognise that there is guidance for employers on the Pensions Regulator’s website but the requirements for master trust authorisation, or the requirements put on IGCs and trustees of these pension schemes, do not include taking any concern for the extra costs imposed on those earning below the personal tax threshold. One wonders how value for money could be confirmed by those running pension schemes if many people in those schemes pay 25% more than they would if they were in an alternative scheme. There is a requirement for a value-for-money assessment but it does not seem to take account of these low-earning women.

I would be delighted to help the Government fulfil their aim of addressing this issue. Notwithstanding that, I would be grateful if my noble friend might consider whether there should be some extra duty. If it is not just on employers—I take that point and I mentioned it in moving the amendment—at the very least the trustees, the IGCs and the regulator know what is going on, even if in most cases the small employer does not. I have seen the wording on the Pensions Regulator’s website; it is not really clear, if you are someone who does not know what this is all about, that actually it means that because of the scheme you have chosen, your low earners will pay 25% more than they otherwise would.

Whether or not we can address this in the Bill—I hope that maybe we can—I am grateful to noble Lords who have supported the amendment. I am also grateful to my noble friends the Ministers, and the department, for having taken the time to continue to discuss the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

94: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Multi-employer pensions scheme
The trustees of a multi-employer pension scheme may cancel a debt which became due from a departing employer before the coming into force of this section in relation to the scheme under section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 if—(a) failure to pay the debt would not materially reduce the scheme’s assets relative to the estimated debt in relation to the scheme,(b) the majority of the debt relates to liabilities in respect of members working for employers no longer participating in the scheme,(c) the employer has not done an act or engaged in a course of conduct that detrimentally affected in a material way the likelihood of accrued scheme benefits being received (whether the benefits are to be received as benefits under the scheme or otherwise),(d) at the time of the cessation of the employer’s participation in the scheme, the scheme was estimated to have sufficient and appropriate assets to cover its technical provisions and the employer had no reason to believe there was a significant scheme deficit,(e) the employer has been operating as an unincorporated business and the owner would face personal bankruptcy, or the employer has been operating as a small business which would become insolvent, if required to pay the debt,(f) the debt is below a de minimis threshold in relation to the size of the overall scheme liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary as if the whole scheme had been winding up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due, and(g) the employer has always taken all reasonable steps to fund the scheme as demanded by the trustees before the employer cessation event.”

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, perhaps I should apologise for taking the Committee’s time on issues that I feel have an opportunity to be resolved in the Bill. I hope that noble Lords will understand that I am doing this because I want to see pensions work better, and I care passionately about a system which I believe works really well in general. but there are areas that are causing significant problems which we may be able to address.

The issue at hand in this amendment is directly relevant to the Bill. It is about multi-employer pension schemes, where the current legislation has unintended consequences and causes significant damage in ways that it was never designed to do. There may be a way in which we can try to address that. I am not claiming that the wording of this probing amendment will fit the bill, as it were. However, in the plumbing multi-employer pension scheme—the one I have most experience of, but by no means the only one; there are a number of charity schemes as well—the trustees seem to be trying to force good employers into personal insolvency and homelessness to pay into the scheme the cost of buying annuities for workers who never worked for them. This is in a scheme which has always been said to be fully funded, with enough money to pay all its pensions: in the December 2019 employer update it was reported to be funded to 108%. It had an 8% surplus at its last measure. The scheme will not buy the annuities that these people’s homes will be taken away to pay for, while the employers have paid every penny of the contribution ever requested by its trustees.

In this pensions Bill we are dealing, quite rightly, with new measures for the Pensions Regulator to deal with recalcitrant employers, who may have deliberately decided—or the regulator may believe have deliberately decided—not to put enough money into the pension scheme. We are introducing measures which I have tried to build upon in my amendment, which gives reasons why the regulator may not impose a contribution notice, for example, on such a recalcitrant employer. I am trying to look at the conditions we might able to introduce in multi-employer schemes, which go back some time—for example, the ones I have looked at go back to the 1970s—and used to have 4,000 employers. Many of them have been allowed to leave or have failed. Now there are around 400 left. These are responsible for all the people who worked for those thousands of other employers, as well as the very few who worked for them.

I wonder whether we can find ways that mimic the easements for recalcitrant employers to salvage the situation for these often unincorporated businesses, such as partnerships which have been in a family for decades or very small companies. If the owner or the individual retires, they crystallise the Section 75 debt. If they try to pass the business to their son, they trigger the Section 75 debt. If they incorporated from a partnership to a company, they triggered the Section 75 debt but nobody ever told them. The size of the debt they owe is immaterial to the survival of the scheme. I am trying to see whether we can use a materiality test, a solvency test or a reasonableness test to deal with this unintended consequence of Section 75 debt, which had a strong and right purpose: if an employer was to walk away from a pension scheme, it needed to make sure that it had put enough money in to meet its promises to all its staff.

I have tried to introduce conditions through this amendment which would permit trustees not to collect the Section 75 debt. They are: if failing

“to pay the debt would not materially reduce the scheme’s assets relative to the estimated debt”;

if

“the majority of the debt”

owed by the employer is for orphan assets—workers who never worked for that employer, so the main employer could not try to use this provision; if the employer has never tried to avoid the debt or to damage funding; if

“at the time of the cessation”—

the Section 75 crystallisation—the scheme was fully funded on technical provisions; if the employer is unincorporated or a small business, and we may need to add partnerships, and faces personal bankruptcy or insolvency; and if the employer has always paid all the contributions asked for, then the trustees would explicitly be permitted not to collect the debt.

The total debt for the employers which I have seen suffering particularly from this is £7.2 million. That may sound a lot of money, but this scheme is worth well over £2 billion, so whether it collects that extra few million pounds will not make a difference to its solvency and survival in the long term. We seem to have lost sight of reasonableness. I hope we might define the circumstances tightly so that other employers cannot use this provision as a precedent. I completely understand concerns that we do not want it to be used as a precedent. The size of the debt is immaterial, relative to the solvency of the scheme.

I have deliberately worded Amendment 94 so that it follows new Section 58B(2) on page 91 of the Bill. Under that provision, the Section 75 debt or contribution notice will not have to be imposed. It says:

“A person commits an offence only if (a) the person does an act or engages in a course of conduct that detrimentally affects in a material way the likelihood of accrued scheme benefits being received”.


Clearly, in the case I described, in multi-employer schemes that test would not be met for imposition of the debt. The new section continues:

“(b) the person knew or ought to have known that the act or course of conduct would have that effect”.

These employers have paid everything that they were ever asked for and were always told that the scheme was fully funded, so they would never have known that there was a problem. The trustees of the scheme did not even try to collect Section 75 debt between 2005 and the past couple of years. The new section then says:

“(c) the person did not have a reasonable excuse for doing the act or engaging in the course of conduct”.

Again, if someone is paying everything that is due, the size of the debt is not material to the solvency of the scheme and the scheme is not buying annuities anyway, can we not inject some reasonableness? There are already easements but they do not meet these circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling this amendment and congratulate her on her tenacity in continuing her campaign to resolve this situation. If we were giving awards for tenacity, she would win, I am sure.

The Government understand the difficulties facing employers in these situations, especially where, in the past, they have taken all reasonable steps to fund the scheme as requested by the trustees. The amendment seeks to amend Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 to allow trustees further discretion to cancel a departing employer’s debt in certain circumstances. It raises a number of issues that I will address.

The effect of this amendment would be that every time it is applied, the employer covenant would be weakened, increasing the risk of thousands of members not getting their benefits in full. It is hard to envisage a scenario where trustees could agree to such an arrangement and still be compliant with their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of scheme members. In particular, the proposals for a new de minimis threshold raise significant issues. Even if the threshold is set at a very low level, it could enable a large number of small employers to depart schemes without payment. The aggregate impact of this could be significant. Passing this level of debt on to employers who remain could make them insolvent.

It is worth noting that some flexibility already exists for trustees to collect reduced employer debts as long as the scheme is funded above a Pension Protection Fund level basis. It is set at this level to ensure that schemes do not place an additional burden on the Pension Protection Fund and, ultimately, the levy payers.

The amendment also proposes that debts could be compromised if the majority of the debt relates to orphan members whose employers no longer remain in the scheme. This would be very difficult for the scheme trustees, who have a duty to ensure that orphaned members’ rights are protected and that their scheme is properly funded. Removing orphan debts from the employer debt calculation would ultimately worsen the scheme’s funding position, putting thousands of members’ pensions at risk.

Further, this amendment would impose different statutory requirements on unincorporated and small employers, creating a number of challenges. For example, if all or the majority of the scheme’s employers were either unincorporated or small, it could mean that none, or very few, employer debts would ever be collected; in the long term, that could create a severe underfunding situation, with all the risks that entails.

The Government’s Green Paper and subsequent White Paper, which was published in March 2018, on defined benefit pension schemes looked very closely at this issue and considered carefully what could be done to relieve the pressure that some employers face from their obligation to pay an employer debt. The White Paper concluded that the existing arrangements in legislation, along with the deferred debt arrangement introduced in April 2018, provide enough flexibility for employers to manage their employer debts. Further, the current full buyout calculation method is the most secure and effective way of protecting members and remaining employers in a multi-employer scheme.

While the Government recognise the difficulty facing companies in managing this debt, they cannot, at this time, offer any easements beyond those already provided for in legislation. However, recognising the many representations that the Government have received supporting a change that would assist employers in this difficult position, we will keep this under review and continue the dialogue.

My noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of retired employers triggering a debt and being unable to pass it on. Flexibility in the rules enables retired employers to pass their scheme on to another employer without triggering an employer debt. The scheme has a streamlined, flexible apportionment arrangement, which could help employers in this situation.

My noble friend also made the point that some people find themselves in extreme difficulties, with the potential to lose their home. The employer debt regime is designed to protect employers who remain in a multi-employer scheme. It would be unfair to burden remaining employers with additional unplanned costs to cover the shortfall that would be created by relaxing requirements for one group of employers. The flexible apportionment arrangement currently available in legislation can be used to help unincorporated employers who wish to incorporate.

My noble friend Lady Altmann also asked whether the scheme is fully funded. My noble friend the Minister mentioned that the scheme is fully funded on a technical provision basis. However, I understand that the scheme is underfunded on both a budget basis and a PPF basis. The next scheme valuation is due in April 2020, which will give us a clearer picture of the scheme’s funding position.

I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this amendment. I know how important it is to my noble friend, but, on the basis of my response, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend for her response, but I confess to being extremely disappointed with the robust refusal to address the issue. The current easements are not working, otherwise I would not be trying to press this amendment. The deferred debt arrangement does not remove the debt; it just pushes it into the future, so the person will still be made destitute at some point. Trustees are refusing a flexible apportionment arrangement, so clearly that is not an option.

We seem to have lost sight of the materiality issue and of what we are trying to do with the bigger employers. There are already some ways in which trustees can not collect Section 75 debt. I am just trying to extend those very slightly; it will not apply to the majority of employers in the scheme and it will not materially impact on the solvency and survival of the scheme.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I urge my noble friend to go back to the department to see whether there are any ways in which we might be able to inject some further easement for multi-employer, non-associated schemes, which were never designed to do this to good employers.

Amendment 94 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, in Committee there has been broad resistance by the Government to positive amendments suggesting what could be put in the Bill to give reassurance about many of the issues raised. The Government claim that that needs to be the case to preserve flexibility, but that does not get over the fact that there are very broad delegated powers in the Bill, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sharkey on the first day in Committee and by the Delegated Powers Committee. There is no certainty about how far those broad powers will be used. They are not called Henry VIII clauses for nothing, although delegated powers nowadays put Henry VIII in the shade. I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, elaborated on that last year.

This amendment goes the other way. Instead of making suggestions to clarify what needs to be done, it clarifies five things that the Government may not do under the delegated powers. It is, of course, a probing amendment. I could have made a longer or different list, and a couple of matters are in it specifically to enable further discussion. However, despite the probing nature of the amendment, its form is not novel. It has appeared in other legislation, and I believe it appears several times in the withdrawal Act. It is a known way of addressing issues of concern in skeleton legislation. I may have helped it into a few pieces of legislation, but I consider that such a clause should always exist.

I shall take each of my points in turn. Proposed paragraph (a) states:

“Regulations under this Act may not … create a new criminal offence”.


That provision has been used before to constrain broad powers in legislation. A new criminal offence should always come to Parliament in such a way that it can be amended or rejected. I believe there are examples of finding a new criminal offence within a set of regulations with no amendment possibilities; indeed, I have been on one of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committees, and there were examples. That should not happen. It would be a disproportionate use of delegated power—that has been suggested when I have run such a proposed clause—yet it has been used and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that it should not be. In the instance of pensions, and despite the fact that I have argued on this Bill that the criminal offences are not drawn wide enough, so I am certainly not a dud with regard to them, I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make new ones by regulation. The relevant clauses in the Bill are easily wide enough to do that.

Proposed paragraph (b) is about not creating a regulator. There appears to be a strong danger of that here because the wording that enables powers to be conferred on any person could enable the creation of a regulator. I think the wording is “discretion”, but my noble friend Lord Sharkey inquired as to what it meant and the reply came back that it could be any powers to any body, therefore it would enable the creation of a regulator. There is an example of that in Clause 51. If the person who is designated is already a regulator which has been set up under primary legislation, it is not a problem to expand its powers appropriately, but if a new regulator is created, that would be wrong. So why are there clauses in the Bill that are wide enough and of a description that would enable that? My wording here does not capture all the wrongs that could happen under any power to any person provisions, but at least it draws a line.

Proposed new paragraph (c) prohibits the creation of a multi-employer collective money purchase scheme through regulations. I refer back to issues that have already been discussed with regard to problems in the plumber pension scheme. There are other examples of difficulties caused by withdrawals from collective DB schemes. It can come around in particular when large and small employers are put together. Our discussions with regard to collective money purchase schemes have already made it clear that there are issues on which we are still uncomfortable in the context of the employee risk, even in a single CDC scheme. The Post Office scheme is not an everyday case; they will start out with some advantages. There will be even more unknowns in the multi-employer scheme. For example, the pool for risk-sharing is larger, which might seem attractive, but the risk of a larger group leaving is then an awfully large matter for the remaining pensioners to take on board.

Proposed new paragraph (d) is not to

“significantly restrict the powers of trustees”.

I do not mean to override the powers the regulator has to sanction trustees for improper behaviour. I put this point in because there has already been discussion as to whether some of this Bill’s provisions are encroaching on the day-to-day decision-making of trustees—for example, with regard to investment policies. There are noble Lords here who have far more experience of pension trustees than I do, and I particularly value thoughts on the usefulness of this provision. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that this is anything to do with preventing regulators having the right balance of powers to do things. It is where they would intervene on day-to-day matters.

Proposed new paragraph (e) prevents amendment of primary legislation. I am aware that this is in conflict with the powers the Government have given themselves in Clause 47(5). It is a matter of principle. Pensions are a highly sensitive policy area, and it would be wrong if a Government could selectively change or revoke significant consumer protection provisions without scrutiny at the level of primary legislation. The clause says:

“Regulations under this section may among other things … amend, repeal or revoke a provision of this Part or any other enactment.”


A short while ago, when we were discussing one of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I think I heard that the Minister did not think there was the power to do certain things. Actually, the Government jolly well have it here, because they can “amend, repeal or revoke” anything they like—any enactment—so I think that was not a valid excuse, if I can put it that way.

Of course, the real problem here is that parliamentary procedures are deficient in that departments have to enter into a bidding process to get Bills and, because of time constraints, they do not come around superabundantly. The only other option, regulations, is not really democratic on the level on which they have become used. It is possible for the Government to do something about that, but it is my view that, until it is done, restraints must be placed on powers in the manner I propose—all the more so when there is lack of policy guidance.

I know we have had exchanges before on whether there is adequate policy guidance. Some of us think there is not, and the noble Earl has said it is all about implementation and the policy is there. I cited Clause 47(5), and Clause 51(3) says:

“Regulations under this Part may … confer a discretion on a person”.


When that was discussed—when the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the clause stand part debate on Clause 51—my immediate scribble was “may not create a regulator”, which was directly in response to what could be covered under “discretion”. That, therefore, is the reasoning. I could give more reasons and find many more examples of where discretion is conferred: a failure to really tie it down to the policies. Given that where helpful suggestions have been put forward that would perhaps have given more reassurance on the true nature and scope have been resisted, there is no alternative but to outline what may not be done. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I add my support to many aspects of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She is trying to do something very helpful for the Committee and the Bill. We have all expressed concerns about the wide-ranging powers in this Bill, which seem to go a lot further than normal for such Bills. I recognise that pensions Bills tend to have wide powers added to them, but it makes sense to identify areas where we would not wish the legislation to allow a Minister to do things that would normally come back to Parliament for our scrutiny or further legislation.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I, too, share the aspiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to constrain somewhat the use of the extensive powers that the Government are blessing themselves through this Bill. I will not, however, reopen that debate in any great detail, although there is a temptation to say “We have another whole hour of Committee, we can debate this at great length”. The danger of a list is that some noble Lords will have concerns about particular aspects, such as constraining trustee power, while some will be in favour of multi-employer collective money purchase schemes. Most of us, however, would have reservations about the ability to amend primary legislation.

Although it may not feel as though Bills come along in super abundance, in the field of pensions it feels like they come along all the time like the number 19 bus, but I take the point. In fact, if we are going to have a list I would like to add to it: I would start with not allowing dashboards to do transactions without covering that in primary legislation. I have a long list in my notes which I will develop at length should we return to this. What might be helpful is if the Minister, in replying, would tell Committee whether the Government intend to do any of these things.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I signed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and agree entirely with the principle of both these amendments. I was particularly drawn to the notion of having a threshold and notification, as provided by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. He circulated it for comment and therefore I signed it after some negotiations with him.

Put simply, if the deficit is large and the effort to close it is too small—smaller than the dividend—the payment of the dividend becomes a notifiable event. The sequel to that would surely be what the noble Lord, Lord Flight, has just pointed out: that it be looked at and perhaps in certain cases, though not all if there are other things that could be taken into account, the dividend payment be stopped. The point is that it is brought to the regulator’s notice, rather than the regulator potentially having to look at an awful lot of dividends and payments being made. Indeed, how will the regulator even find out about them? The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, solves that little loop of how the regulator gets to know about them and has a reasonable number to look at rather than being overwhelmed.

In our negotiations, we tried to find a formula to keep the momentum going to close the gap, even within the five years, as a lot can go wrong in that period. I got as far as something like “the ratio of the dividend to deficit not being greater than the reciprocal of the remaining years and not conveniently commutative”. I concluded that, if I carried on in that way, I would have to put in a job application to Dominic Cummings.

More seriously—I refer here to the helpful meeting I had with the Minister and officials yesterday—I want to see some specific push in the Bill for the regulator to be tougher, including in setting the contribution schedule for paying down the deficits. As has already been explained by other noble Lords, TPR has come forward with a set of principles, but maybe it needs something to back them up and get them over the line in enforcing them.

In the meeting yesterday, it was pointed out that more powers are being given to the regulator in the Bill and that regulations will be forthcoming. That is well and good, but something has to make sure that the regulator is urged to use those powers and to be strong, especially in standing up to larger and more forceful companies and individuals. We know that the record there is not necessarily all that good. The policy impetus needs to come from government and Parliament; otherwise, there may be more power but no enforced policy shift.

We also know that boards will take advice on these kinds of matters and be told what the market norms are, or at least what other companies have done. If the dial is to be shifted, the advice has to be shifted. The way to ensure that advice is shifted is for there to be an indication of the policy in the Bill, because an adviser cannot go against that in their duty to advise the companies.

It was very good to hear that the new offences that we discussed on Monday—which seems a long time ago now—are wide enough to embrace advisers, but you have to get at what their duty is to those they are advising. There are lots of reasons to have something in the Bill to make sure that the principles already outlined by TPR have that backing to be enforced and have that effect. As I said on Monday, it should not be normal to accept overly long continuation of deficits just because a company is well capitalised.

There can be many claims on and reasons for that extra capitalisation—there may be lots of tentative reasons why they need it. There might be plans to spend it to buy another company. All kinds of things could be going on, and what looks like a good capital margin could actually be shoring up many other things as well as the pension deficit. What is the excuse to the Pensions Regulator? What excuse might be given to other sources? Some of the clever analysts may work out what is going on; the ordinary investor and the ordinary pensioner is unlikely to do so. Therefore, I support the principle of both the amendments: something should go in the Bill to push or shore up the Pensions Regulator in its actions.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—I have added my name to one of the amendments—to support the concept that has been so well explained already by noble Lords and to echo the warnings that this is a very important time in our defined benefit pension system, as we still have employers attached to schemes and, in some cases, members contributing. Some schemes are still not completely closed. Once a scheme has closed to new members, it will not be too long before it closes to new accruals and it will effectively be in run-off. While there are still employers with an interest in the scheme and before we get to the period, which will come in the next 10 years or so, when there is no economic interest between the employer and the scheme and it is seen merely as a major liability—with more and more companies looking for ways to get around the deficits—now is the time to be collecting as much money as possible.

Obviously, one does not want to damage the ongoing viability of the employer, but there needs to be more recognition of the fact that the pension scheme is a debtor of the company—not all companies see it in that way—and the choice between dividend payment and deficit funding should not be just between the interest of shareholders and the interest of pension scheme members. The pension deficit has people’s lives attached, so there is a higher importance here.

When one looks at the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, in particular with reference to Amendment 84, Section 830 says that a company should not be permitted to pay out a dividend if it has not made sufficient profit to cover its costs or if there are losses in the company. What is not explicit, but is made explicit in the amendment, which was originally part of my noble friend Lord Balfe’s Private Member’s Bill, is that the accounting measure of the pension deficit does not reflect the actuarial reality as estimated by a scheme actuary, or perhaps by trustees, of the true scale of the obligation—in other words, potential losses—that the company faces. Therefore, redefining the accounting measure and taking account of the actuarial measure would put the payment of dividend on a different plane. That is to be reflected in Section 830A, which would be added after Section 830, in terms of justification for payment of a dividend that might otherwise look viable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says about this and whether the sort of concerns that have been expressed are already dealt with somewhere else. A very good point has been made.

I want to ask a question on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. He talks about the value of the assets of the scheme, and my noble friend Lady Altmann made this point; there is a big difference between an actuarial valuation and an insurance valuation in a scheme. If you were to base this on an insurance valuation, you would catch quite a lot of pension schemes, including those which probably could pay some dividends. I was a little concerned about that, and I would like some clarification when we come to wind up on what is intended.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

28: Clause 110, page 97, line 2, at end insert—
“72B Provision of information: further provision(1) The Regulator may, by notice in writing, require the trustees of a scheme to which section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995 applies to provide information as set out in subsection (5).(2) A notice under subsection (1) may include a requirement for information—(a) to be disclosed to the Regulator on a periodic basis, and(b) in respect of specified periods of time.(3) Where the provision of information is required by a notice under subsection (1), the information must be provided in such a manner, at such a place and within such a period as may be specified in the notice.(4) The Regulator must publish information provided in respect of the provisions set out in subsection (5) on its website within one month of receiving it in a form that is searchable and easily accessible.(5) For the purposes of subsection (1), information to be provided on request of the Regulator is any information set out in—(a) regulation 29A of the Occupational and Personal Pension Scheme (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013 (publishing charges and transaction costs and other relevant information), and(b) paragraph 30 of Schedule 3 of the Occupational and Personal Pension Scheme (Disclosure of Information) Regulations 2013.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a reporting duty on the Pensions Regulator to publish statements of investment principles (SIPs) under section 35 of the Pensions Act 1995. The amendment would place a requirement on the Pensions Regulator to create a SIP repository, accessible to the public through its website, so that all scheme members could check their scheme’s investment strategy.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I rise to move Amendment 28 in my name in this group and will speak to Amendment 92, to which I have added my name. I also support a number of the other amendments. The noble Lords who tabled them will obviously rise shortly to expound on their own aspects of this issue.

The main area this group deals with is the environmental impacts that pension funds can have. We have £1.3 trillion of pension assets; they can help tackle climate change. Our country will host the COP 26 in December, at which we will have the opportunity to show world leadership in our thinking on climate change and policies to address these issues.

Climate change, as most of us believe, poses a potentially material risk to pensions and financial assets. The insurer Aviva estimates that investors could lose £2.7 trillion from investment value globally due to climate change. I am delighted that the Government have tabled amendments giving Ministers a power to require pension schemes to disclose how they manage climate-related financial risks in line with the more detailed, granular requirements of the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures.

I support those amendments, but the Government have said that they will require only large schemes to report in line with the TCFD disclosure requirements. They have not said what “large” means, but I assume it will probably not include schemes with fewer than 5,000 members, for example. These smaller schemes still need to manage the risks to savers’ pensions potentially posed by climate change. Amendment 28 is therefore calling for the Pensions Regulator to create a compliance framework based on a public register of schemes and ESG—environmental, social and governance —investment policies.

In October 2018, the Government changed the law to require UK pension scheme trustees to prepare a policy on how they manage the financially material risks arising from issues such as climate change. Trustees are required to state these policies in their statement of investment principles, a statutorily mandated document which all schemes are required to have. Trustees should have updated these statements by 1 October 2019. Some schemes were required to publish them at that point.

However, the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has reviewed—with the help of the Pensions Regulator—the policies of a representative sample of these UK trust-based pensions. For those schemes, representing 3 million or so savers, its report found clear evidence that “large scale non-compliance” with this requirement exists and that trustees had not been publishing their statement of investment principles. Two-thirds of the schemes in its sample had not published, and of those which had the policies were pretty thin and noncommittal.

It is not exactly clear why trustees are failing to disclose and comply with this new law. The UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association has suggested that it may be because smaller schemes—schemes with fewer than 5,000 members, let us say—do not have a website, so the administrative burden of publishing these statements and complying with the law has proved overly taxing for them. There has therefore been a recommendation that the Pensions Regulator should be given a duty to obtain these statements of investment principles and publish them on its own website in a central registry. Amendment 28 seeks to insert this into the Bill.

If the Pensions Regulator has the power to obtain and publish these statements of investment principles, it will obviously be able to remove the administrative burden from the schemes. It will also give the regulator a much better ability to monitor compliance with these requirements. It will improve the transparency and scrutiny of the schemes’ policies to manage these environmental, social and governance risks, as well as providing the industry with a resource to find out about and share best practice. Importantly, it would allow scheme members to see their own schemes’ investment policies. These are the reasons why I urge the Minister to consider whether we might be able to insert this provision into the Bill.

The notion of a public register of these statements of investment principles and implementation statements could be a powerful way to drive up trustee awareness of action on the risks arising from climate change. It would allow monitoring and scrutiny of what these schemes currently do better to educate those which may not be compliant—some of these laggards, perhaps —about what the leading trustees and schemes are doing. Campaign groups could scrutinise this. Ministers could also scrutinise and report on the issues that are so important and potentially powerful in allowing our country to be a leader in this field, given the size of our pension assets. They dwarf those of most other countries, particularly in Europe. It could help to fill an important hole in the Government’s overall climate change strategy.

The Government are of course right to mandate that the large schemes are going to do this. As I say, I support the government amendments, but we should also bear in mind that this is a question of protecting all pension savers’ money—not just in the large schemes but in all schemes—from the risk of climate change. Therefore to expose workers in small companies or small schemes to more financial risks from climate change does not seem an effective way forward. We have an opportunity in the Bill to make a real difference. There is scope to help the pensions industry be better able to address the financial risks of climate change and to be better aligned with the interests of savers, who will increasingly be concerned about these issues. This is an opportunity to put our pension funds and pension industry on a more sustainable footing and, if noble Lords will forgive this play on words, it can also include sustainable investments in relation to climate and environmental sustainability.

I have added my name to Amendment 92 in the name of the Baroness, Lady Hayman, and I support Amendments 75 and 89, which talk about requiring schemes to align their portfolios with the Paris agreement objectives. The UK Government need to ensure that pension investment portfolios are aligned with, for example, the UK’s emission reduction targets. Pension funds also need to act to protect their beneficiaries’ savings from these financial risks. For example, research from the leading consultancy Mercer has found that for nearly all asset classes, regions and timeframes, a 2 degree increase in global temperature scenario would lead to much better projected returns than if there was a 3 or 4 degree increase in global temperatures. The requirements in these amendments would not necessarily involve disinvestment from any particular sector; it does not direct how the trustees must invest. It would involve trustees in assessing whether their assets in their portfolios have a clear strategy for, for example, aligning their business model with the UK emissions reduction timeline and taking appropriate action. That would also give the companies clear incentives to develop Paris-compliant business models and invest in low-carbon opportunities, making it much easier for the Government to achieve their own targets.

Amendment 92, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, would help to facilitate this by requiring pension schemes to report against the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures framework. The amendment would ensure that all pension schemes have to report against the same frameworks, so there is commonality here, and, as I say, it does not dictate that schemes have to pursue a particular investment or disinvestment strategy. It would be left to the trustees. Operational independence, which is, of course, an important part of our system for trustees, is maintained. However, the requirement to disclose how the trustees are mitigating climate risk should also help to drive up standards of trusteeship, as well as protecting these assets and enhancing the UK’s global role in tackling climate change and other related issues.

I beg to move, and I look forward to the debate, other noble Lords’ contributions and the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 28, which the Baroness, Lady Altmann, has just cogently explained to the Committee. I will speak to that, as well as to my own Amendment 52, about the information available for dashboards. I shall also speak to Amendments 74, 75, 76 and 92, which, as the noble Baroness mentioned, seek to strengthen the Government’s welcome Amendment 73, which recognises the salience of climate change to pension funds and to the Bill. I remind the Committee of my interests as co-chair of Peers for the Planet, and that my son works for Make My Money Matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and contributions. They have been numerous, but they have been numerous in quality, so I thank them for that. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the whole Committee that we are listening and aim to please.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate. In responding, I will first address the three government amendments and then the others in the group. The Government are clear that action needs to be taken to address the risks that climate change brings. The Government announced in the Green Finance Strategy, published last July, that all large asset owners, including occupational pension schemes, would be expected to report on how they address climate change risk, in line with the international, industry-led task force on climate-related financial disclosure, by 2022.

Building on that expectation, the Government are now, through new Clauses 73, 81 and 98, seeking to take powers to require occupational pension schemes to manage the effects of climate change effectively as a financial risk to their investments and to report publicly on how they have done so. New Section 41A inserted into the Pensions Act 1995 confers powers on the Secretary of State to impose requirements on occupational pension scheme trustees and managers to secure effective governance on the effect of climate change on the scheme.

Let me be clear. This does not mean that it is for the Government to direct schemes or set their investment strategies. The Government never have directed pension scheme investment, and do not intend to. Our clear view is that the amendments do not permit us to do that. Amendments 74 and 76, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Jones, would amend the new clauses, expanding the remit of these powers and those under new Section 41B beyond occupational pension schemes to include personal pension schemes. Personal pension schemes are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, not the Pensions Regulator. To place requirements on personal pension providers through the Bill would create a patchwork of overlapping regulatory oversight, under which providers would have to respond to two separate regulators on the same activity.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, raised occupational schemes. The FCA is currently considering how best to enhance climate-related disclosures by workplace personal pension schemes. The noble Baroness, Lady Janke, also referenced personal pensions.

Turning back to the government amendment, the Government believe it is absolutely necessary that trustees act within their fiduciary duty to protect members’ benefits against the growing physical risks of climate change and the risks of the transition to a lower-carbon economy. However, action taken by trustees and managers should not be limited to avoiding risk but should involve consideration of the investment opportunities that climate change presents, as new Section 41A(2) makes clear.

New Section 41A(3) sets out the kinds of activities trustees and managers of pension schemes may be required to undertake as part of their governance on the effects of climate change. Where such requirements are introduced, our intention is that trustees or managers are doing the determination, review and revision of strategies and targets. It is not a matter for the Government. We will consult on the exact requirements, the timings for introducing them and the scheme in scope.

New Clause 92 seeks to bind the Secretary of State to a specific timeline for launching this consultation and publishing the response. I am very grateful to noble Lords for their compliments about the speed of our action on climate change; I must tell your Lordships that our Secretary of State Thérèse Coffey and Minister for Pensions Guy Opperman are 110% behind this. It was their action, not mine, that put this into the Bill, so I cannot take credit for something I did not do; they deserve all the credit for that. I understand the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that we should push further. As my great friend William Booth would have said, that and better will do. I understand the point she is making.

I assure the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Jones, in response to their amendment, that the Government intend to launch their consultation on the task force recommendations upon the Bill completing its passage through Parliament, and to respond within a year.

Amendments 52 and 75 and new Clause 89 specifically identify alignment with the Paris Agreement as one of the risk-assessment activities which schemes should be doing. Our view is that the industry is not quite ready for this sizeable step in reporting requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised global warming. Amendment 75 goes further than reporting on alignment to require governance of schemes to align with the Paris Agreement’s objective of global warming of well under 2 degrees Celsius. This would be tantamount to directing schemes’ investments, which the Government have already ruled out. The Government are seeking to ensure effective governance of climate change risk, not to direct trustees’ or managers’ investments.

However, new Section 41A(4) in Amendment 73, taken with new Section 41B, would enable the Government to prescribe reporting on Paris alignment, requiring schemes to consider their alignment with Paris in relation to risk and exposure and to make this information public. At present, there is little consensus on methodologies for reporting on Paris alignment. This area is developing very quickly, which is why the Government are seeking powers to prescribe such reporting in future. We will continue to monitor the development of methodologies and data in the industry, and would put any future proposals on this issue to consultation.

The Government believe that schemes should be doing effective governance, as new Section 41A will allow us to require, and that schemes should publish this information as set out in the task force recommendations. New Section 41B would enable the Government to lay regulations to require this information to be made public, free of charge, including to members.

New Clause 89 would require some of this information on Paris Agreement alignment to feature in the scheme’s published statement of investment principles, or SIP. However, should the amendment be accepted, this would pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. In contrast, new Section 41B of the Government’s amendment takes powers which would enable the Government to introduce publication requirements relating to the degree of Paris Agreement alignment at a later date.

When disclosing information and documents, subsection (3) of new Section 41B in the Government’s amendment requires trustees and managers to have regard to statutory guidance which the department will publish. In requiring schemes to follow this guidance, consistency and comparability across reporting by different schemes will be easier to achieve. Other benefits of publication are ensuring that best practice is shared across the industry and that trustees and managers can learn from those with the most advance climate risk governance.

Amendments 28 and 36 seek to achieve a similar objective by granting the regulator the responsibility to create a repository of statements of investment principles and forcing schemes to provide their SIPs, as well as sections of annual statements, to the regulator. The Government were concerned by the UK Sustainable Investment and Finance Association’s recent research, which showed widespread non-compliance in publishing SIPs. We have urged UKSIF to pass its findings to the regulator, so that it can take swift action. We believe a central repository has a part to play in that, but Amendment 28 does not take into account the growing concentration of the vast majority of members in a small number of schemes. Of more than 5,000 defined benefit schemes, the largest 200 schemes have more than 60% of members. Of more than 3,000 defined contribution schemes, the largest 150 have more than 96% of members. For these members, their own scheme’s website or public pages are the natural places to look for investment information, not a corner of the Pensions Regulator’s website.

Similarly, in relation to Amendment 36, the regulator has already placed the largest schemes under one-to-one supervision and has regular sight of the all the documents referred to. In any event, Amendments 28 and 36 are unnecessary, as I can report that officials at the DWP and the Pensions Regulator have already begun work to identify how a central index of SIPs can be produced. Amendment 97 seeks to put a duty on trustees to consult members each time they review their SIP. However, this imposes unreasonable burdens on trustees. The Law Commission has confirmed in two reviews that trustees are not required to take account of members’ views, although in some circumstances they can. It would be unhelpful to require trustees to solicit member preferences which they had no ability or intention to take into account. Amendments 52, 67A and 67B seek to include information on Paris alignment reporting and consideration of ESG in the pensions dashboard.

We will turn to the dashboard later in Committee, but it is important to highlight here—

[Baroness Altmann]

I am so sorry to interrupt my noble friend. First, I want to draw the Committee’s attention to my interests as set out in the register in connection with pensions, and to the fact that my son works on sustainable transport and reducing transport emissions. Will the Minister write to members of the Committee about the regulator’s plans for creating a central repository? Will it be comprehensive? If DWP and the Pensions Regulator are working on setting this up anyway, would it do any harm to have this measure in the Bill to make sure that it happens?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

Of course we will be happy to write to answer the questions that my noble friend has raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend for her comprehensive response. I think she can tell from the comments that we would be grateful for some follow-up conversations. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 28 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that this provides the Committee with the necessary clarity, certainty and—

[Baroness Altmann]

I hope my noble friend will forgive me for intervening, but after what he has just said, it is important to put on record that there are potentially significant dangers in launching commercial dashboards at the same time as the publicly funded dashboard. It is likely that that will generate enormous confusion in the consumer. It is entirely possible that consumers will not know which dashboard is which and will be driven to a commercial dashboard, which may not be in their impartial interests. I urge my noble friend to consider carefully that there are really strong and important reasons from a consumer protection perspective to have this publicly funded dashboard first, especially as the Government have devoted so much resource and commitment to providing it.

[Earl Howe]

I say—gently—to my noble friend that I could not disagree more. I cannot see the risks that she has articulated, given all that I have said about putting the necessary consumer protections in place before anyone makes the first move to launch a commercial dashboard. Having said that, I very much respect her knowledge of the landscape and would be happy to have a conversation with her about the risks that she referred to. But having thought about this in some depth myself, I am satisfied that we will not allow a situation to arise where consumers are confused or put at risk by the multiplicity of dashboards. All the dashboards will show the same information. They will not be allowed to show different information. They may set it out differently, but that does not seem to constitute a risk to the consumer or of confusing the end user.

Subject to those remarks, and despite the lack of clarity around the timing of the matters I referred to, I hope that the assurances I have given are sufficient for noble Lords, and that the noble Baroness feels content to withdraw her amendment on that basis.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting : House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I support all three amendments. I have added my name to Amendment 2 —so excellently moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey —which intends that any CDC scheme that is applying for authorisation must have a considered strategy for the long-term intergenerational fairness considerations that we have just discussed. The scheme would need not just buffers—we will talk about buffers in the next group—these would also be required against scheme failure and scheme wind-up. In this case I would prefer to think of these as risk margins, to recognise the long-term risks to remaining members, most particularly if scheme members transfer out. That is the particular aim of my Amendment 7, which would also impose on the scheme, when calculating benefits, a requirement to consider how it will recognise the risks in future years if somebody cashes in the pension today.

The cash equivalent transfer value is not really a benefit under the scheme. If the member is in poor health, for example, they will be selecting against the scheme, because the scheme will assume a certain life expectancy. Some will have less and some more, but if all those who have lower life expectancy transfer out at full value, then clearly the pensions in payment are too high. If they take money when markets are performing well, they may receive more than if they had waited longer and there was a market correction, so the remaining members, again, will bear the cost.

Given that a CDC scheme is designed specifically to pay a pension rather than a lump sum as an alternative, without the same draconian guarantee requirements on employers, to the defined benefit system that we have had traditionally in this country—which as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, rightly says, is the gold standard—we would not want this to be at the detriment of defined benefit but rather as an alternative to defined contribution. However, those members who transfer out are not placing their trust in the scheme; they are not saying, “I want my pension to come from the scheme,” and they are leaving the remaining members to bear an extra risk. I remind noble Lords that we have seen this in defined benefit schemes with the minimum funding requirement, and also with the rules around scheme surpluses. In the short term it was judged that an amount in the scheme was sufficient to pay a specific level of pension over the long term and it turned out that that was not the case, because assumptions were incorrect, markets changed or demography changed. Therefore, it is wholly inadequate to assume that whatever is happening today should be reflected, for example, in cash equivalent transfer values.

As the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, said, it is not just intergenerational fairness; it will select against today’s pensioners, potentially, because if over the next couple of years markets are weak, pensions will need to be reduced more to reflect people who transferred out at what seemed to be fair value two years previously. I hope my noble friend will consider the thrust of these amendments and perhaps look at whether we can introduce some requirements for schemes when members transfer out or when market values are judged to be at a certain level. Can we insert some risk margins that will protect members who rely on this scheme for their lifetime pension in the future?

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, like others, I speak in favour of all three amendments. In fact, I signed Amendments 6 and 7 but too late for it to show on the Marshalled List in respect of Amendment 7. I was one of the many noble Lords who mentioned intergenerational fairness, and fairness more generally, at Second Reading because, as has been explained, a significant number of members, particularly older members but not necessarily just them, transfer out after some good times for investments in the investment cycle. That leaves others bearing the brunt of later down cycles, hence the Ponzi analogy. I am actually not quite sure what “fairness among all members” actually means—it is difficult because of, for example, the different longevities between men and women—but I signed Amendment 6 because that was the closest thing to saying, “You’ve got to look widely at everything.”

I have come to the conclusion that the only way in which you can have fairness is to have some kind of buffer, which we will come to later on, or some kind of risk margin as proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, or maybe both. In the interests of fairness, those who are transferring out should have to take their share of the risk; otherwise, if you are a good market-watcher you could perhaps spot your moment to make your move, and then that is perhaps unfair on the rest.

I, along with others, think that something must be enabled for these measures to be required. It is nice to know that something is already envisaged for the scheme, but there needs to be something for every scheme. There should at least be a requirement for that, and actually I think there should be a permission for things such as buffers and risk margins, rather than a prohibition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments. I turn first to the proposed amendments to Clause 14. The fundamental aims of the financial sustainability requirement are to avoid disruption to members through CDC schemes failing because of inadequate financial planning or resources and to ensure that, if a scheme experiences a triggering event, the costs of dealing with that and continuing to run on the scheme for an appropriate time can be dealt with. These costs may include costs of transfer and wind-up, if that arises.

As these will be new schemes, it is possible that the up-front costs of establishing and running a CDC scheme may not be covered in full by the charges paid by members. Similarly, if a scheme experiences a triggering event, it might also find that it has insufficient resources to meet the cost of resolving that event without further recourse to members’ funds. The financial sustainability requirement is intended to protect against these risks.

It is envisaged that there will be a variety of mechanisms for financing these costs. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, identified, those are likely to involve support from establishing and connected employers. We will consult on this matter before bringing forward regulations, but a range of options is likely to be available—for example, an amount held in escrow or contingent assets.

Envisaged regulations made under Clause 14(3) will ensure that the regulator has sufficient evidence to satisfy itself that the financial sustainability criterion is met and that members are protected. We intend that these regulations will require evidence of any financial commitment by the establishing employer or connected employers and that the scheme has access to the financial resources it needs, including in the event of employer insolvency. If the regulator is not satisfied that the scheme is financially sustainable, the scheme will not be authorised to operate by the regulator, so it is in an employer’s interest to ensure that its scheme meets the envisaged requirements. We do not intend to require CDC schemes to hold a minimum level of capital to meet relevant cost. If authorisation is to work effectively, the Pensions Regulator must be able to consider the risks posed by each scheme to determine whether adequate mitigations are in place. I believe that that is a fairer and more effective approach.

I turn to my noble friend Lady Altmann’s amendment. It would add to the illustrative list of what regulations may require the regulator to consider when deciding whether the processes used to run the scheme are sufficient to ensure it is run effectively. I appreciate the importance of good systems—

[Baroness Altmann]

I thank my noble friend. Before we finish on this topic, I hear what is being said but what I was trying to achieve with Amendment 5 was to avoid repeating the mistakes already extant in automatic enrolment schemes. We are setting up a brand-new system, and there seems to be nothing in the current processes which would require checks on data accuracy. The processes mentioned in Clause 16 include records management, in subsection (4)(d), while subsection (4)(b) recommends standards for IT systems’ “quality”. However, there are no processes to verify on an ongoing basis a regular audit of whether the data are correct. We know that data are currently incorrect in a large number of auto-enrolment schemes. Even the modern ones are full of errors.

I am trying to introduce something that would help us learn from experience and avoid repeating the kind of mistakes that we know have arisen. They are not intentional mistakes, but if we put in place right from the start processes which require data audits and, potentially, capital buffers as well, against mistakes that have not been foreseen, we will set up a more robust system for the longer term.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend for her intervention. My understanding is that CDC schemes are obviously new and will not carry any legacy data issues, which should lower the initial risk. The focus will be on not cleaning old data but establishing strong processes for loading, managing and maintaining data, with regular checks to ensure that quality is maintained. If that does not answer my noble friend’s point in the way she would like we can deal with it when we meet later in the week, if that is acceptable.

I appreciate the importance of good systems and processes. However, the proposed addition to the illustrative list is unnecessary, as we already envisage that appropriate requirements relating to the accuracy of member data and record keeping will be included in regulations. Schedule 5 of the illustrative CDC regulations provides an early indication of our thinking in respect of member records. However, we will consult to ensure that what is included in the regulations is appropriate and that sufficient scrutiny is applied. We also want to ensure that any requirements are proportionate.

In conclusion, I hope that my statements today and the illustrative regulations deliver sufficient reassurance of our commitment to ensuring that CDC schemes are financially sustainable and that systems and processes for member data are sufficient and effective. With that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock]

I think this is a language question. The problem that my noble friend Lady Drake raised at Second Reading and which we are trying to raise here is not about a capital buffer to deal with the intergenerational questions of benefits and payments at a time. It was the equivalent in master trust regulations where the sponsoring employer has to put money up front in a safe place so that if things go wrong and the scheme collapses the fallout can be funded without raiding members’ benefits. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is describing something slightly different.

[Baroness Altmann]

I hope I can intervene helpfully. This is allied to the issue of data. If a scheme has to wind up, the biggest cost is the administration, and the likelihood of a scheme with poor data records needing to take money from members’ pensions to meet the very high costs of administration when a scheme is failing is much greater. That goes back to the original reason for suggesting that we need a buffer that can cater for the disaster scenario. It is like an insurance policy so that if things have gone horribly wrong with that scheme, members do not potentially end up with no pension because there is something that we have set up from the beginning that can help fund the costs involved and there are systems and processes to check regularly that data are correct along the way which would mitigate the costs of going back over many years and trying to resurrect records.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I am advised that we are confident that that will be the case.

[Baroness Altmann]

In that case, I seek clarification on what would happen if the employer became insolvent. There would still be the same problem that members’ pots would be needed to cover the costs of wind up, because they could not be got from the employer. If there is not a capital buffer up front and we rely on waiting to recover it from the employer, we may still end up with the same kinds of errors that we had in defined benefit schemes, where there was nobody to get the money from and the members ended up with potentially no pension.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

In the absence of knowledge in this area I have had to resort to listening to the debate. I think the consultation is important. We need to be clear what the headroom is, what the buffer is and whether the headroom is to take account of inflation, as the Minister says. Taking account of inflation has nothing to do with sustainability, emergency action or catastrophes of other kinds, so we need clarity about, first, what questions are asked in the consultation and, secondly, what responsibility is taken.

It is all very well saying that the regulator will look at this and make sure it is sustainable, but I am not sure that the history of the Pensions Regulator gives me a good night’s sleep. I apologise if I have got it wrong, but there seems to me to be a bit of confusion about what this headroom or buffer is for, who takes responsibility for it and how the Pensions Regulator will keep a look out. It is not clear to me that statutory instruments will do it. However, if the Minister is confident that they will, we need to see them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann]

I support my noble friend’s proposed amendment. He has raised an important issue here. Once again, it is about pre-empting a problem that we have seen elsewhere and not importing it into brand-new legislation. The pause order and triggering events that might permit some protection against people transferring out inappropriately will arise only if the scheme is in trouble and the regulator has already picked that up. That will be a number of steps down the line.

I wholeheartedly agree with what my noble friend said. Before transferring out of a defined benefit scheme, one is required to take advice if one is losing a meaningful lifelong potential income—not guaranteed, but potential. That protects members and potentially the scheme. If there are risk margins in transfer values, members should also have somebody talk them through what they might imply for them. Given that the aim of the CDC scheme is to deliver a lifetime pension, having the same requirement for advice as we already have in defined benefit schemes does not seem overly draconian. I am not saying this is necessarily the right wording or optimal route for a CDC scheme, but the aim of this amendment to protect members has merit. I would be grateful if my noble friend and the department might consider introducing it.

[Viscount Eccles]

My Lords, I say in support that, if I were a trustee of a pension scheme, and one, two or more people wanted to transfer out, I would be extremely unhappy if they had not taken independent financial advice. I would see that as a necessary condition of coming to the deal that we were possibly coming to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hutton of Furness]

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has drawn attention to an important issue. The wording of Clause 15, which deals with communication requirements that the Pensions Regulator has to be satisfied with, is all about the systems and processes of communication. I accept that that is important but so is the content of the communication. The issue of risk, and who carries the principal burden of risk in a collective defined-contribution scheme, is central. Anyone who has followed what happened in the Netherlands a few years ago will be aware of the enormous sense of disappointment, anger and, I think, surprise that many of the scheme members felt when their pensions in benefit were reduced. No one thought that was possible but of course it was, because, at the end of the day, collective money purchase schemes are, as the noble Lord said, collective defined contribution schemes. The risk is entirely on the scheme member; it is not on the employer at all. No guaranteed promises are being made to scheme members about what their retirement benefits will be.

The issue of the content of the communications that the scheme must make available to its members is just as important as the systems and process of communication. It is a mistake in the Bill for the emphasis to be placed on just the systems and processes, as it is, with no acknowledgement of the importance of the content.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment moved comprehensively by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I want to add a few points.

As many of us said at Second Reading, communication is one of the key issues of this type of pension scheme, especially in a country that is used to traditional defined benefit schemes, which were thought to offer guaranteed pensions—and have done so in most cases. This is completely different. Indeed, it relates to the idea of capital buffers and some kind of insurance. If there are no buffers and there is no insurance and things go wrong, it is entirely possible that the member will get no pension from this type of pension scheme. Will that concept of risk be explained to members? Will it be explained to members who may, as my noble friend Lord Young said, be transferring into a CDC scheme?

The aim of this scheme is to offer lower-cost administration and better returns on the investment than an individual defined contribution scheme because of the economies of scale and access to a wider range of assets—perhaps also with more individualised professional management of the scheme as a whole—and to offer better income prospects than what an individual would achieve through buying their own annuity, with all the risk and profit margins involved in that transaction. Communication to the members that this does not guarantee a pension and that there are no pension rights in this CDC scheme will be crucial. Explaining to members, who will be contributing their own resources, what this means—not least to Royal Mail members, whose guaranteed defined benefit scheme was ultimately picked up by the taxpayer and then moved into a new type of defined benefit scheme that was considered unaffordable by the new body and is being replaced by this scheme—needs to be an integral part of establishing the scheme.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for raising this important issue. I hope that my noble friend will take it on board.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I have no objection to making things the same everywhere, but last time I came across this 0.75% cap I did not ask a question, so I will now. What exactly does it cover? Compared to some SIPP investor platforms and so forth, it seems rather high. Does it cover all the trading charges as well? You can get 0.15% from Vanguard, 0.25% from AJ Bell and up to 0.45% with all your trading charges covered from Hargreaves Lansdown. I could go on. If you go to some of the insurance companies —I will go on—they tend to be greedier, up to 0.3%, but that is far short of 0.75%, so what is this paying for?

[Baroness Altmann]

I shall raise similar points. Will ask my noble friend say how the 0.75% charge cap was arrived at, given that the purpose of the CDC scheme, as I understood it, is to provide members better value than if they had their own defined contribution fund and to benefit from the economies of scale of collective management and administration, which clearly should be much lower per member than an individual defined contribution scheme?

Another point my noble friend mentioned is that that there should be no exit penalty. If that were the case, the issue we were discussing earlier about potentially reducing or applying a risk margin to transfer values would become impossible. Intergenerational fairness, which we were concerned about in our earlier discussions in Committee, may be undermined if there is an express prohibition on what may be called an exit penalty, but which to others is a risk margin or buffer against future market dislocations or changed assumptions.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked what the cap covers. This is defined in the regulations, and we will send details to all Members of the Committee. We will consult on 0.75% and the final level of the cap, as part of the regulations, so there will be more opportunity for noble Lords to influence that. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, raised the exit penalty. I will have to write to her on that.