Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Freud

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have put my name, and would like to add to the very eloquent case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake; namely that it is very important that we provide protection for members when a master trust fails and give confidence in that regard. In the event of a failure there must be a guarantee backed by the Government. While I accept that we do not expect there to be many failures, there will undoubtedly be some. Therefore, it is necessary to provide protection for that eventuality. This amendment would provide a fall-back position when every other avenue has been exhausted.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 6, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Bakewell. This is a valuable opportunity for us to discuss member protection, which is clearly at the heart of the Bill and the master trust authorisation regime.

It is not clear why an amendment has been tabled that would require the Secretary of State to make provision for a scheme funder of last resort should a master trust have insufficient resources to meet the cost of complying with the duties arising from a triggering event and to cover the cost of running the scheme on. I simply do not believe this issue requires such a sledge-hammer given all the mitigations against this risk which the Bill introduces, to which I will return briefly later on. The intention behind the amendment is a lingering concern that a failing scheme might not be able to cover the cost of transferring its members’ accrued rights out. However, to require the Secretary of State to provide for a scheme funder of last resort would be a costly and disproportionate response. Unfortunately, the amendment does not provide any details of how such a scheme might be achieved at reasonable cost. It would appear to require quite large-scale infrastructural change—the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, mentioned the idea of creating an institution with a PSO. There would need to be transparency in the schemes to which the facility would apply, and we would need to prevent any moral hazard in its application.

I am aware that schemes have failed in the past, and I understand that in some cases these failures have proven expensive to resolve. However, those failures have almost entirely occurred in schemes offering defined benefit pensions. The risks in those types of schemes are very different and the complexity of their structures can make them much more difficult to wind up than a master trust offering defined contribution benefits. If a defined benefit scheme which has been operating for a long time fails, it is much more likely that it will be more time-consuming and expensive for that scheme to close than it would be for a master trust scheme. In the case of master trusts, the noble Lords have inadvertently blown the risk out of proportion.

On the mitigations I mentioned earlier, the Bill contains a raft of measures which address the same risks that the amendment is seeking to address. The financial sustainability requirement is a key risk mitigation as, among other things, it requires schemes to satisfy the Pensions Regulator that they have sufficient financial resources to comply with their continuity strategy in Clauses 20 to 33 and to run on, following a triggering event. On application for authorisation to operate, a master trust must satisfy the regulator that it has sufficient financial resources, and post-authorisation the regulator has an ongoing duty to monitor the scheme to ensure that it continues to be financially sustainable.

In carrying out its supervisory role the regulator will assess the amount of money that the scheme requires to meet its costs, taking account of its size, the assumptions set out in its business plan, the available assets and the financial strength of the scheme funder. Furthermore, to ensure that any resources are available at the point of need, a regulation-making power enables the Secretary of State to specify requirements that the scheme funder must meet in relation to the assets, capital or liquidity. This power might be used to require certain funds to be put aside and only accessible for specific purposes, and to impose requirements about the liquidity of any capital so that it is easily realisable. Should a scheme fail, Clause 33 prevents the trustees from increasing the charges paid by members during the event-triggering period, so members’ pension pots are protected.

To prevent schemes winding up with the records in disarray and without the financial resource to put things right, one of the authorisation criteria requires schemes to satisfy the regulator that they have appropriate administration systems and processes such as record management, IT systems, and resource planning. Schemes will be subject to regular monitoring.

To pick up the specific concern mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the impact of an IT system failure on a scheme’s records, the requirement is for appropriate systems and processes, including back-up systems. The Pensions Regulator has not so far come across a master trust experiencing a computer failure; in practice, failures have been due to schemes not being financially viable.

Finally, it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the market by making provision for a scheme funder of last resort. First, such an intervention might undermine member protection by creating a moral hazard that disincentivised schemes from protecting their members. Secondly, if the Secretary of State were required to make provision for a scheme funder of last resort, this could disrupt the normal operation of the market by deterring other master trusts, or scheme funders, from retaining public confidence in master trusts and rescuing a failing scheme. We already know of some master trusts that have been consolidated by being taken over by others. In the extreme, the taxpayer could end up having to pick up the tab for failed schemes. However, the essential argument is that Clause 33 protects members’ savings from being used to pay for the costs of winding up or transferring. With that explanation in mind, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I now turn to Amendment 23, which may provide some redress for my views on Amendment 6. This amendment introduces a new clause relating to compensation for fraud, and it may provide some mitigation for noble Lords’ concerns. In addition to protecting members’ interests through the master trust authorisation regime, we are ensuring, through the introduction of this new clause, that members in master trust schemes are protected from the risk of fraud. It will allow regulations to be made that modify the provisions on fraud compensation in the Pensions Act 2004 so that they can be more applicable to master trusts and to any other occupational pension schemes to which all or some of the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill apply.

At present, fraud compensation payments can be made to occupational pension schemes where certain conditions are met. These conditions include that the value of the scheme’s assets has been reduced and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that this has been due to dishonesty. Also, all the employers in relation to the scheme must have gone out of business or the businesses must be unlikely to continue as going concerns.

Master trust schemes are occupational pension schemes, and we think it is right that they should qualify for fraud compensation payments and that their members should be entitled to this protection in the same way as members in other occupational pension schemes. However, as master trusts are used, or are intended to be used, by multiple employers who do not need a connection to each other, they would be likely to have difficulty meeting that last condition on the insolvency of all the participating employers. Therefore, our intention is that regulations will remove this employer insolvency requirement for master trusts and add other conditions to make fraud compensation more suitable for these types of schemes. These regulations would, of course, be subject to consultation, which would allow us to engage with stakeholders in developing them.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will feel that on balance he has moved somewhat ahead in respect of these amendments.

Pensions: Women’s State Pension Age

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Freud

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

I can only repeat what the Pensions Minister, Richard Harrington, said, absolutely and explicitly, that,

“no further moves will be made to assist those women, all of whom will benefit in time from the significant increase in the new state pension”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/16; col. 566.]

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I hear what the Minister says, but the Government must assess the impact of the failure to inform people on their planning for the future. If women did not know, and now face hardship as a result, they should be compensated. Will the Government look to set up a hardship fund?

[Lord Freud]

Let me go through the communications: 14 million personalised pension estimates have been sent out since 2000; 16 million unprompted forecasts were sent out with information on the raising of the pension age; 1 million letters were sent out between 2009 and 2011; 5 million letters were sent out between 2012 and 2013; and, in the 2012 survey it was discovered that only 6% of women retiring within 10 years thought that the pension age was still 60.

Improving Lives: Green Paper

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Freud

Monday 31st October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches are pleased to finally see this Green Paper. It has been delayed time and again and many of us were wondering whether it would ever see the light of day.

Reducing the disability employment gap is a worthy aim. There are many people with disabilities whose skills and talents are not utilised. Working with employers to ensure that they recognise the benefits to their businesses of employing disabled people is vital for both the health and well-being of those disabled people who are able to work, and for our economy as a whole.

The move to reform the work capability assessment is an overdue step in the right direction. However, at its heart the structure of the WCA remains fatally flawed. This is in part because of a failure to assess what types of jobs may be available to claimants, and whether they can find such jobs within their skill set and in their local area. I therefore ask the Minister whether, in reforming the system, he will look to create a process that assesses not just whether a claimant is fit to look for a job but whether the jobs available are fit for the claimant.

I also impress upon the Minister the importance of conducting a fundamental overhaul of the system. Tweaking at the edges is unhelpful. Sick and disabled people have little confidence in the WCA, rendering it unworkable. This is particularly important given the incredible mental pressure that the lack of trust in the system puts on claimants, many of whom already suffer from mental ill health. I suggest the Minister seeks to restore confidence as a priority.

On the Government’s plans for helping those disabled people who can work back into work, we welcome the creation of a business leaders group. However, will the Minister look at rewarding the best practice of businesses that are good employers of people with disabilities? For example, Liberal Democrats have proposed that those employers who meet a strengthened version of the two-tick system for mindful employers of employees with mental health conditions are able speedily to access funding, such as Access to Work. It is important that those employers who have a good track record are given a facilitated route to employing more people who may need additional support.

Finally, will the Minister explain why a proper analysis of the failings of personal independence payments is not included in the Green Paper? This has affected people’s ability to lead independent working lives. Will the Government look again at the demands of many in this House, not least my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester, on the 50-metre rule and its inappropriateness in assessing mobility? The impact of disability varies greatly between rural and urban areas, and PIP as a supposedly personalised benefit should assess these barriers.

All in all, the Green Paper is welcome, but until the Government address these myriad other problems we will still fall well short of providing the support that people with disabilities should be able to expect.

[Lord Freud]

I thank both noble Lords for their very thoughtful contributions and for their general welcome, with maybe a little complaint in one case about thinness. I take the point.

Both noble Lords made the point, in different ways, about the level of engagement going on now with this Green Paper. We make no apology for that. We need a process that fully brings on board the disabled groups, so that they have full impact. We want to take the time necessary to do that properly. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, looked at the health and work relationship; it is confined to the area that it is because the process is not about PIP at this stage. There will be other times to look at PIP but it is not part of this consultation.

As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, pointed out, fundamental here is the Waddell and Burton report of September 2006. It was very valuable for me when I was writing my first piece of work on what to do with the benefits system. It turned on its head the traditional relationship between the benefits system and work when it said that work, particularly good work, is good for people. It is not one of the problems; it is one of the solutions. It has been really hard to move and change a system that is designed to protect people from work, which made sense when there was heavy industry. It now changes at every level.

We all feel that this is taking a long time, but there is a good reason for it. We are transforming a system that put people in a silo of disability and did not let them back into work. Transforming that requires universal credit as a fundamental base where you do not just have those different groupings; you have everyone able to do what they want, with their pay adjusted accordingly. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, about universal credit: it makes work pay.

If you make a comparison between what somebody who had been in the system would have got and what universal credit does, you come up with different figures. Once you are in the universal credit system, the reality is that you are incentivised to work. That will have a behavioural effect, which we are already seeing in the way that universal credit operates. It helps and encourages people to work more. While we do not yet have many numbers of those who are disabled in the system, there are some and they are going in. Within universal credit we will build evidence as to how best for them to do so. As noble Lords appreciate, we are building the universal credit system very carefully with a “test and learn”, and it is still one of the areas about which to learn a lot.

This is a new era, of joint working. I said it, as did the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. It is joint working not just between the two departments, which is pretty tough, but also with employers. Getting all that to work well is one of the reasons why we are taking time over our consultation. Clearly we are looking at building on the three types. We now have three tiers of employers in the new two-tick system that was relaunched in July, with the top tier being the leaders. In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about whether there will be the demonstration employer—and we all know individual employers who really have put huge effort into supporting people—I can say that we are setting that up with tiers where the leaders will support others.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, on statutory sick pay and the fit note, that is clearly at the heart of getting the relationship between health and work and the employment system in the DWP to work better. That is why consultation in this area is so important. One of the most important things is to get the health system seeing employment as one of the therapeutic outcomes for which it is looking. We have already taken that step, and it takes us a long way. I cannot at this stage tell the noble Lord what the allocation of the community partners will be, but we will work on that.

With that, I think that I have dealt with the first level of questions and would enjoy some more.

Housing Benefit: Social Housing Units

Debate between Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lord Freud

Monday 25th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freud]

We are having a very substantial study done on the supported housing sector. That will come out later this year and we are looking at what our policies should be to support that sector.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, as private sector rents are normally higher than social rents, this could lead to an increase in housing benefit paid to private sector landlords, if the volume of private sector rental properties available is outstripped by demand from those renting there instead of in the social sector or from those who cannot afford to buy a property. Does the Minister agree?

[Lord Freud]

No, you have to look at the round trip. A single person in a three-bedroom place, say, may move out to the private rented sector. That might be more expensive, but then you can take a family, who are very expensive in the private rented sector, and put them in the cheaper, social rented sector. That round-trip effect in somewhere like Enfield is worth £2,500 a year to the state; the typical figure for a place such as Lincoln would be more than £600 to the state.