Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Monday 20th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 62GA is designed to address shortcomings in the governance of pension schemes, particularly contract-based schemes. It would give the Secretary of State the power to set regulations that

“provide for requirements for the identification, avoidance and management of conflicts of duty and interest”.

They would require, in the event of a conflict of interest, for priority to be given to the interests of the saver and to ensure that the duties to the saver are met despite the conflict.

In his review, John Kay criticised FCA rules as falling,

“materially below the standards necessary to establish”,

trust, confidence and respect. He recommended a shift towards fiduciary standards. In an auto-enrolled world, that comment has even more resonance because, increasingly, private sector workers’ pensions will be contract based, where, as the noble Lord, Lord Turner, mentioned in debate last Wednesday, there is a,

“fundamental inefficiency of the market ... It is a system absolutely shot through with market failure where the process of trying to provide in a competitive fashion simply does not work well”.—[Official Report, 15/1/14; col. GC 161.]

My amendment seeks to capture that governance challenge. To achieve an increase in pension savings, workers are auto-enrolled into workplace pensions. There can be no caveat emptor, as the saver does not buy. The system is designed to restrict the saver to one choice—either stay in or opt out and lose the employer contribution. Current regulation of contract-based pensions is at odds with the assumptions underlying auto-enrolment. Contract-based regulation is built on informed consent and consumer choice. Auto-enrolment is designed and built on the principle of inertia, on a population of savers who do not engage with investment choice. A plethora of reports has revealed the conflicts of interest in the industry. The OFT report confirms a dysfunctional pensions market with a weak demand side and concludes that the market could not be expected to self-remedy and that there is a need for intervention.

The introduction of auto-enrolment has been a success and the Government should be pleased. Opt-out rates have been low. The Government must now secure a level of quality and governance that delivers optimal results for savers in terms of building trust so that workers persist with their savings, thereby setting the ground for increasing contributions beyond the current statutory minimum and improving savers’ chances of achieving a reasonable income in retirement. Measures to encourage savers to engage with their pension savings are important but of themselves are not sufficient. The majority of savers will not actively engage. It is that very inertia that can be used by some providers to create or sustain profitable inefficiencies. The legal framework must protect those who do not engage.

The challenge of inertia means that there is a need for efficient defaults over the life cycle of the pension saver. For example, there is a need to get people saving; to determine a minimum they should save; to determine their investment choice at different intervals in the life cycle on, for example, joining a scheme or following a quality review as they get nearer to retirement age; and, by default, to transfer and consolidate their pension pots. Over time, I suspect that we will be considering default arrangements on decumulation when a person retires. The need for defaults raises the bar on governance because someone is using their discretion on behalf of the saver.

Contract pension provision has systemic weaknesses of governance and a particular feature that constrains efficient default arrangements. For example, looking forward, an employer conducting a triennial review that decides that the current scheme is poor value will be unable to switch workers in a contract-based scheme unless they individually consent. However, the very nature of auto-enrolment means that this active consent is unlikely to be granted by many savers. On legacy schemes and pots, I am sure that any OFT-driven audit will reveal poorly performing funds and high charges, but the solutions will not be effective if they require individuals’ consent.

We have a misalignment between what contract-based provision can do and what it is necessary to deliver in the interests of the saver. How does one respond to that challenge? Recent press comments are peppered with references to making it easier to move contract-based scheme members from old to new schemes. Standard Life’s head of workplace pensions, speaking at the NAPF conference, said that contract law acted as a barrier to moving people from poor-quality schemes to good-quality schemes, and added:

“We need to learn the stuff that works in the trust-based world”.

A recent Pensions Institute report found potential for massive improvement in outcomes where poor-quality legacy schemes transferred en masse into better-quality modern schemes with lower charges. The Pensions Institute called on the Government to facilitate changes to contract law to allow such transfers to be made without the individual consent of scheme members where it is clearly in their best interests. However, there is the rub. Who decides where it is clearly in their best interests? How is the primacy of the saver’s interest protected? Governance requirements must be fit for purpose under auto-enrolment and remove a constraint in contract provision, but in a way that ensures that the interests of the saver trump the interests of others when there is a conflict. Putting the legal responsibility for the best interests of the saver on the employer will be problematic, particularly for the long tail of SMEs and micros.

The Government’s use of statutory overrides has a role to play, particularly in placing new quality and governance requirements into future, existing and legacy pension contracts. I ask the Minister to confirm whether this Bill would give the Secretary of State the power to change retrospectively the terms of existing pension contracts to embrace any new quality or governance requirements.

However, the solution must rest in major part in raising the governance in the pensions industry. Like trustees, it should carry a fiduciary responsibility in the management and provision of its pension products and investments. Conflicts of interest must be resolved in the interests of the saver. An efficient private pension system that requires the default transfer of savers’ pots to new schemes and funds simply cannot happen without that.

There is an imbalance in the duties of contract-based pension providers, compared to those placed on trustees, which challenges the success of auto-enrolment. The OFT stressed the need for stronger measures to improve governance but I fear that the independent governance committees that it has agreed with the industry—here there are shades of what the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, referred to as the fox in the hen coop—will fail to achieve the requirement of aligning scheme governance with the interests of savers.

The proposed independent governance committees have many weaknesses. At the very least, such bodies need both a duty to act in members’ best interests and the power to make decisions. The current OFT proposal fails on both points. As the Law Commission commented,

“there are many difficult questions about how these committees will work”.

They,

“will not have the power to change investment strategies or investment managers ... Furthermore, it is not clear whether ... the committees will be under explicit legal duties to act in the interests of”,

the savers. Introducing independent governance committees accountable to the boards of pension providers, without addressing any of the conflicts faced by these providers, or clarifying that decisions must prioritise the interests of policyholders over those of the shareholders, does little to solve the governance deficit.

As a comparator, the governance requirements for the Australian private pension system have been toughened up recently. It is a sad reflection on my character that I spent a significant number of days over the Christmas holidays ploughing through the regulatory requirements under the Australian system—I promised in my new year’s resolutions to get a more exciting life in future. The Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority enforces a range of prudential standards on pension providers, including an unequivocal requirement that conflicts of interest must be resolved in the beneficiaries’ interests and a specific duty to deliver value for money.

The advent of auto-enrolment raises the bar on governance. I welcome the Government’s decision to impose quality and governance requirements on pension schemes, but I think that it is necessary to make it explicit that those requirements should provide for the identification, avoidance and management of conflicts of duty and interest. Conflicts of interest go to the heart of the problems in the private pension system. The regulations, when addressing governance requirements, must address the issue of conflicts of interest. Amendment 62GA, without being prescriptive, seeks to do that. I beg to move.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 67ZB and 67ZC in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock. It is always a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Drake on issues such as this. She has once again characteristically set out an informed and persuasive argument in her contribution to the debate. To a degree, I accept that it could be said to undermine Amendment 67ZC in that it approaches the same issue but in a distinctly different fashion, accepting the same principle. From my perspective, however, I am not that concerned how the Minister responds to the nature of the challenge that my noble friend set out. If he chooses to accept her amendment—I venture to suggest to him that he would invariably be wise to do so in such matters—he will find no great cavil from these Benches that our amendment fell by the way as a consequence.

Amendment 67ZB is designed to address the issue of scale by way of a new clause. It would promote good value in scheme sizes and would require trustees to consider whether the scheme had sufficient scale to deliver good value. I note that, in the Government’s consultation on quality standards in workplace defined-contribution schemes, the Government reveal that they are “interested” in the idea that trustees should have a duty, and underline their interest in the Australian approach to imposing duties on trustees.

I am glad that the Government are beginning to catch up with the Labour Party’s policy review on these issues, but I also note that they have not yet progressed sufficiently far in its investigations to recognise that the Australian Government, the policies of which have already been prayed in aid by my noble friend, also deploy the regulator in this respect. It is not clear why the Government think that trustees of very small UK schemes, which we know from the TPR surveys self-identify as not incapable of understanding investment processes, will be able to make a judgment as to whether they have sufficient scale. If these trustees fail to act, what is supposed to happen?

In Australia, those intending to supply a pension scheme have to apply to the regulator for a licence, and one of the licence conditions requires a reasoned attestation as to how the trustees of the scheme will meet best practice in terms of scale at the investment and administration layers. This process has a ratcheting effect, as the attestation must be repeated on an annual basis and, as best practice improves, this forces mergers. Failure to attest would mean a breach of the regulatory licence, and commentators believe that there will only be a sixth of the current number of schemes within 20 years. For trustees to move to scale we would need a ubiquitous requirement for trustees, a duty on them to assist scale and a mechanism to require action where they fail to act or mis-assess. That is what we seek to provide the beginnings of with this amendment.

Amendment 67ZC would provide for regulations to require any pension scheme to appoint a board of trustees which will have fiduciary duties towards the members of the pension scheme. Our view is that a minimum requirement for auto-enrolment schemes is that they must be governed in a way which legally requires the scheme to prioritise the interests of members over all other interests.

The Minister may say that they have consulted on governance for automatic transfer schemes; again, it is a good thing if he is catching up with our policy review. However, his quality standards are intended for automatic transfer schemes only. Under our approach, automatic transfer will be limited to aggregators, as the Minister is well aware. Our requirement for trustees applies to all qualifying schemes, not just to automatic transfer schemes, and, in addition, our definition of qualifying schemes includes closed-book schemes, which his does not.

As a further point, these conditions will apply to schemes that wish to operate as automatic transfer schemes, but an automatic transfer system is years away. The requirement for trustees is immediate, however, as my noble friend has pointed out. Why should we adopt a lesser principle than that adopted by the Australians? Their Cooper review found:

“Superannuation must always be for the benefit of members. The superannuation system does not exist to support intermediaries. Trustees must be relentless in seeking benefits for members”.

Thanks to my noble friend Lady Drake, we now know that that has also been translated into regulation in Australia.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Perhaps I might engage with the Minister on the issue of whether or not larger pension schemes provide better returns to their members. I do not intend to delay the Committee long on this issue but I have before me a page and a half of significant research that challenges the assertion made by the Minister. I will say only this: recent NAPF research shows that a person in a larger scheme will get a 28% larger pension pot than a person in a smaller scheme. Indeed, research from Australia supports the assertion that fund size has a positive impact on the performance of not-for-profit superannuation funds there. I shall arrange for the Minister to have access to this research but I could not let that assertion remain unchallenged.

[Baroness Drake]

I thank my noble friend Lord Browne for his supporting contributions in this debate. I thank the Minister for his response but he has not actually answered my question—I did listen; perhaps I missed it but I do not think so—which was: can the Minister confirm that this Bill will give the Secretary of State the power to retrospectively change the terms of existing pension contracts to embrace any new quality or governance requirement? It is a pretty key point because it goes to the heart of what the Government can or cannot do unless they take those powers to themselves. A lot of people are quite interested in whether the Government are taking those powers so that when they decide what the quality and governance requirements are, they have the power to retrospectively apply them to existing pension contracts.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Browne of Ladyton

Monday 13th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake]

I was drawing to a close. I have a final point on the negative procedure. In response to my suggestion that there could possibly be time limits on consultation in order to meet the spirit of what I aspired to achieve before the constraint of April 2016, the Minister said that seemed too prescriptive and asked why one would want to put constraints on the consultative process. It seemed rather contradictory to say that one cannot go for negative procedures because affirmative procedures take too long and could push up against the efficient way in which employers could adjust in time for April 2016. If the balance were a trade-off between defined periods or timetabled periods of consultation with the employers and the opportunity to deal with the regulation by affirmative procedures, it would be fair.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

Like my noble friends, I am grateful to the Minister for engaging more generally with the issues of statutory override in his remarks in support of Amendment 44. That has been of some assistance to the Committee. It is obvious from the engagement he has already had with my noble friends that they believe that to be the case. I, too, wish to be associated with the words of thanks to the Minister for the offers of further briefing and engagement. They will be taken up.

Before I take advantage of his generosity to ask him a few additional questions, one of the advantages of anticipating that he would do this—because he was gracious enough to indicate that he was prepared to do it—was that I was able to read the official record of the previous debate we had in Committee, and there are one or two things that occurred to me that he could expand upon.

Before I turn to that, I shall deal somewhat formally with government Amendment 44, which I accept is a consequential amendment. I have to say—I do not expect the Minister to engage very fully with this—that reading the statutory provision which he seeks to amend, the section of the Pensions Act 2004, I am slightly at a loss to understand why the amendment is necessary. It makes the precise provision more elegant, but I am not sure that it changes much of the content. It is genuinely consequential. Section 258(2)(c)(ii) already contains these words, although they are further qualified.

In the more general debate I shall try to be complementary to the points already made and not go back over the issues that my noble friends have addressed, although I have some notes here which are similar to some of their observations. I turn first to the issue of whether it is appropriate to deal with the regulations anticipated by these provisions by affirmative procedure in your Lordships’ House and in the House of Commons, or by negative procedure, and consequently whether it would be appropriate to deal with the limited issue of the extension of the period by negative or affirmative procedure. It seems to me, first, that it is improbable in the extreme, given the way the Minister has described these regulations in terms of their comprehensive nature, their complexity, and the difficulty associated with understanding them, that they will not be debated in some form in both Houses. It is unlikely that there will not be a desire to engage with some aspects of them to—at the very least—achieve some further clarification.

My second point to the Minister is that it seems to be counterproductive to the argument that negative procedure is appropriate to go to such length to explain just how complicated the regulations are. It seems to me that the more complicated the regulations are, and the more the primary legislation has to be supplemented by complicated regulations, the weaker the argument for doing this by negative procedure becomes. I suspect that that is why, reflecting on the Minister’s words, he referred again to the issue of parliamentary time. With respect to the Minister, getting parliamentary time in our current Parliament is the weakest argument possible.

I am struck by the number of times the House of Commons rises before what I consider to be its normal rising time. I do not know whether that is a function of the fact that the coalition Government have run out of agreement about what they can legislate on —that may happen; it is a perfectly natural thing with coalition government—but I am also struck by how much time is spent in the House of Commons debating what is now called “Members’ Business”. As far as your Lordships’ House is concerned, I am struck by the fact that we are all expecting—and I think we will see—that an extraordinary amount of time will be found to debate a Private Member’s Bill over the coming weeks.

If regulations are debated in the normal way, it seems to indicate an expectation that there will be no great competition for parliamentary time between now and the general election. In fact, I go so far as to suggest that the business managers of the respective Houses may have difficulty in filling the time they already have, so I do not think the argument about parliamentary time is all that strong. If the Minister is to continue to promote the idea that these regulations—complicated, difficult, comprehensive and substantial as they are—are still best dealt with by negative procedure, then, with all due respect, I think he will need better arguments than those he has already deployed.

Secondly, perhaps I may take advantage of the opportunity to debate these issues and ask the Minister to give some clarification about information that he gave us when we last debated these issues about the effect that the abolition of contracting out will have on people’s expectations. Early on in his contribution to our last Grand Committee, he came to engage with the issue of trustees and pension funds and their responsibilities. I will quote him fully, not in short. He stated:

“Referring to those private sector employees who are contracted out immediately before implementation, who reach state pension age in the first decade of single tier, around 75% of them will receive enough extra state pension to offset both the increase in national insurance contributions that they will pay over the rest of their working lives and any potential adjustments to their occupational pension schemes”.—[Official Report, 8/1/24; cols. GC 430–431.]

That is an argument that was deployed by the Pensions Minister in the House of Commons, too, when addressing that issue. It is clearly designed to allay, and does allay, the concerns of a significant number of people about the denial of their expectations. However, in col. GC 433, when the Minister was discussing the issue of protected persons under statutory override, he deployed a similar but different argument. I shall quote it to him, because I am interested in the difference, and what it actually means. He said:

“We also have to factor in that the design of the single tier reforms means that those with a long history of contracting out will in most cases build up significantly more state pension. Around 75% of people in the private sector who pay higher national insurance contributions and reach state pension age during the first two decades following implementation will receive enough extra state pension over their retirement to counterbalance the increase in national insurance contributions”.

He went on to say:

“This is a very complicated issue with many different and conflicting interests”.—[Official Report, 8/1/14; col. GC 433.]

But we know that.

Were these different ways of saying the same thing, or were they different things—and, if so, what is the difference? Why does he say “two decades” in one case and one decade in the other, and why is there a reference only to counterbalancing the increase in national insurance contributions in one while there is a reference to eventual benefits in the other? It may not be easy for the Minister to answer that immediately, and I apologise if it is not, but I would be interested to know whether he intended those two things to mean the same—and, if not, why there is a difference.

On the issue of protected persons, in col. GC 433, the Minister addressed my question about the defeated expectation that the decision that the Government promised following the consultation would be made clear to Parliament. He told the Committee that a decision following the consultation about protected persons would be made as soon as possible, and that when it was made, Parliament would be informed. But what he did not say was important. The Pensions Minister in the other place said at one stage that it would be done in the summer of 2013—and we know that that is now long gone. No matter how generous one might be with Governments who use seasons to give an indication as to when something might be done—and having been a Minister myself I know how wise it is to do that sometimes—in no one’s view are we still in the summer of 2013.

The Pensions Minister gave both the Standing Committee and the whole House of Commons to believe that, at the very worst, a decision may be made when the Bill was still before Parliament. That is not a phrase the Minister used. Was that deliberate or can he repeat the phrase? It is important for the 60,000 people who consider themselves to be protected persons. Their expectation is that the decision and therefore some engagement with the consequences of that decision will still be a live issue while the Bill is still before Parliament.