Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Vaux of Harrowden

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it is obviously deeply regrettable that the pensions dashboard has been delayed—again, I should probably say. If it is not ready, a delay to the connection is obviously necessary, so there is not an awful lot to be said about the regulations themselves. As we have just heard, the Explanatory Memorandum is less than fulsome on the reasons or the implications, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out in its rather critical report, so I want to ask a few questions. I have not been able to attend some of the briefing sessions that the Minister has organised, so I apologise if I am covering what was said at some of those, but it might be worth having it on the record anyway.

What is the reason for the delay? The Explanatory Memorandum and the Minister talked about insufficient testing,

“more work … to set up adequate support for industry … and … to finalise … supporting guidance and standards”.

However, those are not reasons; they are not what has caused the delay. Delays of this nature are typically caused by inadequate scoping at the outset—we got it wrong at the beginning—by changes to the scope along the way, or by some combination of the two. Which is it? Who is responsible? What action has been taken to make those responsible for the delays accountable? If the team needs to be strengthened, has that happened?

The other possibility is simply that the dashboard was overcomplicated from the outset, which I think was what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee may have been alluding to. Are we sure that we are not gold-plating it? Are we reinventing the wheel here? For example, have we taken advantage of the experience of open banking? We could have piggybacked on that.

Is a third-party supplier involved? If so, who and what responsibility does it have for the delay? Are there penalty clauses in the contract? If a third-party supplier is not involved, is it sensible for us to try to do a project of this size entirely in-house?

The EM is very quiet on the cost implications. What was the forecast development cost? I am talking about not the overall costs of the dashboard over 10 years but the development cost. What is it now? How much has it cost to date? How much is still to be spent? Who will cover any increase—industry, government, taxpayer? How will that work?

When large software projects of this nature go wrong, they tend to keep going wrong. I come from a software world, so I have experience here. What comfort can the Minister provide that this really will be the final delay and that we are now properly on top of the project?

At the time of the Act that enabled the dashboard, we had a lot of debate about the creation of other, privately created dashboards, and there was a lot of agreement around the Room at the time that the Money and Pensions Service dashboard should be the first to be run. I agreed with that but, given the delays, perhaps we want to think about it again. What other dashboards is the Minister aware of being developed? Are any at a sufficient stage of development that it might be quicker or cheaper for the Money and Pensions Service to consider partnering with them?

Finally, can the Minister provide any forecast of when the dashboard will become available to the public?

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for so clearly setting out the purpose of the regulations. I enjoyed the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Young, to his previous contribution in the debate on this issue, which was well made. My position is that it is not disappointing that the Government’s enthusiasm for such an early launch has been tempered; I always considered that it would be a very complex project and I am delighted that there is now a much greater focus on the complexities and ensuring what is delivered. I never really wanted it delivered two years ago because I did not think that it would be well delivered then. It needs to be well delivered, because of the scale that it covers.

These regulations replace the pension schemes staging profile, staging deadlines and connection window with a single common deadline for connection of 31 October 2026. I want to reflect on the guidance to schemes on a new connection staging timetable.

The DWP’s description of the purpose of that guidance has varied according to which document is read—there is not an absolute consistency. The documentation ranges between encouraging schemes to meet the new timetable to threats of a breach of the regulations if they do not, and “having regard to” the guidance is a concept that is a little unclear. Can the Minister clarify what exactly is the status of that guidance and when a breach—and a breach of what in regulation terms—would be triggered?

I will move on to an issue that we probably have not debated a great deal in previous discussions of the dashboard. The Explanatory Memorandum refers to the monitoring and review of this legislation, saying that the approach to be adopted is

“to put in place a multi-strand evaluation strategy, the details of which are being explored”.

This strategy will

“ensure the critical success factors can be successfully tested with learning helping to further develop dashboards over time”.

The plans include research into dashboard usage, outcomes from that usage and information provided by providers. However, I cannot see any reference to key pensions public policy outcomes in those critical success factors. I did not see them when the previous regulations came with the Explanatory Memorandum and I cannot see them now.

To take it at its most basic, if, for example, as a result of dashboard usage, greater numbers of people took out more of their pension savings in their 50s or early 60s, is that a success because they have engaged, or undesirable because more people will have a lower income when they get to state retirement age? We have to be very clear what are the public policy aspirations we are seeking from that greater usage. Clearly, it is not set out, as far as I can see, in the critical success factors and the multistranded evaluation strategy—although I recognise that that is work in progress. Will any of those critical success factors identified in the Explanatory Memorandum be benchmarked against desired public policy outcomes over the long term?

Staying with that concept, what long term do we want as the outcome—not only from dashboards but a whole range of other things, although dashboards are before us today? Yesterday we saw eight papers on pensions, including analysis, consultations and consultation responses, all published in one go. I cannot let that moment pass without asking the simple question of the Minister: was any consideration given to how those eight papers and sets of proposals would impact on the multistrand evaluation strategy for the dashboard? I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer that today but it is an important question that needs answering.

For me, the decision by the department and the FCA to proceed with a gross investment performance metric in the proposed VFM framework, as announced yesterday, rather than net of all costs and charges, together with the continued dithering by the FCA over the transparency of costs and charges value reporting in decumulation products, is a backward step which does not resonate with the pension savers’ interest and informed decision-making. That was a deeply disappointing element of that VFM framework to read. We know from the FCA’s own findings that a wide range of charges are applied in the decumulation market, which should be rigorously assessed in a joint FCA/DWP/VFM framework. That has just been sidestepped.

Yesterday, the Chancellor referred positively to the Australian supers, but I point out that they have a tough regulatory requirement to report investment returns net of fees. If the Government are going to promote private market investment, where charges are higher, transparency of returns net of fees is essential if the saver is not to end up paying back the excess returns to the industry. The link to the evaluation strategy and the dashboard is: what information will be provided, what influences on behaviour are we expecting and how will that produce better outcomes? I must admit that, when I read that VFM framework, I thought it disappointing and rather contradicted the idea that members using the dashboard will make more informed decisions. I did not want the moment to pass without making that point.

Pensions Regulator (Employer Resources Test) Regulations 2021

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Vaux of Harrowden

Monday 6th September 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of these regulations. I welcome them, but I would like to raise one or two questions which seek some clarity.

The Pension Schemes Act 2021 gave the regulator new moral hazard powers with the introduction of two new criminal offences and by extending the flexibility available to the regulator to make connected parties such as group companies and directors liable for pension scheme deficits, and make payments to a scheme, by issuing a contribution notice. The Act introduces two new tests for imposing contribution notices: when the regulator considers that an act or failure to act materially reduces the employer debt likely to be recovered if a Section 75 debt has fallen due immediately after an insolvency event or reduces the resources of the employer in a manner which was material when compared to the debt in the pension scheme—the employer resources test, which is the subject of these regulations.

They set out that employer resources test for assessing whether a relevant act or failure to act reduced the value of the employer’s resources and whether that reduction was materially relevant to the pension scheme’s debt. I read in detail that the employer resources will be assessed through the pre-Act normalised annual profit before tax measure, under which non-recurring or exceptional items are removed, and then the impact of the act or failure to act on that profit is determined. If that impact is material, the regulator can start to build its case for a contribution notice. Indeed, it is a measure akin to the employer’s ability to support the scheme. The measure is sometimes used in the preparation of an employer covenant analysis undertaken for trustees.

For the record, as it is not clear, can the Minister say how dividends, including payments within a group of companies, will be treated in the normalised annual profit before tax measure and in the assessment of material detriment? That certainly proved a controversial issue of concern during scrutiny of the Pension Schemes Act 2021, and it is not clear—certainly not to me—how those will be considered under the new test. From a pension scheme member’s point of view, if the resources of the employer sponsoring the scheme are weakened through transferring assets or dividends, leveraging more debt or some other reason, the employer basically may be less good for the money and pension benefits will be less secure. They will look to the cavalry at the regulator to come over the hill and issue a contribution notice, and they need to have the confidence that that will actually be done with more focus, positivity and speed of action than the past has demonstrated.

In their response to the consultation published on 29 June, the Government set out their reasoning for the employer resources test. In summary, it said that, in the majority of past contribution notice cases, the regulator faced

“difficulty in forecasting the medium and long-term performance of a business for the purposes of the … ‘material detriment test’.”

This is because it had to extrapolate from an employer-related act into the future, with the uncertainty and challenges that causes evidentially. Indeed, trustees can experience exactly those similar difficulties in trying to assess those implications for the employer covenant, because there is no industry consensus on how to value the employer covenant. Therefore, the employer resources test removes the need to forecast how the employer might or might not have performed in the absence of that act and assesses the impact on a snapshot basis. So it is quicker, sharper and more efficient.

However, the regulator still will not be able to issue a contribution notice if a party can show that they meet the conditions for a statutory defence and can provide reasonable excuse. The three premises are that they gave prior consideration to the test and to the extent that the failure or failure to act would reduce the value of the employer’s resources in a material way; that they took all reasonable steps to mitigate any such detrimental impact; and that it was reasonable for them to conclude that the act would not detrimentally affect in a material way the likelihood of the scheme members receiving their benefits.

I sighed a little because, even after applying the employer resources test, the regulator still has to conclude that it would be reasonable to impose a contribution notice, taking into account all relevant factors including the extent of any mitigation provided and a broader assessment of the employer’s strength. I just wonder whether we are going to face a potentially long and drawn-out process, which the employer resources test was intended to remove, in the way in which the defence arguments can be applied and whether the Government’s intention of deploying an employer resources test as a quick and efficient snapshot—rather than on a holistic basis—could be undermined.

I ask the Minister: what powers or processes are relied on to prevent the statutory defence conditions undermining the policy intention to have a quick and efficient employer resources test? Is it the intention to issue fuller guidance on how measures to mitigate the detrimental impact on pension schemes of an act or failure to act will be assessed as to whether they are sufficient to meet the statutory defence? These are the kind of realities that trustees will need to understand and employers will need to know.

Just as a concluding line, poor behaviour affects not only the value of members’ benefits paid but, as the Pension Protection Fund is funded by a levy, it affects those businesses which abide by the rules but end up bearing the costs and subsidising those businesses which seek to avoid their pension liabilities. Good employers and trustees or members have an interest in these new regulations working efficiently.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, it seems like quite a long time ago that we were last in this Room. In fact, I think the last time I spoke in this Room was in the discussion on pension schemes, so it is nice to see a lot of old faces. There is a nice feeling of déjà vu about it. These regulations are reassuringly brief, so I will try to keep my comments equally brief, if I can.

First, I was a bit confused by the name of this, which refers to an employer resources test, that test being profit before tax. Profit before tax is not a measure of a company’s resources. It is a backward-looking measure of a company’s profitability. I question the comments in the Explanatory Memorandum that

“profit before tax … is less subjective than other options”.

Notoriously, profit before tax can be made to be whatever one wants it to be. A cash-flow measure would be an altogether less subjective, more objective measure. Profit before tax also does not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has said, take account of other forms of leakage of resources out of the company, be they dividends, share buybacks or massive capital expenditure. It is perfectly possible for a company to be highly profitable and highly indebted at the same time and therefore to have very low levels of employer resources.

I was a bit confused by the title, and would therefore like to add my name, as it were, to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, about why the Government did not go down the holistic route of looking at multiple measures that give a full picture of the employer resources rather than this one very narrow picture which is only a backward snapshot.

I have two other questions that relate to the discussions we had at the time of the Pension Schemes Bill. This instrument is obviously relevant to the subject of dividends that companies with deficits pay. The noble Baroness will remember that we had quite a lot of discussions about that back then. Indeed, the Minister at the time agreed that the Government would keep the question of dividend payments by companies in deficit under review.

I have two questions. First, can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the impact that these regulations might have on the ability of companies to pay dividends? There has been some speculation in the press that it might significantly depress the payment of dividends by companies, something which on the whole is a good thing, but there could be situations where that could be a negative. Secondly, I would welcome confirmation from the Minister that the Government are still keeping under review the question of payment of dividends by companies that have deficits, as they promised.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Drake and Lord Vaux of Harrowden

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

[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.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden [V]]

My Lords, I had intended to add my name to this amendment, and I apologise that I failed to do so. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has raised an extremely important issue in the amendment and has eloquently set out the reasons.

We are often guilty of looking at defined benefit schemes as a concept that is on the way out—that we are only really talking about the run-out of closed schemes —but that ignores the fact that many DB schemes remain active and open to new joiners. I am very grateful to the Railways Pension Scheme for explaining the potential implications for such schemes of the regulator’s consultation on the defined benefit funding code of practice.

For schemes that are mature or closed and in the run-down phase, it makes complete sense to minimise the risk of the investment strategy so that there is a high degree of certainty that the fund will be able to meet its obligations. The flipside of that, of course, is that a low-risk investment strategy means a low return. That is fine for mature schemes, but schemes that are not mature and still live would suffer from being restricted to a low-risk, low-return investment strategy. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, the largest part of benefits paid from a fund typically come from the investment returns earned over its life. If forced to take such a low-risk, low-return approach in order to meet a certain level of benefit, they would have to massively increase contributions from either the employer or the employee or a combination of both. Indeed, I confess that I had not understood that there are DB schemes that specifically share such risk between employers and employees.

A higher-risk investment strategy with the ability to earn better returns is entirely appropriate for schemes that are not mature. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, who, in Committee, raised a concern about hastening the demise of defined benefit schemes. If the regulator, in taking an overly risk-averse approach, insists on too low a risk and a low-return approach for open or immature schemes, they will inevitably become less attractive to employers and possibly to employees. All we will achieve is the hastening of the end of defined benefit schemes, which are the gold standard for pension saving, especially for those on lower earnings.

The amendment is therefore critical to ensure that the regulator takes into account the state of maturity of a fund when looking at scheme funding and to ensure that trustees have sufficient discretion to be able to act in the best interests of their beneficiaries.