Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Bishop of Chester

Monday 20th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Bates]

Okay, I have the right answer now: £20,000 is needed for flexible draw-down but not for capped draw-down or trivial commutation of benefits. There are different elements of it. My point, from which I have probably strayed into a trap—I should have stuck to the script—was that there is a range of choices, not simply the annuity rate which people face. That is why it is vital that all members engage early. That is the reason for the wake-up programme which is now being organised, to encourage people to engage with what they should be considering later on.

Also, making brokers the first port of call for all would create a captive market for one part of the industry, without effectively adding to consumer protections. Another risk to consumers is that they could fail to engage with options other than annuities that are more appropriate to them.

The noble Lord’s amendment suggests that a brokerage service would have to provide information on alternative at-retirement services, but it has to be recognised that brokers are not impartial. They make their money if the member buys an annuity, but not if they choose to draw down or defer, or to commute. While it is right that schemes should play a central role in informing consumers of their options, we would be wary of making this part of the qualifying criteria for automatic enrolment. The duty to enrol into a qualifying scheme does, of course, fall on the employer, and so to require them to take this step would be an unwelcome, additional burden.

I make it clear that we are committed to ensuring that consumers have the information they need to make good choices and that the annuities market works effectively for consumers and so, in this respect, we welcome the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, has perhaps chided my honourable friend Steve Webb for raising this matter on annuities but, in many ways, he was doing just what the noble Lord is doing: saying that this is an area which needs to be discussed and debated. In many ways, this debate enables us to do that, but so do the reviews which are taking place and to which I have alluded in my response. I trust that, as part of that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, briefly, I listened to the Minister with great interest. I regard the amendment as important because, in a sense, the proof of the pudding is in the eating; it is when you are taking the benefits of the saving.

The Minister’s reply, it seems to me, says that in addition to all the complexities which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, set out, there is actually a whole load of other complexities about whether you should be having an annuity at all. My question is simply as follows. Until now, when we have often had final-salary schemes around, these decisions have been largely managed. However, we are increasingly moving into a position where most people will be on money-purchase schemes, and this will become normal; we will have to engage with these issues. Given the complexities which the Minister has so helpfully set out, is the Government’s view that the obligation to work this out is on the consumer—the person taking the pension—with some information provided somewhere, or is the obligation on the pension provider to provide information which covers all these options? Where does the responsibility primarily lie to advise the person at the point of retirement? I thought it was not quite clear enough as to where that lies in what the Minister said.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

I will ask another question associated directly with that. To what extent does the Minister expect the Money Advice Service to take on some of this responsibility, given the slightly bumpy ride it has had so far? Or do the Government—and here I declare an interest—expect an organisation like the Pensions Advisory Service to take on some of this responsibility? It has to be free, independent, impartial and professional. Those are the only two organisations of which I am aware which might fit that role at the moment.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Hollis of Heigham and Lord Bishop of Chester

Wednesday 8th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

It does not matter. I am grateful for the additional statistics on this issue provided by the Bill team. That has been very helpful. In 2004, the previous Administration sought to encourage people to stay in work longer by offering attractive arrangements if they deferred taking the state pension for several years, or at least for more than one year. About 9% of pensioners did so—1.2 million people—three-quarters of them women, usually because they were younger than their husbands and worked longer hours, particularly given that their retirement age was earlier than the husbands’ and this way they could retire together. These arrangements had several advantages: they kept people in work for longer; they allowed husband and wife to synchronise their retirement if they wished; and they offered them a higher pension income once retired, with interest rates—until this Bill comes into effect—of 10.4% per annum, or to roll it up into a lump sum, where instead they received the basic rate plus 2%.

The vast majority of the 1.2 million pensioners who deferred their state pension for more than a year chose income. Some 60,000 preferred to take a lump sum. I do not know how many of those are women, but my hunch would be, again, a very high proportion. If by any chance the Minister had that figure, that would be helpful. Some 60,000 preferred to take the lump sum, which on average was £13,700 for GB residents—a considerable sum.

The Bill proposes to remove the option of a lump sum so that in future, if you defer taking your state pension, all that you can do is add to your income. Why? I have to say that the arguments offered by the Minister in the other place did not persuade me. He said that, first, it was a less financially attractive proposition to take the lump sum than to take the money as increased pension, even at the proposed new rate for income deferral of 5.2%. Secondly, drawing their pension rather than deferring it and then putting it into a building society account would give much the same return. And, thirdly, by removing choice, you are giving people something more valuable—that magic word “simplicity”, as though a lump sum payment is really hard to understand.

I think this approach is incomplete at best and, in policy terms, wrong in terms of what we know about pensions income and capital. Why would one want a lump sum when the alternative of income is, in terms of return, more financially attractive, which I accept that it is? The answer, it seems to me, is simple. It may be the only opportunity a couple or an individual—but more likely a couple—get of acquiring any capital before they go into full-time retirement. If they have an occupational pension, they are likely to get perhaps the capital of a 25% tax free lump sum. If they are reliant only on the state pension, they have no such access to capital at all. The problem for pensioners now, and future pensioners, as they face their retirement, is not so much lack of income, thanks not only to what the previous Administration did but what the current Administration are doing, on which I congratulate them—it is above all lack of capital. I do not think that the Government or the Minister in the other place gave the impression of understanding that that is the problem coming up in the lift.

Let us remind ourselves that in 1997 the percentage of pensioners below 60% of median income was 41%. As of now, it is about 14%. Pensioners, as we know, have rightly done relatively well in terms of income. As my noble friend teased earlier on, we now know that the current Administration propose to continue this until 2020, should they return to office. As a result, pensions have already risen three times faster than wages and pensioners will continue to do well. The big problem for pensioners is not income but the lack of savings or capital. That has, if anything, worsened over the past decade: 21% of all pensioners have no savings at all; 37% have less than £3,000—not enough to pay for one funeral, let alone two—and 50% of all pensioners have less than £8,000, which would just about cover two funerals with a bit left over for the high tea. For those able to defer, bringing in an extra £13,000 to £14,000 of capital is magic. It transforms their situation. I repeat that the struggle for pensioners is not so much lack of income, which was how it was treated down the other end, as lack of capital, and the Government are going to close down one of the easiest and simplest routes to acquiring it.

A couple, for example, could make the entirely sensible judgment that one of them—possibly him—adds their deferred pension to their pension income and, as a result, his state pension increases. The other—it may well be her—brings in the lump sum to build some savings for a rainy day or replace the car, build the conservatory, help their grandson with tuition fees at university, and, above all, in time, to help pay for social care and eventually, perhaps, to fund funerals. Yes, they could save that sum out of income instead, as Steve Webb suggested. However, as with auto-enrolment, where we are structuring choice, ring-fencing it into a deferred lump sum may be the most helpful way to build those savings. To assume that people will voluntarily put their income aside into a building society is the exact opposite of what we are doing with auto-enrolment, where we know that we need the nudge theory of inertia to get people to save, not to leave it to a voluntary choice. They can, of course, do as the Minister suggests, but if that is the case, and if we can rely on them to do that, frankly, we do not need auto-enrolment at all because people will look after themselves with private occupational provision. But, of course, we know that they do not and that is why we are introducing auto-enrolment. The same cast of mind applies to deferred state pensions, I suggest.

In my experience, pensioners seldom spend their full income. They cope. Whatever the level of pension—whether it is £60, £80 or £100—pensioners spend £1 or so underneath their ceiling. Indeed, as a result of past and current government policies, including the triple lock, the income from the new state pension for future pensioners will be increasingly adequate. However, what pensioners are badly short of is capital, and that capital, as a proportion of their future, is reducing. They have little or no reserve cushion and the Government are taking away the easiest way in which pensioners can choose to build that up.

Why are we taking this choice away? No one has to opt for a lump sum but, as long as it is an informed choice, it may be absolutely the right choice for them. Government should not second-guess them and deny them a choice. It is very silly. Contrary to what the Government believe, we do not know what is best for all pensioners in all situations and we should allow them to make the decisions they want and which work best for them. In moving this amendment, I hope very much that the Government reconsider their position on this as they are failing to see the issues that are going to affect pensioners in the future, particularly as we move into the field of social care and the need for individual pensioners to pay for it. I beg to move.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I support this amendment. The background seems to be one of a general lack of provision for pensions for older people in the future. There is a major shortage of pension savings, and my impression is that that is getting worse rather than better, for all sorts of reasons. My experience of young people—I use the word “young” to include people in their 30s—is that they do not think about pensions as much as they should. Anything we can do to encourage people to take a long-term view and think for the future must be a good thing. The principle, therefore, of deferring taking the state pension until you really need it seems a healthy principle to encourage in our circumstances. My anxiety is that, in the future, a lot of people are going to be very short of money when they are older. It seems fundamentally right to do anything we can to encourage that culture of not taking the pension until you need to.

If you are going to encourage people to do that, maintaining the flexibility so that they can either take additional income when they do take their pension, or a lump sum in lieu of the money they save, seems to be a sensible inducement. If you just look on it as an issue of encouraging savings, one of the lessons of the last decade or so is that we need to encourage the thought of saving in our culture. It may be just as easy to take the pension and put it into a building society account or whatever but why not offer the option of the Government allowing the lump sum to be taken? Another reason for supporting the amendment is the principle that if it ain’t broke, why do you need to change it? What is wrong with the current arrangements that means that we want to change them?

My third reason for supporting this is that, in principle, I think there should be parity with how we relate the state provision of pensions to private provision, which normally allows the option of taking part of the pension as a lump sum. That is an important principle of flexibility and, indeed, defined benefit schemes now typically make that option more available than they used to. There seems to be a simplicity—to use the Minister’s point—in treating state pension and private pension arrangements in broadly similar ways.