Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Turner of Camden

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Drake has made an exhaustive study of this complicated matter. I certainly do not have her kind of in-depth understanding. I came this afternoon because I am interested in what happens to members of DB schemes who have been concerned that the various changes would threaten the safety of their benefits.

As we have heard this afternoon, there have been quite heavy assurances from the Government that the protection of members is paramount to them; that is of course important. We have already heard that there have been assurances on retrospection. The changeover in some schemes from non-money purchase into money purchase can give rise to uncertainty and a lack of assurance among the people receiving it. I am therefore interested to hear what the Minister has to say in response to my noble friend, who has raised these points sharply and with great clarity. It is necessary when you are making adjustments in pension benefits in whatever area to make sure that people who are on the receiving end are confident that what they have been paying for and supporting all their lives will be safe. That is terribly important.

We understand that the Government have given assurance both in relation to protection under the ECHR, which is important, and to general protection as well as protection of some means of challenging if people feel concerned and are not happy about what is happening. I await with interest what the Minister has to say in response to the issues which have been raised, which are very pertinent in the circumstances.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to these regulations and for explaining how we got to this place, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, for some very good questions, and my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Turner for raising some significant concerns.

There has rightly been a long consultation on this issue, and it is right that the Government have taken the time to listen to a wide range of voices, particularly regarding the retrospective nature of the changes, the significance of which has been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood, and others. While on one level these are very technical changes—I say to my noble friend Lady Drake that, being a relatively normal person as far as pensions are concerned, if in no other respect, I found that “complex” did not begin to describe my emotions—sadly, I felt the same way as Brazil when I was reading these. None the less I confess that the questions I am asking the Minister are quite genuine and I will find the answers fascinating, because I certainly do not pretend to understand the exact implications of what is happening here.

As my noble friend Lady Drake explained, the original draft SI was withdrawn after being challenged by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It has been replaced by two orders: this affirmative draft instrument and a negative instrument, the Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014, to which I shall refer from now on as the negative instrument, if noble Lords will bear with me. Those two orders are completely intertwined. Indeed, the Government issued a single impact assessment covering both. Therefore I hope that the Minister will forgive me if some of my questions end up straying into that territory. I simply want to understand the settlement that the Government reached, and inevitably the ground is split in practice between the two instruments.

On commencement, my noble friend Lady Drake explained that these regulations will apply primarily with prospective effect, with the exception of two limited circumstances relating to winding up and to employer debt where there is a risk to member benefits. However, there will be retrospective protection for the affected pension schemes, with earlier decisions effectively being validated. The key effects of that of course—as has been mentioned—are on schemes that switch from being money purchase to defined benefit, with all the significant regulatory, governance and funding implications that that switch carries. There is also the effect on wind-ups and administration and the impact on employer debt. The Government originally intended that the provisions should all be retrospectively applied, but changed their position on consultation. The Government response to the consultation on the definition of money purchase schemes says at paragraph 50:

“However the Department has been persuaded that, where there is negligible risk to member benefits, it would be unduly burdensome to require schemes to revisit past decisions. This would give rise to expensive administrative costs that could deplete scheme assets and therefore, the ability to fund members’ benefits”.

Paragraph 51 continues:

“Nevertheless, where there is a real risk to member benefits, it is right that the legislation provides that employers fund a scheme deficit if a scheme is underfunded on wind-up, or if the scheme is unable to put in place a recovery plan”.

The response goes on to explain that in practice the transitional regulations validate the actions of trustees or managers in respect of those non-money purchase benefits, except in limited circumstances.

If that is the basis of the transitional protection that is being offered by the Government, can the Minister tell the Grand Committee a bit more about the basis of their assessment? The impact assessment says that,

“there is insufficient information available to accurately estimate the number of schemes affected by these regulations”.

It goes on to say that there are approximately 40,000 private occupational pension schemes in the UK that include money purchase benefits, of which about 2% are hybrid schemes.

The impact assessment says that during the consultation the department held four stakeholder forum events, with more than 100 stakeholders in attendance. It had 95 responses to the consultation document. The department also made direct approaches to relevant organisations, including employer representative bodies. As my noble friend Lady Drake mentioned, it also went out and made direct attempts to get data, in order to better understand this. However, paragraph 25 of the impact assessment says:

“Despite these efforts the Department is unable to quantify the impact of the regulations on the schemes that are likely to be affected. There is no data available at an industry-wide level and the consultation did not elicit sufficient data at scheme level to allow us to produce reliable estimates of the impacts on schemes, employers or members”.

However, the Government were obviously given a pretty clear steer by the industry that the consequences of retrospection would be significant, because the impact assessment says at paragraph 30:

“The Department have taken into account the strongly expressed views of those in the industry. Having carefully considered these responses, the Department is persuaded that this change to the policy”—

as was quoted—

“will not appreciably increase risk to members’ entitlement or make any material difference to members’ pension outcomes, given the protections put in place through these regulations”.

My noble friend Lady Turner said that she was pleased the Government were able to give assurances that members would not find their benefits being affected. However, I have to ask—along with my noble friend Lady Drake—how the Government can be confident that the risk to members’ entitlements is negligible and will not increase appreciably, when they are unable to quantify even the number of schemes affected, never mind the number of members, and when they do not seem to have been able to gather any data about what the quantum of that effect might be. I understand that they are in a difficult position, but I wonder what degree of confidence the Government have, and therefore what degree of assurance the Minister can offer the House through this Grand Committee, that these regulations will have the effects that the Government believe they will.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Turner of Camden

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

I support my noble friend Lady Hollis on this amendment. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, is not here to second it, The Government have had a long-term policy—they kept telling us about it at every stage of this Bill—of being in favour of people saving for themselves in addition to having the pensions provided in the Bill. They expect people to save for themselves and they regard the pensions provisions that they are making as a kind of platform from which people can then make savings for themselves.

How are people to save for themselves if they do not have the necessary information about what their entitlement is? The amendment addresses the entitlement to a pension statement and notification of entitlement to a statement. All that is very necessary if people are to make sensible arrangements for their retirement. I am amazed to think that the Government may not accept this amendment. I hope however that they will because it is in line with their own thinking on the Bill. They want people to save. How do they expect people to save if they do not know what their entitlement is? They have an obligation to tell them what it is. Certainly it happens in the private sector; I belong to a private pension scheme and I get a regular statement as to what my entitlements are. Why can that not be the case for people who are receiving state benefits?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hollis has raised some significant questions and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers. This amendment follows an ultimately rather unsatisfactory discussion we had in Committee during which my noble friends Lord McKenzie and Lady Hollis, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, and others tried valiantly to get the Minister to explain exactly when somebody would receive a communication from DWP to warn them that the state pension they would get in future would not be the same as what they might have expected. I went back and reread the record. I think the answer we got was that they would get a statement if or when they asked for it and then normally only digitally. The Minister kindly arranged for officials to explain their communications strategy to Peers, and I am genuinely grateful for that. However I think it is fair to say that the exercise did not entirely allay our fears or perhaps fill out all the gaps in our knowledge. I hope the Minister is looking forward to finding a consultancy fee for my noble friend Lady Hollis for her contribution to what will doubtless be the next mailshot from the department.

In Committee I raised comments that had been made during the Select Committee inquiry and elsewhere from quite a wide variety of bodies about this subject. It is worth highlighting a couple. Citizens Advice has been stressing that considerable complexity inevitably remains in the system because of the transitional provisions. It says that,

“a sustained communications programme could improve outcomes, manage expectations, minimise misinformation, promote action on NI contributions, and support personal saving for retirement”.

That last point is one made by my noble friend Lady Turner. The Association of British Insurers had also stressed that adequate communication was essential because it was important that people did not feel unclear about how much they would receive, and it should be clear that they would need to save. That is a crucial drive behind all of these reforms and the Labour reforms that preceded them. People need to understand what they are going to get to make sure they save enough for their retirement.

The Select Committee certainly found that there was a lot of confusion out there. Many people thought that from now everybody would get £144 a week instead of the current state pension. Many people thought that all means-testing would disappear and that if they would have got more than £144 now that they would lose that in future. The committee stressed how important it was that people have full information about their future entitlement.

I reiterate three simple questions which I raised in Committee; they did not get answered at the time but I think the Minister has had an opportunity since then to reflect on them. First, how and when do the Government propose to contact people to tell them of the changes to their entitlement? Secondly, at what point will the Government contact people who have previously requested and received a pension statement to warn them that it may no longer be accurate? Finally, in setting up a communications campaign on this new scheme, what outcomes are the Government seeking and how will they measure them? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

Pensions Bill

Debate between Baroness Sherlock and Baroness Turner of Camden

Monday 13th January 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 25 increases the pensionable age to 67. It is a key clause, but I wish to oppose the question that it should stand part of the Bill, as I hope to get the Government to think again about it. I know that in legislation that has an impact on millions of people, as this Bill does, it is useful to have arrangements that are the same for everyone—the same benefits and the same retirement age—as that makes things much easier to administer. The problem with that is that we are not all the same. Even more important, jobs are not all the same.

As I said at Second Reading, some people are happy to work for longer. They like their jobs and the social aspect of working with others is important to them. Such people do not look forward to retirement; they like to go on working if they can. These people are often employed in administrative jobs, but for others things are very different. Some industries involve strenuous and often hazardous work—the construction industry is one such. Those who work in such industries do work that is necessary for the rest of us. Without them, we would not have the comfortable lives that we now have. Yet such industries often have a record of industrial accidents and disease, which we should all find unacceptable. It may be dangerous for older workers to work with others in such a working environment. Therefore, an earlier retirement may well be necessary. This simply cannot be left to the private sector. We cannot have legislation that says that all people must work longer before retiring.

It is not only industries that are hazardous where this is a problem. There are many low-paid workers in dreary jobs who are only too happy to retire, as long as they have enough money to do so. People who work in hospital cleaning and dreary jobs of that kind are only too happy to retire if it is possible for them to do so and to receive reasonable benefits when they are retired. Such people long to retire. It is not enough for us to say, “Oh well, you have to work for longer”.

We are often told of the evidence that we are all living longer, but it is not always sensible to use that as a reason for extending working life—not for everyone, anyway. We are not alone in thinking this. A number of my colleagues have tabled amendments to subsequent clauses to seek a review of retirement ages. I certainly think that that is necessary. Have the Government thought through what all this means? What is the impact on people working in particular jobs and their health? What happens when people live longer? What is the effect on their health? Therefore, it seems to me that this simple provision in legislation to ensure that people work for longer is not a good idea. I hope that the Government will be prepared to look at it again, in the light of some of the things that have been said both at Second Reading and in Committee today.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, as this is the first discussion of Part 2 of the Bill, it may be worth setting out a couple of principles from these Benches at the outset. First, we agree with the principle of raising the state pension age to reflect longevity, as people are living longer than when the current arrangements were put in place, largely in post-war reforms. As I indicated at Second Reading, we also accept the need for periodic reviews of the state pension age, but we differ from the Government on how best to do that—we will return to that issue in the discussion of our later amendment.

Fixing the state pension age is never easy, and an issue of fairness is always at stake. There needs to be a balance between the interests of the generations on the funding of retirement incomes in a pay-as-you-go system, where today’s taxpayers fund today’s pensions. As we will discuss in later groups, our view is that having a careful, evidence-based review before taking any future decisions on changes to the state pension age is a crucial element of ensuring fairness between generations.

However the arguments made by my noble friend Lady Turner require careful attention from all of us. Sometimes fairness also requires at least a consideration of difference, and my noble friend has highlighted some crucial differences, particularly in relation to longevity and health. We all know that life expectancy is increasing, but that fact conceals as much as it reveals. Mortality rates vary widely, as do morbidity rates. There is a huge amount of socio-demographic data available to inform our debate—and I am sure we will hear a great deal of it in the groups to come—from the Wanless and Marmot reviews to government figures and other outside research. There are also some very interesting data from the TUC. I will say more on this later, but I do not want to pre-empt what I think could be a very substantial discussion coming up shortly.

There are no easy solutions to these problems. The biggest challenge to the Government is to address the question of differential mortality and morbidity rates through urgent attention to public health, but we also need time to reflect on how best to deal with these questions in relation to the state pension age. It is our view that the best way to do that is to ensure that the mechanism for reviewing the state pension age includes a review panel which has on it representatives of a wide range of interests in society, including employer and employee representatives and representatives of different parties and, indeed, our own Cross Benches. I shall move an amendment later today to that effect, but in the mean time, I hope very much that the Minister will take the concerns of my noble friend seriously. I look forward to his reply.