Pension Funds: Financial and Ethical Investments

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Westminster Hall

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) on securing this debate. I think he slightly understated the carbon bubble in his opening remarks. The carbon bubble—basically the evaluation of assets that we know will never be realised—is not something that might burst in the not too distant future. It will inevitably burst because energy companies have systematically overvalued their assets and put them on their balance sheets. Not only will the historical overvaluing be in question, but all the valuing for the future will be in question, basically in line with where we now know we have got to go on net zero in our economies.

I prefer to call the carbon bubble a carbon boil. I am afraid the image is rather poor, but what we can do with a boil is lance it before it bursts, and that is the exercise we should be engaged in right now. The suggestions that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton put forward for doing that were sound. However, pension funds are complicit in the carbon boil/bubble because, by and large, they consider their fiduciary duty to be about getting the best for their pensioners over the next few years. They do not generally look at the long term, and do not think they are required to do so as far as their funds are concerned. The Governor of the Bank of England recently described it as

“the tragedy of the horizon”.

[Richard Graham]

To reassure the hon. Gentleman and others, it is perfectly possible for pension fund trustees to take the view that their fiduciary duty of obtaining good returns to deliver the pensions expected is not incompatible with taking into account huge amounts of other issues, including climate change. It is important that we all recognise that. We have a duty to look at that as well.

[Dr Whitehead]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that some pension funds are beginning to take a different view. Indeed, that different view is becoming more possible, but the general consideration of the fiduciary duty remains a short-term gain for pensioners in the funds. Of course, the people setting out on their working lives will not get the benefit of those pension funds for 30 or 40 years. During that time inevitably we have to move to the net zero carbon economy. It is therefore essential that pension funds have a duty to look at the long term.

[Guy Opperman]

I want to help the hon. Gentleman on one point. He needs to understand that the ESG regulations are not voluntary, as the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) suggested. They are mandatory. If the trustees fail to follow them, specific sanctions follow.

[Dr Whitehead]

My understanding of the 2018 regulations is that it is mandatory for people to look at such things, but not mandatory for people to do things. That is the difference. In fact, I welcomed the regulations.

Pension funds should in future have a duty to protect the long-term value of the funds as well as consider the short-term issues of making money for their pensioners. We therefore need to clarify in law the fact that pension funds have a duty to protect the long-term value of the funds. Indeed, a recommendation that the Environmental Audit Committee made in its 2018 report has not been acted on, even though those regulations were introduced. That is something we need to move to urgently.

Having said that pension funds tend to invest in bonds and various other things that are primarily about energy bonds, on the assumption that there will be value, which we know will not be there in future, there is then the question of moving towards investment in things that do make a difference to climate change. Pension funds have a genuine problem in terms of the Solvency II regs, which tend to guide pension funds away from investing in the schemes that are capital-intensive up front and revenue less intensive behind, that are at the heart of the green investment revolution.

We need to do two things: first, make it much easier for pension funds to invest in long-term schemes, and secondly, ensure that they have a duty to ensure that they do not invest in short-term schemes. I have addressed the practical aspects of what pension schemes have done. I have not touched on the moral aspect. We simply have to leave dirty energy in the ground. We have got to invest in clean energy for the future, and pension funds ought to be at the front of that. If pension managers take that view in addition to the legal responsibilities that they have, I am sure they will go a long way to helping the green revolution succeed.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Housing Benefit and Supported Housing

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

I was just about to point out to the House, and in particular to Government Members, that a fairly easy way of finding out what this afternoon’s debate is about is to actually read the title. It is about homelessness services and the unintended consequences, or maybe intended consequences, of the cap on housing benefit. It is about the potentially catastrophic outcome of these changes for people in specialist housing, homelessness arrangements or specialist schemes for dependent drinkers, for example—the catastrophic outcome for their rents, their circumstances and, indeed, the organisations that seek to house and provide services for them. That is what this afternoon’s debate is about and we need to concentrate on that.

I must say that I was remarkably disappointed by the fact-free bluster that we heard from the Minister. I suppose one can only forgive him that, because there was never any impact assessment of these changes. Therefore, if he has not come here today armed with an impact assessment, he presumably does not really have any facts to defend his side of the argument in the first place. I want to provide a little impact assessment of my own. I want to base it on an organisation that is based in my constituency, but which nevertheless provides services for homeless people, people with severe and enduring mental health problems and people with alcohol or substance misuse problems, as well as specialist services for ex-offenders, in Southampton and around.

That organisation is called the Society of St James, and—[Interruption.] Government Members who are playing with their phones might put them to better use by looking up that organisation’s website, because if there is any dispute in this debate about who cares, then the Society of St James certainly does care. It cares deeply about all the people it is trying to house and help, and it assists by housing or helping some 2,500 people across Hampshire.

The Society of St James has looked at the impact of the changes on its various housing schemes across south Hampshire and calculates that the average rent reduction will be 40% across the 300-odd people who are housed at any one time, although that does not include the wider group of people it helps with various schemes, in addition to those it houses. The Society of St James calculates a sum of £1.03 million per annum, which means, quite simply and straightforwardly, that all those schemes are at risk over the next period, because it will not be able to fund them properly.

It has been said that the discretionary housing payment scheme might help in the longer term, but as its name suggests, it is discretionary. It covers temporary situations and cannot give the long-term revenue security that these organisations need to plan their future housing needs.

[Anna Turley (Redcar) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the discretionary housing fund is already barely covering the number of people applying for it, given the impact of the bedroom tax? What we are seeing is just another attempt to stretch it further, when it is already not going far enough.

[Dr Whitehead]

Indeed, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. I was perhaps being a little kind to the discretionary housing fund, in that so many things are being poured into it that the chances of it having a material impact in this field, even on a limited basis, look to be fairly low.

The other question is what happens with new schemes that develop in future. The Society of St James has recently received substantial capital donations to develop new properties to extend its services, but there is no chance that those sorts of schemes can now go ahead, because there is no prospect of them being funded properly once they have been built. Indeed, it would be deeply irresponsible.

[Marie Rimmer]

I have one experience already from St Helens. Helena housing has stopped four extra care schemes totalling 500 units. The impact of the change on those schemes alone is a £2.3 million deficit.

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend underlines powerfully the importance of understanding just how early organisations such as the Society of St James and the ones her constituency have to take decisions about what they do in future. In that context, a one-year moratorium will not make any difference to those decisions, because those schemes are concerned about the long-term security of revenue. It is very likely—it is certainly not scaremongering—that those schemes will disappear immediately, not in the future. The whole system will be greatly the poorer as a result.

Whether the Minister thinks in retrospect that the problem was not of his own making because he did not notice it arriving from the Treasury, or whether he was told too late for him to do anything about it, or whether he did something and the Treasury ignored him, there is an issue for him to address right now. The central question for the Minister in my mind boils down to this: if we assess the impact on the organisations at the heart of the process of caring—in addition, they save the state large amounts of future public expenditure because they keep the people they care for and assist out of prisons, psychiatric institutions and emergency services by securing their accommodation in the community—what will he do immediately that specifically puts the problem right for the Society of St James in Southampton?

If the Minister does not have an answer to that question, he has a great deal of thinking to do about the wider issue. Up and down the country, those organisations—they are voluntary organisations rather than local authority organisations—find themselves holed below the water line. Unless the Minister can come up urgently with either a patch or a new boat, that will be the reality of the situation over the next period. I urge him to take action at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that important organisations such as the Society of St James can continue their good work in future.

Mesothelioma Bill [Lords]

Alan Whitehead Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery]

Every hon. Member who has spoken today understands that the insurance companies had to be dragged to the table, because contribution after contribution has cited examples where the first thing an insurance company does after an individual has been diagnosed with mesothelioma is run away and deny it for as long as possible in the hope that the problem goes away. In Committee, I applauded the work done by successive Governments in getting the Bill to this stage. We are just a little too far away from this Bill being absolutely fantastic for mesothelioma sufferers. Three or four points mean that it is nowhere as good as it could be, and some great arguments have been made today on how to bridge the gap.

I return to the point that the insurance companies are not companies that are just surviving. They have made profits over generations—10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 years. They took the premiums and invested the money. Never mind contingency funds, the funds should be there—unless, of course, the money has been paid out in dividends or in other ways. That means that the money that should have been there for mesothelioma sufferers is not there any more because it has been given to shareholders. That is simply a point. The insurers paid out nothing on the untraced policies that they lost or destroyed. Again, that is not the fault of the people who are suffering—it is not their difficulty. Remember, the only thing wrong that they have done is to attend the workplace. For goodness’ sake, we cannot forget that that is the main point.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that in terms of events in the workplace we are talking about identical events with a different period of maturity into full-blown mesothelioma? Some people with identical circumstances will not qualify, while others will. Will he speculate on the issues that that may cause? Someone may have been through the same process as the person sitting next to them in the workplace—in the case of Southampton, handling blue asbestos in the docks, bailing it up and throwing it on to the dockside—with the disease appearing many years later over different periods for different people—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need shorter interventions—there are quite a lot of other speakers to get in. Interventions are important, but they must be shorter.