Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I see that on the website of an organisation called This is Money, published on 20 January, Mr Opperman, who is of course the Minister with responsibility, is quoted as saying that he

“believes a new commission should review the future of the automatic enrolment system”.

Noble Lords may also remember that on 17 January, two think tanks, the Fabian Society and Bright Blue, launched a report calling for a cross-party commission on pensions. Responding to that, an organisation called B&CE published the following comments:

“Commenting, Guy Opperman MP, Minister for Pensions, said: ‘Over the last decade, Conservative and coalition governments have made huge strides to improve pensions for the next generation, with the introduction of auto-enrolment, an enhanced state pension and the development of the Pensions Dashboard. For the next stage of pension reform, we need to continue the consensus that emerged following the Pensions Commission of 2003 to 2005. A new Commission has cross-party support, and will help us map out the future of auto-enrolment, so we can boost contribution rates in the coming decades, and explore how we can support savers with pensions freedom reforms. Let’s not give up on the progress we’ve made in pensions through cross-party working. It’s time to explore ideas for the next generation’.”


It therefore seems that the thinking behind the proposed new clause in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, has some support at the moment within the DWP.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done the job for me, but broadly speaking, I support this amendment. As well as what has already been elaborated, it plays into the feelings that have come up several times as we discussed the Bill as well; namely that, although the noble Earl has said that there is policy, a lot of implementation is also yet to come, and perhaps some of us feel that some policy is also yet to come. I therefore hope that a commission could come along subsequently and that it would be able to have an overview of some of the newer things as well as reviewing older things and looking forward. Therefore, I also support the notion of having this pension schemes commission.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on this, but I confess that I have a little scepticism about this proposal. We have had many reviews of pensions, including the trailblazing Pensions Commission led originally by Adair Turner—the noble Lord, Lord Turner. Many changes have been made to the law, including auto-enrolment, which I think we in this Committee have all welcomed. Of course, those in the current Bill are important as we seek to tackle the issues raised by the BHS and Carillion cases and to introduce dashboards.

I am not convinced that this is the time for another commission and another review. I feel that this is the job of the Pensions Minister and the DWP. Quite a lot is going on in pensions, and the priority should be to make sense of the sort of issues we have discussed on this Bill or issues that arise on things such as exit from the EU, and to get on with those in a practical manner. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend. If she takes a different view, of course, I am happy to reconsider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I signed this amendment and I do not think there is a great deal to add to what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said. I am sure we are all familiar with the phrase that two wrongs do not make a right. As has been explained, this is one of those instances in which two rights have ended up making a wrong, in that auto-enrolment and raising the tax thresholds were right but have resulted in more and more people falling into this trap. If we are to believe all the things we read in the newspapers about the Budget, it may be that more right things will be done, in terms of tax thresholds, that will then trap more people in this wrong of paying more than they should for their pension. These people would be better off if they were not in the scheme but in a private pension scheme because there would be mechanisms for them to get that tax relief.

The problem could be adjusted through the tax system because it knows who they are. There are various ways in which it could be addressed. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has put forward one in which it is up to employers to seek out the solution. If that is regarded as too onerous, something else must be done because this really is very bad, once again hitting the people who always seem to be at the rough end of every deal and are predominantly women. I am not quite sure how it is taken into account in universal credit—whether it asks, “Are you paying more for your pension than you should?”—but I would not mind betting that many of them will be the same people who suffer at every twist and turn. I therefore strongly support this amendment.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. We should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the diligence with which she has persisted on this matter for quite a long while. As she hinted, she was responsible for convening an industry group that spent a lot of time digging into this to make sure its focus was right.

The reality is clear. There are two systems giving tax relief and no reason in principle why they should not both deliver the same result. One does not for low earners at the moment. Which of the two systems you are in depends on your employer’s choice. That simply cannot be right. As the noble Baroness said, there are ways of dealing with this. I understand that the Treasury has set its face against that to date. Of course, for the Treasury, the downside is that providing a bit more tax relief means having a little less revenue. However, we are talking about the lowest paid, who are being disadvantaged by this. It is about time that this was brought to a halt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because the circumstances that have been outlined are distressing and there seems to be no easy way for the affected people to address them. If they were bigger and more powerful, it is certain that they would not be pursued—not least because the instructions for pursuit, if I can call them that, are that you have to be able to recover more than it costs you to do so. It would not take a great deal of litigation for that to be backed off from.

It is another example of how unfair it is when people who have run a business as a partnership, unincorporated, are at a disadvantage compared with those who take advantage of limited liability. You are not doing anything bad by putting yourself and your livelihood on the line. It may be that it has not been done in the way that it should have been in small practices, such as plumbing companies, but when you find yourself in this kind of situation—which you would not be in if you had been incorporated—it has always been difficult to see fairness in the law.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has produced a tightly composed amendment. I have studied it and it seems to fit the bill. Obviously, if someone can improve on it that would be fine. Otherwise, I do not see how there will be fairness for those who do not have equality of arms with the larger companies, which have sometimes been allowed to leave schemes without necessarily paying up as much as they should. In such cases, the burden falls on smaller firms. The trustees should have taken that into account long ago. If they have not, why should the burden fall on those who cannot find the means to take the matter to court? Basically, that is what this is about. A large employer in the scheme would fight the case and perhaps there would be claims for negligent behaviour for some of what has gone on. This solution avoids quite a lot of unpleasantness and untidiness that might otherwise be the only way. If there is any way that the Government can pursue this amendment, it would be a very good thing.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling this amendment and congratulate her on her tenacity in continuing her campaign to resolve this situation. If we were giving awards for tenacity, she would win, I am sure.

The Government understand the difficulties facing employers in these situations, especially where, in the past, they have taken all reasonable steps to fund the scheme as requested by the trustees. The amendment seeks to amend Section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995 to allow trustees further discretion to cancel a departing employer’s debt in certain circumstances. It raises a number of issues that I will address.

The effect of this amendment would be that every time it is applied, the employer covenant would be weakened, increasing the risk of thousands of members not getting their benefits in full. It is hard to envisage a scenario where trustees could agree to such an arrangement and still be compliant with their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of scheme members. In particular, the proposals for a new de minimis threshold raise significant issues. Even if the threshold is set at a very low level, it could enable a large number of small employers to depart schemes without payment. The aggregate impact of this could be significant. Passing this level of debt on to employers who remain could make them insolvent.

It is worth noting that some flexibility already exists for trustees to collect reduced employer debts as long as the scheme is funded above a Pension Protection Fund level basis. It is set at this level to ensure that schemes do not place an additional burden on the Pension Protection Fund and, ultimately, the levy payers.

The amendment also proposes that debts could be compromised if the majority of the debt relates to orphan members whose employers no longer remain in the scheme. This would be very difficult for the scheme trustees, who have a duty to ensure that orphaned members’ rights are protected and that their scheme is properly funded. Removing orphan debts from the employer debt calculation would ultimately worsen the scheme’s funding position, putting thousands of members’ pensions at risk.

Further, this amendment would impose different statutory requirements on unincorporated and small employers, creating a number of challenges. For example, if all or the majority of the scheme’s employers were either unincorporated or small, it could mean that none, or very few, employer debts would ever be collected; in the long term, that could create a severe underfunding situation, with all the risks that entails.

The Government’s Green Paper and subsequent White Paper, which was published in March 2018, on defined benefit pension schemes looked very closely at this issue and considered carefully what could be done to relieve the pressure that some employers face from their obligation to pay an employer debt. The White Paper concluded that the existing arrangements in legislation, along with the deferred debt arrangement introduced in April 2018, provide enough flexibility for employers to manage their employer debts. Further, the current full buyout calculation method is the most secure and effective way of protecting members and remaining employers in a multi-employer scheme.

While the Government recognise the difficulty facing companies in managing this debt, they cannot, at this time, offer any easements beyond those already provided for in legislation. However, recognising the many representations that the Government have received supporting a change that would assist employers in this difficult position, we will keep this under review and continue the dialogue.

My noble friend Lady Altmann raised the issue of retired employers triggering a debt and being unable to pass it on. Flexibility in the rules enables retired employers to pass their scheme on to another employer without triggering an employer debt. The scheme has a streamlined, flexible apportionment arrangement, which could help employers in this situation.

My noble friend also made the point that some people find themselves in extreme difficulties, with the potential to lose their home. The employer debt regime is designed to protect employers who remain in a multi-employer scheme. It would be unfair to burden remaining employers with additional unplanned costs to cover the shortfall that would be created by relaxing requirements for one group of employers. The flexible apportionment arrangement currently available in legislation can be used to help unincorporated employers who wish to incorporate.

My noble friend Lady Altmann also asked whether the scheme is fully funded. My noble friend the Minister mentioned that the scheme is fully funded on a technical provision basis. However, I understand that the scheme is underfunded on both a budget basis and a PPF basis. The next scheme valuation is due in April 2020, which will give us a clearer picture of the scheme’s funding position.

I thank my noble friend and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on this amendment. I know how important it is to my noble friend, but, on the basis of my response, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

101: Before Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations
Regulations under this Act may not—(a) create a new criminal offence,(b) create a regulator,(c) create multi-employer collective money purchase schemes,(d) significantly restrict the powers of trustees, or(e) amend primary legislation.”

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

My Lords, in Committee there has been broad resistance by the Government to positive amendments suggesting what could be put in the Bill to give reassurance about many of the issues raised. The Government claim that that needs to be the case to preserve flexibility, but that does not get over the fact that there are very broad delegated powers in the Bill, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Sharkey on the first day in Committee and by the Delegated Powers Committee. There is no certainty about how far those broad powers will be used. They are not called Henry VIII clauses for nothing, although delegated powers nowadays put Henry VIII in the shade. I believe the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, elaborated on that last year.

This amendment goes the other way. Instead of making suggestions to clarify what needs to be done, it clarifies five things that the Government may not do under the delegated powers. It is, of course, a probing amendment. I could have made a longer or different list, and a couple of matters are in it specifically to enable further discussion. However, despite the probing nature of the amendment, its form is not novel. It has appeared in other legislation, and I believe it appears several times in the withdrawal Act. It is a known way of addressing issues of concern in skeleton legislation. I may have helped it into a few pieces of legislation, but I consider that such a clause should always exist.

I shall take each of my points in turn. Proposed paragraph (a) states:

“Regulations under this Act may not … create a new criminal offence”.


That provision has been used before to constrain broad powers in legislation. A new criminal offence should always come to Parliament in such a way that it can be amended or rejected. I believe there are examples of finding a new criminal offence within a set of regulations with no amendment possibilities; indeed, I have been on one of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committees, and there were examples. That should not happen. It would be a disproportionate use of delegated power—that has been suggested when I have run such a proposed clause—yet it has been used and therefore it is reasonable to suggest that it should not be. In the instance of pensions, and despite the fact that I have argued on this Bill that the criminal offences are not drawn wide enough, so I am certainly not a dud with regard to them, I do not believe that it would be reasonable to make new ones by regulation. The relevant clauses in the Bill are easily wide enough to do that.

Proposed paragraph (b) is about not creating a regulator. There appears to be a strong danger of that here because the wording that enables powers to be conferred on any person could enable the creation of a regulator. I think the wording is “discretion”, but my noble friend Lord Sharkey inquired as to what it meant and the reply came back that it could be any powers to any body, therefore it would enable the creation of a regulator. There is an example of that in Clause 51. If the person who is designated is already a regulator which has been set up under primary legislation, it is not a problem to expand its powers appropriately, but if a new regulator is created, that would be wrong. So why are there clauses in the Bill that are wide enough and of a description that would enable that? My wording here does not capture all the wrongs that could happen under any power to any person provisions, but at least it draws a line.

Proposed new paragraph (c) prohibits the creation of a multi-employer collective money purchase scheme through regulations. I refer back to issues that have already been discussed with regard to problems in the plumber pension scheme. There are other examples of difficulties caused by withdrawals from collective DB schemes. It can come around in particular when large and small employers are put together. Our discussions with regard to collective money purchase schemes have already made it clear that there are issues on which we are still uncomfortable in the context of the employee risk, even in a single CDC scheme. The Post Office scheme is not an everyday case; they will start out with some advantages. There will be even more unknowns in the multi-employer scheme. For example, the pool for risk-sharing is larger, which might seem attractive, but the risk of a larger group leaving is then an awfully large matter for the remaining pensioners to take on board.

Proposed new paragraph (d) is not to

“significantly restrict the powers of trustees”.

I do not mean to override the powers the regulator has to sanction trustees for improper behaviour. I put this point in because there has already been discussion as to whether some of this Bill’s provisions are encroaching on the day-to-day decision-making of trustees—for example, with regard to investment policies. There are noble Lords here who have far more experience of pension trustees than I do, and I particularly value thoughts on the usefulness of this provision. I want to be clear: I am not suggesting that this is anything to do with preventing regulators having the right balance of powers to do things. It is where they would intervene on day-to-day matters.

Proposed new paragraph (e) prevents amendment of primary legislation. I am aware that this is in conflict with the powers the Government have given themselves in Clause 47(5). It is a matter of principle. Pensions are a highly sensitive policy area, and it would be wrong if a Government could selectively change or revoke significant consumer protection provisions without scrutiny at the level of primary legislation. The clause says:

“Regulations under this section may among other things … amend, repeal or revoke a provision of this Part or any other enactment.”


A short while ago, when we were discussing one of the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I think I heard that the Minister did not think there was the power to do certain things. Actually, the Government jolly well have it here, because they can “amend, repeal or revoke” anything they like—any enactment—so I think that was not a valid excuse, if I can put it that way.

Of course, the real problem here is that parliamentary procedures are deficient in that departments have to enter into a bidding process to get Bills and, because of time constraints, they do not come around superabundantly. The only other option, regulations, is not really democratic on the level on which they have become used. It is possible for the Government to do something about that, but it is my view that, until it is done, restraints must be placed on powers in the manner I propose—all the more so when there is lack of policy guidance.

I know we have had exchanges before on whether there is adequate policy guidance. Some of us think there is not, and the noble Earl has said it is all about implementation and the policy is there. I cited Clause 47(5), and Clause 51(3) says:

“Regulations under this Part may … confer a discretion on a person”.


When that was discussed—when the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, raised the clause stand part debate on Clause 51—my immediate scribble was “may not create a regulator”, which was directly in response to what could be covered under “discretion”. That, therefore, is the reasoning. I could give more reasons and find many more examples of where discretion is conferred: a failure to really tie it down to the policies. Given that where helpful suggestions have been put forward that would perhaps have given more reassurance on the true nature and scope have been resisted, there is no alternative but to outline what may not be done. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I add my support to many aspects of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. She is trying to do something very helpful for the Committee and the Bill. We have all expressed concerns about the wide-ranging powers in this Bill, which seem to go a lot further than normal for such Bills. I recognise that pensions Bills tend to have wide powers added to them, but it makes sense to identify areas where we would not wish the legislation to allow a Minister to do things that would normally come back to Parliament for our scrutiny or further legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

With the further assurances I have provided, I respectfully request that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I thank the Minister for her responses. Referring to the question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as to which of these the Government may be doing, I think the answer has come back: all of them. I will go through them.

With proposed new paragraph (a), to

“create a new criminal offence”,

I was not focusing on fine-tuning Clause 107. We are used to how fine-tuning of an existing offence is done. If you look at some other areas, such as sanctions and anti-money laundering, you will see that it is a new criminal offence every time a new sanction is created, but the framework for what has to be done to create such a sanction is laid out in the Bill. If the right kind of policy direction is given in the Bill, you can be allowed to do more. I beg to differ with the assumption that there are no powers here, when the Government can amend any enactment. It puts no restriction on what they may do, so I do not think there is any legal certainty around not creating something that is a completely new idea of a criminal offence.

I am pleased to hear that there is no power here to enable the creation of a regulator. I would be interested to look again at the Hansard from the first day of Committee, because under the requirement to

“confer a discretion on a person”,

the person can be a body corporate and the discretion was specifically referenced as “powers”, if I remember rightly. I would be happy to accept a Pepper v Hart statement that there is to be no creation of regulators, if the Minister felt able to make one.

It has been made clear that there is the intent to create multi-employer collective money purchase schemes. This worries me greatly: having looked at it further, I am now less than certain about the general benefits and there is a risk to pensioners and employees. So many of the points put forward over the four days of Committee debates show that we have not got sufficient guidance as to what that shape will be. It worries me quite a lot that although we cannot yet work out how to do it fully for one, we are going with the more risky multi-employer system.

The requirement to

“significantly restrict the powers of trustees”

is, I suppose, a trick point. If anything does not deserve to be in the list, it is that, but I have drawn out a debate around the point, as I hoped to. Perhaps we have to be able to do that, but maybe there is some other way to make sure that it is framed with care.

My amendment then comes back to the amending of primary legislation. This is a wide power and I know that it can be used usefully, but such wide powers are never based on a single regulation. An individual regulation that could amend or revoke primary legislation would mean that Parliament could then reject it without being accused of always throwing the baby out with the bath water and losing all the other good things in the regulations. That might be a more reasonable way to approach things, but we know that that is not how it happens: we find ourselves doing something that we do not like because it is a small element of a much bigger thing. It is always done when the Government can make the case that it is urgent and that it will be a total disaster if it is booted out.

[Baroness Sherlock]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, especially as I am about to abuse her generosity by asking a more general question. It is directed across the table, and is something that I forgot to ask in my own contribution.

The noble Baroness asked for assurance on various points. At various times during the Committee, the Minister has kindly agreed to write to noble Lords. Can the Minister confirm that those letters will come before Report?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I can absolutely ensure that those letters will be with all Committee members before Report. We have debated these issues and I have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords. We believe that all the powers are suitable and appropriate.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

I am not convinced, but we will await those letters—that was a very useful intervention. This is a matter that, one way or another, we may have to return to in some guise on Report. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 101 withdrawn.