Pensions Act 2004 and the Equality Act 2010 (Amendment) (Equal Treatment by Occupational Pension Schemes) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

I will need to read very carefully what the Minister said—hopefully it will cover all of the points, but, if not, I will drop him a note.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

On that last point, the Minister mentioned the Private Member’s Bill, but my question was actually about when the Government were planning to implement its provisions—perhaps he could give me a steer on that. I would be grateful if he would read Hansard because, if he thinks that he has answered the questions, I perhaps did not shape them as precisely as I had intended. Could he have a look at that and then come back to me?

Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) and Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I hold pension trustee positions, and refer to my interests as set out in the register.

These pension scheme regulations are being introduced for two reasons. First, the Government believe that they will facilitate greater investment by pension schemes into private markets, securing better returns for savers. Secondly, the Government want to increase DC pension fund investments in UK start-ups, infrastructure, green investment and illiquid asset classes in private markets.

Of course, this is to be welcomed if beneficial alignment is achieved between the best interests of the ordinary citizen and their pension pot, and investments that benefit the UK economy to achieve the win-win. However, there are barriers to be addressed in getting there. The problem with these regulations is that the exclusion of performance fees from the DC charge cap will not be the driver of significant changes of investment in illiquid asset classes, but consumer protections will be weakened where money is invested without the security of that cap. The charge cap was introduced to protect millions of people investing through inertia under auto-enrolment. To achieve the diversification of investments which would benefit the UK economy, the complexities of other barriers to investment in private markets need to be addressed. Overreliance on removing consumer protections from pension savers will not do it.

I will reflect on some of those complexities. The pension regulatory environment, which is in perpetual change, is driven by endless policy initiatives without certainty as to the Government’s underpinning strategy. Recent regulation enabled performance fees to be smoothed over a five-year period, but before even testing the efficacy of those changes the Government proposed reversing them in favour of these. Trustees need greater consistency when considering long-term investment decisions—consistency between not only one Government and the next but one Minister and the next. Also, the complexity of regulation means that government contradicts itself. For example, the Government asked the Productive Finance Working Group to make recommendations on increasing private market investments, while TPR was consulting on prohibiting the schemes from holding more than 20% of assets in unregulated investments.

There is also the need to strengthen confidence in government economic policy and governance, a sentiment captured by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, president of the British Chambers of Commerce, in the FT yesterday, where she warned policymakers that

“businesses are holding off making big investment decisions given the UK’s recent political and economic upheaval”

and that,

“People just don’t feel like taking risks”

in the UK.

Inefficiencies from pension freedoms are weakening the long-term private pension system and the approach to illiquid assets. For example, as savers get to 55 or 57, they can take their pots as cash in a series of lump sums and draw down funds in any combination of timing and amount that they choose. Small pots are growing exponentially. People change jobs more frequently. Pension transfers are increasing, including out of workplace schemes. Trustees have to implement these freedoms, which in turn impact on investment decisions.

Higher costs incurred with illiquid assets need to be borne fairly across the members of the scheme, as they would impact members differently. Those close to retirement or who choose to exit the scheme are at greater risk of paying higher fees without the additional returns.

Then we come to the issue of how to ensure value for members and higher returns when performance fees are outside the charge cap and inert citizens directly bear the investment risk. Achieving that higher value will be very challenging, as will measuring it for the Government to see it, as it is with securing standardised disclosure of performance fees. There is a lot of history here about making fees and charges work effectively for ordinary savers.

Ensuring that fees are payable only for realised outperformance is to rest on a tighter definition of performance fees and the discipline of negotiated agreements between trustees and asset managers. Those are the two big levers that are relied on. The Explanatory Memorandum states that excluding pension fees will encourage innovation on fees, but where is the evidence? It is an assertion, and lots of people assert it in their submissions, but it is difficult to find hard evidence. Exclusion of performance fees might set a precedent for removing other charges. Having removed that hard-fought security for consumers, the gate is open. It can disincentivise innovation because the cap has been removed. It can inhibit the evolution of fee structures and private market products that better accommodate DC pensions to the benefit of the UK economy.

Testing the impact of negotiated agreements between trustees and asset managers needs to be assessed much further before weakening the charge cap, given the challenge of achieving member fairness on performance fees. It is an assertion that those negotiated agreements will produce that beneficial result, but that should be really tested before such a critical consumer protection is removed.

The Government have set up a long-term asset fund, the Productive Finance Working Group is considering recommendations and the FCA and TPR have commenced consideration of value for money. This is work in progress, yet the Government push ahead with amending the cap, increasing the risk to the saver.

Investments that help with transition to net zero, environmental protection, housing or infrastructure which support economic growth and savers’ best interest are to be welcomed. Indeed, ESG and TCFD reporting and governance requirements are nudging schemes more and more in that direction. Several pension providers have indicated that they would no longer agree to traditional performance fees but remain committed to investing in private markets. Some large schemes hold illiquid investments within the existing charge cap. Some fund managers are indicating innovating on growth equity funds, and fee and product structures will evolve from the high-growth prospects of the UK automatic enrolment market—agreements achieved through scheme scale, not by weakening consumer protection.

One of the policy options in the impact assessment was government mandating investment in illiquid assets by pension schemes. Although rejected, this is the second hint at mandation after the joint December 2021 letter from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. These DC savings are citizens’ private assets. Mandation would replace or undermine the fiduciary duty on trustees, require private assets to be harnessed and directed to meet government policy objectives, and probably risk market distortions. It would risk imposing inappropriate risk appetites on savers and increase uncertainty on liability, consumer protection and duty of care. It would certainly weaken employer engagement, and it could seriously risk undermining public confidence in auto-enrolment. Those are big consequences from mandation.

I have four questions to ask the Minister. Can he confirm that the Government have no intention to mandate how pension schemes must invest? How will value for members assessments be altered in light of the new risks arising to pension savers from these regulations? How will the Government ensure that savers close to retirement or who exit a scheme do not pay higher fees without additional returns from illiquid investments? What new measures will be introduced to enhance the availability of charges and cost information on illiquid investments? What new initiatives are the Government expecting the FCA to take to regulate for fairness and consumer duty in all the private markets that these regulations cover? I am sure that the DWP will say that it is not within its remit to know what the FCA is doing, but to make a decision that lifts such a hard-fought-for and fundamental consumer protection on the level of evidence that is before the Government, without knowing, having considered or having discussed with the FCA its approach, is an omission. It would be helpful to leave those questions.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and those noble Lords who have spoken. As we have heard, these regulations cover two distinct issues—one minor and the other rather less so. I will do the minor one first; it is a change to correct a drafting error in the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022, amending the line in Part 1 of Schedule 2 that specifies which master trusts are required to connect to the pension dashboard by 30 September this year. I do not want to kick a project when it is down, but, to me, that is not the most pressing problem attached to the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022. In fact, the Minister recently announced that the entire timetable, which is hard-wired into these regulations, is being scrapped, so the regulations will presumably need to be either repealed or amended. Could the Minister tell us whether the intention is to repeal them or if they are simply going to be amended and when we will know more about that?

On the major provisions in the regulations, the objective behind them is clearly to push pension schemes into investing more of their members’ money in illiquid assets. As we have heard, they will use two basic levers to do that. First, they will require all pension schemes with more than 100 members to explain their policy on illiquid assets and to disclose their schemes’ investments in them; and, secondly, they will exclude specified performance-based fees from the list of charges that fall within the 0.75% regulatory charge cap.

Just to be clear, these Benches would like to see greater investment in ways that will help the transition to net zero and in infrastructure projects that support economic growth, but we have heard today some important questions about the detail of these regulations, and I hope the Minister has some answers ready. First, the question of risk was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is right: I could not find a definition of illiquid assets either, but they clearly cover a wide range of investments. They are not just buildings or infrastructure but, as the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee pointed out, could include art or intellectual property. Some illiquids clearly carry significant risk. This legislation also targets venture capital investments, which often have a high failure rate.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned the 30th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which drew these regulations to the special attention of the House. It expressed concern that, without limits on the proportion of illiquid assets in a pension scheme, the scheme may not be able to deliver the returns that members anticipate. It pointed out that many of those members, of course, have been auto-enrolled by their employer and therefore had no involvement in the choice of their pension scheme investments.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, pointed out, the committee asked two specific questions that it thought Members of the House might like to put to the Minister. One was about how schemes’ exposure to increased risk of lower returns would be monitored, and the other was how trustees would be guided on assessing the risks to the portfolio. I may have missed this in the Minister’s comments—I heard him talk about advice to trustees on charges, but I am not sure that he talked about advice on assessing risks—so it would be helpful if he would address that.

I want now to look briefly at the proposal specifically to exclude certain specified performance-based fees from the list of charges that fall within the regulatory charge cap. As my noble friend Lady Drake has reminded us, the charge cap was introduced to protect the millions of people who are saving and investing through inertia, so surely there must be a compelling case for the Government to do anything that might weaken that. It is worth pausing briefly to remember that, in 2013, DWP research showed the impact of higher fees on pension savings. An individual who saves throughout their working life via a scheme with a 0.5%—50 basis points—annual charge cap on the value of their pot could lose 13% of their savings to charges. Push that to 1% and they could lose almost a quarter; push it to 1.5%, the figure is around a third. These basis points may sound small but their impact on the value of a fund is really quite significant.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake]

Perhaps I may put three questions to the Minister in response to his comments. First, he opened by pointing out the overwhelming support for the dashboard that was evident in the consultation; I have no argument with that. Does he accept that the consumer focus groups, taken in the broadest sense, actually lined up behind the Government’s starting with a public-owned dashboard and had quite strong views about proceeding without one? Does he accept that when one disaggregates the responses to the consultation, that is a correct summary? I am quite happy to name the organisations on which I base that view.

Secondly, the Minister actually gave a very good explanation of why one should not run into transactions on the dashboard: not just because of the technical and IT requirements to building a safe dashboard, but because of the whole behavioural market- weakness issues that come into play. However, I do not think I heard him say that, as a result of recognising that, the issue would come back to the Houses of Parliament through another Bill before proceeding to transactions. That was the assurance. I do not think that simply a discussion on regulations would meet Parliament’s need to scrutinise such a big transition. To push again, will he confirm that the Government would need to come back to Parliament before proceeding to transactional activity?

Thirdly, the Minister mentioned delegated access, about which I am deeply concerned. I have no issue with MaPS having delegated access, because it was set up on a certain basis where it was implicit that the dashboard would improve the efficiency of the guidance service. Financial advisers are an issue of some substance. The FCA’s report and actions on the market in financial advice to pensioners is not good reading. Just by September 2018—and the up-to-date figure will be greater—the transfer advice in DB covered assets worth £82.8 billion. In terms of the recommended product, the regulator found 35% were suitable, 24% were unsuitable and 40% were unclear. They produced other reports to express their deep concern. I put a simple question: in the case of Port Talbot, if advisers did not advise those steel-workers well and delegated access to all their pension-pot assets, how great would the detriment have been to those steel-workers? It is not a principle that delegated access may be given to advisers at some point when there is a high level of confidence down stream, but evidence provided by the regulator—not anecdotal evidence from me—says that this market is not working well, which fills it with deep concern.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I want to ask a couple of questions so that the Minister does not need to come back to us twice.

My noble friend Lady Drake powerfully picked up the points on transactions that I wanted to make. I heard the Minister say that the Government’s intention is to proceed to transactions at some point—I would be grateful if he could correct that if I misunderstood—but I did not hear him say why they feel that this is a good idea. I heard him say carefully that they would want assurances to protect consumers, but I did not hear anything about the positive driver for doing so that outweighs the risks that manifestly come with it, which my noble friend just articulated.

I apologise; I have two more questions. I should say that I am hugely grateful for the Minister’s thorough response; I appreciate him taking the time to give us that. It may be that, in all that, I missed the answers to a couple of my questions; I apologise if he gave them and I did not pick them up.

First, am I right in understanding that the dashboard will not cover legacy private pensions and new private pensions not covered by auto-enrolment? If so, do the regulations, as they stand, allow those to be included subsequently, and do the Government have any views on whether they were going to do so?

The Minister touched on my second question but did not answer it. On Wednesday, he said that

“we entirely understand the importance of having a dashboard run by a public body without any commercial interest.”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 182.]

Why do the Government think that that is a good idea? Why are they not worried that there could be a long period when there are only commercial dashboards and no public dashboard?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s amendment in wanting to set out in regulation, rather than rely on regulatory rules, some of the things that will be required to make the dashboard function well. I suspect that there are three drivers behind that sentiment. One is that, in this market, the providers are particularly dominant: there is not an equality of arms when it comes to seeking people’s opinion or influencing government policy. Secondly, the FCA itself recognises that it is very difficult to get a functioning market and that it needs to think more and more about intruding in controlling providers’ supply-side behaviour. Thirdly, although the Government understandably want to rely on consultation, those consultations can be dominated by the providers in this market.

Very often, some of the raw consumer issues somehow do not come to the surface and the consumer groups often do not have sufficient resources to do the kind of detailed analysis that a submission requires to pull out some of the fault lines when these things are looked at through a consumer perspective. Members of the public are not going to participate because they simply do not understand what the issues are in relation to their interests until they experience them. I therefore have a lot of sympathy, leaving aside the precise wording of this amendment. The Government need to understand that sense of those three sentiments that often drive many of these amendments: the providers are over-dominant; even the FCA recognises the need for greater intrusion on providers in the supply-side; and consultation is often not an effective remedy for sufficiently capturing the consumers’ interests. Therefore, the more that is put in regulation, the better.

[Baroness Sherlock]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for having opened up this territory. She is a creative inventor of amendments: she has drawn out here a good selection of the kind of things that regulations would need to cover. Will the Minister tell the Committee—whether or not he wants to accept this amendment—whether it is the Government’s intention to cover those matters within regulation? Are any of these items on the list matters that the Government think are inappropriate for regulations to cover them?

The noble Baroness also made a strong case in general for end-to-end regulation. The Minister has described the process that the Government are going through to develop a liability map. I presume that in this, there will also be a similar kind of regulatory map. There also needs to be a redress map to ensure that there are no gaps down the middle of all of those things. It is also particularly important that there is not a regulatory gap. In terms of redress, it is important that there are no gaps; if things overlap, that does not matter so much. For example, there are times when a pension complaint could go either to the Pensions Ombudsman or the Financial Ombudsman service. They judge things by slightly different criteria and in different ways: fair or reasonable versus the legal position. However, it does matter that nothing falls down the cracks. If a complaint is submitted to an organisation such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and there is any possibility that it is out of scope, firms will, and do, regularly take them to court to try to stop the complaint being heard, and exactly the same thing will happen with the regulators.

Therefore, it is really important that somebody has gone through the regulatory map incredibly carefully and made sure that either the regulator already has all the powers and the full scope necessary to cover all these matters or that it will be granted them. I am sure that that is already happening but it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us about it.

My noble friend Lady Drake made a very strong point about both the drivers of the need for this change and the inequality of arms. The latter is also very strong on the advocacy side. Many times I have seen that there has been a lot of money behind those advocating on behalf of the firms but very little resource behind those advocating on behalf of the consumer. Therefore, it will be very important to make sure that one amplifies the voices that speak up for the consumer interest as well as those that speak for the provider interest.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Drake and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the principle behind Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but equally I have sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flight. When it comes to dividends, the mischief may be done regarding money leaving the sponsoring employer’s company before the regulator can mobilise its full armoury of powers. This is particularly true where the dividends are paid to parent companies overseas, where pursuing a legal route by the regulator may be difficult, even more so if we leave the EU, because jurisdictions will change—except possibly foreign-owned UK banks, where in fact the PRA has the power to intrude pre-emptively on dividends going over to the parent company. To that extent, there is an element of precedent, and the PRA would take into account the debt in the pension fund in considering the sustainability issue when it strikes a view on dividends paid to the parent company.

I give credit to the proactive approach that the regulator is now taking to red flag where there is a kind of big ratio between dividends and deficit payment. However, that must be retrospective. The issue is capturing that mischief at the point when the money leaves the company; I am particularly concerned about where it is a foreign-owned company. Therefore, if some way could be found—perhaps by the regulator working with the department—to embrace dividends in some way in the notifiable events regime, that would be helpful. It is a problem, and once the money is gone, it is difficult to chase it, particularly when you have to go to jurisdictions where the power of TPR may not be strong.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Committee should thank the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Balfe, for having enabled this debate. One gets a high quality of debate on pension Bills; it is very well informed indeed.

We have been left with three questions. Is there a problem? Is it getting worse? And what are we going to do about it? I think there is a pretty much unanimous view around the Committee that we have a problem and that it is not going to disappear. As more DB schemes close, they will pay out more in pensioner payments, leaving them less to invest and reap returns, so they will start de-risking their remaining investments. This is the moment we have to address that.

We know that there is a problem. As my noble friend Lady Drake said at Second Reading, the Work and Pensions Select Committee report highlighted that half of FTSE 350 companies paid out 10 times more to shareholders than to their DB pension schemes. However, in some ways the key issue is the ratio, which was touched on by a couple of noble Lords. TPR certainly mentioned it in its annual funding statement, and it drilled down in its Tranche 14 Analysis for DB pension schemes, published last May. It looked at the FTSE 350 companies that sponsor DB schemes as the main or primary sponsoring employer and said that it found that

“The median ratio of dividends to DRCs”—


deficit repair contributions—

“has increased from 9.2:1 in 2012 to 14.2:1”,

in the latest figures available, so it has gone from nine to 14 between 2012 and last year. Clearly, this is going in the wrong direction. It noted:

“This is mainly driven by the significant increase in aggregate dividends over the period, without a similar increase in contributions.”


Therefore we have a problem. The regulator itself said in its last funding statement that it remains

“concerned about the disparity between dividend growth and stable DRCs”,

and it highlighted recent corporate failures. If the regulator is concerned, then the Minister should be concerned.

The Minister’s argument may be that the regulator already runs an internal control system, where it flags high dividend payments. A number of noble Lords, however, made the point that it is retrospective and that, depending on the valuation, it may not pick up all the areas where there is a problem. Noble Lords also cited TPR’s funding statement, which set out the key principles behind its expectations about what should happen when an employer is weak, the ratio is high, or the employer cannot support the scheme.

Can the Minister assure us that there are not more cases coming in with high ratios and long recovery plans? The TPR says it is going to stop that. Is it not a problem anymore, or is there a target for when it will not be? TPR could refuse to agree a funding strategy for a scheme in various ways but, as my noble friend Lady Drake pointed out so clearly, that is, first, retrospective; secondly, what happens if the money goes overseas? I would be grateful if the Minister could pick that up.