Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Ian Blackford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Pensions (Richard Harrington)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Buck. This morning seems a long time ago, but when we adjourned I had just risen to confirm to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber that members’ savings are not at risk. The hon. Member for Stockton North might have given the impression of mixing up members’ savings and the funders of the scheme. Though I am sure he knows this, I want to be clear. There are various protections around the savings invested—in trust law, in occupational pensions law and through the regulation of investment managers.

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. When the Minister rose at the end of this morning’s sitting, I had actually concluded, so I will now resume my seat.

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Member for Stockton North made various points, and I would like to briefly rebut them. I have already made my first point, in response to the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber. The Bill adds to the protections by prohibiting increased or additional charges that could be levied on members for the cost of winding up or transfer during a triggering event period, so members’ savings are safe. As was discussed extensively in the other place, the clause addresses the situation where the scheme does not have sufficient funds to pay for the transfer of accrued rights or the wind-up of the scheme during a triggering event period. The Bill provides that a master trust scheme must have resources available to pay for those costs.

The hon. Member for Stockton North asked me a clear question: how frequently will the Pensions Regulator monitor this? To be clear, the supervisory measures allowed for in clauses 14 to 20 state clearly that the regulator is under a duty to authorise these schemes. That is a new approach for the regulator, which will be working with all the master trusts, both before and after authorisation. The regulatory regime is therefore an active process, which rightly focuses the most attention on the highest risk schemes, while maintaining regular contact with all master trusts in the market. It is based on a case management approach, which is not random or ad hoc because it is underpinned by the existing reporting and regulatory framework and activities. Those in turn are strengthened by the new supervisory return and significant events negotiation requirements, which the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with.

The hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that the Government have not made any provision to pick up the pieces if a scheme fails. I maintain that that is not the case. The triggering event regime outlined in the Bill means that the regulator will be closely involved with how the scheme proceeds to resolve its difficulty or close—it has to do one of the two. The regulator already has powers that can be used to support a failing scheme. A good example is the power to appoint a trustee to get into a scheme and act as a trustee—so it can impose a trustee on a scheme and help to sort it out.

The hon. Gentleman also suggested that if the risk is so minimal, the clause does no harm as a back-up measure. He used the sledgehammer and nut analogy, which I think Lord Freud used in the House of Lords, so it is a cross-party analogy. If it is a nut, it might be a small nut, but what is going to happen to the nut? That is not said in a very Hansard-like way, but I think we know what it means. I would say that that underestimates the impact of having an unspecified government intervention of this nature.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Harrington]

I apologise if I put words into the hon. Gentleman’s mouth. It is currently unspecified; I agree it could be specified with compensation. The core point and, excuse the pun, the kernel of the nut is that it would still be a Government scheme, with moral hazard.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman has probably heard significant players in the master trust industry voice serious concerns to us about clause 9. They believe that it could give rise to a rush to exit the market by otherwise successful schemes thinking, for example, that, not unusually in this field, they would have to pay a significant levy over not very much. The hon. Gentleman’s points are all valid in their way but Government have to make a judgment. That is why there is a respectable disagreement over clause 9. We have all thought about it carefully.

I believe the Bill strikes a delicate balance between prevention and self-regulation and Government intervention —something that is very hard to do. The clause would disrupt that balance and confuse the regulatory approach. I do not believe that it is a harmless catch-all. I accept the point, as shown by the banking crisis, Equitable Life and other incidents, that such things happen—I would not say it was because it was a Labour Government during the banking crisis or another Government with Equitable Life that those issues arose. It is not possible to give absolute guarantees, but we can reduce risk to the lowest possible level and that is what the Bill aims to do.

In our view, the risk level is already very low for this type of master trust scheme. That is backed up by the Pensions Regulator’s current information about the very small number of schemes that are in trouble. That will be published but is not quite ready. To create a Government-backed scheme would perversely create a moral hazard, as I have explained.

[Ian Blackford]

I am trying to find a helpful way out of this because I can understand why there is a disagreement. We can all accept that the risk we are talking about is to the master trust itself, not to the underlying assets; that is understood. I can understand the Government’s position on giving a commitment to this, but might there not be another approach? The Pensions Regulator would take the responsibility after a triggering event and it would have the power to step in. We have the power for the regulator to appoint a trustee; perhaps the regulator might have powers in extreme cases to intervene in the short term to ensure that there is a smooth transition. I know that is not directly within the clause but there might be another way to effect this where we can give guarantees.

[Richard Harrington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his positive intervention. The regulator has a huge number of powers, and the Bill gives a lot of powers that I think would prevent the problem he is talking about.

The hon. Member for Stockton North is forgetting— I understand why—the general rule that the fraud compensation scheme, which applies in many fields, does and will apply to master trusts. I therefore reject his point about fraud. I am not saying fraud could not happen, but there is already a mechanism in place to deal with that.

In our view, therefore, the risk level is already very low. We are against creating a Government-backed scheme because we think it would create a moral hazard. Schemes are currently working to ensure their systems are robust and we do not want them to feel comfortable that there is an entity that will always bail them out. That would not give comfort to scheme members. Indeed, for the Government to say we feel the risk is large enough to warrant a funder of last resort would create uncertainty—in effect, creating the very problem that the Opposition honourably are saying they are trying to avoid.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck, albeit with a frog in my throat. Our concern with this clause regards the strict nature of requiring a master trust to be a separate legal entity, which could have numerous consequences across the board. Since the contents of the Bill have become known, I have tried to meet as many parties and groups as possible that have an interest in the Bill, to hear their perspectives, thoughts and concerns. This clause came up often. I note that the Minister has tabled amendments to it, which I welcome as a first step towards recognising that the original clause was not fit for purpose.

Amendment 3 widens the definition of the two legal characteristics that a scheme funder must meet in order for a master trust to be authorised by the Pensions Regulator. It gives the Secretary of State greater discretion in exempting a scheme from the second requirement. However, the amendment does not make clear what policy considerations will apply to how that discretion is applied. Will the Minister confirm that insurance companies regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority with master trusts will be exempt from the second requirement, giving members access to the full resources of the insurance company, which will carry full liability for costs in the event of a master trust scheme failure? Our amendment 26 seeks to clarify just that—namely, that if an organisation is already regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, which is incredibly thorough with its regulation, it does not need to register as a separate legal entity as well.

As the Minister said, my colleagues in the Lords raised concerns about the clause, proposing instead that the scheme funder be approved by the Pensions Regulator, but that was rejected with the argument that it would be more difficult for the regulator to obtain transparency on the financial position of the funder and its financial arrangements with the master trust. Instead, colleagues tabled a motion requiring the scheme funder to be constituted and to carry out its activities in a manner that enables its financial position, and the financial arrangements between it and the master trust, to be transparent to the regulator. However, that was withdrawn on the assurance that the Government would be considering that later in the legislative stages.

So here we are, with an amendment from both the Opposition and the Government on how to ensure that we are not unnecessarily enforcing regulation on companies that are already bound by strict regulation elsewhere. The difference here is that the Government’s amendment is on the vague side. The second requirement for the scheme funder that the Government have proposed is that it carries out only activities that relate directly to master trust schemes of which it is a scheme funder or prospective scheme funder. The line in amendment 3 following on from the second requirement gives the Secretary of State the power to

“make regulations providing for exceptions from the second requirement.”

That needs more detail and clarity. What possible exceptions do the Government have in mind? Has the Minister yet considered what these exceptions may be?

We need stability, and to provide stability for the numerous businesses and companies that rely on us to provide effective laws governing their livelihoods and, particularly in relation to master trusts, the livelihoods of millions of people in this country. This is not largely a matter that we disagree on—I think we share the same aims—but I want to be able to provide more assurance to the companies watching today that we will not seek to bear down on them with extra costs and paperwork when they are already abiding by regulation from the Financial Conduct Authority.

Although the Government’s amendment does not give me enough specifics about the type of exceptions that they would give the Secretary of State the power to decide, I welcome their approach and their acknowledgement that it is counterproductive to place extra requirements on companies that already follow the rules diligently. We had a particular concern that forcing a restructuring on master trust schemes could weaken the position of the funder, which is especially important when one considers the debate on the issue of the funder of last resort. We need larger companies to be in a position to pick up failing master trusts, and should ensure that they are well equipped to do that.

I welcome the amendment from the Scottish National party Members, which would also allow exceptions to the requirement that a scheme funder carries out only activities directly relating to the scheme for which it is a funder. I am optimistic that we will leave here today having made positive progress on this matter, as we largely seem to agree on the principle of exceptions.

Amendment 26 would except insurers that operate under stringent Financial Conduct Authority regulation. Where insurers with master trusts operate under both sets of regulation, it must be ensured that unnecessary duplication or overlapping of the requirements is avoided. In particular, insurers should not have to reserve even more additional funds to meet the requirements set out for master trusts, as they already hold the resources needed for this purpose under other regulatory regimes. Members of master trust schemes used for automatic enrolment should meet high solvency and reporting standards, but these organisations have already met standards set under other frameworks, such as that of the FCA. We believe that it is not necessary to expect large companies with significant capital to be required to hold additional capital on top of that in order to meet the new obligations in the Bill.

Can the Minister provide assurance right now that insurance companies that are already under strict regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority will be exempt from the separate legal entity clause, and will he provide clarity on when we can expect to see the Secretary of State’s regulations? The scheme funder requirements in the Bill will bring no additional benefit to the many people in master trust schemes operated by insurers, which are already well protected. Additional requirements on FCA-regulated insurance companies will lead to significant additional costs. I hope that the Government can address my concerns, and that they will outline exactly what regulations the Secretary of State will look to implement.

[Ian Blackford]

The Minister’s amendment of 31 January —Government amendment 3—gives the Secretary of State power to make regulations providing for exceptions to the requirement that a scheme funder must carry out only activities directly relating to the master trust. We do not know what conditions will attach to the exceptions, or even if the Secretary of State will exercise that power. An indication of the Government’s intentions would be helpful. However, the indication that there will be some discretion is positive. I would welcome clarification from the Government on how and when the regulatory powers outlined in the amendment will apply, and in what circumstances they might be used.

Will the Government confirm whether they plan to consult with the insurance industry before defining “information” and “additional requirements”? Zurich has said that the approach taken by the shadow Pensions Minister in amendment 26 and the SNP’s amendment give greater certainty, which would be preferable. As far as Labour’s amendment 26 is concerned, we share the concerns about the unnecessary duplication of requirements for insurers, which already operate under stringent regulatory standards. Our amendments 34 and 35 would have a similar effect to amendment 26, as they state that the requirement need not apply to firms whose activities are already restricted by virtue of existing regulation.

The Prudential Regulation Authority’s rules mean that insurers’ activities are restricted. This will mean that the activities of the scheme funder not directly related to the master trust are transparent and do not threaten the solvency and sustainability of the master trust. Amendment 35 makes provision for the Secretary of State to define “restricted activities” in regulations, including through a list of specific activities restricted in order to minimise risk of loss by master trust scheme funders.

[Richard Harrington]

This is a very good and laudable example of Government and Opposition Members trying to achieve the same objective. I have already heard many of the arguments used today by the Opposition; the Association of British Insurers and others have made similar arguments. As I have often said before, this is not black and white. It is not as though one argument makes absolute sense and the other is absolutely stupid; that is not the case at all. The argument is legitimate. We have had to think about this following representations, and following the Lords debate. However, I do not think that the amendments would achieve the level of transparency needed for the regulator’s financial assessment of the scheme.

Amendment 26 would disapply the requirement on an FCA-regulated insurance company that is also a scheme funder of the trust to set up a legal entity. The amendment would hamper the regulator’s assessment of the final sustainability of the scheme. The matters overseen by the FCA in relation to the prudential and financial conduct of the insurance provider are not the only aim behind the clause; they are aims, but not the only aims, and are not the only aspect that the regulator needs to take into account in the assessment.

The hon. Member for Stockton North asked me to clarify quite a few points. He asked whether the FCA-regulated companies will be exempt. They will be exempt if they meet the prescribed requirements in the regulations. He asked how we will get to the regulations. We will consult on them; we are not simply going to make them up. They are not something that the Secretary of State will dream up in his office. I promise that they will be comprehensive. The intent is to ensure that there is no duplication of regulation; that is why we have created the extra flexibility of the Secretary of State’s discretion.

--- Later in debate ---

and the costs of active investments are significantly higher than those of passive investments. Charges for active investments have also remained stable, unlike charges for passive investments.

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Ms Buck. We are all keen to get through the Bill. I am sitting here listening to the hon. Gentleman and wondering what relevance what he says has to the amendment. Quite frankly, it seems to have very little relevance.

[The Chair]

That is a matter for the Opposition spokesman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

Although I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, it is perhaps a typical response from a Conservative politician: just leave everything to the market. In my opinion, we should not leave everything to the market.

When offering investment funds to employers and members, master trusts need to prove the value of the investment post-charges and that active strategies are no more costly than passive. They should remember that the transaction cost issue, badly delivered in 2013, is up for review in 2017 and forms part of the auto-enrolment review.

The People’s Pension, the not-for-profit master trust launched by construction sector financial provider, B&CE, with 1.7 million members, is NEST’s closest private sector rival.

[Ian Blackford]

Could the hon. Gentleman recap and clarify what he just said—that active fund management is no more expensive than passive fund management?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I call any other Members or the Minister, let me say that I am minded not to have a broad debate on stand part, because we have already covered a lot of the ground. Perhaps the Minister in particular will reflect on that before he speaks.

[Ian Blackford]

I will be brief. I want to pick up that issue of active versus passive fund management, because if anyone thinks that an active fund manager will not have higher costs than a passive fund manager, I am afraid that they have betrayed that they know nothing about the fund management industry. Put simply, anyone engaged in active fund management will have to deploy research and fund management skills; someone investing as a passive fund manager is exactly that, a passive fund manager.

[Richard Harrington]

Itching though I am to rebut some of the general points on transparency, I will do my best to stick to the amendment. As a point of clarification, however, the bit of the FCA review that the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber mentioned in fact makes the point not that active fund managers have more costs, but that over a period of time there is not much difference in returns. That is a totally different matter, but I think that was the point intended—I, too, read the report.

A final matter, given your instructions, Ms Buck, is to point out to the Committee that 1 trillion is 1 million million. A keen if somewhat nerdish Government Member—I am not sure who—came up with that information, of which I was not aware. I hope that the Opposition spokesperson will at least look at Hansard to see what 1 trillion is, since he missed all that.

I will not rebut the general transparency point, although I am itching to do so. However, I confirm to the Committee that I do in fact read The Guardian. That was the allegation made by the hon. Member for Stockton North. I will, however, refer only to the transparency bit of the amendment.

The amendment would insert a new subsection making it clear that regulations about the processes used to run the scheme may include a provision regarding a minimum requirement of annual reporting of administration, fund management and transaction costs. On the face of it, that takes into consideration a lot of the transparency points made by the Investment Association one way and the various lobby groups to which we have all spoken the other way—as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The Government are taking action on that. The FCA report is an interim one and lots of things are in process. I am committed to transparency, but the question is what is relevant to the Bill.

The objective of the clause is to ensure that schemes are run effectively. It contains powers to make regulations that will specify what aspects of the scheme’s systems and processes the regulator must take into account in deciding whether they are sufficient to ensure that the scheme is run effectively. Examples of what such regulations may cover are listed in the Bill. The list already includes processes relating to transactions and investment decisions. We have been clear that the examples given are not exhaustive and that regulations may include other matters relevant to systems and processes. A guiding principle in setting the scope for the authorisation regime has been ensuring that master trust regulation is proportionate.

I should point out that existing legislative requirements already require trustees of occupational pension schemes offering money purchase benefits, including master trust schemes, to make an annual statement. The hon. Gentleman did not mention that: they are already required to make an annual statement regarding governance, which is known as the chair’s statement. It is appended to the scheme’s annual report and accounts.

The Government have an obligation under section 113 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, as amended, to make regulations requiring transaction costs and administration charges of money purchase schemes to be published. We intend to consult, because the subject is very complex, and we are not, as the hon. Gentleman asserted, kicking it down the line. It is not that the Department for Work and Pensions does not want to do it. We intend to consult this year about how this information is published and proactively reported to pension scheme members.