Lord German
Main Page: Lord German (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Pension Schemes Bill
Lord German Excerpts
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the amendment before us, not least because the chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House would be very upset if we did not make sure that the report was brought before your Lordships’ House.
Pension Bills in the past—the report quotes pension Bills from the 1990s—were frequently used, with very much of the detail coming in the following regulation. However, as we know from the debates and discussions we have already had, there are no drafts available; we have had outlines and a sense of direction, but at the moment we do not have substantial amounts of supporting legislation drafts before us, as we might have had in much further primary legislation relating to welfare. The recommendation in paragraph 6 of the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is clear. It says that,
“in view of the potential for the power to be exercised in a way that could significantly alter the constituent benefits included in the definition”,
of collected benefits,
“we are unpersuaded by the DWP’s explanation … why it considers the negative procedure to be an adequate level of Parliamentary control”.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister in his response might tell us whether the Government will accept this report, and it might also help us if they say whether they would accept the other recommendations about the negative and affirmative resolution and first exercise recommendations which are in that report. That might save us a little time in the future.
Baroness Drake
My Lords, for the purposes of all of today’s business on the Bill I refer to the interests which I have registered as a remunerated trustee of both the Telefónica O2 and Santander pension schemes and the board of the Pensions Advisory Service, and as a non-remunerated member of the board of the Pensions Quality Mark and a governor of the Pensions Policy Institute. I am also a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. That is like an act of cleansing; I hope that I have stated all possible interests that could appear to conflict with anything I might say today.
I support Amendment 2 and very much share the spirit of the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord German, particularly his comments about the estimable chair of the Delegated Powers Committee. I accept that it will be a very significant challenge to get collective benefit schemes established in the first instance. As we heard from the NAPF and the ABI, there is little observed appetite from providers or employers, certainly at this stage, for engaging with such schemes.
There are other barriers and constraints to be overcome because collective benefit schemes require an assured flow of new members, excellent governance and full transparency, and the new freedoms with their emphasis on individual freedom rather than risk-sharing may well act as a further deterrent. None the less, for those of us who are genuinely interested in seeing the development of more efficient ways of risk sharing, the Bill provides the opportunity to set the founding legal framework and is therefore worthy of proper scrutiny. In fact, not to scrutinise would be a failure to engage with the work that has been done by the Minister for Pensions and the Department for Work and Pensions.
However, Clause 8 is a key and critical provision because it sets the definition for what are collective benefits, on which the rest of the clauses in Part 2 and many of the associated delegated powers depend. That is why it is so critical in its construct and its definition of the delegated powers associated with it. In my view, the power to set regulations under Clause 8(3)(b) should be subject to the affirmative procedure because the definition of what is or is not a collective benefit makes it so critical to the scope of the whole of Part 2, which deals with collective benefits.
Clause 8(2) defines what a collective benefit is but Clause 8(3)—the subject of this amendment—defines what it is not. It is not a collective benefit if it is a money purchase benefit or, more particularly, some other benefit of such a description to be specified in regulation.
I understand the Government’s reasoning when they indicate that with-profit arrangements, for example, provided by some insurers should not come within the definition of a collective benefit scheme. It is perfectly reasonable for the Secretary of State to want some flexibility to respond as the market develops and innovation occurs in scheme or benefit design.
Clause 8(3)(b) would allow the Government to use regulation to avoid schemes being subject to the expense of meeting the detailed requirements set out in Clauses 9 to 35 if they are deemed not to be proper collective benefit schemes. But the clause, in granting the Government power to significantly alter by regulation the constituent benefits that are not included in the definition of collective benefits, has the ability therefore to potentially remove members of schemes out of the protection of the requirements in the other clauses in Part 2.
This, of course, could have considerable implications for members and the scope of the whole of Part 2. The potential of this regulation to remove members from the protections they may already have by being in a designated collective benefit scheme, which subsequently a change of regulation deems that they are no longer in, makes it compelling that this remains a power that should be subject to the affirmative procedure. This should be as a general practice, not just in first use, because if collective benefits take off—one hopes that they do and we therefore have wide coverage and scale—any review or change to the definitions of the benefits embraced by such collective schemes will be of outstanding importance to the members.
Lord Bradley
The amendment is in my name and that of my good colleague, my noble friend Lord McAvoy, who will continue to support me through the process of the Bill. This is also the first day that I have been at the Dispatch Box moving amendments, though we are a double act that flowed through the other place for many years.
The amendment is encapsulated in its first line:
“The fiduciary duty of pension scheme trustees shall include a duty to consider whether the scheme has sufficient scale to deliver good value for members”.
Our proposed new clause would give the Pensions Regulator, along with the trustees of such pension schemes, the power to consolidate pension schemes.
The Pensions Regulator has been clear that scale is to be encouraged as it enables schemes to achieve better value for money, higher-quality governance and economies of scale. Scale is very important in reducing the cost of intermediation. The key report by John Kay for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recommended a reduction in intermediation. He made it clear that there were far too many intermediations and scale could be a trigger for in-house asset management. Evidence from abroad supports this view. For example, in Canada, scale means that schemes do not necessarily have to pay private equity houses and agents in order to buy private equity.
There is a general view that there are currently too many schemes—around 200,000, it is estimated—and the proposed new clause would enable this to be reduced by giving trustees the power under their fiduciary duty to recommend merger if it is in the best interest of the scheme, and enables the Pensions Regulator to take action if it believes small schemes are not obtaining value for money. Currently, the Bill contains no measures which would help promote scale, which most independent observers believe is necessary for collective DC schemes and work-based pensions in general to do the best for their employees. We have long argued that measures to promote scale are vital to ensure the best outcomes for savers, and those measures deal with the important issue of finding high-quality trustees. If there are fewer schemes, there is less need for a large number of trustees and we therefore address the quality as well as the quantity in schemes that are currently in place. The Government could, for example, require that automatic transfers default into aggregators, and the criteria necessary for qualifying as an aggregator could include scale.
The House of Commons briefing note on the Bill states:
“However, certain conditions such as large scale and strong governance appear necessary for DC schemes to operate successfully”.
Further, three-quarters of respondents to the consultation prior to the Bill thought there was a need for government intervention to create the scale necessary for schemes to offer proper guarantees.
To sum up, it is our view and the view of the Pensions Regulator—which was set out in evidence—that there has to be a scaling up of the UK pensions industry. At the moment there are far too many schemes. We want a process in place to try and reduce that and build up scale. Our proposed new clause would not by any means reduce the number to a handful but it would make a start by giving powers to trustees and the regulator to promote scale. It would be a sensible addition to the powers of trustees and the regulator. Given the widespread consensus in the pensions industry that scaling up will have to happen, and that in so doing costs would be reduced and there would be a better outcome for savers, I believe that the Government will wish to support this amendment and therefore I beg to move.
Lord German
Perhaps I might pose a number of questions about this amendment. My noble friend the Minister or the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, might like to reflect on them and give me an answer. First, the trend towards larger-scale pension funds is growing. I understand that the number of smaller schemes is declining. I wonder whether one or other of the noble Lords could tell me what the pace of that change has been and whether forcing mergers is necessarily the right thing if that pace of change is already accelerating. Secondly, when mergers are forced, the question is who that merger is with. Who will be found as a necessary partner to move in that direction? If that partner were a smaller-scale operation as well, forcing those two to move together might not necessarily provide the right output. Finally, scale does have merit and is worthy, but that does not mean that small scale is always bad. I wonder whether we should always look for quality rather than scale or the force to make companies move together. Those are fundamental questions which I hope one or other of the noble Lords will be able to answer.
Lord Bradley
If I might comment briefly, as the amendment says, any merger has to be in the best interests of the members. It is not being forced if that is not in their best interests. I am not aware of the pace of change; what I am saying is that the industry is looking at those measures. The fundamental point is that it is in the interest of the members, not the scheme itself.