Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Gray Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I have already set out the approach and discussions that the hon. Lady can be assured I am continuing to have with other Ministers, including the Chancellor. It is fair to say that we are very conscious that one of the ways to try and help people get out of poverty is through the plan for jobs. While I am conscious that there are not lots of jobs at the moment—although we estimate that there are over half a million vacancies—we want to try and make sure that people are ready to take advantage of the opportunities, particularly when we have seen the number of workless households sadly increase.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
The Secretary of State suggested that her approach to universal credit is evidence-based, yet the Government dismissed the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report on this issue. Then she described anti-poverty measures as a priority, yet removing the universal credit uplift would plunge 200,000 children across the UK into poverty. If the UK Government make the smaller one-off payment that has been suggested, it will provide no security and do nothing to help those who first claim UC after the payment has been made. Alongside the discussions on universal credit, has the Secretary of State suggested to the Chancellor any action to end the discrimination against those on legacy benefits who have seen their support rise by just 1.7% during the pandemic?
Dr Coffey
People on legacy benefits can transfer to universal credit, and the final barrier to that is being lifted this Wednesday. I encourage people to consider that move, because we are confident as a Department that the majority of people would be better off. I remind the House that Parliament voted to end both legacy benefits and tax credits and to move to universal credit because it is a welfare system that is agile and incentivises people to work when they can.
Neil Gray [V]
So no action on legacy benefits, which means that the active discrimination from the UK Government against sick and disabled people, who disproportionately claim them, will continue. Robert Burns said:
“Whatever mitigates the woes or increases the happiness of others, this is my criterion of goodness; but whatever injures society at large or any individual in it, then this is my measure of iniquity.”
If the uplift to universal credit is not made permanent, the Secretary of State will be presiding over a system that not only discriminates against disabled people but in which out-of-work support falls to its lowest ever level relative to wages, confirming Burns’s definition of iniquity. In that scenario, how in all conscience could she remain in post?
Dr Coffey
Tonight, many people right across the United Kingdom will be celebrating Burns night, recognising the strength of the poet and the prose he delivers. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman’s comments fail to hit with me right now. The reality is that we have supported the welfare system with an extra £7 billion in the past year. We continue to spend more on benefits and we continue to spend more to try to help people back into work. This is a Government who are on the side of people, recognising the difficult situation that we face. As I have said before, as long as the Opposition keep trashing universal credit it will be no wonder that people do not realise that many of them would be better off moving tomorrow. I would encourage people to look into that.
Universal Credit and Working Tax Credit
Neil Gray Excerpts(3 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to go into detail about why the SNP has been at the forefront of the campaign, led by the likes of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children and others, to keep the £20-per-week uplift to universal credit and extend it to legacy benefits.
I commend the UK Government for taking the action that they did to uplift universal credit by £20 per week. It has undoubtedly been an important step in protecting some—but not all—social security recipients, who otherwise would have fallen either into poverty or deeper into poverty during this pandemic. It was the right thing to do and it is right that it is now kept. Indeed:
“The universal credit uplift should continue for the foreseeable future. I would encourage the UK Government to make that commitment now and provide the reassurance many people are looking for.”
Those are not my words, but those of the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), leader of the Tories in Scotland, back in October.
What has changed since October? Both the health and the economic aspects of the pandemic have got worse. The need is still there, and I will tell the House part of the reason why. This is where I have to take slight exception to the Labour Opposition motion. It says that they want the UK Government to
“give certainty today to the six million families for whom it is worth an extra £1,000 a year.”
Although I support the motion, the uplift is worth a thousand pounds per year extra only if taken in isolation; actually, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has calculated that, if we look at cuts to social security since 2010, even with the £20 uplift, families unable to find work will receive, on average, £1,600 less per year in social security support than they would have done in 2011. That is even with the uplift. Those with children will receive £2,900 less. The contrast is even more stark for larger families with three or more children, who will lose £5,500 each year. That is part of the reason why this initiative is so important.
The UK Government seem intent on cutting the temporary uplift at the end of March, meaning that families will be a further £1,000 per year worse off. That would give the UK Government an unenviable record: if they go ahead with this cut, they will be responsible for cutting out-of-work support to its lowest level since 1992 and its lowest ever level relative to average earnings.Social security spending is normally counter-cyclical, so expenditure automatically rises during an economic downturn while revenue from taxation falls. This Government are trying to cut support during an economic downturn, when more people need greater support.
Let us remember what that means to the people who need the support: the 6 million households, in every constituency in the UK, but also the millions more on legacy benefits—disproportionately sick and disabled people—who have been cruelly denied the uplift. Last week I chaired an evidence session of the all-party parliamentary group on poverty, which I co-chair with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We heard powerful testimony from two women on legacy benefits who have not benefited from the uplift. I want to read some of what Michelle told us, because it should be heard today by colleagues across the House and Ministers on the Treasury Bench, especially the Chancellor. It should be heard because when she spoke, Michelle had millions of others behind her in the same position.
“My name is Michelle and I am currently a single parent to 2 children aged 12 and 7. I have been in receipt of legacy benefits for 7 years. Prior to this I was a working woman with a career in finance, a tax payer. Due to my health issues I currently receive the legacy benefits of income-based employment and support allowance, child tax credit and of course child benefit. April 2020 saw a rise of 1.7% to legacy benefits.
Living on social security is incredibly challenging for families; it provides less than minimum expectations of living. During the pandemic those challenges have been magnified with social restrictions and home schooling. £20 sounds so little but it means so very much. I became interested in why we had not received it.
In November of 2020 I emailed my...MP about the £20 uplift and legacy benefits, she in turn enquired with the Department of Work and Pensions about the situation. I was pleased to have received a response from both, but still somewhat downhearted at how little they understood the situation.
The main recommendation from my MP and the DWP was to consider applying for Universal Credit at this time to obtain the £20 uplift. Is the suggestion that people on legacy benefits request to be migrated to Universal Credit a feasible option you might ask? For me, to risk weeks of zero income for my family would be totally impossible and have knock-on effects of missed bills and potentially surviving on whatever charity we have not already exhausted. I cannot, as a responsible mother, take that risk.
I was also informed by my MP that ‘those on legacy benefits may have benefitted from other support such as mortgage holidays and income protection schemes’. She also mentioned increases to housing allowance. I am eligible for none of these and have no options to move home—I do not qualify for a council house despite being in an overcrowded home in poor repair that I can barely afford. I cannot afford to rent nor would I likely be accepted. These suggestions are not a solution to the problems we face.
As it stands, being prohibited from accessing the £20 uplift pushes me further into using credit for everyday expenses such as the weekly food shop and utilities. Therefore I pay interest on food, heat, water, light, shoes.
So what would £20 a week, equivalent to just under a...month of benefits which I calculate at £1,040 in total (over 10% of my income), mean to my household? It is hard to pick just one thing, there are numerous options. Food is usually one of the few bills parents have the ability to reduce in hard times, so to give more food security and reduce the reliance on cheap processed food would be a big benefit. Being able to keep the house warm would help my arthritis and the asthma suffered by my son and I so that it does not flare up in the damp. I could buy equipment for home schooling, or repair the kitchen tap, or not have to rely on hand-me-down clothes from friends and family who have already a shortened life from being worn. I could afford hair cuts for all of us.
Ultimately the £20 uplift would go directly towards the health and prospects of a generation of children, my children, who have so much potential, resilience, imagination and compassion due to their circumstances and the times we live in. And all we need to do is to support their parents to get those children to a point where they can build a good life for themselves. This will not happen if for the sake of £20 they are hungry, or cold or their needs aren’t met. The £20 uplift is the foundation of hope for children.”
I thank Michelle for being willing to share her experience last week and for agreeing to forward her words for me to read to you today. They speak of what happens to families who are not given adequate support, of the difference that £20 per week could, should and would make to those on legacy benefits, and of what will be ripped away in April from those on universal credit. When the discussion opened up, Michelle went on to say that even if the health effects of the pandemic are back under control by the end of March, which is likely to be a stretch, the economic impact for families on low incomes—like Michelle’s—will be felt for months, possibly years, to come.
Michelle will be paying back credit and interest on credit for months, even years, because she needed to purchase the minimum required to ensure that her children could learn at home and to pay for food and other essentials. That shows the deep holes in the social security safety net, both prior to and during the pandemic, that people are relying on credit cards for food, heating and clothes—basic essentials.
As I have said in this Chamber before, the uplift and social security rates in general should not be determined by the pandemic; that should be determined by what people need to live. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects more than 800,000 people to become unemployed in the second quarter of 2021, after the job retention scheme stops again. Will living costs be any less for those households? Will it be any easier for them than it is now with the uplift in place? Absolutely not.
Social security is supposed to be there for any of us when we need it, insuring us against hard times—like the NHS when we are ill. What Michelle and millions of others are telling us is that social security is not adequate to support families, who are having to rely on credit cards to buy food, heating and clothes. By holding off taking the decision any longer, the Government are letting down those families who have no certainty, no security and no means to plan.
Instead of analysing the needs of recipients and permanently uprating universal credit and legacy benefits by £20 a week, the Government have been flying kites about providing a one-off £500 grant, but only for some. That is the UK Government trying to do as little as they can get away with in an attempt to get through a difficult political situation. That would not in any way replace the long-term security that the uplift provided and will do nothing for those newly unemployed after the grant has been applied. Making the £20 per week uplift permanent and extending it to legacy benefits is the least they should be doing, particularly as it will not even make up for the cuts since 2010.
The UK Government have a choice: make the cuts to social security since 2010 a little less worse by making the uplift permanent and extending it to legacy benefits, in turn saving many families from poverty; or cut that lifeline further, making out-of-work support the least generous that it has ever been, impoverishing millions. Today, it appears that we may not even have a vote, most probably because if we did, there would be a significant rebellion by Government Back Benchers. If Ministers do not plan to oppose the motion, they must honour it as quickly as possible. They owe it to Parliament, but, most importantly, they owe it to Michelle and the millions of families such as hers on universal credit and legacy benefits who need this help as soon as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The Opposition wind-ups will begin at 6.55 pm, the Government response at 7.05 pm and the Question put at 7.15 pm. There is a three-minute limit on all Back-Bench contributions.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Gray Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I think I have already answered the hon. Lady. We have not reduced the LHA back to pre-covid arrangements; we decided to make that change a permanent fixture but to freeze it at cash levels, recognising that, as I said, nearly £1 billion had been injected into welfare support. We will continue to work on this issue throughout the country and I am keen to see what we can do on aspects of housing, which is why I am in regular conversation with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about how we do things such as bring empty homes back into use as accommodation. I want to make sure that people have as much affordable housing as possible, and the increase to LHA of nearly £1 billion is one way to achieve that.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Shortly, Nicola Sturgeon will outline in her conference speech plans to pay families who receive free school meals a £100 grant to help them through winter till the new, game-changing Scottish child payment starts in the new year. The Secretary of State’s Government could have matched the Scottish Government’s anti-poverty ambition at the spending review, but they failed even to make the UC uplift permanent or extend it to legacy benefits. Can she point to anything in the spending review that is there to address poverty?
Dr Coffey
The best way to get out of poverty is to get into work. I am very conscious that there are real challenges right now, as we see an increasing number of unemployed people. There are vacancies, but part of the Government’s job is to stimulate interest, which we are doing with a multibillion-pound investment in a variety of schemes, not only to create jobs, with kickstart, but to make sure that people are ready to get back into work. The idea is that we need to try to create confidence within business, and that will be a key part of that. I am sure the hon. Gentleman welcomed the money that came through the Barnett consequentials that will support initiatives that the Scottish Government might wish to undertake.
Neil Gray
The Secretary of State talks about jobs, yet just as employment is expected to reach 2.6 million, she plans, shamefully, to cut universal credit. Ahead of the spending review, a petition organised by the Disability Benefits Consortium and signed by 119,000 people was handed in to the Government, calling for the UC uplift to be extended to legacy benefits. Given that living costs have increased dramatically for disabled people during the pandemic, why have the Government not acted? Does that not just summarise perfectly the tale of two Governments: a Scottish Government extending support to those who need it while the UK Government increases disability benefits by a derisory 37p?
Dr Coffey
Last week I published the benefit uprating statement, which indicated the inflation rise for benefits, as well as the 2.5% for state pensions. I am conscious that a number of different things are going on with benefit spending—my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work just reminded me that benefit spending on people with disabilities is up 5%. I think there is a lack of understanding of what the spending review is: it is not about budgetary measures, which tend to come with major fiscal events. As has been indicated before, the decision to consider the temporary uplift to universal credit will be made in the new year.
Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]
Neil Gray ExcerptsMonday 16th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 16 November 2020 - (16 Nov 2020)
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), whose helpful, informed and persuasive speech matched the characteristics he brought to the Committee stage in support of the work we did there—I thank him for his efforts.
As I said on Second Reading, we broadly support the Bill, but it could do with some sprucing up in certain areas. Sadly, we did not get far in Committee; in fact, the Bill took a step backwards from some of the good work that had been done in the other place, particularly on a lead-in for commercial dashboards and dashboard financial transactions—that was taken away—as well as on the measures providing reassurances to those involved in open DB schemes.
I will turn to those shortly, but first let me deal with new clause 1, which stands in the name of the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), and has been signed by Members on both sides of the House, including me. I concur with what he said in setting out the reasons why this is so important. I also agree with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) in supporting the new clause. I am particularly concerned about this area, not least following my work on the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, which brought MaPS into existence. We held serious concerns that the guidance elements that were supposed to be partnering pension freedoms were not strong enough then and we still hold those now.
I touched on this in Committee, but it is worth repeating for colleagues who may be havering on which way to vote that the Government’s opposition to this new clause appears to be based on the work the Financial Conduct Authority is doing and the idea of providing a stronger nudge—we have heard about that—to people getting guidance as they near retirement age. Unfortunately, I am yet to be convinced that any of that does what new clause 1 would do, which would see the DWP writing to pension scheme members, or their survivors five years prior to their reaching the age of eligibility with a scheduled time and date for a pensions guidance appointment. Ministers would then have to write annually to that person until that appointment was taken up, or their desire to opt out was confirmed. That is far more robust than what exists at present and seems to deliver a much stronger possibility of someone taking the appointment than the stronger nudge trials have evidenced. It is worth repeating the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham in his strong speech, which cited the MaPS stronger nudge trials and showed that there was only a very small increase in the number of people who went on to have that Pension Wise appointment. The DWP claimed that it significantly increased the uptake of Pension Wise guidance but, as I said in Committee, that is pure spin. The outcome of the stronger nudge trials—
Guy Opperman
I just want to correct one point, which I was going to try to deal with in more detail later. The claim has repeatedly been made that this is “spin”, but if one studies the stronger nudge behavioural trial, one sees that more than a quarter of the people who contacted their provider in the trial had already received pension advice or guidance in the last year and therefore were excluded from the sample. So this cannot be seen in the context of a simple figure that keeps being restated, as the hon. Gentleman has just done.
Neil Gray
The fact remains, and the Minister has not rebuked the point I made in Committee, that the stronger nudge managed to get successful appointments to move from 3% to 11% of cases. That is not a significant improvement. A stronger nudge is just not going to be enough, which is why we argued during the passage of the 2018 Act for an opt-out guidance system. Now we are back to looking at this again. We still support that approach and new clause 1 would deliver it.
Colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) and for Gordon and the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), have passionately and eruditely explained why we have given such a focus to the so-called plumbers’ pension amendments in new clauses 4 and 5. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the compelling arguments that my colleagues have made, but he should be reminded that these new clauses were arrived at with the support of campaigners who feel that the current legislation does not protect them. After hearing what my hon. Friends have said about the impact this has had over many years on their constituents—and presumably after some lobbying from across the House, because at least 30 colleagues have constituents who are impacted, including, according to the campaigners, the hon. Members for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) and for Moray (Douglas Ross) and the Secretary of State for Scotland—the Minister must surely be eager to do something.
Before the Minister speaks, I wish to point him to the correspondence he should have received last week from the director of Plumbing Employers Action Group Ltd., which should allay his fears about new clause 4 setting a precedent, or about passing on liabilities to other employers, as has already been outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. It is worth remembering, through all this, that these plumbers have found themselves in this situation through no fault of their own, but because of a lack of information from trustees regarding their potential section 75 obligations. I hope that new clauses 4 and 5 can be accepted to ensure that nobody falls into bankruptcy and poverty through no fault of their own.
Our new clause 2 would help the UK Government in three areas. It would establish an independent advisory commission to look at the terms of this legislation. The Minister knows that it has been a long-term SNP policy to see an independent pensions and savings commission established. The scope of the Bill does not allow us to go that far, but this advisory commission could eventually become the standing commission we wish to see and a sounding board for long-term pensions and savings policy. It would ensure, for instance, that we never saw a repeat of the WASPI scandal.
In the meantime, new clause 2 would also allow the UK Government out of the bind that they find themselves in over commercial dashboards and financial transactions. We believe, as do many stakeholders in the industry, that the rush to see commercial dashboards with financial transactions could be extremely damaging. The hon. Member for Amber Valley has highlighted that risk.
The Minister has previously suggested that commercial dashboards are necessary to allow the independent public dashboard—the MaPS dashboard—to work, but that can only be the case if a deal has been done with the sector to allow commercial dashboards with transactional ability in exchange for the data that the providers have for the public dashboard. The Government could quite easily mandate that data to be provided without the incentive of early commercial dashboards and the risks of financial transactions. Time is the wisest counsellor of all, which is why I do not understand the Government’s determination to plough on without taking stock, without analysing the risks and without ensuring that savers do not suffer detriment from shifting so quickly to commercial dashboards and financial transactions.
We want to see the MaPS dashboard established quickly to provide impartial and reliable information for savers, and that is why we have brought back amendment 8 to reinsert the wording from the Lords that was removed in Committee. This has cross-party backing and backing from stakeholders. The public dashboard has the ability and the potential to be as revolutionary for pensions and savings as auto-enrolment has been, but that can only be the case if the Government get behind it and give it the space to develop. Also, the commission could help with what Members on all sides repeatedly turned to in Committee—namely, finding cross-party consensus on long-term pensions policy. This could be a safe space for those discussions and ensure that pensions policy stood the test of time, because there would be buy-in from all sides.
Our amendment 7 deals with open DB schemes. We have worked extensively with other parties to try to find a form of words to give the scheme providers comfort that they were not going to be forced into making investment decisions that were inappropriate for them. The importance of this has already been highlighted by the hon. Members for North East Fife and for Gloucester (Richard Graham) , as well as by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. There is a major concern that open DB schemes will need to de-risk, and there are potentially serious implications for them of doing so. In Committee, the Minister stated in response to one of my lines of questioning:
“I want to make it clear again—I have said it once, but I will say it again—that the Government are not proposing to introduce a one-size-fits-all funding standard”.––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 81.]
However, the CBI has contradicted him by saying:
“The regulator’s proposals risk moving back to one-size-fits-all regulation…Businesses and trustees need to be confident that the new code will allow them to make decisions that benefit savers and the long-term health of companies.”
The Minister protested strongly about the Government’s intentions; it may not be their intention to introduce one-size-fits-all regulation, but the Minister is reckoning without the law of unintended consequences. In order to be sure, why not allow a safeguard to be on the face of the Bill to protect against the unintended consequences, identified by the CBI and others, which could otherwise see perfectly healthy DB schemes close down?
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman is making a point that a number of us made earlier. I notice that in the Committee, on which the hon. Gentleman served, the Minister responded pretty clearly by saying:
“Open schemes with a strong sponsoring employer that are immature and have managed their risk appropriately should not be forced into an inappropriate de-risking journey.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Bill [Lords] Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 80.]
I found that quite reassuring; what does the hon. Gentleman think?
Neil Gray
I was—I have it right here. We took some comfort from that statement from the Minister, but I have to emphasise the word “inappropriate” in respect of that de-risking journey. For the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that unless schemes started to move towards significant maturity, there would not be any appropriate de-risking journey? Will the Minister further confirm that he has no intention of insisting that all open schemes progressively de-risk their investments if any remain sufficiently far from significant maturity, and that he will ensure that the regulations do not have that effect? If so, how will they ensure that? We also ask the Minister to accept amendment 7, but if that does not happen, we will support the Liberal Democrat amendment 1.
On amendments 9 and 10, we return to the treatment of vulnerable customers and the need to better define the difference between guidance, advice and information. We touched on this in Committee and the Minister accepted the principle of where we were coming from with our amendments but could not accept them into the Bill. I ask him to look at that again. The SNP have tabled amendments to require that specially trained advisers and guidance are made available to people in vulnerable circumstances, including but not limited to persons who suffer long-term sickness or disability, carers, persons on low incomes and recipients of benefits. Circumstances of those types can have a significant impact on people’s finances and long-term savings plans. It is also the case that people in difficult financial circumstances may be more likely to utilise new pension freedoms, but at a cost to their long-term savings.
It is clear that the UK Government had not put in place adequate safeguards to ensure that older people who opt to free up their funds would not end up in a desperate financial situation later. Those with less money are more vulnerable to economic shocks in their personal finances, as well as being potentially more vulnerable to scammers who give misleading or false advice for free. That is why we have re-tabled amendment 10 to ensure that customers who use the pensions dashboard are made more aware of the difference between information, guidance and advice, which are very different things. People who expect advice as to what route they may be able to take may be disappointed to receive only various pieces of information. Likewise, there may be issues with exactly what the body is allowed to advise and to what extent it is able to advise on the options available. It is a simple amendment but would be extremely helpful in taking the issue forward.
As on all these issues, we have tabled amendments in good faith to try to improve the legislation. We look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in his response to the debate.
Jonathan Reynolds
I place on record my thanks to all Members who participated today and in Committee. In particular, I thank my shadow Work and Pensions team for their diligence and hard work. I also place on record our thanks to the Minister and our colleagues from the SNP for the open dialogue that has been maintained throughout the Bill’s passage.
The Opposition did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading, and it is not our intention to vote against Third Reading later. We agree with the broad aims of the Bill and believe that it adds a series of worthwhile improvements to our pension system. However, we have continually sought, as is the role of the Opposition, to improve the Bill further to make it the best legislation that it can possibly be. On Second Reading, I laid out how we wanted to achieve this, with additional measures to protect pensions, people and the planet. Although there was thoughtful debate in Committee, it is disappointing that the Government removed some critical parts of the improvements that were made in the Lords. That is why we have brought back two groups of amendments today, as well as seeking a new amendment, which is an opportunity to make a historic step forward in tackling climate change. I will address each in turn.
First, on protecting pensions, a well-regulated pensions system is vital to give people confidence that it will be there for them in their retirement. Pension funds are not just any financial product. They are usually the sole means of looking after someone in old age, and are responsible for their financial security for an entire phase of their life. Today’s retirement landscape is challenging. The Labour party does not oppose the pensions industry in finding new ways to meet those challenges, but we strongly believe that any innovation must be well regulated, which is why we have introduced new clause 6. We introduced that provision in Committee, to ask the Government to introduce proper regulation of so-called pensions superfunds, which are profit-making consolidation vehicles for defined-benefit pension schemes. At present, they are subject only to an interim regulatory regime announced by the Pensions Regulator in the summer.
That is a substantial change, as these funds currently advertise high rates of return to pension investors. We believe that, as a minimum, those products need a proper and robust regulatory regime, underpinned by legislation, that is on a level playing field with the rest of the industry. We are not a lone voice on that. The Governor of the Bank of England has written to the Secretary of State to raise concerns about the potential risk to financial stability and to scheme members. The Opposition would like to hear a commitment today from the Minister that legislation for a full regulatory regime will be forthcoming before the market begins to develop seriously.
Moving on to other matters, the adequate funding of defined-benefit schemes is critical to their future. We were disappointed by the removal in Committee of clause 123, which related to the funding requirements of open and closed defined-benefit schemes. That point has just been made, and I shall not quote the Minister directly again. However, we understand that he has relied frequently on the regulator’s bespoke option in the draft defined-benefit funding code to provide reassurance for open schemes that they will not be required to follow the funding and investment strategies of closed schemes. However, there is a long list of people who have expressed doubt about that option, and who believe that it risks the premature closure of otherwise healthy schemes, including the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, Lane Clark & Peacock, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, and even one of the Minister’s predecessors as pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann. I recognise that there is no disagreement between the Minister and Opposition parties on the desired outcome, but we still believe that there is virtue in reintroducing the clause. If amendment 7 or amendment 1 is pressed to a vote, that will be done with our support.
Protecting people in schemes is vital, which is why we have introduced three changes, to try to strengthen the consumer protections in the Bill, with amendments 11 to 15. We all agree that the pensions dashboard, when it arrives, will be an incredible opportunity for people to see all their pensions information in one place for the first time, but safeguards must be built in to prevent hasty decision making and consumer exploitation. The last thing we want is for people to make bad choices, prompted, for example, by market disruptions or unscrupulous operators, until they are more accustomed to that level of access. We believe that we can tackle both those things by giving the public dashboard a protected head start and keeping commercial transactions off the dashboard until further legislation is introduced in line with our amendments.
We also believe that there must be accessible and transparent fee information on the dashboard. For too long, it has been possible to rely on the opacity and complexity of pensions to obscure the real lifetime cost of transactions. Greater transparency would surely be welcome.
I spoke on Second Reading about the scourge of pension scams. People can become particularly vulnerable to scams in the years immediately before retirement. We have heard throughout the debates on the Bill terrible stories, such as the one articulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), about people falling victim to fraudsters who rely on confusion about pension freedoms, and not only take people’s lifetime savings but leave them with a huge tax liability. No punishment is severe enough for those who commit those crimes. We all agree that further action is needed, so we support the amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee, as they would create an opt-out system for speaking with Pension Wise in the five years before retirement.
Finally, I have spoken about protecting pensions and protecting people, and now I want to talk about protecting the planet. Our colleagues in the Lords worked hard with the Government to bring in requirements in the Bill on the assessment and disclosure of climate risk in pension investments. This is a historic step: the first time it has ever been included in UK pensions legislation, and we all should and do celebrate that fact. However, we know that, with the climate emergency getting even more serious, it is possible to go even further. Amendment 16 would allow regulators to mandate occupational schemes to develop a clear investment strategy that is aligned with net zero greenhouse gas emissions at the pace the science demands.
The Paris agreement of 2016, which committed to efforts to limit global warming to 1.5° was a groundbreaking and critical step forward in global co-operation to beat climate change, but I believe we do not do enough to explain to the public and our constituents that the changes we need will only be delivered by starting to influence how vast amounts of private capital are allocated, alongside direct Government decisions on, for instance, decarbonising power and transport. I have to say that I would have thought that argument would garner more sympathy with Conservative Members of Parliament.
UK pension funds represent trillions of pounds, and steering more of that towards our climate goals, yes, would be radical, but this amendment is not just about where capital is allocated. It is about the stewardship that we need to see from all asset managers over the companies they have investments in. This is not a divestment amendment, nor does it limit the choices available to fund managers. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Gareth Davies) said that the ESG data is patchy, and he is right, but he will appreciate that asset managers demanding better data have been a fundamentally important driver in making that better, and the E—environmental—is actually the most robust part of ESG data. It does not make sense to me to say that the data exists for the Government to issue a green bond, but not for a pension fund to formulate a Paris investment strategy.
We, as the Opposition, ask the Government to deliver a green economic recovery from the pandemic by investing to support the creation of at least 400,000 new jobs, but achieving progress on climate change demands change in every part of our economy, and despite what we have heard from Government Members today, the industry is already showing us what is possible. Aviva, one of the UK’s biggest pension providers—it supports this amendment —has recently announced that its auto-enrolment default funds will aim to achieve net zero by 2050. That is £32 billion of capital, which is actually going beyond the scope of this amendment. In October this year, the BT Pension Scheme set a goal of net zero by 2035 for its entire portfolio, worth £55 billion. There is also a great deal of good practice in public sector DB schemes, such as the Local Government Pension Scheme.
What is more, today’s amendment was developed and backed by a whole host of organisations across the public and private sectors, with dozens reiterating their support in a letter to the Prime Minister last week. These include ClientEarth, Make My Money Matter, ShareAction, E3G, Christian Aid, West Yorkshire Pension Fund, Good Energy, Ecotricity, the Aldersgate Group, the Climate Coalition, the Carbon Tracker Initiative, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, Business in the Community and the TUC. I would like to thank all those organisations for the work they have done in getting us to this point. However, I will also say to the Minister that this is not a top-down initiative. The evidence shows that Members themselves want their funds to start taking this seriously.
In addition, the investment case makes this simply the right thing to do. The Department for Work and Pensions has itself acknowledged that considering the financial impacts of climate change is consistent with fiduciary duty. Pension funds are long-term stewards of capital. What could be more long term than the sustainability of our environment and our economy? These two objectives simply do not conflict. As is said in an excellent comment piece in The Daily Telegraph today—that in itself is a sign of the times—it
“now looks irrefutable that environmental and social factors are a clear guide to company quality and future investment returns.”
I reiterate that this is not about the Government dictating to pension funds about when and who to invest their money in, and we are not seeking to compromise trustee independence. It is simply about putting a strategy in place that considers their role in meeting our climate objectives. Trustees can maintain their total discretion over what strategy they choose to achieve that goal. Furthermore, this proposal is designed to allow the Government the flexibility to guide schemes via regulations to ensure that trustees have a strategic plan to become Paris aligned over a period of time. Any measures resulting from this amendment would be subject to extensive consultation with market participants, so that their design could take into account what works best for schemes of different types and sizes. This is written to be as accommodating as possible. The Chancellor of the Exchequer came to the House last week and outlined his ambitions to make the UK a leader in green finance. It is true that we have been lagging behind our European counterparts for many years when it comes to green bonds. As the shadow Economic Secretary in the last Parliament, I made that point frequently, and I was often given reasons why we could not do that similar to those we have heard today against amendment 16. I am tempted to say that if we wait until the end of this Parliament, even this amendment may well become Government policy.
With the new US Administration poised to rejoin the Paris agreement in 2021 under the new leadership of President-elect Joe Biden, I put it to the House that we can make this an even more historic week for tackling climate change by passing amendment 16 today. That is why we seek to include it in the Bill.
Guy Opperman
This is a hugely important piece of legislation. It is a landmark Bill. It will impact the lives of millions of people across this country and it will make our pensions safer, better and greener. I genuinely believe that the work we are doing on CDCs and the pensions dashboard, the fact that we are giving real powers to the regulator and taking the opportunity to crack down on the callous crooks who take our constituents’ pensions, the work we are doing on scams, and the fact that we have for the first time put climate change at the heart of pensions means that this will be groundbreaking legislation that we should all be proud of. I welcome the cross-party support that we have heard.
I may not be able to address all 30 amendments or the 17 separate requests for clarification, so I refer all colleagues—and those in the other place, when they consider this matter—to the two days of debate in Committee, where I expanded in great detail on many of these issues. I will happily write to individuals who asked me to address particular points. I will of course meet the ASW, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) requested, and write on the Roadchef issue, but I cannot promise anything more than previous Ministers have done.
Regretfully, I will not engage with the WASPI debate, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made clear that he would. I continue to defend this Government’s position, as I defend the Government of the two former Labour Pensions Ministers sitting on the Back Benches, who supported the exact same policy during the Labour Government. I very much take forward all the work that is done on a cross-party basis. I put on the record my thanks to the Clerks, to all colleagues who have spoken in this debate and to colleagues from across the House for their work in Committee, which was of great assistance to the House.
I turn first to clause 123 and the various amendments on open DB that were raised by a variety of colleagues. We have made it entirely clear that we do not want to see good schemes close. We support DB and we are not proposing a one-size-fits-all regime that forces immature schemes with strong sponsors into an inappropriate de-risking journey. We have also made it clear that we will use secondary legislation to ensure that the requirement for all schemes to have a funding and investment strategy works appropriately for open schemes and ensures that immature open schemes are not prevented from taking appropriate investment risks where that is supportable.
As we have explained, it would be wrong for all schemes that are expected to stay open to be treated differently from other schemes. Not all open schemes in this category share the same characteristics. Some will be maturing just like closed schemes, and it would be wrong to treat such schemes for all purposes as if they were the same as immature schemes.
We hope that we have provided reassurance that open schemes will be able to adopt funding and investment strategies that are appropriate to their individual circumstances. The regime will remain scheme specific and will continue to apply flexibly to the individual circumstances of each scheme, including those that remain open to new members.
We have made it entirely clear that we will frame our secondary legislation in such a way that schemes that are and are expected to remain immature, and have a strong employer covenant, continue to be able to invest in a substantial proportion of return-seeking assets, which will help to keep costs down. I have engaged with a range of parties—I met a number of them in detail on 2 October, and I have subsequently had discussions with a number of organisations—and we are trying to reassure them of the way ahead.
The Pensions Regulator is a regulator, not a legislator. It must regulate in accordance with the legislation made by Parliament, but we believe that the right way forward is a combination of primary legislation, regulations and the defined-benefit funding code, whereby we will seek to effectively balance employer affordability and member security, taking into account the circumstances of different types of schemes as is appropriate.
Neil Gray
Nothing that the Minister has said contradicts anything in our amendment 7 or, for that matter, our amendment 1. It would not be the first time if the regulations did not necessarily live up to the promises made in the passage of the primary legislation, so why not just accept amendment 7 or, indeed, amendment 1 so that the commitment is in the Bill?
Guy Opperman
I assure the House that no Minister in my position could accept amendment 1, which was proposed by the House of Lords and has been tabled by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain).
No Government could commit to ensuring that contributions remained affordable or that scheme closures were not accelerated. We cannot be bound to ensure that all schemes that are expected to remain open are treated differently from other schemes, as open schemes in that category do not all share the same characteristics. As I have made clear, some such schemes will be maturing, just like closed schemes; the potential for abuse would open up. A closed scheme could reopen to very small numbers of new members, circumvent safeguards and pursue a riskier investment strategy that would otherwise be inappropriate. We do not want good schemes to close unnecessarily or to introduce a one-size-fits-all regime. I refer briefly to the Pensions Regulator’s comments in paragraph 475 of the consultation:
“We acknowledge that if such schemes do continue to admit new entrants and do not mature then the scheme will not actually reach significant maturity. We are content that such a scheme retains the same flexibility in its funding and investment strategies that all immature schemes have.”
Similar comments are made later, and I refer hon. Members to the statements I made at great length in Committee.
I turn now to amendments 2 to 5. I dealt briefly with the points made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chair of the Select Committee about clause 125 and the work we have done. Let me be clear that that clause will ensure that transfers will not go ahead if the conditions set out in the regulations are not met. Those conditions can relate to the destination of a transfer, so that transfers can be prevented to schemes that do not have the right authorisations or if a member has not supplied the evidence of employment or residency, for example.
Importantly, those conditions can also include other red flags, such as who else is involved in the transfer. If those red flags are apparent, the regulations will enable trustees to refuse to transfer if the red flag is significant or to direct the member to guidance or information that they must take prior to being allowed to transfer. Trustees will also need to undertake due diligence to establish whether those conditions are met.
Clause 125 puts trustees in the driving seat in relation to permitting transfers to proceed. I make it clear that we will continue to work with the Work and Pensions Committee, the Treasury Committee, the various advisory groups and the all-party parliamentary group on pension scams, with whose members I have had detailed meetings in the past month, to ensure how we can have the best possible regulations to determine circumstances in which different conditions for transfers might apply.
I now move on to the dashboard amendments. I welcome the support in the House for the dashboard; I am particularly grateful to the various contributions that made it clear that this part of the legislation is absolutely transformational, bringing pensions information into the 21st century. I accept entirely what was made clear by the hon. Member for Wallasey: this is a huge project, involving tens of thousands of schemes that will need to be brought forward. The first dashboard will have a “find and view” capability only. At an appropriate time in the future, dashboards may act as a safe space for supporting and safeguarding financial transactions. That will be fully considered and informed by user testing and safeguards, and protections would continue to apply.
However, I resist the amendments in respect of transactions. We have discussed at great length the likelihood of the need for individuals to have a greater say on their pensions. Why would we seek to exclude consolidation going forward? Transactions are not clearly defined in the amendments; they could prevent dashboards from providing useful modelling tools that could inform people of the potential benefits of increasing their contributions. As I made clear to colleagues making the case for the amendments, the consumer association Which? has come out comprehensively against them. It states in its submission on Second Reading:
“we do not agree that the introduction of commercial dashboards should be delayed, or that the transactions should be banned.”
It then goes into more detail:
“there is a need to protect consumers from the risk of commercial dashboards…However, this must be done via the introduction of consumer protections and regulatory oversight rather than a blanket ban.”
The point is also made strongly that the Opposition amendments risk us being left with a dashboard that does not do as much as initially anticipated, resulting in consumers not being as engaged. That could represent a huge missed opportunity. It is crucial that dashboards are both safe and fully functioning to give consumers the most choice and the most exposure to innovation. Therefore, with respect, I will resist the dashboard amendments.
Clause 118 of the Bill, and the FCA regulated activity, will enable the creation of both regulations and FCA rules, which could include signposting to MaPS guidance. The pensions dashboards programme usability working group will explore how best to help users understand the information presented to them and where they can get more help.
In respect of costs and charges, I raised that in great detail in Committee, but colleagues will be aware that the Government intend, and have legislated, that costs and charges should be part of dashboards in the future, just like they will be in the simpler statement. That is legislated for in clause 119(2), and it is appropriate that we proceed with that only once the dashboard delivery group has consulted in a proper way.
As to the restrictions on multiple dashboards for one year, I made the point in Committee that in creating dashboards we need to go where the consumer is rather than forcing the consumer to come to us. That surely is the essence of this issue: it will increase engagement with pensions, and we should reach people where they are. We should not seek to constrain options available but ensure that all opportunities are properly regulated, safe to use and secure.
I turn to the amendments to clause 124—the climate change clause—tabled by the Labour Front Benchers. I am afraid the reality is that Labour’s proposals would direct investment, breach fiduciary duties and lead to divestment and negative outcomes. We want the transformation of the United Kingdom economy and the retrofitting of the country to happen in a partnership with business, legislators, pension schemes and citizens, but I am afraid the amendment would negatively affect that. It would be entirely the wrong way forward.
Labour’s proposal is roundly criticised by the PLSA in a letter in which it strongly endorsed and advocated the Government’s proposals to ensure that the appropriate governance frameworks are in place to support schemes investing in a climate-aware way. It expressed deep concern about the Opposition amendment. With the PLSA’s permission, I will put its letter of 12 November in the House of Commons Library. Likewise, I will put in the Library a letter dated 13 November 2020 from the independent Association of Pension Lawyers, which also massively opposes that proposal. The reality is, the Government are already taking powers to require trustees to set targets in relation to their management of climate risk. We consulted on the use of those powers in August. Our consultation, “Taking action on climate risk”—I note, interestingly, that Labour Front Benchers did not respond to the consultation; I question whether they have even read it—sets them out in great detail.
This is the factual reality: we are already doing what is in the key parts of the amendment in clause 124 as introduced in the House of Lords. In the space of two years, the DWP has made regulations on environmental, social and governance criteria, on stewardship investment and now, in clause 124, on mandatory climate change governance and reporting. We need to allow our proposed policy measures to take effect before reviewing their impact and contemplating further measures. Of the 50 large pension schemes I wrote to last year, 70% are going well beyond the minimum legal requirements. Many have gone considerably further in the past 12 months, as nudged and persuaded by the Government. Fiduciaries do not need such a blunt measure in order to act, so we strongly reject the amendment.
I will turn now to the new clauses, and I will address them in some detail to the best of my ability. I will, if I may, deal with the relatively easy ones. I entirely endorse the view that this Government must bring forward legislation in respect of superfunds in the fullness of time. The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) will understand that that would be a substantial piece of legislation—certainly a 50-clause Bill and possibly more. I entirely accept that further work must be done in this Parliament on automatic enrolment, but I cannot accept new clause 3 or new clause 6.
Neil Gray
Like others, I wish to put on record my thanks to the Clerks, Huw Yardley and Kenneth Fox, and to Djuna Thurley in the Library, for their support. I also thank our SNP researchers Zoe Carre and Linda Nagy for their fantastic assistance, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) for his considerable and informed support in Committee.
This Bill takes matters forward in the pensions world. It could have gone further, and I regret that it does not, but we thank the Minister and the other parties for working together constructively on such an important piece of legislation. We look with interest to its further stages in the other place.
Supporting Disadvantaged Families
Neil Gray Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I thank my hon. Friend. We wanted to ensure that this was a comprehensive package, and we said in the debate a couple of weeks ago that we wanted to ensure there was targeted intervention. He is right that, as a Government, we want to make sure that every child can fulfil their potential. I hope he will recognise that the schemes we are announcing today, with the extended funding and extended coverage, are among the most important things we can do to make a difference to a young child’s future life.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. I am just sorry to say that as welcome as some of these measures are, they are just not enough. They will serve only to partially catch up with where Scotland has been for some time. When the Scottish Government introduced their Best Start Foods payment last year—the equivalent of the Healthy Start payment—they had already increased it to £4.25. The Scottish Government have also gone beyond their £70 million food fund commitment and made over £130 million available to tackle food insecurity caused by the pandemic.
On free school meals, I am delighted that the UK Government appear finally to be relenting to the incredible campaign run by Marcus Rashford. The decision today will no doubt be welcomed by the same Scottish Tories who failed to support it only two weeks ago. The UK Government are only starting to give free school meals in the holidays from next year, whereas the Scottish Government committed last month to making £10 million available to extend free school meals into the Christmas holidays and Easter. The need is now. That is why it is so welcome that the new Scottish child payment, described as game-changing by anti-poverty campaigners, opens for applications today, with payments starting early in the new year.
There has been nothing on the two-child cap, nothing on the five-week wait—those advances should be made into grants—and nothing on the temporary uplift to universal credit. In response to the significant campaign led by the Scottish National party, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, Save the Children and others, which is now supported by the Secretary of State’s predecessors at the DWP and the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, the Treasury has been flirting with extending the much-needed increase to universal credit—and no wonder. Even with the temporary £20 a week extra, the Secretary of State knows that those who are out of work are £1,000 worse off today compared with 2011.
Will the Secretary of State put it on the record today that she expects the temporary uplift to universal credit to be made permanent and, so that there is no longer the unfairness of sick and disabled people on legacy benefits not getting the same, will she finally commit to extending the uplift to legacy benefits?
Dr Coffey
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman welcomed these measures or not. He will see that the Barnett consequentials will feed through to the Scottish Government. I do not think the Scottish Government provided support over half-term, but I am conscious that future support is part of their legacy already.
In terms of moving forward, I remind the hon. Gentleman of aspects such as the fact that advances are actual grants to people—they are just the phasing of universal credit payments over the year, and soon to be over two years if that is what claimants want. As a consequence, we need to make sure that we continue to manage, with our customers, to make sure that they are financially resilient. We will continue to try to support them in that endeavour.
In terms of recognition, as I say, I am sure that the Scottish Government will take full advantage of the money they receive as part of that £16 billion between the three devolved Administrations and make sure that they use it best and ensure that no child in Scotland goes without warmth and food this winter.
Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Neil Gray ExcerptsThursday 5th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 November 2020 - (5 Nov 2020)
Guy Opperman
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank colleagues for their attendance and all the parliamentary staff as we try to progress parliamentary business in difficult times.
Clause 123 introduces schedule 10, which amends part 3 of the Pensions Act 2004. The clause is necessary, because it introduces amendments that improve the existing statutory framework for defined-benefit pension scheme funding and strengthen the enforcement powers of the Pensions Regulator to protect members’ pensions better. It follows from the DB White Paper and various consultations that have taken place for a considerable time.
The Government are seeking to overturn the amendment made in the House of Lords. This is with no disrespect to the other place. I respectfully suggest that no Government can commit to ensuring that contributions remain affordable or that scheme closures are not accelerated. We cannot be bound to ensuring that all schemes that are expected to remain open are treated differently from other schemes, as open schemes in this category do not all share the same characteristics. Some will be maturing, just like closed schemes, and it opens up the potential for abuse. A closed scheme could reopen to very small numbers of new members, circumvent safeguards and pursue a riskier investment strategy that would otherwise be inappropriate.
We do not want good schemes to close unnecessarily, or to introduce a one-size-fits-all regime that forces immature schemes with strong sponsors into an inappropriate de-risking journey. What we do want is to build on a well established scheme-specific funding regime that takes account of the key metrics of individual schemes in enabling trustees to assess what can reasonably be supported in terms of investment risk. To ensure that members’ benefits are protected and schemes do not take inappropriate risk, it is vital that trustees look at the characteristics of each scheme and balance scheme liquidity and investment risk with maturity. Open schemes with a strong sponsoring employer that are immature and have managed their risk appropriately should not be forced into an inappropriate de-risking journey.
I make it clear that the Government can commit to using the regulation-making powers available to ensure that the secondary legislation works in a way that does not prevent appropriate open schemes from investing in riskier investments where there are potentially higher returns as long as the risks being taken can be supported and members’ benefits and the Pension Protection Fund are effectively protected.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
There is a problem with encouraging good open schemes to de-risk. We know where the bond market and gilts market is right now; we know that that puts them at risk. Baroness Altmann has intervened this week to say:
“If you decide to ‘de-risk’, then you are also deciding to ‘de-return’, taking away the upside potential that is so vital for making DB affordable. Deficit schemes just keep getting worse and contributions keep on rising. QE”—
quantitative easing—
“has undermined funding of all DB schemes”.
Is it not crucial, then, that amendment 18, which is the compromise, be allowed to go through, to ensure that good DB schemes are allowed to stay open and continue? Otherwise, as is the position at the moment, the Government are putting those at risk.
Guy Opperman
With no disrespect to the hon. Gentleman, I disagree with the premise of what he said, and I disagree with Baroness Altmann, whom I spoke to only two days ago as part of ongoing consultation with their lordships and other peers as to the nature of this type of scheme. I can only reiterate—
Guy Opperman
The context is that the regulator has a consultation on this issue. The schemes wish to have a different situation to what is proposed by the regulator. It is worth making clear what the consolation is saying because it supports the argument that the Government are making, and not that of the schemes. Does the regulator’s consultation make it clear that all open schemes will not be treated like closed schemes and forced into an inappropriate and expensive de-risking? To answer the question, I refer to paragraph 475 of the consultation, on page 109:
“We acknowledge that if such schemes do continue to admit new entrants and do not mature then the scheme will not actually reach significant maturity. We are content that such a scheme retains the same flexibility in its funding and investment strategies that all immature schemes have.”
The regulator adds later in paragraph 481, on page 111:
“This is on the basis that open schemes have a longer time until they become significantly mature than closed schemes (some are not expected to mature at all) and longer investment horizons. Because of this extra flexibility, they can expect higher investment returns over the long-term which can be reflected in their discount rate assumptions.”
I want to make it clear again—I have said it once, but I will say it again—that the Government are not proposing to introduce a one-size-fits-all funding standard and neither is the regulator. Its proposals seek to secure a reasonable balance between the protection of member benefits, fairness between schemes, and the ability of schemes to take more investment risk, especially where an immature scheme has a strong employer and expects to remain open and in a steady status for a long time. There is an ongoing consultation. On 2 October, I met with individual schemes making this case and discussed it for over an hour. I have also engaged with the peers who are the proponents of this amendment.
I regret to say that the Government do not agree that amendment 18 is an appropriate compromise. The amendment is unnecessary and unhelpful. We state that trustees are required to act and exercise their powers, including their investment decisions, in the best interests of their members and we are not seeking to change that. Trustees must first and foremost carry out the terms of the trust in accordance with the trustee, the rules of the scheme and the applicable law. Legislation must set the boundaries within which the trustees can exercise their discretions and ensure that their legislative duties operate in such a way as to protect all members by also protecting the PPF and its levy payers.
There is no mention in amendment 18 of the ability of the sponsor to pay more in the future if investments do not perform as expected, and that must be part of a scheme-specific regime that assesses whether risk is supportable in a transparent and rational way. It is reasonable for schemes to invest in return-seeking assets to try to keep costs down, if that risk is supportable. Indeed, the Government have made that clear—I am the Minister who brought forward the illiquid proposals, which permit investment in venture capital, renewables, social housing and the like. The Government are not against such investment as part of a balanced portfolio. We are not in support of amendment 18.
Neil Gray
The Minister protests strongly the Government and TPR’s intentions. Why then not allow those protections and the intentions of the Government to be on the face of the Bill? The Opposition’s amendment 18 would satisfy those concerns and ensure those protections and also what those open schemes are calling for.
Neil Gray
I do not have too much to add to the fantastic speech that has just been made by the right hon. Member for East Ham, the Chair of the Select Committee. I have to say that my heart breaks—I am sure others feel the same—for his constituent and the way that family has been treated and the situation they are now in. That case reinforces the need—if there ever was one—for stronger and more robust action, and that is why we support the amendments and new clause.
I especially concur with the right hon. Gentleman’s points about the actions of trustees where there are red flags and hope that the amendments or the Ministers response will satisfy our concerns that that will be addressed. We support these amendments on pension guidance and protecting against scams. We have been contacted by a number of organisations in this area, not least Just Group plc, who I am very grateful to for its briefing.
The Department appeared to pre-empt some of these discussions with its most recent statement of policy intent, which suggested a stronger nudge towards using Pension Wise. It is worth repeating the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham that the cited MaPS stronger nudge trials showed only a very small increase in the number of people who actually went on to have a Pension Wise appointment. The DWP claimed that it
“significantly increased the take-up of Pension Wise guidance.”
But, again, this is pure spin.
The hon. Member for Delyn earlier in the Committee stage said that we should look at outcomes. We agree. The outcome of the stronger nudge trials was to get people to Pension Wise appointments in less than one in ten cases. It moved them from 3% to 11%. Eleven per cent. A stronger nudge is just not going to be enough, not by a long chalk. On that trajectory, the most the DWP could hope for, according to Just Group plc, is that between 20% to 25% at the upper end of the range of eligible pension savers would receive their Pension Wise session.
That was a huge concern of ours during the passage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018. We argued then for an opt-out guidance system, and now we are back to looking at this again. We still support this approach. The Government appear not to be willing to accept what colleagues across the House from all parties, Select Committees, and consumer groups and industry experts say is the best way forward. Instead, they are pushing stronger nudge.
The Government have not provided a timeframe for the DWP’s planned consultation on the new guidance rules for occupational defined-contribution schemes, nor the FCA’s rules for contract-based providers. In previous aspects of the Bill we have been asked to trust the Government to draft the necessary regulations. The same was said in consideration of the 2018 Act in this area, but we are still waiting. While I accept that the Chair of the Select Committee, has been having more intense discussions, I am sceptical. For those reasons and others outlined, we support the amendments and new clause.
Guy Opperman
I thank the right hon. Member for East Ham who leads the Select Committee for his kind words and heartfelt speech. I echo the comments in terms of his constituents, who clearly have had a terrible time. My thoughts are with them.
I will try to address the points raised. In respect of clause 125, the objective of the Government is quite clear. We wish to bring forward measures that will significantly and realistically prevent future scams. We believe that transfers will not go ahead if the conditions set out in the regulations are not met. These conditions can relate to both the destination of the transfers, meaning transfers can be prevented to schemes that do not have the right authorisation, and cases where the member has not supplied the evidence of, say, employment or residency. Importantly, those conditions can also include other red flags, such as who else is involved in a transfer. If those red flags are apparent, the regulations will enable the trustees to refuse to transfer. If the red flag is significant, it will direct the member to guidance or information that they must take prior to being allowed to transfer. Trustees will need to undertake due diligence to establish whether those conditions are met or not. Clause 125 puts trustees in the driving seat in relation to permitting transfers to proceed.
The right hon. Gentleman raised a number of specific issues, which I will try to address. The first relates to the scope of clause 125 in respect of DB and DC pension schemes. I take his point on master trusts, but I assure the Committee that the conditions to be met in relation to safe destinations, red flags and guidance before a transfer can proceed will be applicable to members of DB and DC schemes. Those conditions will be in addition to the current advice requirements for DB members seeking to transfer over £30,000 cash-equivalent value.
I have had discussions with the right hon. Gentleman, both in writing and in person, and with other colleagues on the Work and Pensions Committee, stakeholders, interested parties and other parliamentary colleagues. I have also engaged at great length, sadly by Zoom, with the all-party parliamentary group on pension scams, and then followed that up individually.
Colleagues who are concerned about the extent to which the PSIG requirements of red flags are being met should read the exchange of correspondence in the Library, following the right hon. Gentleman’s agreement that I could disclose it, in respect of the background of our meetings in September on two occasions, the letter that I wrote on 6 October, which included the Financial Conduct Authority’s approach of 5 October, and the follow-up letter of 22 October. If that second letter is not in the Library, which I am not totally sure it is, I will ensure that it is by close of business today. I wish also to put on record my thanks for the efforts of the PSIG, Margaret Snowdon and the various other parties who are all working for the common good to ensure that scams are prevented.
I will speak about guidance in a second, but first I will make two points. Clearly we wish to prevent, as far as possible, any scams or misdemeanours taking place, but that will have to be done through primary legislation and secondary regulations. It seems to me, as this process has been developing, that there is a degree of symmetry between the work that stakeholders—the PSIG and others—are doing, the work that this House is doing by passing primary legislation, and the specific drafting and codification of the regulations, which will be the nuts and bolts that will take this forward.
My objective is that we pass clause 125, which provides the statutory framework. My hope is that Royal Assent is received speedily and I suspect that my civil servants, who obviously have nothing else to do in these difficult times, will be able to progress the regulations very soon. I am hopeful that the Work and Pensions Committee report will have been published by then, and the ongoing dialogue that we have had with the Select Committee, cross-party, will continue, so that we frame the regulations that flow from clause 125 to accord with all our stated objectives.
I accept that the devil is always in the detail. We are all trying our hardest to be as precise as possible, without the regulations having been drafted already, but with regard to the four red flag objectives that are set out and that the right hon. Gentleman has rightly brought to my attention on Second Reading and in correspondence, I am confident that the answers that I have given to him in writing, and that the FCA has given, constitute a basis upon which we can regulate to prevent those matters.
The right hon. Gentleman is trying to tease out the extent of the amendments that he has tabled and the extent to which the Government can address them. We are able to address those matters within the confines of clause 125. I stress that we want to ensure that the powers can be applied quickly. I accept that time is of the essence in ensuring that the regulatory powers come forward as a matter of urgency.
Guy Opperman
The right hon. Gentleman flagged that to me. I will attempt to give an answer—he only flagged it to me this morning, but I have tried to devise a precise answer. We are considering how we can use the powers in the Bill to address those specific concerns about self-invested personal pensions. They are clearly an FCA-regulated personal pension scheme that permit investment in a broader range of investments than conventional personal pensions do.
I am asked to point that in 2018 the FCA wrote to SIPP operators to remind of the due diligence requirements to follow when accepting customers’ investments. The FCA considers—this is the instruction I have been given, but I will follow it up in more detail—that most SIPP operators adapted their due diligence procedure in line with the FCA’s expectations, or have voluntarily left the market as a result of the FCA’s scrutiny. I assure the right hon. Member for East Ham and the Committee that that is the extent to which I can give him an answer today.
I will go away and drill down in more detail before Report and Third Reading, because the right hon. Gentleman makes a legitimate point. Clearly, the regulator is a separate one that I do not control, but in the time I have I will come on to how it is that we are trying to get the regulators to work together—how Project Bloom is something that we are addressing on an ongoing basis. We will get back to him before Report. However, my understanding is that we are considering how to address that issue within the confines we have. The point is legitimately made.
Neil Gray
Forgive me, for I have not been privy to all the discussions that have been going on. I take Members at their word that the exchanges that have been going on have been constructive. I therefore do not want to break that consensus in any way, but I am looking for some guidance from the Minister, in particular on the red flag amendments. Given that he has accepted that time is of the essence, and accepts the premise and principle of the amendments that we support, why is he unwilling to see them in the Bill? Is there a particular reason? What is his reasoning why those amendments cannot be accepted to ensure that they are in primary legislation as an added protection?
Guy Opperman
The simple answer is that this is not something that could be in primary legislation and then enforced; primary legislation is the framework, and it is has to be in the subsequent specific regulations that follow. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance on that point, as I have given it to the Chair of the Select Committee.
We accept these matters and believe that clause 125 already addresses the points made by the amendments, but we still have to draft specific regulations to deal with the specific problems, and those will be much larger than clause 125 and way more comprehensive. The process of dealing with a transfer, what particular points apply, how it is a trustee operates due diligence and how it is that that process works, is genuinely a complex process. Detailed provisions have to be gone through, working with the various parties going forward. The point I am trying to make is that we agree with the principle of the amendment, but it should not be on the face of the Bill; we should accept that clause 125 provides the framework, and we then need to deal with the regulations going forward.
In the time remaining, I will try to address the points about guidance and see if I can assess that in a particular way. Briefly, it is entirely right that people should be supportive of the good work that Pension Wise has done. Demand for the service has grown year on year since we launched it in 2015. The service delivered 205,642 transactions in 2019-20, which was a combination of face to face, telephone and online—more than triple the sessions in the first year of operation—and has had 10 million visits to the website since 2015.
I would push back on the argument for new clause 10, which is that there is no previous engagement. The DWP’s work should also be seen in the context of the work that the FCA does. There is already a multitude of interventions at an earlier stage. Within two months of their 50th birthdays, members receive a single-page summary document that points to the pensions guidance, as required under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Wake-up packs, which were developed in association with all of industry and the interested bodies and are a requirement of the 2000 Act, are received at the age of 55. They include the single page summary document and they point specifically to pensions guidance.
At a later stage, as the individual gets closer to accessing their pension savings and enters the drawdown phase in contract-based pensions, the FCA investment pathway requires that they be presented with four options as to how they want to use their drawdown pot, so it is not the case that there is no engagement prior to the drawdown. That is proposed by the FCA policy statement, which will come into force in 2021.
Although I fully accept that I should be pressed on DWP guidance, the FCA policy statement will come into force in 2021, and, between now and Report, detailed explanation of what that statement entails should be provided to the right hon. Member for East Ham. If it has not been provided to the Select Committee as part of its inquiries on scams, that is a lacunae that needs to be addressed, because it seeks to ensure that all arms of government are working together. The FCA policy statement, and the incoming changes, will definitely make a difference.
Briefly, on the stronger nudge towards guidance, which arose from the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018, it is fair to say that where there is transfer from one scheme to another to continue to accumulate and no risk is identified, the transfer can be acted on in accordance with the current requirements. Where a risk is identified, the member must be notified that they will be required to prove that they have taken information or guidance before the transfer can proceed. That is the appropriate effect of what we are legislating for in clause 125 and in the Bill.
Where there is transfer from one scheme to another to access pension freedom with no risk identified, there is the nudge towards guidance and the member is notified that they will need to prove that they have taken guidance or opted out. Where a risk is identified, the points that we have gone through on clause 125 and the prevention of scams come into play. The member must be notified that they are required to prove that they have taken information or guidance, and the amended requirements under clause 125 continue to apply.
There is a graded system depending on the identification of risk to the individual trustees as they proceed. In addition, work has been done to prevent pensions cold calling, and there has been a tightening of the rules to prevent fraud of registered pension schemes. I accept that more needs to be done to bring various departments together. I know that the Select Committee has looked at this area, assessing whether Project Bloom, the multi-agency partnership, and the ScamSmart campaign, are working sufficiently well, and that is something that I have undertaken to improve. The regulator’s evidence to the Select Committee on that exact point argued that a much more beefed-up effort was needed to bring all those particular parties together. Yes, the two arms of government need to work better together, and I hope I have explained how we are doing, but we also need much greater interdepartmental and interorganisational co-operation.
Finally, there has been criticism. I will not go into detail about whether the stronger nudge is a good behavioural insight trial. I support what has been done, but that is a matter of ongoing regulation as well. The appropriate approach would be that we work with the Select Committee on making that as effective as possible on an ongoing basis. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment.
Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Neil Gray ExcerptsThursday 5th November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 5 November 2020 - (5 Nov 2020)
The Chair
I understand that there is an agreement that all the remaining new clauses should be debated together. Is that correct? [Hon. Members: “Yes.”]
New Clause 1
Auto-enrolment
“(1) The Pensions Act 2008 is amended as follows—
(a) in section 3, in subsection (1)(a) leave out ‘22’ and insert ‘18’;
(b) in section 13, leave out subsection (1)(a).
(2) The Secretary of State shall, not later than two months after the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a statement containing a timetable for the implementation of these changes.”—(Neil Gray.)
This new clause would lower the age threshold for auto-enrolment from 22 to 18, and remove the lower limit of the “qualifying earnings” band, so that contributions are payable from the first pound earned. It would also require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a timetable for implementing these changes.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Pensions Advisory Commission—
“(1) The Pensions Regulator shall establish a committee to be known as the Pensions Advisory Commission.
(2) The Commission shall consist of—
(a) members of the Regulator as provided under section 2(1) of the Pensions Act 2004, and
(b) five other persons appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Secretary of State.
(3) A person appointed under subsection (2)(b) shall exercise only functions in pursuance of the duties in subsections (5) and (6).
(4) The Commission shall be chaired by a person appointed under subsection (2)(b).
(5) It shall be the duty of the Pensions Advisory Commission to submit to the Secretary of State each calendar year, beginning with the year 2022, a report setting out the Commission‘s views on—
(a) the impact of provisions in Parts 1, 2 and 4 of this Act on—
(i) persons in different parts and regions of the United Kingdom,
(ii) equal treatment of men and women in access to pension provision, and
(iii) persons with a protected characteristic under section 4 of the Equality Act 2010; and
(b) the effectiveness of the powers in Parts 1 to 3 of this Act in enabling the Pensions Regulator to achieve its objectives under section 5 of the Pensions Act 2004.
(6) It shall also be the duty of the Commission to report to the Secretary of State by 31 October 2021 its views on when commercial operators should be able to enter the market for provision of a pensions dashboard service.
(7) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a copy of every report received from the Commission under this section.”
New clause 3—Employer debt: trustees’ discretion—
“The following changes are made to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678)—
‘(1) In regulation 2, in the definition of ‘scheme apportionment arrangement’—
(a) in sub-paragraph (f)(ii), after ‘apply’, insert ‘but not if the circumstances in paragraph (h) apply’;
(b) at end, insert—
‘(h) the consent of the remaining employer or employers shall not be required under (f)(ii) above where all of the following conditions apply—
(i) the departing employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to the coming into force of this provision; and
(ii) the departing employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due, and
(iii) the employer in question was operating as an unincorporated business during his participation in the scheme, and
(iv) the trustees or managers consider that, in the context of the scheme overall, it would not be in the scheme’s interests to seek recovery of the employer’s liability share from the departing employer.’
(2) In regulation 9, after paragraph (14B), insert the following new paragraph—
‘(14C) Condition L is that a debt was treated as becoming due from him under section 75 of the 1995 Act but is excluded under this Condition because—
(a) the employer’s debt was treated as becoming due prior to this Condition coming into force; and
(b) the employer’s debt was less than 0.5% of the scheme’s overall liabilities, as estimated by the trustees or managers on advice of the scheme actuary, as if the whole scheme had been winding-up at the time the debt was treated as becoming due, and
(c) the employer in question was operating as an unincorporated business during his participation in the scheme, and
(d) at or before the applicable time, the trustees or managers have made a determination not to pursue the debt on the grounds that, in the context of the scheme overall, seeking recovery represented a disproportionate cost to the scheme.’”
This new clause is intended to enable pension scheme trustees to exercise discretion not to pursue employer debt (“section 75 debt”) following an employer’s exit from a pension scheme where such debt is below a de minimis threshold. This aims to support unincorporated employers who are now retired for business and for whom there are no easements within the current regulation.
New clause 4—Employer debt: deferred debt arrangement—
“The following changes are made to the Occupational Pension Schemes (Employer Debt) Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/678)—
(1) In regulation 6F—
(a) in paragraph (1), leave out ‘A’ and insert ‘Subject to the provisions of paragraph (8) below, a’;
(b) at end, insert—
‘(8) In relation to a frozen scheme, the trustees or managers of the scheme may agree to a deferred debt arrangement where the employment-cessation event occurred at a time prior to the scheme becoming a frozen scheme, providing the conditions of paragraph (3) are met at the time the deferred debt arrangement is entered into.’”
This new clause would permit employers in a pension scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt arrangement, providing they meet the other statutory tests. This aims to support employers who are still trading but were not able to use the existing deferred debt easement.
New clause 5—Review of automatic enrolment—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make any amendment to, or repeal or revoke any provision of, this Act, the Pensions Act 2008 or any other primary or secondary legislation in order to implement the recommendations of the Automatic Enrolment Review 2017.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on Royal Assent is given to this Act.
(3) No regulations shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(4) Before the end of a period of two years from the day on which Royal Assent is given to this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of a further review of the operation of automatic enrolment.
(5) The report under subsection (4) must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation to implement the findings of the review.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to implement the recommendations of the Automatic Enrolment Review 2017 and require a further review of automatic enrolment within two years.
New clause 6—Occupational pension schemes: review of support—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall undertake a review of the level of support available under the Financial Assistance Scheme to any member of an occupational pension scheme which is a qualifying pension scheme under Regulation 9 of the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (S.I., 2005, No 1986), regardless of whether the employer in relation to that scheme was solvent or insolvent.
(2) The Secretary of State shall lay the review before Parliament no later than—
(a) the day which is six months from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent, or
(b) if neither House of Parliament sits on the day specified in (a), the first day on which either House sits after that day.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review of the support available to Financial Assistance Scheme qualifying members, including the former ASW steelworkers.
New clause 7—Regulation of pension superfunds—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall publish a statement on proposals for primary legislation in relation to a duty on the Pensions Regulator to regulate pension superfunds.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a pension superfund is a defined benefit pension scheme that allows for the severance of an employer’s liability towards a defined benefit scheme and one of the following conditions applies—
(a) the scheme employer is replaced by a special purpose vehicle (SPV) employer, or
(b) the liability of the employer to fund the scheme’s liabilities is replaced by an employer backed with a capital injection to a capital buffer.
(3) The statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament before the end of a period of six months from the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish within six months of Royal Assent proposals for primary legislation to place a duty on the Pensions Regulator to regulate pension superfunds.
New clause 8—Trustees’ voting rights and engagement activities: publication of information—
“(1) Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 2, insert—
‘2A The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring the publication of information about—
(a) the exercise of the rights (including voting rights) attaching to the investments of the scheme, by or on behalf of, the trustees of the scheme; and
(b) engagement activities undertaken by or in respect of the investments, by or on behalf of, the trustees of the scheme’”
(3) In paragraph 3, omit “1 or 2” wherever it appears and insert in its place ‘1, 2 or 2A’.”
This new clause would give the Secretary of State the power to create regulations requiring pension schemes to publish information about how voting and other engagement activities have been carried out.
New clause 9—Duty to publish information on the statement of investment principles—
“(1) The Pensions Act 2004 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 244, at end insert—
‘(8) The most recent version of the scheme statement of investment principles must be made available to the Pensions Regulator for publication every three years.’”
This new clause is to ensure all scheme SIPs are made available to TPR.
New clause 11—Pension accounts—
“(1) A jobholder to whom section 3 of the Pensions Act 2008 applies may by notice require an employer to arrange for the jobholder to receive into a pension account any contribution which would otherwise be made by the employer into an automatic enrolment scheme.
(2) A contribution by a jobholder or by their employer into the jobholder’s pension account shall be invested in a pension scheme offered by an approved pension provider.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision—
(a) about the form and content of a notice given under subsection (1), or
(b) about the arrangements that the employer is required to make.
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations to set criteria by which a pension provider may be approved for the purposes of subsection (2).
(5) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
New clause 12—Duty to state how non-financial factors are taken into account—
“(1) The Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005 are amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (3)(b) of regulation 2 (statement of investment principles), leave out sub-sub-paragraph (vii) and insert—
‘(vii) how non-financial factors are taken into account in the selection, retention and realisation of investments’.”
This new clause would create a duty in the OPSR 2005 for schemes to state how non-financial factors such as beneficiaries’ views are considered in the development of investment policies, replacing the existing duty to state “the extent (if at all) to which” such factors are taken into account.
Neil Gray
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Robertson. I wish to speak to the remaining clauses that stand in the name of the Scottish National party, and to support those tabled by other Members as part of this group. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon will speak to proposed new clauses 3 and 4.
As we have repeatedly said, we are fully supportive of automatic enrolment. We think it has been a big success in getting people saving for their retirement who otherwise would not have, and it does so earlier, which has a compound impact on those people’s ability to save for a dignified retirement. That said, there are issues, some unintended and others relating to the speed of roll-out, that we wish to see addressed. Our new clauses in this group build on the success of automatic enrolment by seeking to expand eligibility to those who were left out earlier and to address issues related to small or micro-sized pension pots.
This Bill is a clear opportunity to address inadequate lifetime savings and inequalities such as the gender pension gap by building on the successes of automatic enrolment. While we wholeheartedly support the premise, far too many have been left behind and still cannot benefit from this important measure, so we want to see the UK Government remove the lower earnings limit and the lower age limit well before the mid-2020s, so that contributions are payable from the first pound earned at the earliest opportunity for savers. We also want to see the Government have much greater ambition in raising contributions beyond 8%, but we understand, in deliberations with the excellent Clerks to the Committee, that that is not within the scope of this particular Bill.
Our amendment would lower the age threshold for auto-enrolment from 22 to 18 and remove the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band so that contributions are payable from the first pound earned. While we welcome the Pensions Minister’s commitment on Second Reading that the UK Government have set a mid-2020s timetable to implement these changes, our new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay this timetable before Parliament. Automatic enrolment should be available to those currently left out at the earliest opportunity. The UK Government need to be accountable to Parliament in implementing these changes to prevent further delays.
As women disproportionately populate low-income and part-time jobs, they would disproportionately benefit from the Government’s getting on with reaching more people with auto-enrolment. Similarly, by removing the qualifying earnings band, low-income workers, who otherwise have little prospect of having a decent private pension, will also benefit. We additionally support Labour’s new clause, which would require the Secretary of State to implement the recommendations of the automatic enrolment review and require a further review of automatic enrolment within two years. That would do a similar job to our new clause 1 and would keep the pressure on Ministers to be far more ambitious. Why wait? We know and have trumpeted the benefits of auto-enrolment as enthusiastically as the Minister himself. Why wait for women and low-income workers to benefit?
As I alluded to earlier in the Committee’s deliberations, we also recognise that an unintended consequence of auto-enrolment is the increasing number of people who move jobs frequently, such as agency workers, and therefore build up a number of small or micro-sized pension pots. Some of those pots might be small as £50 or £100, in which case hard-earned savings could be quickly wiped away by charges, fees and levies.
The Pensions Policy Institute reports that the number of deferred pension pots in the UK defined-contribution master trust market is likely to rise from 8 million in 2020 to around 27 million in 2035, but member charges often erode small deferred member pots over time and small pots can be uneconomic for providers to manage. Extra management charges and costs may eventually be passed on to members through increased charges, and financial instability in master trust schemes arising from too many small ports could, in extreme circumstances, result in trustees’ triggering an event to wind up the scheme.
Our new clause 11 proposes a solution to that by providing for individual pension accounts for people to invest in their own schemes with DC providers. Where someone has earned from more than one employer, rather than having multiple employers make contributions to different schemes on behalf of the worker, the worker could set up an account with a provider and request that their employer allocate their auto-enrolment contributions to that account. That would stop their multiple plots being eaten into by charges and give greater control to the person in whose name the investments are actually being made.
We hope that the Government review pushed for by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions will come up with an answer, not just to the problem of charges that we had an opportunity to address earlier in this Committee, but also with regard to micro-sized pots. This could be an answer, and we look forward to hearing the Minister’s considered perspective.
I briefly referred earlier to our new clause 2, which would see a commission established to cover the terms of this Bill. Hon. Members will know, as they have heard it long enough from SNP parliamentarians, that we support the establishment of an independent standing pensions and savings commission. At another time, when the Minister did not have a majority behind him, he may have looked at versions of some of our suggestions throughout the Bill. We are in a different place, and reasonable cross-party amendments put forward to support stakeholders across the market are being voted down. We reiterate our call for the establishment of an independent pensions and savings commission to look holistically at pension reform, focus on existing inequalities and pave the way for a fair universal pension system.
The entire pension landscape is in need of fundamental reform, particularly given the pressing need to review and enhance automatic enrolment. We ask that the commission start its work by reviewing parts 1, 2 and 4 of the Bill and their impact on different parts of the UK, equal treatment of men and women, and persons with protected characteristics—that is where our attention is focused in new clause 2—and when commercial dashboards should enter the market. That would be the responsible way to take these issues forward.
As I said earlier, time is the wisest counsellor of all, and by taking the time on commercial dashboards, the Minister could consult and take stock with independent experts to ensure that they work for all. We want to see the Money and Pensions Service dashboard as quickly as possible. The Minister seemed to suggest the other day, when we said he needed to take time, that we wanted him to slow down the MaPS dashboard, but that is just not true. The success of the MaPS dashboard is not dependent on commercial dashboards entering the market or arriving at the same time—quite the contrary, unless there has been a deal done or a quid pro quo whereby commercial providers are incentivised to provide their data for the MaPS dashboard in return for them being allowed to develop their own commercial dashboards independently and immediately.
New clause 2 would allow us to take the time to ensure that people are protected. That would ensure that we get it right, and would bring people in on a cross-party basis. That is how the best policy is developed.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to conclude our consideration of the Bill under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. As the Committee has agreed, I will make a short contribution on new clauses 5, 6, 7 and 8. New clause 5 is on the theme of auto-enrolment, and I will echo a number of the comments of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to implement the recommendation of the 2017 auto-enrolment review and conduct a further review three years on.
It is a source of great pride that the previous Labour Government introduced auto-enrolment, which transformed the pensions landscape and reversed a long-term decline in pension savings. We now have 10 million more people saving into a pension at work. The policy is widely agreed to have been a success and is praised on both sides of the House. It is a model of good policy making, rooted in consensus.
However, it is always essential to keep such schemes under constant review and develop them if they are to keep pace with changing patterns in the workplace. We are therefore concerned that, even after 10 years, there are an estimated 12 million people under-saving for retirement. To look at the reasons for that and potential solutions, it was welcome that the Government commissioned a review of the policy in 2017. The review found that:
“Current saving levels risk a significant proportion of the working-age population not meeting their retirement expectations. In addition the current structure of automatic enrolment means there are gaps in coverage, in particular for those in low paid part-time jobs and younger workers”.
The review made two recommendations: that the age threshold for auto-enrolment be lowered from 22 to 18, and that the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band be removed so that contributions are payable from the first pound earned by an employee. They are yet to be implemented, so I would welcome some indication from the Minister as to whether he has a timetable in mind for these significant changes.
There is also the question of contribution rates and whether it will ultimately be necessary for them to be increased to ensure that individuals have adequate savings for their retirement. The 2017 review noted that the contributions of 8% are unlikely to give individuals the retirement to which they aspire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said,
“8% cannot be the summit of our ambition.”—[Official Report, 4 May 2020; Vol. 675, c. 471.]
I would welcome the Minister’s comments on what further work he hopes to do on contribution rates and when he will bring the matter forward to the House.
Guy Opperman
My note says early next year. I cannot elaborate further than that but I will write to the right hon. Gentleman before Report and set out in more detail the precise position in respect of the timetable and when we are expecting that to go.
Finally, I turn to new clause 12. I was not aware that it had been selected, so my response to it will be relatively limited. I know the organisation that is in favour of the proposal, but the best argument against it is that the Law Commission, which is definitely not Government and is an esteemed body, looked at this particular point on two occasions, and rejected it both times. There are reasons why. It takes the view that while it is entirely right and proper for the likes of ESG to influence investment, the individual decision-making processes of the trustees should not be influenced as is proposed by the proponents of this argument. I bow to the Law Commission on that, and it is certainly not DWP policy to take that way forward.
There is, however, a current requirement on trustees to disclose, via their statement of investment principles, how they take into account members’ views. Giving trustees the option not to follow those views, which may be from a subset of members, is appropriate and flexible. The regulations already allow trustees to consult members, ensuring that investment decisions are taken in the interest of the membership as a whole, and not driven in one direction by a small cohort of highly engaged individuals. I accept that there is a balance—the Law Commission took this view—between members being allowed to have their say and being involved in the process and a small cohort of particularly active members dictating a policy that would apply to the many. With respect, I rely upon the Law Commission in this, and invite colleagues to withdraw the new clause.
I think I have addressed all 11 new clauses and my voice is beginning to go. If I have not done so or have misspoken, because—as the Committee is aware—I am not able to take notes saying, “Minister please correct that for the record”, I will undertake to do that, as I will throughout this process. I therefore invite colleagues to withdraw the new clauses, except for those that they wish to put to a vote.
Neil Gray
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Review of automatic enrolment
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made by statutory instrument, make any amendment to, or repeal or revoke any provision of, this Act, the Pensions Act 2008 or any other primary or secondary legislation in order to implement the recommendations of the Automatic Enrolment Review 2017.
(2) Any regulations made under subsection (1) must be laid before Parliament within six months of the day on Royal Assent is given to this Act.
(3) No regulations shall be made under subsection (1) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(4) Before the end of a period of two years from the day on which Royal Assent is given to this Act, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament the report of a further review of the operation of automatic enrolment.
(5) The report under subsection (4) must make a recommendation as to whether the Government should bring forward further legislation to implement the findings of the review.”—(Seema Malhotra.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to implement the recommendations of the Automatic Enrolment Review 2017 and require a further review of automatic enrolment within two years.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)
Neil Gray ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
The Chair
Before we resume our scrutiny, I remind Members to maintain social distancing. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I understand that there was some uncertainty about the effect of the grouping of amendments with clauses 107 to 117 stand part. I have therefore decided to exercise the Chair’s right to amend groupings, and I am grateful to the Minister for his flexibility. Once we have disposed of amendment 20, I will allow a debate on clause 107 stand part, with which it will be convenient to debate clauses 108 to 116, schedule 7, clause 117 and schedule 8. Mr Gray, do you wish to move amendment 20?
The Chair
The amendment is not moved.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Guy Opperman)
Welcome to the Committee, Mr Robertson. We hope that we will be well behaved under your chairmanship.
I take the hon. Lady’s points on board, and I will repeat, as if I said them all, the comments that I made in respect of amendment 20. I stress that subsection (2)(c) sets out a complete defence to any particular assertion of wrongdoing, namely the
“reasonable excuse for doing the act or engaging in the course of conduct”.
The hon. Lady talks about the future. The regulator, who has rightly been much talked about today, is very mindful of the debates in Parliament and of what is said in this place and the other place. I have discussed the ongoing regulation, and the fact that we are going to have to introduce further regulation on these particular clauses and set out the guidance in more detail. I hope that will reassure her that the comments have been taken onboard and that we are not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
We all accept that there are grave and serious incidents, such as those that happened with BHS, Carillion and others, but we also want to ensure that the pensions system functions in a fair way. The hon. Lady will also be aware that, as always, all powers are kept under review. It is certainly my hope that we will introduce another pensions Bill before too long. As with any matter, were there to be any disagreement about the implementation, we can always revisit that.
Neil Gray
Obviously we have missed out on the amendments tabled alongside the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries. Between now and Report, will the Minister commit to discussing with some of those stakeholders, such as the IFoA, and with us, to lay out how he can allay the fears of stakeholders, if he cannot allay ours?
Guy Opperman
As always, I am delighted to discuss with anybody. There is no doubt that we have done huge amounts of discussion and engagement already. My approach would normally be to set out in writing, as a preliminary, what I feel the position is and how we can provide the assurances, and discuss them off the back of that. At any stage, any parliamentarian is perfectly entitled to engage with the regulator and discuss their concerns, because it will be for the regulator to issue the guidance following Parliament passing the Act. I am sure that we can address the point being made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 107 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 108 to 116 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clause 118
Qualifying pensions dashboard service
Seema Malhotra
Indeed, I acknowledged in my opening remarks the Minister’s commitment to this agenda. He has also acknowledged Labour’s working with the Government on this agenda, but also helping to secure the amendments that have led to the new subsections in the Bill. The amendments require trustees and managers to take into account the Paris agreement and domestic climate targets in the overall governance, and disclosure of climate change risk and opportunities. It is a credit to the way in which we have proceeded on this agenda that for the first time climate change has featured in domestic pensions legislation.
The amendment would build on the commitments by providing information relating to the scheme’s performance against environmental, social, and corporate governance targets, adding to the list of information on the dashboard and empowering individuals to better understand the role their savings play in tackling climate change and achieving other social and environmental goals. We are aware that the Government intend to keep the dashboard simple at first—indeed, the Minister commented on that in his opening remarks—but we note that Baroness Stedman-Scott said in the other place:
“We are very interested in how dashboards can support and increase engagement, including whether information on areas such as ESG, which trustees are required to cover as part of their disclosure obligations, may be incorporated into the dashboards. This is to be informed by user testing and may evolve over time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2020; Vol. 802, c. GC163.]
I know that the Minister has had further conversations on this issue. He also referred to the ongoing consultation about what could be on the dashboard. However, I hope that he will be able to confirm that that is something he hopes to implement as the dashboard is developed further.
Neil Gray
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson, during this important part of the Committee’s deliberations. Like the shadow Minister, Scottish National party Members are concerned about Government amendment 7. We strongly support the premise of a pensions dashboard and hope that allowing people greater access to information about their pensions will encourage informed choices that ensure long-term savings and investments that provide dignity in retirement. However, we are concerned that the Government amendments to this section of the Bill will mean that the creation of the MaPS dashboard could be a missed opportunity.
Amendment 7 is a case in point. It would allow commercial dashboards to facilitate financial transactions, which we feel is a mistake and is a big reason why we want a lead-in period before commercial dashboards become operational. We feel that the impartial information that we want the MaPS dashboard to provide should be entirely separate from transactions, at least to begin with. That position is supported by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association, for all the reasons outlined by the shadow Minister.
Providing digital platforms to bring together a person’s savings landscape is a huge step forward, but exposing that information to marketing and commercialisation will remove the power of the saver to access information that is presented impartially and without commercial motive and hand it to organisations that will encourage individuals to take big decisions about potentially their largest financial asset. As the shadow Minister said, it could also make people vulnerable to scammers.
The UK Government appear not to have learned from the oft-worn problems associated with pension freedoms. Customer satisfaction in Pension Wise is high, and its evaluation score published last month makes for good reading, yet only 14% of all pension pots accessed—not people who access their pots, but pots accessed—were accessed after receiving guidance from Pension Wise. The House of Commons Library report earlier this summer highlighted that, as a result of pension freedoms, more people were choosing to shift their savings from secure defined-benefit schemes to riskier defined-contribution schemes, and a large proportion of those drawing down their pension were doing so without seeking advice or guidance. That is likely to be exacerbated if commercial dashboards are allowed to contain financial transactions. We think that is really risky. Allowing financial transactions to take place on the dashboard without having first assessed and accounted for the risks is clearly a recipe for trouble, and I urge the Government to reconsider.
We want the dashboard to provide as much information as possible for savers, which is why we tabled amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 and support amendments 14 and 15, tabled by the Labour Front Benchers. These amendments seek to add information relating to a person’s state pension to the dashboard, ensuring that the impact of policy changes can be tracked by savers. Amendment 1 would show the detriment suffered by 1950s-born women. The Bill’s scope to provide more meaningful help and support to women born in the 1950s, who have seen their state pension age increase with little or, in some cases, no notice, is extremely limited. We have been clear and consistent in our support for women born in the 1950s. We want the Government to carry out a full impact assessment of the detriment suffered by them from various changes, and to use that to inform payments to be made to them. However, these amendments are as far as the Bill’s scope allows us to go. They would give these women more information about how the state pension changes have affected them. They would also act as a strong deterrent against this type of mishandled policy change happening again.
Public dashboards should be as clever as possible, to account for complexity in individual circumstances and to more accurately project lifetime savings. That view is shared by some of those who have provided evidence to the Committee, including the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association. Therefore, the SNP has tabled amendments to mandate specific information on the dashboard.
Guy Opperman
It has been a while since I have been compared to a duck, but I know there was a compliment buried in the comments about the depth of the swimming I am doing to try to persuade the Committee. Let me be blunt about the Herculean nature of the task: there are 40,000-plus schemes to be created, with a common dataset to be agreed and then made capable, plus all of the information from state pensions. While I revere everything that the former Chancellor George Osborne did—clearly, there were many great qualities that the great man had— it was a little optimistic of him, by anybody’s interpretation, to say in 2016 that this would be produced by 2019. He also anticipated greater engagement by industry and that it would lead the way. I do not wish to have a dig at industry, but the only reason we are mandating this process is that, while we always have to add regulatory guidance, the industry did not take the opportunity it had to embrace it.
I repeat the point I have made on many occasions, both in this House and outside it, to various industry organisations: it is for the industry to prepare—this relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire—its data appropriately, in such a way that it is dashboard compliant on an ongoing basis. I make the strong point that failure to do so will have consequences for the individual organisations, and will clearly have consequences for our constituents, who would not be able to access that particular data.
My hon. Friend the Member for Delyn made a fair point about the small pots problem, which the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee and I have discussed in private and also debated in broad terms in public. Both of us remain concerned that there is a proliferation of pots, that costs and charges implications apply, as the hon. Member for Wallasey outlined, and that solutions need to be found. We are coming together—including the Work and Pensions Committee—to try to find those solutions. Clearly, one solution would involve consolidation, whether on the basis of ability to take small pots that have been eaten up by costs and charges, or on the basis that one is absolutely passionate about a particular ESG issue and wishes to consolidate around an ESG provider. All of those things would be prevented if I were to allow this amendment to continue. I have great respect for the guru of all pensions matters, Baroness Drake, who I have engaged with at length over the last couple of years. However, I believe she is mistaken in her approach to this, and I do not wish to rule out the capability for financial transactions.
If I have not been clear previously, I make it clear now—as the hon. Member for Wallasey invited me to do—that the original product of the pensions dashboard will be simple. It will be a simple find and view service that will then be built on and overlaid as time goes on, not least because not all particular providers will be on board from the word go. I could wait and wait, and then have a big bang moment whereby every single provider was ready and everything was done. Alternatively, the MaPS can start and other organisations slowly but surely come on board and the process is rolled out as it goes forward. I certainly do not believe that we should rule out the issue of financial transaction.
Guy Opperman
Let me finish the point and then I will give way. On the specific amendment inserted by their lordships, it is unclear what activities would be considered financial transactions. The advice I have been given is that the amendment is very widely drawn and would require new primary legislation before such activities could be commenced in the future. Obviously, while pension Bills are like buses—we wait for ages for one to come along and then do two in a month—I do not anticipate one coming along in a great hurry, though I hope there is another one before the close of this Parliament. However, we definitely assume that this would cover consolidation of pots, transfers between providers, and potentially the raising or lowering of one’s contributions to an individual pension. In those circumstances, it would be utterly illogical, given all the other comments that we are making about the desirability of such an approach, to rule out financial transactions.
Neil Gray
Even if I leave to one side what the Minister says about the need for amendment 7, why is he not dealing with this incrementally? Why take the risk not just of allowing commercial dashboards to happen straightaway but of allowing them to be transactional straightaway? Why not build confidence in the system among consumers with the MaPS dashboard, allow a bit of a buffer before commercial dashboards come onstream to ensure that consumers understand what they are entering into, and then, when the regulator and the Government can assess the risks of the transactional ability of the commercial dashboards, come to a point where that is allowed? Why all at the same time? It seems far too risky to me.
Guy Opperman
That is an outstanding point, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will make in respect of clauses 119 and 122 on delay to the onset of the dashboard. Many of the points that the hon. Member for Wallasey made relate to costs and charges, which we will come to later, and to the one-year delay argument. I do not believe that it is appropriate for something that is allowable at present—any one of us could go to our individual provider—
Neil Gray
The Minister must understand the greater risk from digitisation when the full suite of people’s financial savings—their biggest financial assets—are sat there. For some people who are perhaps not as digitally savvy as others, and who might be taken in by scams, that is a huge risk. At the moment, the paper-based system is rather different.
Guy Opperman
We will come to scams and the work that the Work and Pensions Committee and the Government are trying to do to enhance the protections on an ongoing basis. It is clear that the Financial Conduct Authority regards this as a regulated activity. There will be an authorisation process for individual providers that wish to be able to do it. It will not be automatic by any stretch of the imagination. We are very mindful of this, as are the pensions dashboard working group, various other user groups and the consumer protection organisations that are part of it—from Citizens Advice, to Which? and others. They are utterly committed to ensuring that this will be a safe process. Going back to the fundamentals of the Lords amendment, I do not believe that it is in the consumer’s interests to rule out financial transactions. I certainly would not support that.
Rob Roberts
I rise to speak briefly to amendments 11, 12 and 13. I did not mention it earlier, but the general problem with small pots being eroded away by charges, especially in the auto-enrolment phase, is that many of them have set charges in pounds rather than percentage-based charges. If someone has 10 pots of £1,000 and they all have the same percentage charging structure, the charges will be exactly the same as one scheme with £10,000 in it; what causes the problem is that some schemes have a set charge in pounds per year.
Unfortunately, an awful lot of the time we focus too much on the cost of plans and the impact of charges: the principal-based tail is wagging the outcome-based dog. It is the outcome that is most important, because people cannot spend the principal; they spend the outcome. That is easily illustrated: if scheme A has a 0.5% charge and a return of 5% a year, and scheme B has a 1% charge and a return of 7% a year, scheme B is a better scheme despite having a higher charge. It is not the charging that is important.
The hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned people who will be put off from investing in schemes that are looted and abused in such ways. She was 100% correct; there were many nods on both sides of the Committee Room at the idea that that would put people off. Focusing too much on charges also potentially puts people off. It is worrying and scary, and potentially angers the consumer, who would not understand the figure for the total charges if it is expressed in a significant way. If we say, “Over the lifetime of your plan, you will incur £30,000-worth of charges,” without some kind of explanation or context showing what that relates to, people will see that as excessive and ridiculous.
Neil Gray
I do not think it is fair to characterise this as a focus just on charges. New clause 11 contains an idea for how small pots can be managed, in terms of the unintended consequences of automatic enrolment. I struggle to understand the rationale of the hon. Gentlemen’s argument about the lack of transparency being provided to consumers and enabling them to take informed decisions about the plans they enter into. I do not see the logic of suggesting that hiding that or allowing schemes to continue putting it in the small print is beneficial to consumers.
Rob Roberts
I am not necessarily advocating a lack of transparency; I am advocating a focus on the outcome, rather than on every element of the journey along the way. There are lots of things that we currently do not talk about, in terms of the costs and charges. We look at the costs and charges of the scheme in general, and it is not necessarily a requirement for the costs and charges of the individual funds that make up the scheme to be included in those calculations. There are lots of things that could be included in there, but it is the outcome that is important, not necessarily the minute detail of every element along the way.
Guy Opperman
To answer the second point first, there is already standardisation. There is already the charge cap, which allows a certain limit above which an individual cannot charge any more. That charge cap provides a certain percentage that can be incurred for the work provided. There is an ongoing discussion regarding automatic enrolment. If I have a tiny pot of £100 and that has been eaten away on an ongoing basis, then clearly the charges on an annual basis will slowly eat away into that small pot. If I have a much larger pot and I have a small standardised charged capped price that I am being charged, then it is clearly much easier for the pot to be preserved. How one approaches that going forward is extraordinarily difficult.
There is also the diversity of the products being provided—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn—and ensuring that there is that diversity is appropriate. How does one try to balance those two things? That is what we are trying to do, with due respect. When will we do this? It seems to me that there are two answers. It is hoped—I use the word “hoped” given that we are now on 3 November—that by the end of this year, or the beginning of next year, these various pieces of work will come together and the Government will publish their views on them. I have been a little preoccupied with this and there are other things that are going on. The small pots review does not report back to the Department until 23 November.
In addition, the dashboard delivery group is at the same stage looking at this precise point about how it will provide this on an ongoing basis. It published its updated programme a week ago—I will have to do this off the top of my head, and if I have got it wrong I will correct it at a later stage—and its expectation is that it will provide more detail at the beginning of next year as part of what the dashboard will look like.
I come back to one final point. The original dashboard was proposed to be a simple find and view system; it is not proposed that this will have complex overlay at the start.
Neil Gray
That is all the more reason why allowing these amendments to be made is so important, to ensure that eventually it is mandatory to provide information and transparency about fees and charges. I do not think that anything the Minister has just said would preclude the amendments being accepted. It is a competitive market, there will be different elements within the market that will offer administrations and charges for different products, and that is their whim and their right. I go back to the point I made to the hon. Member for Delyn. I do not see how we are benefiting the consumer by denying them access to that information at that point of access, which is going to be crucial, and I am yet to hear from the Minister why that cannot happen.
Guy Opperman
I should have pointed out that we already have legislation within the occupational pension scheme regulations 2018, which already require trustees to publish detailed information on costs and charges on a publicly available website. Members are told where this information can be found on their annual benefit statements. Obviously, we are doing it on simpler statements as well.
On the specific point raised, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts keeps coming back to different charging structures that exist across the pensions landscape, and information about costs and charges are not often directly comparable between schemes. There is a risk that we fail to engage people with their pensions by presenting too much information of a differing nature, or worse, that misunderstanding of costs and charges presented without proper explanations of value for money results in poor financial decisions. It seems to me that the way it is drafted as well, speaking specifically to the administration of the scheme, hides a much wider problem: how does one address the individual nature of differing schemes and the individual costs that apply? With respect, although I have great sympathy for the amendment, I invite the hon. Gentleman not to press it.
Seema Malhotra
We hugely regret that the Government are seeking to remove the amendment, introduced by Baroness Drake, that would have required the Money and Pensions Service dashboard to be up and running for a year before other commercial dashboards could be launched. It has always been Labour’s firm position that just one publicly run dashboard would be the best way to ensure that people receive trusted information about their pensions.
The Work and Pensions Committee produced a report on pension freedoms in 2018, in which it recommended a single public dashboard, to ensure that it would be free from commercial pressures and could provide individuals with a reliable source of information about their pensions. As that Committee noted, this would be in line with the examples of Australia, where a single dashboard is hosted by the Australian Taxation Office, and Sweden, where the only dashboard is run by a public-private partnership.
As the report stated, dashboards should first and foremost provide consumers with accurate and impartial information about all their pensions in one place. In a multiple dashboard system, providers would have incentives to use their dashboards to promote their own products or otherwise discourage switching away. There is also a danger that dashboard providers could use different underlying assumptions, producing rival income projections from the same raw data.
The pensions dashboard was conceived as a means of empowering consumers, to promote competition in the product market. There is a risk that in a multiple-dashboard system, providers could instead compete on the information provided. Which? and the Association of British Insurers have argued that regulation would be necessary to ensure that the dashboards were consistent. There is a simpler solution. By providing information on all pension entitlements in one place, the pensions dashboard would be a vital tool in informing and engaging customers, and empowering them to exercise pension freedoms in their own interest. A single, publicly hosted dashboard would be the best way of providing savers with simple, impartial and trustworthy information. However, the Government have said their intention is to progress plans for multiple dashboards.
Rather than preventing the introduction of commercial dashboards for a set period of time, our compromise amendment would merely compel the Government to review the operation of the public dashboard, including the adequacy of consumer protections, before allowing for commercial rivals to operate. If commercial dashboards are to be allowed, there must be strong and proactive regulation of all pensions dashboards and any other organisations involved in the storage, processing and presenting of pensions data. Organisations such as The People’s Pension and Which? have said that clear legal duties need to be placed on the operators of dashboards to act in the best interests of consumers.
The Government also envisage a role for what they call integrated service providers, which will store vast quantities of pensions data. It is not clear whether the Government intend for them to be regulated, or for the Money and Pensions Service, the TPR or the FCA to be able to authorise them and set regulatory standards. Unless the regulators have the ability to set standards and intervene in the operation of ISPs, any problems in the ISPs market will have to be tackled by contacting the individual pension schemes. That would be time-consuming and could lead to long periods of time when individuals’ pensions data is unavailable on pensions dashboards. Any scandals or data breaches that occurred in unregulated ISPs could also have a significant detrimental impact on the reputation of pensions dashboards and the overall framework for people to access their pensions data securely and safely.
The common-sense step proposed in the amendment would allow proper consideration to be given to the risks proposed by private providers. In many ways, the concerns underpinning the amendment are similar to those associated with Government amendment 7—that the introduction of commercial dashboards, paired with the ability to engage in commercial transaction activities, would impact on the reliability of the information presented to savers and open up the risk of people being persuaded into disadvantageous pensions positions.
I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on this matter, which I understand he is keen to share. If he still intends to progress with commercial dashboards, will he announce concrete steps and detail on how and when they will be regulated by the FCA? I am sure he will say a few words about integrated service providers. Will they store vast quantities of pensions data, and will they be subject to regulation and standards that are set by the TPR, MaPS and the FCA?
Neil Gray
To follow on from the shadow Minister’s comments about amendments 8, 16 and 3, this debate takes us to probably the greatest area of contention in the Bill, which is contentious because of the Government’s intention to remove the Lords amendments that require a year’s buffer before commercial dashboards can enter the market.
It is not just the SNP, Labour or other Oppositions parties that have concerns, but a great number of stakeholders. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association says that
“the Government should ensure the first pensions dashboard will be a single, non-commercial product hosted by the Money and Pensions Service (MAPS) and that no other dashboard should go live until a full consumer protection regime is in place.”
In addition, rushing to introduce transactional capabilities is likely to put savers at greater risk of scams and mis-selling. It would be better to wait a year or two, rather than undermine consumer protection.
The PLSA does not support Government amendments 7 and 8, which would allow dashboards to be used to provide transactional services and remove the requirement for the non-commercial pensions dashboard service run by MaPS to have been established for one year before other dashboards services can provide services. The PLSA supports amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to report on the operation of the public dashboard service, including consumer protections, before allowing commercial dashboards to operate. It also supports amendment 3, which would extend to five years the period for which the MaPS dashboard would have to have been running before commercial operators could enter the market for the provision of pensions dashboards.
Similarly, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries says: “The first dashboard must be a single, non-commercial platform. We think it is important that the first dashboard be non-commercial and hosted by the Money and Pensions Service. Initial non-commercial dashboards will to provide greater clarity for consumers and build confidence and trust in the dashboard ecosystem. It will also make it easier for regulators to learn more about how savers use such platforms, and enable them to adjust consumer protection regulation accordingly. In the medium term, multiple commercial dashboards could be permitted to facilitate innovation and choice. However, these platforms and the communications with savers need to be properly regulated to ensure strong consumer protection. We do not support new Government amendments 7 and 8, which would allow the dashboards to be used to provide transactional services and remove the requirement that the non-commercial pensions dashboard service, run by MaPS, must have been established for one year, before other dashboard services can provide services.”
We are clear that commercial dashboards should not be opened to the market for at least a year and we strongly oppose UK Government attempts to undermine that. We feel that a year’s buffer was a compromise position, as there are many people concerned about having commercial dashboards at all, especially when the Government intend them to be transactional. We tabled amendment 3 to underline our opposition to any watering down of the Bill as it stands.
The Lords amendment was a compromise. The UK Government are now unilaterally forging their own path, breaking the cross-party consensus that otherwise would have existed. As the hon. Member for Wallasey rightly said, it is crucial for good governance and good pensions legislation. It seems the Government are looking to implement both commercial and financial transactions on dashboards, before assessing the risk, before assessing consumer behaviour and interaction with the MaPS dashboard, and before taking full cognisance of the risks of pension freedoms, which we are only just starting to understand. Time is the wisest counsellor of all, Mr Robertson.
We want to empower people to make informed choices about their lifetime savings. The public service pensions dashboard is a welcome step towards that and will transform consumer engagement with pensions over the long term, and reunite individuals with lost pension pots. Pensions dashboards run by commercial operators should not be opened to the market until the publicly run MaPS dashboard has been running for a least a year.
We have a long-standing additional commitment to the establishment of a standing independent pensions and savings commission. The scope of the Bill does not allow us to stretch to that on this occasion, but later in deliberations we will consider whether a commission looking at the terms of this Bill should be established. Such an organisation would first be tasked with looking at when commercial operators should be able to enter the market for the pension dashboards.
In our view, the MaPS dashboard, or public dashboard, is a wasted opportunity unless it is properly marketed and promoted by the Government as a safe, independent and impartial space for people seeking information about their pensions. We feel that it would get swamped by commercial operators seeking to promote their own dashboards and their own commercial interests.
We caution the Government to be canny, to take their time and to learn from the implementation, first of all, of the public dashboard, before they move too hastily and have to play catch-up in the regulatory format, because people fall foul by making poor decisions about what is their greatest financial asset.
Guy Opperman
I accept that the issue is complex. On the one hand the Government are being urged to proceed with the dashboard and it has been rightly pointed out that we have displayed slowness, in some respects. On the other hand, we are being urged to delay in respect of this particular matter. We do not believe that this is the appropriate way forward, as the Lords indicated, and there are a multitude of reasons why that is the case.
I start with the initial 2018 consultation. The principle behind that was that consumers should always have access to a publicly backed service, which we have legislated for, but should also have the freedom to choose to access the information in the way they feel most comfortable. I go back to the point I made to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire: do we build a service and make the consumer come to us, or do we build a service where the consumer is already comfortable, in circumstances where there are sufficient protections around that?
Consumers have clearly stated that they expect to be able to access a dashboard through a variety of channels. The pensions industry holds an in-depth knowledge of its customer base, and this represents an opportunity for consumer-focused innovation to create platforms that individuals can engage with. We believe that allowing multiple dashboards is the most effective way to drive consumer engagement and really begin to put people in control of their savings.
Guy Opperman
There is no question: we are deliberately learning the lessons from open banking and the process whereby we took all our various bank accounts and made them accessible under a strict regulatory regime so that our rights were not infringed. There is now a massively enhanced consumer programme that empowers the consumer, drives down costs and does all the other things that we know open banking does. With great respect, I suggest that that is a very good example.
The big difference is that in open banking we are dealing with a relatively small number of banks in this country, unlike in, say, America, whereas with pensions we are dealing with 40,000 different schemes. But the principles are exactly the same. We have learned from the regulatory process and I have met the chief executive of Open Banking. My officials and the dashboard delivery team are engaging with them. No disrespect, but the problems that the Committee has rightly identified today are exactly the same sort of problems that were identified with open banking. These are the same consumer protection organisations, and I shall come to the approach of Which?, which is probably the No. 1 consumer protection organisation in the country. It is firmly on the side of the Government and disagrees with the amendment. My hon. Friend drew me to that.
Neil Gray
I draw the Minister back to points that he made earlier, when he said that the information provided on the dashboard will be taken sequentially so that it will be added to over time as we test and learn. Why then in this case are we not operating sequentially? Start with the MaPS, the public dashboard, and bed that in as the point of contact where people have the confidence to go for impartial information about what they are getting, without having to be exposed to marketisation. Learn from that, and then move to the position where commercial dashboards can operate. Learn from that experience, and then bring about transactionality through the dashboard in that process.
Guy Opperman
I will delay the introduction of the Which? elements for a moment. Amendment 16, for example, would delay the introduction of other dashboards, which would stifle innovation that could benefit consumers. We feel strongly that the potential exists for the production of a game-changing new system that would enable something that is not possible at the present stage, but that would suddenly be second-guessed and denied, and we will lose much momentum behind the project.
The Committee should not take just my word for it. I will briefly share the comments of Which?, from its submission on Second Reading on this proposal. It addressed this amendment, saying: “This amendment ensures that the publicly owned dashboard will have to be operational for at least a year before commercial dashboard services can operate if the Bill becomes legislation in its current form. Which? agrees with concerns that lessons will have to be learnt on the application of the dashboard, especially with regards to the use of data.
However, we do not believe that this amendment is the answer. It is a precautionary approach, and the risk is that by stymieing the development in this way, the industry will take away its innovation, drive and investment —all of which could benefit consumers. By enabling an individual to access their pensions data safely and securely via non-government providers, this can help to support take-up and engagement with dashboards by increasing the number of channels that individuals can access this information and increasing awareness. It can also help drive innovation to enable individuals to make the most of the information available via dashboards. This will only be possible if dashboard providers are permitted to provide tools and services using this data.
Furthermore, this amendment risks us being left with a dashboard that does not do as much as initially anticipated, resulting in consumers not being as engaged. This could represent a huge missed opportunity. It is crucial to ensure that dashboards are both safe and fully functional to give consumers the most choice and the most exposure to innovation.”
The hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts will be aware that there is already the Pension Tracing Service and “Check your State Pension”, both existing organisations that address these particular points. There is no question but that the words expressed by Which? adequately address the point that it would be utterly wrong of us to promote and push forward the dashboard in circumstances where, upon its launch, even in its primitive format, we said, “You cannot access the dashboard through the provider or financial adviser you’ve been with for 30 years. You may only go through the Money and Pensions Service.” I therefore respectfully say that this is not the right approach and not something the Government support.
In respect of the delay and the parliamentary scrutiny, I would like to make two points. Parliamentary scrutiny is already taking place through the introduction of secondary legislation, which will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. The Money and Pensions Service is already legally required, according to the 2018 Act on this issue, to report annually to the Secretary of State on its objectives and functions. This includes the operation of the dashboard, and that report is laid before Parliament, which can debate it if it wishes.
The development of the pension dashboard does not end at the launch. The pension dashboard programme will continue user testing and research on an ongoing basis. That is the whole point of incremental delivery. The amendments, if passed, would no doubt have the consequence of delaying the production of commercial dashboards for some considerable time—the note on which escapes me, but I will try to remember—by requiring a report to the House of Commons and then a further consultation on user testing, which would effectively put back commercial dashboards, certainly by a year, and potentially by two years.
The five-year proposal that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has put forward would clearly sound the death knell for any commercial dashboard on a long-term basis. With no disrespect, I think that would be a massive missed opportunity.
Neil Gray
Amendment 3 is a probing amendment so that we can set out the fact that our feeling was that the Lords amendment was compromised. By quoting Which?, as the Minister rightly has, he seems to be suggesting that we are arguing against commercial dashboards altogether. We want a reasonable buffer in place, and we do not feel that that year would be lost for innovation or for developing a dashboard. Commercial organisations would be perfectly capable of catching up when the time came. That year would allow the Government to ensure that the MaPS dashboard is properly promoted and utilised by people and used for its intention, which is to inform good decision making for long-term savings and investments for a good return on income.
Guy Opperman
I am not sure that I can amplify or improve upon the comments that I have already made, save to make the point—again, I believe—that commercial dashboards will have to be part of the accessibility of this particular programme, and I genuinely believe it entirely right that they should be part of it from the word go, so that we can go forward together with those two particular products. Quite frankly, we keep coming back to the point that we should go to where the customer is already, rather than forcing the customer to go to some other place.
Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Neil Gray ExcerptsTuesday 3rd November 2020
(4 years, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2020 - (3 Nov 2020)
Guy Opperman
I endorse that approach, Mr Stringer, but I also take the opportunity to welcome the cross-party approach to so much of pensions. I am conscious that two former Ministers of the Department for Work and Pensions are sitting on the Back Benches and that they will correct me and intervene regularly. I accept entirely that pensions policy works on a cross-party basis, whether it be automatic enrolment—which was introduced by the Labour Government through the Turner commission, brought forward by way of statute under the coalition, and expanded under this Conservative Government—or such successes as the Pension Protection Fund, which was one of the great successes of Blair’s Labour Administration, and the variety of reforms that we have introduced. There are some cross-party matters, such as the increase in the state pension age, that some parties do not necessarily wish to continue to own and embrace after they have left office, but such is the way of life.
As I tweeted yesterday, this Bill has, effectively, 98% cross-party agreement and, although there may be legitimate debates on how we progress, we have worked on that basis. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I have worked together on a tremendous cross-party basis. My wife often comments that I text him way too much. The practical reality is that I have also engaged repeatedly with the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who represents the Scottish National party. We have exchanged emails, trying to work out where we disagreed and where we agreed, and there is a great deal of common ground. Both SNP spokesmen made that clear on Second Reading, though there is legitimate debate regarding the best way forward on other matters. I look forward to those debates.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
I concur with the Minister’s remarks on cross-party working. He said that CDC schemes, which we support, would become a third way, but can he clarify whether he sees CDC schemes as replacing good DB schemes? Clearly, we would not see them as an alternative but as a fall-back for when schemes run into trouble in other areas.
Guy Opperman
We will debate DB schemes, which I think have a great future. We have gone to great efforts to support the future of DB schemes. This is an alternative way forward that some organisations—Royal Mail is the classic example, but there are others who are looking at this—will welcome. Under no circumstances should it be implied or in any way taken that the Government will do anything other than support DB schemes on an ongoing basis.
The Chair
Before I call Neil Gray, let me make it clear that we are not discussing clauses 27 and 47 now. I allowed what the right hon. Member for East Ham said to pass, because he referred to earlier clauses, too.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this Bill Committee with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. Like the Labour spokesperson, I pay tribute to the Minister, and to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, for the cross-party work that brought the Bill to this point. We welcome the Bill as it has arrived from the Lords, though we have concerns about some of the amendments put forward. It is an important piece of legislation, and the part that brings about CDC schemes has arrived in a good state, which is why there are so few amendments to these clauses. The Minister has obviously done a good job on the drafting from that point of view.
I thank the Clerks for their time and patience in working with me, my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and our staff in putting forward our amendments and priorities. We greatly appreciate all their help and support.
Following on neatly from where the Chair of the Select Committee left off, we very much support the creation of CDC schemes. We pay tribute to Royal Mail and the CWU for the work that they have done with the Government to get the Bill to this stage. As I intimated in my intervention on the Minister, and as the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham, also intimated, the CDC schemes cannot be seen as a panacea or the right solution for everybody. It is important—I think this will be a theme of our discussions—that people are given access to as much impartial information about their pensions as possible, giving them confidence to make informed decisions about their savings.
For the reasons that the right hon. Gentleman outlined, I wish to put on the record again that although the SNP feels that CDC schemes have major benefits—certainly for some scheme members in DC schemes—we would not wish them to be seen as a replacement for good DB schemes or for people to feel that they are necessary. I look forward to the rest of the debate, which I feel may well be rather more contentious than the issues that we are discussing at this early stage of the Committee.
Guy Opperman
I echo the support for the Clerks from this side of the Committee. We had a very helpful session yesterday, and they have been very helpful throughout. I will address the four or five points that have been raised.
On communications, I utterly endorse the point made by the Chair of the Select Committee. He will, I hope, appreciate that over the last three years, one of the major things that I have tried to drive forward in the Department is communications across the level. We are using simpler statements, by taking the 10 to 43-page pension statements that very few people read—putting them in a kitchen drawer and not necessarily taking them on board—and providing a simpler two-page statement and a written version. Our pensions dashboards create an amenable version of the online version, with great, ongoing communication.
On CDCs, I totally endorse the points that the right hon. Gentleman made: it is vital that we learn the lessons from the Netherlands, and that we ensure good communication. The possibility of fluctuations in benefits will be made clear and transparent in key member communications at points throughout their pension journey, including by providing details of fluctuation risks at the point of joining, by emphasising benefit changes in both active and deferred members’ annual benefit statements, and by making clear in retirement information packs that benefits can change during retirement.
Quite simply, that point was not made clear to members in the Dutch example. Some may not have taken it on board at the start, while others perhaps did not quite understand the situation as well as they would have had it been explained to them. We hope that we have learned that particular lesson and have very much taken that on board. I know that the two organisations that are looking at CDCs are very conscious of that and, to their great credit, have held multiple roadshows around the country, talking about this and engaging with people long before the legislation was introduced.
The reality of the situation for the CWU and Royal Mail was that their endorsement of the approach would not have been possible without member engagement from the very start. They have probably engaged more with a pension scheme than anyone has ever done before, prior even to the drafting of the legislation. They very much wanted that engagement to take place.
Neil Gray
To build on that, does the Minister see the engagement, which he has rightly described as one of the most extensive from an employer and an employee-representative organisation in terms of changes to pension provisions, as being the gold standard going forward, if an employer seeks to switch from a DC to a CDC scheme in the future? Is that the bar that needs to be met?
Guy Opperman
I am now straying into industrial relations and how best to manage a company to take someone’s employees with them in a complex negotiation about future pension rights. All I can say is that I have worked and sat down regularly with the leading individuals in the Communication Workers Union and the individuals who have been running Royal Mail—that has changed slightly as it has gone along. I have seen the way in which they have engaged with their workforce and had a proper conversation up and down the country in a series of roadshows. With a large unionised workforce in the modern era, that is the right way in any event. I would certainly endorse that approach. It is clear that the company and the employees have been able to work together—working with the union, working with representatives—and it seems to me that, while I would not say the phrase is “gold standard”, it is an advisable way to proceed and it is good company relations to have a proper dialogue and engagement with individual employees.
The short answer I gave to the Chair of the Select Committee was yes, but the longer answer is that there is a whole supervisory regime, which we will discuss later, under clause 27 and thereafter, which must be submitted to the regulator in order to qualify to be accepted as a CDC. The practical reality of that is that I cannot see a way in which the regulator endorses and allows a company to go down the route of a CDC without all aspects of that communication being considered. Clearly, there are secondary regulations that follow. It is not in the specifics of the Bill, as I understand it. I make the point, when I am answering questions, that I am doing this utterly blind, so it has to be from my memory because I cannot take any notes from anybody. That is the fun of a covid Committee, as the right hon. Member for East Ham will know from chairing a Select Committee.
Guy Opperman
Clauses 26 to 51 complete the parts of the Bill that apply to Great Britain, but not to Northern Ireland. I will briefly address the two amendments. Government amendment 6 removes the provision put in primarily by Liberal Democrat peers in the House of Lords to incorporate a specific requirement of fairness. Unquestionably, as with much of the debate that we will have in Committee over the next two days, it is about the ways in which we proceed where the objective is agreed, and the objective is clearly one of fairness. The Government do not feel that clause 27(3) is appropriate, however, and we will seek to overturn it.
Requiring trustees to make such an assessment is likely to generate confusion unless further clarity is provided, and it may result in legal disputes. We have specifically and intentionally avoided referencing fairness in such a way in any of the CDC provisions, but I make clear to the Committee that we intend to use regulations to set out clear principles and processes that schemes must follow to ensure that different types of members are treated the same where justified.
Those requirements would form part of the authorisation process for the CDC schemes, overseen by the Pensions Regulator. Regulations under clause 18, for example, will require CDC schemes to ensure that there is no difference in treatment between different scheme member cohorts or age groups when calculating or adjusting benefits. That is a clearer, better and more effective approach to delivering fairness in practice, and it is supported by the Institute of Faculty of Actuaries.
I also pray in aid—as we have all cited our support for them—the note submitted by the Communication Workers Union and Royal Mail in written evidence to the Bill. They jointly addressed this specific point, saying:
“We welcome discussions on how to ensure the fairness of future CDC schemes. Royal Mail’s scheme is designed to address the possibility of intergenerational unfairness by not using capital buffers and explicitly preventing the trustees from favouring one group over another. The DWP acknowledged this in its 2019 consultation response. When it comes to Lord Sharkey’s amendment, we agree with Government that we should give careful consideration to how reporting on fairness might work in practice and share their concerns with the additional reporting requirements the amendment introduces. We therefore support the Government amendment which removes Lord Sharkey’s amendment from the Bill.”
I suggest that that statement is telling, and I invite the Committee to support the Government amendment.
Neil Gray
Before we decide what to do on this amendment, I am keen to hear from the Minister. He suggested that if the clause was allowed to stay as it is— as it was amended by the Lords—it could garner legal challenge. Could he clarify where he sees that legal challenge coming from and why he thinks that is a concern?
Guy Opperman
If clause 27(3) provides specifically for fairness, it may be open to interpretation and mean different things to different people. The legal advice we have received is that it would be inappropriate to include that in the Bill, and that it is far better to address the matter in detailed regulation rather than through a single word in the confines of the Bill.
Guy Opperman
I utterly endorse the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham. I did not disagree with a single word of it. I could wax lyrical about why the Government, with the support of the Work and Pensions Committee and the special joint inquiry it set up with the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee to address BHS, have introduced this overdue legislation, which is linked to a much-enhanced regulator with a strong direction from Select Committees and the Government that there should be a much more robust approach. The new chief executive of the Pensions Regulator was appointed by the Secretary of State and me with a specific exhortation that they take a different approach.
The actions of Philip Green at BHS and the Carillion case, with which the right hon. Gentleman is extraordinarily familiar, scarred all Members of Parliament. No matter what our political party, we have all seen the impact that those cases have had on individual members of our communities. I take the point that the hon. Member for Wallasey made: these scandals involving organisations and companies that have not been sufficiently regulated, and for which the regulator has not, to be blunt, had the power, to intervene and take a different approach, have affected people’s perceptions of the sanctity and safety of their pension.
We have gone to great effort to ensure, on a cross-party basis and taking on board the various Select Committee recommendations, that we give the regulator enhanced powers. We will come to the significant reality of the criminal sanctions that clause 107 outlines. Without a shadow of a doubt, we are in the business of ensuring that callous crooks who put a pension scheme at risk are not able to function as they did in the past. I most definitely endorse every comment that was made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 103 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 104 to 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 107
Sanctions for avoidance of employer debt etc
Neil Gray
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 107, page 90, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
“(c) The person neglected to act in accordance with their duties and responsibilities.”
This amendment and amendment 20 are intended to avoid the risk that routine behaviour by parties involved with pension schemes and others would be judged criminal, and thereby to protect professional advisers from criminal liability for carrying out their role.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 20, in clause 107, page 91, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
“(c) The person neglected to act in accordance with their duties and responsibilities.”
This amendment and amendment 19 are intended to avoid the risk that routine behaviour by parties involved with pension schemes and others would be judged criminal, and thereby to protect professional advisers from criminal liability for carrying out their role.
Clause stand part.
Clauses 108 to 116 stand part.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 117 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Neil Gray
Amendments 19 and 20 are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, and for the reasons that other members of the Committee have outlined we support part 3 of the Bill. We are also incredibly supportive of the principles of clause 107, which introduces new criminal offences aimed at deterring occupational pension schemes, sponsoring employers or scheme trustees from engaging in wrongdoing in relation to their pension scheme. We would not table the amendments if we were not concerned, and if serious concerns had not been raised about the clause.
We think the clause will act as a strong deterrent against those who would wilfully run a scheme down, as we have seen happen in the not too distant past, and as was outlined earlier by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the right hon. Member for East Ham. However, the new criminal powers are wide-ranging and have the potential—I am sure it is unintentional—to criminalise routine behaviour by parties involved with pension schemes and those who are not directly involved at all, such as lenders and those doing business with a pension scheme’s employers. That could have damaging knock-on effects for the viability of the pension scheme, if those who dealt with it, or employers, deemed that that legal risk was intolerable.
We have been working with the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which the Minister previously quoted in his favour in relation to part 3 of the Bill, as it has serious misgivings about the impact that the clause could have. It suggests that a wide range of conduct has the potential to have a detrimental effect on the likelihood of scheme benefits being met, in which case schemes might fall foul of the proposed current wording of clause 107.
The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries says, for example, that such conduct might include a Government entity terminating an outsourcing contract, where the contractor has a pension scheme; an employer giving employees a pay increase; a Government increasing corporation tax or business rates; a landlord increasing rents, where the tenant has a pension scheme; trustees or a scheme actuary granting an augmentation or increase to members without additional employer contributions; or a bank refusing to lend to an employer. That view is also supported by the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association.
Our amendments would protect professional advisers from criminal liability for carrying out their role. That could be achieved in the Bill if the duties and responsibilities of an individual were considered when determining whether a person intended to commit an offence. The amendments would clarify matters in adding the question of negligence, which we feel is the intention behind the clause, but which is not explicit. They would also make it clear that a person’s role and responsibility should be considered.
The intended effect is not to change the policy aims of the legislation—far from it—but to clarify the extent of the powers and, in doing so, protect professional advisers from criminal liability for legitimately carrying out their roles. We therefore hope that the Government will accept the amendments.
Stephen Timms
I have listened with great interest to the case that the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts has been making. I have also been contacted by a reputable industry body, the Pensions Management Institute, as well as the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which has been mentioned. They expressed alarm about the consequences of clause 107, which the hon. Gentleman has raised concerns about.
I have seen, for example, letters to the Minister from the Joint Industry Forum, which is a genuinely cross-industry group. One is dated 11 December last year, and the other is dated 9 September this year. They suggest possible changes and discussions with officials about how the difficulties could be overcome. I hope the Minister will tell us what discussions there have been since those letters, to try to resolve the problem, and what his conclusion was.
Guy Opperman
It is for the regulator to show that that was not a reasonable approach. The burden is on the regulator to bring the offence and to prove it. I will choose my words carefully because this is subject to further regulation and consultation by the regulator, but it is certainly not the case that this is to catch everybody in how they conduct their normal business. However, there has to be a capability to identify and then prosecute and bring action against all persons, if they are found to have committed an offence without reasonable excuse. The ask is to narrow down the scope of the offence. We have just had a debate about circumstances where people have potentially committed things in the past.
Neil Gray
I understand the Minister’s riposte, but there are two points here. First, the amendment covers reasonable excuse by allowing consideration to be given to the person’s role in the trust. For instance, in a trade union, to take the argument of the Chair of the Select Committee, consideration would be given to the person’s role.
Secondly, the Minister is asking us to wait until the Pensions Regulator has consulted and says how it thinks it should deal with the matter, but by that point it will be too late to ensure that we have got this measure right. I hope that the Minister looks again at this point and provides better comfort to the likes of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, which has a very broad base of professional expertise, and which suggested the amendments. I hope for a more favourable response from the Minister.
Guy Opperman
I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and set out the position in more detail. I come back to the simple point. If a trade union has a reasonable excuse for asking for a pay rise for its members, given their circumstances in an organisation, there is no reason why it should have any concern whatsoever. The starting point is whether someone has a reasonable excuse to progress a particular thing. If it is clearly part of normal business activities, I would not anticipate a problem.
Neil Gray
I cannot say that I am wholly satisfied with the Minister’s explanation. The two amendments would narrow and focus the intention of the clause and ensure that protection is given to people who are legitimately carrying out their duties to the pension scheme and who have related business or commercial interests, and, indeed, Government bodies that interact with employers or a scheme. I therefore intend to divide the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil Gray Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Coffey
I will certainly ask the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to look into that detailed issue on SSP. If a person is required to self-isolate as a consequence of somebody in their household having symptoms, then, in my view, they should be eligible for SSP. But given that it is such a legal and technical issue, I will ask my hon. Friend to write to the hon. Gentleman specifically.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Ending the furlough scheme early is going to put livelihoods at risk, so will the Secretary of State provide an update on her discussions with the Treasury about extending the covid-related increase to universal credit and ensuring that it is expanded to legacy benefits? While she is in those discussions, will she raise extending the furlough scheme and ask that the covid self-isolation grants be tax-exempt, as called for by the Social Security Secretary in Scotland, Shirley-Ann Somerville?
Dr Coffey
There are multiple questions there. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has already responded by introducing the new job support scheme, which he updated for particular sectors, thinking of tier 3 in England, to extend even further the furlough scheme. It is clear that this Government are doing what is needed. In terms of the other things that the hon. Gentleman mentions, he will be aware that I continue to have regular discussions with my Treasury colleagues on the best way that we can help to support people during this pandemic.
Dr Coffey
One element of the kickstart scheme, a £2 billion investment in the future of our young people, is designed to help people to get on the first rung of the ladder with a proper job. It is a way for those people who have recently left school or university and are at risk of long-term unemployment to get experience and financing, which does not just have to be through private organisations and could be through local government or charitable or other sectors. It is a specific way to ensure that those people get not only a job but the extra training and wraparound support that they need to help them further on in their lives.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
For some time, the SNP has led the campaign to end the universal credit five-week wait. We think that is best done by the introduction of grants, so we welcome today’s Work and Pensions Committee report. We also agree with the idea of renaming advances as “new claim loans” to make clearer what they actually are. Will the Secretary of State look favourably on the report’s findings and accept its recommendations?
Dr Coffey
I will look carefully at the report. Select Committee members will know that I have spoken to them on previous occasions, as have other Ministers, to explain that advances are a way to spread the payment of universal credit over a year—in fact, in future it will be over two years, if that is how long people want to spread that initial support—and it is not our intention in any way to introduce a grant at the beginning. The grant is there in the benefits—that is exactly what they are there to do—so I do not see how we will be responding positively to the Committee’s report in that regard.