Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

First, I express my thanks to Members of the other place for introducing the Bill and for their work in bringing it to its current form. Clearly, much expertise and scrutiny have been brought to bear.

Secondly, I want to acknowledge that life expectancy is increasing and that that is good news. It also brings challenges and that is a good problem to have. Older people may now need a pension income that will last for 20, 30 or even 40 years and we should welcome that. As I said in the debate last week on the Social Security (Up-rating of Benefits) Bill, the triple-lock guarantee for pensions has never been more important. It is clear that many working-age people, and especially younger people, are not saving, and are simply unable to save enough, for their retirement. Final salary pension schemes, such as defined-benefit schemes, are increasingly closing to new entrants. This will mean that the state pension will become an increasingly important source of retirement income in the future. That makes this Bill and its consideration of how best to manage workplace pension schemes even more vital. As a result of the work in the other place, there is much to welcome.

I have had a number of jobs over my time in employment. I cannot beat 11 in five years but, at the last count, I am currently a member of four different pension schemes—both private and public sector and both defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes. It is clear that, as work changes and more people move from employer to employer, such circumstances are more likely, and I welcome the Bill’s acknowledgment of this increasing reality for many.

I will restrict my remarks to a small number of areas. Other Members have outlined the details of parts 1 and 2 and the proposal to introduce collective defined-contribution schemes and collective money purchase schemes to allow savers to take advantage of market highs and avoid the lows. It makes sense to offer a more balanced alternative to having all the risk lying with either the sponsoring employer, as in defined-benefit schemes, or with the employee, as in defined-contribution schemes. The cross-party employer and employee support outlined in the Government’s consultation reflects that and, having outlined the importance of ensuring inter-generational fairness last week, I highlight the Lords amendment to clause 27, which would provide that, whenever the pensions regulator issued a notice requiring a scheme to submit a supervisory return, it must include a requirement that the trustees assess the extent to which the scheme is operating in a manner that is fair to all its members. I seek a response from the Minister on that amendment and on the steps that the Government are taking to ensure that such fairness is there from the outset of any CDC scheme.

On part 4, like many, I welcome the creation of dashboards that will allow people not only to see their current pension provisions all in one place but even find pensions they potentially did not know that they had. That is currently estimated to be one in five people. The burden of responsibility for risk-taking lies increasingly with the individual. They have more flexibility, but they need to have as much information as possible made available to them so they can make the best possible decisions and be protected from the scams that many Members have mentioned.

The recommendation for dashboards dates back to 2016, and I am disappointed that it has taken until now to see concrete measures. Further details on timescales for dashboards would be appreciated. In addition, I am interested in hearing from the Minister about the DWP proposals to allow a pension to follow an individual from job to job. Given the increasing responsibility of individuals, that is one way to ensure that people understand their entitlements, save accordingly and, potentially, reduce their dependence on the state pension in future.

On part 5, I want to highlight, like many, clause 123 and the amendment accepted in the other place relating to the treatment of open and closed defined-benefit schemes. I understand that the Pensions Regulator is concerned that the failure and subsequent cost to fund DB schemes is becoming a risk, but a great many DB schemes are still open. For them, being forced to de-risk would mean that they would not be able to continue to afford paying out as high a pension to their members.

In other words, DB schemes would be forced to make less risky investments, such as on Government bonds, which means that they would create less of a return on their investments, but still be required to pay out the same amount. Given that Government bonds and other low-risk investments will have very low rates for the longer term, as a result of covid, the risks to such DB open schemes’ viability becomes even more stark.

Yesterday, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), I met executives of the railways pension scheme. They explained that closed schemes have a fixed end point in sight. They need readily available assets to pay pensions, and they invest in lower risk assets by default. Open-to-new-member schemes are more balanced, with new members replacing older leavers. Such schemes’ needs and objectives are fundamentally different, and they do not need to sell assets. Primary legislation is needed to recognise the different characteristics, and I hope that the Minister will indicate whether that will be supported in Committee.

Finally, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 124—it is a welcome step—and the Minister’s comments on asset managers earlier. Beyond covid, the climate emergency remains the biggest future challenge to the UK. As I said at the outset, there is much to welcome in the Bill, but I echo the comments of the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), that it does not address previous pension injustices, including the persistence of a gender pension gap and the situation experienced by previous members of the plumbers’ pension scheme—like the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson), I am a member of the APPG and have affected constituents. I hope that those situations will be looked at further in Committee.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Wendy Chamberlain Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Nigel Mills]

I am grateful to the Minister and I agree. The measures in the Bill are very sensible steps forward that will make a great difference. What is proposed in amendment 16 would just create a horrible mess for the pensions industry without really achieving anything further, so I will not support it if it is pushed to a vote.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I would like to speak to amendments 1 and 6, which have been tabled in my name and the names of other Liberal Democrat Members, and in favour of the cross-party amendment 7, tabled in the name of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray), as well as to his new clauses 4 and 5. I was very pleased to see new clauses 4 and 5 tabled and I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group on plumbers’ pensions—chaired by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—of which I am a vice-chair.

I have a constituent who was a member of the plumbers’ pension scheme, and the trustees failed to notify him and others that, were they to leave the scheme, he would find himself liable under section 75. He had been a responsible small business employer, enabling all his employees to be part of a pension scheme and to save for their retirement. When he retired and wound up the business, he was not made aware of the consequences by the trustees from a pensions perspective of doing so. That means that through no fault of his own, he is now in a position where, because his business is no longer operating, he cannot apply for current easement schemes and, because his business was not incorporated, he is personally liable for the debt. He is now an elderly man and is being pursued by the trustees. They are threatening to repossess his house and his life savings are at risk. Were that to happen, the sums recovered from him would not even pay off half the outstanding debt.

My constituent told me:

“We are now in the third year of this, and it is taking a toll on my health, and also on the health of my wife.”

If passed, new clause 4 would turn my constituent’s life around. The safeguards are there. His total debt is only a tiny proportion of the total liabilities, and the trustees have determined that the majority of cessation events will be too costly or lengthy to seek recovery. That is one of the issues here: there is an injustice going on that has not received the attention it deserves because relatively few people have been affected by it, but that also presents the opportunity that something can be done and I hope that the Minister will comment accordingly on new clause 4 and look further at this plumbers’ pension issue. It is causing hardship and anxiety for, arguably, an increasingly vulnerable group of people.

I shall now address part 5 and schedule 10 and, in particular, clause 123 on defined-benefit schemes. My colleague in the Lords, Baroness Bowles, tabled the original amendment to clause 123 that would ensure that defined-benefit schemes are treated differently, depending on whether they are open or closed. I pay tribute to Baroness Bowles. Her amendment had cross-party support in the Lords, so it was disappointing that the Government removed it in Committee two weeks ago.

My amendment 1 would reinstate Baroness Bowles’s amendment, and amendment 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts is a revised version of it, which I have also signed. I did not have the chance to sit on the Bill Committee, but I did follow proceedings and I was encouraged by the Minister’s comments during Committee on open defined-benefit schemes. He said:

“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.”––[Official Report, Pension Schemes Public Bill Committee, 5 November 2020; c. 81.]

I welcome those comments, which imply that open schemes should, and will, be treated differently from closed schemes, in accordance with different investment, liquidity and maturity, and I hope the Minister will be able to recommit to that statement on the Floor of the House today. I urge him to accept either amendment 1 or amendment 7, which would put that commitment on the face of the Bill and provide much needed reassurance for open schemes that have contacted me, and, I am sure, have contacted other Members, in advance of this debate.

We need that reassurance because there is real concern about the regulator’s consultation. Looking at the consultation document, there are places where it looks like the regulator is making the right noises on DB schemes.

[Guy Opperman]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. I will not have the chance to answer in detail in closing, but I am very happy to endorse, and repeat as if I were to say the exact same words, the very detailed comments I made at Committee as to the way in which open schemes will be treated on an ongoing basis.

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the Minister for that intervention, but I would ask him again to consider accepting either amendment 7 or amendment 1, which would put that commitment on the face of the Bill.

We need that reassurance because there is a real concern about the regulator’s consultation. In other places there appears to be a conflation, in that consultation document, of open and closed structures, with references to the same treatment and same risk profile between open and closed schemes. But it is just not possible to have the same risk profile between an open and a closed scheme.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This is an important point and the Minister will know that there are open schemes with considerable assets which could be deployed to the advantage of this nation in investing in means of growth for the future. Where they are funded, being open, it gives them a huge advantage and of course the current situation on bond yields makes it even less helpful for them purely to invest in gilts and so on. So I strongly support what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that it would be helpful if the Minister could refer to this again in winding up?

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his endorsement of my remarks. I hope the Minister will comment on this in winding up.

Open and closed schemes are on a continuum. A scheme opens, it matures, it becomes closed, it reaches the absolute end of the range of maturity, and the risk profile varies with that maturity. However, parts of the consultation document do not seem to recognise this, which is concerning. There is an understandable desire from employers and employees for this to be clarified. There is real concern that the regulator wants open schemes to be considered as if they were on the brink of forced closure, but that means effectively crystallising their investment structure into a closed structure and preventing them from acting as they need to, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. So I ask the Minister to recommit to the House that this will not happen, otherwise our concerns will remain, and Baroness Bowles and her colleagues in the Lords will continue to press the Government on this when amendments return to the other place.

There is a huge risk to getting this wrong. Members highlighted on Second Reading the issue of railway pensions. Their campaigning has been very important in raising the potential impact of this Bill on defined-benefit schemes. I also want to highlight the charitable sector and many large charities that rely on DB schemes: Oxfam, Age UK, Cancer Research, the National Trust and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, to name but a few. My amendment 6 would require the Government to carry out an economic impact assessment on the effect of changes to DB schemes on that important sector. We have already heard that open schemes will end up with deficits of £120 billion to £160 billion if they are treated in the same way as closed schemes.

6.15 pm

We are in the midst of a pandemic and huge economic shocks, the impact of which we cannot fully predict at this time. Is now the time to saddle companies and charities with that extra debt, and for what purpose? What of individual savers themselves? Can we reasonably expect people potentially to double their personal contributions? Surely a more likely outcome from that requirement is that people will simply cease to contribute, and that will apply further pressure to the viability of that scheme.

There is a real danger that as a result of the deficits, charities—some of which I have mentioned—will go bust, and that is not a policy that any Government should be promoting, particularly given the support that the Government have put into the sector during the course of the pandemic. That would surely be a bad policy at any time. As I said earlier, I am encouraged by the Minister’s statements in Committee, and I thank him for recommitting to those in his intervention, but I hope he appreciates that we urgently need further reassurances. I do not see why such provision could not be made in the Bill, as indeed it was when it came from the other place. It would make sure that the regulator was acting in a sensible way. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

My first contribution when taking on the role of DWP spokesperson for my party was on ensuring the triple lock for the state pension. In that debate, I highlighted the need to ensure a sustainable state pension, particularly given the intergenerational divide emerging for young people in this country. We should not, through this Bill, be potentially driving more people into reliance on the state pension by making personal pension provision unaffordable for individuals or institutions.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate today, as it was on Second Reading and in Committee. I would like specifically to address amendment 16 to clause 124. Let me start by saying how great it is that we have cross-party support for policies that push forward our efforts on climate change. We should all be very proud of the fact that we are one of the first major countries to legislate to become a net zero country by 2050. I have long talked about the influence and power of financial services and financial markets to move things forward, but sadly I cannot support amendment 16. I will set out three reasons. The first is the unintended consequences, the second concerns divestment and the third relates to focus.

First, amendment 16 is well-meaning, but it would have unintended consequences. I fear fund managers would be limited in what they were able to invest in. I say that because of the limited environmental, social and corporate governance data in certain asset classes in certain markets around the world. If we look at emerging markets, private equity or in small-cap companies, ESG data is sporadic at best. It is getting better all the time, but at this point in time the market is not mature enough for the amendment to apply for managers. I fear that managers would be limited, and that would result in sub-optimal investments and mean that they could not fulfil their fiduciary responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain]

There is nothing more for me to say, other than to add my thanks to Members of this House and the other place for their work on the Bill. There is much to recommend the Bill, and I look forward to seeing how it progresses.