Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Yvonne Fovargue Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

Yes, it is the responsibility of the regulator to ensure that whatever trusts are set up are stable and ready to go. My point is that, as we have seen, whether we are talking about defined-benefit schemes just looking at the failure of the banks in recent years, there is always an opportunity for catastrophic failure in our master trusts, with perhaps 1 million or 2 million members. I am not convinced that there is provision to protect their interests. Lord Freud referred to this clause as a sledgehammer to crack a nut, considering all the mitigations against the risk that are already in the Bill, but what if those mitigations are not enough?

Again, will the Minister provide the Committee, and people all over this country, with a 100% assurance that the Bill without this clause is enough to protect members? Will he guarantee that no master trust will be in a situation whereby it has failed and has insufficient resources to meet costs? I believe—he has already said it, and I have said it as well—that he cannot guarantee that 100%, which is why the clause needs to stand part of the Bill. By seeking to remove it, the Government continue to go back to the argument that there are enough conditions in the Bill without the clause, such as the Pensions Regulator needing to be satisfied that the master trust has sufficient financial resources to comply with its continuity strategy. There are too many unknown factors out there in master trust world for us to know that for certain.

How can we encourage ordinary, hard-working people to save for retirement and put their trust in a scheme that their company bosses have picked for them when the Government are consciously acting against the clause that could be the safety net? We have seen all manner of pension schemes get into trouble and pensioners have been the losers, so we need systems to be much more robust. Workers need to be confident and assured that the money they have faithfully put aside is given the greatest possible protection.

Another mitigation in the Bill that the Government use to support their argument that the clause is not needed is the regulation of our record management, which will be regularly monitored.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

If the clause is not needed, why not put it in to give people that extra confidence? People have an historically low opinion of financial institutions, trusts and banks, so surely any extra insurance that will encourage people to have confidence is worth putting in.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend is correct. People want to know that everything is 100% safe. I know that the Minister said that we can never guarantee 100% safety, but we are talking about some of our society’s most financially vulnerable people who are investing relatively small amounts of money in their master trust. They are not going to get a tremendous pension—nothing like what a Member of Parliament receives—but they want to know that their small pot will actually mean something for them. That is why we must have those protections.

We were talking about regularly monitored business. How regular—every three months, every two years, every five years?—and what type of monitoring? Can the Government say for certain that, by the time the regulator has identified a problem with record management, it will still be within the timeframe to resolve the issue without a funder of last resort?

The Government argue that the Bill already achieves what clause 9 is trying to achieve, but I must question the real reason why they do not want it in the Bill. If they support the idea of master trusts having regulations in place to avoid a disastrous situation if one failed, why will they not just support the clause? If they are so sure that it would never reach the stage of needing a funder of last resort, what is their opposition to including the clause just to ensure that, in a worst-case scenario when things do not go to plan, there is extra protection in place? Unless, of course, they are ideologically opposed to the concept of a funder of last resort. It would be a safety net; a guarantee from the Government that they will need to do everything in their power to protect workers’ retirement funds. If that is the case, I am disappointed that the Government do not believe that it is their duty to step in when business fails and that they would leave innocent people paying the price.

One argument that the Government Lords kept repeating was that, in the event of regulatory failure and a trust not having the means to finance a wind-up, it will not be members that will have to pay the price, but the Government have yet to tell us who it will be. When a number of master trusts and pension experts are calling for there to be a funder of last resort, why are the Government not listening? We have heard a lot of words in the other place and here today, but we have seen not action. Verbal assurance is not good enough when we are talking about people’s livelihoods in older age. We need action and robust legislation to ensure that we take every precaution. In the absence of greater clarity about the Government’s insistence that the Bill already addresses areas raised in this debate, it is vital that clause 9 is not removed. We should be covering every base in order to say confidently that we have taken every possible measure to protect members’ money 100%.