Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

I take entirely the legitimate point about the grey area that Citizens Advice and others see on a regular basis—we all see it, too, when a gentleman comes into a surgery with a sheaf of papers, plonks them on our desk and says, “Please solve that”—but I do not believe it is appropriate for the Government to shape the body in that way at this moment. I will discuss the issue further with the Money Advice Service, but for present purposes, I oppose the amendment.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

On the question of what is a personal debt and what is a self-employment or business-type debt, if a self-employed person who is a sole trader—that is, unincorporated—takes on a loan for a van or something else, that by its very nature becomes a personal debt. That is the nature of being a sole trader. Complications may arise where that person, who to all other intents is self-employed, trades as a micro limited company. If, because of difficulties accessing credit through the limited company, that person decided to take a personal loan and then provide it as a director’s loan account to his or her own limited company, what status would that loan have? I imagine in law—

[The Chair]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interventions should be brief and to the point. I am happy to call him if he wants to make a speech, but he must keep his interventions a good deal shorter than that.

[Craig Mackinlay]

Thank you for that advice, Mr Stringer. This is of course a complicated area, which requires a little extra explanation. In that instance, the bank or credit provider would recognise that as a personal loan. I wonder whether that would be covered by the advice that may be available.

[Guy Opperman]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s expertise in such matters, and I thank him for his intervention. Support for self-employed people is covered by the Bill, because the self-employed are members of the public, in the way he outlined. Any personal business debt of a self-employed person is covered in respect of them being an individual member of the public.

I take my hon. Friend’s point about loans. I am delighted to say that I am not able to answer it right now, but I will definitely get back to him. In seriousness, we need to consider that point and work out whether there is any way of changing it and taking on board the views of the organisations that have practised in this area for some considerable time. I will certainly write to him with a specific answer and circulate that answer to all Committee members.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mhairi Black]

I also appreciate the Minister’s honesty in getting straight to the point and saying that he will reject amendments 40 to 41. To return to my point, I think that if we do not strengthen clause 5, it will be a real missed opportunity. The Lords amendment was a welcome move in the right direction—that is why I was quite looking forward to building on it—so it is a disappointment to hear him say that the Government will carry on with this watered-down version.

It seems totally counter-productive if we are now at a stage where we acknowledge as we write policy that people do not understand pensions and they do not have a clue about them, on the whole. That is the gist. People want someone to hold their hand through the process, not ask them, “Have you had advice?” “No, I haven’t.” “Right. Okay, we’ll move on.” The Minister said that the onus would be put on the individual. To me, what the Government are suggesting does put the onus on the individual rather than on an independent body to hold people’s hands and guide them through the process. It seems like a missed opportunity. Forgive me if this is the wrong time, but I will press amendments 40 and 41 to a vote at the appropriate time.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I declare a couple of interests: I am a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and of the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Part of the Chartered Institute of Taxation has a low-income tax reform group, which includes a couple of charities that play a leading role in helping those who are on low pay: TaxAid and Tax Help for Older People. Before my time in Parliament, I was the north Kent volunteer, as a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, for Tax Help for Older People. Often there would be a widow or widower facing consequences that they did not quite know how to deal with, and that would be where the charity came in to help. Obviously, a lot of that work now happens through our surgeries on a weekly basis.

We live in a different world now, with auto-enrolment accumulating very nicely among millions of people across the country. If we are having difficulty today, we will have some very serious money in the future that needs to be dealt with, and people will need appropriate advice. I mentioned on Second Reading that the amounts involved across the country over the next 10, 15 or 20 years could amount to literally hundreds of billions of pounds.

Even without auto-enrolment, there are a number of choices that people need to take on board. Someone may be lucky enough to have a defined-benefits scheme. They are in the descendancy, for many reasons, but I have heard of instances of people who work for banks, in particular, having a defined-benefits scheme. They could be cashing that in, and thinking about a change to a different scheme of up to 50 times the annuity rate. Again, we are talking about very big figures.

People need to make a number of choices at various stages when approaching retirement: whether they should have a defined-contribution pot; whether an annuity is right for them—probably not a decision that many people are making, given the current low interest rates—and whether to change provider. I can see there being hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in a few years’ time who have been using NEST, for instance—the easy provider that many small employers are using—reaching the age of 55 or above and asking themselves, “Well, what now? Would changing to a different provider be better for me? Would a draw-down facility on my pension by best? Should I consider the inheritance tax benefits?” We are now in a new world where pensions are a very generous potential inheritance tax-saving product. They might also ask, “What are the factors of my health?” Health might play a very big part in whether someone wants to take all their income now as a full draw-down, or eek it out into the future. There will be a multitude of choices that people should make. People’s personal tax position should also never be forgotten, so that they take their pension in the most efficient way possible.

I would call this group of amendments, very simply, “the scam blockage and advice enlightenment measures.” They are very welcome and, from what I have seen of the Government’s proposals, I am fully supportive of them. I think they take on board the suggestions of the Work and Pensions Committee. However, I have spoken many times, and remain concerned, about what constitutes advice. I note in new clause 1(1)(d) that the FCA will be entitled to put together rules about what constitutes advice.

I remain concerned that somebody with a smaller pot—perhaps a pot of £30,000, which will be a very common position for many people to be in under auto-enrolment in the future—may get involved with SFGB and take the full advice. They will be told, “These options are available to you.” However, I do not think that the legislation provides for advising people what the best provider and tax situation is for them. It is still hoped in new clause 1, as good as it is, that people go and get advice. That advice is simply not available in the market because independent financial advisers will look at a small pot and say, “Well, for the fees involved, I don’t really want to take you on.”

I have spent considerable time pushing for flexibility under FCA rules to allow people to see an IFA on almost a no-liability basis. Instead of the IFA having to do a full “know your client” assessment, which takes a long time and costs a lot of money, I propose an appointment with no liability on the IFA’s part. That would at least give people some help and guidance, which is infinitely better than none.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 22nd January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a true pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes); I just have to shout that much louder to be as shiny as him.

On pensions, I want to continue along the lines set out by a couple of speakers, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) and the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). My background was similarly—I will not say dull, but to some it might appear so. I am still nominally in practice as a chartered accountant and chartered tax adviser, so I am most interested in the tax benefits of pensions as part of personal planning.

I also served on the Select Committee on Work and Pensions from July 2015 to May 2017, where I had the enormous pleasure of overlapping with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) before she was promoted. I am delighted that she supports the Bill receiving a Second Reading this evening.

I very much welcome the new oversight body—the single financial guidance body—which my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said had such a snappy title, but I think that we know what it will be there for. Previously, the advice has always been out there, but I agree that it has been fragmented and not part of the inculcated knowledge of the public that help is out there and it is free. I hope that the Bill will help.

On pensions, there have been two arms. The first is the Pensions Advisory Service, whose main focus I see as advice on what pensions are and their benefits, plus online tools describing the saving needed to estimate future retirement income. It serves a useful educational function. The second is Pension Wise, which I am more interested in. It gives advice on what to do when approaching pensionable age, which is becoming ever more important.

All this represents a real issue—a welcome issue—for an increasing number of people across the country as auto-enrolment plays more and more of a role. The Government website suggests that 10 million employees will be enrolled across close to 300,000 employers by 2020. I see that as one of the real success stories of this Government and it is supported across the Chamber by all parties. That represents a savings rate in the future of up to £17 billion per year, so we could be looking at many hundreds of billions of pounds likely to be saved over the decades to come.

I was particularly pleased to serve on the Committee that considered the Pension Schemes Act 2017, which laid the framework, at the right time, for master trusts. Beforehand, there was a weak statutory framework—just approval from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for many schemes that I think had some dubious background. That has now gone, which is welcome.

What interests me about Pension Wise is what people will do with what is potentially their primary asset in life, their pension pot, as they approach older age. The average pension pot is £50,000—slightly more for men and less for women. There is an historical background to that, which I am sure will be put right as time goes by. The time of defined-benefit schemes is very much behind us, for obvious reasons—unknown liabilities for companies.

The pension freedoms of April 2015, however, were one of the best kept secrets of the 2014 Budget and they came as a surprise to me—I certainly did not see them coming. The freedom to take lump sums of 25% has been with us for a while, but people then gained complete flexibility over what to do with their defined-contribution pensions. They could also get rid of the traditional annuity purchase, or indeed could do nothing at all if that suited them.

With interest rates low, it has to be recognised that, although they are still right for some, the time of traditional annuities is perhaps over. With freedom, though, come dangers, including from scams. In this data age, it is not difficult to find out when anybody is approached the age of 55, and with that comes the potential danger that people will be preyed on by scammers.

This afternoon, I searched on Google for “pension advisory service”. I was disappointed that the official Government Pensions Advisory Service was only the fifth result. Ahead of it came four other services that were perhaps good, perhaps bad, or perhaps somewhat indifferent. I am pleased that Pension Wise is found favourable by 88% of those who have used it, but, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, few have used it—perhaps no more than 10% of those planning to retire. That does not mean that people are not seeking and accessing advice. Those with larger pots will undoubtedly go to their independent financial advisers to get proper independent advice on their options and what might be best for them.

I wish to put on record that, during my time on the Work and Pensions Committee, I raised the limitations and bureaucracy that the FCA requirements impose on IFAs and suggested lighter-touch regulations, so that IFAs who deal with smaller pension pots could advise on a “no liability to the adviser” basis. That way, those with smaller pots could at least get good professional advice, which must be infinitely better than none.

Clause 4, on the regulation of cold calling, is hugely welcome. Many Members have mentioned their experiences with PPI, banking scams, claims for flight delays—the list goes on and on. Because of that, there is a serious problem with databases, so the Information Commissioner needs to be rather more robust on that.

I hope that the Bill will mean that more people will become aware of their options, seek genuine advice and get wise to the scammers. Over the past few years, the Government have laid good foundations for pensions, as people are making greater provision for themselves. The Bill is welcome, coming at the right time to strengthen the available financial guidance framework, and I have no hesitation in supporting it.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th Sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 9th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intervention; I accept that he did not mean it to become a speech, but I think it did. He knows, because I have told him privately, that it is the Government’s intention to resolve this issue. I have stated many times that I cannot go into what will be in the Green Paper. I also cannot accept that the new clause should be included in the Bill, because we are not ready for it. We do not have a solution; there is no simple solution.

The hon. Gentleman has been involved, not actually in this issue but in many others to do with asset management and financial services, and knows that everything is more complex than it first appears. I have accepted that there is a problem, I have mentioned that there are different entities that have to deal with it, and I have accepted that we have to try to reach a solution—by consensus, I hope. However, I cannot give him that good news today; I have to resist the new clause being added to the Bill.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair and to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck. The experience of the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber comes through very clearly.

I hope I can offer some help to the Committee. I realise that this is a complex area, but the hon. Gentleman’s new clause does not actually encompass the extent of the problem, which goes further. Under the old rules—extra-statutory concession C16 on the winding-up of companies, which was used widely until 2012—a group of directors or owners could wind up a company using a very informal method, but that did not cease their liabilities to that company. That liability extended for 20 years afterwards. That was then formalised under section 1030A of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, which gave a statutory basis to the informal winding up of companies with assets of less than £25,000. That provision is still used very widely. Directors or owners of such companies being wound up under that statutory method could still face 20 years of future liabilities, so although the hon. Gentleman has identified a problem in the system, it does not just apply to unincorporated associations.

The effect of the section 1030A of the 2010 Act, which came into force on 1 March 2012, is that directors and owners of slightly larger companies are going down the route of a formal liquidation, which terminates their liabilities for ever more. However, hundreds—if not thousands—of old, smaller companies using the old extra-statutory concession will still be caught by a section 75 notice. This is a very wide issue that does not apply only to unincorporated associations, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s new clause is enough to close down his concerns on future liabilities. Personally, I accept the Minister’s assurances, but I think this is the start of a wider debate as to how those liabilities can be cut down.

In the hon. Gentleman’s new clause 12, there is a problem with determining the proper value of a pension liability. It is not as sharp as just the transfer value that is often given, and we will need in future to be a little bit cleverer in how we actuarially assess pension liabilities.

[Ian Blackford]

On the basis of the Minister’s response, I will certainly not push the new clause to a vote. We have received assurances that the Government will look at these issues; I hope they will not only be addressed in the Green Paper, but that there is the possibility of legislation as a result of that. I think we all recognise—there is a consensus on this—that we have to make sure we can resolve this problem for the benefit or incorporated and unincorporated businesses. On that basis, I will happily leave things as they are for now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

Investment Strategy

“(1) A Master Trust, after taking proper advice, formulate an investment strategy which must be in accordance with guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State,

(2) The Trust must consult scheme members on—

(a) the Trust’s assessment of the suitability of particular investment and types of investment;

(b) the Trust’s approach to risk, including the ways in which risks are to be assessed and managed;

(c) the Trust’s policy on how social, environmental, and corporate governance considerations are taken into account in the selection, non-selection, retention and realisation of investments;

(d) the Trust’s policy on the exercise of the rights (including voting rights) attaching to investments; and

(e) the right of scheme members to consider non-financial issues relating to their investments and be consulted on these issues.

(3) The Trust must review the strategy at least once a year, and revise if appropriate

(4) The Trust must revise the strategy at any time if there is any significant change to the information included in it.

(5) In the event of (4) above, the Trust must consult with scheme members, and the revise the strategy in the light of comments made.

(6) The Secretary of State may make regulations with a view to ensuring that the information disclosed under subsection (1) is provided in a timely and comprehensible manner.”.—(Alex Cunningham.)

A Master Trust must include an investment strategy which outlines what the Master Trust should consult scheme members on in areas of investment.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

That is not exactly the case. It is clear that we need a set of circumstances in which members are properly engaged, equipped and informed. If they are, they will be able to contribute.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I oppose new clause 2 just as I opposed new clause 1, not least because of practicality. Let us go back to the example of NEST, which could have millions and millions of members—and I envisage that it probably will. How on earth could an investment strategy be decided by 3 million members? That would probably lead to three million and one different investment strategies.

I do not see anything in the Bill that would prevent a scheme such as the one the hon. Gentleman proposes from coming to the market if there was demand for it from several employers and members in those employers. The market could then decide, “I like the look of that scheme, with its huge member involvement.” I see no reason why such a scheme could not evolve if one was called for.

The hon. Gentleman speaks about an ethical investment policy. That is all very well, but I remind him that the Co-op bank took a similar route, and it is not exactly in great shape. I put it to him that when I go to a doctor, I like to see the doctor; I do not particularly want to see the lay members of the NHS trust as well. I feel comfortable leaving this with investment professionals, because they will be judged on their performance. If they do not achieve, employers may look at an alternative master trust.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

Surely when picking a pension fund employers interact with funds and many of these issues are raised in those interactions.

[Craig Mackinlay]

As my hon. Friend says quite clearly, the results will speak for themselves. I come back to the principles that I mentioned earlier: the fund has to have good returns and be well run and focused, because it has one function—to deliver good pensions. Again, I do not see that the new clause would achieve any of those principles, and if nothing else, it is unworkable because of the size of funds.

[Richard Harrington]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; member engagement and involvement sounds very good—it is a laudable objective—but I have been around for nearly 60 years, of which I was in business for nearly 30, and I do not feel qualified to assess an investment strategy. I say that not to insult the vast majority of people, but because, although independent financial advisers and accountants may be able to do that, it is almost impossible for an individual to do so. We have to look at a way of ensuring that the investment strategy is the correct one for the majority of members, and that the regulatory system, the supervisory system and so on are in place. Hon. Members mentioned NEST, which already has more than 4 million members and 230,000 employers. This idea is very interesting but not at all practical.

I remind hon. Members that trustees play a key role in managing assets. They have overall accountability for the investment strategy. They have a legal duty; the hon. Members for Stockton North and for Ross, Skye and Lochaber—I can just about manage to say that now—used the expression “fiduciary duty,” and the trustees have a fiduciary duty to the members.

Laudable as new clause 2 is, pensions legislation already includes requirements for investment decisions to be transparent and in the best interests of members. The Government fully recognise the possible impact of investment decisions on members’ retirement outcomes. Even without the new clause, the Bill will add to those requirements. Clause 12(4)(d) already sets out that regulations made by the Secretary of State

“may include provision about…processes relating to transactions and investment decisions”,

while clause 12(2) states:

“In deciding whether it is satisfied that the systems and processes used in running the scheme are sufficient…the Pensions Regulator must take into account any matters specified in regulations”.

The new amendment would duplicate the provisions for master trust schemes that already exist under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Investment) Regulations 2005. The regulations require trustees of all schemes with 100 or more members to set out a statement of investment principles for their scheme. That statement must be made available to members on request and

“must cover…their policies in relation to…the kinds of investments to be held…the balance between different kinds of investments…risks, including the ways in which risks are to be measured”

and other key issues. The trustees must ensure

“that the statement of investment principles…is reviewed at least every three years…and without delay after any significant change in investment policy.”

Most people who are automatically enrolled into pension schemes are likely to remain in their scheme’s default fund and will not actively engage themselves in the governance of the scheme. That is why legislation makes requirements about governance and oversight of these matters, and why most schemes, including master trust schemes, need to provide a default strategy that covers similar areas.

Finally, multi-employer schemes have a legal duty under the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996 to make arrangements to encourage members of the scheme or their representatives to report their views on matters that relate to the scheme, including areas about which the new clause proposes that the trustees should consult scheme members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is almost as if I am doing an aerobics class; I have already warmed up, even in this cold Committee Room.

New clause 7 would provide employers with a fiduciary duty and a duty of care to members to ensure that the master trust of their choice meets the needs of their staff. The auto-enrolment process in the UK rests on the employer making the choice of scheme for those purposes. The new clause would ensure that, before authorisation, the employer is duty-bound to ensure that the master trust is fit for purpose and has all the necessary information for that choice to have a sound footing.

We need to ensure that the employer has a defined duty to carry out due diligence when choosing a workplace pension. Otherwise, many employers—through expediency or otherwise—will continue to make choices that may not be in the best interests of the scheme’s beneficiaries.

The past 20 years has seen us lurch from one mis-selling scandal to another. Pension transfers, endowments, payment protection insurance and interest rate swaps have all been subject to class actions, and to massive retrospective penalties being imposed on those found wanting in due diligence.

In the US, the employer has a fiduciary responsibility to their staff and chooses their scheme in their best interests. That means that if employers do not take due care in the choice and governance of the plan that they set up for their staff, they are liable to civil prosecution. Employers in the US take fiduciary obligations seriously, not least because scheme members are now taking and winning class actions if they do not.

A class action can focus on the choice of scheme provider, failure to establish suitable investment options and failure to monitor how funds perform as the scheme progresses. Some advisers in the UK, such as Pension PlayPen, think that the information given to employers to choose a workplace pension is insufficient, and that there is little supervision of the due diligence process by regulators, which is in sharp contrast to what happens in America.

The other day, Pension PlayPen stated on its blog:

“The common law includes the concept of an employer’s duty of care to staff, not just for their health and safety but for their financial welfare. This duty of care forms part of a social contract, the implicit responsibilities held by individuals towards others within society. It is not a requirement that a duty of care be defined by law.

An additional worry is that employers do not see this as their choice. Too often we get answers from employers ‘we did what our accountants told us to’. It is as much in the interests of accountants to ensure the employer states why they have chosen their pension as it is the employer’s.”

So what happens when the duty of care and fiduciary obligations go wrong? The only option is the courts. According to a Financial Times article last November, there has been an “explosion” of class actions in the USA on the issue of financial detriment to scheme members. These suits have not yet gained much public attention, due to the reputation of the US legal system, but it is also partly because the legal action is fragmented and spread between different courts, and cases are often settled in private with binding confidentiality clauses. What is more, pensions have the unfortunate reputation of being rather dull, even though the sums involved dwarf those of the multibillion dollar settlements seen in banking since 2008.

However, the basis of the complaints are sound and echo a warning that we have been making about the lack of transparency and engagement for members of schemes. Members may have been charged excessively high fees, the most noticeable or important point being that the investment process may be used to extract wealth.

As in other financial suits, such as PPI suits, the cases claim that financial organisations have used opaque structures, so that transactions extract money that ought to go to members of schemes. In one case, JP Morgan has been sued by a participant for allegedly causing employees to pay millions of dollars in excessive fees, through a scheme motivated by “self-interest”. The plaintiff claims that JP Morgan, as well as various board and committee members, breached its fiduciary duties by, among other things, retaining proprietary mutual funds from the bank and affiliated companies for several years, despite the availability of nearly identical, lower-cost and better performing funds.

Not all of these cases are just related to charges in the investment chain; some are also about administrative processes. A website—401khelpcenter.com—highlights that members of Essentia Health in Minnesota filed a class action lawsuit against the sponsor, claiming that the organisation paid excessive fees to their record keepers.

[Craig Mackinlay]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned many times the potential for class action, particularly in the US, on various issues. Does he not believe that having the word “reasonable” twice in the new clause that he has tabled actually becomes a licence for class action, rather than closing it down?

[Alex Cunningham]

I certainly do not. I am not a lawyer, but I believe that the new clause is sufficient and does not open the way for such action. What I am trying to do is provide a protection for employers within the scheme, and therefore also for members.

The latest complaint was filed in January against Aon Hewitt Financial Advisors, accusing the company of breaching the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 1974, or ERISA. That is the fourth lawsuit to target the fee arrangement for services provided by a computer-based investment advice programme.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Richard Harrington]

I quite agree, and of course there are checks and balances within the system: the pause order can be exercised only on a determination by the determinations panel, and then there is a higher level of scrutiny. In a small administrative matter, it would be totally irresponsible for the regulator to suddenly decide on a pause order with the exact effect that the hon. Gentleman alludes to, either on pensioners receiving benefits or on people working as normal and paying contributions that come out of their weekly or monthly statements.

I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intent, but I think it is important to look beyond the general definition of a pause order and into the specifics, which I hope I have explained, albeit briefly. I ask him to withdraw the amendment; he makes an important point, but I think we have attended to the detail necessary to ensure that what he fears, and we all fear, does not take place.

As we have heard, amendment 37 is consequential on amendment 36, so I will discuss both SNP amendments together. The hon. Gentleman has stated that he supports them, so at least it will be on the record that the Opposition and the SNP actually agree on this subject. [Interruption.] That was teasing, to use this Committee’s terminology. I withdraw any teasability if I have caused offence.

Critically, amendment 36 would allow the Pensions Regulator to issue a pause order containing a direction that any paused payments into the scheme are to be

“collected and held in a separate fund, until the conclusion of the pause order”,

and amendment 37 would allow the Secretary of State to make regulations about the fund. On the face of it, it seems sensible to have a separate fund set up, but it would be extremely difficult in practice. Employers would have to negotiate with their employees to obtain their permission to take deductions from their pay and pay them into a different entity. That money would not actually be being paid towards a pension scheme; it would have to go to a solicitor’s client account, for example, or to another account that had been set up, instead of to the pension itself. There are tax implications and many other implications. That would cause fear, because people would think, “What is happening to my existing pension money? I am having to pay it into an emergency account.”

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

On that point, may I ask what the sponsoring employer’s position would be under a pause order? Would the sponsoring employer be in contravention of his auto-enrolment obligations, having been forced to stop paying towards a master trust that is set up or is part of the employees’ contributions arrangements?

What would happen to the employer in terms of his obligations under auto-enrolment? Is it envisaged, if a pause order is in place, that he would have to keep the money within the business until the situation is resolved, and then that money be passed over to the same fund, if it is cleared to continue in operation, or to a new fund that stands in its place?

[Richard Harrington]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point that we have considered. Having been an employer for many years and supervised payroll systems, I understand that that would be the obvious thing to do: simply hold on to the money. Provided it was kept within a business but earmarked for that, I do not think anyone could say that the employer would be in breach of their legal duties for auto-enrolment.

Of course, then a problem arises. It sounds appallingly administrative and technical, but it is the sort of thing that lawyers make a lot of money out of. If it were paid into a non-pension fund emergency account, which I believe could be an unintended consequence of the honourable amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber, it could mean that the money is not being paid into a pension fund. What happens to its legal status, the tax and everything else? It is very much in extremis and complicated.

I am not regarded within the pensions trade as a great voice for employers, as I think everybody in the House would agree, but this would represent a significant burden for employers. I ask hon. Members to bear in mind that employers will not typically have been responsible for this problem—they will not typically have been responsible for the events leading to the pause order being made. From their point of view, they have simply been complying with their duties under auto-enrolment, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet said.

I do not believe we can place them in a situation where they risk being unable to comply with their legal duties or where compliance becomes a significant burden. As I have said, this is very complicated and the tax and payroll implications are not certain. I think we would all agree that in these rare and very limited circumstances, the solution presented in the Bill is the most simple for employers to comply with. Given the very limited impact on scheme members and the low likelihood of this situation arising, I believe that is the right solution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

Reference has been made to member trustees making up 50% of the board, which is something I could not support. I can support the general principle that member trustees should be represented, that there should be elections and that they should be able to take the time they need to devote to this and get proper training, but I cannot support at this stage having compulsion as part of that, on the basis of the responsibilities that trustees have to represent all member interests.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I can understand the laudable aims of the hon. Member for Stockton North, but where such boards have had member participation, the reality has not always been a fantastic success. I had an oblique interest in the Maxwell pensions fiasco because I belonged to a firm of chartered accountants appointed to look into that big mess, so I have some experience of that. I was also a member of the Joint Committee that looked into the BHS pension schemes, which also had member participation. That really did not come out as a great success. There was no issue of fraud, but were those employee members really tough enough to stand up to an overpowering sponsoring employer?

What we have is different from the occupational pension scheme arrangement, for which I think it is good, right and proper for its members to participate. We are considering master trusts, in which thousands of employers may be involved. I am sure that there may be only a few hundred master trusts that would bother to adhere to the new clause’s regulations after they come into place. The National Employment Savings Trust is probably going to be the biggest master trust for some time to come, with possibly millions of employees involved, and I cannot understand how on earth we could have an election process involving millions of people and different employers.

[Alex Cunningham]

Legal & General, one of the largest insurance companies, manages to do that in order to communicate properly with its members. While I am on my feet, I also make the point that the hon. Gentleman says that having member trustees has not been a fantastic success. Does he therefore believe that the views of members should be excluded? I remind him that in master trusts it is the members who bear all the financial risk—no one else—so why should they not have some control or some say over their funds?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says; ultimately, it is the employees’ funds, and it is important that they should take the greatest interest in them. I think that employee involvement in occupational schemes has generally been worthy and a great success, but I am more concerned about the practicalities of how the form of democracy he advocates could possibly work when there will be millions of employees in a single master trust.

[Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)]

With regard to the potential for an administrative nightmare, is it not also true that companies will switch between different master trusts? If the requirement of having elections and so on is put upon them, that will make administration even more difficult, if not impossible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

I thank my hon. Friend for outlining further the complexities of what the hon. Member for Stockton North is proposing. What we are looking for from master trusts is that they are well run, safe and that they actually perform for the pensioners of the future. With the greatest respect, the administrative costs of what he is proposing could actually outweigh any positive parts that he thinks will come out of it, so I cannot support his new clause.

[Ian Blackford]

I know that the hon. Member for Stockton North has stated that he is not asking for a majority of trustees to be elected, but that is exactly what new clause 1 calls for—it calls for at least half of the trustees of a scheme to be member trustees. I just wanted to clarify that point. For that reason, I cannot support the new clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Blackford]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will be brief. Those of us who want to encourage pension saving, as we all do in this room, should encourage as much member engagement as is possible. That is the right thing to do to ensure that we have as much transparency as possible. It is perhaps relevant not just to this amendment, but to others, that the issue of members being trustees is important. We must recognise that we are talking about assets belonging to the plan holders and take into account the fact that a number of master trusts are also profit making. It is important that that process of transparency is open to members of the scheme and that there is full engagement by members, with members being part of the board of trustees and having effective training. We happily support that.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I will probably say something more about my opposition to member trustees, which would be a step very much in the wrong direction, and I fear that the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North would do that, but in a different way.

I agree entirely that the regulations under clause 12 will be subject to the Secretary of State’s involvement in laying out those regulations in due course, and under clause 13 the continuity strategy—what that might mean and what regulations we may expect are fairly well laid out—but I am afraid that, to my mind, “member engagement strategy” is wording that is rather too loose. If we encouraged such a strategy, I would like to see in any amendment what that might involve and an expectation of what we may see in regulations from the Secretary of State. I would not want a perfectly good scheme to fail because of an interpretation that might mean lots of different things to different people. My member engagement strategy might be rather different from that of the hon. Gentleman, so I will not support the amendment.

[Richard Harrington]

I would like to make a general point, which the hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber also made and which was agreed by everyone: we are all in favour of more people getting involved in their pension scheme. For many years, it became clear, particularly under defined-benefit schemes, that people had other things to think about for most of their life and that they thought their employer would take care of their pension, whether in the public sector or in a defined-benefit scheme. It was not that they could not care less, but they thought that as long as they paid their bit they did not have much to worry about.

The general point—it is not specifically a regulatory point for the Bill—is that the general policy of this Government, the previous one and, I am sure, all future Governments will be to make people far more aware of their pensions because they are predominantly defined- contribution schemes. People must know and be able to calculate their pension, but perhaps the old boring statement sent out every so often is not the way to do that. We hope that apps and other systems will mean people are a lot more aware of it.

The general point of people being a lot more knowledgeable about their pension arrangements is taken as read and my responsibility and role is to help to promote that through communications, advertising, technological changes and so on. However, that is separate from the regulatory point. It underlines what everyone in this room really wants.

On the regulatory point in the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Stockton North, I share his view of the theoretical constituents in the Price Bailey report. I do not think many of my constituents have £55,000 a year either, but the report makes some good points. We are here to discuss the amendments specifically. You are being patient, Mr Rosindell, but I wanted to make that more general point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

On the point about the person who promotes or markets the scheme, a lone employer or an employer thinking about his options, whether it be the National Employers Saving Trust or another master trust, may ask his independent financial adviser to consider which scheme is suitable for his business. How would the Pensions Regulator get involved with subsection(3)(a)—

“a person who promotes or markets the scheme”?

The subsection includes the word “may”. I am concerned that we may be putting regulatory requirements on IFAs who are already duly authorised under the FCA and may be caught under this clause. Was that the Minister’s intention?

[Richard Harrington]

No, I confirm that that was not the Minister’s intention at all. As we get through the regulations for this Bill, it is precisely that kind of case that we need to take into consideration, and there may be others. An IFA, of course, would be regulated and deemed to be a fit and proper person by the FCA. I am not very familiar with those rules, because they are outside my area of responsibility, but I think that they are pretty stringent and that they might be directly comparable to those under the Pensions Regulator. However, it is a fair point. In fact, most companies in the position to which my hon. Friend refers usually have to go to a professional adviser to be able to make that decision, because they have neither the time nor the experience to make the decision themselves, unless they are a very large company with suitable employees.

The regulation-making powers are needed to respond to developments in the market where the structures of master trusts might evolve to include other functions. There is a regulation-making power that enables regulations to specify matters that the regulator must take into account when assessing whether someone is a fit and proper person. As with other provisions in the Bill, we intend to work closely with industry, regulators and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in developing these regulations, as well as conducting formal consultation.

The clause also gives the regulator a discretion to take into account other matters as it considers appropriate when carrying out the fit and proper person test, including matters related to a person connected to the person being assessed. That will give the regulator the flexibility to ensure that it can be fully satisfied that the criteria for a fit and proper person have been met and not avoided on technicalities.

The fit and proper person criteria are a key part of the new regime for master trusts. They relate to the competence and propriety of those responsible for the pension savings of thousands workers.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Alex Cunningham]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman is not following my argument, but perhaps he will as I move to my conclusion.

As I was saying, charges for active investments have remained stable, unlike charges for passive investments, which have been falling. The FCA suggests that that reflects competitive pressures and the unwillingness of funds in the active fund market to undercut each other, and it says that weak pressure on prices can lead to weak cost control. The FCA report is particularly scathing about the role of investment consultants: with 60% of that market controlled by three firms, the FCA is considering a market investigation reference to the Competition and Markets Authority. The report concludes with a number of very welcome interim proposals on remedies, not least on transparency and all-in fees, but this is a hugely powerful and profitable sector and it will be lobbying hard to water down any action.

The Secretary of State confirmed that the Government will consult on hidden costs and charges later this year. On Second Reading, he said:

“Transparency is a key area. Hidden costs and charges often erode savers’ pensions. We are committed to giving members sight of all the costs that affect their pension savings… We plan to consult later in the year on the publication and onward disclosure of information about costs and charges to members. In addition to the Bill, other things are clearly required to give greater confidence in the pensions system.”—[Official Report, 30 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 756.]

I asked in that same debate why it is necessary to start consulting people when we should simply be saying that we want to know what all the costs are in the entire investment chain. I said that, yes, I agree with consultation—but surely we are getting to the end of the tunnel on that.

The FCA is currently holding two separate consultations on cost transparency. The first is in response to the watchdog’s interim report on its asset management market study and calls for an all-in fee approach to quoting charges. The second, which closed to responses on 4 January, could require asset managers to disclose aggregate costs and then provide a further breakdown on request. That is good news and surely statutory bodies such as independent governance committees, the Local Government Pension Scheme advisory board and the Pensions Regulator are quite capable of making sure that whatever comes out of the FCA’s consultations is enforced. The only beneficiaries of further consultations are the asset managers, who will have won yet more years of grace in which they can operate under the radar.

The Investment Association has questioned the data and metrics the FCA used to come to its conclusions that active funds do not on average provide better value than passive funds. I am concerned that, despite making all the right noises and promising full transparency, the Investment Association has set out to kick the consultation process down the long road by persuading the Department for Work and Pensions that it needs to discover exactly what the FCA has spent the past two years discovering.

If we are to have another consultation, it will be in the teeth of all the evidence gathered so far, at enormous expense to Government and to the private sector, and will serve employers and workers very badly. Perhaps it is time for the DWP to stop consulting and start turning the current consultations into enforceable legislation. It should learn from its colleagues at DCLG, who, as I said earlier, have endorsed the work of the LGPS advisory board. DCLG’s own programme of fund consolidation included advice that the newly forming asset pools should prove to them that active fund management should be no more expensive than passive.

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

I do not want to stop the hon. Gentleman when he is in full flow—we are very much enjoying his oration about the effects of compounding and charges. Surely, as we have more master trusts and the auto-enrolment market gets bigger and bigger, it will be a natural feature of that market that people will be more interested and aware of the charging structure. My personal view is that the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raises will come out as the market expands and evolves, and more and more of these trusts come forward. Much as I have enjoyed what he has to say, I have a feeling that that will be the natural progression of things in the market.

[Alex Cunningham]

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

It is essential to ensure that the authorisation regime can cater for closer supervision when triggering events occur. Legislation therefore has to set out clearly what those risk events are, the dates on which they are taken to start and finish, and consequent requirements. That is what the clauses achieve, in conjunction with subsequent clauses in the Bill.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I seek just one clarification from the Minister. Earlier today we agreed to Government amendment 3, which defined a scheme funder as

“a body corporate or a partnership that is a legal person”.

However, item 5 in the table of triggering events listed in clause 22(6) interprets a scheme funder slightly differently, as

“a person or body of a kind that meets requirements prescribed under…the Pensions Act 2004”.

I am concerned that we have agreed to an amendment that exempts individual persons, but there seems to be a slightly different interpretation of what the scheme funder is in the table of triggering events. It may just be an oversight, but some clarification would be helpful.

[Richard Harrington]

I will get back to my hon. Friend on that very technical point, but I do not believe that there is any intention for the definition to be different.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23

Notification requirements

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 30th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The House will be rather pleased that I will focus purely on the Bill, which I very much welcome and have no hesitation in supporting.

It may be helpful briefly to explain the framework and history of master trusts. Such pension plans were historically designed primarily for single employers, or a group of related sponsoring employers with an in-built paternalistic and altruistic nature of management. However, the world of workplace pensions has changed rapidly and for the good, with the introduction of workplace pensions under auto-enrolment following the Pensions Act 2008. As we have heard from the Secretary of State, the latest figures suggest that more than 7 million employees are now enrolled across 370,000 employers. As we reach the final phase of the staging dates roll-out across smaller employers over the coming year, the number will expand massively, approaching 10 million people across possibly 1 million employers. The figure for current assets under management is at more than £10 billion a year and will grow rapidly. It could easily be the case that, over the next 30 years, master trusts contain assets exceeding £1 trillion.

The larger employer may already have had an employer scheme in place, but those are likely to have been contract based, whereby a pension provider—often an insurance company—is appointed to run an individual scheme. It is the smaller employer, under auto-enrolment obligations, that will be using the other possible course of action, which is the trust-based defined contribution scheme, whereby a number of employers—perhaps tens of thousands of smaller individual employers—will take part in an individual scheme. The new legislation will apply to those new trust-based schemes, ensuring that they are well run, financially sound and subject to appropriate oversight by the Pensions Regulator. It is essential that employees have confidence that schemes will protect their assets. After all, it is perfectly likely that an employee’s pension fund, after their house, will be the primary life asset upon which so much will depend.

The Select Committee on Work and Pensions, in its report of 15 May last year, devoted some time to highlighting the risks under the current limited regulatory arrangements for master trusts, amounting to little more than Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs registration that practically anybody could overcome—loose arrangements that suited the original purpose of trust-based schemes, but which are wholly insufficient in the new auto-enrolment world. I pay tribute to the work of former Pensions Minister, Baroness Altmann, who similarly highlighted the lack of regulation of master trusts.

Following investigations, including one by the BBC, there were reports of unregulated applicants to the master trust market—notably, a promotion by MWP Pension Ltd, a company owned by former sports fashionwear traders that formerly traded as Wide-Boys R Us. With that type of background, new legislation is urgently needed, otherwise this area could easily become the financial scandal of the future.

Far from being overdue, it is a tribute to the ability of our legislative framework that risks have been recognised and the Government have acted quickly. The market itself has recognised the risks of the current lightweight regime. The Pensions Regulator, working with the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales—as my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), a chartered accountant like myself, mentioned—created the master trust assurance framework, with a list available to all on the Pensions Regulator’s website. The list now includes 13 institutions that are complying with good practice. Before the Bill becomes law, I urge smaller employers considering their options as their staging dates approach to use any of those recognised schemes; do not use any other.

I welcome other aspects of the Bill, as it proposes triggering events, pause orders and an appropriately draconian penalty fine of up to £10,000 a day for non-compliance. I welcome the proposals and, with others, will examine their extent in Committee. Finally, and to the delight of all, the Bill gives authority to the Secretary of State to restrict charges, mirroring in part the provisions applying to the charges structure introduced within personal plans under the Bank of England and Financial Services Act 2016, and extending the Pensions Act 2014. As all Members will know, it is purely due to the effect of compounding that, over 40 years, a fund can grow by 50% or more with a simple fee-charging difference of just 0.75%. I certainly hope that the Secretary of State will use these powers to reduce charges as appropriate.

This Bill comes at the right time before contributions under auto-enrolment escalate over the years come, and I will support it.

State Pension Age: Women

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, worked on this issue at length earlier this year, and the SNP-commissioned report by Landman Economics draws upon much of our work—indeed, copies much of it. I certainly hope that the SNP did not pay too much for its report.

It is clear that there was a gross inequality in the old system, which had been untouched for some 70 years. It was very much a “kick it down the road” subject that few wished to touch, but we as Conservatives did touch it, because it needed touching. That said, I have not only taken the WASPI women’s concerns on board, but actually done something about it. I wanted to hear directly from local constituents about their own experiences, and to that end I held a Thanet WASPI forum on Saturday 21 May. It attracted not only local constituents but others who had heard about it from across Kent. In all, 100 women came.

I have also encouraged WASPI women to come to my surgeries and met campaigners, as have many right hon. and hon. Members from the across the House, outside Parliament. I have written to, and discussed the issue with, current and former Pensions Ministers and Secretaries of State, and I have presented a WASPI petition to the House. Few could have done more to understand the issue, to listen to the problem and to try and get a solution. I have tried to come up with a single solution, but therein is the problem: WASPI does not speak with one voice. The reason is that no one solution fits all the problems.

[David Rutley]

I commend my hon. Friend for his efforts in trying to better understand this challenge—no doubt it is a challenge and there are people having to cope with this—but does he agree that the question ultimately comes down not just to the complexity of the solution but to affordability?

[Craig Mackinlay]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Given the state of the nation’s finances in 2010 and that 70-year-old inequality, something had to be done.

WASPI women find themselves in a difficult situation, having started out in a more traditional era of British life. Back then, women were more likely to be at home. If in work, they were unlikely to have been on a well-paid career path. Often part-time work would feature and low-paid work was the norm. The problems do not end there, though; this generation has parents themselves benefiting from increases in longevity, hence an extended caring function often falls upon them, while many WASPI women often support grandchildren as well.

The majority view among women at my forum was that there should have been no change at all to the 1995 Act and that the retirement age of 60 should have prevailed. Now, that clearly is not sustainable. None of the Opposition parties proposed it in their manifestos last year, and indeed this option—option 1 in the Landman Economics report—has been discounted even by the SNP. At £30 billion, it is simply too expensive and unfair. The SNP report advanced other options: option 2 was to wind back the 2011 pension change, which accelerated the age increase; and option 3 was a slowing down of the 2011 Act—a sort of Pension Act 2011-minus.

An option 4, suggested by Labour Members, is that pension credit be used to bridge the gap, but the great problem with that is that it might actually discourage work, or even encourage people to stop work altogether. Option 5 is for an actuarially reduced pension at an earlier age. I floated that with many WASPI women, and some supported it, given an appropriate discount rate. It could work—it works in the USA and Canada—but then another group of WASPI campaigners do not want to hear of it, and my worry is that, in 10 years, we might have a group of WASPI women who, having accepted less for longer, are now in poverty. I have discussed all these issues with my WASPI women, and there is very little agreement.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On the question of what is acceptable, does the hon. Gentleman understand that many WASPI women, having been born in the ’50s and done physical work, are physically unable to continue working and cannot be expected to do so? Moreover, those born in the ’60’s and ’70’s have a chance to retrain, whereas the WASPI women do not and are physically unable to work on their knees for physically demanding jobs. Surely that has to be a consideration.

[Craig Mackinlay]

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I will cover some of those issues as I progress.

On the contract that many Members say was there, there was no contract for the Government to implement the triple lock, which has done more to alleviate poverty in older age than any other measure before it. There was no contract about the implementation of the new state pension, which will provide £155.65 per week on 35 qualifying years of national insurance. These were choices made by Conservative Governments and were done for the right reasons. We will have increased the take-home pension by £1,100 a year since 2010. Many people welcome these things, which were done for the right reasons, as I said. WASPI women have the right to work for longer because they are not forced into retirement any more. If they are unable to work, there is a benefit system, which I support and hope would carry them through.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Craig Mackinlay]

I already have given way twice, and I do not have much time.

I have an option 6 to offer to Members today, which I even offer to Landman Economics for free. It has to be understood that later-age employment is difficult. Employers are not always as enlightened as they could be in recognising the value of older employees. I am grateful to colleagues here who have taken on older employees. I would offer a lighter-touch approach by the Department for Work and Pensions in jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance claims with no need to prove endless CV writing and job clubs and less formal job coaching, and advice on a simpler footing.

Finally, one of the most active South Thanet WASPI campaigners, still very much annoyed with me and the Government, recently came to see me. As a result of the changes, she had taken up an offer by Jobcentre Plus and she wrote to me to pass on to it how good it had been. We do not see much of that in our surgeries. Because of the great service she had received—she also attended a jobs fair that I had put on—she had found a job. I have never seen her so happy, but that would not have happened unless the changes had moved her in that direction.

It is very clear that one solution does not fit all. I would have supported the amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), if it had been available to vote for this afternoon. I have to say to SNP Members, however, that I am sorry, but I am unable to support their rather blunt motion. As ever, I am afraid, it is pure political grandstanding, offering very few answers. There is an answer out there, and it will be found, I am sure, by the excellent work of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I encourage WASPI to speak to us with one voice, so that we can reach a solution that is right for the majority.

State Pension Age

Craig Mackinlay Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has given some very cogent figures to the House, particularly the change in the number of years people can expect to spend in retirement from 14 to 27. Will he confirm that the independent review will be conducted in an impartial manner? Is not what we are hearing from Opposition Front Benchers and their friends in the SNP simply scaremongering?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I will repeat the figures. They are backed by what our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), the Chancellor in a previous Conservative Government, once said with great foresight. The fact is that life expectancy for a man who retired in 1945, when the pensionable age was 65, was between 60 and 63. With the same retirement age, the expected period in retirement has risen to about 27 years. We must take that into consideration. I want more people to be able to work longer, and it was me and the then Pensions Minister who raised the default retirement age to stop companies telling people that they could not work past 65. Such people can now carry on working. We have done a lot, and this review is all part of that process.