Child Poverty: Ethnicity

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on securing this important debate. I will focus solely on one aspect of child food poverty, which is somewhat “offline”. I declare my interest as a lifelong sufferer from coeliac disease. This is an autoimmune condition; it is difficult to diagnose and is not an allergic reaction. There are a growing number of children, across all ethnicities, who suffer from gluten intolerance. For those from ethnic backgrounds, reading the small print on labels to check for the presence of wheat can be a challenge, especially if English is not their first language. When I was a child, a very limited range of gluten-free products was available and only on prescription. The Minister will know that a large number of clinical commissioning groups no longer provide gluten-free prescribing. Supermarkets now stocking a range of GF products is given as the reason. This assumes that those with gluten intolerance have money in their pockets.

Supermarkets dedicate sections to “free from” foods, including GF products. Although there are different types of GF pasta, sliced loaves, chocolate biscuits, et cetera, their cost is very different from that of products containing gluten. In the case of a loaf of bread, this can be three to four times as much as a loaf made from wheat. For families who are living on benefits, the cost of GF cereals, bread and flour may be beyond their reach. For a recently diagnosed child, the family may find the cost of the new diet prohibitive. A child usually having a packed lunch at school may find they cannot afford a gluten-free sandwich due to the price of the bread, so just what are they going to have for lunch? Would the Minister consider pressing her colleagues in the Department of Health to seriously reconsider returning gluten-free products to the prescription list?

There are those not qualifying for benefits who have fallen on hard times during the pandemic; the food banks are keeping them alive. It is important for the long-term health and welfare of coeliac sufferers that they stick to their diets at all times. A GF parcel from food banks will be essential for these sufferers.

Lastly, I turn to the school holidays. A child may have qualified for a GF school hot meal during the week, but what will happen to them during the school holidays? I urge the Minister to take account of the importance of regular, proper, balanced meals during those six weeks. As Marcus Rashford has demonstrated, it is a dreadful thing for a child to go to bed hungry. We are one of the richest countries in the world and should be ashamed that this is happening to large sections of our communities. I look forward to the Minister’s positive response.

Bereavement Benefits

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 6th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, those requirements were explained, I think, by my honourable friend Caroline Nokes when the regulations were dealt with in the Commons. They are complicated but the simple fact is that universal credit and other income-related benefits are there to fill the gap after that 18-month period. We believe that, with a contributory benefit such as bereavement support benefit, it is quite right to make that very generous initial payment, to then provide some support for those with children for 18 months and thereafter to let people seek help from income-related benefits.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, we understand the Government’s need to reduce the benefits bill; however, we believe that this is not the right place to do it. Given the spotlight that has recently been shone on the devastating impact of children suffering bereavement by the programme on Rio Ferdinand, I ask the Minister to talk to his colleague, the Secretary of State, and ask him to reconsider this policy and the devastating impact it will have.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I have been trying to explain that I believe that this benefit is an improvement in offering support at the initial stage, which is where it is important. I do not believe, and I do not think that the noble Baroness would believe, that any sum of money is going to deal with the problems of bereavement suffered by the surviving spouse or the children, but I believe that appropriate support ought to be offered for a period. That is what we have done, that is what we consulted on, that is why we made changes after that consultation, having listened to what people said, and that is what this new benefit will do. I think that that is the right way forward.

Universal Credit

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we have all on occasions had moments when we have had doubts about what goes on in the Treasury, but I shall not go into that at the moment. I shall go back to what the noble Lord said about the administration of the benefit. From my experience some 25 years ago in the old Department of Social Security, and seeing how things are operating now in the DWP with universal credit, I think that there is a very real change taking place. It is important that noble Lords get a look at what the work coaches are doing and how they are getting this over to claimants who are coming to them. The offer that I made to the right reverend Prelate is one that I repeat to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, it is a fundamental design of universal credit that people have to wait a month for their benefits to mirror what happens in real life, but that is not actually what is happening. Many families are experiencing delays of up to 12 weeks in the payment of universal credit, forcing them to use food banks and borrow from loan sharks. I have heard what the Minister says about the mechanism in place to prevent it happening, but is he aware that it is just not happening?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we were grateful for the support of the Liberal Party as part of the coalition Government in the passage of the Bill and in reaching that appropriate design, whereby we were looking for something that mirrors the world of work. That is what we are doing. That is why we also built in, as I made clear in my original Answer, the safeguards that we have. That is why, for example, I have stressed that there are universal credit advances for certain individuals who are having problems coping with that four-week waiting period.

Homelessness: Housing Benefit

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I simply do not accept the point that the noble Lord makes. Yes, we supported that Bill and will support it again tomorrow, when I think it will have its Committee stage in this House. We will continue to do so and we will continue to protect the most vulnerable in relation to housing. But we also wish to make sure that young people do not slip into a life on benefits. That is what this change is about.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, currently, 19,000 18 to 20 year-olds on jobseeker’s allowance claim housing benefit. They are simply unable to live at home for a variety of reasons, including physical and sexual abuse. If housing benefit is withdrawn, how does the Minister think that these young people will be able to find jobs if they are living on the streets?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, not one of the individuals on jobseeker’s allowance to whom the noble Baroness referred will be affected. As I made clear in my Answer, this matter relates to those on universal credit. As we also made clear in another place, and I will make clear now, there is a considerable number of exemptions. I think that some 25 are listed in the regulations—I can go through them if the noble Baroness wishes me to do so—which offer protection for those who need it.

Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2017

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Henley) (Con)]

My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 2 February 2017. I give the Committee the usual assurance that the draft statutory instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The order reflects the conclusions of this year’s annual review of the automatic enrolment thresholds required by the Pensions Act 2008. The review considered both the automatic enrolment trigger, which determines the point at which someone becomes eligible to be automatically enrolled into a qualifying workplace pension, and the qualifying earnings band, which determines those earnings of which the enrolled employee and their employer must pay a proportion into a workplace pension.

The order sets a new lower and upper limit for the qualifying earnings band and is effective from 6 April 2017. The earnings trigger is not changed and so no further provision is required in this order. The earnings trigger remains at the level set in the automatic enrolment threshold review order of 2014-15. Automatic enrolment continues to be a programme that works; nearly 7.3 million people have been enrolled, more than 400,000 employers have met their duties and the opt-out rate remains low at around 9%. We are now in the final year of rollout and the most challenging phase of automatic enrolment, with small and micro employers staging in peak volumes throughout 2017. Against this backdrop, it is more important than ever to maintain simplicity and consistency for employers. This year’s order will provide this through to the end of rollout in February 2018.

I am sure the Committee will share my enthusiasm about the very exciting juncture of automatic enrolment at which we find ourselves, with the review of the policy and its operation being undertaken by my department this year. With that review, it is time to reflect on the successes we have achieved so far, take stock of the current position and consider how to build on this so that automatic enrolment continues its success in helping to rebuild a culture of saving. As such, it is important that this year’s thresholds decision avoids pre-empting the outcome of the 2017 review but still delivers on the established principles of increasing the opportunity for people to make meaningful savings into a workplace pension while balancing costs for employers.

To describe the impact of the order, I turn first to the qualifying earnings band. As signalled by my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions on 12 December 2016, the order will, as previously, align both the lower and the upper limits of the qualifying earnings band with the national insurance lower and upper earnings limits of £5,876 and £45,000 respectively. By maintaining the alignment with the national insurance thresholds, both at the point where contributions start for low earners and are capped for higher earners, the overall changes to existing payroll systems are kept to a minimum. This decision therefore both ensures simplicity and minimises the administrative burden of compliance for employers in 2017-18, while maintaining consistency for hundreds of thousands of small and micro employers implementing automatic enrolment over the coming year. As I said, the order does not change the earnings trigger, which remains at £10,000, as set in the 2014-15 order.

Automatic enrolment continues to bring into its eligible target group those least likely to save for retirement. Low-paid workers and women, who are often likely to be low earners, have traditionally been underrepresented in workplace pension savings. Between 2012 and 2015 the private sector saw a 30 percentage point increase in eligible female participation in workplace pensions, and in 2014 there was no gender gap at all in participation. In fact, 2015 has seen more eligible women in the private sector participating in a workplace pension, exceeding the participation of men with 70% to 69% respectively.

Due to anticipated wage growth and with the maintenance of the existing trigger, we expect that an additional 70,000 individuals will meet the earnings criteria and be brought into the automatic enrolment population, of whom around 75% are women. Individuals earning below the £10,000 earnings trigger but above the lower earnings threshold will still be able to opt into a workplace pension and benefit from their employer contributions, should they so wish.

In conclusion, the decision to maintain the earnings trigger at £10,000 will increase the number of low earners who meet the earnings criteria and are therefore automatically enrolled in a workplace pension. The decision will increase the total number of people saving into a pension and the total savings. In addition, the decision to maintain the alignment of the lower and upper earnings qualifying bands with those for national insurance contributions maintains simplicity and consistency and minimises the burdens on employers at a crucial stage of the programme’s wider rollout. Taken together, that means that the total pensions saving is expected to increase by some £71 million. The order therefore ensures that automatic enrolment will continue to provide greater access and opportunity for individuals to save into a workplace pension and build up meaningful pension savings. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his instructive introduction to the order and for the fact that the number of women who are now enrolling has increased considerably. That is very good news.

I welcome the fact that the earnings trigger above which people will be automatically enrolled will remain at £10,000, which seems very reasonable. A lower threshold would bring more people into pensions, but, as the Minister indicated, with a state pension currently providing over £8,000 in retirement, there is obviously a limit to how far the Government want to be enrolling people who earn approximately £9,000, taking into account the cost to employers of setting up schemes, making payroll changes and so on. As has been indicated, the earnings trigger will undergo a fundamental review as part of the automatic enrolment review later this year. It would perhaps be better to wait for that and to look then at altering the trigger threshold.

The lower and upper limits for the band of qualifying earnings, on which contributions are due, are currently linked to the lower and upper limits for national insurance contributions. The order maintains that connection. However, I note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer raised the upper limit for national insurance contributions from £43,000 to £45,000. The order does the same and means that higher earners will be putting pension contributions in over a slightly wider band. That is welcome, but they can of course opt out if they wish to.

Although I welcome the regulations, I flag up my concern about people who have multiple jobs whose individual incomes will be below the threshold but cumulatively above it. They might earn £6,000 in one job and £5,000 in another. Such people are excluded from automatic enrolment; perhaps that can be considered on another occasion.

The Review of the Automatic Enrolment Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band for 2017/18: Supporting Analysis report, which was published in December 2016, refers to an important point about the 280,000 people who earn between £10,000, the automatic enrolment trigger, and £11,500, the current tax threshold, who get tax relief. However, they get their tax relief only if it is administered according to the relief-at-source tax system, but not if their tax relief is administered according to another system, the net pay arrangement. That arrangement is somewhat obscure and the Government have failed to address the issue in the order. Those are minor points, however, and I generally welcome the order.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I remain concerned that the earnings trigger of £10,000 for auto-enrolment still excludes too many people, particularly women, from the benefit of a pot of savings supported by an employer contribution. I am also a little disappointed that the Secretary of State has not taken the opportunity of the annual review to reduce the trigger. Although it has been held at £10,000 for three years, it is still too high, although this approach is preferable to aligning it with the personal income tax threshold, as happened between 2011 and 2015, which excluded ever more women every year.

Of the 11 million workers in the eligible target population for automatic enrolment, only 36% are female, and 3.5 million workers are ineligible because they earn less than £10,000 in any one job. The impact assessment confirms the disproportionate impact on women, because it shows that simply freezing the trigger at £10,000 will bring an additional 70,000 workers into auto-enrolment, over 52,000 of whom will be women.

The impact assessment reasons that auto-enrolment is in a challenging phase with the rollout to small and micro employers, so the earnings trigger should be held at £10,000. That is an understandable argument but not one that can fairly hold over time as a reason for not lowering the trigger. DWP figures reveal that of those working for smaller employers with 10 or fewer employees, 61% meet the eligibility criteria for auto-enrolment, compared to 90% of workers for large employers with 500 or more employees, and 55% of people employed in the service sector—where there is a concentration of women workers—meet the criteria, compared to between 70% and 90% of workers in other sectors.

The DWP analysis suggests that these discrepancies between small and large employers are largely driven by workers not meeting the earnings threshold. That is a pretty predictable observation. There are nearly 15 million women in work, 42% of whom work part-time. The ONS figures show that the smaller the company, the lower the level of earnings for part-time workers. Sweepingly, anyone working 25 hours or less on the national minimum wage of £7.50 is ineligible for auto-enrolment. The DWP’s analysis also shows that reducing the trigger to the national insurance primary threshold of £8,164 would bring more than 500,000 women—and nearly 750,000 workers overall—into auto-enrolment.

An argument deployed by the Secretary of State in 2011 for excluding lower earners was that the state system itself delivered an adequate replacement rate of income. Indeed, that argument is deployed again in the current impact assessment, which states that the earnings trigger,

“should be set at a level that ensures as many people as possible are eligible for AE without disproportionately capturing those lowest earners for whom it makes little sense to save for retirement”.

Lowering the £10,000 trigger, however, would not disproportionately capture lower earners. Very often, low earners are not low-paid throughout their working lifetime. Earnings are dynamic, but persistency of savings throughout working life is very important. Many women who earn less than £10,000 will, during their lives, have periods of full-time employment on higher earnings and periods of part-time employment on lower earnings, when they are caring. Persistency of saving throughout both periods and retaining the employer contribution improves their financial outcomes in retirement. Many, or most, very low earners are women who live in households with others with higher earnings and/or receiving working tax credits. They may well be workers who should be automatically enrolled.

As to excluding lower earners because the state system delivers an adequate replacement rate of income, “freedom and choice” means that individuals are no longer required to secure even a minimum income stream, and are free to spend all their money as they wish from the age of 55. Securing a replacement income is no longer a requirement of private pensions policy. Excluding so many lower earners from a pot of long-term savings supported by an employer contribution and the tax credits system is not fair because it simply denies them the opportunity to accrue a savings pot and build financial resilience in later life.

Universal Credit

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Wednesday 21st December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I draw noble Lords’ attention to my entry in the register of interests. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, on his maiden speech.

The universal credit rollout has been methodical across the country. My home town Yeovil’s rollout is due in April 2017 and the district council and other agencies have been working together to ensure that the transition runs smoothly. There are, however, problems as the DWP is not sharing information in a way that would assist the process.

The issue of the introduction of the two-child limit was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, and is extremely important. It is vital that safeguards are in place to protect children of rape victims and kinship care where short-term transitional arrangements could make a huge difference. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House.

Turning to discretionary housing payments, guidance has been issued that households on universal credit that have a managed payment to landlords arrangement should not be awarded DHP unless the MPTL is ended. That is worrying as those in receipt of such an award are, by definition, people who have difficulty paying their rent, and the removal of a managed payment will clearly put those payments at risk. A single parent with very young children subject to the benefit cap, with a managed payment but with no DHP, could be left with no money to live on.

The availability of discretionary housing payments was a key argument which the Government used to justify extending the benefit cap to vulnerable groups who are unable to work. Restricting their availability in this way substantially undermines this defence. I ask the Minister to look at this with some urgency. I also draw attention to the six-week waiting period that has been raised by other noble Lords. We have evidence from Citizens Advice that this is leading to increased rent arrears and food-bank use. In South Somerset the offices are holding small stocks of food, petty cash and vouchers to assist those in really desperate straits. For low-paid workers struggling to be independent, having frequently to use a food bank is disheartening in the extreme. In modern day Britain it is a disgrace that we all share. While our donations to the food banks are welcome, it should not be necessary in one of the wealthiest nations of the world.

Lastly, I take this lighter opportunity to pay tribute from the Liberal Democrat Benches to the contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Freud, has made to the transformation of the benefits system and the work of the DWP. It is certainly not a role where you can please all of the people all of the time. However, the noble Lord has engaged with all sides of the House in a genuine and open fashion. I remember in my early days being part of the organised visit referred to earlier to Hammersmith jobcentre, which was instrumental in the early rollout of universal credit. The noble Lord’s knowledge of the subject was striking, as was his empathy with those claimants who were going to be among the first to transfer to universal credit. His commitment and integrity were clear and he will be a very great loss to the government Front Bench. We wish him well in his retirement and hope that he has a relaxing Christmas—for he has certainly earned it.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have put my name, and would like to add to the very eloquent case made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake; namely that it is very important that we provide protection for members when a master trust fails and give confidence in that regard. In the event of a failure there must be a guarantee backed by the Government. While I accept that we do not expect there to be many failures, there will undoubtedly be some. Therefore, it is necessary to provide protection for that eventuality. This amendment would provide a fall-back position when every other avenue has been exhausted.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, I will address Amendment 6, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Bakewell. This is a valuable opportunity for us to discuss member protection, which is clearly at the heart of the Bill and the master trust authorisation regime.

It is not clear why an amendment has been tabled that would require the Secretary of State to make provision for a scheme funder of last resort should a master trust have insufficient resources to meet the cost of complying with the duties arising from a triggering event and to cover the cost of running the scheme on. I simply do not believe this issue requires such a sledge-hammer given all the mitigations against this risk which the Bill introduces, to which I will return briefly later on. The intention behind the amendment is a lingering concern that a failing scheme might not be able to cover the cost of transferring its members’ accrued rights out. However, to require the Secretary of State to provide for a scheme funder of last resort would be a costly and disproportionate response. Unfortunately, the amendment does not provide any details of how such a scheme might be achieved at reasonable cost. It would appear to require quite large-scale infrastructural change—the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, mentioned the idea of creating an institution with a PSO. There would need to be transparency in the schemes to which the facility would apply, and we would need to prevent any moral hazard in its application.

I am aware that schemes have failed in the past, and I understand that in some cases these failures have proven expensive to resolve. However, those failures have almost entirely occurred in schemes offering defined benefit pensions. The risks in those types of schemes are very different and the complexity of their structures can make them much more difficult to wind up than a master trust offering defined contribution benefits. If a defined benefit scheme which has been operating for a long time fails, it is much more likely that it will be more time-consuming and expensive for that scheme to close than it would be for a master trust scheme. In the case of master trusts, the noble Lords have inadvertently blown the risk out of proportion.

On the mitigations I mentioned earlier, the Bill contains a raft of measures which address the same risks that the amendment is seeking to address. The financial sustainability requirement is a key risk mitigation as, among other things, it requires schemes to satisfy the Pensions Regulator that they have sufficient financial resources to comply with their continuity strategy in Clauses 20 to 33 and to run on, following a triggering event. On application for authorisation to operate, a master trust must satisfy the regulator that it has sufficient financial resources, and post-authorisation the regulator has an ongoing duty to monitor the scheme to ensure that it continues to be financially sustainable.

In carrying out its supervisory role the regulator will assess the amount of money that the scheme requires to meet its costs, taking account of its size, the assumptions set out in its business plan, the available assets and the financial strength of the scheme funder. Furthermore, to ensure that any resources are available at the point of need, a regulation-making power enables the Secretary of State to specify requirements that the scheme funder must meet in relation to the assets, capital or liquidity. This power might be used to require certain funds to be put aside and only accessible for specific purposes, and to impose requirements about the liquidity of any capital so that it is easily realisable. Should a scheme fail, Clause 33 prevents the trustees from increasing the charges paid by members during the event-triggering period, so members’ pension pots are protected.

To prevent schemes winding up with the records in disarray and without the financial resource to put things right, one of the authorisation criteria requires schemes to satisfy the regulator that they have appropriate administration systems and processes such as record management, IT systems, and resource planning. Schemes will be subject to regular monitoring.

To pick up the specific concern mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, about the impact of an IT system failure on a scheme’s records, the requirement is for appropriate systems and processes, including back-up systems. The Pensions Regulator has not so far come across a master trust experiencing a computer failure; in practice, failures have been due to schemes not being financially viable.

Finally, it is inappropriate for the Government to intervene in the market by making provision for a scheme funder of last resort. First, such an intervention might undermine member protection by creating a moral hazard that disincentivised schemes from protecting their members. Secondly, if the Secretary of State were required to make provision for a scheme funder of last resort, this could disrupt the normal operation of the market by deterring other master trusts, or scheme funders, from retaining public confidence in master trusts and rescuing a failing scheme. We already know of some master trusts that have been consolidated by being taken over by others. In the extreme, the taxpayer could end up having to pick up the tab for failed schemes. However, the essential argument is that Clause 33 protects members’ savings from being used to pay for the costs of winding up or transferring. With that explanation in mind, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

I now turn to Amendment 23, which may provide some redress for my views on Amendment 6. This amendment introduces a new clause relating to compensation for fraud, and it may provide some mitigation for noble Lords’ concerns. In addition to protecting members’ interests through the master trust authorisation regime, we are ensuring, through the introduction of this new clause, that members in master trust schemes are protected from the risk of fraud. It will allow regulations to be made that modify the provisions on fraud compensation in the Pensions Act 2004 so that they can be more applicable to master trusts and to any other occupational pension schemes to which all or some of the provisions of Part 1 of the Bill apply.

At present, fraud compensation payments can be made to occupational pension schemes where certain conditions are met. These conditions include that the value of the scheme’s assets has been reduced and that there are reasonable grounds for believing that this has been due to dishonesty. Also, all the employers in relation to the scheme must have gone out of business or the businesses must be unlikely to continue as going concerns.

Master trust schemes are occupational pension schemes, and we think it is right that they should qualify for fraud compensation payments and that their members should be entitled to this protection in the same way as members in other occupational pension schemes. However, as master trusts are used, or are intended to be used, by multiple employers who do not need a connection to each other, they would be likely to have difficulty meeting that last condition on the insolvency of all the participating employers. Therefore, our intention is that regulations will remove this employer insolvency requirement for master trusts and add other conditions to make fraud compensation more suitable for these types of schemes. These regulations would, of course, be subject to consultation, which would allow us to engage with stakeholders in developing them.

I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will feel that on balance he has moved somewhat ahead in respect of these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity from these Benches to place on record our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for the engagement that we have had on pensions Bills and other Bills over many years. That engagement has always focused on data and evidence. We might have disagreed about their interpretation from time to time but the debates have always been robust. The noble Lord has been assiduous in engaging with Members across the piece, making sure that their points and concerns have been addressed and not just brushed aside.

We will have the chance to say something to the Bill team on another occasion—I hope some of us will still be here at Third Reading—and we will have another debate on Wednesday. However, we wish the noble Lord well in his retirement. I am not sure whether it will be his retirement, as I am sure he will go off to do something intellectual. We look forward to working with the noble Lord, Lord Young, in the future, but from the Labour Benches we express our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Freud.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I wish to associate myself and our Benches with the comments that have already been made. We have always found the noble Lord, Lord Freud, extremely accommodating towards us as far as he has able to be so, and I will have something further to say when we come to universal credit. I have taken over this role only fairly recently but I thank the noble Lord for all the help he has given us during the passage of this Bill.

[Baroness Drake]

I thank the Minister for his reply. It is helpful to have his wider statement on the record because this issue of transaction costs is still very controversial. I hope that the FCA’s report increases the Government’s sense of urgency regarding the need to address this issue and to introduce regulation—notwithstanding problems with definition—with master trust regulation benefiting from that as well.

Perhaps I, too, may take the opportunity to make a personal comment because I think this is the last time that I will be talking to the Minister in his current role, although he may not be talking to me at all following the vote. When he was at the Dispatch Box, I always felt that if I had a good argument, argued it well and had a good evidential base, I had a fighting chance that, first, he would listen and, secondly, that he would see whether it was possible to accommodate my concerns. He often made me do my homework and made me work hard on occasions, but that was a fair exchange. However, if I had a good point and good evidence, I knew I would get a fair hearing. That is important in this House. It incentivises one to pursue the argument and the case because one knows that one will get a fair hearing. The Minister is a wonderful example of someone who will listen and consider the arguments.

He has always been friendly, courteous and considerate in giving access to his civil servants and information—very often so that I can improve my knowledge base and not ask awkward questions; on other occasions to fuel my knowledge base to allow me to ask awkward questions. Either way, I was grateful for that.

I hope he takes some rest and has fun—he has worked very hard and deserves some fun—and that we see him back soon, bringing his intellectual skills to the House. I thank him for the statement on charges. I shall still push on transaction charges because millions of people get a rough deal but do not know they are getting a rough deal, which is even worse. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th November 2016 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 40 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, on the face of it, Clause 40 on the power to override contract terms appears sensible to most people. While there may be very good reasons why the Secretary of State may wish to override provisions contained in some pension schemes, I believe that the House would want to be reassured that it was absolutely necessary.

People I have talked to about my concerns over this power all say the same thing: the Government are always overriding contracts. In other words, get used to it. However, I find this quite difficult to come to terms with. As noble Lords know, I come from a local government background, where every contract has to go out to tender, even if it is too small to hit the OJEU rules. It is expected that at least three quotes will be obtained. Once initial quotes are obtained, haggling often begins on the bigger contracts, and a lot of lawyers are involved before the contract is finalised, signed and executed. The contract start date is agreed and eventually the service contracted for is begun.

Quite small parish councils also adhere to the rule that quotes must be obtained before a service contract or purchase can properly be made. It is, after all, council tax payers’ money that is being spent by parish, district, county and other local authorities. Due process has to be followed. If a contract that has been correctly drawn up, tendered for, signed and legally agreed were overridden by the local authority in question, there would be very serious consequences—and even, perhaps, central government intervention.

But here we see that the Government are proposing that contracts that have been legally executed, agreed and signed can be overridden summarily by the Secretary of State. Of course we want to be reassured that the interests of pensioners and their pension pots are protected, and we all want to ensure that all steps are taken to make that happen—but do we really need such a draconian step to facilitate this?

I originally felt that this clause set a very dangerous precedent. But I now understand that Secretaries of State do this all the time, so it quite clearly does not set a precedent as the practice already exists. I will therefore confine my comments to the Minister to asking: does he not feel that this is setting double standards for those who hold elected office and are in positions of authority? One rule exists for governance at local authority level and a completely different set of rules exists for central government. Does the Minister feel that this is likely to generate trust and confidence in central government—or, as I feel, that it will do quite the reverse?

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I will comment briefly. I find it difficult to support this proposition. The noble Baroness drew attention to contracting in local authorities, and we understand that—a number of us have been there. But is not the key issue here that the market does not produce the right result? There is weakness on the buyer side, and given the complexity of the product, you need some specific provision to deal with that. We are dealing here of course with a ban on member-borne commission and a cap on early exit charges. The latter in particular is seen to be an inhibitor to people accessing their pensions—indeed, the evidence is clear that it is an inhibitor. If those issues have to be addressed, then we have to use the mechanisms which are at hand. I agree that causing an override of these contract provisions is not the most comfortable mechanism, but it already exists in relation to scheme details, I understand, between the FCA and contract-based schemes, and this extends it to deal with other contractual arrangements relating to schemes.

I am afraid that this proposition does not have our support. We think it is important that we go ahead and get the ban on member-borne commission and the cap on early exit charges in place as soon as possible. On that latter point, I am bound to say we are somewhat disappointed. We are pleased to see the press release from the Minister announcing a cap of, I think, 1%, or 0% for new provisions. But it is will be October next year before that is in place, which again seems a little bit tardy, because the FCA is moving to get the restrictions in place by the end of March.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, it is quite right that we debate whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, because it is an important one. I hope to persuade noble Lords who have spoken that the powers we are taking are proportionate and indeed necessary in order to deliver the commitments that the Government have made to beneficiaries of pension schemes. As the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, we are seeking here to bring occupational pensions into line with the regime that already exists for other pensions.

In a nutshell, the clause amends existing legislation in Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014 to allow regulations to be made that enable a term of a relevant contract to be overridden to the extent that it conflicts with a provision in those regulations. I emphasise that the power would allow a contract to be overridden only where there is a conflict with a provision in regulations. This ensures that relevant contracts are consistent with the regulations, and provides certainty to the parties involved. It may be helpful if I clarify that Clause 40 is distinct from the previous clauses in this Bill that referred to charges; those clauses all relate to the proposed master trust authorisation regime.

We intend to use Clause 40, alongside existing powers in the Pensions Act 2014, to make regulations to cap or ban early exit charges. Early exit charges are any administration charges that are paid by a member for leaving their pension scheme early when they are eligible to access the pension freedoms, which they would not face at their normal retirement date. The Financial Conduct Authority intends to make rules by April 2017 to cap or ban early exit charges in personal and workplace personal pension schemes. Parliament has already approved amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which broadly allows contracts to be overridden.

Together with the existing powers in relation to charges, Clause 40 will enable us to make regulations that introduce similar protection to members of occupational pension schemes. It will also be used to override contractual terms that conflict with the ban on member-borne commission arising under existing contracts in certain occupational pension schemes. By “commission contracts” we mean the contracts between trustees or managers and a person who provides administrative services to the scheme, which permits the person to impose the member-borne commission charge. Existing contracts are those that were entered into before 6 April 2016. This will complete the ban that already exists for commission arrangements entered into on or after 6 April 2016.

The consultations that we undertook on early exit charges and on member-borne commission showed us that these charges generally arise in contracts between trustees or managers of certain occupational pension schemes and those who provide administration services to the scheme. Our existing powers in Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014 enable us to make regulations that override any provision of a relevant scheme where it conflicts with a provision in those regulations. For example, we have used that power in relation to the appointment of service providers in the scheme administration regulations. The reason why we are taking this power is that this does not extend to the contracts under which the charges arise. Clause 40 therefore extends the existing power in Schedule 18 to allow the overriding of a term of a relevant contract that conflicts with a provision of the regulations. The relevant contract is defined as those between a trustee or a manager of a pension scheme and someone providing services to the scheme. The regulations that we intend to make will apply to charges imposed from the date when the regulations come into force, even where they are charged under existing contracts. We expect them to come into force in October 2017.

As noble Lords may be aware, the pensions market is continually evolving and modernising, and this extends to charging practices. It may be necessary to alter the charges requirements to reflect any changes in the pensions market that may disadvantage members. We intend to consult on the draft regulations early next year. In addition, any potential further regulations made under the power in Clause 40 will be subject to public consultation. The requirement to do this is set out in paragraph 8 of Schedule 18 to the Pensions Act 2014.

Such regulations would also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution procedure. I note that this House’s Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was content with this approach. This allows legislation to be amended reasonably quickly to provide the member protection that may be needed. Together with the consultation, we believe there is effective scrutiny and scope for challenge over the Government’s intended use of these powers.

I would be disappointed if any trustees felt that they had to resign over this. I regard these measures as benefiting scheme members, for whom trustees are acting to defend their interests. In response to the charge that we are interfering with contracts signed in good faith, we consulted on this. We made it clear that it is generally undesirable to interfere with existing contractual rights; it can be justified only in circumstances such as this, where it is necessary to achieve important public policy goals—we have given a commitment to do this—and where the action is proportionate in the public interest. We expect trustees and service providers to work together when renegotiating for amending contracts to reflect implementation of the charge cap, and our consultation and engagement with the pensions industry and other stakeholders on capping or banning early exit charges and spanning existing member-borne commission showed that, by and large, the Government’s intentions were widely welcomed. We continue to engage with industry and stakeholders on those two areas.

I hope that I have convinced the House that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate, especially my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. I am reassured by the Minister saying that it is undesirable generally to interfere with contractual rights, completely concur that we must have member protection and welcome the public consultation that will take place in the near future. I am also reassured by much else that the Minister said and am content for the clause to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40 agreed.

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

79: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Offence of unsolicited communications to members of pension schemes
(1) It is an offence for a person to make an unsolicited telephone call, or to send unsolicited electronic mail or other communications via an electronic communications network, for the purpose of inducing a member of a pension scheme to use their pension savings in a particular way, or otherwise to make changes to their existing pension scheme arrangements.(2) It is an offence for a person to instigate the making of an unsolicited telephone call, or the sending of unsolicited electronic mail or other communications via an electronic communications network, for the purpose set out in subsection (1).(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine (or both).(4) In this section, “call”, “electronic mail”, “communications” and “electronic communications network” have the meanings given in regulation 2 of the Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations 2003.”

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am pleased that the Government have responded to the online petition calling for cold calling by phone or email for investment or pensions to be made illegal. This is definitely a step in the right direction. This positive change of heart was trailed over the weekend of 19 to 20 November and reiterated in the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement in the other place on Wednesday 23 November. This was welcome, but did not give the level of detail we had been hoping for.

As we are all aware, cold calling on investments and pensions to members of the public often leads to unregulated investments and scams. Banning cold calling would dramatically reduce the number of people falling prey to fraudsters and losing their savings and pensions. There is already sufficient unease among those anxious about their savings and future pensions for this added anxiety to be sufficient to push some vulnerable people over the edge. The scams tend to be presented as unique investment opportunities, such as putting your pension pot into a new hotel in an exotic location or supposedly ethical projects that promise huge returns. It is all too easy for people to be sucked into schemes which will not deliver on the promises made by slick salesmen. They are, after all, looking for absolutely the best deal for their future savings which will ensure them the happy, carefree retirement they have been looking forward to for years.

A recent survey points to the threat of fraud as those near retirement age refuse to seek expert guidance, revealing that almost nine in 10 people miss common warning signs of pension scams. Under the changes announced by the Chancellor, it is assumed that all calls relating to pension investments where a business has no existing relationship with the individual will be forbidden. Similar rules already cover cold calls relating to mortgages. Can the Minister confirm that the pensions issue will be treated in the same way?

It has also been trailed that companies flouting the ban could face fines of up to £500,000 from the Information Commissioner, although the watchdog does not have powers to tackle firms operating outside the UK. Can the Government confirm that they are considering custodial sentences as well as fines for perpetrators of fraudulent cold calling scams? Pensions firms will be given more powers to block suspicious transfers, preventing people’s life savings being transferred without any checks. The rules will also stop small, self-administered schemes being set up using a dormant company such as a sponsoring employer. Research has suggested that scammers could be behind as many as one in 10 pension transfer requests. Do the Government have up-to-date figures for the levels involved?

The Government appear to be acting after the recent petition calling for action was signed by thousands of people, including former Pensions Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and Steve Webb. Martin Lewis of the website Money Saving Expert, and a number of independent financial advisers, have also requested that pension cold calling be made illegal. The Government’s response is to be welcomed, but a little more detail would have been helpful. Can the Minister say when the consultation trailed in the Autumn Statement will begin? How long will the consultation run for? How quickly after the consultation ends will the results be made public? Will all cold calling targeting pensioners be banned, or only certain schemes?

To ensure that pensioners and the general public retain confidence that the Government are serious about tackling this very serious problem, as much information as possible needs to be in the public domain, not least exactly when the ban on cold calling will commence. It is assumed that this will be once the consultation has finished, but it will be important that transparency exists on how quickly a decision will be made and when the implementation date is due. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and I welcome the announcement in the Budget that the Government will consult on options to address this issue of scams and unsolicited contact, including a ban on cold calling, greater powers for firms and schemes to block suspicious transfers and making it harder for scammers to abuse small self-administered schemes. The compelling findings of Citizens Advice align with those of other organisations. For example, the City of London police report that the amount lost to fraud after the freedom reforms were introduced in April 2015 was £13.3 million and rising. That figure does not even include the money moved out of a pension scheme into another investment vehicle, which means the total amount lost since the reforms is likely to be much higher.

The Pensions Advisory Service has handled many calls seeking guidance from members of the public who have been subject to unsolicited approaches, have been scammed and have lost, or are at real risk of losing their savings. There is the self-employed man who transferred all his savings from a reputable insurance company to a property-based pension scheme, and now all his money has disappeared; the public sector worker who transferred £64,000 of savings to another scheme and has not heard anything since; or the ex-employee of a well-known car manufacturer, who transferred 20 years’ worth of DB pension rights—£20,000 was taken in charges, and now he cannot access the rest of his savings. These cases are just the tip of the iceberg. There are many more desperate cases, involving even bigger amounts.

Cold callers, suspicious transfers and the abuse of small, self-administered schemes all require attention. TPAS experience confirms that scams cover a wide spectrum, from mis-selling, to incompetence, to outright theft and fraud: such as selling a high-risk, unregulated investment to someone who does not understand the implications; encouraging someone to cash in their pot and invest in a high-risk investment within a pensions wrapper; transferring the whole of someone’s pension savings to a small self-administered scheme which is not a regulated financial product, to facilitate unregulated investments; and the use of SIPPs, which are a regulated product, by scammers for unregulated investments. There are many more such examples, and of fraud, through which 70% or more of the pension fund is stolen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

I thank the noble Lord for his very positive comments and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I welcome the fact that the Government feel that this is an enormous problem that must have top priority. I also welcome the fact that the consultation will start before Christmas. However, I am slightly nervous about that because it is a well-known ploy to start consultations just before Christmas, when people have their minds on things other than consultations, and to finish them in the first or second week of January. Therefore, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could say that there will be a reasonable period over which the consultation will run.

I look forward to hearing in the 2017 Budget the steps that will be taken, and I hope that implementation will follow soon after, because I agree completely with previous speakers that the quicker this matter is sorted, the better. I also welcome that the Government are considering custodial sentences. I agree with and welcome everything that the Minister has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 79 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

81A: After Clause 40, insert the following new Clause—
“Secondary Annuity Market for pensions savings
The Treasury must, within six months of the day on which this Act comes into force, take steps to—(a) change the tax treatment in relation to holders of pension scheme annuities wishing to realise the value of their annuities, including by removing the unauthorised payment tax charge; and(b) put in place arrangements to enable individuals to assign their pension scheme annuity to a third party in return for a lump sum to be taken directly, or transferred to an alternative retirement income product; and(c) work with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure appropriate consumer protection is in place for pension scheme annuity holders as they consider their pensions savings options.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I am conscious that people are waiting for the Urgent Question on Aleppo. However, I feel that this is a really important issue. I am concerned, as are others, that the Government appear to be backtracking on their manifesto promises on the secondary annuity market. As part of the pensions freedoms, the Government planned a secondary annuities market, where original purchasers who had a poor or inferior-quality product would be able to sell it and buy a better one with the cash. This move and this promise were welcome. The Conservative Party manifesto of 2015, on pages 65 and 67, promised:

“We will … give you the freedom to invest and spend your pension however you like … we will allow pensioners to access their pension savings and decide whether or not to take out an annuity, so they can make their own decisions about their money”.

The message was clear going into the election: the Conservatives would help those who had poor annuities and allow them to get a better deal for their money.

However, as has been widely publicised, not least in the Daily Mail on 16 November, there has been heavy lobbying against this move by the pensions industry, which has claimed it would be hard to set up a secondary market and difficult in terms of consumer protection. This lobbying seems to have come to a head at Gleneagles, when Government Ministers came under heavy fire from insurance company chief executives and gave way under the pressure. The resultant government change of mind has left many people with poor annuities that they now cannot get rid of.

It is all very well for the Government to succumb to the pressures of the insurance industry; I would prefer them to succumb to the pressures of the pensioners who are suffering as a result. The Daily Mail highlighted the cases of various pensioners. One 70 year-old veteran who would love to own a second-hand car said:

“Waiting at the bus stop for the hourly service to Nottingham city centre can be a miserable affair—particularly as the winter days draw in”.

He,

“must make the lengthy journey from his sheltered housing in the outskirts of the city every time he needs to go to the supermarket or visit friends”.

For him,

“and millions of pensioners like him, the Government’s promise to let him sell his paltry retirement income for a lump sum offered a vital lifeline. The Army veteran was preparing to exchange his £11-a-week … annuity for a few thousand pounds—enough to buy a small runaround to get to town and back”.

But the Government’s “dramatic U-turn” scrapped his plans. It means he will have to carry on taking the bus. He said:

“‘I was so disappointed when I heard the news … These insurance companies are making so much money from us and their bosses are earning millions. The money from my pension would be a small amount to them, but it would make all the difference to me’. Until the rules were changed in 2014, more than 400,000 savers a year bought annuities when they retired”.

Consumer protection can be problematic but it is not rocket science. We are extremely disappointed the Government have reneged on their promise and left people in the lurch. This should be rectified in this pensions Bill and is a big omission.

The original proposal turned pensions savings into income: for example, each £10,000 might give you £500 a year. Plans for a so-called secondary annuities market would have enabled savers to sell these deals. The idea was that insurers would compete to offer lump sums if a pensioner gave up the guaranteed monthly payouts. I have received case studies and lobbying on this issue, some couched in such strong words that I am unable to repeat them in this Chamber, but the Government must be under no illusion that feelings are running extremely high on this issue.

The decision to kill off the secondary annuity market even caught pensions companies off guard. Legal & General, for instance, had invested a considerable amount of resources in a new website, auctionmyannuity.com, so that it could act as a broker when the market launched in April. Obviously it thought the idea was viable and believed there were companies interested in doing it that would have been ready by April.

Legal & General’s website would have offered identity checks, risk warnings and advice on how to avoid falling victim to fraud. The former Pensions Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said:

“The Government was being furiously lobbied by the industry in the weeks before they cancelled the market. Protections were in place. Most of the work was already done. Legislation had been laid. If the Government felt that consumers were still not protected enough, it could have delayed the launch, not abandoned it altogether”.

However, despite all the groundwork that had taken place, the Government decided to cave in to the lobbying.

I will leave noble Lords with the following case. A pensioner, aged 68,

“receives a £160-a-month annuity from a £52,000 pension pot with Prudential. It took the former roadside equipment installer from High Wycombe, Bucks, 30 years to save the money. He would have never taken the deal three years ago had he realised the Government was preparing to allow savers to take their pensions as cash”.

He now fears that his wife, who is 67,

“a local authority worker, will not get a penny, should he pass away suddenly. The small print of the annuity contract states that payments are only guaranteed for ten years after the date”,

in 2014 when he signed up.

“Should he die after this date, the remaining cash will go straight into his insurer’s pockets”.

He says:

“I think it’s diabolical that the Government has gone back on its word … I wouldn’t blow that money, but I could do something with it, perhaps keep it invested, instead of an insurer taking the lot”.

This is a serious issue and I hope the Minister is minded to give at least some comfort to all those affected in their old age. The Government must do something about secondary annuities for all those suffering under the current system. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, on her amendment. I was proud that the Government finally recognised the need to allow people to undo unwanted or unsuitable annuities when that decision was announced and indeed put in the manifesto, which the noble Baroness quoted.

Government rules effectively forced people to buy these products even though they did not want or need them. They had no protection when they were buying but the plans were in place to ensure that they would have protection if they considered reselling them. There was to be mandatory Pension Wise guidance and advice depending on the value of the annuity, and indeed legislation had already been passed to make that happen. As the noble Baroness mentioned, companies have already spent quite significant sums in preparation for this market, which consumers want and in some cases need, as the case studies showed.

In the annuity market it is normal for there to be only a small number of providers, which has never stopped that market operating in the past. For defined benefit pension schemes and bulk annuities, for example, for many years there were only ever two companies that would offer quotes. That should not be a reason to stop people being able to sell their annuity. Indeed, many people with secure defined benefit pensions, and the additional voluntary contributions that they were saving on top of that, were often forced to buy an annuity that they clearly did not need. Very often, because the regulatory system drove people to shop around for the best rate, they did not know that that would not actually necessarily be the right product. If you shopped around for the best rate and bought the single-life annuity, there was no protection for your spouse. In some cases, individuals have bought a product that they do not need and is not suitable for their family circumstances. This measure would have given them an opportunity to undo that. The law currently allows people who have less than £10,000 a year in an annuity to undo it, but if we do not proceed with the plans that were previously in place, they will potentially be doing so without any consumer protection. The plans had been to ensure that there was consumer protection before this happened.

It is not up to the Government or the pensions industry to decide what is best for somebody’s money; they are the ones who know that. If they have bought something that is not suitable, it is right that the Government give them an opportunity to undo that deal. If you buy a brand-new car and it is the wrong car for you, you have the opportunity to sell it in the second-hand market—yes, you have to take a discount; yes, it may be a significant discount; but that is your choice. When the Government have enshrined freedom and choice in the pension system, it is appropriate for us to continue to enable people to access their savings, which they need and to which they were promised access. If it requires a delay to get the consumer protection in place, so be it. That is a shame, but it is at least a rationale for asking people to wait longer. To take away the opportunity altogether seems unfair, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said. She is receiving representations; I am hearing from large numbers of ordinary people across the country how much it would mean to them to have the opportunity to undo an annuity that they no longer want, or perhaps never even wanted or needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, as we reach the last amendment in Committee, I point out that the Bill has been in the hands of two distinguished psychoanalysts—Freud and his disciple “Jung”. Between us, we have tried to look at the disorders in the Bill and prescribe appropriate remedies.

I thank the noble Baroness for raising this important issue. I understand the strong feelings that she expressed when she moved her amendment. In 2015, the Government introduced pension flexibilities, which gave people the freedom to choose how they use their pension savings. Over 300,000 people have chosen to flexibly access over £6 billion since they were introduced, and the Government are committed to keeping these freedoms in place.

In March 2015, the coalition Government announced proposals to remove the current restrictions on assigning existing annuities and to create the conditions for a secondary market to develop. The proposed reforms were in two main areas—removing the unauthorised payment tax that deters people from assigning their annuity, and working with the Financial Conduct Authority to establish a comprehensive consumer protection package. The Government engaged extensively with industry and consumer groups on how they could establish the conditions for an effective market to develop. It would not have been right to introduce measures before understanding the impact that they might have on consumers and ensuring that the necessary conditions for a successful market were in place. In the course of this engagement, it became increasingly clear that creating the conditions to allow a vibrant and competitive market to emerge, with multiple buyers and sellers of annuities, could not be balanced with sufficient consumer protection. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for setting out so clearly the problems that would have ensued had we proceeded.

On 19 October, Simon Kirby, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, made a Statement in the other place about the Government’s decision not to take this policy forward, which I repeated for your Lordships on the same day. Our investigations showed that many annuity providers were willing to allow consumers to assign their annuities. Of course, the market for annuities is itself undergoing change following the introduction of the pension freedoms. What became apparent is that, at this time, there would be insufficient purchasers to create a competitive market. Without a competitive market, consumers were likely to get poor value for their annuities and incur high costs for selling.

The Government are committed to the principle of giving people the freedom to make decisions about what to do with their money, which is why we have explored in detail how we could allow this market to emerge and protect consumers at the same time. But what has become clear is that the steps the Government would need to take to create demand in the market would undermine protections and increase the risk for consumers. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, cited Steve Webb, the Pensions Minister at the time, who said in the context of this decision:

“There did need to be a lot of potential buyers for this market to work”,

and that while the decision is,

“disappointing it is understandable”.

Rather than being to the benefit of British pensioners, this market would instead be to their detriment. It would clearly not be in consumers’ interests to continue with this policy. Only this afternoon, we have had a number of debates about the importance of protecting consumers, and this would be a step in the opposite direction.

I accept that some people will be disappointed, as the noble Baroness explained, although our analysis indicated that only 5% of annuitants would be interested in taking this option forward. While we accept the disappointment, I hope that noble Lords will agree that it would not be right at this time to allow a market to develop when it is likely to lead to poor consumer outcomes. With this in mind, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, which I obviously find extremely disappointing. This is a very serious issue. I understand that there were difficulties in producing a competitive market and that the Government support freedom of choice. However, pensioners will not have freedom of choice while they cannot access the secondary annuity market. I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and the Minister for mentioning my colleague Steve Webb. His view is that the policy was abandoned because the Government did not put enough weight behind moving it forward. Had they done so, there might have been a different outcome.

At this time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but reserve the right to return to it on Report.

Amendment 81A withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, it is actually extremely unlikely—in fact, virtually impossible—that members will suffer if the manager of a master trust gets into difficulties. The assets attributable to the pension fund members are segregated from the assets of the manager. How valuable or otherwise they are will depend upon how well they have been managed and, if there is more than one fund choice, which fund people have chosen.

Secondly, it is clear that the Pensions Regulator will and is intended to play the brokerage role. If it perceives that a master trust manager is in trouble, it will quickly sort out who is going to take over that business. It has value because fees are attached to managing the money, which other master trusts will happily pay. There is even some source of revenue coming back to the master trust in trouble as it is bailed out.

I am afraid that this sort of plaintive request for a compensation fund does not have my support. I thought we had collectively agreed that we did not want another compensation fund. Adding it at the end, almost out of principle, when the chances of it ever being used are virtually zero, is not particularly constructive.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which my noble friend Lord Stoneham has put his name. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, has set out the arguments in depth and there is very little left to say. Some means to guarantee the solvency of master trusts is needed, and will be fair. It is essential that it be fair.

If regulation is working well, it is to be hoped that the costs will be minimised and insured against. The regulator should have an incentive to merge schemes where resources look likely to be insufficient, and means to tide them over should be provided for. In other with benefit schemes, guarantees of last resort are provided and the liability risk is much greater. Confidence in pension schemes is essential. It would be very serious indeed if trusts became insolvent. As has already been said, protection as a last resort should be a rare occurrence. I support the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

20A: Clause 11, page 7, line 19, leave out “must” and insert “may”

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

My Lords, there is an error in the Marshalled List. Amendment 20A should read: “page 7, line 19, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’”.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Lord Speaker for putting the House right on that; the error was pointed out to me this morning. I shall speak briefly to the amendment.

All the information requirements relating to scheme processes as set out in Clause 11(4) are integral to a thorough assessment of a master trust’s capacity to run a scheme effectively. Therefore, it should be mandatory for regulations to include provision about the regulations. Master trusts must be effectively run so that members can be sure that their money and futures are secure. Security around master trusts is key to their success. It is much too important to be left to possible regulation; it needs to be enshrined in the Bill. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about the amendment, and I support all the other amendments in the group.

[Baroness Drake]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 21 and other amendments in the group. Amendment 21 would make it a process requirement under Clause 11 on authorised master trusts when making investment decisions to consider,

“environmental, social and governance risks”,

Most investments in master trust schemes will be longer term and therefore exposed to longer-term risks. Consideration of those risks, which include such factors as climate change, unsustainable business practice and unsound corporate governance, is integral to the long-term sustainability of the investments held. The assessment of these risks should not be seen as an ethical extra but, rather, potential vulnerabilities to the sustainability of the scheme which should be properly understood.

The Pensions Regulator code of practice strengthened guidance for trustees on consideration of ESG risks, but it is not legally binding and there is no direct penalty for failing to comply. At a recent pensions conference, Andrew Warwick-Thompson, the executive director of the regulator, warned trustees against complacency when assessing ESG issues within portfolios. He commented that the regulator expects trustees to take ESG issues into account, saying,

“I would urge any trustee or asset manager out there who still thinks these things don’t matter to wake up and smell the coffee”.

He referred to research by Professional Pensions which showed that only 18% of responses from trustees, fee managers and pensions professionals thought trustees should be obliged to take ESG issues into account.

If many in the industry are reluctant to make an assessment of ESG risks, it is hardly an auspicious basis for optimism that a voluntary code will work. As the regulator himself commented:

“We need to guard against complacency here”.

There is increasing evidence showing that companies which perform well on ESG produce better returns for investors. Poor corporate practice has a real effect.

Master trusts have already grown exponentially against the background of a regulator having insufficient powers, relying instead on exhortations to trusts to embrace the voluntary master trust assurance framework. That did not work. With this Bill the Government are trying to put things right. The regulator expects ESG risk to be assessed. The amendment moves beyond expectation to a process requirement that trustees actually consider these risks. I ask the Minister: will the requirements under Clause 11(4)(d) include a specific requirement to assess ESG risks?

Amendment 22 requires an authorised master trust to have processes in place for the identification, reporting, managing and minimising of any conflict of interest. How to manage conflicts of interest in a master trust is an, as yet, unresolved problem. It is difficult to assess how this Bill will resolve it because of the policies still to be decided. In 2012 the Pensions Regulator, when investigating potential conflicts of interest in master trusts, commented:

“It is very hard to understand how and when they are acting as agents of the provider and when they are acting in the best interests of the member”.

In 2013 the then Office of Fair Trading raised concerns that some trustee boards were not sufficiently independent of the master trust provider to avoid conflicts of interest and always act in beneficiaries’ best interests. The Occupational Pension Schemes (Charges and Governance) Regulations 2015 introduced stricter requirements on master trusts and although welcome, they are not sufficient to address potential conflicts of interest. Trustees of occupational pension schemes are required to have a process in place to identify and manage any conflicts of interest and there is a regulatory DC code which recommends minimum controls. But they do not meet the conflict of interest challenges in a master trust.

Market pressure, combined with sound regulation, are important tools in the fight against conflicts of interest. The only trouble is that in the pensions market there is little pressure coming from the supply side, the scheme member—a proposition we have rehearsed so many times in debates in this Chamber and in the other place.

The Government’s impact assessment identifies the particular risks that master trusts pose, which compellingly support specific regulation for identifying, reporting and managing conflicts of interest. Master trusts develop new types of business structures which alter the relationships between members, employers, trustees and providers, on which occupational pension law and regulation is largely based. There is no requirement to include member or employer representatives on the board, and providers have a significant influence over who they appoint.

Many master trusts have been set up with a profit motive—something that existing occupational pensions’ regulation does not cater for. As the OFT observed, this is a concern and a complex area as these companies have obligations to their shareholders and other stakeholders and, as with any company, seek to make a profit. IFAs and fund managers may be part of the provider group that set up that master trust.

The trust deed in a master trust can inhibit the trustees from acting in the best interests of members if the rules fetter their powers. The master trust multi-employer characteristic can increase complexity and, with it, the potential for conflicts of interest. The products they provide are not covered by ECA regulation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I take the noble Lord’s point. Under the authorisation criteria, the Pensions Regulator has to assess,

“whether each of the following is a fit and proper person”,

and one of them is a trustee. However, I take on board what the noble Lord says, which echoes what he said in an earlier debate—namely, that we should not lose sight of the responsibilities of trustees when we focus on the Pensions Regulator and everybody else. I should like to reflect on the point he has made and, indeed, the other point made about potential conflicts of interest and master trusts.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville]

I thank the Minister for his very full response on all the amendments in this group. I agree that long-term financial sustainability is very important. I noted that when he talked about the responsibilities of trustees, he said that they “must” do certain things, not “may”, yet the Bill says “may” and not “must”. I will look in detail at what the Minister has said and I will be looking for clarity in the Bill. However, given the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 20A withdrawn.

Benefit Cap (Housing Benefit and Universal Credit) (Amendment) Regulations 2016

Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I support this Motion to Regret, over three issues in particular. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the 17% of mothers who have a child under the age of one. I would add pregnant mothers to that. Can they not be exempted, or can that at least be looked at? The Maternal Mental Health Alliance report published last year highlighted to all of us the terrible bane of post-natal and pre-natal depression and the risk that if a mother’s mental health deteriorates, her relationship with her young infant is damaged. This costs society huge amounts in the long term.

My second concern is about more children being taken into care. We were reminded earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that most children coming into care come from poverty. Has the Minister examined this policy to look at whether it increases the risk of children being taken into care?

Thirdly, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, alluded to the fact that we face having 120,000 children in Britain in temporary accommodation this Christmas. There has been an 18% rise in the past year in the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for such families. I followed a woman’s journey through temporary accommodation last year. First, she was in a domestic refuge and then in a very small single room with her 16 year-old daughter and one year-old child. She was distressed by that, but most distressed by the uncertainty of where she would go next. She was evicted from there to another, even smaller room and then there was the fear that she might be moved away from London, as far afield as Manchester, where she would know no one; she was in despair about this situation. Finally there was resolution. She has, at least for now, a larger and quite comfortable place for the next six months, for which she is so grateful. But one cannot overestimate the impact on the mental health of families and children of being put into homeless temporary accommodation.

I recognise that the Minister may be limited in how far he can help the House today, but I hope he will take very much to heart the concerns that have been raised. I share my noble friend Lord Best’s gratitude to the Government for supporting the current homelessness legislation, the Homelessness Reduction Bill. I look forward to the White Paper on housing supply, and to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope and thank him for raising this important topic. As we have heard, the original rationale for the benefit cap was that it would give people an incentive to seek work, yet evidence shows that only 30% of those who have been hit by the cap left the benefit cap as a result of finding work.

A lot of the support that the Government claim will help people into work clearly is not there. For example, they made great play of how the troubled families programme would provide the answer, but evidence from the National Institute of Economic and Social Research recently showed that there is no evidence it has had the impact that the Government intended.

Prior to being reduced, the benefit cap at its current level mostly affected large families in areas with high rents, as my noble friend said. The new lower thresholds mean that some single-person households are likely to be hit by the cap for the first time, and there is considerable concern from Crisis and others that by affecting a far greater number of households the cap will have a more significant impact on homelessness. As the noble Lord, Lord Best, illustrated, private landlords are likely to stop taking families who are currently in receipt of benefits.

Analysis by Crisis examining the cap in relation to London housing allowance rates shows that the new cap will affect single jobseekers in most parts of inner London. Existing single claimants in the work-related activity group for employment and support allowance are likely to be affected in areas of inner and outer London, as well as in high-rent areas such as Guildford and Oxford. This is because they will still be eligible for the work-related activity component, which is due to be removed for future claimants but will still be subject to the cap.

The Government have acknowledged that these reduced benefit thresholds are lower than average earnings, arguing that the policy will encourage more claimants into work. However, to date the benefit cap has not performed well enough in encouraging people into work to justify that. According to the Government’s own evaluation, just one in 10 of people affected by the cap in February 2014 had found enough work to become unaffected by the cap by the summer of the same year. The vast majority, 78%, were still capped, including a significant majority with barriers to employment, including poor health and/or skills gaps. All the figures that I am quoting today come from the DWP’s own statistics.

Households that are capped have responded by cutting back on household essentials, including skipping meals, while a significant proportion—45% in summer 2014—were in rent arrears. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Best, people in rent arrears are unlikely to be allowed to continue their accommodation with private landlords. Many find that they cannot move house to reduce their housing costs because they are already living in the cheapest available accommodation in their area.

In recent months the Government have set out a clear agenda on homelessness prevention, which is to be welcomed. As we have heard, this includes a new funding programme and support for the Homelessness Reduction Bill, the Private Member’s Bill that is about to go into Committee in the other place. The lowering of the benefit cap risks undermining this important agenda by putting newly capped households at risk of homelessness.

We heard from my noble friend Lord Shipley about the effect that a lack of housebuilding is having on homelessness. The Bill includes a new duty on other public bodies to make referrals to local authority homelessness teams if they are working with people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. There are already some examples of good practice from local authorities in response to the existing benefit cap in joining up employment support and housing teams to help capped households into work. This should result in their coming off the cap. It is to be hoped that the new duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Bill will promote even more collaborative working between different local authority departments to prevent capped households reaching crisis point.

We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds of the terrible plight of children: 800 families affected rising to 5,000. That is a terrible increase in the number of children who will be affected. Where is the family test in this policy, or the voice of the child?