Pension Scams

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

Wednesday 14th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Baroness; I had trouble hearing her question. Perhaps I may read Hansard and write to her directly with a reply.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the Members’ register. Having heard my noble friend’s answer a moment ago to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, I would nevertheless like to pursue the matter of the responsibilities of trustees and pension administrators. We are very sympathetic to beneficiaries who are subject to scams, but would it not be a good idea to oblige beneficiaries who wish to transfer pension pots to be in interpersonal contact with their administrators before that is permitted? Much of the paperwork at the moment is part of the scam itself, and trustees and administrators need some further protection from their liabilities.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I take my noble friend’s point. The contribution that he has made just heightens the need for us to have more dialogue on this with the Minister for Pensions. However, as I have already said, the Government are taking further legislative action through the Pension Schemes Bill to enable regulations to be made prescribing conditions that, if not met, will limit an individual’s statutory right to transfer.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

Compared with the very interesting debate we have just had on these important amendments, what I have to say regarding the stand-part element of Clause 110 is probably rather insignificant in many minds. On Second Reading, I raised with the Minister the question of the nature of the regulator’s responsibilities, particularly in relation to the process of interview. I am concerned about Clause 110(4), where there is a situation concerning an individual summoned for interview by the regulator failing to answer a question or to provide an explanation that satisfied the regulator. That comes in new Section 72A of the Pensions Act 2004.

I am concerned because, as far as I am aware, an explanation is defined as a statement or account that makes something clear, but there is a massive amount of subjectivity and responsibility on the regulator’s shoulders in concluding whether that explanation is satisfactory. With the sanctions in place—ultimately a criminal sanction, but also civil sanctions—it seems a very serious area and one in which the basic right of individuals not to self-incriminate, for instance, or even providing some information can result in a more serious effect than anticipated.

I want to defend the regulator here because some remarks have been made during the debate on these amendments suggesting that the regulator needs thoroughly investigating. We are putting upon the regulator a whole lot of new responsibilities, partly in the area I am talking about—decision-making on subjective matters—but also in the overall workload, which I am concerned about.

I was just looking at the impact assessment of the Pension Schemes Bill 2020. In relation to the matters I am talking about, it suggests, for instance, that the impact on the government side of this—the changes that might be made to the requirements for the regulator or the regulator’s ability to pursue these matters—is “broadly cost neutral”. I suggest that this is not a fair appraisal because the extra responsibility placed on the regulator, and the way in which that becomes controversial from time to time, is bound to be costly. It will cost money, and the regulator therefore needs to be resourced adequately to be able to deal with that and other responsibilities we are placing on it.

Similarly, the extra obligations on those who are being interviewed or are required to comply with these things are not inconsiderable. There will be costs for those businesses that are already having to find considerable resources to deal with matters where the regulator has the powers to intervene. Therefore—perhaps my noble friend would consider this—I suggest that it would be very useful if, when this legislation is passed, the regulator is taken fully into account in terms of the resource. Just as importantly, it would be very useful if the regulator had thorough and better guidance compared to the present guidance about how to handle these circumstances and how these subjective requirements should be dealt with. That is enormously important. It is not part of the legislation as such but I think that the regulator is entitled not to be so liable for its judgments. Also, more guidance should be available to it so that it does not find itself in an unfair and unreasonable position in making these powers work.

That is all that I want to say to my noble friend at this point. I did so at Second Reading and have spoken to her subsequently. Although this issue is not as important as some of the amendments, it is significant in terms of the obligations on the regulator and on those who fall under these regulations.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

I thank my noble friend for that contribution, which is equally as important as the amendments. The regulator will update its current compliance enforcement policy in due course and that will include how it conducts interviews under this clause. We will discuss the impact assessment at a later stage, and I suggest that we address the specific issues that my noble friend has raised at that point. I hope that he is happy to proceed on that basis.