Regulations may make provision, in relation to a scheme under which any of thebenefits that may be provided are collective benefits, about how to work out—
(a) which assets held by the scheme are held for the purposes of providingcollective benefits;
(b) which assets held by the scheme are held for the purposes of providingwhich collective benefits;
(c) which assets held by the scheme are held for the purposes of providingany benefits other than collective benefits.—(Steve Webb.)
This regulation making power will allow provision to be made about how to work out which assetsare held for the purposes of providing which benefits.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 808
Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain
(1) Where a member of a pension scheme has subsisting rights in respect of any safeguarded benefits, or a survivor of a member has subsisting rights in respect of any safeguarded benefits, the trustees or managers must check that the member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice before—
(a) converting any of the benefits into different benefits that are flexible benefits under the scheme;
(b) making a transfer payment in respect of any of the benefits with a view to acquiring
flexible benefits for the member or survivor under another pension scheme.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about—
(a) what the trustees or managers must do to check that a member or survivor has received
appropriate independent advice for the purposes of subsection (1), and
(b) when the check must be carried out for the purposes of that subsection.
(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations create exceptions to subsection (1).
(4) In subsection (1)(b) the reference to another pension scheme includes a scheme established in a country or territory outside Great Britain.
(5) Where the trustees or managers fail to carry out a check required by this section, section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 (civil penalties) applies to any trustee or manager who failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the check was carried out.
(6) Failure to carry out a check required by this section does not affect the validity of any transaction.
“appropriate independent advice” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Secretary of State;
“safeguarded benefits” means any benefits other than—
(a) money purchase benefits, and(b) cash balance benefits.”—
(Steve Webb.)
This provides that before trustees or managers of a pension scheme (in Great Britain) in which a person has safeguarded benefits convert them into flexible benefits, or make a transfer to another scheme to acquire flexible benefits, they must check that the person has received appropriate independent advice
.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Steve Webb: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 8—Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain).
Government new clause 9—Independent advice: consequential amendments—Great Britain.
Government new clause 10—Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 11—Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland).
25 Nov 2014 : Column 809
Government new clause 12—Independent advice: consequential amendments—Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 13—Independent advice: income tax exemption.
Government new clause 14—Sums or assets that may be designated as available for drawdown: Great Britain.
Government new clause 15—Provision about conversion of certain benefits for drawdown: Great Britain.
Government new clause 16—Provision about calculation of lump sums: Great Britain.
Government new clause 17—Restrictions on conversion of benefits during winding up etc: Great Britain.
Government new clause 18—Restriction on payment of lump sums during PPF assessment period: Great Britain.
Government new clause 19—Sums or assets that may be designated as available for drawdown: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 20—Provision about conversion of certain benefits for drawdown: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 21—Provision about calculation of lump sums: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 22—Restrictions on conversion of benefits during winding up etc: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 23—Restriction on payment of lump sums during PPF assessment period: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 24—Rights to transfer benefits.
Government new clause 25—Restriction on transfers out of public service defined benefits schemes: Great Britain.
Government new clause 26—Reduction of cash equivalents: funded public service defined benefits schemes: Great Britain.
Government new clause 27—Public service defined benefits schemes: consequential amendments: Great Britain.
Government new clause 28—Restriction on transfers out of public service defined benefits schemes: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 29—Reduction of cash equivalents: funded public service defined benefits schemes: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 30—Public service defined benefits schemes: consequential amendments: Northern Ireland.
Government new clause 31—Meaning of “flexible benefit”.
Government new clause 32—Meaning of “cash balance benefit”.
Government new clause 33—Interpretation of Part 4.
Government amendments 4, 24, 26 to 30, 33, 34 to 37, 39 to 42, 44 to 46, 48.
Government new schedule 1—Rights to transfer benefits.
Government amendments 49, 50, 56 to 72.
Amendment 73, page 46, line 25, in schedule 4, at end insert—
‘(1A) Individuals delivering the pensions guidance must ask those receiving the guidance about other potential sources of retirement income in addition to defined contribution pension schemes; this must include an assessment of assets such as housing wealth, savings and investments.”
25 Nov 2014 : Column 810
Steve Webb: I am not sure whether the House will be thrilled to know that I have a slightly fuller note on this second group of new clauses and amendments. They are clearly very important, because they relate to the 2014 Budget freedoms that have been so widely welcomed in the House—and, particularly, outside it.
In the 2014 Budget statement, the Government announced that individuals with defined contribution pensions would be able to access their entire pensions flexibly from April 2015 if they wished to do so. This is the most radical reform of how people access their pensions for almost a century, and it returns choice to individuals by trusting them with their own finances. The Government believe that people should be free to make their own choices about how to use their savings, and our reform will give the 320,000 individuals who retire with defined contribution pension wealth every year choice as to how to access those savings.
We have committed ourselves to supporting the pension flexibilities through free, impartial guidance to help people to make informed and confident decisions about how to use their defined contribution pension savings in retirement. The new clauses and amendments cover a number of topics relating to the new flexibilities, and we notified members of the Public Bill Committee that they would be forthcoming. They include new clauses that provide safeguards for individuals who want to transfer to pension schemes to which the flexibilities apply; restrictions on transfers from public service pension schemes; a number of changes to pensions legislation to ensure that the flexibilities work as they are intended to; and further amendments relating to guidance to ensure that the arrangements run smoothly.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con): Will “appropriate independent advice” include consideration of financial assets other than defined contribution pensions? Does the Minister expect the Financial Conduct Authority to clarify in due course what constitutes “appropriate independent advice”?
Steve Webb: The issue that my hon. Friend has raised is covered by amendment 73, tabled by our hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt). If the House will allow me, I intend to allow our hon. Friend and others to make their points and then to respond to them, rather than trying to pre-empt that debate now. However, the FCA will indeed have more to say on these matters in due course.
New clauses 7 to 12 and new clause 13 create a safeguard to ensure that those who transfer from defined benefit to defined contribution schemes have received appropriate independent advice before doing so. That is important, because continuing membership of a DB scheme is likely to remain most people’s best option. However, the Government recognise that the attractiveness of transferring from DB to DC may increase for a limited number of people as a result of the reforms to DC savings.
New clause 7 creates a requirement for trustees and managers of a scheme to check that a member has received appropriate independent advice before converting a “safeguarded benefit” to a “flexible benefit”, or making a transfer payment in respect of safeguarded benefits to a scheme in which the member will acquire flexible benefits. In this context, the term “member”
25 Nov 2014 : Column 811
extends to any current or former employee, and any survivor of a member with subsisting rights to “safeguarded benefits”.
Subsection (2) enables the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the exact details of the regime that trustees or managers must abide by in checking that advice has been taken. Subsection (3) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations to allow exceptions to be made to the advice requirement, which will allow us, for example, to exempt those with a small amount of defined benefit wealth from the requirement to take advice. That approach was set out in the Government’s response to the consultation on freedom and choice in pensions, which was published in July this year.
Subsection (6) establishes that should a trustee or scheme manager fail to carry out a check, the scheme member will not be disadvantaged if the conversion or transfer of his or her benefits is ruled invalid. To ensure that trustees and scheme members carry out the required check, subsection (5) provides for certain civil penalties already used in the regulation of pensions to apply.
New clause 8 enables the Secretary of State to make regulations that set out the circumstances in which employers must pay for advice that is required by the advice safeguard. As we say in our response, we intend these circumstances to be, first, when a transfer is as a result of an employer-led transfer exercise, and secondly when a transfer is between DB and DC sections within the same scheme.
Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to ensure that the arrangement is fair for the employer by making regulations that can cap the amount that the employer must pay for advice on behalf of the member. It also allows the Secretary of State to take fairness to the member into account by making regulations preventing employers from attempting to pass the costs of advice back to members. Subsection (3) enables the Secretary of State to make regulations ensuring that employers will have to pay for the advice of former employees who continue to hold accrued DB rights in the employer’s scheme, as well as current employees.
New clause 9 is consequential to new clause 7. It ensures that trustees or scheme managers are not penalised for failing to comply with the provisions in new clause 7 for reasons outside their control—for example, when a check has been carried out, but it has not been possible to establish whether the member received appropriate independent advice. New clauses 10, 11 and 12 and amendments 82, 83 and 84 make provision parallel to that in clauses 7, 8 and 9 for Northern Ireland.
4 pm
New clause 13 introduces a specific exemption for income tax purposes that ensures that, where advice provided under new clause 7 is paid for or reimbursed by the employer under new clause 8, it does not count as a benefit in kind or employment earnings and therefore does not become taxable as employment income. There will also be a corresponding disregard for national insurance purposes.
We are introducing the exemption to prevent increased administrative burdens on participating employers in having to report the value to Her Majesty’s Revenue
25 Nov 2014 : Column 812
and Customs, and to prevent any liability to income tax for individual employees or their employers resulting from provision of the advice, which the Government are mandating. The amendment therefore introduces a new section into the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 which sets out the broad scope of the exemption. The detailed rules will be set out in regulations and the amendment also provides the power to achieve that.
To ensure that the exemption works as intended, the income tax exemption will not be valid if the employer-funded financial advice is provided as part of a salary sacrifice arrangement, in which an employee gives up a portion of their salary in exchange for a non-cash benefit from the employer. A further minor and technical amendment proceeds from that. Amendment 40 ensures that provisions are extended to Northern Ireland, while amendment 42 ensures that the change to the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act, among others, comes into force on Royal Assent.
After careful consideration and consultation, the Government decided to allow transfers from private sector DB to DC schemes to continue. For the majority of people, it will remain in their best interests to stay in their DB scheme. However, for some it may be better for their personal circumstances to transfer and access their funds flexibly. The principle underlying the Government’s reforms is that it is the individual who is best placed to make that judgment, not the Government. However, the amendments introduce an important safeguard, which will ensure that individuals are fully informed when they come to make decisions about their pension saving.
Mr Love: The Minister rightly talks about the safeguards introduced for people who want to transfer from DB to DC schemes, yet he does not think there is a need for a safeguard for people who do not access the guidance guarantee. Should not there be some safeguard for them, because they could lose substantially as people transferring schemes?
Steve Webb: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Our first strategy is to ensure that the guidance guarantee is accessed by as many people as possible. We are placing a legal duty on schemes and providers to flag up the guidance guarantee to people, both in wake-up packs and when people approach schemes to access their money.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of people who do not access the guidance—and indeed those who do, come to think of it, although particularly those who do not. The FCA will have more to say on the requirements on schemes and providers when people approach them having not accessed the guidance. There is already a general duty on providers to “treat customers fairly”, but the FCA will have more to say on whether that safeguard goes far enough, or whether further safeguards are necessary. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
As well as the changes in relation to transfers from unfunded public sector schemes and transfers of defined benefit rights, which I will deal with in a moment, new clause 24 and its accompanying schedule amend the existing transfer rights in the Pensions Schemes Act 1993 to ensure that the new flexibilities operate as intended. We will do that by extending the current transfer rights
25 Nov 2014 : Column 813
for those with “flexible benefits” up to and beyond their schemes’ normal retirement age, and applying statutory transfer rights at benefit categories, rather than at scheme level. Amending the transfer rules will ensure that individuals with uncrystallised flexible benefits will have the option to transfer their rights to another pension scheme.
Those amendments will also give individuals greater flexibility by giving members a statutory right to transfer at benefit category level, rather than at scheme level. Where an individual has more than one category of benefits under a scheme, they will now have an option to transfer out of a particular category of benefit, or their entire pot if they wish to, provided they have ceased to accrue rights in that particular category of benefit. Amendments 28, 49 and 50 make minor consequential change in respect of new clause 24 and new schedule 1.
New clauses 25 to 30 and Government amendment 29 address the implications of the new flexibilities for public service pension schemes. Regarding new clause 25 and, for Northern Ireland, new clause 28, following further policy development, that clarifies that the ban on transfers is limited to transfers from unfunded defined benefit public service pension schemes to schemes from which flexible benefits can be obtained. Further, the amendment ensures that the changes are delivered in the Pension Schemes Act 1993, rather than in regulations made by HM Treasury.
Additionally, new clause 26—new clause 29 for Northern Ireland—implements a safeguard for transfers out of funded public service pension schemes that is similar to that available in the private sector for reducing transfer values in specific circumstances.
New clause 25 restricts the right under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to transfer from one pension scheme to another, so as to prevent a member of an unfunded public service defined benefit scheme from using that right to transfer to another pension scheme in which they can obtain flexible benefits. New clause 28 does the same for Northern Ireland. The new clauses also allow the Treasury—and in Northern Ireland, the Department of Finance and Personnel—to make regulations providing for exceptions to the transfer ban.
New clause 26 introduces a new safeguard that gives Ministers a power to designate a funded defined benefit public service pension scheme and in that way require the reduction of cash equivalent transfer values in respect of transfers from that scheme to pension schemes from which flexible benefits can be obtained. New clause 29 does the same for Northern Ireland. The use of the power will be restricted to cases in which the relevant Minister considers that transfers, either singly or in combination with other factors, increase the risk or amount of taxpayer intervention in the scheme.
The new clauses provide a power which, when used, will require the reduction of transfer values in respect of transfers requested after a scheme is designated, and completed before the scheme is no longer designated. The new clauses time-limit the use of the power and place an obligation on the scheme trustees or managers to alert the relevant Minister should they believe either that the power needs to be used or that, having been used, it is no longer needed.
We intend that the level of the reduction to be applied should be set out in regulations made by the Treasury, and new clause 26 also provides regulation-making
25 Nov 2014 : Column 814
powers for the Treasury to determine the amount of the reduction that should be made when a pension scheme is designated. Additionally, in the case of certain Scottish schemes, the power to designate a scheme is to be conferred on Scottish Ministers. New clause 29 makes parallel provision for Northern Ireland. In respect of parliamentary and ministerial schemes in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the new clauses give that power to the relevant trustees or scheme managers. Finally—that is an interim “finally”, not a final “finally”, by the way—new clauses 27 and 30 make amendments to pensions legislation that are consequential to new clauses 25, 26, 28 and 29.
I should like to explain the thinking behind these measures, Currently, only a small number of transfers take place out of the public service pension schemes to defined contribution schemes, but the introduction of the flexibilities might make transfers out to defined contribution schemes more attractive for some. In unfunded public service pension schemes, there is no fund of assets with which to finance transfer payments. Instead, they are funded from contributions and through general Government expenditure. So for every extra pound paid out in transfers, the Government will have a pound less to spend that year on public services. We have estimated that if 1% of all public service workers reaching retirement took their benefits flexibly, it would cost the taxpayer £200 million a year, and we do not think it fair to ask the taxpayer to meet those up-front costs.
Unlike with unfunded schemes, there is a pool of assets to support the payment of pensions in funded public service pension schemes, which can be used to meet the immediate cost of transfers out. Our expectation therefore is that, in the vast majority of cases, allowing greater flexibility in the funded public service pension schemes will not impact on public finances. However, it would be inappropriate for the Government to provide these freedoms to members of public service pension schemes and provide no back-stop protection to taxpayers, should transfers—either singly or in combination with other factors—contribute to a scheme needing support from local or national taxpayers to meet the cost of its liabilities. This is aligned with the position the Government have taken on the unfunded pension schemes, in which we have taken the decision to ban such transfers in the light of the cost risk to the Exchequer, and ultimately the taxpayer. Should a situation arise in which there is a risk to the taxpayer, this new safeguard will give Ministers and scheme managers the appropriate tools to address it.
The Government intend to legislate for some limited exceptions to this ban, and these provisions give the Treasury powers to make regulations providing exceptions to the transfer ban. It is intended that the Treasury will prescribe certain limited circumstances in which a transfer will be permitted. We will announce further details in due course, but we are considering options such as some specific circumstances under Fair Deal. Amendment 29 removes clause 36 and, as discussed earlier, new clause 25 is the replacement provision.
Moving on to the treatment of draw-down and to the Pension Protection Fund assessment, which are covered by new clauses 14 to 23, we are introducing changes to allow occupational pension schemes to offer the new forms of access to pension saving being created by the Taxation of Pensions Bill. In future, schemes will be able to offer more options for decumulation, including
25 Nov 2014 : Column 815
draw-down pensions and lump sums. Schemes will be able to offer options to allow all or part of money purchase funds, as defined under tax legislation, to be designated for draw-down after the minimum age—generally 55—is reached. They will also be able of offer members the option to take one or more lump sums from their money purchase funds after the minimum age has been reached.
We are making changes to pensions legislation to allow occupational pension schemes to offer flexibilities to members, and to ensure that the flexibilities operate as intended in relation to cash balance benefits when schemes wind up or enter the Pension Protection Fund assessment period. Cash balance benefits involve guarantees about the amount of a member’s accrued fund and cannot easily be designated for the payment of draw-down. For draw-down funds to operate as intended, cash balance benefits need to be turned into money purchase benefits before designated as “draw-down”. New clause 14 limits draw-down to money purchase benefits.
In addition, the Government will bring forward regulations to allow modification of scheme rules to convert cash balance benefits into money purchase benefits, where the member wants to exercise draw-down. Schemes will need to convert cash balance benefits into money purchase benefits, and new clauses 15 and 16 contain regulation- making powers for this conversion process. They are fall-back powers, as no scheme is currently offering the extended forms of access and we have no evidence of how such conversions might be undertaken. If there is evidence that schemes are not offering fair value for cash balance benefits in conversion or as a lump sum, we will bring forward regulations to impose requirements.
If an occupational pension scheme is underfunded at wind-up, assets relating to non-money purchase benefits shall be distributed according to a specified priority order. Members therefore see a reduction in their benefits in accordance with that priority order. New clause 17 contains provisions about the conversion of benefits during wind up. We want to prevent some members from avoiding any reduction to Pension Protection Fund levels of compensation. Therefore, we want to prevent members from converting non-money purchase benefits to money purchase after a scheme begins to wind up. If we did not do that, there would be a risk that benefits converted to money purchase would be discharged in full, to the potential detriment of other members.
If schemes offer the new decumulation options, we need to set out how rights under the scheme are treated if the scheme enters the PPF. Our provisions restrict what can be done with non-money purchase benefits when a scheme is in a PPF assessment period. New clause 17 prevents the conversion or replacement of non-money purchase benefits with money purchase benefits. New clause 18 restricts the payment of lump sums to those that would be payable if the scheme transferred into the PPF. Crucially, a scheme needs to be in as steady a state as possible while it is assessed for transfer into the PPF, so that its overall financial position can be determined. In addition, if members were able to transfer or discharge their benefits, this would delay the process and deplete the assets available to be transferred with which to pay compensation to other members. There
25 Nov 2014 : Column 816
are no restrictions on the payment, transfer or discharge of money purchase benefits. New clauses 19 and 23 replicate these provisions for Northern Ireland.
In new clauses 31 and 33, we introduce several definitional terms that will apply to a number of areas we are amending under part 4 of the Bill. New clause 31 introduces the definition of a “flexible benefit”, which will determine whether the requirements relating to independent advice, draw-down, treatment of lump sums and transfers will apply to that form of benefit or not. New clause 32 contains definitions of “cash balance benefits”. which are a form of benefit that will fall within the scope of flexible benefits. Those definitions seek to ensure that where a member’s pension saving results in a cash amount, as opposed to an income amount, they are able to access those benefits flexibly. The definition of “flexible benefit” is intended to include all those benefit categories that fall within the scope of the flexibilities introduced by the Taxation of Pensions Bill. The definition includes money purchase benefits, cash balance benefits and a residual category of benefits which are neither money purchase nor cash balance benefits for the purposes of pensions legislation, other than the provisions relating to pensions in the Finance Act 2004. This residual category may include a benefit structure which provides a sum of money at the member’s retirement date but is also subject to an additional guarantee, such as the option of a guaranteed annuity rate offered before the member becomes entitled to receive their pension. New clause 33 also defines a range of terms to ensure that the flexibilities apply to the right individuals, both members and those who may be entitled to survivor rights, as well as at the right points in time.
Government amendments 56 to 72 relate to the smooth running of the pensions guidance service and ensure that the legislative framework works as it should. They fall into three groups, the first of which comprises those aligning definitions with the ones used in the rest of the Bill. The second group comprises those ensuring that those delivering guidance work together effectively and share information. The third group comprises the consequential amendments. I outlined earlier the new definition of “flexible benefits”, which is used in this Bill to refer to money purchase or defined contribution schemes. Amendments 56 and 57 introduce the language of flexible benefits into the high-level definition of pensions guidance. Amendments 30, 58, 67, 68, 69 and 72 are necessary as a consequence of these definitional changes.
On information sharing, amendment 60 inserts new section 333EA in new part 20A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Subsection (1) provides for a duty on designated guidance providers and the Treasury to co-operate in the giving of pensions guidance. Subsection (2) provides for a gateway to share information. Ensuring that delivery partners and the Treasury are under an obligation to work together and, importantly, that they may share information with each other, subject to the usual data protection requirements, is important. It ensures a well-integrated and well-functioning guidance service; allows delivery partners to learn from each other and for evaluation of the overall service; and, finally and most importantly, facilitates a smooth journey for consumers through the service. The remaining provisions in this group make minor or consequential changes,
25 Nov 2014 : Column 817
principally to ensure that the guidance framework slots into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. They include amendments 61 and 63.
4.15 pm
Finally, there are a series of “back of the Bill” amendments: on powers to make consequential amendments; on regulations; on crown application; on extent; on commencement and on the long title of the Bill. Just to be clear, I am referring to amendments 4, 24, 26, 27, 33 to 37, 39 to 42, 44 to 46, 48 and 1.
Mr Love: I apologise to the Minister for asking this now. He was going at such a pace that I did not catch up with him until he had moved on to a separate set of amendments. I want to press him on the guidance amendments. Will guidance be rationed to a once-only offer, or will the Financial Conduct Authority introduce some flexibility in that regard?
Steve Webb: Obviously, that issue is not spelled out in the Bill, but it is important none the less. What we envisage is that people will contact the guidance service, which by then will have a brand, an identity, a phone number and all the rest of it, and will make an appointment if they want face-to-face or telephone-based guidance. Obviously, they can access the website as many times as they like, but if they wish to have face-to-face or telephone-based guidance, it will be at a set time on a set date. There will be a period between the initial contact and the guidance appointment for the gathering of information to make the session more useful. Coming out of that session will be documentation and signposting for further sources of information, guidance and, if they wish, regulated financial advice.
Clearly, we want everybody to be able to access the guidance, so the core model is that a person does that once. But the Pensions Advisory Service has a business as usual role anyway and it is inconceivable that, even if a person has had their formal guidance session with the service and then rang it up the next day with a question, it would put the phone down on them; of course it would not, so there would be flexibility. Clearly, we need to think further on that. We need to reflect on the fact that if someone has a guidance session and then has additional needs, is a formal second guidance session appropriate or necessary or are there other ways of dealing with those needs? The core model is one session, but other resources, such as signposting, are available on tap. We are considering whether further flexibility could be introduced.
I hope that I am near to conclusion. I ran through the relatively minor and consequential amendments that come towards the back of the Bill and that are relatively uncontentious. On the title of the Bill, amendment 1 amends the title of the Bill to include
“provision designed to give people greater flexibility in accessing benefits and to help them make informed decisions about what to do with benefits.”
That change is to reflect more accurately the content of the Bill in the light of the new amendments on the pension flexibilities.
In sum, these new provisions are designed to ensure that the guidance guarantee works as effectively as possible; that the various rules on transfers do not act to the detriment of people who are left behind in the schemes; and that the process is properly overseen with
25 Nov 2014 : Column 818
the provision of independent financial advice. They also spell out who pays for the help, and whether or not it is taxed. The provisions help to flesh out some of the detail of this important policy, and I commend new clause 7 to the House.
Stephen Timms: We are now embarking on a debate on 27 Government new clauses, 40 new Government amendments and—providing welcome relief—an amendment from the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow).
The changes the Government have announced will introduce much-increased flexibility for savers, which is welcome. They will also make the pensions market more diverse and complicated and lead to a whole new range of products about which consumers have not had to make decisions in the past. Of course it is right that safeguards need to be in place to protect savers adequately from the danger of being taken advantage of, as we have seen happen in this market in the past.
We are dealing with an area full of technicalities, some of which we have just been hearing about, and fraught with difficulty. I appreciate that the Minister had no choice but to introduce these measures at the same time as the implementation of the Budget changes, but he will recognise, as the House certainly will, that there is a danger, in providing so little opportunity for the House to conduct proper scrutiny, of creating serious problems and a future mis-selling scandal.
We have set out three tests for the new flexibility. First, is there reliable advice for people saving for their retirement? Secondly, is the system fair to those on middle and lower incomes who want to secure retirement income? Thirdly, are the Government confident that the changes will not result in extra costs to the state, either through social care costs or by increasing the cost of housing benefit? I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the extent to which he believes the changes before the House will meet those tests.
The annual workplace pension survey carried out by the National Association of Pension Funds this year showed that only 19% of savers feel very capable of knowing what to do with their savings. That is ahead of the very major changes about to take effect, and we can be certain that consumer bewilderment will rocket from next April. The new arrangements are supposed to be in place from that date—in less than six months—but we do not yet know how they will work.
In previous discussion about the form that the guidance will take, the Minister said that
“it is not formal, detailed or product-specific”.
That is rather different from what was said by the Financial Conduct Authority when it launched its consultation on guidance. It seemed to envisage something rather more substantial than the Minister suggested in his remarks, but the FCA will produce only the standards; Her Majesty’s Treasury will oversee the drafting of the guidance. Nobody can yet feel confident about what will emerge from that process. A number of questions must be asked, such as the one posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr Love) earlier. It is not clear even who exactly will pay for the advice or through what mechanism it will be paid for. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on how he envisages that process working.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 819
The challenges were helpfully illuminated by the article on the front page of The Daily Telegraph on Saturday which said, “Pension mis-selling: scandal hits 100,000 retired savers a year”. The article explained that
“one in four pensioners who retired with a private pension in the past seven years is entitled to a larger annual pension income.
Savers with medical conditions including diabetes, high blood pressure and even smokers should have been offered an increased annuity based on their lower life expectancy.”
“just seven per cent of those who are entitled to the increased pay outs have automatically received them. Studies indicate the true figure should be closer to 60 per cent.
Now Aviva, Britain’s largest insurer, is paying compensation and increasing the annual payouts of hundreds of customers after discovering staff sold inappropriate deals.”
Crispin Blunt: I am interested in the issue because two highly innovative companies in my constituency, Partnership and Just Retirement, sold these products to people approaching the point where they had to make a decision about an annuity. Of course, they are anxious about guidance because if people are given guidance about the nature of the market, they can then go to the right place to make those decisions. Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that existing providers should have provided such guidance? He used the words “should have”. These products were available in the market. There was a failure in the previous annuity market which I hope this guidance will address, pointing people to the right kinds of provider.
Stephen Timms: We welcomed the new flexibility that is being provided. I hope the guidance that we are legislating for will deliver the improvement that the hon. Gentleman describes, but we cannot yet be confident that that will be the case. This brief debate gives us an opportunity to press the Minister to give us rather more reassurance about that. I shall refer to some of the comments of JustRetirement, one of the companies that the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) mentioned.
The most recent Association of British Insurers data show that overall annuity sales are down 14% from the second quarter of this year, and by 56% compared with the third quarter of last year. Consumers are presumably waiting until the reforms go live in April next year before deciding how to use their defined contribution pension savings. The same ABI data show external annuity sales—that is, annuities bought on the open market—down from 49% to 35% in the third quarter of this year. Internal annuity sales, where an annuity is bought from the incumbent pension provider, have increased from 51% to 65% in the same period. The overall share of enhanced annuity sales has fallen from 28% to 22%.
The ABI data highlight the risk of the kind of consumer detriment described in the article in The Daily Telegraph on Saturday. Together, they suggest that problems will continue unless the Financial Conduct Authority intervenes actively. Just Retirement makes the point particularly strongly and effectively that there is an urgent need for a second line of defence requirement for providers. What happens if the guidance on offer is not taken up? That is not provided for in the amendments.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 820
Legal and General has highlighted the lesson from the pilot that it undertook with public support—that in practice the guidance on offer will very likely not be taken up. As the Minister knows, the take-up was very small—2.5%—in the pilot that it set up and supported. If that happens on a significant scale when these arrangements come into force next year, it opens up the possibility of very large-scale new consumer detriment. JustRetirement, along with others, is right to argue that by introducing a second line of defence requirement, the FCA can apply a crucial brake against this potential future consumer detriment by requiring providers to check consumers’ circumstances when they come to access their DC pension savings.
The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) asked whether the guidance would take account of other financial assets beyond DC pension savings. That is a good question.
Mr Love: The Minister alluded to discussions taking place between the Department and the FCA, but the formal FCA position given earlier in the consideration of the Bill was that consumer take-up would be a matter of public choice, leaving it to the person concerned. With all the emerging evidence, surely we cannot be confident that that will answer the question.
Stephen Timms: I fear my hon. Friend is right. If in practice only a tiny proportion of people, or even a modest proportion, take up the guidance being offered, there is every chance of very serious problems in this market in the future. The House cannot be satisfied with that likelihood.
A number of organisations have pressed vigorously for a second line of defence requirement and they make a telling case. Proceeding without that safeguard will leave many consumers exposed—we should bear in mind that this is all supposed to happen from next April—making people guinea pigs and opening up the real possibility of another mis-selling scandal in the coming months.
Richard Graham: The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that may not technically arise from the amendments that we are debating, but in which all hon. Members have some interest. What could a possible second line of defence look like?
Stephen Timms: That is a good question. I do not have a proposition to make. I would hope that those who are reflecting on these matters, particularly in the FCA, will be giving that some thought. There is time for it to incorporate something else and to put that second line of defence in its conduct rules. What it would look like, I am not in a position to propose this afternoon, but the need for it is clear. If the hon. Gentleman is about to propose something, I would welcome that.
Richard Graham: The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous and Madam Deputy Speaker is indulging us gently so I will be brief. I guess—perhaps the Minister might nod sagely at this stage—that this is an issue primarily for the FCA, but I hope that the message has gone out from us today that we are interested in it.
Stephen Timms:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that those who follow these debates will take that as an endorsement of the need for that second line of
25 Nov 2014 : Column 821
defence to be devised and put in place. If it was not there, there is a real risk of exposing consumers to risk of a kind that we have all seen before, and which would undermine these important reforms from the outset.
As the Minister explained, independent financial advice amendments are set out in new clauses 7 to 13. New clause 7 requires that when a member requests a transfer of safeguarded benefits, which are anything other than the cash balance or other money purchase benefits, with a view to acquiring flexible benefits, which are anything that is not safeguarded, the trustees
“must check that the member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice”.
I want to pick up a number of issues. What exactly are the trustees being required to do? Are they being asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the advice that was given to the scheme member? It does not seem right that they should be called upon to do that. It is quite a big undertaking for them and they are probably not in a position to do it. That wording could be understood to mean that that is what they are being asked to do. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.
We are seeing the creation of two new categories of benefits—safeguarded benefits and flexible benefits. I gather that the use of these terms is completely new; they are not used elsewhere in the statute. We have three new categories of scheme set out in the Bill, but this is the first time that we have had reference to safeguarded and flexible benefits. The use of those terms seems unfortunate, because safeguarded rights has a particular meaning, which was familiar when, admittedly now rather a long time ago, I was in the office that the Minister now holds. In the context of contracting out, safeguarded rights had a particular meaning. That term is now being introduced in the amendments before us to mean something completely different. The term “flexible” also has a specific meaning in pensions tax terms. Again, there is a real risk of confusion in reusing that particular term to mean something very different from the one people familiar with pensions tax arrangements understand it to mean.
The National Association of Pension Funds has argued that the statute should state that where the member has requested a transfer of his or her benefits, other than cash balance or other money purchase benefits to a scheme in which they will be paid a cash balance or money purchase benefits, the trustees should require appropriate proof from the member that he or she has received independent financial advice from a person authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to give such advice. The regulations could define “appropriate financial advice” in that way. The NAPF makes the point that the language in front of us is rather ambiguous about what exactly is envisaged. Perhaps the Minister could comment on the alternative wording proposed by the NAPF, which it thinks would make it clearer and would not give the impression that trustees were being called upon to do something that is actually very difficult for them.
New schedule 1, as the Minister has told us, deals with the detail of the calculation of the cash equivalent transfer valuation, replacing the current CETV provisions under the 1993 Act. I fear that the tangle gets worse here. The distinction is between money purchase benefits, flexible benefits that are not money purchase benefits—in other words, cash balance benefits—and benefits that
25 Nov 2014 : Column 822
are not flexible benefits, previously defined as safeguarded benefits. There are also transferable benefits, which are benefits
“by virtue of which this Chapter applies to the member.”
This is all quite complicated stuff. One of the fears is that the changes in terminology, and the reuse of previously familiar terms to mean completely different things, significantly increase the amount of confusion being created. Instead of just removing the current statutory requirement that all benefits be transferred if a member wants to transfer any benefits, the effect here is to prohibit schemes from having rules that require transfer of other categories of benefits if the member wants to transfer only one category, or that
“prevent a member who exercises a right under this Chapter in relation to a category of benefits from accruing rights to benefits in another category.”
Again, the NAPF makes the point that that last provision is “incredibly wide”. It points out that schemes do not let members participate in various sections willy-nilly; there are all sorts of rules about who can accrue what sorts of benefits and under what circumstances. The fact that somebody has asked for a CETV in one section of the scheme should not entitle them to benefits in other sections, but that is the way that this provision has been written. Perhaps the Minister could comment on whether that is what he really intends.
New clauses 14 to 16 seem to allow the Secretary of State to forbid draw-down from schemes that give members a guaranteed return, because draw-down can only be from money purchase benefits. That seems odd as well. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he or his officials discussed that with anybody before producing these new clauses. Certainly, the NAPF tells me that it is not aware of any discussions about that with it, or with anybody else. It well understands that schemes with guarantees must comply with the funding regime, but it does not understand why they should not be allowed to do draw-down or UFPLS—uncrystallised funds pension lump sum. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that.
The Bill requires members of defined benefit schemes to have received independent financial advice before being permitted to transfer into a defined contribution arrangement, unless they have pension wealth amounting to less than £30,000. The NAPF is concerned that that will impose a requirement that it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to meet. People will be required to prove that they do not have pension wealth in excess of £30,000, which will be very difficult for the average saver. There is the potential for a lot of confusion for savers attempting to assess their level of pension wealth. They might not realise that previously crystallised pension assets will be counted towards that threshold. They might find it difficult to assess the current value of such assets.
The average person may well not understand—nor should they be expected to understand—that the £30,000 will be measured not by the current CETV system but using the methodology created to measure benefits against the lifetime allowance, information that members are not currently entitled to get from other schemes. As a result, many defined benefit members will not be able to exercise their rights in the way that the Bill intends. The NAPF urges that savers should be able to access a total of £30,000 of defined benefit benefits calculated
25 Nov 2014 : Column 823
on a CETV basis, regardless of any additional defined contributions savings that they may have. Will the Minister respond to that point?
As with the previous group of amendments, I ask the Minister to set out his intentions on the regulations that are envisaged. He gave a clear and helpful response to my earlier question, but as he is well aware, it is good practice where regulations are referred to in primary legislation for Members who are scrutinising that legislation at least to have a draft in front of them when determining whether they support the provisions. The Minister said that it was not possible to give the costs for trustees because there was not yet a draft of the regulations. I think he will accept that it is very difficult for Members to decide whether to support these provisions if the House has not been told the cost for those who have to operate the regulations. Telling Members that the Government have no idea, at this stage, of what the cost of all this will be for everybody makes it impossible for us to do the job that we are required to do in properly scrutinising the costs and benefits that the legislation provides.
I was rather down-hearted by the content of the Minister’s previous answer, but I will ask the question again as regards these measures. Does he anticipate bringing forward the regulations on the same sort of time scale as the one he indicated earlier? Is there any prospect at least that draft regulations might be available to Members in the other place when they scrutinise the Bill? Does he expect that, as he said before, the majority of the regulations will be subject to the negative rather than the affirmative procedure? Will he draw the House’s attention to any exceptions, as he did last time, and point to those that will be subject to the affirmative procedure?
I am not going to urge the House to vote against any of the measures before us. I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) speak about his amendment. I have to tell the Minister that the House is being placed in a pretty unsatisfactory situation. I hope that even though we have not been able properly to scrutinise these measures because of the lack of information to support that scrutiny, he might encourage us by saying that those in the other place will have a better chance to do so.
Crispin Blunt: I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and to know that I have the opportunity to persuade the massed ranks of the Labour party of the merits of my amendment. I shall do my very best to do so.
Four of the most significant players in the United Kingdom pensions market are based in my constituency of Reigate: Just Retirement, Legal and General, Partnership, and Fidelity. I should declare, if it is an interest, that my son works for one of those companies—Just Retirement. Between them, they employ a pretty significant number of the constituents I am privileged to represent. The past six months since the announcement in the Budget of the measures in this Bill have not been easy for them. The number of annuities purchased has dropped off a cliff, as customers and financial advisers await the implementation of the reforms.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 824
Overall, however, the need for and the rightness of the reforms cannot be doubted. The pensions market has for too long been shackled by the obligation to annuitise; annuity rates have fallen consistently over the past two decades; and strenuous competition and liberalisation is just what the industry needs if each new batch of retirees are not going to find themselves commensurately worse off than their predecessors. The proposals are right not only on a practical level, but ethically as well. It is farcical that we have deemed retirees incapable of managing their own finances and have paternalistically restricted access to the money for which they have worked hard throughout their lives.
4.45 pm
I intervened earlier on the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), on the issue of the kind of market we want to create. There needs to be guidance, but in the end it can only be guidance; the decisions are the responsibility of the people themselves, operating on the best possible guidance and, indeed, informed advice should they wish to go down that route and pay for it.
The success over the past decade of both Just Retirement and Partnership—two of the smaller companies in my constituency—has been driven by their innovation, entrepreneurship and ingenuity. They have led the market in the development of specialist annuity products better targeted at the needs of precisely the types of consumers referred to by the shadow Minister. They are well-led and nimble businesses, and models such as theirs should be best placed for success in a reinvigorated market. However, the Government’s lack of detail on the issue of guidance will not only handicap those companies as they wait for it, but potentially put the success of the whole reform in peril.
The Government’s commitment to the guidance guarantee has, of course, been well received by the industry and consumers, but widespread consumer ignorance of the pensions market is well documented. The Department’s own 2012 “Attitudes to Pensions” survey found that 49% had no knowledge of the requirement to annuitise.
Richard Graham: My hon. Friend is making some good points on an important issue, but does he agree that the providers and creators in financial companies have missed a trick over the years with regard to product innovation, and that they have depended too much on the monopoly of annuitisation, which has inhibited them—in effect, it has prevented them—from creating new products more suited to many of our constituents?
Crispin Blunt:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the market in which Just Retirement and Partnership, as two smaller companies, identified the need for better, value-for-money products for individuals such as smokers and others with more limited life expectancy so that they could get greater annuity rates. They tried to promote those products in the market, but their problem was inertia in the market. People simply did not evaluate the options open to them and simply rolled over their pension pot provision in order to get an annuity from their existing provider, without looking at what was available in the rest of the market. What we are trying to do with the guidance—this is why I wholeheartedly
25 Nov 2014 : Column 825
support the reforms—is make sure that we create a much more active, liberal market whereby people are aware that they have choices to exercise and are able get the information in order to do so in an informed way.
Richard Graham: Some Opposition members of the Bill Committee raised concerns about guidance, but does my hon. Friend agree that the fundamental point of the changes that this Bill and the Treasury’s Taxation of Pensions Bill will introduce is recognition that annuitisation as was will undoubtedly lead to some scandals and mis-selling, which this Bill should put right and prevent in the future?
Crispin Blunt: That was the exact result of the paternalistic way in which we legislated to require annuities. Frankly, it led to market failure as a result of inertia in the market and people not exercising the choices available to them, because we seemed to be telling them precisely what they had to do. Now that we are liberalising the system and giving people the responsibility to manage the money they have saved, we obviously have to deal with the vexed issue of guidance to make sure that people make sensible decisions, by and large, but at least they should be informed decisions about the resources they have saved. These market reforms are founded on a belief in consumer empowerment, but without the effective implementation of the guidance guarantee, they may fail. That is why the guidance guarantee is so important.
We have already heard about the detail of and debated the need for a second line of defence, in that the Financial Conduct Authority must protect the estimated 8% to 96% of people—rather a wide estimate—who might not take up the guidance. That, however, is not the purpose of amendment 73.
The industry and consumers need the Treasury to take a lead and confirm the contents of the guidance. Why the Treasury continues to maintain its conspiracy of silence is a mystery to me. It is of some concern that four and a half months before the start date, the FCA, Citizens Advice, the Pensions Advisory Service and providers have no concrete clue about exactly what the guidance will entail, including whether it will consider sources of income that are alternatives to defined contribution pension schemes.
Dominic Lindley, an author and consultant at Which?, gave evidence in Committee suggesting that as little as 4% of a saver’s wealth is tied up in defined- contribution schemes. The over-55s have an average of £271,000 invested in property, and it is natural that such assets should increasingly form a component of retirement income. The average amount lent through an equity release scheme jumped 12% to £67,000 last year, while defined contribution pension pots remain stagnant at £20,000 on average.
The Conservative party and I presume our allies—including the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), who supports my amendment 73—have always believed in the value of property ownership, and the Government must reflect that in their pensions policy. That is why we must recognise that equity release will be a critical part of future retirement provision. When we appreciate that £1.4 trillion-worth of property assets are held by older people, that puts into perspective the scale of the assets that have the potential to give older people a more comfortable retirement, if they can properly access them.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 826
In Committee, the Minister said that he anticipated—he repeated this in an intervention—that the information that consumers would be encouraged to gather in a standardised format before they received the guidance would include state pension rights and assets such as housing equity. He also remarked that the more they put into the guidance session, the more they would get out of it.
The Equity Release Council is pleased by the recognition that assets other than defined contribution pension savings should be taken into consideration. However, that has not been explicitly stated in the Bill, and so far it relates only to the initial phone call to set up the guidance session. I support the Equity Release Council’s wish for the Government explicitly to recognise that housing wealth represents a significant source of potential retirement income, and for that to be considered during the delivery of pensions guidance.
I will therefore listen very carefully to the Minister before I invite the massed ranks of Opposition Members and, I hope, Government Members to support my amendment 73. I am reasonably hopeful that the Minister will give me a satisfactory response.
Mr Love: There is a clear—well, not so clear—dividing line between generic advice and product-specific advice. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that where there are significant housing assets, part of the guidance guarantee should include advice on equity release. Is he straying across that line?
Crispin Blunt: I am trying to suggest what is in the amendment:
“Individuals delivering the pensions guidance must ask those receiving the guidance about other potential sources of retirement income in addition to defined contribution pension schemes; this must include an assessment of assets such as housing wealth, savings and investments.”
It is not meant to be prescriptive, but if someone has a tiny portfolio as their defined contribution scheme, relative to their whole portfolio, why are they not directed to their major asset, which is likely to be their house? What consideration might they give to using that asset to make their retirement more comfortable than it would otherwise be?
Pension reform seeks to give people sensible access to their assets, and for them to make sensible decisions. With equity release, for example, does it make sense to sell and downsize and give the estate agent a whack of money while being forced to move in order to release assets, or rather to stay in the house and release assets through an equity release scheme?
Richard Graham: It is an interesting point, and I am sure my hon. Friend would agree that the difficulty in the wording is because it is up to the individual to explain their circumstances and list their own assets, if indeed they have any. The vast majority of my constituents—and, I suspect, those of many other Members—have little in the way of assets, other than what they have been encouraged or able to save through their pension.
Crispin Blunt:
Everybody’s position will be different. There will be people with small pensions sitting in quite large houses, and they will have limited income but a significant capital asset. When they receive advice on pension provision on retirement, what is their plan to
25 Nov 2014 : Column 827
be? We must try to get such people into the best possible place and to make sensible decisions about their future. It is not only the Equity Release Council saying that.
David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): I have been reflecting on the wording of the amendment and the use of the word “must”. Had adequate guidance been provided, it would have taken into account the whole gamut of somebody’s circumstances. If that question was not asked, however, what remedy does my hon. Friend suggest? Is he saying that the guidance would void future contracts? If an advisor or guider had not asked the question suggested in the amendment, would any contract subsequently entered into be voided?
Crispin Blunt: Those would be matters for the FCA. It would regulate the guidance and say how it should be implemented, and state the consequences if people are misguided in the process. The point about putting “must” into the Bill is to be clear that the rather basic duty to assess everybody’s assets would be a requirement. What the consequences would be if misguidance was delivered would be a matter for the FCA. I do not want to get into that territory—it is a rather more expert territory than I would want to address to provide the solution my hon. Friend seeks.
I will conclude with a quote in support of my arguments from the director of policy and deputy director general of the Association of British Insurers, Huw Evans. He made it clear today that:
“While the Treasury is responsible for deciding the content of the guidance and delivering the online service, other critical partners also need certainty soon including the pension providers who have to signpost their customers to it, the FCA which needs to regulate it and the Government’s formal delivery partners, Citizens Advice and the Pensions Advisory Service…It is critical for the success of the reforms that the vast majority of customers use their new-found freedoms to make a choice that is right for them…It is very important at this stage that Ministers hold their nerve and stick to their original plan of a broader based guidance service that can genuinely help people approaching retirement to consider everything they need to be thinking about to take decisions about their finances…The Chancellor was right to think a guidance service was a necessary ingredient in the new world of pension freedom; now he needs to ensure it is worth having.”
That is what amendment 73 seeks to assist in doing.
Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): I will be very brief in my support of the amendment that stands in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).
5 pm
I want to start by picking up on my hon. Friend’s last point. In a way, it is a contribution to a wider debate on later life planning and how we ensure that people look at their later life in the round in terms of the assets available to them to support a quality of life they want, and to meet the unforeseen eventualities that life can throw up, not least care needs. My hon. Friend referred to innovation in the market and, in particular, to Partnership. It has been one of the leading providers of immediate needs annuities, a product that I suspect is unaffected by these changes but which makes a significant difference to those who want certainty in meeting care
25 Nov 2014 : Column 828
costs, particularly in residential settings. It can often mean that people never fall back on the state. This product therefore has a double benefit: it protects the individual and the taxpayer too.
I want to pick up on remarks the Minister made in Committee on 4 November. He talked about two phases in the way the guidance guarantee is delivered: gathering relevant information, which my hon. Friend talked about; and the follow-up phase. Of course, between those two phases there is the conversation phase, where the information that has been gathered is used to best effect. The Minister said that information gathered would include housing asset information, but suggested that it would be part of a standardised format. He implied that it would be developed over time. The issue is, therefore, how much time it will take to be developed and how standardised it will be from the outset. Evidence was presented to the Committee at the beginning of its deliberations on the relative share of wealth attributable to defined contribution savings compared with the significant share of wealth that is represented, particularly among the first cohorts of populations that are going to benefit, which is property wealth. There is a vital need not to leave that asset out of the equation. The figure I have seen most recently for the 60 to 69-year age group is that they have property wealth of about £993 billion—that is an extraordinary figure—and three quarters of them are mortgage-free.
Building other assets, particularly housing assets, into the information-gathering stage, the conversation and the follow-up is essential. The anxiety that has given rise to the amendment is that it was not entirely clear from what the Minister said in Committee whether all three phases would need to take them fully into account. I hope the Minister can give us both the reassurance we seek. I hope the statutory guidance is the place where this is properly dealt with and that it conveys clearly the way all three phases of the guidance guarantee are delivered to ensure that housing wealth is properly taken into account and followed up. People will then be able to make informed choices that support them and their families, enabling them to have the later lives they want. That will not be delivered solely by focusing on defined contribution savings.
I support the amendment. It is intended to probe and secure clarification from the Government clarification. I look forward to that clarification.
Steve Webb: This has been a helpful debate covering a wide range of issues. I shall address the questions raised by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), particularly about the Government new clauses, before moving on to the guidance guarantee.
On the budget freedoms, the right hon. Gentleman said the Labour party had set out three tests. I assume he thinks that if any of them are not successful, Labour will oppose the budget freedoms, though I am not clear if that is the logic of his position. We think those tests are met—I shall run through them—but I think Labour is a little ambivalent: it is instinctively paternalistic and does not really like these freedoms, but it realises they are popular so it decides to set some tests so it sounds as if it is scrutinising. It is unclear, however, whether Labour is committed to seeing these things through if it takes up office—but we will see, perhaps.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 829
The right hon. Gentleman set out his three tests. First, he asked whether reliable advice would be available. He said “advice”, but we are not promising advice; we are promising guidance. He knows that those are different, so I am not sure that the test is the right question. If the question is, “Will reliable guidance be available?”, the answer is, “Absolutely”. We have made it clear that people will have the choice of face-to-face, phone-based or internet-based guidance, and that it will be of a high quality and delivered by trusted partners, such as the Pensions Advisory Service, the network of citizens advice bureaux and the Treasury’s own website. We will require providers to flag the guidance up when people try to access their money, possibly through the provision of wake-up packs.
On take-up, which my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) joked about, clearly there have been a variety of trials, tests and surveys. The Legal & General pilot, which was mentioned, had a 2% or 3% take-up, but the Chartered Insurance Institute explained it to people and told us that demand could be as high as 90%. I am confident it will be in the latter range. It is important to stress, however, that we are evolving—a theme to which I shall return in a moment. This is work in progress. We are talking to people in this target group about what they want from the guidance; using behavioural insights to maximise take-up; and trying to find out what people want from the sessions and what means of communication work for them.
I hear the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and the firms in his constituency—they want certainty, they want it now, they want it in the Bill—but the crucial thing is that when we get to April, we have something that works and which has been tested and refined. That is the tension.
Everybody wants certainty; barely a day goes by when I am not at a pensions conference where someone is not asking about guidance and demanding certainty, when what they really want is something that works. That is one of our reservations about trying to spell it all out in the Bill. We want to talk to the people affected. It has been said that the Pensions Advisory Service does not know what it will be asked to do, but it is in and out of my office and the Treasury all the time. It has people on the Treasury team drawing up the plans. Of course, these things are not finalised, but the PAS and Citizens Advice are working hand in glove with the Treasury as our delivery partners.
Crispin Blunt: I would be grateful if the Minister got it across to his Treasury colleagues that this is not just about ensuring that the guidance works; it is about the detailed regulations, as yet unavailable, for the products that will replace much of the annuity market and which companies will have immense difficulty designing if they are not told the exact requirements. I realise this is an issue for the Treasury and the Prudential Regulation Authority—as I understand it—but I would be grateful if he took that message back to them.
Steve Webb: I can perhaps distinguish between the specification by the Government and the Financial Conduct Authority of what the guidance will contain and the issue of product regulation, which are obviously two different things. On the former, my hon. Friend will know that the FCA set out some ideas about what the guidance should contain and consulted on them, and we will shortly be publishing its conclusions.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 830
This has been a consultative process. We were condemned on Budget day for not having consulted, but when we consult extensively, we are condemned for not having definite answers—you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I hear what my hon. Friend says though. We are trying to get to a position where we can be as clear as possible as soon as possible about the content of the guidance and the process, while trying to evolve, learn, listen and refine our approach, so that when it goes live in April we are in a good place.
I am not absolutely sure I understand what people who are thinking of bringing out products need to know. There is already an FCA regulatory regime and a duty on providers to treat customers fairly. In general the FCA does not pre-approve products so it is not the case that a provider comes up with a product, goes off to the FCA and says, “Is this all right?” That is not the way it works, but I do know that the FCA is in dialogue with the product providers, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, about the sorts of products they are thinking of bringing forward.
Crispin Blunt: There is a different set of issues, arising particularly out of EU Solvency II, but there is the same time scale and it is the PRA that is having to provide product regulation around this. That is not an issue for the Minister’s Department, but I just thought, as I am seeking a meeting with the Exchequer Secretary to address this—we have yet to get a date—that I would use this occasion to make a similar point to the Minister and invite him to get that message across.
Steve Webb: I am very happy to relay to the Exchequer Secretary that my hon. Friend is seeking such a meeting.
We believe that reliable and high-quality guidance will be available. The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about those on lower incomes. The irony is that in the bad old world it was the people in the middle who were completely stuck. If someone had a tiny pension pot, they could take the cash, and if they had a big pension pot, they had choices and draw-down and probably paid for some advice. It was all those poor souls in the middle who just ended up having to buy an annuity faute de mieux. This new reform gives new options and new choices to those on lower and middle incomes who have not had them before, so it seems to us that we are being fairer to those in that group. They can buy an annuity if they want to, but we are giving them new options, so we do not think we have any problem with that test.
The right hon. Gentleman asked finally about the issue of costs to the Exchequer. He will be aware that these are being updated at the time of the autumn statement, so we will be providing fresh estimates of the tax implications of the changes and the public expenditure implications, but I would say that in its July long-term fiscal report the OBR did not assume any impact on public spending from these reforms. I do not think that by that it meant there would be nil, and I do not mean there would be nil, but think of the context of long-term pension spending, the very substantial reforms we have brought in to the state pension age, the new single tier pension and the multiple tens of billions of pounds-worth of reforms—we are not talking anything like that in respect of the implication for public spending of these new freedoms.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 831
Will there be somebody who blows the lot and claims a means-tested benefit? Yes, there will—having said which, we already have rules in place for those who artificially dispose of their capital, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. So there are safeguards. We may find that public expenditure is saved; we already know from survey evidence that pension saving is more popular as a result of our freedoms. If more people decide to save for their retirement through pension saving and have more income and wealth in retirement, we may save money. We do not expect a substantial impact on public spending, therefore, although I am not saying it will be zero. We will provide updated estimates at the time of the autumn statement.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about who will pay for the guidance and he seemed to think there was some confusion. I do not think there is any confusion. The £20 million that the Chancellor has identified is seed-corn funding to get the thing going, and it is already being spent as we speak—on designing the website and getting things started. Once it is up and running there will be a levy on the financial services industry. The FCA has already put out a consultation on exactly how that will fall.
Basically, the idea is that those firms that will benefit should pay the levy, but we are also consulting on exempting small firms of advisers with low turnover from paying the levy. So unless I have missed something, I do not think there is any uncertainty about who is going to be paying for this: it will not be the consumer directly; it will be a levy on the financial services industry.
The issue was raised—and this phrase has come up—of a second line of defence, and that is an important concept. As we discussed a moment ago, what happens when people have not accessed the guidance, or indeed if they have? The FCA has committed to consider this issue and it will be publishing an update on its requirement on pension providers very shortly. We have had some discussions as to whether that will be by Christmas, by winter or by late autumn, but it will be very shortly, so we will have more information on that. I assure the House that the FCA is taking this issue seriously.
Mr Love: Will the Government consult on this, as they have consulted everyone on aspects of reform?
5.15 pm
Steve Webb: This is in response to a consultation. During the consultation, one of the issues raised was about people who had not accessed the guidance. This is the response to that.
Reference was made to a story in The Daily Telegraph about people buying annuities that were not as good as they should have been, given their health condition. The FCA is undertaking a thematic review of the annuity market and looking at at-retirement choices. A lot of reporting and recommendations from the FCA will come out over the next couple of months. The Government have investigated some of the failures of the annuities market. We are tackling them by giving people new choices and it is about time that that was done.
The right hon. Member for East Ham asked about DB to DC transfers and what trustees have to do. They have to make sure that, before a DB to DC transfer
25 Nov 2014 : Column 832
happens, the member has accessed independent financial advice by a regulated IFA or similar. They do not have to look at what the IFA has said and see whether it is any good or appropriate; that is not what we mean. But before they say yes to the transfer, each trustee will have to say to the scheme member, “Have you accessed independent financial advice?” That is only right and proper because, in general, we still think that most DB scheme members should remain in DB. That will be the right thing for most. That is why we think the advice test is the right thing to do.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about forbidding draw-down in schemes that provide cash-balance benefits. To be clear: our intention is to ensure that members are appropriately protected by ring-fencing their pots from those of other members. That means that assets must always meet the liabilities in relation to those benefits. Keeping conversion to money purchase is the simplest way of achieving that. This is about ring-fencing cash-balance benefits.
The right hon. Gentleman asked how people would calculate their overall level of pension wealth from the point of view of the £30,000 threshold. Obviously, the details of that will be set out in regulations. We are consulting the NAPF on that. It is interesting that the NAPF thinks that nobody is talking to it; we talk to the NAPF all the time. We are also consulting the ABI and other interested parties.
The nitty-gritty of how we set the £30,000, what it includes and whether it is all of someone’s assets will be subject to detailed discussions and regulation. But the principle has to be right: if we are to require people to have advice, we do not want people to be forced to pay, say, £1,000 for advice if they only have a pension pot of £5,000 or £12,000. There has to be some sort of cut-off. Clearly, we need a sensible operational definition of what that is, but I do not think the principle is at issue.
Stephen Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for the thorough way in which he is responding. May I take him back to his response to my question on the duties of trustees in an instance where a member wants to switch from DB to DC? The proposition from the NAPF was that the sole responsibility of trustees should be to require adequate proof from the member that they have received independent financial advice from a person authorised by the FCA to give such advice. It sounds to me that the Minister is saying that that is what he intends. Is he happy with that form of wording proposed by the NAPF?
Steve Webb: I am aware that our conversations are occasionally listened into by lawyers, so I am reluctant on the hoof to say that the wording from the NAPF is better than the wording that my lawyers have come up with, which is in the Bill. Clearly the point is not that the trustees have to second-guess an independent financial adviser—that is absolutely not what we are saying—but we are concerned to make sure that trustees do not simply nod through DB to DC transfers without ensuring that the scheme member has accessed suitable financial advice.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether regulations will be under the negative procedure or affirmative procedure. In general they will be under the negative procedure, but the regulations under new section 97A(11)
25 Nov 2014 : Column 833
in new clause 26 are affirmative. Given the speed at which we are working and the importance of getting all this in place, it is not realistic to think that we will have draft regulations for their lordships’ consideration in a few weeks’ time. But their lordships obviously will want to probe the likely content of the regulations and we will continue to try to be as helpful as we can in that regard.
Stephen Timms: Will the Minister accept that it is pretty unsatisfactory for the Bill to go through both Houses with the Members of neither of them having a draft of the regulations to consider so that they can see what exactly the Government have in mind?
Steve Webb: No, I would not accept that. The right hon. Gentleman will know, from having taken quite a few Bills through the House, that there is a balance to be struck among primary powers, giving the House a general sense of direction, our stating on the record what the regulations seek to do and separate scrutiny for the regulations themselves. We will always try to make clear our intentions and what the regulations will try to achieve and we will continue to talk to the experts outside and inside Government about the fine detail. It is perfectly normal to pass primary legislation without every last regulation being produced in draft form. The right hon. Gentleman was responsible for welfare reform legislation in which large swathes of regulations were not produced in draft form when Royal Assent was given.
Stephen Timms: The right hon. Gentleman is pressing my memory with that, but my understanding of what has generally been regarded as good practice is that there should at least be draft regulations in front of Members. We do not necessarily need every last detail and he is quite right to make the point that there will be further discussions before things are finalised, but for Members of neither House to be able to see even a draft of the regulations is unusual and pretty unsatisfactory.
Steve Webb: I do not agree that it is either unusual or unsatisfactory. It is clearly important that the House accepts and is familiarised with the basic principles of approach and that we set out what will be in the regulations and what we are going to try to achieve through them, but often the regulations will be subject to separate consultation exercises. There is an awful lot of scrutiny; I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that these things are never knowingly unscrutinised.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable. Let us put it this way: our lawyers are not taking Christmas holidays. We are working as fast as we can.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): The Minister talks about the lawyers not taking Christmas holidays. We are almost in December, so how certain can those people across the United Kingdom who are preparing for retirement in April, May or June of next year be in the weeks that follow the autumn statement and the non-holiday taking of the lawyers that they will have clarity, and that it will come before April?
Steve Webb:
I think that the grouping of the amendments means that we are muddying together two completely separate things. The guidance guarantee and the budget
25 Nov 2014 : Column 834
freedoms will be in place on 6 April and the legislative framework will be in place—period.
Also in this group are regulations about defined ambition pensions, risk sharing and so on and they must be in place by April 2016. I think perhaps our conversation has been slightly at cross purposes. What has to be in place by April 2015 will be. There has been lots of consultation and a lot of it is not about regulation but about FCA rules. The FCA has already been consulting extensively and will publish more shortly. Separately, we will have many regulations to produce on defined ambition and so on. That will take longer and there will be further consultations on all that. I do not think there is anything particularly unprecedented about any of this.
Let me move on, finally, to amendment 73, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). They obviously raise an important point about the context of the guidance guarantee and the fact that DC pension pots these days, although hopefully not in the distant future, might be only a small part of people’s overall retirement wealth. I would not dispute for a moment the premise that decisions have to be made in context and that, as far as possible, we want well-informed consumers making the best decisions in their own interests.
I do not want to over-promise what this relatively limited conversation can cover or achieve. It clearly is not regulated financial advice. It is not a fact check or a fact finder. It will not lead people to say at the end, “It’s equity release for me.” I am not saying that that is what my right hon. and hon. Friends are saying, but we must be absolutely clear that we will not stretch this thing to achieve other goals, laudable as they might be, when they are not what it is being set up to do. For example, people who do not have DC pension pots might also want to think about equity release, but they will not access the guidance guarantee because they will not have a pot. If we think people should be accessing equity release more often, we need policies to deliver that. Shoehorning them into the guidance guarantee inappropriately will hit some people and not others. We must ensure that the guidance conversation delivers what it is meant to do and if we try to cram too much into it, we risk undermining that. That is one of the things we are testing through the surveying we are doing and through behavioural testing. If we bombard people with lots of products, issues and options, one of the worries is that they will just buy an annuity with their own provider and we will almost go back to where we started. So we are trying to strike that balance, and I wanted to put the caveat in first.
Let me now try to be a little more positive. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate asked for more detail on the guidance guarantee. Our colleagues at the Treasury have committed to providing further information in an update on progress on implementation that will be published before the end of the year on 31 December. That deals with the guidance guarantee.
To be clear, I would welcome the opportunity provided by my hon. Friends to clarify that the objective of the guidance is to ensure that consumers are empowered to make effective decisions about their retirement income options. While the focal point for the guidance session will be an individual’s DC pot, the guidance will cover the range of issues that affect an individual’s financial
25 Nov 2014 : Column 835
decision-making. That includes their wider financial circumstances—debts, others assets including their home and their personal motivations and goals, including attitudes to risk, desire for an income and so forth.
This is all provided for in the FCA’s proposed standards, which will be published in final form very shortly. They require that the guidance service encourages people to provide relevant information about their financial and personal circumstances and their objectives to ensure that they can get maximum value from their guidance. The financial information might include pension pots or benefits, other sources of wealth or income, including where the individual has a spouse or partner, tax status and debt position.
Our colleagues at the Treasury, along with the delivery partners, are working up the detail of the guidance in line with FCA standards, including scope and what it should cover. I hope my right hon. and hon. Friends will accept that it is not appropriate to hardwire those things directly into the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate said during the course of the Taxation of Pensions Bill:
“It will have to be capable of being improved in the light of experience”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 340.]
I agree with him on that point. Stipulating these things in legislation does not allow us to adapt the guidance in this way. We want to give people context, but not try to hardwire things into primary legislation when we are trying to evolve the best possible guidance offer.
I should stress, as I have said, that we are not talking about regulated financial advice. Guidance will help consumers consider their assets such as housing, wealth, savings and investment in the context of their retirement decision, but it is not a fully holistic financial planning service, such as one might get from multiple sessions with a professional regulated financial adviser. We are clear that the guidance will not replicate the services of professional financial advice, but will complement it. We will ensure that the consumers know both the value of seeking financial advice and where to go next. Referring again to Second Reading of the Taxation of Pensions Bill, my hon. Friend made the point:
“If the guidance can push people in that direction, to properly regulated and properly informed independent financial advisers, we will have properly informed consumers making proper choices.”—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 341.]
I am happy to reassure him that the guidance will do just that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam asked about social care. I can assure him that our Treasury colleagues are working on how to hand individuals on to the right place after using guidance. On social care, we are in discussions with a range of organisations, including Age UK, while we are discussing with the Department of Health how to link in to the statutory duty on local authorities, in which I believe my right hon. Friend might have had some involvement, to refer people to local care and advice services. I can assure both my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend that we take these issues seriously. This is not advice; it is guidance, but it is guidance in a financial context. We want to equip consumers to make the best choices they can. I hope the House will leave us with flexibilities to go on evolving that, while recognising that greater certainty is needed as soon as possible.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 836
Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his answers. There will obviously be an ongoing debate about this issue. He is right to turn my own words round on me, when I made comments on the other Bill associated with these measures. I shall not seek to press my amendment.
Steve Webb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for tabling their amendment, providing an opportunity to discuss these important issues. I commend new clause 7 to the House.
New clause 7 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain)
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify circumstances in which an employer must arrange or pay for a member of a pension scheme, or a survivor of a member of a pension scheme, to receive appropriate independent advice for the purpose of satisfying a requirement imposed by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—
(a) impose limitations on the amount that an employer may be required to pay;
(b) prohibit an employer from seeking in any way to recover, from a member or survivor, costs incurred by the employer in complying with the regulations;
(c) provide for section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 (civil penalties) to apply to a failure by an employer to comply with the regulations.
(3) In this section “employer” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Secretary of State.”—(Steve Webb.)
This gives the Secretary of State the ability to make regulations requiring an employer to pay for the advice required by NC7 in the circumstances specified in the regulations.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Independent advice: consequential amendments - Great Britain
‘(1) The Pension Schemes Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 99 (trustees’ duties after exercise of option), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the trustees or managers have been unable to carry out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 by reason of factors outside their control, or
(b) the trustees or managers have carried out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 but the check did not confirm that the member had received appropriate independent advice.”
25 Nov 2014 : Column 837
(3) In section 101J (time for compliance with transfer notice in respect of pension credit benefits), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if—
(a) the trustees or managers have been unable to carry out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 by reason of factors outside their control, or
(b) the trustees or managers have carried out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 but the check did not confirm that the member had received appropriate independent advice.””.—(Steve Webb.)
This amendment is consequential upon NC7
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland
‘(1) Where a member of a pension scheme has subsisting rights in respect of any safeguarded benefits, or a survivor of a member has subsisting rights in respect of any safeguarded benefits, the trustees or managers must check that the member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice before—
(a) converting any of the benefits into different benefits that are flexible benefits under the scheme;
(b) making a transfer payment in respect of any of the benefits with a view to acquiring flexible benefits for the member or survivor under another pension scheme.
(2) The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland may by regulations make provision about—
(a) what the trustees or managers must do to check that a member or survivor has received appropriate independent advice for the purposes of subsection (1), and
(b) when the check must be carried out for the purposes of that subsection.
(3) The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland may by regulations create exceptions to subsection (1).
(4) In subsection (1)(b) the reference to another pension scheme includes a scheme established in a country or territory outside Northern Ireland.
(5) Where the trustees or managers fail to carry out a check required by this section, Article 10 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3213 (N.I. 22)) (civil penalties) applies to any trustee or manager who failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the check was carried out.
(6) Failure to carry out a check required by this section does not affect the validity of any transaction.
“appropriate independent advice” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland;
“safeguarded benefits” means any benefits other than —
(a) money purchase benefits, and(b) cash balance benefits.”—
(Steve Webb.)
This provides that before trustees or managers of a pension scheme (in Northern Ireland) in which a person has safeguarded benefits convert them into flexible benefits, or make a transfer to another scheme to acquire flexible benefits, they must check that the person has received appropriate independent advice.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 838
Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland)
‘(1) The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland may by regulations specify circumstances in which an employer must arrange or pay for a member of a pension scheme, or a survivor of a member of a pension scheme, to receive appropriate independent advice for the purpose of satisfying a requirement imposed by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland).
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular—
(a) impose limitations on the amount that an employer may be required to pay;
(b) prohibit an employer from seeking in any way to recover, from a member or survivor, costs incurred by the employer in complying with the regulations;
(c) provide for Article 10 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3213 (N.I. 22)) (civil penalties) to apply to a failure by an employer to comply with the regulations.
(3) In this section “employer” has the meaning given by regulations made by the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland.”.—(Steve Webb.)
The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland can make regulations requiring an employer to pay for the advice required by NC10 in the circumstances specified in the regulations.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Independent advice: consequential amendments - Northern Ireland
‘(1) The Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 95 (trustees’ duties after exercise of option), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (2) does not apply if—
(a) the trustees or managers have been unable to carry out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 by reason of factors outside their control, or
(b) the trustees or managers have carried out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 but the check did not confirm that the member had received appropriate independent advice.”
(3) In section 97J (time for compliance with transfer notice in respect of pension credit benefits), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Subsection (1) does not apply if—
(a) the trustees or managers have been unable to carry out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 by reason of factors outside their control, or
(b) the trustees or managers have carried out the check required by section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 but the check did not confirm that the member had received appropriate independent advice.””.—(Steve Webb.)
This amendment is consequential upon NC10.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 839
Independent advice: income tax exemption
‘(1) In Part 4 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (employment income: exemptions), in Chapter 9 (exemptions: pension provision), after section 308A insert—
“308B Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers of pension scheme benefits
(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of—
(a) the provision to an employee or former employee of appropriate independent advice, or
(b) the payment or reimbursement, to or in respect of an employee or former employee, of the cost of such advice,
(2) Condition A is that the provision, payment or reimbursement is required by regulations under section (Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain)) or (Power to require employer to arrange advice for purposes of section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland)) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014 (power to require employer to arrange independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers).
(3) If condition A is met only as respects part of the payment or reimbursement because the amount of the payment or reimbursement exceeds the amount required to be paid or reimbursed, subsection (1) applies in respect of that part.
(4) Condition B is that the provision, payment or reimbursement is not pursuant to relevant salary sacrifice arrangements.
(5) Condition C is that such other requirements as may be specified in regulations made by the Treasury are satisfied in relation to the provision, payment or reimbursement.
“appropriate independent advice”—
(a) in relation to England and Wales and Scotland, has the meaning given by regulations under section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Great Britain) of the Pension Schemes Act 2014;(b) in relation to Northern Ireland, has the meaning given by regulations under section (Independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers: Northern Ireland) of that Act;
“relevant salary sacrifice arrangements” means arrangements (whenever made, whether before or after the employment began) under which an employee gives up the right to receive an amount of general earnings or specific employment income in return for the provision of appropriate independent advice or the payment or reimbursement of the cost of such advice.”
(2) In that Part of that Act, in section 228 (effect of exemptions on liability under provisions outside Part 2), in subsection (2), after paragraph (d) insert—
“(da) section 308B (independent advice in respect of conversions and transfers of pension scheme benefits),”.
(3) The amendments made by this section have effect for the tax year 2015-16 and subsequent tax years.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This amendment is consequential upon NC7, NC8, NC10 and NC11. It prevents the cost of independent financial advice, relating to the conversion or transfer of certain pension benefits, that is paid for or reimbursed by an employer from being treated as a taxable benefit in kind for income tax purposes if conditions are met.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 840
Sums or assets that may be designated as available for drawdown: Great Britain
‘(1) In the case of a member of an occupational pension scheme the only sums or assets that may be designated as available for the payment of drawdown pension for the member under the scheme are sums or assets held for the purposes of providing money purchase benefits to or in respect of the member.
(2) In the case of a survivor of a member of an occupational pension scheme the only sums or assets that may be designated as available for the payment of dependants’ drawdown pension for the survivor under the scheme are sums or assets held for the purposes of providing money purchase benefits to the survivor.
(3) This section overrides any provision of an occupational pension scheme to the extent that there is a conflict.
(4) This section does not apply in relation to sums or assets designated before 6 April 2015.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This ensures that occupational pension schemes may only pay drawdown pensions out of assets held for the purpose of providing money purchase benefits. The requirement applies to assets designated on or after 6 April 2015 as available for payment of drawdown, and overrides any conflicting provision in scheme rules.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Provision about conversion of certain benefits for drawdown: Great Britain
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the conversion of benefits under an occupational pension scheme in circumstances where—
(a) a member of the scheme, or a survivor of a member of the scheme, has subsisting rights in respect of any flexible benefits other than money purchase benefits under the scheme, and
(b) the member or survivor exercises an option to convert any of the benefits into money purchase benefits for the purposes of enabling sums or assets to be designated as available for the payment of drawdown pension or dependants’ drawdown pension.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about how the rate or amount of any benefits not converted are to be calculated in future.
(3) In relation to a conversion that takes place before the member or survivor reaches normal pension age, regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision about—
(a) the manner in which benefits are to be calculated for the purpose of converting them into money purchase benefits;
(b) the use of any power to reduce benefits.
(4) Regulations made under this section may include provision for them to override the provisions of a pension scheme to the extent that there is a conflict.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This provides a power to make regulations in relation to the conversion of flexible benefits into money purchase benefits for the purpose of paying a drawdown pension, where an occupational scheme offers that option to members or their survivors. The clause outlines particular areas which such regulations may cover.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 841
Provision about calculation of lump sums: Great Britain
‘(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about the calculation of lump sums in circumstances where—
(a) a member of an occupational pension scheme, or a survivor of a member of the scheme, has subsisting rights in respect of any flexible benefits other than money purchase benefits under the scheme, and
(b) the member or survivor exercises an option to be paid a lump sum in respect of any of those benefits.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about how the rate or amount of any remaining benefits are to be calculated in future.
(3) In a case where a member or survivor exercises an option to be paid a lump sum before reaching normal pension age, regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision about—
(a) the manner in which benefits are to be calculated for the purpose of determining the amount available for the payment of the lump sum;
(a) the use of any power to reduce the amount of the lump sum.
(4) Regulations made under this section may include provision for them to override the provisions of a pension scheme to the extent that there is a conflict.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This provides a power to make regulations in relation to the payment of lump sums by occupational pension schemes in respect of flexible benefits. The clause outlines particular areas which such regulations may cover.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Restrictions on conversion of benefits during winding up etc: Great Britain
‘(1) In section 73A of the Pensions Act 1995 (operation of scheme during winding up period), after subsection (6) insert—
“(6A) During the winding up period no right or entitlement of any member, or of any other person in respect of a member, to a benefit that is not a money purchase benefit is to be converted into, or replaced with, a right or entitlement to a money purchase benefit under the scheme rules.”
(2) In section 73B of that Act (sections 73 and 73A: supplementary), in subsections (1) and (3), after “section 73A(3)” insert “or (6A)”.
(3) In section 135 of the Pensions Act 2004 (restrictions on winding up, discharge of liabilities etc during assessment period), in subsection (4), before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) no right or entitlement of any member, or of any other person in respect of a member, to a benefit that is not a money purchase benefit is to be converted into, or replaced with, a right or entitlement to a money purchase benefit under the scheme rules,”.”.—(Steve Webb.)
Where an occupational pension scheme is winding up or being assessed for transfer into the Pension Protection Fund, this amendment prevents any right under the scheme to a benefit which is not a money purchase benefit being converted into a money purchase benefit.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
25 Nov 2014 : Column 842
Restriction on payment of lump sums during PPF assessment period: Great Britain
‘(1) Section 138 of the Pensions Act 2004 (payment of scheme benefits during assessment period) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after “Subsections (2)” insert “, (2A)”.
(3) After subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) Benefits in the form of a lump sum may be paid to or in respect of a member under the scheme rules during the assessment period only in the circumstances in which, and to the extent to which, lump sum compensation would be payable to or in respect of the member in accordance with this Chapter if—
(a) the Board assumed responsibility for the scheme in accordance with this Chapter, and
(b) the assessment date referred to in Schedule 7 were the date on which the assessment period began.”
(4) In subsection (3), omit “But”.
(5) In subsection (5), for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsections (2) and (2A)”.
(6) In subsection (6), for “subsection (3)” substitute “subsections (2A) and (3)”.
(7) In subsection (7), after “Subsections (2),” insert “(2A),”.
(8) In subsection (8), after “subsections (2)” insert “, (2A)”.
(9) In subsection (9), for “subsections (2) and (3)” substitute “subsections (2) to (3)”.
(10) After subsection (9) insert—
“(9A) Regulations may make provision as to circumstances in which benefits in the form of a lump sum are to be treated for the purposes of subsection (2A) as being paid in the circumstances in which lump sum compensation would be payable in accordance with this Chapter.
(9B) Regulations may create exceptions to subsection (2A).”
(11) In subsection (12), for “subsection (2)” substitute “subsections (2) and (2A)”.
(12) In subsection (13), after “subsection (2)” insert “, (2A)”.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This clarifies restrictions on the payment of benefits by an occupational pension scheme which is being assessed for transfer into the Pension Protection Fund. It specifies the types of lump sums that can be paid, and includes a power to make further provision in relat
ion to particular circumstances.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Sums or assets that may be designated as available for drawdown: Northern Ireland
‘(1) In the case of a member of an occupational pension scheme the only sums or assets that may be designated as available for the payment of drawdown pension for the member under the scheme are sums or assets held for the purposes of providing money purchase benefits to or in respect of the member.
(2) In the case of a survivor of a member of an occupational pension scheme the only sums or assets that may be designated as available for the payment of dependants’ drawdown pension for the survivor under the scheme are sums or assets held for the purposes of providing money purchase benefits to the survivor.
(3) This section overrides any provision of an occupational pension scheme to the extent that there is a conflict.
(4) This section does not apply in relation to sums or assets designated before 6 April 2015.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This ensures that occupational pension schemes may only pay drawdown pensions out of assets held for the purpose of providing
25 Nov 2014 : Column 843 money purchase benefits. The requirement applies to assets designated on or after 6 April 2015 as available for payment of drawdown, and overrides any conflicting provision in scheme rules.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Provision about conversion of certain benefits for drawdown: Northern Ireland
‘(1) The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland may by regulations make provision about the conversion of benefits under an occupational pension scheme in circumstances where—
(a) a member of the scheme, or a survivor of a member of the scheme, has subsisting rights in respect of any flexible benefits other than money purchase benefits under the scheme, and
(b) the member or survivor exercises an option to convert any of the benefits into money purchase benefits for the purposes of enabling sums or assets to be designated as available for the payment of drawdown pension or dependants’ drawdown pension.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about how the rate or amount of any benefits not converted are to be calculated in future.
(3) In relation to a conversion that takes place before the member or survivor reaches normal pension age, regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision about—
(a) the manner in which benefits are to be calculated for the purpose of converting them into money purchase benefits;
(b) the use of any power to reduce benefits.
(4) Regulations made under this section may include provision for them to override the provisions of a pension scheme to the extent that there is a conflict.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This provides a power to make regulations in relation to the conversion of flexible benefits into money purchase benefits for the purpose of paying a drawdown pension, where an occupational scheme offers that option to members or their survivors. The clause outlines particular areas which such regulations may cover.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Provision about calculation of lump sums: Northern Ireland
‘(1) The Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland may by regulations make provision about the calculation of lump sums in circumstances where—
(a) a member of an occupational pension scheme, or a survivor of a member of the scheme, has subsisting rights in respect of any flexible benefits other than money purchase benefits under the scheme, and
(b) the member or survivor exercises an option to be paid a lump sum in respect of any of those benefits.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision about how the rate or amount of any remaining benefits are to be calculated in future.
(3) In a case where a member or survivor exercises an option to be paid a lump sum before reaching normal pension age, regulations under subsection (1) may in particular make provision about—
(a) the manner in which benefits are to be calculated for the purpose of determining the amount available for the payment of the lump sum;
25 Nov 2014 : Column 844
(a) the use of any power to reduce the amount of the lump sum.
(4) Regulations made under this section may include provision for them to override the provisions of a pension scheme to the extent that there is a conflict.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This provides a power to make regulations in relation to the payment of lump sums by occupational pension schemes in respect of flexible benefits. The clause outlines particular areas which such regulations may cover.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Restrictions on conversion of benefits during winding up etc: Northern Ireland
‘(1) In Article 73A of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I. 1995/3213 (N.I. 22)) (operation of scheme during winding up period), after paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) During the winding up period no right or entitlement of any member, or of any other person in respect of a member, to a benefit that is not a money purchase benefit is to be converted into, or replaced with, a right or entitlement to a money purchase benefit under the scheme rules.”
(2) In Article 73B of that Order (Articles 73 and 73A: supplementary), in paragraphs (1) and (3), after “Article 73A(3)” insert “or (6A)”.
(3) In Article 119 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/255 (N.I. 1)) (restrictions on winding up, discharge of liabilities etc during assessment period), in paragraph (4), before sub-paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) no right or entitlement of any member, or of any other person in respect of a member, to a benefit that is not a money purchase benefit is to be converted into, or replaced with, a right or entitlement to a money purchase benefit under the scheme rules,”.”.—(Steve Webb.)
Where an occupational pension scheme is winding up or b
eing assessed for transfer into t
he Pension Protection Fund, this amendment prevents any right under the scheme to a benefit which is not a money purchase benefit being converted into a money purchase benefit.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Rights to transfer benefits
Schedule (Rights to transfer benefits) contains amendments that confer new statutory rights to transfer benefits.”.—(Steve Webb.)
This introduces a new Schedule which makes changes to the right a member has to transfer their pension savings prior to accessing those savings.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Restriction on transfers out of public service defined benefits schemes: Great Britain
‘(1) The Pension Schemes Act 1993 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 95 (ways of taking right to cash equivalent), in subsection (2), after “occupational pension scheme” insert “that is not an unfunded public service defined benefits scheme”.
(3) In section 95, after subsection (2) insert—
25 Nov 2014 : Column 845
“(2A) In the case of a member of an occupational pension scheme that is an unfunded public service defined benefits scheme, the ways referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) for acquiring transfer credits allowed under the rules of another occupational pension scheme if—
(i) the benefits that may be provided under the other scheme by virtue of the transfer credits are not flexible benefits,
(ii) the trustees or managers of the other scheme are able and willing to accept payment in respect of the member’s transferrable rights, and
(iii) the other scheme satisfies requirements prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury;
(b) for acquiring rights allowed under the rules of a personal pension scheme if—
(i) the benefits that may be provided under the personal pension scheme by virtue of the acquired rights are not flexible benefits,
(ii) the trustees or managers of the personal pension scheme are able and willing to accept payment in respect of the member’s transferrable rights, and
(iii) the personal pension scheme satisfies requirements prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury;
(c) for purchasing from one or more insurers such as are mentioned in section 19(4)(a), chosen by the member and willing to accept payment on account of the member from the trustees or managers, one or more annuities which satisfy requirements prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury;
(d) for subscribing to other pension arrangements which satisfy requirements prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury.
(2B) The Treasury may by regulations provide for sub-paragraph (i) of subsection (2A)(a) or (b) not to apply in prescribed circumstances or in relation to prescribed schemes or schemes of a prescribed description.
(2C) In subsection (2A) “unfunded public service defined benefits scheme” means a public service pension scheme that—
(a) is a defined benefits scheme within the meaning given by section 37 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, and
(b) meets some or all of its liabilities otherwise than out of a fund accumulated for the purpose during the life of the scheme.”
(4) In section 95(5)(a), for “subsection (2) is” substitute “subsections (2) and (2A) are”.
(a) after “subsections (2)” insert “, (2A)”;
(b) after “subsection (2)” insert “or (2A)”.
(6) In section 96 (further provisions concerning exercise of option under section 95), in subsection (2)(b), after “subsection (2)” insert “, subsection (2A)”.
(7) In section 100 (withdrawal of applications), in subsection (2), after “subsection (2)” insert “, subsection (2A)”.
(8) The amendments made by this section have no effect in relation to an application made under section 95(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 before 6 April 2015.
(9) Until the coming into force of the first regulations made under a provision of section 95(2A) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 specified in the first column of the table, regulations made under the provision of section 95(2) of that Act specified in the corresponding entry in the second column apply (with any necessary modifications) for the purposes of the provision specified in the first column—
25 Nov 2014 : Column 846
| Provision of section 95(2A) | Provision of section 95(2) |
| Paragraph (a)(iii) | Paragraph (a)(ii) |
| Paragraph (b)(iii) | Paragraph (b)(ii) |
| Paragraph (c) | Paragraph (c) |
| Paragraph (d) | Paragraph (d).” |
This amendment restricts the right under the Pension Schemes Act 1993 to transfer from one pension scheme to another, so as to prevent a member of an unfunded public service defined benefits scheme using that right to transfer to another pension scheme in which they can obtain flexible benefits.
—
(Steve Webb.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Public service defined benefits schemes: consequential amendments: Great Britain