Pension Schemes Bill — House of Lords, 2015-01-07
Topic: Labor
Christopher Holmes (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, it is always a pleasure to speak about pensions. As we have heard today, the Bill provides an opportunity to discuss some really chunky issues in the arena of pensions in terms of guidance, trustee powers, investments and so on. It also gives us an opportunity to look at details and minutiae and perhaps, not to put it too bluntly, to clear some horsemeat out of the statutory food chain. I hope that that is what my amendments might achieve today I shall focus on Clause 43 and the whole question of indexation and its inconsistent application to specific types of pension schemes. As you would imagine—it is to do with pensions, after all—it is complicated and detailed and makes your head hurt. I will not go into the minutiae today; if I may, I will write to the Minister with the detailed background to my amendment. Effectively, I would like to achieve consistency across the application of indexation to particular types of pension scheme. To give some history to this, the 1995 Act required certain occupational pension schemes to have indexation applied. Over the years the type of indexation has changed, but for the purpose of this debate we should just consider it to be limited price indexation, or LPI. The 2004 Act removed that obligation for money purchase schemes. The 2011 Act followed on by removing that obligation for cash balance pots. So far, so good Unfortunately, there is what I would describe as quite a curious kicker in the 2011 Act: if you have a cash balance pot in a scheme that is contracted out, LPI increases will have to be applied to that, and a member will have to take LPI increases whether or not they want them. If I were a member in such a situation and I were contracted out, I would be forced to take limited price indexation increases, whether or not I wanted them. If I were contracted out for a period and then contracted back in, I would still be forced to take LPI increases, whether or not I wanted them Perhaps even more curiously, if I were a member of the scheme, cash balance pot in hand, and I had never been contracted out, but another member, most likely unknown to me and potentially even at a different time from when I was a member of the scheme, was contracted out, I would still be forced to take LPI increases. Even more bizarrely, perhaps, if that member then left the scheme, transferred out or died, I would then get the opportunity to choose whether or not I wanted LPI increases. It seems curious that one’s decisions over one’s pension pot can be so influenced by an unknown other who just happens to have been a member of the scheme and contracted out at a particular time, and difficult to believe that this could ever have been the policy intention. It probably underscores yet again the point that pretty much anything to do with pensions is complicated The complication is further added to because it is not possible to remove this horsemeat from the statutory process with regulations. It requires primary legislation. It is why, when Clause 43 was first proposed, there was—I would not go so far as to say excitement—a lot of interest in whether this clause would in fact close this loophole. It gets close but unfortunately again the problem comes whereby, for future cash balance pots, LPI will not have to be applied. Job done? Sadly not. It still leaves a toxic tail that any benefits or rights accrued between 1997 and whatever the commencement date of this Bill is still require LPI increases to be applied, whether the person wants them or not On one level I am not suggesting that it is a bad thing of itself for people to have to take inflation-linked increasing annuities. Perhaps it is overly paternalistic to force this; certainly it is inconsistent when you look at the treatment of cash balance pots and money purchase benefits, when in many ways it is really difficult to get a cigarette paper between those benefits, but that is the case as it stands and is set out in Clause 43. So to my amendments. Amendment 22A would posit a regulatory-making power within the Act which would enable this to be put right. It would also give the space for people to consider whether there was potentially any sirloin within the horsemeat. I do not think there is. Others may, particularly if they focus on rights that have been achieved while that individual member was actually contracted out. I do not think that gets across the line. I think Amendment 22B is far more to the purpose, whereby a new Clause 43 would address this problem, not least through proposed new subsection (9), which would take us absolutely to these sunny uplands which everybody would desire where there is consistency across the treatment of benefits, whichever pot you may have—cash balance or money purchase I considered tabling an Amendment 22C—it could best be described as the whole cash balance hog—whereby you would scrub out the end of new Section 51(5B)(c) and replace that with some wording which would in effect state that it was down to the member to choose, irrespective of their contracting out. It would be for the member to decide whether they wanted LPI increases on their pension pot at that point. This seems clear; this seems consistent. Perhaps, and this is the reason why I decided not to table the amendment, it may be too big a leap at this stage but I certainly urge my noble friend the Minister to strongly consider the amendments, not least Amendment 22B. We have had horsemeat; we have had a sliver—perhaps—of sirloin; we have had the whole cash balance hog, at which point I beg to move.