The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have noted a bit of a move towards sole trustees in a number of cases, which clearly gives rise to concerns about how one person can represent the interests of the members of a pension scheme. We are reflecting on that in our work, but one of the members of the Hewlett-Packard scheme wrote to me this week—he may well also have written to other Members—about
“the further fear and despair they are now feeling as it dawns upon them that their company and pension scheme trustees are meanwhile preparing plans to derisk by transferring their Pensioner responsibilities to an Insurance Company”—
something the right hon. Gentleman touched on. That transfer will quite possibly mean
“no subsequent possibility ever for pre-1997 increases.”
He calls that “a frightening prospect”, and it is hard to disagree.
The Committee also looked at concerns about the new defined benefit funding regime to be introduced for scheme valuations from September. We noted that the regime had been developed
“in a different era when the vast majority of DB schemes were in deficit and amidst concern that employers were seeking to evade their responsibility to underfunded schemes.”
There have been big changes since then, especially in the wake of the liability-driven investment crisis following the Budget of 18 months or so ago. In particular, there have been significant improvements in scheme funding, but the principles of the new regime have not been changed. Schemes are expected to target a position of low dependency on the sponsoring employer, meaning low-investment risk at the point of significant maturity. That has promoted concerns that the funding code will, when introduced, force more unnecessary de-risking, particularly among open schemes, as well as among those that are closed but have long time horizons, which would increase costs to employers and result in premature closure.
We said that the DWP and the Pensions Regulator needed
“to act urgently to ensure they do not inadvertently finish off what few open schemes remain by further increasing the risk aversion”.
In a letter to the Committee on 18 December, the Minister told us that both the Department and the Pensions Regulator were
“acutely aware of the need to take account of the specific needs of open schemes,”
and he agreed that
“open schemes should not be forced into an inappropriate de-risking journey.”
We welcomed that assurance, but it needs now to be reflected in the final wording of the funding code and in the regulator’s approach.
The vote in Parliament on the statutory instrument came before the final version of the funding code was published, so Members did not quite know what they were voting for at that point. We recommended that the Department and the Pensions Regulator should work with open schemes to address their concerns, particularly on the employer covenant horizon—the length of time for which they are confident in the sponsoring employer’s willingness and ability to support the scheme—and report back to us on how they will do so before the new funding code is laid before Parliament.
Since our report was published, feedback from schemes suggests that things may not be moving in the right direction. In a consultation response last week, the University Superannuation Scheme—a large and still open scheme—described the regulator’s proposed approach as
“university superannuation schemes”.
In its view, the statement that it will be required to complete under the terms of the new code will demand
“significant…resource for little or no benefit to our members.”
To the USS, and to me, that appears inconsistent with the assurances that open schemes will not be adversely impacted by the new funding regime. The USS adds:
“Not…having had sight of the revised…Funding Code and accompanying covenant guidance has exacerbated”
their worries.
I know that the Minister understands these concerns well. Closure of those schemes would reduce pension fund investment in the productive economy at a time when the Chancellor wants—absolutely rightly—to increase investment from pension schemes into the productive economy. Can the Minister tell us when he expects the new funding code to be published, whether he will report back to the Committee before then on how the concerns of open schemes have been addressed, and whether he is open to considering a separate chapter in the funding code, setting out how the code will apply to open schemes?
Let me take a few minutes to talk about what is happening on the defined contribution side of the picture.