| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: My Lords, I thank everyone who has participated in what has now become an annual debate in relation to International Women's Day. The debate has been excellent. Sometimes our male colleagues come to listen to the debate and afterwards they say to me, "That was very good", but I wish that they would take part. I say to my noble friend Lord Giddens that he was a wonderful "odd man out". I also express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Hollis. I am so pleased that she feels fit enough to be able to participate in the debate. Her
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1390
contribution was so important. I also thank my noble friend the Lord President for her very supportive and invigorating response to the many diverse issues that have been raised. She was so right to remind us that we are part of a global sisterhood. We have to concentrate not just on our own problems and on things that we need, but on those of our sisters throughout the world. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Pensions: Occupational
1.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place. The Statement was as follows.
"Mr Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement on the ombudsman's report on the security of final salary occupational pension schemes published yesterday. The Parliamentary Commissioner's report is a detailed piece of work and deserves a proper, full and formal response. It is my intention to publish such a response in the next few weeks.
"However, I would like today to set out the reasons why, after very careful consideration, we have reached the view that we cannot accept any of the findings of maladministration and why we have therefore decided to reject all but one of the recommendations.
"The ombudsman's report concludes that over the period between 1996 and 2002, the Government were guilty of maladministration in three principal areas. I would like to take each of these findings in turn. And I make no apology for the detailed response that I am about to give. To offer anything less comprehensive would not properly reflect the importance of the report and the seriousness with which we treat the findings that the ombudsman has made against this Government and the last. I should stress, in that context, that my department has co-operated fully with the ombudsman and her office during the preparation of the report. It has provided detailed information and documentation on request. And it has commented extensively on the specific findings which the ombudsman had indicated that she intended to make. Those responses are set out in the report, included in a lengthy annexe to the report.
"Turning, then to the individual findings: first, the ombudsman found that official information about the security that members of final salary occupational pensions schemes could expect from the minimum funding requirement (MFR), introduced in the Pensions Act 1995, was sometimes inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent and, therefore, potentially misleading and that this constituted maladministration.
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1391
"We do not accept that the department's leaflets were inaccurate, incomplete, inconsistent or misleading. It is true that some were more detailed than others. This was because they were designed for different audiences. All the leaflets covered by the report carried very specific statements that they were not a full explanation of the law and were for general guidance only. The leaflets themselves make this clear.
"Perhaps I could illustrate those points by taking some of the key documents referred to in the report in order. In 1996 the then government published a guide to the Pensions Act 1995—leaflet PEC3—which described the intention of the various measures in the Act, including the minimum funding requirement or "MFR" and how they were expected to operate. The leaflet also said that,
'This leaflet is a brief summary of the changes. If you need advice about your occupational pension, speak to the trustees or managers of the scheme . . . This leaflet gives general guidance only and should not be treated as a complete and authoritative statement of the law'.
"That, Mr Speaker, was very much the pattern. In July 1997 the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority guide for pension scheme trustees summarised what the MFR was. The guide also said, 'You'—that is, the trustees—
'will need to take advice from professional advisers so that you can use your powers and fulfil your duties properly. Please note that this guide should not be taken as a definitive statement of the law'.
"In May 2002 the department issued leaflet PM3—Occupational pensions—your guide. While the guide did not discuss the risk of schemes winding up underfunded, it did say:
'this guide . . . looks at some of the questions you may need to think about and it tells you where you can find more information . . . Read any pension information your employer gives you . . . This leaflet is for guidance only. It is not a complete statement of the law'.
The Government do not consider that any of the leaflets or quoted statements relied on by the ombudsman could have formed a proper basis for scheme members, still less trustees who were professionally advised, to assess the security of their individual pension schemes.
"But, even more important, the Government also believe that the report fails to demonstrate that decisions taken by individual scheme members were influenced by the information the Government did, or did not, make available. In other words, the report simply does not establish that the wording of leaflets led to the losses suffered by individuals.
"I turn now to the second finding of maladministration. The ombudsman says that the failure by my department to review its existing information leaflets—when informed that scheme members and member trustees did not know the risks to their accrued pension rights—constituted maladministration. The Government do not believe that the information given to the department by the actuarial profession during this time should have instigated a review of its publications. Those
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1392
recommendations concerned how trustees—not the Government—should communicate with their members about the funding of their schemes.
"The department invited views on that issue in the consultation document it issued in September 2000 on the future of the minimum funding requirement— MFR. The response to that consultation led ultimately to proposals, since implemented, for replacement of the MFR. I shall say more about that replacement later. But so far as we are aware no respondents suggested that departmental publications were causing confusion. They were not advising that the content of these leaflets concerning the purpose or intent of the MFR was misleading or inaccurate. Ministers cannot fairly be criticised for failing to do something that was simply not proposed.
"Moreover, trustees had access to advice from their own scheme actuary, who would have been well aware of the operation of the MFR. In addition each MFR certificate included a statement that meeting the MFR did not equate to full buy-out. All of the information was available to scheme members. We do not believe that it would have been reasonable for trustees to have relied on publications issued by the DWP which were brief and general in nature, rather than the professional advice they had access to and were under an obligation to consult.
"Trustees were required to give all scheme members basic information about their scheme, and many trustees produced fairly detailed information booklets. We have seen no evidence from the report that the ombudsman has considered what information trustees supplied to their scheme members and what, if any, the impact of this information might have had.
"Thirdly, the ombudsman has said that the decision in 2002 by DWP to approve a change to the basis of the MFR was taken with maladministration. The Government believe that we acted wholly responsibly in implementing the recommendation of the actuarial profession which had received the backing of the independent Government Actuary's Department. The ombudsman has not allowed us to see the full actuarial advice on which some of her comments were based. The government actuaries advised the ombudsman that if this advice was not disclosed then it made it impossible for anyone to understand the basis on which she reached her conclusion that the Government were guilty of maladministration. As a result, we have not been able to see or challenge how she arrived at some of her conclusions on the 2002 change.
"The change in 2002 was intended to bring the MFR back to its original strength. Adjustments to the MFR were always on the principle of maintaining its 1997 level. This was the principle upon which the actuarial profession kept the basis of the MFR under review and made recommendations to the department. It was also the basis upon which the Government Actuary's Department advised my department. The report contains a letter from the
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1393
Government Actuary, referring to the decision criticised by the ombudsman. I want to quote from it:
'the evidence base [for the DWP's decision] was not insufficient since it was based on strong advice from the actuarial profession, which had been developed by a committee containing leading technical experts from most of the major firms of actuaries, and supplemented by GAD as a further independent source of advice. The evidence base for this decision was in fact extremely strong and much stronger than for many (perhaps most) of the decisions that have to be taken by Government'.
The ombudsman acknowledges in her report that the 2002 change did not affect the degree of knowledge which scheme members had.
"Against this background, the Government have considered carefully the ombudsman's first four recommendations—which involve considering whether to restore the lost pension rights of affected scheme members, making consolatory payments and apologising to scheme trustees. As I have already made clear, the Government are unable to accept the findings on which those recommendations are based. We do not believe the findings of maladministration can be supported by the facts. It simply cannot be right that the losses from the schemes that have collapsed should be met by the taxpayer without establishing any causal connection between the actions criticised in the ombudsman's report and the losses people have incurred.
"The report fails to establish this connection. Indeed, in respect of the ombudsman's fourth recommendation—relating to schemes which began to wind up between April 2004 and April 2005—the report itself acknowledges that the individuals concerned could be said to have had the opportunity to take whatever action they could to mitigate their potential loss. I do not consider that it would be in the wider public interest for government to accept this very substantial liability on behalf of taxpayers. We calculate this liability as being in the range of £13 billion to £17 billion in cash terms over the next 60 years. We estimate that the administration costs would be in the region of a further £20 million each year.
"We do not therefore intend to take the actions recommended by the ombudsman. The taxpayer cannot be asked to accept the responsibility for effectively underwriting the value of private investments in the way the report suggests. The Government do, however, accept the ombudsman's fifth recommendation with regard to reviewing the time it takes to wind up a defined benefit pension scheme. Work is already under way in this area. We will set out our proposals for how we intend to proceed when this work is completed.
"I would like to finish by making two things absolutely clear. First, this Government have been the first to accept the moral and social obligation to make sure that as many as possible of those who have suffered hardship and distress in these circumstances receive financial support. That is why the Government have set up the financial assistance
16 Mar 2006 : Column 1394
scheme, with £400 million of public money. The scheme is designed to provide help to those who have lost the most and who are in the greatest need—those closest to retirement and who are therefore least able to make alternative provision. The scheme will currently help up to 15,000 people who have faced significant occupational pension losses. It will top up their pensions with financial support, to give a maximum income of up to £12,000 a year.
"The Government are prepared to look again at all aspects of the scheme as part of the current spending review. And my right honourable friend the Prime Minister yesterday made it clear that we,
Secondly, this Government have led the way in providing greater levels of security for the future. We have replaced the MFR, which is of course a large part of the subject of this report, with new scheme funding arrangements which are more flexible and fit for purpose. And the pension protection fund and the new proactive pensions regulator will transform security for members of defined benefit schemes.
"We do not underestimate the importance of these issues for those people who have been affected by pension scheme closures, particularly when employers are insolvent and cannot make up any deficiency in scheme funding. We will continue to do what we can to help them. That is the fair and sensible way for us to proceed. I commend this Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
2.09 pm
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |