PensionsOct 19 2016

Field hopeful for DB pay-out reform

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
Field hopeful for DB pay-out reform

Mr Field revealed he was hopeful of defined benefit reform despite the government's failure to enact a similar reform of the Tata Steel pension scheme.

Speaking to Financial Adviser, the veteran Labour MP said he hoped the inquiry, which commenced last week, would result in legislation that allowed troubled DB schemes to reduce their benefits before they fall into the Pension Protection Fund.

“What we’re anxious to achieve is that greater flexibility is introduced so company schemes can ride through this difficult period, but when the good times return they can reclaim the benefits they surrendered,” he said.

Mr Field said he believed the collapse of the BHS pension scheme would have persuaded the government of the need for "a larger pension reform".

But he stressed that any such reform would have to be in the interest of the scheme members, not just that of the sponsoring employer.

“The bottom line is, what would you be getting from the PPF? People do need to understand that, while the PPF is a lifeboat, there isn’t much luxury in it," he said.

People do need to understand that, while the PPF is a lifeboat, there isn’t much luxury in it.Frank Field

He added that there would have to be a "trip wire" in  place to ensure that only companies that needed to reduce their benefits could do so.

Earlier this year, the government proposed enacting a similar reform applying exclusively to the British Steel Pension Scheme.

It was hoped this would enable the sale of its sponsoring employer, Tata Steel, and the survival of the Port Talbot steelworks.

However, the government apparently dropped the proposal following firm push-back from the Pension Protection Fund.

Mr Field said of the apparent failure: “It [the proposal] was launched in a more cack-handed way than it might have been. To say that any reform is not going to affect other schemes was weird, if not folly. So I’m not surprised it stalled.”

However, he said the plan's failure did not have any bearing on wider reform.

Mr Field said he had not yet gauged the position of his fellow MPs on the Work and Pensions select committee, but said: "It’s reasonable to say that people are cautious, naturally and properly.” 

He added around a third of the committee had been promoted to ministerial positions in the post-Brexit reshuffle, and would have to be replaced - making it a "different animal". 

Mr Field, who campaigned to leave the European Union, said the DB crisis had not become "less urgent post-Brexit".

The most commonly discussed change would be to allow pension schemes to link annual pension increases to the consumer price index rather than the usually-higher retail price index.

Currently the majority of private company schemes link pension increases to RPI.

According to Darren Redmayne, chief executive of pensions covenant consultancy Lincoln Pensions, there is nothing in primary legislation to stop pension schemes linking to CPI rather than RPI.

However, each pension scheme has a trust deed, and if that trust deed specifies that pension increases be linked to RPI, then that is protected by law and the company cannot change it.

But he said trust deeds could be overruled by primary legislation. 

While Mr Redmayne did not predict exactly what road the government would go down, he said that some sort of "easement" of benefits was likely, particularly given record low interest rates and gilt yields were showing no signs of improving.

"Given the scale of the problem, given where interest rates and gilt yields are, it is likely that some form of easement will need to be adopted, which may involve legislation to make the pension challenge more tolerable for more companies," he said.

However, he said he "struggled with" legislative changes that had a retrospective impact.

"I i's very, very dangerous when you retrospectively take away a right. When people worked at these companies under their employment contract they did pay into these schemes. They have earned these benefits," he said.

Mr Redmayne's wariness was shared by former pensions minister Steve Webb when he appeared before the committee last week. He said the government should only consider reducing benefits as a last resort, and recommended it instead consider making DB to DC transfers easier.

Chris Daems, director of Cervello Financial Planning, said giving schemes greater flexibility to "ride out the difficult times" could make "perfect sense". However he said a number of factors needed to be considered before making any changes.

"Firstly would members be better off in the PPF than in the scheme?" he said. 

"Secondly, would the members who had to take benefits when times were poor lose and benefits were reduced out when compared to individuals who take the benefits when times are good? 

"Thirdly, what provisions could be put in place to ensure that pension trustees manage funds more effectively even after benefits are reduced."

james.fernyhough@ft.com