Trustees face jail threat under 'extraordinary' pension bill provisions
PTL managing director Richard Butcher has warned trustees could face jail under proposed pension schemes bill additions to the Pensions Act 2004.
Butcher - who is also chairman of the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association - said s107 of the pension schemes bill will mean that if any person acts with an effect that reduces the likelihood of defined (DB) benefits being paid they can be sent to prison for seven years and or be fined up to £1m.
He said they must have acted knowingly for this to happen and they could have a reasonable excuse which would get them off the hook.
But he warns these "extraordinary" new powers seemed like a significant extension of original proposals which "talked about going after reckless employers, not going after trustees".
Butcher explained: "The first concern is that this covers any person - a trustee, the scheme actuary, the trustees' lawyer, maybe many others too."
"The second concern is over the phrase ‘an act that reduces the likelihood'. This could, of course, be a phrase used to describe an agreement to permit a deficit to be paid over a period of time. It could equally describe the decision to invest in an asset with any risk at all."
He added the third concern was around the reasonable excuse test.
Butcher said: "I'm OK with an escape hatch but this could open up years of debate. Let's say I agree to allow a deficit to be paid over five years - how would I prove (or how could it be disproven) that was reasonable? When it comes to funding nothing is ever black and white. We always have to work with shades of grey."
He said the final point was less likely but could emphasise the broader concerns he has with these provisions.
Butcher explained: "Say a government minister or a regulator suggested (as has happened in the past) that trustees shouldn't act with reckless prudence - they would know the effect of their words, they may have a reasonable excuse for them but, if by merit of their words, a trustee took a more liberal line in a valuation and it went pear shaped, could the minister or regulator be prosecuted under this provision?"
Butcher agreed that the bill is still only a bill and could change - but he urged trustees to make their views known to ministers.
He said: "The key concern is that this provision, as drafted, is too vague and broad. It exposes both myself and many others to really serious sanctions."
More on Law and Regulation
It's simple… Scammers destroy lives
The industry needs more powers to protect savers by stopping scams in their tracks, but a network to share intel can help, says Margaret Snowdon.
UPDATE: DWP outlines climate risk mitigation expectations to TPR
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has called on The Pensions Regulator (TPR) to deepen its research on its planned regulatory approach to tackling climate-related risks and how it would manage any opportunities from climate change.
The real concerns about the transition to CPIH
The transition from RPI to CPIH could have a significant impact on pension funds. However, as Con Keating says, the real challenges of this shift may come from an unexpected area.
Guy Opperman reappointed as pensions minister following cabinet reshuffle
Guy Opperman has held onto his role as minister for pensions and financial inclusion after an action-packed cabinet reshuffle yesterday.
Henry Tapper: Why do we need two accreditation regimes for professional trustees?
As both the APPT and PMI launch accreditation regimes for professional trustees, Henry Tapper asks if you are a Betamax or VHS Trustee?
