UK Chancellor George Osborne has confirmed plans to pool the
country’s 89 local authority pensions into six “British Wealth Funds” to boost
investment in infrastructure.
But the announcement immediately raised questions about the
government’s ability to make such radical changes, and the implications for who
will ultimately control the assets of the UK’s public sector pensions. Pension
funds in England and Wales are valued at approximately £192 billion ($291
billion), while Scottish pensions will remain under the scope of the Scottish
government.
In a speech at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester
yesterday, Osborne said pooling the pensions “will save millions of pounds
every year in costs and fees”. “The new funds will develop the expertise to
invest in infrastructure,” he added.
While no further detail has yet been given by the Treasury as
to how these funds will be constructed, the announcement has created further
confusion in the public pensions sector as goes against statements made in the
UK’s latest Budget.
In July, Osborne’s report mooted the prospect of forcing local
government pension schemes (LGPS) to collaborate, but stated that he would “invite
local authorities to come forward with their own proposals to meet common
criteria for delivering savings”.
A consultation with public pensions has now closed, and the
Treasury will consider the responses over the next month before publishing its
full proposal, a spokesperson told CIO.
Clifford Sims, partner at law firm Squire Patton Boggs, warned
yesterday’s statement from the chancellor “suggests that government may limit
individual funds’ freedom to choose with whom they wish to pool”.
If the UK government brings in legislation to force the
creation of British Wealth Funds, Sims added, “the big question appears to be:
is investment decision-making going to be determined by central government?”
“If so, it would seem to undermine the fiduciary powers that
administering authorities currently have, and raises the risk that central government
will carry the can if infrastructure investments do not perform as the government
no doubt hopes,” Sims added.
The Treasury spokesperson told CIO that the government was “not going to impose anything in terms
of implementation or regions. The only stipulation is that the pools have to be
around £25 billion.”
Government plans to create the wealth funds—which Osborne said
would be roughly £25 billion in size—came to light at the end of August when it emerged that ministers had met with
public pension officials to discuss the possibility of the move.
“For some time we have been calling on
government to take in to account the resources of the LGPS and invite UK funds
to invest in these UK projects,” said Sir Merrick Cockell, chair of the London Pension Funds Authority. “While
we await the detail behind this announcement, we are already well underway in forming
partnerships with other
funds.”
Unison, one of the UK’s biggest
unions, cautiously welcomed the chancellor’s statement of renewed investment in
infrastructure, but urged the government to ensure that investments were still
made in the best interests of members.
“The collapse of investment in
infrastructure is entirely down to the inability of the banks to lend, and of
the government’s failure to see public investment as a means of growing the
economy again,” said Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary.
“The chancellor shouldn’t use our
pension funds as a convenient way of making up for the infrastructure
investment that no longer happens,” Prentis added. “Nor should they be used as
replacement capital for the government’s privatisation programmes.”
UK public pensions have traditionally invested very little
into local infrastructure. Scale and resources are major problems, with funds in
England and Wales having less than £3 billion in assets on average and very few
in-house staff.
According to the Treasury spokesperson, the government believes
the reason infrastructure investment has not been picked up is due to a “lack
of expertise. When these funds get bigger, they will develop the ability to
access infrastructure.”
Squire Patton Boggs’ Sims said funds had also been reluctant
to enter the asset class due to “political risk and the absence of government
guarantees to attract investment”.
Speaking at a NAPF conference in May, Lancashire County
Council CIO Mike
Jensen said government ministers had shown a “surprising” lack of
engagement with UK pensions, after it emerged his fund was among the bidders
for the UK government’s £400 million stake in Eurostar. The holding in the
train operator was sold to Canada’s Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec for more than
£750 million in March.
“We tried to persuade government that the idea of retaining
that asset within the UK tax base had more value than just the price paid,” Jensen
said. “We didn’t get a favourable hearing on that. I think there should be
mileage in that for a long term investor.”
Related: London United;
We’re
Not ATMs, Pensions Warn Politicians; Why
UK Pensions Can’t Buy UK Infrastructure
Additional reporting by Elizabeth Pfeuti