Financial institutions Energy Infrastructure, mining and commodities Transport Technology and innovation Life sciences and healthcare Essential pensions news Updater July 2014 Contents 01 Introduction 01 More detail on the shape of the Budget pension reforms 02 New definition of money purchase benefits going live on July 24, 2014 03 Same sex marriage Government review of survivor benefits published 04 Pension Schemes Bill 2014 published 05 Annette Ellis v Cabinet Office [2014] member entitled to retain favourable active member rights in public sector scheme following TUPE transfer 08 Abolition of contracting-out: HMRC publishes Countdown Bulletin no. 2 09 PPF entry rules amended to allow Olympic Airlines scheme to qualify 10 PPF publishes issue 5 of its Technical News 10 TPR publishes record-keeping survey and warns improvement action will be taken where necessary 11 TPR publishes its annual report and accounts 12 HMRC publishes pensions newsletter no.63 13 Contacts Introduction Essential Pensions News covers the latest pensions developments each month in an at a glance format. More detail on the shape of the Budget pension reforms Of interest to all pension savers and providers is the Government s response to the consultation on Freedom and Choice in Pensions, which was published on July 21, 2014. Further detail is provided on the guidance guarantee, permitted scheme-to-scheme transfers, new tax rules and trivial commutation. The key points are: The guaranteed guidance, provided at retirement, will be provided by independent organisations. The guidance will be tailored to individuals personal circumstances but will not recommend specific products or providers. Funding for the guidance will be generated by a levy on regulated financial services firms. Trustees will be required to inform members of the availability of the guidance as they approach retirement. The FCA will be responsible for setting standards for the guidance and ensuring compliance with those standards and has published its own consultation paper.
Individuals will continue to be allowed to transfer from private DB to DC schemes, subject to: the individual taking advice from an independent financial adviser authorised by the FCA new guidance for trustees on the use of their powers to delay transfer payments and to take account of funding levels when deciding on transfer values, which the Government intends to develop in conjunction with employers and TPR. A statutory override will be introduced to ensure all DC schemes are able to offer their members increased flexibility. Individuals will also be able to transfer between DC schemes, up to the point of retirement, if their scheme does not offer flexible access. New tax rules will be introduced to ensure that the new flexibilities are not exploited, for example, by diversion of salary into a pension scheme with tax relief then immediate withdrawal of 25 per cent tax free. Those who choose to draw down more than their tax free lump sum will be able to make tax free contributions to a DC scheme of up to 10,000 per year. In the Budget announcement in March 2014, the trivial commutation changes in respect of access to all pension savings where the total is less than 30,000, and up to three small pots of 10,000 or less which can be cashed out regardless of total pension savings, were to apply from age 60. It was thought that this was an oversight and the consultation paper confirms that the age will be lowered to 55, to ensure consistency. View the consultation response paper. HMRC has also updated its draft guidance on the pension changes in relation to tax-free lump sums (pension commencement lump sums), which came into force on March 27, 2014. The guidance applies where pension commencement lump sums are taken before April 6, 2015 and the associated pension is taken before October 6, 2015. View the revised guidance here. New definition of money purchase benefits going live on July 24, 2014 Of interest to all, except those schemes providing solely DB benefits, is the coming into force of the legislation relating to the new definition of money purchase benefits on July 24, 2014. Under a commencement order made on June 30, 2014, Section 29 of the Pensions Act 2011 (Section 29) is brought into force on July 24, 2014. Section 29 sets out the revised definition of money purchase benefits and the new legislation will have a significant impact on schemes providing benefits which are no longer considered money purchase under the new definition. Once in force, Section 29 will have retrospective effect from January 1, 1997. In our update for June 2014, we reported that the relevant regulations had been withdrawn and rewritten as two separate pieces of legislation, based on the procedure needed to progress them through Parliament under either the negative or affirmative resolution procedure. 02 Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014
Transitional regulations have been brought into force at the same time as Section 29. The aim of the transitional regulations is to prevent schemes affected by the revised definition having to revisit past decisions made on the basis of trustees understanding of the law at the time. The original draft of the transitional regulations was withdrawn by the DWP and relaid before Parliament to reflect the fact that two different parliamentary approval procedures applied to the provisions of the regulations. The transitional provisions are now set out in: The Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014 (the Transitional Regulations), which were made on July 1, 2014 and laid before Parliament under the negative resolution procedure on July 3, 2014. They came into force on July 24, 2014, immediately after Section 29 comes into force. The Draft Pensions Act 2011(Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014, which require parliamentary approval under the affirmative resolution procedure. They will come into force on the day after the day on which they are made. View the Pensions Act 2011 (Transitional, Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014. View the Pensions Act 2011 (Consequential and Supplementary Provisions) Regulations 2014. Same sex marriage Government review of survivor benefits published Of interest to all those providing pension benefits under occupational schemes is the Government s review of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, published on June 26, 2014. The review summarises the various differences in present survivor benefit provision and the cost to schemes of eliminating those differences. In our March 2014 briefing, we reported on the coming into force of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 (the Act) on March 13. 2014, which permitted same sex marriages from March 29, 2014 and enabled civil partners to convert their civil partnership to a marriage. The briefing also noted the decision in Walker v Innospec Ltd, in which the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) held that schemes could continue to restrict the period of service upon which a same sex survivor s non-contracted-out benefits can be based to the period from December 5, 2005. This restriction arises as a result of the partial exception to the requirement to equalise survivor benefits for civil partners set out in paragraph 18 of Schedule 9 to the Equality Act 2010 (the Exception). Leave to appeal the EAT decision has been granted and it is understood that the case will go before the Court of Appeal after September 1, 2014. The Act was subject to criticism of the Exception during its passage through Parliament. As a result, under section 16 of the Act, the Government was required to review the benefits provided under occupational pension schemes for same sex and opposite sex survivors in legal relationships. Section 16 also includes a power to change the law to eliminate or reduce differences in survivor benefits, once the outcome of the review had been considered. The review started in January 2014 and was published on June 26, 2014. Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014 03
Key findings of the review The review summarises the various differences in present survivor benefit provision and the cost to schemes of eliminating those differences. Key findings include: In general, survivor benefits for widows have historically been more generous than those for widowers, which gives rise to an equalisation issue between men and women. Broadly, many schemes have amended their rules to provide same sex survivors with benefits on the same basis as widowers. Various options for equalisation, and the related costs, are considered in annexes to the review: the cost of elimination of all differences (that is, equalising widows and widowers benefits, and also providing same sex spouses and civil partners with identical benefits) is estimated at 400 million for private sector schemes and a capitalised cost of 2.9 billion for public sector schemes providing same sex benefits on the same basis as widows is estimated at 100 million for private sector schemes, and 800 million for public sector schemes. This would disadvantage male survivors in opposite sex marriages providing same sex benefits on the same basis as widowers is estimated at 100 million. The cost for public sector schemes would be negligible as the status quo would be maintained. Differences between women due to sexual orientation would remain, as would differences between men and women. However, if all differences are not eliminated, the risk of future legal challenges would remain. Nevertheless, the Government has stated that it will consider very carefully the findings of the review before making a decision on whether the law should be changed. Comment The review suggests no timeframe for the Government s decision regarding a change to legislation. While full equality may be the ideal outcome, the costs to schemes would be significant, and could have a material impact on schemes funding positions. It is also likely that the Government could be influenced by the outcome of the Walker v Innospec appeal, and the decision by the Court of Appeal is awaited with interest. Pension Schemes Bill 2014 published Of general interest is the publication of the Pension Schemes Bill on June 26, 2014. The Bill sets out the broad legislative framework in respect of defined ambition and collective defined contribution (CDC) schemes, as highlighted in The Queen s Speech on June 4, 2014. The Bill defines the new concept of collective benefits, which may shape future DC pension provision. Three categories of pension scheme are defined, depending on the nature of the benefits promise offered: 04 Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014
defined benefits the promise relates to all of the benefits shared risk scheme (defined ambition) the promise relates to some of the benefits defined contribution schemes no benefit level promised. The Bill also defines the new concept of collective benefits, which enable scheme members to pool risk under arrangements similar to Dutch-style target-benefit arrangements. Regulations to be made under the Bill at a later date will set out the detail in relation to such issues as benefit targets, funding, valuation requirements and governance. Significantly, the new CDC schemes will not be required to comply with the employer debt provisions. As expected, following the proposed pension flexibilities announced in the Budget 2014, the Bill also includes a power to prevent transfers out of public sector defined benefit schemes into defined contribution schemes. This measure addresses the Government s concern that allowing such transfers could pose an unacceptable future funding risk to the Exchequer. No mention is made of DB lite arrangements, which some hoped would be included as an additional shared-risk arrangement to complement the proposed CDC schemes. Comment Discussion of new forms of pension arrangement has long been a feature of proposed Government policy and the Bill represents a positive first step in the implementation of newstyle schemes offering shared risk between employers and employees. However, the relevant regulations will provide much-needed detail and it is likely that changes could also be required to tax legislation before any such new scheme structures can be implemented. As for the timing of the new Bill, those who had not expected the Government to have sufficient time during this Parliament to introduce this legislation will welcome its appearance. However, many employers who have already complied with their autoenrolment duties may be unwilling to undo any recent schemes changes to incorporate defined ambition or CDC provisions. Annette Ellis v Cabinet Office [2014] member entitled to retain favourable active member rights in public sector scheme following TUPE transfer This is a case of interest to all those involved in the TUPE transfer of the employment of public sector workers to private contractors. The High Court has ruled that a member of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (PCSPS) whose employment was transferred to a private contractor should have been offered the chance to retain a reduced normal pension age and favourable accrual basis that were available in the PCSPS to active members, even though her pensionable service had ceased and her new employer did not participate in the PCSPS. This decision challenges the established basis on which the pre-october 2013 Fair Deal applies and could open the door to further claims. It is understood that the Cabinet Office has applied for permission to appeal. Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014 05
Background For many years, transfers of public-sector staff to the private sector have been subject to the non-statutory Fair Deal guidance in relation to occupational pension rights. Fair Deal applies to transfers involving members of most public-sector schemes, including the PCSPS. Fair Deal 1999 covered both future and accrued benefits for transferring employees. For future service, the guidance specified that transferring employees should be offered access to a good quality occupational pension scheme, which was said to mean the ability to join a scheme that was broadly comparable to the public-sector scheme of which they were previously a member. In the case of local authority outsourcing exercises, it was possible for transferring employees to remain in the LGPS for future service if the contractor became a participating employer in the LGPS. This option was not available for the PCSPS. For accrued benefits, Fair Deal 1999 required that transferring employees were offered two options for securing their past pension benefits accrued in a public-sector scheme before the transfer. These options were: taking a deferred pension in the public-sector pension scheme or transferring their accrued benefits into the contractor s own broadly comparable scheme. In October 2013, the Government revised the Fair Deal guidance. In future, contractors should offer transferring employees continued access to the relevant public-sector scheme, after entering into a participation agreement. Only in exceptional cases should a broadly comparable scheme need to be established. Facts of the case Ms Ellis was a prison officer at HMP Birmingham and was a member of the Classic section of the PCSPS. She joined the scheme before October 1, 1987, meaning she was entitled to two particular benefits: double-counting of further accrual after she had accrued 20 years of service, and a normal pension age from active status of 55. The PCSPS governing rules defined pension age as 55 for prison officers in service on 30 September 1987. However, rule 3.11 provided that a civil servant who resigns or opts out of the scheme with at least two years qualifying service was entitled to receive a preserved pension and lump sum payable from age 60. Rule 1.13 provided that Resignation means termination of service or voluntary retirement from the Civil Service before the pension age. In 2011, Ms Ellis was informed that management of the prison was being transferred to the private sector. Her employment was transferred under TUPE to G4S on October 1, 2011. Members of the scheme were told they had three options for dealing with their accrued pension rights: transferring to a broadly comparable scheme set up by G4S maintaining preserved rights in the PCSPS or taking early retirement in the PCSPS (in the case of members who had reached the age of 50). As Ms Ellis was below age 50 at the time, the third option was not open to her. She was reluctant to transfer her accrued rights to the G4S pension scheme, as she was concerned that G4S could amend the scheme rules at a future date and change her pension rights to her detriment. For this reason, she chose to keep a deferred pension in the PSCPS. 06 Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014
She disputed, however, the assertion made by the PCSPS administrator that because she had decided to become a deferred member in the PCSPS, she would no longer be entitled to retire on an unreduced pension at age 55 or be entitled to double counting for future accrual. Ms Ellis complained unsuccessfully under the scheme s internal dispute resolution procedure and then to the Pensions Ombudsman (PO), who rejected her complaint in February 2013. The PO found that she had ceased to be an active member in the PCSPS when her employment transferred to G4S and was therefore subject to the rules relating to preserved pensions in the PCSPS. In particular, he held that the scheme s definition of resignation was wider than its ordinary meaning and included any termination of service before pension age. She had therefore resigned for the purpose of the scheme rules. Ms Ellis appealed to the High Court. She argued that the PO had wrongly interpreted the scheme rules and had taken into account irrelevant factors when reaching his decision. Decision In the High Court, Mrs Justice Rose upheld Ms Ellis appeal. The PO had erred in law in misconstruing the term resignation in rule 1.13. His construction effectively meant that any termination would count as a resignation even if it did not fall within the term s commonly used meaning. While a term could be defined to carry a narrower or broader meaning, there was no indication in the scheme rules that this was the case here. The ordinary meaning involved an individual leaving their employment of their own accord. However, Ms Ellis was continuing to work full-time in her former role, albeit under a new employer following the outsourcing. She had not resigned from her post in any normal sense of that word. The PO s interpretation was also inconsistent with the general structure of the rules, the part in question, which was headed Termination of pensionable service on resignation or option out of the scheme. If the PO was correct that the term resignation covered all terminations of service before pension age, it would be difficult to see what the purpose was of the further provisions in the rules regarding dismissal or ordinary retirement on medical grounds and so on. There was no indication in the rules that resignation was intended as an allencompassing term to cover anything not provided for elsewhere in the rules. The judge also commented that to treat Ms Ellis as having resigned was inconsistent with the Fair Deal guidance, the effect of which was that TUPE principles would be applied in respect of the pension rights of those who moved into the private sector in these circumstances. The purpose of TUPE principles was that employees would be treated as though their employment continued uninterrupted under their new employer. Additionally, the court found the PO had taken into account an irrelevant factor in reaching his decision. The PO was influenced by the fact Ms Ellis had the option to transfer to the G4S scheme, which offered a right to retire at age 55 on an unreduced pension. But this was entirely irrelevant to the question whether she also had the same right under the terms of the PCSPS. The Cabinet Office did not argue that the option of retaining preserved rights in the PSCPS was made less attractive to encourage prison officers to move to the G4S scheme. The correct construction of the PCSPS rules could not be affected by the content of the G4S scheme. The fact the Cabinet Office may always have interpreted the rules in the way the court now found was mistaken was itself no justification for Mrs Ellis not succeeding in her complaint. Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014 07
Comment The decision suggests that public sector scheme members transferring to a private-sector contractor should be offered more than deferred status in their public sector scheme. However, the decision does not say specifically whether Ms Ellis should continue to be entitled to double-counting of further accrual after the transfer, although this appeared to be part of her case. The difficulty with the High Court s interpretation is that it appears to suggest a member in Ms Ellis position should be considered as an active member of the PCSPS, even though her new employer is not a participating employer in the scheme. This interpretation is also inconsistent with the pre-october 2013 Fair Deal guidance, which says: 10. The focus of this guidance is upon those cases, likely to be in the majority, where a business transfer means that staff have to be early leavers of the occupational pension scheme associated with their former employment. The Government has no plans to seek amendment to the Superannuation Act 1972 to broaden the categories of employees eligible for membership of the PCSPS. Where Civil Servants transfer to private sector employment they will therefore cease to be eligible for PCSPS membership, and their ability to earn further occupational pension benefits through future service will depend upon the occupational pension arrangements offered by the new employer. It is understood that the Cabinet Office is seeking leave to appeal, but in the absence of its success, there is likely to be a significant cost to the taxpayer if similar claims are brought. It is not unusual for deferred members to enjoy less favourable early retirement rights than active members, and it is likely that the position under the PCSPS is reflected in other publicsector schemes. View the judgment. Abolition of contracting-out: HMRC publishes Countdown Bulletin no. 2 Of relevance for all DB schemes which are currently contracted-out is the second edition of HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) targeted newsletter dealing with the actions for schemes before the abolition in April 2016. Published on July 15, 2014, Newsletter no. 2 covers the following: An overview of the DWP State Pension Stakeholder Forum. The Forum consists of representatives from the DWP, HMRC and individuals from other external bodies with experience in pensions. It met for the first time on June 6, 2014, and has a remit to communicate the forthcoming State Pension changes to all those who will be affected when it is introduced on April 6, 2016. The Scheme Reconciliation Service, which has now gone live and assists scheme trustees and administrators to reconcile their records for all non-active members against HMRC records in advance of the ending of contracting-out in April 2016. A report on the DWP/HMRC pension industry conference held in May 2014, the aim of which was to obtain views from administrators on the challenges they face relating to the ending of contracting-out and the assistance they may require from HMRC and the DWP. A detailed Q&A is provided in relation to the issues raised. View the newsletter. 08 Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014
PPF entry rules amended to allow Olympic Airlines scheme to qualify New regulations create an additional European insolvency event which will permit PPF entry to schemes with non-uk employers where specific criteria are met. In a previous update, we reported on the Court of Appeal (CA) judgment in The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA [2013] in which the CA overturned the High Court decision, disagreeing with the High Court s ruling that it had jurisdiction in the UK to wind up the Scheme s principal employer, Olympic Airlines. The significance for the Olympic Airlines SA Pension and Life Assurance Scheme (the Scheme) was that the Greek liquidation did not trigger a Pension Protection Fund (PPF) assessment period, since foreign liquidation proceedings do not count as qualifying insolvency events under section 127 of the Pensions Act 2004. Without a qualifying insolvency event, the Scheme was barred from entering the PPF, despite having paid PPF levies. As a result, the Scheme s members were not entitled to receive PPF compensation. The Pension Protection Fund (Entry Rules) Amendment Regulations 2014 came into force on July 21, 2014 for a period of three years only from that date. The regulations create a new European insolvency event which will be triggered if: a scheme s sponsoring employer was on 20 July 2014 subject to insolvency proceedings in a European Economic Area (EEA) state other than the UK the employer has its main centre of interests in that state a winding-up order in relation to the employer was granted by the UK court, but set aside on the basis that the court had no jurisdiction to wind up the company due to the employer s lack of an establishment in the UK a PPF assessment period would ordinarily have been triggered by the winding-up order, had the order not been set aside as above. Comment The Olympic Airlines Scheme s entry to the PPF is now able to progress. However, the draft regulations were subject to a very short, targeted consultation period which was carried out between May 28 and June 10, 2014. Respondents expressed concern that the temporary nature of the regulations and the very narrow set of circumstances which have to be met would mean that many schemes would be remain unable to access PPF compensation, despite paying PPF levies. One respondent suggested that the regulations should include further circumstances, such as where an employer has undertaken a reorganisation, no longer has a UK presence and has its main centre of interests outside the EEA. However, the Government states that it was not its intention to give wider coverage for eligible schemes sponsored by non-uk employers under these regulations, and that such a change would require a more fundamental amendment to the 2005 PPF entry rules. It remains to be seen if the new regulations do, in fact, breach the gap for schemes sponsored directly by overseas employers, or whether they facilitate only the PPF entry of the Olympic Airlines Scheme. Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014 09
PPF publishes issue 5 of its Technical News Of interest to those schemes in an assessment period is, the PPF s fifth issue of its Technical News bulletin, published on June 26, 2014. The newsletter includes the following: Confirmation that PPF compensation will be paid in respect of Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) step ups where a member has taken early retirement before the assessment period and they would have been entitled to the step up at GMP payable age. Confirmation that the 2014 Budget change in the trivial commutation limit from 18,000 to 30,000 does apply to PPF compensation. This is because the PPF legislation refers to the Finance Act 2004 definitions, rather than to a set limit. However, the changes in respect of small lump sums, allowing payments of up to 10,000 as authorised lump sum payments do not apply to the PPF, as the previous limits of 2,000 are specifically set out in PPF legislation. A reminder that the Financial Assistance Scheme (Qualifying Pension Scheme Amendments) Regulations 2014 came into force on March 28, 2014, and extend FAS eligibility to cover a DB scheme where: the scheme began to wind up after December 23, 2008 but before the regulations came into force the scheme s employer ceased to be a statutory employer before June 10, 2011 that statutory employer had become insolvent before April 6, 2005. View the bulletin. TPR publishes record-keeping survey and warns improvement action will be taken where necessary Here, we summarise the key points of the Pension Regulator s (TPR) fifth annual recordkeeping survey, which is relevant for all trust based occupational pension schemes. TPR warns that it will take improvement action against schemes which fail to meet its recordkeeping standards. TPR has published its fifth annual record-keeping survey which shows, for the first time, a slowdown in the rate of improvement for schemes taking action to measure their common data. Common data is the basic information all schemes need to identify individual members, such as name, date of birth and national insurance number. TPR decides which data constitutes common data and has set out a list of 11 items of common data in its guidance. Schemes must ensure that all items of common data are present. Although two-thirds of trust-based members are in schemes that have met the TPR s common data target of 95 per cent, a ceiling is being reached in terms of schemes engaging with the process. The proportion of schemes not formally measuring conditional data continues to be high (42 per cent in 2014 compared with 46 per cent in 2013). 10 Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014
The survey also shows a continuing trend of better record-keeping standards in large schemes. For instance, 64 per cent of large schemes met TPR s common data target, compared with 33 per cent of small schemes. Only 9 per cent of large schemes failed to measure common data compared with 44 per cent of small schemes. The most frequently-cited reasons given for failing to measure data were that the task was not seen as a priority, the task was not relevant or that schemes had insufficient time. TPR is concerned that schemes do not see record-keeping as a priority and recommends that schemes work closely with administrators to improve standards, particularly in light of upcoming pensions reforms such as the introduction of automatic transfers and the end of DB contracting-out. TPR warns trustees that it will take action to improve schemes record-keeping standards where necessary and that it will report publicly on the outcomes. A further four investigations into poor record-keeping have been opened recently, in addition to the seven cases TPR initiated as a result of last year s thematic review. View the survey. TPR publishes its annual report and accounts On July 10, 2014, TPR published its annual report and accounts for 2013 2014, including for the first time an overview of the last financial year. Here we highlight what TPR sees as its key activities and achievements. These include: Automatic enrolment: 100,000 employers used TPR s online planning tool to help more than 3.2 million enroll into a pension, with 99 per cent of employers being compliant without TPR having to use its powers. DB regulation: TPR revised its approach in the light of its new statutory objective to minimise any adverse impact on the sustainable growth of an employer in relation to DB funding. TPR assessed more than 1,600 DB scheme recovery plans, opened over 600 cases opened, and considered approximately 40 applications for clearance. DC regulations: TPR published a new DC code of practice, and associated guidance, setting out the standards that it expects DC trustees to be able to demonstrate. Working with the ICAEW, TPR developed a voluntary assurance framework for master trusts based on its DC quality features. Following the publication of the findings of its first thematic review on scheme recordkeeping standards, the initiation of a number of related case investigations. Continuing to fight pension liberation, including TPR s ongoing scorpion awareness campaign, through collaboration with other regulators, government departments and the industry, and via TPR s casework. Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014 11
The year in numbers In 2013 2014, TPR s total comprehensive expenditure was 54.4 million, plus 2.4 million of capital expenditure, totalling 56.8 million. All TPR s funding is derived from separate Grants-in-Aid from the DWP. Levy expenditure is recoverable from the general levy, which is charged on UK pension schemes and includes the regulation of DB, DC and public service pension schemes. Automatic enrolment expenditure is funded by the tax-payer and accounts for 38 per cent of TPR s costs. Total costs increased from 49.4 million in 2012 2013 to 56.8 million in 2013 2014. This comprises both levy and automatic enrolment expenditure. Payroll staff costs have increased by 6.3 million to 29.4 million compared to 2012 2013 expenditure levels. Temporary staff costs have increased by 0.4 million across the organisation including a 0.2 million increase in respect of levy and a 0.2 million increase in respect of auto-enrolment. Increasing staff costs were largely due to the additional staff required for auto-enrolment and DC regulation. The average full-time- equivalent for the year increased from 380 in 2012 13 to 469 in 2013 14. Capital expenditure increased from 0.6 million in 2012 13 to 2.4 million in 2013 14 and included investment in information technology and 1 million for the refurbishment of Napier House. View the report and accounts. View the overview. HMRC publishes pensions newsletter no.63 On July 4, 2014, HMRC published edition 63 of their general pensions newsletter. Among other points, the latest newsletter: Notes the results of changes to HMRC s processes for registering new schemes that came into effect on October 21, 2013. The changes, which mean HMRC no longer confirms a scheme s status as a registered pension scheme automatically on submission of an application, are part of HMRC s measures to combat pension liberation fraud. HMRC reports that while 11,184 new schemes received registered pension scheme status in the period between April 6 and October 21, 2013, only 4,530 applications for registration were received in the period since October 21, 2013. Around 8 per cent of the applications received since October 21, 2013 have been rejected by HMRC. Confirms that online applications for individual protection 2014 can be made from August 18, 2014. The deadline for claiming fixed protection 2014 was April 5, 2014. Provides details of new electronic forms which are being introduced to replace the existing paper forms. View the newsletter. 12 Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014
Contacts If you would like further information please contact: Peter Ford Partner, London Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Tel +44 20 7444 2711 peter.ford@nortonrosefulbright.com Lesley Browning Partner, London Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Tel +44 20 7444 2448 lesley.browning@nortonrosefulbright.com Lesley Harrold Senior knowledge lawyer Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Tel +44 20 7444 5271 lesley.harrold@nortonrosefulbright.com Norton Rose Fulbright July 2014 13
nortonrosefulbright.com Norton Rose Fulbright Norton Rose Fulbright is a global legal practice. We provide the world s pre-eminent corporations and financial institutions with a full business law service. We have more than 3800 lawyers based in over 50 cities across Europe, the United States, Canada, Latin America, Asia, Australia, Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. Recognized for our industry focus, we are strong across all the key industry sectors: financial institutions; energy; infrastructure, mining and commodities; transport; technology and innovation; and life sciences and healthcare. Wherever we are, we operate in accordance with our global business principles of quality, unity and integrity. We aim to provide the highest possible standard of legal service in each of our offices and to maintain that level of quality at every point of contact. Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP, Norton Rose Fulbright South Africa (incorporated as Deneys Reitz Inc) and Fulbright & Jaworski LLP, each of which is a separate legal entity, are members ( the Norton Rose Fulbright members ) of Norton Rose Fulbright Verein, a Swiss Verein. Norton Rose Fulbright Verein helps coordinate the activities of the Norton Rose Fulbright members but does not itself provide legal services to clients. References to Norton Rose Fulbright, the law firm, and legal practice are to one or more of the Norton Rose Fulbright members or to one of their respective affiliates (together Norton Rose Fulbright entity/entities ). No individual who is a member, partner, shareholder, director, employee or consultant of, in or to any Norton Rose Fulbright entity (whether or not such individual is described as a partner ) accepts or assumes responsibility, or has any liability, to any person in respect of this communication. Any reference to a partner or director is to a member, employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications of the relevant Norton Rose Fulbright entity. The purpose of this communication is to provide information as to developments in the law. It does not contain a full analysis of the law nor does it constitute an opinion of any Norton Rose Fulbright entity on the points of law discussed. You must take specific legal advice on any particular matter which concerns you. If you require any advice or further information, please speak to your usual contact at Norton Rose Fulbright. Norton Rose Fulbright LLP NRF19226 07/14 (UK) Extracts may be copied provided their source is acknowledged.