What's new bulletin May - June 2022

TAXATION AND TRUSTS

Lasting powers of attorney reform

(AF1, RO3)

It has been confirmed that the current paper-based system will remain under the LPA modernisation plan. 

Last year, the Ministry of Justice issued a consultation paper focusing mainly on the idea of creating and registering lasting powers of attorney (LPAs) through a digital service, at the same time as improving protections against fraud and abuse. The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), which administers the process in England and Wales, had already introduced a digital tool in 2013, but the final stages of the process, including signing, witnessing, attesting and delivering the LPA must currently be completed on paper.

The consultation drew more than 300 responses, with both the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners and the Law Society of England and Wales raising concerns about the potential impact of an all-digital channel. The requirement to have LPAs physically witnessed is seen by the Government as limiting the speed and accessibility of the process, its view being that the protection against abuse comes not from the witness but from the certificate provider. However, all three of its suggested alternatives to witnessing – removing the requirement, allowing remote witnessing or replacing it with digital signatures – attracted criticism.

The Government's final policy response, issued a couple of weeks ago, appears to have taken many of these concerns on board.

According to a recent press release, under the proposals, people will be able to make an LPA completely online for the first time – bringing it in line with other Government services such as applying for a divorce. The current paper-based system will continue to operate meaning people can choose an accessible process that’s best for their specific needs.

The Government has also committed to looking further into how the new digital system could improve the witnessing process and make it simpler. As always, we will keep you updated on any changes.

Dementia Action  Week took place this year 16-22 May, to raise awareness of dementia and Alzheimer’s. The Alzheimer’s Society also wanted to encourage people who are concerned that they or someone they know may be experiencing dementia symptoms to seek further help. This all provides good opportunity to remind clients to set up a LPA, if they haven’t already done so.

A LPA enables the client to appoint someone to look after their affairs in the event that they are no longer able to do so. It is possible to set one up for property and financial affairs as well as one for health and welfare.

National Living Wage and National Minimum Wage: Government evidence on enforcement and compliance, 2021

(AF1, RO3)

The Government has issued a report which sets out a summary of its evidence and analysis on the enforcement of the National Living Wage (NLW) and National Minimum Wage (NMW) during the 2020/21 financial year.

The NMW was introduced in 1999, with the NLW introduced in 2016. The NMW and NLW (together referred to as the minimum wage) provide essential protection for the lowest paid workers, ensuring they are fairly paid for their contribution to the UK economy.

The evidence covers: 

• estimated non-compliance with the minimum wage
• routes to HMRC enforcement
• enforcement and compliance operations
• enforcement and compliance statistics

The Government is clear that anyone entitled to the minimum wage should receive it, and is committed to taking robust enforcement action against employers who fail to pay their staff correctly. The key aim is to improve the information available to employers on the assumption that employers will comply with the law once they understand their obligations. Employers who do not respond to compliance measures will be subjected to full enforcement action.

The 2020/21 financial year was a strong year for minimum wage enforcement despite issues caused by the pandemic. HMRC opened over 2,600 cases, and closed more than 2,700, with nearly 1,000 of these closing with arrears. In fact, since the introduction of the NMW in 1999, the Government has ordered employers to repay over £156 million to around 1.3 million workers, issued over £73 million in financial penalties and completed over 84,000 investigations.

Lessons from implementing IR35 reforms

(AF1, AF2, JO3, RO3)

The Public Accounts Committee has condemned "widespread non-compliance" with IR35 tax reforms in Central Government departments, blaming HMRC who "rushed implementation of the reforms, provided poor guidance, and public bodies struggled with its tool to assess status."

As of 6 April 2021, all medium and large-sized private sector organisations are responsible for deciding if the IR35 rules apply to their contractors. The off-payroll working rules (IR35) were similarly reformed for public sector organisations in 2017. 

HMRC argue that the IR35 rules have increased tax take, estimating that there was a net increase in tax revenue of £250m during the first year of the reform, and an additional 50,000 individuals put on payroll during the first two years. This was expected to increase to £275m in the second year. However, in their report, Lessons from implementing IR35 reforms, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) described non-compliance in Central Government departments as "not acceptable."

According to the PAC report, departments had two months, or sometimes even less, to get to grips with HMRC's new guidance and tools before the new rules came into effect in April 2017. There were also problems with the guidance and Check Employment Status for Tax (CEST) tool.

The Committee said "government bodies should be best placed to understand the rules," which now also affect the private and third sectors, but in 2020/21 it became clear that many Central Government departments had struggled to comply with the reforms and owed or expected to owe HMRC £263m in back taxes.

Many public bodies reported that the reforms caused problems when recruiting contractors and some contractors report that, to avoid perceived risks of failing to comply, their clients are changing hiring practices - such as no longer engaging workers through personal service companies.

The scathing report said that HMRC has "done little to understand the wider impact of the reforms on workers or labour markets," or particular sectors, and "underestimated the additional costs of implementing the reforms to hiring organisations." It claims to be unconvinced by such evidence but has not conducted its own research, making it "difficult to disaggregate the direct impact of the reforms from the effects of EU exit and the COVID-19 pandemic."

The PAC recommended that HMRC should "develop robust estimates of non-compliance for the public sector as a whole and use this to identify areas where it can reduce the inherent challenge of complying with the reforms, for example by improving its guidance and tools. It should adopt a similar approach for the private sector as the reforms bed in and write to us with an update in six months' time."

Dame Meg Hillier MP, chair of the Committee, said: "While workers in the gig economy have challenged their work and tax status in the courts, there is no recourse for workers deemed subject to IR35 tax rules despite the confusion and non-compliance that persist even in central government itself. After years of fiddling with these reforms and with central government spending hundreds of millions of pounds to cover tax for individuals wrongly assessed as self-employed, the fundamental problems underlying UK taxation of work remain. It is now up to HMRC to demonstrate that the system can work fairly in the real world; to prove that it is correctly claiming revenues under the system and that the additional revenues raised are worth the costs and unintended consequences in the labour market."

MPs also said that HMRC should conduct and publish specific research into the impacts of the IR35 reforms on contractors and labour markets, to check it is being applied as intended and not adversely affecting employment opportunities.

The PAC report identified structural problems with the way IR35 rules operate. These include:

• hiring organisations unable to properly assess a worker's status
• no appeals process means it is too difficult for workers to challenge incorrect determinations
• a lack of good data and legislative provisions has seen HMRC taxing the same income twice; a particular concern in the public sector where government can end up subsidising private sector contractors for all of their tax

The report concluded that "HMRC needs to demonstrate the system can operate effectively and fairly in the real world, and investigate whether the costs and unintended consequences are proportionate to the additional tax revenue which the reforms raise."

As a reminder, the four key factors for a worker to prove that they are genuinely self-employed, and not caught by IR35 are:

1. No control – there must be no, or absolutely minimal, control over the worker.
2. No mutuality of obligations – to be self-employed, the worker has to show that they can turn work down. If there is an obligation for the end client to give work to the worker, and he or she has to accept it, there would be mutuality of obligations, and he or she would be an employee.
3. Substitute – ideally the worker would have a substitute, at the same technical level as him or her, and have used that substitute. The worker, or their personal services company, must have chosen, engaged and paid the substitute.
4. Insurance – the worker, or their personal services company, must ideally have paid public liability insurance or other relevant insurance relating to their work.

To be self-employed the worker has to win on both of the first two: no control, and no mutuality of obligations.

New fuel rates for company cars

(AF1, RO3)

HMRC has announced the new fuel rates for company cars applicable to all journeys from 1 June 2022 until further notice. The rates per mile are based on fuel prices and adjusted miles per gallon figures.

For one month from the date of the change, employers may use either the previous or the latest rates. They may make or require supplementary payments, but are under no obligation to do either. Hybrid cars are treated as either petrol or diesel cars for this purpose.

Rates from 1 June 2022

Engine size	Petrol	LPG	Engine size	Diesel
1,400 cc or less	14p	9p	1,600 or less	13p
1,401cc to 2,000cc	17p	11p	1,601cc to 2,000cc	16p
Over 2,000cc	25p	16p	Over 2,000cc	19p

Rates from 1 March 2022

Engine size	Petrol	LPG	Engine size	Diesel
1,400 cc or less	13p	8p	1,600 or less	11p
1,401cc to 2,000cc	15p	10p	1,601cc to 2,000cc	13p
Over 2,000cc	22p	15p	Over 2,000cc	16p

Advisory Electricity Rate

The Advisory Electricity Rate for fully electric cars is 4p per mile. Electricity is not a fuel for car fuel benefit purposes.

INVESTMENT PLANNING 

The venture capital market - new statistics published

(AF4, FA7, LP2, RO2)

The latest statistics relating to the Enterprise Investment Scheme, Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme and Social Investment Tax Relief scheme have been published by HMRC.

The publication details the number of companies receiving investment through the Enterprise Investment Scheme, Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme, and the Social Investment Tax Relief scheme, along with the amount of funds raised.

This includes first estimates on funds raised for tax year 2020/21. The publication also provides the industrial and geographical breakdown of EIS and SEIS companies, the distribution of companies by the amount of funds raised, and the distribution of investors by the size of their investment.

Key headlines include:

Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS)

In 2020/21, 3,755 companies raised a total of £1,658 million of funds under the EIS scheme. Funding has decreased by 12% from 2019/20, when 4,165 companies raised £1,890 million. As the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the UK economy, EIS investment across the first three quarters of 2020/21 remained below the level seen across the same quarters of 2019/20.

However, in the last quarter of 2020/21 EIS investment rebounded above the last quarter of 2019/20. Around £358 million of investment was raised by 1,370 new EIS companies in 2020/21.

In 2020/21, companies from the Information and Communication sector accounted for £571 million of investment (34% of all EIS investment). Companies registered in London and the South East accounted for the largest proportion of investment, raising £1,078 million (65% of all EIS investment) in 2020/21.

The number of investors claiming income tax relief on self-assessment forms under the EIS has increased, from 36,150 in tax year 2019/20 to 37,535 in 2020/21.

The total tax relief claimed under EIS slightly decreased overall in 2020/21, but there was a slight increase in the total number of investors (4%), particularly in the smaller investment size categories (up to £75,000).

In 2018/19, new limits were introduced for investments in KICs. These allow individuals to invest up to £2 million in a year if they are investing in knowledge intensive companies (KICs). There were 40 investments of between £1 million and £2 million in 2020/21, contributing £58 million of investment. With the higher limit available, investments of over £500,000 comprised 16% of the total amount of EIS investment raised on which claims were made in 2020/21.

Companies that qualify as knowledge intensive (KI) at the time of share issue can make use of increased annual and lifetime funding limits, £10 million and £20 million respectively, and these KICs can receive their first EIS or other risk finance investment up to ten years from first commercial sale, as opposed to the normal limit of seven years.

Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS)

In 2020/21, 2,065 companies raised a total of £175 million of funds under the SEIS scheme. Funding has slightly increased by 4% from 2019/20 when 2,070 companies raised £169 million.

Around 1,660 of the companies were raising funds under the SEIS scheme for the first time in 2020/21, representing £154 million of investment. In 2020/21, companies from the Information and Communication sector accounted for £72 million (41% of all SEIS investment).

Companies registered in London and the South East accounted for the largest proportion of investment, raising £120 million (68% of SEIS investment) in 2020/21.

In 2020/21, 9,195 investors claimed income tax relief on self-assessment forms for the SEIS, compared to 8,545 investors in 2019/20. The amount of relief claimed also slightly increased by 6% in line with the increase in funds raised by companies in 2020/21. Most investors claiming the relief invested £10,000 or less into qualifying SEIS companies (59%).

Investments of over £25,000 contributed 59% of the total amount of SEIS investment raised on which claims were made, which is slightly lower than 2019/20 (63%).

Social Investment Tax Relief (SITR)

In 2020/21, 35 social enterprises received investment through the SITR scheme, and £3.7 million of funds were raised. Funding has slightly increased from 2019/20, when 35 enterprises raised £3 million.

Strengthening the resilience of Money Market Funds (MMFs)

(AF4, FA4, FA7, LP2, RO2)

MMFs are a type of open-ended investment fund, considered to be a low-risk investment that gives investors credit risk diversification and a place to hold, rather than grow, their assets.

The FCA, jointly with the Bank of England, and with the endorsement of the Treasury, has published a joint discussion paper (DP) on MMF reform.

Among UK investors, MMFs are predominantly used by investment funds, pension funds, other non-bank financial institutions, non-financial corporates, local authorities and charities. Many investors use MMFs as part of their cash management strategies because MMFs offer 'same day liquidity.'

Unlike other open-ended funds, MMFs tend to prioritise stability of value over maximising return, and aim to deliver rates consistent with the short-term money market. MMFs historically offered higher yields than bank accounts that also offered instant access to cash. They also allow investors to diversify counterparty credit risk, and outsource much of the risk management associated with investing with many different counterparties. As collective investment schemes, MMFs also give investors opportunities to access markets that they may be unable to reasonably access individually.

Non-financial corporates (mostly large or medium sized) use MMFs as a way of managing cash balances, and often treat them as similar to bank deposits. Many account for them as 'cash equivalent' on their balance sheets, despite MMFs being clearly labelled as investments. For example, Bank of England analysis estimates that around half of FTSE 100 companies use MMFs to some extent, and most of them classify those investments as 'cash equivalent.' An MMF investment can be classified as ‘cash equivalent’ if management and auditors agree that it is a short-term, highly liquid investment that can readily be converted to known amounts of cash, and that carries an insignificant risk of changes in value.

Financial institutions, such as insurers, pension funds and other investment funds, also use MMFs as a way of managing cash, including as a place to hold cash they may use for margin payments. Margin calls may increase when market volatility increases, and financial institutions need to be able to access cash on demand to pay margin calls. Failure to access their cash could result in increased likelihood of default.

In the non-profit sector, local authorities and charities use MMFs to manage tax receipts and donations. Those institutions may be more sensitive to losses than financial institutions, no matter how small, given their not-for-profit mandate. Individual UK retail investors account for a small proportion of overall MMF shareholders by assets.

In March 2020, financial markets reacted to the pandemic with increased selling pressure, volatility and illiquidity. MMFs came under severe strain across major currencies, including in sterling, as investors quickly sought access to cash.

There is concern amongst authorities that underlying vulnerabilities within MMFs and threats to financial stability remain.  In November 2020, the Financial Stability Board (FSB) published a Holistic Review of the March Market Turmoil, and began work on policy options to enhance MMF resilience. In October 2021, the FSB published its final report on possible policy proposals to enhance MMF resilience. FSB members, including the UK, agreed to assess and address the vulnerabilities that MMFs pose in their country.

The DP discusses these policy proposals. It also asks a total of 37 questions, including “Should the UK authorities consider rule changes to the information MMFs are required to disclose to investors?” The FCA is inviting feedback on the reform options discussed by 23 July 2022, and it says that responses to this DP will be shared with the Bank of England and the Treasury. They will then consider the responses in deciding whether to consult on MMF reform proposals.

In the meantime, the FCA has also published new non-handbook guidance on the UK MMF Regulation.

PENSIONS

PLSA responds to state pension age call for evidence

(AF3, FA2, JO5, RO4, RO8)

In its consultation response to the DWP, the Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) has said that as the UK will already have one of the highest state pension ages across countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) when it reaches 67 in 2028, any further increases to the state pension age are not appropriate. Instead, it has called for a "period of stability, at minimum until further conditions are met." Responding to the call for evidence on the independent review of the state pension age, the PLSA said that a fixed period of 15 years' notice should be given for any increase to the state pension age in order to allow savers time to adjust their work and retirement plans.

On the issue of whether intergenerational fairness should be considered when determining the state pension age, the PLSA stated: "The factors worth considering in respect of intergenerational fairness are the proportion of life receiving the state pension, the level of state pension, and average wage... We believe that certain thresholds in terms of proportion of life and in respect of healthy life expectancy gaps narrowing need to be met before any further increases can occur. Changes should take account of the average proportion of healthy life to be lived in retirement to maintain equal treatment across generations. We believe that the value of the state pension should be set to protect pensioners from poverty, regardless of their generation."

FCA says more could have been done to protect savers from risks introduced by pension freedoms

(AF3, FA2, JO5, RO4, RO8)

Speaking last week at the Centre for Commercial Law Studies in Queen Mary University of London, FCA Chair Charles Randell said that policymakers and regulators could have done more to protect consumers from risks that arose with the introduction of pension freedoms.

In his speech, titled Listening up to level up – regulating finance for the whole of the UK, Mr Randell said: "The speed with which pension freedoms were introduced in 2015 gave rise to a very big execution challenge for everybody: trustees, TPR, the FCA and the Money and Pensions Service, or Pension Wise, as it then was. The policies and procedures necessary to mitigate the potential harm to consumers from the pension freedoms were still being retrofitted six years later.

"With hindsight, more could have been done to protect people from risks introduced by the pension freedoms policy, particularly if more time had been given to prepare. It’s clear from the steps taken since 2015 that the policy itself and the broader system to implement it were found wanting."

Spending patterns of UK retirees

(AF3, FA2, JO5, RO4, RO8)

The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has published a report examining the spending patterns of current retirees in the UK. How does spending change through retirement? uses data from the Living Costs and Food Survey, collated from 2006 to 2018. According to the findings, the average spending of recent retirees with higher-than-average incomes increased through their 60s and 70s. The key findings included:

1. On average, retirees’ total household spending per person remains relatively constant in real terms through retirement, increasing slightly at ages up to around age 80 and remaining flat or falling thereafter. For example, for those born in 1939–43, spending at age 67 was on average £245 per person per week, rising to £263 per person per week at age 75, a real (in CPI-adjusted terms) increase of 7%, or just under 1% per year. For those born in 1924–28, spending fell from £197 per person per week at age 82 to £185 at age 88, a fall of 6%, or around 1% per year.

2. By contrast, average household income per person for retirees aged 62 and older is more clearly increasing in real (CPI-adjusted) terms as people age. This is driven by private pension incomes increasing faster than the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) and by increasing numbers of people receiving the state pension and disability benefits as they age.

3. In conjunction with relatively constant spending, increasing incomes mean that more people save, and save at higher rates, as they age. For example, for those born in 1939–43, almost six-in-ten (59%) saved at age 67 but this rose to almost seven-in-ten (69%) by age 75. Over the same ages, the share of income saved by that group rose from 2% to 15%.

4. The composition of spending changes as people age, with per-person spending on food inside the home and on motoring falling steadily, spending on holidays increasing up to age 80 and then decreasing, and spending on household services (which includes spending on home help and domestic cleaning) and household bills increasing in later years of retirement.

5. There are differences in spending patterns across different types of households. Households with above-average incomes for their age and birth cohort have an increasing profile of spending in their 60s and 70s (for example, increasing by 7% between ages 67 and 75 for the 1939–43 birth cohort), with spending falling slightly for those in their 80s. On the other hand, those with incomes below median have a slightly declining age profile of spending in their 60s (with the 1939–43 birth cohort seeing a fall of 1% between ages 67 and 75) and spending remains flat at older ages.

6. These results suggest that, on average, in order to have an income profile that would match the age profile of spending through retirement seen among earlier cohorts, people should aim for a total income profile that is roughly constant in real (CPI-adjusted) terms through retirement. Given that policy is for the state pension to rise faster than prices over time, this suggests that, at least among current retirees, a declining profile of income from private sources might, on average, be appropriate – and particularly so for those with lower incomes, who are more reliant on the state pension in retirement. However, for those largely reliant on private pension income, a non-index-linked annuity would leave them more exposed to inflation and they may not be able to maintain the level of spending they would like in retirement.

7. The death of one member of a couple will affect per-person spending of the surviving partner as many shared expenditures, such as housing costs, will not fall when a partner dies. When thinking about future spending needs, households thus need to consider how changes in circumstances, in particular the death of a partner, will affect income and spending in order to ensure that resources are available to fund increases in per-person spending. Future retirees, who are less likely to have occupational or state pensions with a survivor’s benefit, will have to decide how to take this into account when deciding speed of drawdowns and whether to buy an annuity that provides survivor's benefits.

8. If the spending patterns of current retirees are a good guide to how people in the future will want to spend, current savers might be best advised not to plan their retirement saving on the basis that their overall spending will fall sharply during retirement. Furthermore, the research suggests that later-born generations spend more at the start of retirement on categories such as leisure services and holidays (which make up 7% of total spending at age 65 for the 1924–28 birth cohort compared with 11% for the 1944–48 birth cohort), which tend to increase with age, and less on categories such as food inside the home, which tend to decrease with age. This might mean that the spending of younger, and future, generations of retirees could grow more strongly with age than is the case for current retirees.

TPR and FCA publish feedback on pensions value for money consultation

(AF3, FA2, JO5, RO4, RO8)

The Pensions regulator (TPR) and the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have published a feedback statement in relation to a joint consultation launched in September 2021, which invited views on how best to measure value for money in DC pension schemes.

The regulators said that the publication summarises the responses received but does not provide any policy views in response to the issues raised, although it does include some high-level next steps. TPR, the FCA and the DWP said they will work together to publish a consultation setting out proposals towards the end of 2022.

Minister for Pensions and Financial Inclusion Guy Opperman said: “Ensuring value for money for the record number of Brits now saving for retirement is one of my key priorities. While cost continues to dominate decision-making, this does not always lead to the best member outcomes. We want those making choices about where people save their money to take into account more than just price, and I look forward to progressing this work alongside TPR, the FCA and industry.”

The industry has reacted to the feedback statement on the discussion paper on value for money published by the FCA and TPR. AJ Bell said in their press release that the decision to focus attention on automatic enrolment schemes "makes sense" in light of the size of the market and the lack of engagement amongst savers.

Tom Selby, Head of Retirement Policy at AJ Bell, commented: “There are few policy issues in financial services as important as ensuring good outcomes for DC pension savers. Part of this rests in making sure these customers get value for money. This is particularly pressing in the automatic enrolment market, where over ten million people have been brought into pension saving in recent years... It therefore makes sense for regulators to focus their attention on this part of the market. If comparability can be improved, trustees and employers should be in a better position to compare the value on offer from different providers across the market. However, it is much less clear how standardised value-for-money metrics could be applied to the non-workplace pensions market.”

Hymans Robertson Head of Governance Laura Andrikopoulos said in their press release that: "We are pleased to see the FCA and TPR recognising the complexity in identifying a few simple metrics to compare value for money in DC pension schemes. Whilst we welcome greater transparency and consistency in this area, particularly between trust and contract-based schemes, an overly simple approach may give misleading impressions of value. For example, lower costs but a poorer quality investment strategy and little flexibility at retirement do not necessarily represent better member outcomes or value than a higher cost scheme. A few simple metrics won’t necessarily bring a level playing field for all DC members. It is vital that the focus is not just on cost but on long-term member outcomes."

Pension Schemes Newsletter 139 – May 2022

(AF3, FA2, JO5, RO4, RO8)

Pensions Schemes Newsletter 139  covers the following:

• relief at source ― annual return of information for 2021 to 2022
• digitisation of relief at source
• managing Pension schemes service
• Accounting for Tax (AFT) returns

Areas of interest

Relief at Source

HMRC remind scheme administrators that the deadline for submitting the 2021 to 2022 annual return of information is 5 July 2022.  If the deadline is not met it will delay interim claims for the tax month ending 5 July 2022 and any subsequent claims until the return is received.

Digitisation of relief at source (RAS)

HMRC aim to have a fully digital service for RAS by April 2025.  To support this, all claims will be based on individual date to allow HMRC to accurately calculate the tax relief due.

HMRC state that the potential benefits will include quicker payments and remove the need for declarations from some individuals as HMRC will be able to establish their eligibility and the amount of relief. 

Managing Pension Schemes Service

HMRC are looking for people to help improve the Managing pension schemes service and test upcoming features. Those interested in talking park in user research and providing feedback can join the Managing Pension Schemes user panel.

PLSA: Around three quarters of pension schemes have, or soon will have, net zero plans in place

(AF3, FA2, JO5, RO4, RO8)

The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association (PLSA) has sent a press release setting out details of a survey they conducted which has found that 74% of pension schemes have net-zero plans in place, or will do within the next two years. With new Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) requirements coming into force, the number of schemes making net-zero commitments is expected to grow even more. The survey found that 63% of schemes have started working on their TCFD report, with 55% saying they are within the scope of the reporting deadline and plan to publish one this year, and 28% saying that they have already published theirs.

Nigel Peaple, Director of Policy and Advocacy at the PLSA, said: "Striving to improve investment practices, and robust transparency standards across the investment chain, are an essential part of ensuring schemes can act as responsible stewards on behalf of millions of UK pensions savers. As we enter the next phase of scheme reporting, it is important that the largest companies and asset managers meet institutional investors’ expectations, by enhancing their climate impact disclosure, as well as fully implementing their regulatory responsibilities within the TCFD regime."