Information on British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) transfers

Reference Case Number: FOI11532

Freedom of Information: Right to know request:

Please provide information in relation to the British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) transfers. Full details of your request can be found in Annex A below.

Cost of research and consultation leading up to the design and implementation of scheme.
Cost of running the scheme.
Costs paid to external consultants for the scheme.
Costs associated with Grant Thornton.
Confirmation if the FCA has spent 118,000-man hours on the BSPS redress project and if there is an updated figure?
The number of staff that were included in the BSPS Redress Teams.
The number of phone calls that FCA staff made directly to former members of the BSPS.
The number of times that the FCA referred former BSPS members to the Financial Ombudsman Scheme.

FCA response:

Our response is below.

Having reviewed your request, we estimate that responding to question 5 in full and question 6 would exceed the cost limit that applies to requests of this nature made to the FCA and therefore the exemption under section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit) applies. For more information on why this exemption applies to this question, please see Annex B below.

Question 1 and 3

We can confirm Professional fees cost (Legal, research and other consultancy) up to design and implementation was £1,757,019. These professional fees were paid to external suppliers.

Question 2

The cost of running the scheme was £5,114,195.

Question 4

We hold the information you requested but we are exempted from the duty to disclose it under section 43 of FOIA, as we are of the view that such disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of the firm in question. Therefore, section 43 (Commercial interests) applies. For more details on why this exemption applies please see Annex B below.

While we are unable to provide you with Grant Thornton’s costs, we would like to explain that there was no engagement with them over the BSPS redress calculator.

Questions 5

We can confirm that the 118,000-man hours spent on the BSPS redress provide was correct at the time of publishing. We are unable to provide you with an updated figure as the I-time code used for this project was closed, therefore, any colleagues that continued to work on the BSPS consumer redress scheme would have allocated their hours to the specific I-time code used for their business area.

Question 6

As advised above, it will exceed the cost limit to respond to these questions.

Question 7

As part of our supervisory work on firms in-scope of the scheme and their compliance with our rules, we conducted two outbound call campaigns.

Firstly, firms that determined the advice as suitable for consumers were required to provide us with the consumer’s contact details, unless consumers confirmed in writing that they do not wish for their details to be passed to us. As a result, we received 870 consumer contact details and attempted to contact all of them, reminding them of their right to refer their case to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) for an independent review if they were unhappy with the firms assessment.

Where firms reported a high proportion of consumers who had opted-out of the scheme, we attempted to contact these consumers to ensure firms were not pressuring them to opt out, and similarly, remind them of their right to refer their case to the FOS if they were unhappy with the firms decision. In total, 428 attempted calls were made.

In addition to the campaigns, we were likely to have conducted outbound calls to consumers following our in-person or virtual events, as agreed by consumers in attendance. On these occasions, we are unable to determine the volume of calls.

Question 8

In conjunction with question 7, we set out clear steps for firms in-scope of the scheme. We advised that they must inform consumers using prescribed scheme letters (see below link). The scheme letters contained reminders for consumers that were unhappy with the firms decision of their rights to refer their case to the FOS for a free independent review. All consumers (eligible for the scheme or not) would have therefore been notified by their firms of their rights to refer a case to the FOS.

Summary of redress scheme steps [1]

Annex A

Email 1

You recently published information in relation to the British Steel Pension Scheme transfers; action from the FCA, FOS and FSCS. In relation to the BSPS Redress Scheme, i would like to know the costs associated with the Redress Scheme. I would like to know the cost of research and consultation leading up to the design and implementation of the scheme. Then the cost of running the scheme.

These costs should include costs paid to external consultants. We note from different sources that you used Grant Thornton to perform file reviews, and to help design the scheme. I believe they were also involved in the design and manufacture of the redress calculator. While i would like to know the total cost paid to external consultants, I would also specifically like to know the amount paid to Grant Thornton.

I would be grateful if you could include the costs per consultation paper.

It was reported previously that up to early 2024 the FCA had totalled 118,000-man hours on the BSPS redress project. Please could you confirm if this is correct? And if there is an updated figure?

I would also like to know the number of staff that were included in the BSPS Redress Teams.

Email 2

I would like to know the following;

the number of phone calls that FCA staff made directly to former members of the British Steel Pension Scheme in relation to the BSPS Redress Scheme.
the number of times that the FCA referred former BSPS members to the Financial Ombudsman Scheme

Annex B

Section 12 (Cost of compliance exceeds appropriate limit)

FOIA requires us to comply with a request, unless it would be too expensive to do so, as estimated in line with the Freedom of Information and Data Protection (Appropriate Limit and Fees) Regulations 2004.

Under these regulations, the cost limit for the FCA is £450, i.e. 18 hours at the rate of £25 per person hour. The regulations allow us to take into account, when estimating the cost of complying with a request, the time spent determining whether we hold the information requested, locating and retrieving it, and extracting the information from the relevant document(s).

To establish all the information that falls within the scope of your request would exceed the cost limit. This is because we do not have the information you have requested in a readily extractable format. A great number of staff across various FCA divisions have been involved in the work that the FCA has done on the BSPS consumer redress scheme.

Some of these staff would have been doing BSPS-related work alongside their usual duties, and it would not be possible to identify which part of their activities was in relation to the BSPS consumer redress scheme. We estimate it would take more than 18 hours to respond to question 5 in full and question 6.

Consequently, to work out how many staff members were involved would be exceptionally time-consuming.

We do not divert our resources from our regulatory functions to meet requests under FOIA above the cost limit. While we know this may disappoint you, we are sorry we cannot carry out an exercise to identify the information you have requested.

Section 43 (Commercial Interests)

This section of FOIA states that we are exempt from providing this information if disclosing it would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person, including the public authority that holds the information.

As this exemption is subject to the public interest test, we have considered relevant factors in favour of, and against, disclosing information as required by FOIA.

For disclosure:

There is a strong public interest in the public being able to see and potentially scrutinise how much the FCA is spending on services.
This will not only improve the FCA’s accountability but facilitate informed comment on the FCA’s approach to managing resources, especially ensuring that it makes best use of both its time and budget to get the best results possible.
In addition, the FCA must have regard to the ‘efficiency’ principle to ensure that it uses its resources in the most efficient and effective way. Disclosure of information of this nature will demonstrate that the FCA is providing ‘Value for Money’.

Against disclosure:

Grant Thornton operates in a highly competitive sector of the economy and there is a risk that details of the contract spend would be used against them in future sensitive negotiations about similar future contracts and transactions. Third parties, armed with this knowledge, would be able to discern the financial circumstances relating to the contract with Grant Thornton to adjust accordingly their own payment demands or negotiating position.
Suppliers may be discouraged from putting themselves forward for future work if they do not believe that they will be able to compete with the prices offered by Grant Thornton. In turn, this will limit the choice of suppliers available to the FCA and its ability to obtain the best value.

On this occasion, we have concluded that the balance of the public interest is in favour of not disclosing the information, for the reasons set out above.

Date of Release: 08/10/2024

Information on British Steel Pension Scheme (BSPS) transfers - October 2024

Freedom of Information: Right to know request:

FCA response:

Annex A

Annex B

More information

Data