Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Good afternoon, my Lords. If there is a Division while the Grand Committee is sitting, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes while we vote.
Pension Schemes Bill
Monday 19th January 2026
(1 day, 15 hours ago)
Grand CommitteePension Schemes Bill 2024-26 View all Pension Schemes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-III(b) Amendments for Grand Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (19 Jan 2026)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)
Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I point out to the Committee that there is an error on the Marshalled List, in that Amendment 30 is to Clause 10 and not Clause 9, as it says here. It makes no practical difference to the debate, but it will do when we call the amendments later.
Clause 9: Power to modify scheme to allow for payment of surplus to employer
Amendment 23
Lord Davies of Brixton
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
This group raises important issues about the purpose of these proposed changes to the legislation on pension schemes. I am going to move my Amendment 23 and speak to my Amendments 25, 27, 28, 29 and 30—and I thank the Chairman for the correction. I look forward to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on his Amendment 26, which on the face of it asks a perfectly valid question.
The main amendment in this group, Amendment 25, seeks clarification from my noble friend the Minister about the purpose of Part 1, Chapter 2 of the Bill. This chapter is headed
“Powers to pay surplus to employer”.
Other than that, the Bill and the Explanatory Notes are silent on why the law is being changed. I will come back to that, but first I will address my Amendments 23, 27, 28, 29 and 30, which simply seek a change in the terminology used in the Bill, leaving out the word “surplus” and inserting the word “assets” instead.
I make no apologies for what may appear a pedantic point. Words are important. Later amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would also change the wording, so I think that there is an understanding that words are important, but what do I mean in this specific case? Let us consider the difference from the point of view of a scheme member between being told that their employer has taken some surplus from their pension fund and hearing the statement that their employer has taken some assets from their pension fund. I believe that the latter statement is a much better reflection of what is happening. “Surplus” suggests that the money is not needed, which is never true in a pension scheme; “assets” suggests something far more concrete.
It is worth emphasising that there is no certain meaning of what constitutes a surplus. It is not a technical term in actuarial speak; it was not a word that I ever used when devising pension schemes as a scheme actuary. It is widely used in general conversation—I sometimes use it myself—but it does not appear in the technical actuarial guidance, except as required by a cross-reference to legislation on surpluses. I suggest that using the word “assets” is a much clearer and more honest reflection of what is happening and I urge my noble friend the Minister to accept the change.
Amendment 24 was tabled to make it clear that the intended purpose of releasing assets is to be for the benefit of scheme members as much as for the benefit of scheme sponsors—if not more, in my view. As mentioned, there is no indication in legislation of why scheme assets might be released. What are the purposes for which surplus assets will be released? What is the purpose of the change in legislation and the facilitation of such release? It is left entirely in the hands of scheme trustees exercising their fiduciary duty. Government Ministers during the passage of the Bill have made reference to that on numerous occasions.
However, I believe that this is highly problematic. Experience tells us that we cannot rely on all trustees to interpret the appropriate purposes of the release of assets. It has to be in the Bill. The title of the chapter,
“Powers to pay surplus to employer”,
illustrates the problem. I have been advised by the clerks that it is not possible to amend those parts of the Bill, but it simply reflects the content of that particular chapter. As I said, this illustrates the problem. It only talks about the employer but says nothing about scheme members.
The absence of any reference to scheme members in the Bill contrasts with what Ministers have told us on numerous occasions. There has been a consistent message from Ministers throughout the passage of this Bill that the change will be of benefit to members. On the release of surplus, ministerial statements have suggested consistently that it is intended that members will share in the benefits of releasing assets. For example, my noble friend the Minister said at Second Reading,
“the Bill introduces powers to enable more trustees of well-funded defined benefit, or DB, schemes to share some of the £160 billion of surplus funds to benefit sponsoring employers and members”.
So it is not just about employers. In the Government’s own words, it is about members as well as employers. My noble friend went on to say:
“The measure will allow trustees, working with employers, to decide how surplus can benefit both members and employers, while maintaining security for future pensions ”.—[Official Report, 18/12/25; col. 875.]
Scheme members hearing this must assume that, if the employer benefits from a release of assets, they will as well. But there is nothing in the Bill that will make that happen. The Minister for Pensions made a similar statement many times. He has argued consistently, and rightly, that the release of assets—surpluses, if you will—is not just about employers but about delivering better benefits for scheme members.
Look, for example, at the Government’s road map for pensions. It states under the heading “Surplus flexibilities”:
“We will allow well-funded … pension schemes to safely release some of the £160 billion surplus funds to be reinvested across the UK economy and to improve outcomes for members”.
But there is nothing in the Bill that delivers on that promise. The DWP press statement about the Bill said:
“New freedoms to safely release surplus funding will unlock investments and benefit savers”.
Again, there is nothing in the Bill.
Then we find a statement by the Minister for Pensions on 4 September during Committee on the Bill in the Commons:
“It is crucial that the new surplus flexibilities work for both sponsoring employers and members”.—[Official Report, Commons, Pension Schemes Bill Committee, 4/9/25; col. 130.]
Yet again, there is nothing in the Bill. I could go on—there are plenty of examples—but I hope that I have made the point.
If that is the case and the intention is that members as well as scheme sponsors are expected to benefit when assets are released, this objective should be set out clearly in the Bill. This is particularly important because the Bill, as drafted, removes the existing requirement on trustees only to release surplus where this is in the interests of members. We will come to this again when we reach Amendment 37 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I will support that amendment, but I think that it would be better to put the requirement for members to benefit as well as employers clearly and unambiguously in Clause 9. A defined benefit scheme is a joint endeavour, involving both employees and employer. They should be treated on an equal basis. I ask my noble friend the Minister to accept the point and bring forward a suitable amendment on Report. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I will briefly intervene because the probing amendments here are important to how we look at the precise nature of surpluses. Clearly, the principle of making it easier to return a genuine pension scheme surplus to employers is worthy of support, particularly given how much has historically been paid by employers into DB schemes, often at the expense of capital investment. But safeguards are absolutely critical—this is the point I want to make about the relationship between employers and trustees in this area. It must be a trustee decision to distribute surplus, and trustees must be required to consider how the surplus has accumulated, as was touched on by the proposer. Was it due to employer contributions, member contributions or strong investment returns?
Under the proposed legislation, employers will no doubt apply immense pressure to steer the distribution towards them and not the members. In exercising their discretion, trustees must be unencumbered, properly advised and protected from the undue and inappropriate pressure that sponsoring employers will no doubt place on them. That is a real concern to me. We must be wary of employers exercising their powers to put in place weak trustees, who will not act in members’ best interests. We must also be wary of making it harder for trustees to distribute surplus to members in favour of employers.
Surplus distributed to members through increased benefits will directly improve the position of the real economy through increased domestic expenditure and of course increased tax receipts. If we are to restrict the use of surplus assets away from scheme memberships to employers, we must ensure that surplus distributed to them is used for reinvestment in the UK economy through capital expenditure. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on that.
On what a surplus is, the changes made by the Pensions Regulator to the DB funding code of practice in November 2024 have codified the requirement for pension scheme trustees to fund DB pension schemes very prudently—I think that those are the words that he used. Further, the investments that trustees are strongly encouraged to hold, through that code of practice, mean that the investment strategies are usually much lower risk than the insurance companies that many pension schemes are now being transferred to en masse under bulk annuity contracts.
In June 2025, the Pensions Regulator issued guidance that suggested that excessive prudence or hoarding of surplus could be considered poor governance by trustees. If we are to make it easier to distribute surplus from pension schemes, the bar for that should not be so low that the security of member benefits is weakened and it should not be so high that it requires schemes to be excessively funded. The current bar of buyout funding is, in my opinion, far too high.
Safeguards are important. It is absolutely critical that trustees are required to take appropriate advice and that actuarial advice is compliant at all times with the relevant technical actuarial standards. Trustees must be able to make informed, evidence-based decisions, unencumbered by the interests of the insurance industry and free from undue employer pressure. That particular relationship concerns me most in our probe into the functions of the surpluses. I hope that the Minister can give reassurances about the position of trustees—how they will be protected and by whom—in this particular contest or area of decision-making.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, we come to three groups of amendments. The next two deal with what you might do with the surplus, and I have amendments in those. This group deals with the principle of what a surplus is. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us the chance to consider that.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I will say a little more in our debate on the next group about how surpluses should be used, but we must recognise that employers in defined benefit schemes underwrite defined benefit scheme finances; they are the ones who have been putting in very large sums of money to keep these schemes going for the past 20-odd years. It is only right that we should recognise the interest that employers have in taking money that is no longer required within a scheme.
We have had so many years of deficits in pension schemes that we have rather forgotten that this was like an everyday happening in the pensions world, if you go back to the 1990s, when surpluses arose. Indeed, pension schemes were not allowed to keep pension surpluses; there were HMRC rules which made that rather difficult to do. These were perfectly ordinary transactions in the pensions world which we have just forgotten about because of the deficits that have existed for the last 20 or 30 years, which employers—not employees—have had to bear the burden of.
On the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I understand the technical point about removing assets rather than surplus, but surplus is the language that has always been used in the context of pension schemes; it is in the 1995 Act. The noble Lord’s amendments amend only this Act; as I understand it, they do not go on and amend the earlier Act. It is just language that has been used for a long period; I think people know what it means, and it will be very confusing at this stage to change the language.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for putting these amendments down and speaking in detail about them. We also heard good words from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I almost thought, “Is there any point in getting up and speaking?” but I am a politician.
This group goes to first principles. What is a defined benefits pension surplus and what is it for? For us, DB surplus is not a windfall or an accident, as I think others have said. It is a result of long-term assumptions, member contributions, employer funding decisions and investment outcomes—all those—but above all, it exists within a framework of promises made to members in return for deferred pay. We are therefore concerned about renaming—we keep on coming back to this—“surplus” as simply “assets” available for redistribution.
Language matters here because it shapes both legal interpretation and member confidence. Treating surpluses as inherently extractable risks weakening the fundamental bargain that underpins DB provision. Our position is not that surplus should never be accessed, but that it should be considered only after members’ reasonable expectations have been fully protected. That includes confidence in benefits security, protection against inflation erosion, and trust and accrued rights not being retrospectively interpreted. I have always thought that with DB pensions you need prudence. How far do prudence and good governance go?
Finally, the question for Ministers is whether the Bill maintains the principle that DB schemes exist first and foremost to deliver promised benefits or whether it marks a shift towards viewing schemes as financial reservoirs once minimum funding tests are met. In that case, one has to think, “What is the minimum for the funding tests?” We shall come on to that in an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has put down later in the Bill on where companies fail. It is a question of when those surpluses are available, if they are ever available.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, when I entered the department in July 2019, defined benefit pension schemes did, on occasion, report surpluses. However, those surpluses were neither of the scale nor the character that we are now observing. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century and beyond, it is evident that both the funding position of defined benefit schemes and the methodologies used to assess that funding have changed materially.
The surpluses reported today are not simply large in absolute terms but different in nature. They are measured against significantly more prudent assumptions, particularly in relation to discount rates, longevity and asset valuation, than would have been applied historically. It is therefore right that these emerging surpluses are examined with care and transparency. Bringing them into the open is necessary, and I say at the outset that the Government are right to have raised this issue explicitly in the Bill.
That said, we consider that the Bill does not yet fully reflect a number of the practical and operational issues faced by both trustees and sponsoring employers when seeking to make effective use of those provisions. In that respect, our position is not materially distant from that of the Government. Our concerns are not ones of principle but of application and implementation. We recognise that issues relating to potential deadlock between trustees and sponsors are important, but we are content for those matters to be considered at a later stage in the Committee’s proceedings. Our immediate focus is on understanding how the proposals are intended to operate in practice, how decisions are expected to be taken within existing scheme governance arrangements and how these new powers interact with established trustee fiduciary duties and employer covenant considerations.
This is a busy group, and noble Lords have done a sterling job in setting out their reasoning and rationale. I shall, therefore, not detain the Committee further by relitigating those points but will speak to my Amendment 25 in this group. Like a number of our amendments in this part of the Bill, it is a probing amendment intended to seek clarity. Clause 9 inserts new Section 36B into the Pensions Act 1995. The new section gives trustees of defined benefit trustee schemes the ability by resolution to modify the schemes’ rules so as to confirm a power to pay surplus to the employer or to remove or relax existing restrictions on the exercise of such a power.
The clause contains one explicit limitation on that power. New Section 36B(4) provides that the section does not apply to a scheme that is being wound up. In other words, wind-up is the only circumstance singled out in the Bill in which the new surplus release modification power cannot be used. Amendment 25 would remove that specific exclusion, and I want to be clear that the purpose of doing so is not to argue that surplus should be released during winding-up; rather, it is to test the Government’s reasoning in identifying wind-up as the sole circumstance meriting an explicit prohibition in primary legislation.
By proposing to remove subsection (4), the amendment invites the Minister to explain whether the Government consider wind-up to be genuinely the only situation in which surplus release would be inappropriate or whether there are other circumstances where the use of this power would also be unsuitable. If those other safeguards are already captured elsewhere, it would be helpful for the Committee to have that clearly set out on the record. Equally, if wind-up is used here as a proxy for a broader set of concerns, the Committee would benefit from understanding why those concerns are not addressed more directly.
Surplus release is a sensitive issue. The way in which the boundaries of this new power are framed therefore matters. Where the Bill chooses to draw a line in the legislation, it invites scrutiny as to why that line has been drawn there and only there. This amendment is intended to facilitate that discussion and to elicit reassurance from the Minister about how the Government envisage this power operating in practice and what protections they consider necessary beyond the single case of wind-up. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response and any clarification she can provide to the Committee.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for explaining their amendments, and to all noble Lords, who have spoken so concisely—we positively cantered through that group; may that continue throughout the day.
It is worth saying a word about the Government’s policy intent, but let me start by saying that the DB landscape has changed dramatically, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. Schemes are currently enjoying high levels of funding. Three in four schemes are running a surplus and there is around £160 billion of surplus funds in the DB universe. Schemes are also now more mature. The vast majority minimise the risk of future volatility with investment strategies that protect against interest rate and inflation movements. In addition, the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation require trustees to aim to maintain a strong funding position so that they can pay members’ future pensions. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that is the primary purpose of DB funding schemes: above all, they must be able to pay members’ pensions. That is what is set out quite clearly in the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation. That is overseen by the Pensions Regulator.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I raised the question of safeguards. There is a lot of evidence in the industry that there is a lot of pressure. The Minister talks about the driving seat, but the actual installation of the driver into the car is at the behest of employers. It seems to me that there is likely to be some pressure here, perhaps more pressure than before. I just want to be sure that the safeguards are in place—we are perhaps going to be discussing these later—including safeguards for the trustees, who have the basic obligation of doing the best for the beneficiaries of the scheme. To what extent are they going to be protected in circumstances like that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am coming on to that, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for pressing me on it. All trustees are bound by duties which will continue to apply when making decisions on sharing surplus. They have to comply with the rules of the scheme and with legal requirements, including a duty to act in the interests of beneficiaries. If trustees breach those requirements, the Pensions Regulator has powers to target individuals who intentionally or knowingly mishandle pension schemes or put workers’ pensions at risk. As the noble Lord knows, that includes powers to issue civil penalties under Section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 or in some circumstances to prohibit a person from being a trustee.
The key is that the Pensions Regulator will in addition issue guidance on surplus sharing, which will describe how trustees may approach surplus release, and that can be readily updated. That guidance will be developed in consultation with industry, but it will follow the publication of regulations on surplus release and set out matters for trustees to consider around surplus sharing, as well as ways in which members can benefit, including benefit enhancement. That guidance will also be helpful for employers to understand the matters trustees have to take into account in the regulator’s view. I hope that that helps to reassure the noble Lord.
We will come on to some of the detail in later groups around aspects of the way this regulation works, but I hope that, on the first group, that has reassured noble Lords and they feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply and other speakers who have contributed to this debate, which I think was worth having. I am pleased that I raised the issue on terminology. I recognise that it is a lost cause, but I have never been afraid, like St Jude, to support lost causes. It is an important point that we need to understand the vagueness of the concept of surpluses and that it is actual assets that disappear from the fund.
On the substantive point, I am afraid that I did not find my noble friend’s response satisfactory. As she said—I made a note of it—trustees remain the heart of decision-making. That exactly is the point. I am afraid that I do not share the Panglossian view of trustees. Many of them—large numbers of them—do a difficult job well, but it is not true of them all.
It is enough of a problem, as I can attest from my own experience of many years in the pensions industry, that we cannot rely on trustees to deliver in all cases. The balance of power between members and trustees is totally unequal. Members, effectively, are not in a position to question trustees’ discretion and responsibilities, and they cannot take it to the ombudsman, because it falls outside the remit.
When my noble friend says that the Government have been clear, that was exactly my point: they have not been sufficiently clear and have frequently given the members a reasonable expectation that they will share in the release of assets. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(7A) Regulations may provide that payment of surplus to the employer may only be made to the employer on the condition that—(a) enhancement to member benefits particularly relating to provision of pre-1997 inflation increases, or (b) one-off payment to reflect lack thereofis simultaneously provided by the employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to require employers to enhance member benefits (including provision of pre-1997 inflation protection or offer a one-off payment) if they want to extract surplus payments from the scheme.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 26, I shall speak to my similar Amendment 39, to both of which I am grateful for the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, adding her name. To follow on from the words of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am introducing these amendments as a marker, because I genuinely believe that it is important, if we are talking about distributing assets—I agree with the noble Lord on that terminology—to employers, that members should participate in the benefits that the excess funding has delivered.
My particular concern revolves around protecting members’ pensions against rises in the cost of living over many years. To go back to the Goode committee report of 1993, which followed the Maxwell scandal, that was the first talk of protecting private pensions in a similar way to state pensions, which would automatically be expected to have some kind of protection against either rising living standards or the rising cost of living. The protections put in place for pension schemes, however, were watered down to some degree and not introduced until 1997, so there are many people now retired who have a significant chunk of their private pension without any inflation protection at all. As inflation has become a much greater concern in recent years particularly, I hope we will be able to agree that attention should be paid to looking after what will be the most elderly of the pensioner population—those with pension accruals since before 1997. If there is to be an enhancement of member benefits, I would argue that the first consideration should be helping to rectify and remediate the shortfalls that many of these people face when trying to afford to live in 21st-century Britain.
I have included in the amendment the option of a one-off payment instead of enhancing the actual pension. In Amendment 26, it is a “may” rather than a “must”. The aim would be to make sure that some money is received by the member who has lost out, while bearing in mind that immediately lifting the pension from the pre-1997 accrual—which could be half or more of the person’s pension—up to a new level and then requiring the employer scheme to continue enhancing from that position, could add a significant extra strain on the scheme in the future if funding deteriorates.
However, we know that currently, in a scheme considering distributing surpluses, there is much more than is required on the current expectations, and for the likely nearer-term future, to meet the liabilities that will arise in, say, the next five to 10 years. Thereafter, one does not know; many of the members affected will not, sadly, be with us in that timeframe. But if actuaries are concerned about a permanent rise in the base level of pensions that must be paid by the scheme and then ongoingly increased over the very long term, payment of a one-off surplus amount to reflect the lack of inflation linking that the member has suffered over past years would, in my view, be easier to absorb but would also significantly enhance the well-being of the members themselves.
These amendments do similar things, although one is more definite than the other. I hope the Government and Minister can confirm that there is sympathy with this idea. Obviously, in a wider context, we will talk about enhancing members’ benefits more generally—I will come back to that on the next group—but, on that basis of the need for inflation protection in particular, I beg to move.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I rise principally to speak to my Amendment 38 in this group and to support my noble friend’s Amendment 44, to which I added my name. I am in broad sympathy with the mover of Amendment 26.
I think we can all agree that we would like to deal, if possible, with inflation eroding the purchasing power of a pensioner. As was said on the last group, there is basically a contract between the employer and the employee in a DB scheme, where the employee expects to receive a certain pension. The case I raise in my amendment stems from the many pension schemes that do not offer an absolute inflationary rise as part of their terms and conditions. Quite a number do, but some say in their terms that there would “normally” be an increase of an inflationary amount, but it is not guaranteed. There are a number of schemes where the literature at the time the person went into the scheme—in the 1980s, 1990s or whenever—indicated that they may reasonably expect to get inflationary increases, but they did not.
In this instance, I am grateful to the BP Pensioner Group, which brought its case to my attention and helped with the drafting of this amendment and my others. Broadly behind its request is the fact that the BP scheme, which is now closed, is an extremely good scheme with quite a large surplus in it. It is very well funded and therefore, as per the last group, may well be something that could go back to the company in part. But it has chosen for a number of years to refuse the request of the trustees to make discretionary increases.
It is worth noting just how pernicious the effect of inflation is on these incomes. I used the Bank of England inflation calculator to see what had happened. Bearing in mind that the statutory amount is 2.5%, if you go back with the inflation calculator to 2005, it is 2.8%—you might say that is not too bad—but inflation from 2015 to 2025 was 3.11% and, from 2020 to 2025, it was 4.35%. In every year there has been a modest but rising and quite large difference between what the statutory cap would allow and what the actual inflation was.
Of course, that compounds every year. So, every year, the loss is compounding up. Today, a pensioner may well be significantly worse off than if they had been getting something. By definition, surpluses comprise funds in excess of those required to meet the totality of members’ entitlements in full; they are, therefore, the resource out of which discretionary payments can be made. As such, any payment of surplus to the employer could prejudice the possibility of a discretionary payment to members. What I am seeking, and what my amendment seeks, is to make sure that that is in balance.
As I mentioned, since 2021, inflation as measured by CPI has been well over 4%, much ahead of the cap of 2.5%. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association’s survey indicated that, during the recent period of exceptional inflation, only 12% of UK pension funds made permanent discretionary increases to protect the purchasing power of members. In looking at surplus being distributed in part to employers and in part to members, the economic good if the part of the surplus that goes to the employer is used in investment is obvious, but let us not forget the economic good in increasing the purchasing power of the pensioners. There is an equal economic good on both sides of this argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the valid point that a great many companies supported their pension schemes during the difficult times of the late 1990s and early 2000s, but I would argue that that was in their contracts because they had contracted to make the payment at the end. We are now in a situation where, through the far better quality of trustees, the training offered by the Pensions Regulator—I have taken it and can attest that it is well worth doing—and the governance rules that have been brought in, we have the ability to make those surpluses available.
What this amendment would do is add to Clause 10 that the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State would include the words on the Marshalled List, which would mean simply that the Secretary of State could regulate to ensure that trustees took inflationary pressures into account. That is pretty modest, on the scale of the amendments that are being put forward, to deal with the surplus. Although the amendment is probing at this stage, if it is not met with some sympathy now, it may become a bit more than probing as we go on.
My noble friend Lord Palmer’s Amendment 44 is along the same lines, although it addresses pre 1997, which my amendment does not specifically do; I will leave my noble friend to argue the case for that. In passing this legislation, we owe it to those pensioners who have been left behind to do something to help them catch up.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I understand the motivation behind the amendments in this group, which call, in one way or another, for inflation protection, in particular for pre-1997 pensions that do not benefit from indexation to have a first call on pension scheme surpluses. I do not, however, support these amendments.
When compulsory indexation was first introduced by statute, it was applied only to pension rights which accrued after April 1997. That was a deliberate policy choice by government at the time. Although the cap and the index have been tinkered with over time, the basic policy choice has remained intact. The 1997 change was itself quite costly for those employers that had not previously included indexation or inflation protection in their pension offer to employees, which was quite common at the time. I am sure that the Government at the time were aware that imposing indexation on all accrued pension rights would have been very expensive for employers and would very likely have accelerated the closure of DB schemes.
The period after 1997 saw the evaporation of the kind of surpluses that used to exist, which, incidentally, vindicated the 1997 decision to exclude the pre-1997 accrued rights, because if they had been included, that would almost certainly have accelerated the emergence of deficits, which led in turn to employers considering how they could cap their liabilities by closing schemes entirely or future accrual. As we know, the period of deficits lasted until the past couple of years; they lasted a very long time.
Alongside this period of deficits emerging, there was a mutual interest among trustees and employers to de-risk pension schemes. That is why they shifted most of the assets into things such as gilts, which, in turn, increased the sensitivity of the defined benefit schemes to gilt yields, as we saw in the LDI crisis, and resulted, when interest rates started to rise again, in the surpluses starting to emerge. It was not the only cause but a very significant cause of the surpluses that we now see. We now have schemes in surplus: DWP figures suggest £160 billion—that figure will probably change daily as interest rates change—but that was only after significant employer support throughout the 1990s and the noughties was required, when significant deficit recovery plans had to be signed up to by employers to keep their defined benefit schemes afloat.
The amendments in this group seem to be predicated on the thought that these surpluses are now available for member benefits, as though employers had nothing whatever to do with funding their emergence. Because DB pension schemes are built on the foundation of the interests of members, it is obvious that the surplus will have to be shared between the two—that was partly covered in the previous debate—but the one thing we must always remember is that they have emerged largely from the huge amount of funding that has had to be put in since 1997 to keep the schemes afloat. That the surpluses have emerged does not mean that they are available for whatever good thing people want to spend them on. I certainly do not think it is right to use surpluses to rewrite history to create rights that deliberately were not created in 1997, for the very good reasons that existed at the time. For that reason, I do not support these amendments.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I want briefly to enter this discussion to identify another group not captured in the neat divide of employers and scheme members. When there is £160 billion knocking around, people tend to work out elegant arguments for why some group or another has a claim on that money. I understand the arguments for the pre-1997 claims, but I have to say that what my noble friend Lady Noakes just said is a very accurate account of the history and the thinking at the time. There is indeed an argument that, looking back, there was a fundamental change in the character of the defined benefit pension promise with that legislation then, which probably ended up as the reason for their closure. A with-profits policy became one where you had a set of rights, which were more ambitious and have proved in many cases too onerous for employers.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I ask my noble friend a couple of questions? I totally accept the rationale for the change happening only post-1997, but does he accept that because we now have surpluses and there is this gap, a one-off payment would be a potential way of recognising the problem faced by the pensioners without changing the long-term funding position of the scheme?
Lord Willetts (Con)
I am not against such payments. As I say, I think this is highly discretionary—there would be a negotiation. I absolutely understand that argument, and we have all received letters from the people suffering financial distress in some circumstances because of not having pre-1997 inflation protection. But I just want to bring in another consideration and try to find out where it would fit in when the employers or the trustees are reaching a decision.
The Government have a policy, or rather we now have on a cross-party basis, a successful policy of auto-enrolment. The levels of pension contribution to the next generation, who are not in these schemes, are way lower than the pension contributions that have generated these large surpluses. It would be great if we could see increasing contributions. Where might a decision fall if an employer says, “We have now turned our scheme into surplus because of the work of the company, and one thing we could do with the money is to put some enhanced contribution into the auto-enrolment pensions of the next range of employees, whose pension rights at the moment will be far lower than those of the people covered in this debate”?
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I am quite pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, because I feel that we are fishing slightly in the same pond. I added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I support doing something for the pre-1997 people. When you look at something as long-term as pensions and you have different cohorts coming in, moving along and coming out, you have to somehow get into cohort fairness. You will always have the circumstance that people have paid into something and then they get something out when there is something else in the pot. We will come to this even more so when we start to deal with private assets, so I shall not go on at length here, because I will go on at length there. I am in the same camp as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in thinking that you do not say that it is clean cut and these people are in and those people are out—you have to look at fairness more broadly across the piece.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I first became a pension fund trustee in 1997. The trustees at the time knew that there was a turning point, and it was probably just as well to get someone who might be alive 30 years later at least tutored in the principles of pensions at that moment—so it was clearly a moment in time. How right they were, because 30 years later, here I am.
I recall that it was a difficult moment for the scheme of which I was a member, and the private company for which I worked. Since the Barber reviews of 1991, with regard to the benefits payable in the final salary scheme, which was still open, it was the will of the directors that at all costs the final salary scheme should remain open and open to new accruals. Progressively, the benefits were diluted from RPI to RPI capped at 5% to RPI capped at 2.5%. Every step was taken and every sinew strained to keep that scheme open. But in 2003, the actuary reported that, on a scheme with assets of just £5 million, £4 million extra had to be tipped in; that was a sucker punch, and the scheme was inevitably at that stage closed to new members.
It turns out that the assumptions that were made, with the benefit of hindsight, were overly prudent. The deficit was exaggerated. But notwithstanding having put more than £4.41 million—that is the number that sits in my mind—into the scheme, three years later there was another £2.6 million to find as well. My goodness, the company could have made much better use of that capital to grow the business, rather than to fill a hole that history tells us was not there to the extent that it appeared.
We are in a situation where our scheme, which we kept open as long as we could, could not stand it any longer when we got to 2003. There was another turning point in 2006, in “A-day”, but I shall park that to one side. All that money was tipped in—and the suggestion that all the money that has gone into the scheme is some sort of pot to be shared now down the line, equally or in some proportion with the members as well as the company, is a false premise. Without the commitment of these private companies in those darkest days, the schemes would have closed much earlier and members would not have participated for those extra increments that they did.
I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, who asked what happens for all those people in the pre-1997 schemes. Well, here is the GMP rub. Astonishingly, I received a payment in the past six months, wholly unexpectedly, from my pre-1997 accrual, for the guaranteed minimum pension. So the suggestion that members are not sharing in any of the benefits of the pre-1997 scheme is a further false premise.
I am no longer a trustee of the scheme, but I know the trustees. The professional and actuarial costs associated with calculating these GMPs have been quite extraordinary. In fact, it would be much better for the trustees to have just made an offer, forget the GMP, and everybody would have been much better off.
The GMP issue illustrates the folly of going down the path that this amendment would lead us. All it is going to do is drive trustees into having more expensive calculations, actuarial adjustments, assessments and consultations, whereas, for the most part, the trustees are minded to make some sort of apportionment and that apportionment needs to be balanced, individual for the scheme in its own circumstances, based on how much excess money was tipped into the scheme for all those years in the post-1997 world. It is about having some sort of fair assessment, a fair apportionment. For the most part, the trustees of private schemes have the benefits and the interests of the members completely at heart and I do not see any circumstance when that does not happen.
This amendment is unnecessary for two reasons. On the one hand, trustees take these things into account. Secondly, that money is truthfully the employers’ money because they went above and beyond, listening in good faith to the professionals, the actuaries and everybody else who had put their oar in on the overly prudent basis, as it now turns out, to make good deficits that were not actually there. I say to noble Lords that for all the pounds that were put in post-1997, when other things happened in the macroeconomy and the Budget—which I will not detain noble Lords with—this country’s pension schemes could have been in a significantly stronger position than they are now had the trustees carried on as they were and not listened to some of the siren voices in government and the so-called professional advisers.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I strongly support Amendments 26 and 39 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I have a question on Amendment 39, the proposal that trustees should be able to make one-off enhancements. I understand that there has been some recent change in the tax treatment of such payments, and I wonder if my noble friend could update the Committee on where we are with that.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, made the point that we are referring to an issue which will depend on the regulations—one of the problems we face is that this is a skeleton Bill. As I understand it, the question is, in essence: can the trustees use the surplus assets to pay the DC contributions of people who are not in the DB scheme? There is a particular quirk with that. Purely randomly, some schemes established the DC arrangement as part of the DB scheme, and other employers established the DC arrangement as a separate legal entity. It is pure chance which way they went; it depended on their advisers. I have questions about it in idea and principle, but if we are going to admit that, it would be wrong to distinguish between the chance of the particular administrative arrangements that were adapted. I wonder if my noble friend is in a position to comment on that point.
I have significant reservations about the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, for free advice being paid for by surplus. Most members of DB schemes do not need advice—which is the entire point of being in a DB scheme. You just get the benefit. That is what is so wonderful about them. Advice rather than guidance is extremely expensive. The idea that a free, open-ended offer of providing advice should be made needs to be looked at extremely carefully. We have the slight difficulty here in that I am replying to the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, before he has made them, but I have to get my questions in first, and maybe he will comment on that point.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This seems like a good moment to come in. I first ask the Minister: do the Government agree that a responsible use of surpluses should strengthen confidence in DB schemes and not leave members feeling that prudence has benefited everybody but them? In this, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, because people do feel aggrieved.
I have three amendments here. Amendment 32 is designed to ensure that regulations take account of the particular circumstances of occupational pension schemes established before the Pensions Act 1995. Members of pre-1997 schemes, so often referred to in this debate, are often in a different position to those in later schemes. These schemes were designed under a different legal and regulatory framework. Current legislation does not always reflect those historical realities, creating unintended iniquities.
Amendment 32 would require regulations under Clause 9 to explicitly consider—that is all—these older schemes. It would allow such schemes, with appropriate regulatory oversight, to offer discretionary indexation where funding allowed, so it would provide flexibility while ensuring that safeguards were in place. It would give trustees the ability to improve outcomes for members in a fair and responsible way, and it would help to address the long-standing issue of members missing out on indexation simply because of their scheme’s pre-1997 status. It would also ensure that members could share in scheme strength where resources permitted. Obviously, safeguards are needed, and Amendment 32 would make it clear that discretionary increases would be possible only where schemes were well funded. Oversight by regulators ensures that employer interests and member protections remain balanced.
My Amendment 41 is about advice. When you are as knowledgeable as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, you do not need the advice, but many pensioners are missing it. This amendment would allow a proportion of pension scheme surplus to be allocated towards funding free—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
The amendment talks about surpluses, so it is talking specifically about defined benefit schemes. It is not talking about DC schemes because such schemes do not have surpluses. I just want to be clear.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord; it is just that impartial pension advice for members is not always available to everybody. Many savers struggle to navigate pension choices, whether around a consolidation investment strategy or retirement income. Without proper advice, members risk making poor financial decisions that could damage their long-term security. If you are in the business, you have to take the good with the bad, but we would like to give members a bit of advice if the money is available. Free impartial advice is essential to levelling the playing field.
Surpluses in pension schemes should not sit idle or be seen simply as windfall funds. Redirecting a small—I stress “small”—proportion to fund member advice would ensure that surpluses are used in a way that benefits members directly. Amendment 32 would not mandate a fixed share; it would simply give the Secretary of State powers to determine what proportion may be used. This would, I hope, create flexibility and safeguards so that the balance between scheme health and member benefit can be properly managed. Further advice from surpluses reduces the need for members to pay out of pocket and it builds trust that schemes are actively supporting member outcomes beyond the pension pot itself.
Amendment 44, to which my noble friend Lord Thurso referred, would insert a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to publish
“within 12 months … a report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows”.
It aims to explore options for improving outcomes for members of older pension schemes. I maintain that this amendment is needed because many pre-1997 schemes were established before modern indexation rules. Trustees’ current fiduciary duties may limit their ability to avoid discretionary increases, which is what this amendment is about. Members of these schemes may be missing out on pension increases that could be sustainable and beneficial. I will not go on about what the report would do, but there would be many benefits to this new clause. It would provide an evidence-based assessment of whether discretionary indexation can be applied safely; support trustees in making informed decisions for pre-1997 scheme members; and balance members’ interests with financial prudence and regulatory safeguards.
The amendments in this group are clearly going to progress on to Report in some way. Sometime between now and then, we are going to have to try to amalgamate these schemes and take the best bits out of them in order to get, on Report, a final amendment that might have a chance of persuading the Government to take action on these points. Many of the amendments in this group—indeed, all of them—follow the same line, but there needs to be some discipline in trying to get the best out of them all into a final amendment on Report.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for their amendments in this group. I also thank other noble Lords for all their other contributions in Committee so far this afternoon. Our debate on this group has stimulated a most valuable discussion. Of course, I look forward to the Minister’s responses to the points that have been raised.
I wish to start off by saying that I thought it was helpful that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, steered the Committee—my words, not hers—towards a focus on scheme members. The debate went a lot beyond that, but I just wanted to make that point at the outset. I wish also to take this opportunity to set out our stance on indexation, as well as some of the related questions that we for the Opposition have for the Government on this point.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, these amendments raise understandable concerns about fairness, inflation and the use of defined benefit surpluses. But our core line is simple: mandating how trustees and employers use DB surpluses would be overly prescriptive and risks being actively anti-business. Many employers are already using surpluses constructively, improving DC provision for younger workers, supporting intergenerational fairness, strengthening scheme security through contingent assets, SPVs or insurance-backed arrangements, or reducing long-term risk in ways that benefit members as well as sponsors. Employers have also borne DB deficit risk for many years, as we have heard a bit about this afternoon. If they carried the risk in the bad times, it is reasonable that they can share in the benefits in the good times, provided that decisions are taken jointly with trustees.
I will explain this through a simple analogy—I say at the outset that it will not be up to the standard of the buckets analogy utilised previously in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, but here we are. The employer and members walk into the casino together. The bets are placed and the investment strategy, funding assumptions and longevity risk are collective decisions overseen by trustees. If the bet goes wrong, the employer must cover the losses, often over many years, through additional contributions and balance sheet strain. If the bet goes right, however, some argue that the employer should be excluded from any upside and that all gains must automatically be distributed to members.
That is not, we believe, how risk sharing works. In any rational system, the party that underwrites the losses must surely be allowed to share in the gains—I know there are other arguments, but I believe this was the one posed by my noble friend Lady Noakes—otherwise, incentives are distorted, future participation is discouraged and employers become less willing to sponsor schemes at all. The fair outcome is that neither the employer nor the members take everything and that surplus is discussed and allocated jointly by trustees and employers in a way that balances member security, scheme sustainability and the long-term health of the sponsoring employer. I think this was the central argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and, in a different way, my noble friend Lord Fuller. Legislation should support that partnership, not override it.
My noble friend Lord Willets made an interesting point. He asked whether it is fair that, in DB schemes, current employees often contribute to enhancing or rescuing the surplus position of pension schemes, making up for past mistakes—or deficits, perhaps—and the potential consequence of that linking to lower remuneration for those current employees. I add one more thing, which is probably a bit unfair because it is slightly hypothetical: if that current employee, having perhaps been paid less, is then made redundant, that is a double whammy for them. The question is whether the surplus should be used for helping current employees or giving them a better deal, as well as, or instead of, looking to help the pre-1997 members. That is the way I look at it.
Against that backdrop, amendments that would make benefit uplifts—whether pre-1997 indexation or lump sum enhancements—a statutory condition of surplus extraction raise real concerns. Automatic uplift would ignore wider economic impacts, including higher employer costs; increased insolvency risk, ultimately borne by the PPF; knock-on effects on wages, investment and employment; and potentially higher PPF levies.
For PPF schemes, mandatory uplift is manageable because the employer covenant has gone and Parliament controls the compensation framework. Imposing similar requirements on live schemes risks destabilising otherwise healthy employers. Uplift should therefore be an option and not an obligation. That said, focusing on choice does not mean ignoring power imbalances. In some schemes, there is genuine deadlock. Trustees may be reluctant to deploy surplus for fear of sponsor reaction or member backlash, so instead sit on it and de-risk further. That may be a rational defensive response, but it is also a deeply inefficient outcome. The Government should be looking at how to enable better use of surplus by agreement, rather than mandating outcomes.
My questions to the Minister are as follows. How do the Government intend to preserve flexibility while avoiding blunt compulsion? How will they support trustee-employer partnership rather than hardwiring outcomes into legislation? What consideration has been given to mechanisms for breaking deadlock—including overprudence, if that is a term that can be used—so that surplus can be used productively rather than simply locked away?
To conclude, these amendments raise important issues. Our concern is not with the objectives but with the method. Choice, partnership and proportionality should remain the guiding principles. I look forward to the responses from the Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords— that was a very interesting debate. I will come to some of the detail in a moment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for explaining their amendments.
We do not have a smorgasbord here, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, observed. Essentially, Amendments 26, 32, 38 and 39 would, in different ways, allow regulations to require member benefit enhancements prior to surplus release, require regulations to do so, and require trustees to consider indexation and the value of members’ pensions before making a surplus payment.
I say at the outset that I understand the concerns of scheme members whose pensions have not kept pace with inflation. They may have made contributions for many years and are understandably upset at seeing inflation erode the value of their retirement income. But I am afraid that I am not able to accept these amendments, for reasons I will explain.
I will give a bit of context first, because it is worth noting that over 80% of members of private sector DB schemes currently get some form of pre-1997 indexation on their benefits. However, as I explained in the previous group, we think the way forward is that our reforms will give trustees greater flexibility to release surplus from well-funded DB schemes and will encourage discussion between employers and trustees on how those funds can be used to benefit members.
In response to the final question from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, about deadlock-breaking, we do not think it is necessary because, in a sense, it is not a balanced position between employers and trustees. Trustees are in control. Employers cannot access surplus directly. Trustees are the ones who make a decision. If the trustees do not agree to release the surplus, the surplus is not being released. In a sense, it is quite intentional for the power to sit with the trustees, and that is the appropriate way to manage that issue. We think that that way of putting trustees in the driving seat is a better approach than legislating for how surplus should be used. I found that discussion of history, from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Fuller, and others, very helpful.
The DB landscape is a complex situation. It has a varied history and there are variations within it: within schemes, over time, between schemes, across time and across the landscape. Benefit structures have varied, in many cases over the course of a scheme’s history. Although some schemes may not provide pre-1997 indexation, they may have been more generous; they may have been non-contributory or may have provided a higher accrual rate at different points in time. All schemes are different. That is why we do not think it is possible to provide an overall requirement on schemes for indexation. We think it is better that trustees, with their deep understanding of the knowledge of individual schemes, their characteristics and history, remain at the heart of decision-making in accordance with their fiduciary duties. In addition, of course, as I keep saying, they must act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. However, does she agree that a case where the employer has the right to prevent the trustees making a payment—with some surpluses, the trustees may wish to make a payment but the employer can stop it if it is not going to them—is a special case, which needs to be looked at slightly differently?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will need to come back to the noble Viscount on that specific point. Obviously, at the moment, a minority of trustees have the power in the scheme rules to release surplus; our changes will broaden that out considerably. If there is a particular subcategory, I will need to come back to the noble Viscount on that. I apologise that I cannot do that now—unless inspiration should hit me in the next few minutes while I am speaking, in which case I will return to the subject when illumination has appeared from somewhere.
It is worth saying a word on trustees because we will keep coming back to this. It was a challenge in the previous group from my noble friend Lord Davies. The starting point is that most trustees are knowledgeable, well equipped and committed to their roles. But there is always room to better support trustees and their capability, especially in a landscape of fewer, larger consolidated pension funds. That is why the Government, on 15 December, issued a consultation on trustees and governance, which, specifically, is asking for feedback on a range of areas to build the evidence base. It wants to look at, for example, how we can get higher technical knowledge and understanding requirements for all trustees; the growth and the use of sole trustees; improving the diversity of trustee boards; how we get members’ voices heard in a world of fewer, bigger schemes; managing conflicts of—
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Sorry. Corporate trustees are a specific issue. Does the consultation include the particular responsibility of single corporate trustees?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Absolutely. There may be—I am not saying that there are—risks that need to be explored around the use of sole corporate trustees. The consultation will look at that, and at generally improving the quality and standards of administration to improve service quality and so on. That runs until 6 March. My noble friend may wish to contribute to it; I commend it to him.
On safeguards, trustees will need to notify the regulator when they exercise the power to pay surplus. As part of that notification, we anticipate the provision to be made in regulations for trustees to explain how, if at all, members have benefited because that will help the regulator monitor how the new powers are being used.
In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the Pensions Regulator has already set out that trustees should consider the situation of those members who would benefit from a discretionary increase and whether the scheme has a history of making such increases. Following this legislation—and as I may have said in the previous group—TPR will publish further guidance for trustees and advisers, noting factors to consider when releasing surplus and ways in which trustees can ensure members and employers can benefit.
On that broader point, we feel that it must be a negotiation, because increasing indexation would increase employer liabilities, so it is right that it ends up being a negotiation. All the safeguards are already there. My noble friend Lord Davies asked what advice trustees should take. We expect trustees to take appropriate professional advice when evaluating a potential surplus release and making a payment. As well as actuarial advice, this should also include legal advice and covenant advice to enable trustees to discharge their duties properly. Let us not forget that a strong covenant is the best guarantee a scheme has; not undermining the covenant, or the employer that stands behind it, is crucial to this.
Amendment 44 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on whether trustees’ duties should be changed to enable trustees to pay discretionary increases on pre-1997 accrued rights. It is not clear to us why this would be needed as the scope of trustee fiduciary duties do not prevent trustees paying discretionary increases, where scheme rules allow them to do so. We expect trustees to consult their professional advisers, including lawyers, on their duties if they are not sure.
Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, highlights the importance of ensuring that members have access to good quality pensions advice. Although we understand the intention, we remain clear that we will not be mandating the use of surplus released from schemes. My noble friend Lord Davies made the good point that, in some ways, the greatest need for support is on the DC side rather than the DB side. DB scheme members expect to receive a lifelong retirement income, which trustees must regularly and clearly communicate to members. This is typically based on salary and length of service, offering strong financial security. For DB, the benefits they will receive on retirement are generally known.
The Government recognise the importance of robust guidance, however, and we already ensure that everyone has access to free, impartial pensions guidance through the Money and Pensions Service, helping people to make informed financial decisions at the right time. The MoneyHelper service offers broad and flexible pensions guidance that supports people throughout their financial journey.
A couple of other questions were asked, including what employers will use the surplus for. The Pensions Regulator published a survey last year, Defined benefit trust-based pension schemes research. In a sample of interviews, it found around 8% of schemes with a funding surplus reported having released a surplus in the last year. That equates to nine schemes. Of those nine, seven schemes used the surplus to enhance member benefits. One used it to provide a contribution holiday for future DB accrual and one to make a payment to a DC section established in the same trust. None of the nine schemes stated that the surplus was released to the employer.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and my noble friend Lord Davies, it was always the case that it depends on the scheme rules. I want to make sure I get this right. I had a note somewhere about it, but I am having to wing it now so I will inevitably end up writing and correcting it. If there is a DB and a DC section in the same trust, it could be possible, depending on the scheme rules, for trustees to make a decision to release funds from one to the other. But trustees may not be able to agree to that; it would obviously depend on the circumstances. However, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop an employer releasing funds—surplus released from a DB scheme back to an employer. The employer could then choose to put that money in, for example, a DC scheme. I understand the tax treatment would be such that the tax payable on one can be offset as a business expense on the other, making it a tax neutral proposal. In any case, as noble Lords may have noted, the tax treatment of surplus rate has dropped from 35% to 25%. A decision has been made to make that drop down. If by winging it I have got that wrong, I will clarify that when I write the inevitable letter of correction.
My noble friend Lord Davies asked about tax treatment. I will read this out, as it is from the Treasury, and I will be killed if I get it wrong. Amendments to tax law are required to ensure these payments—one-off payments—qualify as authorised member payments and are taxed as intended. The necessary changes to tax legislation will have effect from 6 April 2027. Changes to tax legislation are implemented through finance Bills and statutory instruments made under finance Acts. There will be consequential changes to pensions legislation where necessary, which will be dealt with through regulations. I hope that satisfies my noble friend. If it does not, I will write to him at a later point.
I hope I have covered all the questions. I am really grateful for that contribution; it is one of the ways in which this Committee illuminates these matters. But I hope, having heard that, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister for her explanation. Although it is rather disappointing, I understand where she is coming from. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this group. There is a general feeling across the party divides—but obviously not unanimity—that lack of inflation protection is an issue. How or whether it is dealt with is the big question. I hope that maybe we can all meet and discuss this and how it could best be brought back on Report, if it is going to be brought back. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a probing amendment which seeks to determine why the Secretary of State is permitted to change the conditions for paying surplus using the negative procedure after the initial conditions are first set using the affirmative procedure and to question the extent and scope of the Secretary of State’s regulatory power in setting the conditions for surplus release.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we come to another busy group, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and I have amendments. I will speak only to our amendments so that other noble Lords have time to set out their reasoning and questions to the Minister. I look forward to hearing them. Essentially, this group covers surplus release, how it will operate and precisely who will oversee the rules of this. We are also concerned about the very wide delegated powers within this area.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 34 and 37 and will briefly comment on the other amendments. Quickly, before I do that, I seek to assist the Minister with the question I asked her on the last group. I was written to by people who came together as a small group to protest against the failure of a trustee and an employer to award discretionary increases, contrary to their joint policy of matching inflation, originally published in 1989 and repeated in pensions guides and newsletters over the years. For the last four years, the employer has refused consent to modest discretionary increases recommended by the trustee and supported by the independent actuary. That is the situation I am looking at. I hope that is helpful.
I turn to the current group. Let me say, first, in response to the noble Viscount’s amendment and his Clause 10 stand part notice—as he said, both are probing amendments—broadly speaking, I concur with him. If we had had regulations, draft regulations or just something to look at, an awful lot of these questions would not have needed to be put at this stage. As a matter of principle, I am always in favour of the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative one; I shall leave that there.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will speak eloquently to his own amendments in a moment, but they are a bit of a variation on the theme of the ones in my name. My Amendment 34 would, in Clause 10 and at line 23,
“after ‘notified’ insert ‘and consulted’”.
What that would do is to say that the trustees would have not only to notify the members but to consult them. My Amendment 37 is very much along the same lines. It would insert, at the end of proposed new subsection (2B), a new paragraph—paragraph (e)—
“requiring that the trustees are satisfied that it is in the interests of the members that the power to pay surplus is exercised in the manner proposed in relation to a payment before it is made”.
Both amendments seek to explore the relationship between the employer, the members and the trustees.
I have listened to the arguments where it has been put forward that the employer has underwritten the surpluses, almost, and is at the mercy of the trustees. The case that I have put forward shows that, actually, there is often a power imbalance between the members—they are probably at the bottom of the pile—the trustees and the employer. I completely concur that the idea of mandating a response is wrong, but it is open to have regulations that require the trustees both to have regard to and to look at that, so that we reach a situation where members’ interests have at least equal value, in the eyes of the trustees, as the requirements of the employer.
I feel that these amendments are very modest. Who knows what might happen later on, but this stage the amendments are designed to reinforce members’ ability to be consulted and know what is going on.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My amendments address how members’ interests can best be represented whenever a release of assets is under consideration.
As the Bill stands, the first members will know about such proposals is when they are a done deal—that is, when the decision has been made by the trustees, having talked to the employer. That is what the Bill says, and that is clearly wrong. There is also nothing in the Bill about any involvement of members in the process, such as consultation. This is obviously unacceptable; they should be involved fully from the start. I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.
I would probably oppose Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but, obviously, I shall wait to hear what she says before coming to a conclusion—although the noble Baroness’s remarks on the previous group gave me the gist of what is proposed. Finally, I shall await my noble friend the Minister’s response to the questions raised by the amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie.
My Amendment 36 is relatively straightforward and, I hope, uncontentious. Members need to be told before, not after, a decision is made by the trustees and agreed by the employer. This is a point of principle. Scheme members are not passive recipients of their employers’ largesse; they should be equal partners in a shared endeavour, and they have the right to be involved.
My other two amendments would bring scheme members’ trade unions into the process. A question has been asked a number of times during the passage of the Bill in the Commons: who represents members when a release of assets is proposed? The answer, of course, is their trade unions. This is a matter of fact. Consultation is inherently collective and there is now extensive and detailed legislation on how members are to be represented collectively. This applies here, as it does to all other terms and conditions of employment. I should emphasise that this is a requirement to consult on the employer, not the trustees. It applies to trade unions recognised for any purpose under the standard provisions of employment law.
Amendment 36 is relatively straightforward. It would simply require the employer to inform recognised trade unions at the same time as scheme members of the proposals that it is considering in discussion with trustees to release scheme assets. Amendment 40 would go further; it would require an employer to consult with those recognised trade unions before reaching any agreement with the trustees. The requirement to consult with trade unions about changes in pension arrangements that they sponsor is not a new provision. I am not proposing anything radical or new. Pension law already requires consultation with trade unions in this particular form; it requires them to take place before major changes in employees’ collective arrangements. My case is simply that the decision to release assets is a major change and hence it should be brought within the consultation requirements that are already set out in legislation.
This is all in accordance with Section 259 of the Pensions Act 2004 and the regulations under the Act. These are the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006, that is SI 349 of 2006. These regulations require employers with at least 50 employees to consult with active and prospective scheme members before making major changes—known as listed changes in the legislation—to their pension arrangements.
The key requirements set out in the legislation includes a mandatory consultation period. First, employers must conduct a consultation lasting at least 60 days before a decision is made. Secondly, there must be a spirit of co-operation. Employers and consultees are under a duty to work in the spirit of co-operation and employers must take the views received into account. Thirdly, the affected parties consultation must include active members, those currently building benefits, and prospective members—eligible employees not yet in the scheme. Deferred and pensioner members are generally excluded, which I have always regarded as a shortcoming in the legislation.
The listed changes that currently trigger statutory consultation are: an increase in the normal pension age; closing the scheme to new members; stopping or reducing the future accrual of benefits; ending or reducing the employer’s liability to make contributions; introducing or increasing member contributions; changing final salary benefits to money purchase benefits; and reducing the rate of revaluation or indexation for benefits. It should be noted that this is not just about changes in benefits; it is about changing the financing of the scheme. A release of assets is a change in the financing of a scheme, and so it should be included in the list in these regulations. My amendment would simply direct that regulations should be laid that will add release of assets to the list of these listed changes.
There are consequences under the legislation for employers that fail to comply with it, but the spirit here is one of setting out a process of working together, in order, as far as possible, to reach changes to the scheme that are accepted to both sides of the employment relationship.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
I want to comment briefly on Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, where he seemed to characterise the need to have members in the room alongside employers and trustees. He seems to forget that trustees’ responsibility is to act for the members. The members are fully part of the negotiation through the trustees. I personally do not agree with his amendment requiring formal consultation, as with some of the existing listed changes to pension schemes. But there was a good reason why the release of surpluses was not included when that legislation was first drafted, and I have seen no reason to change that.
My Amendment 42 is rather unlike other amendments in this group, which is why I spoke in the previous group and probably should have asked for my amendment to be grouped there. I reiterate my remarks in that group on the importance of the interests of the sponsoring employers, who have for the most part provided the funding which has now led to the surpluses emerging, which is the subject of these clauses in the Bill. My Amendment 42 simply says that regulations made under new subsection (2A) of Section 37 of the 1995 Act may not replace restrictions on employers once surpluses have been paid to them.
The DWP’s post-consultation document on the treatment of surpluses said:
“Employers could use this funding to invest in their business, increase productivity, boost wages, or utilise it for enhanced contributions in their Defined Contribution (DC) schemes”.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to that being used elsewhere as a justification for these new release powers. I agree that they could use it for those things, but there are also other things that they could use it for. For example, they could use it to fund a reduction of prices in the goods and services they sell to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.
The thing that concerns me in particular is whether the funds are used to pay dividends or to make a return of capital, because companies have shareholders and that would be a fairly normal use of surplus funds. My key concern is that the Government would use the power in new subsection (2A) to specify that employers could not use the money in the way they chose, and in particular in relation to dividends and share buybacks.
I completely understand the Government’s desire to see more investment, but holding money within the company might be the economically illiterate thing to do. Businesses make investments in assets, productivity or people if they think they have a reasonable prospect of making a return. They do not invest because they happen to have some surplus cash lying around. If they cannot be reasonably sure of making a decent return themselves, the right thing to do is to return the money to the shareholders and let the shareholders recycle that into other investment opportunities which make a reasonable return. That is why low-performing companies are often under pressure to return capital to the shareholders. In the context of the whole economy, that is the sensible thing to do, because it gets capital to the right place in the economy. Therefore, I hope the Minister can reassure me that new subsection (2A) will not be used to restrict what companies do with the surpluses extracted from pension schemes.
The Minister made some quite helpful remarks in the first group about the Government not telling people what to do with the surpluses, but I hope she can be specific in relation to the use of the power in new subsection (2A) that that would not be used to restrict what companies can do.
Lord Fuller (Con)
I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her assertion that members’ interests are already taken into account on many trustee boards. In fact, all but the very smallest schemes have procedures and requirements to appoint member-nominated trustees. It is almost so obvious that it is hardly worth saying, but it is the truth. It is the job of the member-nominated trustees, not the unions or the members themselves, to represent the interests of that cohort. Even the local government scheme has arrangements whereby the needs of the employers and the employees are balanced, so it is not just a question of the private schemes; all schemes have those balances as a principle, and that is entirely appropriate.
I am disappointed to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I felt we got on so well in the previous two days in Committee, but, on this occasion, I part company with him. I do not think his amendments are needed, because of the existence of that member-nominated trustee class. It is their job, and if the members do not like it, they can get another one.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on these amendments to Clause 10. Having previously set out the Government’s policy intent and the context in which these reforms are being brought forward, I start with the clause stand part notice tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. As he has made clear, it seeks to remove Clause 10 from the Bill as a means of probing the rationale for setting out the conditions attached to surplus release in regulations rather than in the Bill. It is a helpful opportunity to explain the scope and conditions of the powers and why Clause 10 is structured as it is.
The powers in the Bill provide a framework that we think strikes the right balance between scrutiny and practicality, enabling Parliament to oversee policy development while allowing essential regulations to be made in a timely and appropriate way. It clearly sets out the policy decisions and parameters within which the delegated powers must operate. As the noble Viscount has acknowledged, pensions legislation is inherently technical, and much of the practical delivery sits outside government, with schemes, trustees, providers and regulators applying the rules in the real-world conditions. In pensions legislation, it has long been regarded as good lawmaking practice to set clear policy directions and statutory boundaries in primary legislation, while leaving detailed operational rules to regulations, particularly those that can be updated as markets and economic conditions change and scheme structures evolve, so that the system continues to work effectively over time.
In particular, Clause 10 broadly retains the approach taken by the Pensions Act 1995, which sets out overarching conditions for surplus payments in primary legislation while leaving detailed requirements to regulations. New subsection (2B) sets out the requirements that serve to protect members that must be set out in regulations before trustees can pay a surplus to the employer—namely, before a trustee can agree to release surplus, they will be required to receive actuarial certification that the scheme meets a prudent funding threshold, and members must be notified before surplus is released. The funding threshold will be set out in regulations, which we will consult on. We have set out our intention and we have said that we are minded that surplus release will be permitted only where a scheme is fully funded at low dependency. That is a robust and prudent threshold which aligns with the existing rules for scheme funding and aims to ensure that, by the time the scheme is in significant maturity, it is largely independent of the employer.
New subsection (2C) then provides the ability to introduce additional regulations aimed at further enhancing member protection when considered appropriate. Specifically, new subsection (2C)(a) allows flexibility for regulations to be made to introduce further conditions that must be met before making surplus payments. That is intended, for example, if new circumstances arise from unforeseen market conditions. Crucially, as I have said, the Bill ensures that member protection is at the heart of our reforms. Decisions to release surplus remain subject to trustee discretion, taking into account the specific circumstances of the scheme and its employer. Superfunds will be subject to their own regime for profit extraction.
Amendment 37, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, seeks to retain a statutory requirement that any surplus release be in the interests of members. I am glad to have the opportunity to explain our proposed change in this respect. We have heard from a cross-section of industry, including trustees and advisers, that the current legislation, at Section 37(3)(d) of the Pensions Act 1995, requiring that the release of surplus be in the interests of members, is perceived by trustees as a barrier because they are not certain how that test is reconciled with their existing fiduciary duties. We believe that retaining the status quo in the new environment could hamper trustee decision-making. By amending this section, we want to put it beyond doubt for trustees that they are not subject to any additional tests beyond their existing clear duties of acting in the interests of scheme beneficiaries.
I turn to Amendments 31 and 43, which seek to clarify why the power to make regulations governing the release of surplus is affirmative only on first use. As the Committee may know, currently, only the negative procedure applies to the making of surplus regulations. However, in this Bill, the power to make the initial surplus release regulations is affirmative, giving Parliament the opportunity to review and scrutinise the draft regulations before they are made. We believe that this strikes the appropriate balance. The new regime set out in Clause 10 contains new provisions for the core safeguards of the existing statutory regime; these are aligned with the existing legislation while providing greater flexibility to amend the regime in response to changing market, and other, conditions.
Amendments 35 and 36 seek both to prescribe the ways in which members are notified around surplus release and to require that trade unions representing members also be notified. I regret to say that I am about to disappoint my noble friend Lord Davies again, for which I apologise. The Government have been clear: we will maintain a requirement for trustees to notify members of surplus release as a condition of any payment to the employer. We are confident that the current requirement for three months’ notification to members of the intent to release surplus works well.
However, there are different ways in which surplus will be released to employers and members. Stakeholder feedback indicates that some sponsoring employers would be interested in receiving scheme surplus as a one-off lump sum, but others might be interested in receiving surplus in instalments—once a year for 10 years, say. We want to make sure that the requirements in legislation around the notification of members before surplus release work for all types of surplus release. We would want to consider the relative merits of trustees notifying their members of each payment from the scheme, for example, versus trustees notifying their members of a planned schedule of payments from the scheme over several years. Placing the conditions around notification in regulations will provide an opportunity for the Government to consult and take industry feedback into account, to ensure the right balance between protection for members and flexibility for employers.
I understand the reason behind my noble friend Lord Davies’s amendment, which would require representative trade unions to be notified. They can play an important role in helping members to understand pension changes. However, we are not persuaded of the benefit of an additional requirement on schemes. Members—and, indeed, employers—may well engage with trade unions in relation to surplus payments; we just do not feel that a legislative requirement to do so is warranted. The points about the role of trustees, in relation to acting in the interests of members in these decisions, were well made.
Amendment 34 would require member consultation before surplus is released. I understand the desire of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to ensure that members are protected. The Government’s view is that members absolutely need to be notified in advance, but the key to member protection lies in the duty on scheme trustees to act in their interests. Since trustees must take those interests into account when considering surplus release, we do not think that a legislative requirement to consult is proportionate.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Just to be absolutely clear, the three-month notification period relates to the notice of implementation; it is not three months’ notice of the decision being made.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I believe so; if that is not correct, I shall write to my noble friend to correct it. Coming back to his point, the underlying fact is that we believe that the way to protect the interests of members is via the trustees and the statutory protections around trustee decision-making.
I apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, as I misunderstood his question in our debate on the previous group. I am really grateful to him for clarifying it; clearly, he could tell that I had misunderstood it. At the moment, when a scheme provides discretionary benefits, the scheme rules will stipulate who makes those decisions. In many cases, that involves both the trustees and the sponsoring employer, as may be the case in what the noble Viscount described.
When considering those discretionary increases, trustees and sponsoring employers have to carefully assess the effect of inflation on members’ benefits. But, as the noble Viscount describes, if it is not agreed, the employer may effectively in some circumstances veto that. We think the big game-changer here is that these changes will give trustees an extra card, because they will then be in a position to be able to put on the table the possibility for surplus being released not to the member via a discretionary increase but to the employer. However, they are the ones who get to decide if that happens, and therefore they are in a position where they suddenly have a card to play. I cannot believe I am following the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in using the casino as a metaphor for pensions, which I was determined not to do; I am not sure that that takes us to a good place. But it gives them an extra tool in their toolbox to be able to negotiate with employers, because they are the ones who hold the veto on surplus release. If they do not agree to it, it ain’t going anywhere. So that is what helps in those circumstances.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Committee for the discussion on this group, which goes to the heart of how Clause 10 is intended to operate in practice. I have a few closing remarks, but I just say at the outset that I think we all realise that it was for the Minister to answer the very concise questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and my noble friend Lady Noakes. Across these amendments and our stand-part notice, our concern has been a consistent one, which is that Clause 10 confers wide powers on the Secretary of State to determine the conditions under which surplus may be paid to an employer and to alter those conditions over time, largely through regulations. That is a significant delegation of authority in an area both technically complex and deeply sensitive for scheme members.
Although we recognise the case for flexibility, that flexibility must be balanced with proper safeguards. When changes to the surplus regime could materially affect member protections or the balance of interests between employers and members, it is not unreasonable for Parliament to expect a meaningful and continuing role in scrutinising those changes, not merely at the point when the framework is first established.
I listened very carefully to the Minister in her responses in terms of the legislative process, and I take note of the fact that she says that the measures are in line with existing legislation. I will reflect on that and read Hansard, and I will look more deeply at her points about the negative procedures having been used in the past, and the fact that she says that this is different and the Government are bringing forward an affirmative procedure before the negative procedure, if your Lordships see what I mean. I shall look at that.
As I said at the outset, our amendments have been probing in nature. They are intended to test the rationale for the proposed approach to parliamentary procedure and seek reassurances that the level of scrutiny will remain commensurate with the importance of the decisions being taken.
Finally, given the nature of the Bill as a framework Bill—a theme that we have been promulgating on the first two days in Committee, and which the Minister herself explained on Monday—I hope that the Minister will anticipate that we and other noble Lords will be bearing these questions in mind on many other parts of the Bill. I hope that in raising this and flagging it, she can continue to respond to these issues in the round, explaining why this structure was adopted in the first place throughout the Bill, what constraints the Government envisage placing on the use of these powers, and how Parliament will be able to satisfy itself that future changes to the surplus regime remain appropriate and proportionate. With that rounding off, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(ca) requiring the relevant actuary to confirm that work to comply with Technical Actuarial Standards issued by Financial Reporting Council on risk transfer processes has been completed,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that prior to a surplus payment being made the trustees and sponsor have considered the impact on bulk transfer and run-on strategies currently required under TAS300V2.1 P5 other financial considerations for the scheme and the sponsor.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will understand as I go through my remarks that I believe my Amendments 33 and 33A are incredibly important to the future of defined benefit schemes and the aims of the Bill.
Clause 10, which is about the restrictions of power to pay surplus, specifies in new subsection (2B)(c) a requirement for
“the relevant actuary to give a certificate”.
My Amendments 33 and 33A seek to add a strengthening of the trustee considerations of alternatives, rather than just having a certificate from the actuary. Amendment 33 would state that the actuary must confirm that the required technical actuarial standards work has been completed. Amendment 33A is about the trustees, who must ensure that they receive the report on the relative merits and consider alternative options such as buyout, superfunds or even a change of sponsor—I will come to that in a moment—before making payment of surplus.
Why are these amendments required? There are standards in place, but I have been careful not to specify a number for the standard. I am talking about today’s technical actuarial standard, TAS 300, but of course these standards change—there is already version 1 and version 2—so the amendments aim to see that the standards are applied, taken notice of and fed into the consideration before any irreversible changes are made to the scheme.
The trustees obviously have a fiduciary duty to consider members’ best long-term interests, but it seems that they do not already receive the depth of analysis required in many cases. The calculations done for the TAS 300 are not consistent; they are not applied consistently, according to the information that I have received from those in the market. There is no standard calculation methodology, but the DWP regulations that were changed recently require trustees to set funding and investment strategies. In my view, TAS 300, as it stands, should be part of that.
Before any surplus is paid out, or a decision to buy annuities, enter a superfund or change sponsor is made, a proper risk assessment should be carried out looking carefully at the downside risks of any potential move versus the upside potential. The actuarial calculations to quantify these, which are specified in the Financial Reporting Council’s technical standards, do not necessarily become applied, and there are regulatory gaps. The technical standards require actuaries to provide TAS 300 comparative advice, but it is not clear how, when or whether the trustees must consider them.
Consistent application of the assessment, in my view, could be significant in changing the standard mindsets about the best choice for the future of DB schemes. But, even today, there is no consistency, no agreed pro forma, no standard template and no detailed implementation guidance, even, from the Financial Reporting Council or other bodies. It has long been recognised that there is a lack of co-ordination and scrutiny of technical actuarial standards. The Kingman report in 2018, the Morris report and the Penrose report, dating back to 2000, all proposed urgent improvements but not much has changed.
There are seven regulators reporting to three government departments. The Pensions Regulator and the PPF report to the DWP; the FRC and the CMA to the Department for Business and Trade; the PRA and the FCA to the Treasury; and the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries is self-regulating. These regulators need to work together to address this massive pool of assets and national wealth. My amendments are an attempt to help this integration and move it along.
Currently, there is over £1 trillion-worth of assets in these schemes. Since 2018, £350 billion of the value in defined benefit schemes has been transferred to insurance companies, many of which are now offshore. The scrutiny and regulatory control over those massive amounts of money is being diluted, and that has not been recognised. It is still considered that the gold standard for the future of defined benefit schemes is annuities, whether a buy-in or a buy-out; that is meant to be the no-risk option. That is not necessarily the case any more. The Bank of England itself has stated that there are risks in terms of the offshore insurers.
This TAS 300 exercise could become part of a crucial element in deciding what the future of these schemes will be. Currently, the transfer of assets to insurance companies, which is so frequently being carried out—we are told that there may be another £500 billion in their sights from DB schemes in coming years—is handing the surplus assets of these schemes to the insurance companies. I argue that proper use of the TAS 300 exercise could help the surplus be used for national investments, for improving member benefits and for improving the resources of corporate UK.
It is estimated that the scheme assets which are currently being transferred to insurers are invested in such a low-risk manner that their aim—this is the Pensions Regulator’s recommended strategy for low dependency to attain a return of gilts plus a half or so—as soon as the insurer takes these assets in, is to re-risk, invest in other assets, and sell the gilt and aim for a return of gilts plus, say, one and a half. Every £100 billion of assets transferred to an insurance company is the equivalent of about £200 million of scheme assets that are not going to members or employers but are transferring offshore.
Stagecoach, which uses this TAS 300 exercise, actually managed to justify changing the sponsoring employer, while enhancing member benefits and paying extra out in surplus. That could be the way of the future if we get away from the current obsession, which states that the no-risk option is annuities and everything else is risky. This is a huge amount of money. These schemes have changed fundamentally. The outlook has changed fundamentally: we are no longer worried about deficits and employer covenants. We should be talking about using this national pool of wealth to boost Britain.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I find myself in some difficulty in speaking to these amendments. First, although I declared my interests as a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries at the beginning of Committee, it is appropriate, in accordance with practice where there is a specific interest involved in the amendment, to declare it again. I am not a practising actuary at the moment, but I could be, and this would bear directly on my ability to earn money.
I support what I think is behind the proposals being made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. We should consider ways of strengthening trustee consideration of the way forward, whatever it is. More specifically, an automatic response to go to annuitisation is clearly wrong. If trustees do not consider the other options, they are not acting properly and are not discharging their fiduciary responsibility. The suggestion is that this is happening too often at the moment.
Broadly speaking, I agree that there has been a rush to buy out, but that has happened for a wide variety of reasons, of which I would suggest that the presence or absence of particular actuarial advice is only a small part. To overemphasise this part without looking at what else is going on is a problem. Trustees should be supported to make better decisions, and part of that process is the actuarial report that they produce from their scheme actuary.
Just to provide a bit of background, we need to understand that actuarial regulation is just a little confusing. We have two regulators for actuaries. There is the institute itself, which is responsible for professional standards—“you should not bring shame on the profession and you should make sure that you know what you are talking about before you provide advice”. All that side of things is handled by the profession itself. Technical standards, such as what should be in a valuation report, are the responsibility of the Financial Reporting Council, a completely separate body that is not part of the actuarial profession. Although there are actuaries involved in the work of the FRC, it is not an actuarial body but an independent body. I will not go into the history, but, for whatever reason, it was decided to take that technical supervision away from the institute and place it with the Financial Reporting Council.
The particular standard referred to here is the technical actuarial standard, or TAS 300. That does not mean that there has been a previous 299; it starts at 300. There is a 100, and there are other numbered standards that come and go. This is the one that relates to advice to trustees, not just for valuation purposes but for calculating what basis the fund should use to calculate transfer values, commutation rates and so on. So there is this technical standard, set by an independent body.
I understand that that standard is controversial, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, reflected some of that controversy in her speech. It would be fair to say that views differ. It is also important to understand that the current edition of TAS 300 was issued after extensive consultation last July and came into effect only on 1 November last year. It is always open to debate what the standard should say. My concern is that that standard is intended for actuaries, to tell them how they should provide actuarial advice to trustees. Its role is not to tell trustees how to behave. The problem, which I recognise, and which has been suggested as a reason for these amendments, is that trustees are not behaving properly—or it could be that they are being ill-advised by actuaries. That is not something that I am going to endorse but, if that is true, there is a disciplinary process under the Financial Reporting Council. Again, that is not part of the actuarial profession; it is a separate disciplinary process for anyone identified as not complying with the TAS. The issue can be raised with the FRC, and it may well be that it should have been raised more often, because that is really the first port of call if you think that the advice is wrong. It is not to put it into a piece of legislation.
I am very sorry to find myself in contention with the noble Baroness but, if trustees need to be regulated, it is not the job of the Financial Reporting Council to do it. It is not its job to tell trustees how to do their job. That is an issue that I am sure that we could debate extensively. I recognise the problem, but I am not convinced that we have been presented with the correct answer.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I know that this is a technical amendment, and in the last group I disagreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but on this one I totally agree with her analysis, particularly her identification of the groupthink that trustees suffer, bamboozled and pressured by the FCA, TPR and actuaries, and sometimes investment managers, to be overly risk-averse in some of their investments. In particular, there is a drive—it is explained that it is prudential and that the regulations require it, which means that we need to look at the regulations—for pension funds to apply an increasing proportion of their assets to liability-driven investments.
If your scheme happens to be in deficit, these LDIs will anchor you in deficit for the rest of time, because that is how they work. That is wrong, because the trustees have no control over what the interest rate, discount rate or gilt rate might be. They can adjust—plus or minus, in the case of gilts—but, ultimately, liabilities are driven by the gilt rates. They have no control over that, but they do have control over how the assets in their scheme are invested for the greatest return.
However, that is not how their schemes are valued at the triennial, which is valued on the gilt rate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, the value of their assets is depressed by virtue of being in a scheme. As people buy out and are forced to buy out—Amendment 33A contemplates what happens when you approach a buyout—schemes are being mugged. Members are being short-changed by this artificial diminution in the value of the assets, which at the moment pass into the hands of an insurance company, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said. No longer impeded, weighed down or anchored from being in a scheme, they can be let rip. The uplift happens quickly, and there is an immediate profit to the insurance company.
It is perverse that the entire regulatory advisory industry is mandating schemes to go into overly prudent investment products, almost suckering them down so that they have to pay a premium to be bought out, and all the profits go somewhere else. That is not prudence; it is short-changing the members of the schemes and diverting huge amounts of productive capital for the engine of our economy and the private businesses that generate wealth and pay taxes.
Regarding Amendment 33A, it is really important that trustees have imagination and are encouraged to think as widely as they possibly can, asking, “What does this mean? Are we in the appropriate asset mix? Should we be rammed into LDIs because we are chasing a deficit, or should we be invested in growth to pay benefits for members?” That is the dilemma, and this amendment shines a light on it almost for the first time in the Bill. Trustees in as many schemes as I can think of are being misdirected, ostensibly to reduce risks. But they are not reducing risks; they are reducing the sustainability of their schemes and their ability to pay for today’s members, including, most importantly, the youngest members of their scheme, who have the longest to go to retirement. Following the dismal, dead hand of these regulators is prejudicing the ability of these schemes to pay out for their youngest members in 20, 30 or 40 years’ time.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is not in his place, but he made this point in a previous group. This is the generational problem that we have, between the eldest and the youngest people in the scheme. We need to strengthen and empower our trustees to play their roles simply and straightforwardly and not as though they are not competent or do not feel confident to resist the so-called advice they are getting from regulators, which are acting in groupthink and not in the scheme’s best interest, or the interests of either members or companies.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, we understand that these amendments are doing something that is really quite straightforward and, in our view, sensible. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would ensure that, before any surplus is extracted, the relevant actuary has confirmed that the work required under the Financial Reporting Council’s technical actuarial standards of risk transfer has been completed. In other words, they would ensure that trustees and sponsors have properly considered the scheme’s credible endgame options, whether that is bulk transfer, run-on or another long-term strategy, rather than looking at surplus in isolation.
I was pleased to listen to this interesting debate, commenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, with her strong reference to the TAS 300 exercise and the link to insurance. She mentioned the reinsurance market and the subsequent debate, as well as the amount of money potentially in play—£200 million, I think. Surplus extraction ought to sit within a wider assessment of the scheme’s long-term direction, the securities of members’ benefits and the financial implications for both the scheme and the sponsor. Requiring confirmation that this work has been done would help anchor surplus decisions in that broader context.
This has been a very brief speech from me. We see these amendments as a proportionate safeguard, reinforcing good governance and ensuring that surplus payments are considered alongside—not divorced from—the scheme’s long-term endgame strategy. I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for setting out her amendments. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I must admit that I have learned more about actuaries in the past week than I ever knew hitherto, but it is a blessing.
Three different issues have come up. I would like to try to go through them before I come back to what I have to say on this group. In essence, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has us looking at, first, actuaries: what is their role, what are the standards and how do they do the job? Secondly, what are the right endgame choices—that is, what is out there at the moment? Finally, what should be in the surplus extraction regime? We have ended up with all three issues, although the amendments only really deal with the last of those; they deal with the others by implication. Let me say a few words on each of them, then say why I do not think that they are the right way forward.
We have just finished hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Obviously, we are talking about the position now. DB schemes are maturing and, as such, are now prioritising payments to members. Given this context, they are naturally more risk-averse, as they are now seeking funding to match their liabilities. Since the increases in interest rates over the past five years, scheme funding positions have—the noble Lord knows this all too well—improved significantly in line with their corresponding reductions and liabilities.
However, when setting an investment strategy, trustees must consider among other things the suitability of different asset classes to meet future liabilities, the risks involved in different types of investment and the possible returns that may be achieved. The 2024 funding code is scheme-specific and flexible. Even at significant maturity, schemes can still invest in a significant proportion of return-seeking assets, provided that the risk can be supported.
On actuaries, actuarial work is clearly an important part of the process. It helps set out the picture, as well as highlighting the risks, the assumptions and the available options, but it does not determine the outcome. My noble friend Lord Davies is absolutely right on this point. Decisions on how a scheme uses the funds are, and will remain, matters of trustee judgment. The role of the actuary is to support the judgment, not replace it. Trustees are the decision-makers, and they remain accountable for the choices that they make on behalf of their members.
Of course, in providing any certification, actuaries will continue to comply with the TAS standards set by the Financial Reporting Council. I am not going to get into the weeds of exactly how the standards work but, on the broader points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we agree that the requirements and the regulations must work together. As my noble friend said, after the funding regime code was laid, the FRC consulted on revisions to TAS 300 covering developments; it has now published the revised TAS. These are complex decisions. Regulators need to work together. We will come back to this issue later on in the Bill, following an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.
In terms of the endgame choices, the independent Pensions Regulator has responsibility for making sure that employers and those running pension schemes comply with their legal duties. Obviously, the Government are aware of the recent transaction that resulted in Aberdeen Asset Management taking over responsibility for the Stagecoach scheme; we are monitoring market developments closely. Although we support innovation, we also need to ensure that members are protected. Following the introduction of TPR’s interim superfund regime and the measures in this Pension Schemes Bill, we understand that new and innovative endgame solutions are looking to enter the DB market and offer employers new ways to manage their DB liabilities. I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep the regulatory framework under review to ensure that member benefits are appropriately safeguarded.
Then, the question is: what is the right thing to be in the surplus extraction regime? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is concerned that, following these additional flexibilities to trustees around surplus release, trustees continue to consider surplus release in the context of the wider suite of options available to their scheme, including buyout, transfer to a superfund or other options beyond those. Following these changes, trustees will remain subject to their duty to act in the interests of beneficiaries. As such, we are confident that trustees will continue both to think carefully about the most appropriate endgame solution for their scheme and to act accordingly. For many, that will be buyout or transferring to a superfund, rather than running on.
Let me turn to what would happen with these amendments specifically. Amendment 33 would link the operation of the surplus framework to existing standards on risk transfer conditions in TAS. In essence, it seeks to ensure the scheme trustees have considered a potential buyout or other risk transfer solution before surplus can be released. Amendment 33A has a similar purpose; again, it aims for trustees, before they can release surplus, receiving a report from the scheme actuary assessing endgame options and confirming compliance with TAS.
Although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that trustees select the right endgame for their scheme, these amendments are not needed because trustees are already required, under the funding and investment regulations, to set a long-term strategy for their scheme and review it at least every three years; that strategy might include a risk transfer arrangement. Furthermore, although I know the noble Baroness has tried to minimise this, hardwiring any current provisional standards into the statutory framework could have unintended consequences, including reducing flexibility for trustees and requiring further legislative or regulatory changes to maintain alignment as these standards evolve over time.
We are back to the fact that, in the end, trustees remain in the driving seat with regard to surplus release. As a matter of course, TPR would expect trustees to take professional advice from their actuarial and legal advisers; to assess the sponsor covenant impact when considering surplus release; and to take into account relevant factors and disregard irrelevant factors, in line with their duties. We are working with the Pensions Regulator regarding how schemes are supported in the consideration of surplus-sharing decisions. The new guidance already considers schemes as part of good governance to develop a policy on surplus. TPR will issue further guidance on surplus sharing following the coming into force of the regulations flowing from the Bill, which will describe how trustees may approach surplus release and can be readily updated as required. Alongside the Pensions Regulator, we will work with the FRC to ensure that TAS stays aligned.
I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution and the wider debate, but I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister and everybody else who has spoken. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and take what he says seriously. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.
I make no apology for the technical nature of these amendments, but I apologise that they had to be shoehorned in; this is such an important issue, though. This environment of higher inflation risk, excessive prudence and hoarding of surpluses is damaging pension adequacy. The de-risking overshoot has sucked innovation, energy and impetus out of the pension system and the economy. Indeed, the chair of the trustees of Stagecoach described to me that he faced what he termed co-ordinated and insidious behind-the-scenes lobbying against the trustees’ aim to try to obtain better pensions for their members; he also said that the lobbying was in favour of annuitisation as the best option for the scheme.
There is no lobbying for either improving member benefits or giving a lot more money back to employers at the moment. If we were able to get an amendment such as this one into the Bill, so that everybody must consider the range of available options plus innovative strategies, I would hope that the outcome of the Bill would be much better, more productive use—which is the aim of the Government: the Minister, Torsten Bell, has rightly talked about using surpluses in a productive manner.
The FSCS backs annuities. It has no government guarantee. I hope that, on Report, we may come back to the spurious safety of the current recommended future for this enormous amount of assets and find ways in which the Bill might be able to accommodate the need for a mindset change in this connection. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Independent review into state deduction in defined benefit pension schemes(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes for banks.(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations set out the terms of reference for the review, including the bank or banks to be investigated.(3) The regulations in subsection (2) must make provision for the terms of reference to include —(a) the origin, rationale and implementation of state deduction in bank pension schemes,(b) the clarity and adequacy of member communications regarding state deduction from inception to present,(c) the differential impact of state deduction on pensioners with varying salary histories, including an assessment of any disproportionate effects on—(i) lower-paid staff, and(ii) women, (d) comparisons with other occupational pension schemes in the banking and public sectors, and(e) the legal, administrative, and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions, including potential mechanisms for redress.(4) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person or body appointed to conduct the review—(a) is independent of the banks investigated and its associated pension schemes,(b) possesses relevant expertise in pensions law, occupational pension scheme administration, and equality and fairness in retirement income, and(c) undertakes appropriate consultation with—(i) affected scheme members,(ii) employee representatives,(iii) pension experts, and(iv) stakeholder organisations.(5) The person or body conducting the review must—(a) submit a report on its findings to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the date the review is commissioned, and(b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish the report in full.(6) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a written response setting out the Government’s proposed actions, if any, in response to the report’s findings and recommendations.(7) Regulations under this section are subject to the negative procedure.(8) For the purposes of this section—“state deduction” means any provision within a defined benefit occupational pension scheme that reduces pension entitlements by reference to the member reaching state pension age or by reference to any state pension entitlement;“defined benefit pension scheme” has the meaning given in section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into clawback provisions in occupational defined benefit pension schemes, for example, the Midland Bank staff pension scheme.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit schemes. It is a very narrow request that focuses specifically on clawback provisions in the Midland Bank staff pension scheme.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morgan of Drefelin) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the House—we all knew it was coming—so we need to adjourn. If it is acceptable to the Committee, we will adjourn for 20 minutes because there is, I believe, a number of Divisions coming.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will try to make this quick. Proposed new clause in Amendment 45 requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes. It focuses on the clawback provisions, particularly in the Midland Bank staff pension scheme and associated legacy arrangements.
Why is this review needed? State deduction provisions can reduce members’ pension entitlements, sometimes in ways that are complex or unclear. There are concerns about fairness and transparency and a disproportionate impact, particularly on lower paid staff and women. It ensures members, regulators and Parliament have clarity about the origin, rationale and effects of these provisions.
The review will examine the history and rationale for state deduction in a Midland Bank staff pension scheme and assess clarity. It will be conducted by a person or body independent of HSBC and associated schemes. We will also try to ensure that it must consult affected scheme members, employee representatives, pension experts and stakeholder organisations. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, we are broadly supportive of the purpose behind this amendment. It raises an important set of questions about whether members of defined benefit schemes have been given clear, timely and accessible information about state deduction or clawback provisions, and whether the rationale for those provisions has been properly explained to them over time.
Of course, individuals must take responsibility for managing their own finances and retirement planning. But that responsibility can only be exercised meaningfully if people are properly informed in advance about what will happen to their pension, when it will happen and why. When changes or reductions are triggered at state pension age, members need adequate notice so that they can make sensible and informed financial decisions. In that context, a review of the adequacy of member communications, the transparency of the original rationale and the accessibility of this information is welcome. While we may not necessarily agree with some of the more precise parameters and timetables set out in the amendment, as a way of posing the question and prompting scrutiny, it is a reasonable approach.
That said, we have spoken to someone who has intimate, working knowledge of the Midland Bank pension scheme and has experience of the workings of the scheme. They confirmed to us that they were fully aware of this provision, because it was in all the literature they were sent when they were enrolled. Given this, can the noble Lord give some more insight into why he thinks some members of this scheme were aware, and others not, and how could this be addressed?
I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she has any initial views on the issues this amendment raises. In particular, how accessible is this information to members in practice today, and what steps, if any, would the Government or Department for Work and Pensions take if it became clear that these arrangements are not well understood?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment and drawing attention to this issue, which is of real importance to some members in integrated schemes. After a lifetime of work, people rightly expect their pension to provide security and stability in retirement. For many, their occupational pension forms a key part of that.
Integrated schemes can feel confusing or unexpected to those affected, particularly when their occupational pension changes at the point when their state pension is paid. These schemes are designed so that the occupational pension is higher before state pension age and then adjusted downwards once the state pension is paid, because the schemes take account of some or all of a state pension when calculating the pension due. However, if it is not clearly explained, the change could come as a surprise. I acknowledge that and the worries some members have expressed. It is important to be clear that members are not losing money at state pension age. The structure of these schemes aims to provide a smoother level of income across retirement by blending occupational and state pension over time.
Concerns have been raised that deductions applied within integrated schemes may represent a higher proportion of income for lower-paid members, many of whom are women. This reflects wider patterns of lower earnings during their working lives, rather than any discriminatory mechanism within the schemes themselves, but I appreciate why this feels unfair to those affected. The rules governing these deductions are set out in scheme rules. Employers and trustees can decide on their scheme’s benefit structure within the legislative framework that all pension schemes must meet. The Government do not intervene in individual benefit structures but do set and enforce the minimum standards that all schemes must comply with.
Although this type of scheme is permitted under legislation, it is essential that members understand how their scheme operates. Therefore, it is extremely important that people have good, clear information about their occupational pension scheme so that they can make informed decisions about their retirement. What matters just as much as the rules is that people understand them. Good, clear information is essential so that members are not taken by surprise when they reach state pension age.
If a member believes that the information they received was unclear or incomplete, they are not without redress. They can make a complaint through their scheme’s internal dispute process or, if needed, escalate their case to the Pensions Ombudsman for an independent determination.
The Government absolutely share the desire for people to have confidence in the pensions they rely on, but, given the protections already in place and the long-established nature of schemes, we do not believe that a review is necessary. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Baroness and withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sikka
“Insolvency within 10 years of payment of surplus: prioritisation of pension scheme above other creditors (1) Where—(a) an employer has received payment of surplus under section 36B of the Pensions Act 1995 (inserted by section 9 of this Act) and goes into insolvency within 10 years of receiving such payment, and(b) at the point of insolvency, the employer’s pension scheme has a deficit,the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision to ensure that when the employer sells assets to repay creditors, the pension scheme from which the surplus was initially distributed is paid before any other creditor.(2) In order to fulfil their duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002 to alter the hierarchy of creditors in the circumstances described in subsection (1)(a) and (b).(3) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that, if a company goes into insolvency within 10 years of receiving a payment of surplus from the pension scheme and the pension scheme has a deficit at that point, then the pension scheme must be prioritised as a creditor.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment deals with a gap in the Bill. The transfer of surplus to employers could leave employees in jeopardy, especially when an employer enters bankruptcy. I will lay out a scenario. Suppose a pension scheme surplus is distributed to an employer but, soon afterwards, the pension scheme is in deficit and the employer enters bankruptcy. Under the pecking order at insolvency, as specified in the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002, pension schemes rank as unsecured creditors, which is near the bottom. This usually means that they will receive little or nothing from the sale of assets of the bankrupt entity, and employees could lose some of their pension rights. A pension scheme with a deficit can be bailed out by the Pension Protection Fund, but the bailout is restricted to a maximum of 90%. This means that future retirees will lose some of their pension rights. Those already retired may lose some value compared with their original scheme, as the PPF annual increase could be lower than the rate of RPI or CPI.
There is nothing in the Bill that enables a pension scheme to claw back surpluses taken by employers during the last few years—the amendment mentions 10 years, but I am happy to change it to five if that persuades some noble Lords to support it. In any case, if the employer is insolvent, there is no chance of recovering the deficit from the employer anyway, so the only possibility is to prioritise payment to the pension scheme from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt entity. In other words, the pension scheme must be paid before any other creditor.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
Just to recap quickly, I was looking at a scenario where an employer had received a surplus from a pension scheme but soon afterwards became bankrupt. Normally, the PPF will rescue, but that is limited to 90%, which means that employees will face a haircut in their pension rights. So the only possibility to help to protect employee pension rights is to prioritise payment to the pension scheme from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt entity. In other words, pension schemes must be paid before any other creditor.
Deficits on pension schemes of bankrupt companies are not uncommon. I was adviser to the Work and Pensions Committee on the collapse of BHS and Carillion, and we looked at that closely. I also wrote a report on the collapse of Bernard Matthews for the same committee. Basically, they showed all kinds of strategies used by companies to deprive workers of their hard-earned pension rights.
This probing amendment seeks to protect employees by ensuring that pension scheme deficits not met by the PPF are made good by being first in line to receive a distribution from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt company. This applies only where the employer has taken a surplus in the last 10 years. As I indicated earlier, there is nothing sacrosanct about 10 years; if noble Lords wish to support this, it could be changed.
From a risk management perspective, it makes sense to put pension scheme creditors above other creditors. Unlike banks and financial institutions, employees cannot manage their risks through diversification. Their human capital can be invested only in one place. Employer bankruptcy is a tragedy because employees lose jobs and pension rights. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with portfolio theory, the basic message is that there is a correlation coefficient of plus one, and it multiplies their risks. As human labour cannot be stored, employees will have no time to replenish their pension pots, and as we all get older, our capacity to work is also eroded. So, despite making the required contractual payments, employees will face poverty and insecurity in old age.
I urge the Government to protect workers’ pension rights. They should not be left in a worse position after the extraction of surpluses by employers. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I do not support Amendment 45A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I am not sure that the kind of regulations envisaged in this amendment could actually create a creditor which has a priority in insolvency where a creditor does not exist at present. At present, a deficit in a pension scheme is generally not as a matter of law a creditor if the sponsoring employer goes bust.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
This amendment raises a very important point. The question, though, is when the surpluses could be paid out. If the company seems to be in a robust way, there is no reason why the pension fund should be overprotected. While everything in the garden is lovely, there is no reason to give them a 10-year position when things may have deteriorated in subsequent years. So, I agree in principle with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, but 10 years is far too long, because in those 10 years, all sorts of things can happen. If it was five years or fewer, it would be very good, but while everything in the garden—in the company—is lovely, the pension fund should not be overprotected for the extent of 10 years.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the thoughts behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. However, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in that it is not clear how that would work, because this would then need to be a contingent payment or some kind of conditional payment which can be recouped, and that would impact creditors or debt holders of the company as well. Does the noble Lord feel that if, as a consequence of the surplus payment, members also got enhanced benefits, that would in some ways compensate for the future eventuality of what he is concerned about?
Finally, in the days before we had a Pension Protection Fund, I was very much in favour of increasing the status of the unsecured creditor position of a pension scheme. But in the current environment, where there is a Pension Protection Fund, and where the Bill will be improving the protections provided by it, it is much less important to increase the status on insolvency of the pension scheme itself than it would have been in past times. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that if there were to be any such provision, it should be a lot less than 10 years.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for tabling this amendment, which is clearly motivated by a desire to protect scheme members and guard against the risk that pension surpluses are extracted prematurely, only for employers to fail some years later. I suspect that there is broad sympathy with this objective across the Committee. However, I have a number of questions about how this proposal would operate in practice and whether it strikes the right balance between member protection, regulatory oversight and the wider framework of insolvency law. My noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have all raised points connected to this amendment. I hope I am not duplicating their questions, but I will ask mine.
First, can the noble Lord say more about how this amendment would interact with the existing hierarchy of creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986? As drafted, it appears to require pension schemes to be paid ahead of all other creditors, including secured creditors and those with statutory preferential status? Does the noble Lord envisage this as a complete reordering of creditor priorities in these cases? If so, what thought has he given to the potential consequences for lending decisions, access to capital or the cost of borrowing for employers that sponsor defined benefit schemes?
Secondly, I would be grateful for further clarity on the choice of a 10-year clawback period, which other noble Lords have raised. As has been said, 10 years is a very long time in corporate and economic terms, and insolvency occurring at that point may bear little or no causal connection to a surplus payment made many years earlier, perhaps in very different market conditions. What is the rationale for that specific timeframe, and how does the noble Lord respond to concerns that this could introduce long-tail uncertainty for employers and their directors when making decisions in good faith?
Thirdly, how does the amendment sit alongside the existing powers of the Pensions Regulator? At present, trustees must be satisfied that member benefits are secure before any surplus is paid, and the regulator already has moral hazard powers to intervene where it believes scheme funding or employer behaviour to be inappropriate. Does the noble Lord consider those tools insufficient and, if so, can he point to evidence of systemic failure that would justify addressing this issue through restructuring insolvency priorities rather than through pension regulations?
I am also interested in the practical operation of this provision. Proposed new subsection (2) would allow amendments to both the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002 to achieve the intended outcome. That is a very broad power, even acknowledging the use of the affirmative procedure. Has any thought been given to how this would operate in complex insolvencies; for example, where surplus has been paid to a parent company, where assets are held across a corporate group or where insolvency proceedings involve cross-border elements?
Finally, although I understand the protective instinct behind this amendment, I wonder whether there is a risk of unintended consequences. Might the creation of a potential super-priority for pension schemes discourage legitimate surplus extraction, even where schemes are demonstrably well funded, trustees are content and regulatory requirements have been met? If that were to occur, could it inadvertently weaken employer covenant strength over time rather than strengthen it?
None of these questions is intended to diminish the importance of member protection or suggest that concerns about surplus extraction are misplaced. Rather, they are offered in the spirit of probing whether this amendment is the most proportionate and effective way of addressing those concerns, or whether there may be alternative approaches, perhaps within the existing regulatory framework, that could achieve similar objectives with fewer systemic risks. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s response and the Minister’s comments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for introducing Amendment 45A. For clarity, I will speak to the amendment as if intended to address the power to pay surplus under Section 37, as Section 36B contains the modification power.
I fully recognise the concern that members’ benefits must remain protected when surplus is paid and that trustees take a long-term view of scheme funding and employer covenant. This is why there are strong safeguards, which I have described, as set out in Clause 10. Before the release of any surplus, trustees will need to make sure that the scheme is prudently funded and seek advice and sign-off from the scheme actuary, and other advisors, about the viability of any release and the impact that may have on the long-term health of the scheme.
While trustees perform an essential role in safeguarding members’ benefits, prioritising them above all other creditors in these circumstances risks distorting the already established insolvency regime. It creates uncertainty for businesses, ultimately harming the very members we all seek to protect.
On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is our concern that placing trustees ahead of other unsecured creditors could create significant uncertainty, increased borrowing costs and restricted access in future to finance, especially for smaller businesses. In the long term, this could potentially weaken employer support for pension schemes and threaten their sustainability, rather than strengthen it.
It is important to recognise that the current system already provides significant security for pension scheme members. Pension funds in UK occupational schemes are held in trust and are legally ring-fenced from the employer, so they cannot be accessed by creditors in an insolvency. The PPF exists precisely to offer a safety net to members who would otherwise risk losing their pensions when their employer fails.
Following the Chancellor’s announcement at the Budget, this Bill will also introduce annual increases on compensation payments from the PPF and FAS on pensions built up before 6 April 1997.
The insolvency regime is designed to operate alongside the compensation system. The structure of the pension protection levy already reflects the risk of employer failure and spreads that risk fairly across eligible schemes. The PPF assumes the creditor rights of the pension scheme trustees in the event of insolvency of the sponsoring employer and seeks to maximise recoveries from the insolvent employer’s estate.
Pension schemes, backed by a strengthened PPF, are already in a stronger position than many unsecured creditors. Giving trustees priority would leave small suppliers, contractors and even some employees with significantly reduced recoveries, despite having far fewer protections. We should not create a system where small businesses and individual workers bear disproportionate losses because a pension scheme deficit overrides all other obligations. There is also the risk of moral hazard, where trustees could be less prudent when deciding to release surplus, knowing that, under employer insolvency, they would have guaranteed priority above other priorities.
The amendment could affect the employer’s business plans as creditors may be less likely to lend money to the employer. Equally, banks may place conditions on borrowing to prevent surplus release if trustees were given priority. That dynamic could push companies towards insolvency earlier, not later, having a knock-on effect on members.
The only other thing I will add is that there are other tools open to trustees that are concerned about the strength of the employer covenant and the security of benefits. It is open to trustees during funding discussions or other negotiations to seek a fixed or floating charge over the employer’s assets, which would, in effect, elevate the scheme’s position in the insolvency priority order, providing additional protection should the employer become insolvent.
I want to be clear that trustees will have the final decision on whether to release the surplus. Before they can do so, the Bill stipulates statutory safeguards before a surplus can be released. I thank the noble Lord for his concern but for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords for their observations, comments, suggestions and many questions. I will briefly address some. Does this risk distorting insolvency law? It is already distorted. Pension scheme members are unsecured creditors. People who cannot hold a diversified portfolio lose their job, lose some of their pension rights and have no opportunity to rebuild their pension part. It is already distorted and already against them. I am trying to offer something right to, generally, the weakest of the creditors. Sure, banks that are secured creditors may get a little less if you pay pension scheme creditors first, but banks hold diversified portfolios. They are in a better position to manage the risks compared to employees. Creditors are less likely to lend money to companies.
Do we have any evidence to show that, if you change the order and empower some creditors, somebody takes secure charge number one, somebody takes number two and somebody takes number three—the whole hierarchy? That does not seem to persuade creditors to lend less just because there is a new hierarchy; it does not seem to support that. Changing it to five years is a possibility. A pension scheme creditor comes into existence as and when an employer goes into bankruptcy. Therefore, the pension scheme is basically a creditor.