Pension Schemes Bill

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform the House that Lords amendments 68 to 76, 78, 80, 84 and 86 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 2

Asset management

13:52

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, and Government motions to disagree.

Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.

[Torsten Bell]

Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.

This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.

A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.

First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.

Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.

Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.

Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a pensioner. The pensioners who come to me are a wee tad unsure about what is on offer for them. They are perhaps confused, because they get advice from people here to move in one direction, and then somebody else will give them advice to move in another direction. What can the Minister and the Government do to provide the correct support and advice to people who are hesitant or unsure about what to do with their pension pots at a time when it is really important? We have seen many scams, and we hear about much happening in relation to this issue. I want to ensure that pensioners in particular have the opportunity to get the advice that they need very much.

[Torsten Bell]

As always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working, it is important to keep the simple advice at the front of their mind that people should be saving towards their pension. In almost all circumstances, saving is the right thing to do, and we have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. We should ensure that that message is heard loud and clear, and I am sure that he makes that clear to his constituents.

On the harder question of how those approaching retirement decide to use their pot, it is often right to take advice, and obviously the Money and Pensions Service exists to provide that. Others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. The hon. Gentleman is right; we are leaving too much pressure on individuals to manage those decisions alone. That is why the default pensions parts of the Bill, which I think have cross-party support, are important in simplifying that journey for people. People can do what they want, but they will not end up with a bad outcome just because they are faced with a confusing situation in front of them. The onus will be on trustees and providers of pensions to navigate that for those individuals.

Let me come back to small pots. I will make one specific point, which was raised in the other place, regarding worries about those who are taking career breaks, particularly for maternity leave, and have a dormant pot for a period of time. I want to reassure the House that paid maternity leave obviously sees contributions into pension pots continue, rather than those pots becoming dormant, and there is the most important wider safeguard, which is the ability for anyone to opt out of their pot being consolidated. That safeguard covers exactly this kind of eventuality, even though it would be only a very small number of cases.

14:00

I now turn to the Bill’s reserve power on asset allocation, a power that has one purpose, which is to support better outcomes for savers, and one use case, which is to underpin the industry’s collective view that delivering those better outcomes for savers over time is supported by a more diverse asset allocation. [Interruption.] Let me spell this out a bit more, as I am being encouraged to do by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). There is strong evidence, not least internationally, that pension savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we currently see in the UK defined contribution market. That is why 17 of the UK’s largest providers designed and signed the Mansion House accord, committing to invest at least 10% of their default funds in private markets by 2030. Those schemes are not just talking; they are acting, building up the capacity to invest in a wider range of assets.

However, while the industry is making progress, it has also spelled out a well-recognised collective action problem: an industry dynamic that sees competitive pressure to win and retain employers driving a narrow focus on keeping headline costs as low as possible, not on what matters to employees—the net returns on their savings—which is what we all want schemes to focus on. This risks a pension provider that is building the diverse investment capability to deliver returns for savers being undercut by a competitor making a virtue of not doing so, even though it knows that that is not in the best interests of savers. The industry itself raises this issue; it is not an abstract risk, because it has already happened.

Under the previous Government, the Mansion House compact saw a narrower agreement on the importance of private markets signed. It was signed, but it was not delivered. Given that we all agree that it would have been good, why was it not delivered? The industry has now published its own progress update spelling out why. The single biggest barrier to delivering on its commitment was, in its words, that

“market dynamics continue to focus on minimising cost instead of maximising long-term value”,

and without intervention to shift that culture,

“‘too much focus on cost’ remains the key barrier.”

That is the collective action problem in a nutshell, and solving it—giving the industry certainty that it can do what is in savers’ interests, because the rest of the market will move too—is the only purpose of the reserve power. That is why we cannot support the Lords amendments that seek to remove it. To do so would be to let savers down, to ignore the strong consensus about what is in savers’ interests and to disregard the barriers that we all know are holding back delivery on that consensus—a view spelled out by the previous Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt).

I have been clear that that is the only reason the reserve power exists. To reinforce that point, our amendments in lieu today spell out that the power can be used only to support the industry’s view of what is in savers’ interests, as laid out in the Mansion House accord. The majority of savers’ contributions are held by schemes that have signed up to that accord.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Then why worry?

[Torsten Bell]

I have just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He is happy to carry on with the status quo; we are not.

We are going to set this out in two ways. First, we will specify on the face of the Bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% in the UK—exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral between asset classes, spelling out that a future Government who took a different view from this one could not use the power to direct investments into hand-picked asset classes.

The existing safeguards in the Bill also remain: the time limit, the reporting requirements, the affirmative procedure, and—most importantly—the savers’ interest test that allows pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where it is not in savers’ interests to do so.

[Jim Shannon]

I have just been sent a question from a person back home, which I will ask directly as it has been put to me. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s revised investment powers would never be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure and small business in favour of national priority projects? That is the question I have been asked, and I need to ask it of the Minister.

[Torsten Bell]

If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.

It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.

I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.

Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.

Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.

Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.

I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.

Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this all as being technicalities, but the fact is that the Government are coming after people’s hard-earned savings, and the public can see it. The Government think it is a pension pot they can mess with. We know that it is people’s own savings. The Government do not know best. [Interruption.] The Minister should not just listen to us; he should listen to the noble Lords in the other place.

The Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the other place. That is what happens when a Government put their fingers in their ears. This situation is entirely of the Pensions Minister’s own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here. Across this House, we want pensions policy to move forward. We have shared ambitions for our pension system, such as boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns, rather than minimising costs. We want greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots and a system that works better for people with terminal illness. Despite all the consensus, the Minister’s Bill is still far from the finish line.

Returning to Lords amendment 1, which the Government are seeking to eject from this Bill, relates to the mandation powers. I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement. On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there is widespread support for those objectives, but even the Minister should have realised that he could not get away with saying that the provision is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement when the mandation power in his Bill was so glaringly different. Back in December last year, I warned him that mandation would not wash, but he did not listen. That is why I have fought mandation every step of the way, along with the pension sector, my colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lords in the other place, who resoundingly rejected it.

The Minister is back here with his tail between his legs, and he has changed his tune from, “It’s all fine, nothing to see here”; he reluctantly tabled three amendments last week. I recognise the direction that the Government are trying to move in. They are reining in the power that they are taking, and trying to make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord. The fundamental problem remains unresolved, however, because at its core, the Bill still gives the Government the power to direct the investment of people’s pension savings, and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong.

14:15

Pensions belong to savers, not the state. Pension fund trustees are not there to fulfil manifesto commitments or chase political pet projects. They are the custodians of people’s life savings. The Bill gives the Government the power to force people’s pension savings to be invested in so-called qualifying assets, irrespective of the judgment of pension fund trustees, irrespective of what that could mean for returns and therefore retirement incomes, and irrespective of whether it is in the interests of savers.

The Minister may now point to limiting figures—10% in qualifying assets and 5% in the UK—and present that as progress from the previously unlimited, undefined power. It is true that this is a little less bad, but let me be clear: if this is wrong in principle, it does not become right in small doses. There is a further problem. Even on its own terms, the drafting of the amendment may well not do what the Government intend. The amendment refers to assets held in default funds of the scheme as a whole. This may sound technical, but it matters. The Mansion House accord applies only to main default funds; the amendment’s wording goes further. The 10% requirement could apply to a much broader pool of assets, expanding the policy well beyond what the Minister says he intends.

What do we have? A policy that is wrong in principle, unclear in practice and broader than the voluntary agreement it claims to reflect. That goes to the heart of the problem. The Government are trying to turn a voluntary agreement into something it was never meant to be, and the differences between this Bill and the voluntary accord are not minor, but fundamental. The Mansion House accord applied only to its signatories, but this mandation would apply across all default auto-enrolment funds. The accord was a two-way agreement, with commitments from the sector matched by commitments from the Government, but mandation applies regardless of whether the Government deliver on their side of the bargain.

Most fundamentally, the accord was voluntary. Mandation is not; it will be the law. A voluntary agreement ceases to be voluntary the moment it is backed by even the threat of compulsion. The industry supported a voluntary accord. It has not supported mandation. The industry wants more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers—as do we, and so, the Government say, do they—but by forcing pension funds to do this, rather than fixing the underlying problems with UK investability, the Government risk lowering returns for savers and therefore their future incomes. Once the Government have the power of mandation to force investment in the UK, does anyone think they will still be motivated to make the UK a better place to invest in and do business in? Let us just watch as they look for extra taxes that they can slap on businesses or extra red tape that they can tie them up in.

The Minister has told the House that he has no intention of using mandation, and that it is merely a backstop and a reserve, but the Government briefing accompanying their amendments tells a different story. It says what will happen not “if”, but “when” the Government use the mandation power. I urge him to look at the wording. That is not the language of a Government who intend to leave a power sitting quietly, unused, on the statute book. In fact, once this power over pensions rests in the hands of Ministers, it will not sit idle. At every Budget under this Labour Government, as growth flounders, unemployment rises and public finances deteriorate, watch the Chancellor reach for the mandation lever. The Rubicon will have been crossed.

To be clear, if Labour succeeds in forcing this measure through, we will repeal mandation when the Conservatives are back in government, because your pension belongs to you, not the Chancellor.

Lords amendment 26 deals with the scale requirement. It makes a simple point: size can bring benefits, but smaller well-run schemes should not be forced to merge if they are delivering for members. What matters to savers is performance, not sheer size, which is why the exemptions proposed in the amendment matter. The amendment recognises that good governance, competition and innovation should not be squeezed out by a blunt rule.

Lords amendment 77 calls for a review of the cost and sustainability of public sector pension schemes. This is not about criticising public servants or taking away pensions that have already been earned, but we should be honest about how those pensions are financed. Unlike most private sector pension schemes, public sector defined benefit pensions are largely paid from current taxation, not from investment funds built up over time. As the public sector workforce grows and people live longer, the cost of those commitments will inevitably rise, but the true scale of the liabilities is not always clearly visible in our public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates the long-term liability at about £1.4 trillion. There is a strong case for a serious and transparent review that examines long-term sustainability and also considers fairness between generations, because the commitments made today will ultimately fall on future taxpayers.

The Government were defeated so many times in the House of Lords, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will not test your patience by setting out the arguments on every single one of the amendments, but I urge the Government to heed the points already made and introduce the concessions that would improve the Bill—and when it comes to the deeply flawed mandation plan, let us tell the public the truth. Socialists always run out of other people’s money. First they came for your earnings; then they came for your savings; and now they have come for your pension. The principle at stake here is simple: your pension belongs to you, not the Government. It is not a piggy-bank for Ministers to raid when they run out of money. Conservatives see the world differently. Your pension is your hard-earned and hard-saved money for your retirement. We want higher returns for pension savings—we want more investment in the UK—but the way to ensure that happens is not to force the hand of pension funds, but to make the UK a great place in which to invest, back businesses and grow the economy.

I say again to the Minister, “Listen to the industry, listen to the other place, and listen to us.” There is a strong consensus behind much of the Bill. There is much to like in it, and there is still time to fix it.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I must say that I am slightly surprised by the shadow Minister’s speech. I understand that Pensions UK agrees with the asset allocation, and has welcomed the change that has been announced, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House accord. The accusations about the Government stealing pensioners’ money are just scaremongering. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene to point out how ludicrous that is, I am happy to give way to him. This is dangerous scaremongering, and given that the last Government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I hope that, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend will make clear where the UK stands on pension providers’ investments in UK assets. It seems that we are quite low in the rankings. Like Canada and Norway, I believe, we are in the 5% range, whereas Sweden and Switzerland are investing 10% in their countries’ investable assets. At the high end, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan are investing 20% or more. [Interruption.] I think it is my turn to speak. Perhaps we should reflect on how we are disadvantaged by that. I will support the Government today, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can clarify those points.

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I want to briefly mention pre-1997 indexation. I know that it is not covered by the amendments that have been selected today, but it was debated in the other place. I know that he has already done a huge amount on providing indexation, but members of the financial assistance scheme are a very elderly group; they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that were introduced, and there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it is difficult, given the appalling financial circumstances that this Government inherited and the difficulties that we face internationally, but I hope that when opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend will do the right thing by those FAS members.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

For many people, a pension is their second largest investment, after their home, but we must bear in mind that many others can only dream of having a private pension, as they face the challenges of the cost of living crisis. We Liberal Democrats want to make sure that pensions work effectively for those who invest in them, and there is much to be welcomed in the Bill.

I want to share a personal reflection with the House. My father, who was a lorry driver, feared poverty in his pensionable age, and saved massively because he had seen that poverty with his own father, but sadly he was perhaps not as financially literate as some other people. He kept his savings in shares; then the stock market crashed in 2008, and his savings for his pension were virtually wiped out. With today’s greater safeguards, that might not have happened; there might not have been the mis-selling that he felt had taken place, or the poor advice that he received from advisers. In that regard, the Bill takes significant steps in the right direction.

We Liberal Democrats, however, want to see our economy working well, and that means a lack of state interference, in the form of direction of investment. It is right that the state should encourage investors, suggest where they should go, and have appropriate schemes to guide them, but the idea of direction is anathema to us. We have repeatedly seen what is almost a nervous twitch, whether through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 or the introduction of facial ID on our streets, as the Government give more and more powers to Ministers, and that disturbs us. We Liberal Democrats plan to vote against the Government amendments relating to Lords amendments 1 and 15 and specifically to mandation, because mandation is the dead hand of Government on growth, particularly when it comes to people’s pensions, and it goes against our free-economy approach.

The Minister may be a reasonable individual—who knows?—but we have spent many hours on this, and the clock is ticking for the Government. In two or three years’ time, we may have a new Government, and we need only look at the other side of the Atlantic to see what democracy can throw up. We could be giving a future Government whose colour we do not know a challenging approach to mandation. Any reassurances that the Minister gives would not be worth the candle then. We fear that going ahead with mandation would be feckless, and dangerous for our pensioners.

Another area, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) will touch on later, is pension scandals. The Government missed an opportunity to address pension scandals as part of this behemoth of a Bill, but Lords amendment 78, which they are sadly opposing, applies to the AEA Technology pensioners. That is a small step in the right direction to address the injustice that these pensioners have suffered. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee drew on a report by the National Audit Office that highlighted that civil servants were poorly advised by the Government on transferring the scheme to the private sector. Many of the AEAT pensioners have significantly lost out financially. I call on the Government to reflect on that and to take a small step in the right direction. We will vote against the Government motion to disagree to Lords amendment 78.

14:29

Colleagues have alluded to the size and scale of these pensions. That is mostly to be welcomed, but it should not stifle innovation and opportunities for people to invest in new projects and disruptors that could lead to positive change. There are three Government motions that we will vote against later, to make sure that there is an opportunity for those disruptors to come forward in a positive way and drive new ways of investing for our pensioners up and down the United Kingdom.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I would like to focus my remarks on Lords amendments 1 and 27, which I believe limit the Government’s ability to direct pension schemes away from what I regard as high-risk assets with an uncertain future. Ministers will recall that I put forward a series of proposals as the Bill passed through this House, including on divestment from fossil fuels, which is what I will focus on this afternoon.

The local government pension scheme currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, so we can see quite clearly that the voluntary approach to divestment has failed. Even now, ordinary working people’s wages—their hard-earned savings—are being channelled into accelerating a climate crisis that hits the global working class the hardest. Lords amendments 1 and 27 prevent the Government from setting down binding targets on certain investments, which makes it politically harder to bring down investments in fossil fuels. We know there is no retirement for any of us without a liveable environment. It sounds obvious, but that reality is not reflected in how pensions are currently managed, and the Government know this. Ministers in the other place acknowledge that investments in thermal coal—one of the most harmful fossil fuels—are high risk from both a climate and financial viewpoint. They are bad for the planet and bad for pension holders, who need stable, long-term investments.

This country removed thermal coal from the grid in 2024, because it has no future. Alarmingly, however, we know from written questions that neither the Government nor the Pensions Regulator have a clear picture of how much is still invested in this soon-to-be stranded asset. Even funds that are held up as leaders on climate, such as Border to Coast and the universities superannuation scheme, have hundreds of millions of pounds invested in thermal coal. That is why we need to get a grip on this issue. There are no existing requirements on schemes to report on any fossil fuel investment, and hardly any do so voluntarily. The first step is to provide full transparency on such investments, followed by decisive action to phase them out. Will the Minister commit to writing to the biggest 50 pension schemes to get more detail on their level of thermal coal exposure, and will he follow it up by setting a time-bound expectation for schemes to exit such assets, starting with thermal coal? That may seem like a distant issue, but if workers are left exposed to stranded assets in their pensions, they will not forget the politicians who chose to look the other way.

This Bill was a major opportunity to redirect billions of pounds in workers’ pensions away from arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants, and into investments that benefit the very people who are paying in. That means green energy.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent and serious speech. Does he agree that, in addition to fossil fuels, local government pension schemes are exposed to industries and assets that our constituents rightly consider deeply unethical? They include tobacco companies, arms producers that are complicit in genocide, and other companies that are exploiting nature or our constituents for profit. Does he agree that there should be an ethical investment policy that covers all unethical investments?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

In fact, I raised something very similar when the Bill passed through this House.

The investments that we could make through our pension funds could go into green energy, which is the growth engine of the future, as well as into affordable and social housing, which is so needed in this country. That should be underpinned by greater democracy in our pension funds, so that workers have a say in where their money is invested. I believe that if that was the case, they would certainly choose to put it not into arms manufacturers or fossil fuels, but into decent homes for them and their communities.

The crisis in the middle east has exposed the fragility of our dependence on fossil fuels. A break in the supply chain thousands of miles away has a catastrophic cascading effect here, driving up costs and deepening the cost of living for our constituents.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

What about Rosebank and Jackdaw?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Would the hon. Gentleman like to make an intervention?

[Mark Garnier]

indicated dissent.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Okay.

We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, even though some Members on the other side of the House seem to disagree with that. We must deliver long-term energy security and bring down bills through domestic green energy, but not only that. In this moment of deep crisis, the Government must pull every lever they can to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, and that must include gearing our pension funds towards a fairer, more prosperous future.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today.

The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle. When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients.

If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here.

The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims.

I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for opening this debate. I was not expecting it to be quite so lively, so I will try to add a bit of animation to what was initially going to be quite a dry speech from me. [Interruption.] That is hard to believe, I know, but I promise that I will mention pensioners in Harlow at least half a dozen times to make up for it.

I rise to speak in opposition to Lords amendments 6 and 77, but before I do so, I would like to say that I welcome this Bill, which will boost the income of pensioners receiving minimum pensions through a workplace scheme by the largest possible amount. It is one of the many things this Labour Government are doing to support pensioners in my constituency of Harlow—that is one mention—with rising living costs. That can be coupled with fixing our NHS after years of austerity, protecting the triple lock pension—that means the new state pension is increasing by £575 this year and the basic state pension by about £440—and launching the largest pension credit drive in history, which I think we will all agree is hugely important.

Lords amendment 6, which I am sure is well-intentioned, would require the Government to carry out an interim review of employer contribution rates and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance. However, as the Minister said in his opening speech, this Lords amendment is redundant, because the Government have already committed to that and will do so later in the year.

I am going to make the next bit, about Lords amendment 77, a little more racy just to entertain Members. Let me take them back, if I may, to the summer of 2010, when I was in a pub with a friend of mine—I will not mention his name—who turned around and said to me, “You’ve got gold-plated pensions, you teachers.” I am not saying this is necessarily the intention of the amendment, but it is something it could do, and it always frustrates me when we create a divide between people receiving public sector pensions and people receiving private sector pensions. I would say that public sector workers, including teachers, and I used to be a teacher—the Chris Vince bingo card is going well today—work incredibly hard and contribute a huge amount to their pensions.

This does not mean that it is not right to review public sector pensions—we have to do that as a Government, as the right and proper thing to do—but it is worth bearing in mind, going back to what I said about Lords amendment 6, that we are already doing so. I am sure Lords amendment 77 is well-intentioned, but again it is redundant. In general, I say to people tempted to criticise those receiving public sector pensions that the duty of a Government should not be to make public sector pensions worse, but to make private pensions better, so that everybody has the opportunity to save and be successful in their retirement.

I want to make a few cheeky requests of the Minister while he is in his place. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), is chuntering, but I am going to be nice to him because he has fantastic hair. The last time I spoke in this place, he kindly said that I had made a really good point, which was incredibly kind of him. It must have been by mistake, but who knows?

I have two requests for the Minister. The first is that he will continue to work with the Secretary of State for Health. The No. 1 thing pensioners in my constituency of Harlow talk to me about—I think I have mentioned them only twice in this speech—is the importance of our NHS. Given the wait times that pensioners have had to face at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, I am delighted that we are seeing those wait times coming down, because we want our pensioners not only to have saved and be financially stable in their retirement, but to be healthy.

14:39

Finally, I quite often mention final salary pensions when we have such debates in this House, and I apparently made a really good point about them last time. This point was also made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), but so many people in Harlow are unable to save for pensions. We all know about the cost of living crisis, and I am not going to get into a blame game, but we recognise the huge cost of living challenges for constituents in Harlow. They are actually living from day to day, and they cannot even begin to think about saving for a pension. So my big request to the Government is to consider how we can ensure that people who cannot save for a pension are able to do so, because we do not want, as I saw myself when I worked for a homelessness charity in Harlow, people who did not save for their pension having real challenges in later life.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this debate. Sadly, it reflects the interests of Members that so few of us are here for a debate about one of the most important elements affecting the future of our constituents, friends, neighbours and, in fact, ourselves. Pensions are rather more than just a savings scheme; they are the thread that binds generations. They are the remarkable invention of our ancestors, who found a way to make sure that the energy, innovation and force of the young could be tied to the assets, education and experience of the old. It is that bond between generations that makes pension saving so special.

While I welcome much of what this Bill does, I fully align myself with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) about mandation. In that one small area, this Bill repeats an error that was made nearly 30 years ago when the Government, for very understandable reasons—it was a very tense moment in pension savings, just after the Mirror Group Newspapers scandal and the Equitable Life scandal—took upon themselves powers, which were entirely reasonable at the time, to de-risk some of the private pension market. That de-risking was about moving savings, very gently at the beginning, from equities into bonds.

In the early days, that did not make much of a difference. It took the percentage of bonds in investment portfolios from 19.1% to 19.3%, and so on. However, although the intention was to de-risk very slightly, the accumulation of time means that the bond element of pensions has grown, so that in the UK the figure is now roughly 60%, whereas in Australia or Canada, which are similar economies, it is roughly 20%. That is a real problem not just because it means pensioners are getting a lower return—they are getting a return based on the debt of the country, not on the energy of young people—but because young people are not getting the energy or the lifeblood they so vitally need when they are starting their lives.

Let us look at the difference between equities and bonds. The truth is that bonds are fundamentally dead money: they are money taken or held by the state in ways that pay back over five, 10, 15, 20 or more years—in fact, a couple of times, over 100 years. Equities are fundamentally different. It is true that they are not predictable and it is also true that they do have risk, but they are a bet on the energy of the young people in our community. They are that bond or ligature between generations that fundamentally makes a community strong, rather than tearing it apart.

Over the past 20 to 30 years, we have seen those bonds erode. What is the result? A slower growing economy. Why? Because there are no assets to invest. There is no water for the crops, if you like; there is no fertiliser for the soil. What else have we seen? Young people have been moving away because they do not have the opportunity to start their business, or when they do start their business, they do not then have the opportunity to go to the next stage. We see an amazing start-up culture here in the UK, but immediately they hit series A and B, people go to America—they go to California or to a Delaware corp and get foreign money. Again and again, that is happening because the state, for very understandable and entirely principled reasons, made a decision to take authority off savers in order to protect them, and I am afraid that that is what the Minister is doing again today.

I understand the Minister’s point. I understand why he feels he needs to take that power. He feels that the Government have a role in ensuring that pensioners get a better deal. I get that. He also feels that the best way to do that is for the state to exercise its authority over a market system. Again, I understand that. But the problem he has is a fundamental one: the only way we achieve the connection between generations and communities, and the only way we get that life flow of the living blood of an economy— the equities market—rather than the dead hand of the state through the bonds, is in a free market. By putting his hand on the tiller and his finger on the scales, he is changing that, and that incremental change over time will do much greater damage than he fully appreciates today, despite his best intentions and despite the intentions of the Bill. That is why I will not be supporting the Government today.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

First, may I express my support for the words of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) with regard to pre-1997 pensions and that long-standing scandal? It is a great injustice and it feels like successive Governments—including this one, sadly—are just waiting for the problem to literally die away.

I would like to speak to Lords amendment 79, which aims to ensure that pension schemes can offer robust guidance without falling foul of the new regulatory landscape the Bill creates. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to ensuring that the Bill works for individual savers. Of course, it must work for our economy and for industry, but it must, first and foremost, help the “little and less” saver. That requires ensuring that savers have access to decent relevant guidance on their pensions, because without guidance choice does not translate into good outcomes.

The reality is that engagement with pension guidance for the average person is, to put it simply, woeful and worsening. Around 90% of defined-contribution pots are accessed without any engagement with Pension Wise. Uptake of the service has fallen by about 4% since 2018, despite the fact that Pension Wise is demonstrably successful—nine out of 10 users say that they would recommend it to others. That context matters, because in 2015 the introduction of pension freedoms represented a significant opportunity to ensure that guidance could be offered to far more people. Individuals were given the responsibility for spending their pension savings, but that was often without a clear understanding of the tax implications or the consequences for later life. Since then, from 2015 to 2025, many, including the Work and Pensions Committee, have argued that this was precisely the period when an auto-enrolment-style trial for guidance should also have taken place.

The Government recognised the scale of the problem in 2022, when they introduced a stronger nudge towards Pension Wise. That followed a Department for Work and Pensions report that showed a marked increase, rising from 5% to 30%, in drawdown products being accessed without guidance. Over half of transfers were out of pension products, often driven by mistrust, and lower income savers were disproportionately negatively affected by drawdown use compared with higher earners. Yet even then, the opportunity to trial the automatic booking of guidance appointments, which was backed by the Work and Pensions Committee and Age UK, was not taken.

Now, the landscape has changed again. The Bill reshapes the regulatory framework in a significant way, including through the introduction of defaults for pot holders. That makes this moment another opportunity to ensure that as many savers as possible receive good quality guidance, but that chance will be missed if guidance is not properly embedded alongside these reforms. Defaults will fundamentally affect how savers interact with their pensions. That means the Government must provide urgent clarity not just for savers, but for schemes and trustees. Schemes need clear and concise guidance on how defaults operate, and on what advice and guidance they can lawfully provide so that they are protected from future legal challenge, ambulance chasing or scandal.

Equally, savers themselves will need support to navigate what is often a collection of multiple pots with multiple defaults and varying outcomes. What should not happen is for a default system to be put in place without updated and clearly defined guidance alongside it. That would risk encouraging passive defaulting while alternatives are not properly explained or understood, which might act to supercharge the existing problem of disengagement rather than solve it. At the very least, we must ensure that people are given the opportunity to engage. The dashboard’s imminent introduction might address some of these problems, but it is not a silver bullet.

The Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister have set out a road map for reform, but the big glaring hole in that road map is access to guidance. I ask the Government to ensure that guidance is explicitly part of the plan, to set out clearly what role the Money and Pensions Service and free and impartial guidance will play for savers who want it, and to consider whether, alongside the necessary secondary legislation, the Department could publish a clear statement on the role of guidance in both the default and savings journey of pension savers.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I wish to speak to Lords amendment 15 and, ultimately, what it still fails to address: the long-standing injustice faced by almost 1 million pensioners.

The Chancellor’s decision last year diverted attention, with her announcement of the restoration of indexation to a quarter of a million pensioners in some of the schemes in the PPF. While 250,000 now have their indexation back, 90,000 in the PPF do not. In addition to the 90,000 who have lost out, there are 139,000 in the financial assistance scheme. Some of those pensioners were once part of the civil service where functions were privatised. I specifically refer to members of the AEA Technology and Carillion public sector pension schemes, who were promised that their civil service pensions would be honoured after privatisation. Imagine being legally cheated out of your pension by your country’s Government and then ignored when you plead your case. Finally, 750,000 people in private defined-benefit schemes, the pre-1997 pensioners, have also lost out. We are talking about 979,000 people—almost 1 million pensioners—who have lost out on the regular increase for part, or for the whole part, of their pension.

The Bill is trying to paper over an enormous crack in our national pension framework. Ministers themselves have acknowledged the problem for pre-1997 pensioners. Most recently, the Minister confirmed that around 17% of defined-benefit pensioners have not received discretionary increases—in some cases, for nearly 30 years. It is not a minor anomaly. Many have lost more than half the real value of the pensions they have earned. Many will not live long enough to see any redress, but their survivors will receive a fraction of the pension at a time when food costs are projected to go up by 9% this year alone, and who knows what will happen with energy costs.

What is particularly difficult to justify is the piecemeal nature and inconsistency of the Government’s approach. They have been entirely willing to mandate how defined-contribution schemes invest, yet they remain unwilling to mandate even basic fairness for the 17% of defined-benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following a law and avoiding doing the right thing. The Lords amendment would return us to a Bill that would make it easier to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. The Minister tells us that the trustees will be in the driving seat, but for the pre-1997 pensioners, trustees have never been in the driving seat. In most cases, trustees cannot compel discretionary increases. They cannot even advocate effectively for those who have already lost out, and they cannot override employers’ decisions. The imbalance is clear: employers decide, trustees administer. Trustees are told that it is not their role to seek to change benefits for pre-1997 pensioners. What is the value of a trustee? Surely it is not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based inthe USA.

15:00

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I appreciate that the hon. Member is very learned on this subject, as are many Members on both sides of the House. Is he saying that the Bill does not give sufficient protection for pensioners in terms of governance of trustees and equitable distribution of any surplus from defined benefit schemes?

[Clive Jones]

For the pre-1997 pensioners in companies such as Hewlett Packard and many others, the trustees are not able to act on behalf of the pensioners because a board, usually in the USA, says, “No, we are not going to give you a pension increase, even though the trustees say you should have it.”

To ease surplus extraction without first addressing that injustice risks locking it in permanently. It is the wrong thing to do. Once surplus is removed, there may be no realistic prospect of restoring the value lost by pre-1997 pensioners. There will not be any spare cash available to restore their pensions. The spare cash will have gone to the company with the Minister’s blessing. The Minister said, during the Adjournment debate on 19 March, that there was a need to build the evidence base, but decades have already passed. Why has that not been done before? Pensioners are dying at a rate of 15 a week. Delay at this point is not neutral: it is a choice to delay, deny and wait until they die.

Those pensioners have families. What message does the pension failure send to young people about the security of pensions? If the House can legislate in detail on how pensions are invested, it can legislate to ensure that surplus extraction does not come at the expense of those who have already borne nearly 30 years of erosion.

I end with a direct question for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring that secondary legislation requires that each scheme seeking surplus extraction must have an independent professional examination of the effect of pre-1997 pension erosion, and that funds will be withheld to ensure restoration of full pension value for pre-1997 pensioners?

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

There is a simple question running through what we are debating today: who is ultimately in control of people’s pension savings? When I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume that the answer is straightforward. They assume that their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim and not to be steered from the centre. That is why Lords amendment 1 matters. It would do something very simple. It would remove the ability for Ministers, through regulations, to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors, or in particular places. It would set a clear boundary. It would say that those decisions sit with trustees, acting in the best interests of savers. If the Government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should make the case for it. They should create the conditions for investment, and they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds if that case does not land.

The same concern sits at the heart of the Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments would strip out what is known as the “asset allocation requirement”. In plain terms, they would remove the mechanism in the Bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension schemes invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told those are only backstop powers that may never be used, but if that is true, why fight so hard to keep them? Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the table?

The Government have, in effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu—caps on how far they might go—but that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it. Because this is not about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. There is a broader point here: bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down and not if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.

Lords amendment 77 would require the Government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months, and not just their cost, but their long-term affordability, their sustainability, and whether they are fair across generations—a point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). That is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save and about the pressures on public finances. They expect us to do the same at national level.

Taken together, the Lords amendments would do something quite straightforward.

They would protect savers from unnecessary interference, they would keep decision making where it belongs, and they would ask the Government to be transparent about the long-term picture. I do not think those are unreasonable tests, and the Government are wrong to strip them out.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister, if he is ready.

[Torsten Bell]

I am always ready to engage in exciting debates about pensions. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is right to say that far more Members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about pensions. I hope not to speak for two hours, but somewhere close to that, and I thank Members on both sides of the House and from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I will avoid trying the House’s patience by reiterating the reasons why the Government do not think it right to accept amendments that are unnecessary or that undermine policy intent, but I will respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked specifically about what the international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has an unusually low allocation to private assets, for example compared with similar schemes in Australia. The second is the point she raised that they have lower home bias—a point also partially raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. We tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than investments in public assets, for all the obvious reasons to do with the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about the home market.

I recognise the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made about the PPF and the FAS. Her powerful campaigning on this issue, including raising it through the Work and Pensions Committee, is one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous Governments and Pensions Ministers have not.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Going back to the asset aspect of the debate, I came across some new analysis from the New Financial that shows that over the last 10 years UK equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%. It argues that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance. It argues that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with or better than the performance that most pension providers managed to deliver. That makes the Minister’s argument for him, but I wonder if he wants to comment on it?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for her intervention. The organisation she mentions has been consistently making these cases. In fact, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench about the work of that organisation in these debates, including in a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. It is an important thing to think about. Some of it reflects increasing international cross-border investments, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that we see a lower level of home bias among the UK’s defined contribution schemes.

[Tom Tugendhat]

One of the challenges with defined contribution schemes is that so many of them are parcelled out in much smaller volumes than one would like, and when one compares them with, for example, Canada or Australia, we see superfunds in certain countries and not in the UK. While the Minister is correct that this means slightly lower bias, it also means significantly less growth in the UK market, because there is less capital flowing. This is an argument for both young and old people. I know that the Minister understand this, but it is worth making that link. Pensions are just as much about funding youth as sustaining age.

[Torsten Bell]

I absolutely agree with the last point that the right hon. Member made. I am planning an extensive discursion on his wider point about investment in equities versus gilts shortly, so I ask him to bear with me, but it is an important point to raise. We may not agree on it, but it is important to make sure that we have aired it properly.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) started his speech with a powerful story about his father, which I am sure will have resonated with many hon. Members. The point he made actually makes the case for the diversification that the Mansion House Accord itself aims to drive. That may not have been the intention of the hon. Member’s argument, but that is the point it makes. It also reinforces the importance of default pensions as a way to make sure that we support everybody. We should allow people to make their own choices while ensuring that there is a good option for everybody as they approach retirement.

The hon. Member for Torbay also talked about mandation. I am not going to lie; his words were a combination of disappointing and a bit confusing. He said that what is being proposed in the Bill is anathema to him. In that case, he is will be absolutely horrified to read the Lib Dem manifesto from the last election, which required investment managers to direct investments into particular assets. I leave him and his conscience to wrestle with that tension. The rest of us are not surprised by the Lib Dems’ attempt to sit on a fence, and then fall off it.

More importantly, and usefully, the hon. Member for Torbay raised the case of AEAT pensioners. I absolutely recognise the argument that he made. That particular case and the more broad set of cases of schemes that have entered insolvency and the PPF are exactly why this Government have acted in a way that previous Governments, including the coalition Government, chose not to act.

That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who also touched on surplus extraction and the question of its interaction with pre-1997 indexation insolvent schemes that are currently not choosing to pay indexation. I absolutely agree with his problem diagnosis. I have met many of the pensioners who have been affected; I have gone out of my way to meet them locally and nationally, along with many other MPs. All of us would feel the same in their situation.

I am less pessimistic than the hon. Member and, specifically, I think that he underestimates the role of trustees. He is right to say that there is nothing in the Bill that gives trustees the power to override employers—that is true. What is does do is give trustees a veto over any release of surplus. Trustees who want to put at the top of their priorities progress on discretionary pre-1997 indexation in those schemes but who have not done so will now have the potential to do so under this Bill. I recognise the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I think he underestimates the change that the Bill can bring to some schemes. It is important to remember that there are some schemes that are not paying pre-1997 indexation that are not in surplus, but I absolutely recognise that those are different situations.

15:20

The hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) has been an active participant in our debates on the Bill at all stages, and he appears not to have been horrified by that fact, for which I think he deserves credit. He has consistently raised the issues of engagement and guidance. I am glad to hear him welcome the default pensions progress on that basis. He is right to raise the importance of getting that right; it is exactly why we will be consulting on the regulations, and I would be happy to hear from him when we come to that over the course of this year.

We will also be updating the pensions work programme to set out the timeline for all the regulations to come through and the consultations on them in the near future, including this important one. As I say, he has repeatedly come back to the important issue of guidance, and I look forward to our meeting with him next week on exactly that topic. It is important that we get that right in the months and years ahead.

My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) spoke about the challenges faced by all investors, not just pension schemes, in investing in a world where climate change is a reality. I agree that does pose challenges, although in some ways I am less pessimistic than him. First, we have already come a long way, as one can see if one talks to any pension scheme investment managers. They do take very seriously the question about stranded assets and the rest that come from the points that he has raised.

Secondly, I am also more optimistic because we see significant disclosures now being made by pension schemes—partly because of Government regulation, but also because they are choosing to do so on their own behalf. I would say that the ability to invest in a wider range of private assets that will come with bigger pension schemes of the kind that the right hon. Member for Tonbridge has just mentioned, and which are important, will aid the investment in the kind of infrastructure that my hon. Friend the Member for Poole is talking about. I should spell out for transparency that the reserved power does not allow the focus on specific projects or sectors that he is encouraging. I know that he is aware of that, and I can feel his disappointment raining down on me, but that is the position of the Front Bench.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

In my speech I asked the Minister a very specific question: whether or not he would write to the top 50 pension schemes to ask them about the scale of their investment in thermal coal. I wonder if he might consider that.

[Torsten Bell]

I am not going to commit from the Dispatch Box to writing 50 letters, but I will happily have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it, as I always do.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I was going to welcome his speech, but unfortunately he spent most of his remarks praising the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, showing both questionable judgment and—[Laughter.] Obviously I am joking; it is some of the finest hair in Parliament, as we all appreciate. When he got passed praising the hon. Member’s hair, he turned to the division between public and private sector pensions. It is an important one to dwell on. There have been big changes in public sector pensions under both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. He rightly made the case that the priority should be making private pensions better. That is what we should be focused on, and that is what we need to see.

That is what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) did not quite touch on. She was focusing on levelling down pensions, whereas we want to be able to level up and make sure that the younger generations, who are the ones who are invested in our defined-contribution system, can be confident that it is delivering a comfortable retirement. I think we all agree on that.

That is why the Bill is increasing the returns that are available within the defined-contribution system. It is also why we have the Pensions Commission, which I think is part of the cross-party consensus that we should look at the adequacy that that leaves us with into the middle of this century and return to the question of how we secure that adequacy, particularly for low and middle earners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly mentioned the relevance to pensioners of the NHS, even if that is not of huge relevance to this Bill. If we are honest, the biggest betrayal of today’s pensioners, not tomorrow’s pensioners, is the state of our NHS, and that is what the Government are in the business of turning around. We debate in this House the tax rises that the Conservatives would not like to see, but it is those tax rises and the reforms that the Secretary of State is putting in place that are seeing waiting lists now consistently falling across the country.

I promised a discursion on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I particularly liked his opening point that all MPs should care about pensions, not least because I think we all plan to draw our pensions—if we are not already doing so—for as long as we possibly can.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Not yet.

[Torsten Bell]

There are Members of this House who are drawing several pensions, and they are to be encouraged to do so, working past the state pension age and contributing with their valuable expertise.

The right hon. Member then focused on how regulatory changes, partly in the 1990s, have driven changes in investment behaviours. We have discussed that on a number of occasions, and it is important to distinguish between a number of points. The regulatory changes in the 1990s by the then Conservative Government, which, as he said, were motivated by good worries about people trying to rip off their scheme members, introduced more of a safety bias into the investment strategies of those schemes at that point—that will have had an effect over time. When we look at the defined-benefit market—the biggest by asset values at the moment—it is important to recognise that that is not what is driving it today. What is driving it is the maturity of defined-benefit schemes and the fact that the vast majority of them are closed, so they are investing in a different way, and they would not want to be as exposed to equities as I am sure he is.

The question is therefore about the defined-contribution market, which is the future of not the entirety of our pension system but the majority of it. There the story is not the same: none of the regulations that flow from the 1990s Acts relate to the defined-contribution system today. That is why it is important to have had the debates we were able to have—until we heard recently some of the slightly over-the-top views of Conservative Front-Bench Members—about what would be the right thing in savers’ interests. The right hon. Member is absolutely right that this debate is about what is the right investment strategy for savers’ interests for the longer term. I therefore completely endorse what he said on that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the Minister for his words; it seems that we rather agree. I agree with him that the problem with the defined-benefits system is that it is addressing—let us be frank—an ageing demographic. There is, however, a challenge: because of those changes and the influence that has had on defined benefits, there has also been some influence—I would not overstate it—in the culture that has affected defined contributions, which are therefore overly bond asset-heavy, if you see what I mean, in comparison to Australian and Canadian markets. That is not to the degree that I was talking about earlier of 60%—clearly, that is different—but it does mean that we have got a pensions economy more geared to an ageing demographic and then over-geared in other areas to follow the lead of the defined benefits. That means we see that that removing or strangling, if you like, of live money—turning live money into dead money—which is a net burden on the whole economy. I appreciate that it is not quite as black-and-white as I have painted it, but it is a challenge that is affecting the entire economy.

[Torsten Bell]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s focus on the generational challenges, but I have a slightly different view on what the biggest challenge is. The biggest issue for younger generations is if they do not have faith in a pensions system because they do not believe it will deliver adequate retirement incomes. That is the most important thing. That is why this Bill will aid the higher returns on those savings through a whole range of measures, and it is also why the Pensions Commission is so important to show those younger generations that we are looking ahead to their futures. I think that will help with some of the issues he raised.

I agree a bit less with the right hon. Member on the defined-contribution side. What stands out in the defined-contribution market is less the difference between bonds and equities—we see a much larger share of asset allocation to equities in defined-contribution systems—and more the exposure to private assets versus public assets. But there is a question about whether, if we do not have what we are trying to put in place with default pensions, we see some people in defined-contribution pensions lifestyling down, which means moving cash from equities into bonds.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the Minister, because this is actually becoming a debate in the Chamber, which is so rare. The Minister is absolutely right, but the reason why I link the two is that the nature of defined-benefit removing assets from UK equity markets has led to much slower growth in the UK stock exchange. That means that the levels of return for UK equities are lower, so defined-contribution trustees do not invest so heavily in shares. We then have a knock-on effect: when pensions need to have UK asset allocations—they want to have their savings in pounds, for understandable reasons—they cannot get the return off the FTSE 100 or 250, so they end up being tied into Government bonds. We therefore get that draw in a slightly different way.

[Torsten Bell]

Yes, basically I recognise the risks that the right hon. Member raises.

I think that I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). [Interruption.] It is not that I was confused; I was worried, because she used to be a calm and reasonable person, but something weird has happened. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative party, and a leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. This infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone who will listen—that is not many—that pensions are being raided and that there is a war on savers. Wow—those are strong words.

There are just two problems with those words. First, they are nonsense on stilts, designed to scaremonger good savers. I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, which is disappointing. The second problem is the lack of consistency and self-respect. If you really thought the Bill was as dangerous as we have been told today, you would have fought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, you are making a very passionate speech, but you said “you” and I do not think I was involved in fighting with you in any trenches at any point.

[Torsten Bell]

As a point of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I never fight with you—it would end badly for everyone and I would lose every time.

The Conservatives would have opposed the Bill every step of the way. They would have not just been on the barricades but built them, which is the exact opposite of what the shadow Secretary of State did. What did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell the House on Second Reading? He said that

“the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722.]

Well, that was nice.

[Mark Garnier]

rose—

[Torsten Bell]

No, we have got some more. That was before Conservative Front-Bench Members—then in a less bonkers phase of life—nodded through the Bill, which they now claim is some kind of end-of-days Armageddon. Let us be reasonable.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

No, I am going to finish.

Let us be reasonable. Maybe Conservative Front Benchers just needed some time to think about it. What happened at Third Reading? On that occasion we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State—she had not quite got to the frothing phase of her development—saying that

“there is a lot in it that we do welcome”,

as it will

“help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns.”

She went on,

“so we will not be voting against the Bill”—[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1130-1131.]

We are now told it is an Armageddon Bill.

The shadow Secretary of State was right then, and she is ludicrously over the top now. The Bill puts savers’ interests first, as she well knows. She knows something else, which makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing. Who are the politicians who have lobbied me to mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories. That has been mainly in private, so I will spare their blushes, but one ventured out into the open. The Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), called me and others to a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my

“effort to hold back from mandation”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 110WH.]

What was he worried about? That we were not doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments. That is the truth behind all the froth today. The Bill supports savers and focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most over-excited Opposition Members know that is the right thing to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister gave a very passionate speech, but when one mentions colleagues in the Chamber, one is meant to give prior notice. I assume that has happened.

[Torsten Bell]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The comments in the Westminster Hall debate are on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The appropriate thing to do will be to drop him a note very quickly.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Torsten Bell.)

15:28

Division 477

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 278

Noes: 158

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Clause 137

Commencement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Torsten Bell.)

15:43

Division 478

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 269

Noes: 103

Lords amendment 5 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 6 disagreed to.

Lords amendment 13 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15.—(Torsten Bell.)

15:55

Division 479

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 276

Noes: 155

Lords amendment 15 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 16 to 24 disagreed to.

Clause 40

Certain schemes providing money purchase benefits: scale and asset allocation

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 26.—(Torsten Bell.)

16:08

Division 480

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 269

Noes: 162

Lords amendment 26 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 27 and 30 to 34 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 35.—(Torsten Bell.)

16:23

Division 481

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 275

Noes: 159

Lords amendment 35 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 36 to 42 disagreed to.

After Clause 44

Innovation and competition

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 43.—(Torsten Bell.)

16:36

Division 482

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 273

Noes: 159

Lords amendment 43 disagreed to.

After Clause 117

Review of public service pension schemes

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 77.—(Torsten Bell.)

16:47

Division 483

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 271

Noes: 95

Lords amendment 77 disagreed to.

16:54

More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this

day).

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

After Clause 117

Discharge of liabilities in respect of compensation: commencement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 78.—(Torsten Bell.)

16:59

Division 484

Question accordingly agreed to.

Ayes: 277

Noes: 150

Lords amendment 78 disagreed to.

Lords amendments 79, 83, 85 to 88 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the winding-up speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, I understand that the Minister for Pensions made specific reference to me. I was elsewhere at the Treasury Committee, but I am told that he referred to a Westminster Hall debate on 25 November, and depicted me as arguing for the mandation of pension investments. In that debate, I explicitly said that mandation would be an “overreach”. I went on to say:

“I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 122WH.]

I would be grateful if you could advise me on how I could avoid being inadvertently misquoted by the Minister in future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches in the Chamber—if only we were. However, the Minister is in his place and will have heard what the right hon. Member has said. If an error has been made, I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible.

[Torsten Bell]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his point of order. As I have already said to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I would raise the comments that he made in that Westminster Hall debate. The point that I made in my closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on—but I know that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench enjoyed every minute of it—is that he has made the case that there is a challenge, in that there is not enough investment in UK equities, and he has called for measures to push in that direction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We do not want to prolong the debate any further. Both the Back-Bench Member and the Minister have put their points on the record.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.

That Torsten Bell, Gen Kitchen, Natalie Fleet, David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Mr Will Forster be members of the Committee;

That Torsten Bell be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provision shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 9 March 2026 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 3)):

Consideration of Lords Message on 15 April 2026

The Lords Amendments and Reasons shall be considered in the following order: 17B, 38, 41B, 102, 106 and 105B.

Question agreed to.