Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by discussing Amendment 203ZC and then come to the other amendments.

Amendment 203ZC would add new provisions to the Pensions Act, which would mean that, if an alternative sponsor provided a sufficient premium, a cash payment or alternative arrangement could be provided for members of that scheme that secured better benefits than the PPF level of compensation. The amendment seeks in particular to help members of the AEA Technology pension scheme. As we have heard, AEAT was formed in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority—UKAEA—and was subsequently privatised in 1996. Employees who were transferred to AEAT joined the company’s new pension scheme, and most of them opted to transfer their accrued UKAEA pension into a closed section of the AEAT pension scheme. In 2012, 16 years later, AEAT went into administration, and the AEAT pension scheme subsequently entered the PPF.

I express my sympathy for all AEAT pension scheme members; I recognise their position. I am pleased to say that on pre-1997 indexation in PPF, which is an issue for AEAT members, we have listened and acted. Those with pre-1997 accruals and whose schemes provided for pre-1997 increases, which includes AEAT members, will benefit from this change.

However, the Government do not support this amendment. The noble Baroness outlined some of the issues around AEAT, but this case has been fully considered. We set this out in our response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry on DB pensions. These investigations included, but are not limited to, reviews by three relevant ombudsmen, debates in the Commons in 2015 and 2016 and a report by the NAO in 2023. This matter has also been considered by previous Governments in the period since AEAT went into the PPF, all of whom reached the same conclusion.

AEAT members have asserted that upon privatisation, insufficient funds were transferred into the scheme. As I understand it from historic responses, this amount was based on the financial assumptions at the time, and the trustees of the scheme agreed the transfer value. Members have also outlined that, given the amount transferred to the PPF, with investment, they could now be paid their full pension. However, the PPF does not work that way; let me explain why.

When schemes enter PPF assessment, evaluation is generally undertaken to determine whether there are enough assets to secure at least PPF-level benefits. Sufficiently well-funded schemes can come out of the assessment supported by PPF-appointed trustees to secure greater benefits than PPF compensation. Schemes that are funded below this level are transferred into the PPF. The PPF does not permit transfers out because it does not work as a segregated fund where individual scheme contributions are ring-fenced and can later be transferred out. That is due to PPF investment policies because the only grounds on which that might happen would be, for example, if PPF investment policies were such that they then became better funded.

The reason that does not work is that the PPF is a compensation scheme operating in the interests of all its members. It is not a collection of individual pension schemes. Funds transferred in from underfunded schemes and insolvency recoveries, alongside the levy and investment returns, are all brought together. Allowing members of schemes that have entered the PPF to transfer back out would undermine its ability to provide compensation for all its members and for future schemes in the case of employer insolvency.

This amendment changes the purpose of the PPF as a compensation fund and that safety net in case of employer insolvency. Schemes go into the PPF either because an alternative sponsor cannot be found to take on the scheme’s liabilities or because the scheme is unable to secure benefits that correspond to at least PPF compensation levels. We do not expect alternative sponsors will be found to pay a premium for schemes that have transferred into the PPF. Additionally, it would place a different role on the board of the PPF to undertake a member-by-member assessment of whether members would get better benefits through a transfer. We do not underestimate the difficulty of this, given the decades since many schemes, such as the AEAT, entered the PPF. Changing the PPF’s role and how it operates as set out would need to be much more broadly considered, alongside impacts on the PPF and potentially unintended consequences.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Section 169(2)(d) in the Pensions Act 2004 seems to make provision for this to happen. Therefore, what is the purpose of that clause? I am trying to build on that to specify circumstances in which it could happen. Of course, when a scheme is in the assessment period, it can be extracted. I am trying to say that if it has gone in and can improve the funding of the PPF by paying a premium and give members more than they would have in the PPF, why would there be an objection?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The challenge of this is that of course schemes can come out in the assessment period. That is the point of the assessment period: to work out whether there is a sponsor or enough funds, which could, with appropriate support, be able to deliver greater-than-PPF benefits, in which case the scheme may go out again. It goes into the PPF only if that cannot be the case. Once it has gone in, the scheme does not exist anymore. There are no scheme assets because, at that point, the members are not scheme members but members of a compensation scheme. It cannot be the case that, years later, someone should come along and say, “We now want to try to move a group of former members of a particular scheme back out of the PPF”. That simply does not work.

The noble Baroness asked something else. I apologise for being slightly confused earlier on: I thought this was going to be part of the previous group, so I am slightly scrabbling around trying to put my speaking notes in the right place. The noble Baroness is trying to draw a comparison between AWE and this. Although they were both DB pension schemes in the nuclear industry, the two situations are entirely different. AEAT was created in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UKAEA. It became a private company, with no further government involvement in ownership or management.

By contrast, AWE, which is responsible for manufacturing, maintaining and developing the UK’s nuclear warheads, has since the 1950s either been government owned or the Government have held a special share in the company. It became fully owned by HMG again in 2021, when it became an NDPB. As the Government own and fund AWE, they are also responsible for funding its pension scheme responsibilities. That is why the AWE has a Crown guarantee, granted in 2022, shortly after it became a public body of the MoD, having previously been government owned. I hope that explains why the two are differently treated.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I respectfully ask the Minister to consider the possibility, which is arising, of someone who can come along after the assessment period and pay more than the PPF can provide. As I say, that could help the PPF’s funding. It should not in any way impact on the levy, and it is an option to permit that to happen. So my amendment, building on what is already in the Pensions Act 2004 but which has not yet been used, given that schemes are in surplus, would allow them to do that.

The other thing I will say is that everyone in the closed section of the AEAT with accruals before 1997 was in the public sector. They were members of a public sector scheme, and they were advised by the Government Actuary’s Department that if they transferred they would not need to worry about the security of their pension, but that turned out not to be the case. I therefore hope the Minister can see the parallels. I know she is in a difficult position on this, but I thank her for her consideration.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am not in a difficult position. The Government’s position is clear: these are not comparable schemes. One has a Crown guarantee, for the reasons that I have explained, while the other does not because, for a significant portion of its history, it was a private company. It was privatised, and it subsequently went into administration. Those are not comparable situations. While I have sympathy for the position of individual scheme members, that does not make the two comparable or the Government’s responsibility comparable. I am certainly not aware that someone is out there waiting to sponsor this, although the noble Baroness may be. She is nodding to me, and if she wants to share with the Committee that she has a sponsor ready to do that, I would be glad to hear it, but the idea that this would routinely be a pattern where, for lots of long-dead pension schemes, sponsors are waiting to draw them out just would not be practical for the PPF.

I am also advised that the subsection 2(d) that the noble Baroness mentioned is not in force. That does not make a difference to her argument, but it may make a difference to the nature of this.

I shall try to return now to the issue that we were talking about earlier on, the AWE scheme. On hybridity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that my understanding is that hybrid bills affect the general public but also have a significant impact on the private interests of specified groups. In this case, there is no impact on the general public, only on AWE members. That follows the precedent in Royal Mail and Bradford and Bingley/Northern Rock legislation. This also refers to schemes that were or are to be defunded and replaced with public schemes. I hope that explains why this is not hybrid. I cannot comment on why the clerks did not accept her amendment because I did not quite catch what it was that she was comparing it with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

May I just correct the record? I believe that the Goode committee may indeed have recommended limited price inflation up to 5%, and I apologise to the Committee.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for introducing his amendment and for the history lesson. It is living history, but he always has the edge on me because he goes back to 1975, and at that point I was more interested in boys and make-up, so I simply cannot compete, I confess, on that front.

The reality is that this Government have to start in 2026 and where we are now, so we have to address what the right thing to do now is for the DB pension universe and for the schemes in general. I can totally understand why my noble friend has introduced this amendment. Members of some schemes are concerned about the impact of inflation on their retirement incomes, and I am sympathetic. We have been around this in previous groups. This amendment would remove references to 6 April 1997 as the start date for the legal requirement on schemes to pay annual increases on pensions in payment. Obviously, as my noble friend indicated, legislation requires increases on DB pensions in payment to be done only from 6 April 1997. That has been a pretty long-standing framework which reflects the balance that Parliament judged appropriate at the time between member protection and affordability for schemes and employers. These changes are normally not backdated; they are normally brought in prospectively.

Most schemes already provide indexation on pre-1997 pensions, either because it is required under the scheme rules or because they choose to award discretionary increases. The Pensions Regulator has done some analysis and is doing more work on this. The latest analysis indicates that practices differ, but many schemes have a track record of awarding such increases. However, imposing a legal requirement on schemes now to pay indexation on pre-1997 benefits would create costs that schemes and employers may simply not have planned for. These costs may well not have been factored into the original funding assumptions or contribution rates. For some schemes and employers, these additional unplanned costs could be unaffordable and could put the scheme’s long-term security at risk.

Many employers are working towards buyout to secure members’ benefits permanently. Decisions on discretionary increases must be considered carefully between trustees and employers against their endgame objective. The reality is that the rules for DB pension schemes inevitably involve striking a balance between the level and security of members’ benefits and affordability for employers. But minimum requirements have to be appropriate for all DB schemes and their sponsoring employers. A strong, solvent employer is essential for a scheme’s long-term financial stability, and that gives members the best protection that they will receive their promised benefits for life, as the employer is ultimately responsible for funding the scheme. Any change to that statutory minimum indexation has to work across the full range of DB schemes. This amendment would increase liabilities for all schemes, regardless of their funding position or governance arrangements. While some schemes and employers may be able to afford increasing benefits in this way, others will not.

The way DB schemes are managed and funded since the 1995 Act was introduced has changed, but the basic principle remains that we cannot increase scheme costs on previously accrued rights beyond what some schemes might be able to bear or that many employers will be willing to fund, and that remains as true now as it was then. Our view is that schemes’ trustees and the sponsoring employer have a far better understanding than the Government of their scheme’s financial position, their funding requirements, their long-term plans and therefore what they can and cannot afford. They are also best placed to consider the effect of inflation on their members benefits when making decisions about indexation. The regulator has already been clear that trustees should consider the scheme’s history of awarding discretionary increases when making decisions about indexation payments.

We discussed earlier in Committee the Government’s reforms on surplus extraction. They will allow more trustees of well-funded DB schemes to share surplus with employers to deliver better outcomes for members. As part of any agreement to release surplus funds to the employer, trustees will be better placed to negotiate additional benefits for members, which could include discretionary indexation. Although I understand the case my noble friend is making—I regret that I cannot make him and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as happy as they wish—I hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I add my words of support to the concept being promoted by my noble friend Lord Younger. I hope the Government will look into this, as it might well be a good topic to task regulators with in making sure that either they or pension schemes themselves are helping people to understand pension schemes better, how they work and the free money that goes along with a pension contribution in terms of your own money. There is, as I say, extra free money added by, usually, your employer and other taxpayers. I do not think young people always understand just how beneficial saving in a pension can be relative to, let us say, saving in a bank account or an ISA, or indeed the value of investing. It would be in the interests of the regulators and, indeed, the providers to help people to understand that. The Government’s role in guiding that and setting up this kind of review could be very valuable.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing his amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken.

As we have heard, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of pension awareness and saving among young people. I agree with the Committee about the incredible importance of this issue, and I understand why the noble Viscount has tabled the amendment, but I hope to persuade him that there is another way forward.

The starting point, inevitably, is that last year the Government revived the Pensions Commission. The original commission did an astonishing job; its legacy under the previous Labour Government in effect lead to the creation of workplace pension saving via automatic enrolment. Since then, with support from both parties, automatic enrolment has transformed participation in workplace pension saving. It has been a particular success for younger people. Our participation for eligible employees aged 22 to 25 has gone up from 28% in 2012 to 85% in 2024.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I made these arguments at some length on Thursday. I have made them again now. The noble Lord disagrees with them; I can tell from his tone. He can read Hansard and pick up the relevant bits with me if he would like to.

Let me come back to the amendments. I will start with Amendments 91 and 95 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I thank her for introducing them with her customary clarity and brevity. These would create an exemption from the scale of requirements for master trusts and GPPs that can demonstrate investment performance exceeding the average of schemes that meet the scale conditions. I recognise the intent to reward strong performance, but obviously I am concerned the proposal would undermine the Government’s objective, which is a market of fewer, larger, better-run schemes, where economies of scale deliver sustained benefits to savers.

I should clarify the point about objectives. The Government’s primary objective is saver outcomes. I want to be clear about that. While I am here, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that this is not about administrative simplicity but about member outcomes. At the centre of our policy is the drive for better membership outcomes. That does not mean a simple scheme, but one that has strong governance and is well run, including strong administration, because scale supports the scheme to have the resources and the expertise to do this.

To respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in considering scale in the pensions landscape today, we have all shapes and sizes of schemes, in which value for members is important. We know that performance can be delivered across different sizes of scheme, but scale changes the landscape. Schemes that have scale will have the tools to deliver on value and performance in a way that a small scheme will not be able to in this future landscape. That is because scale enables greater expertise, efficiencies and buying power than a small scheme. That is the landscape we need to deliver for members because we want better outcomes for them. In considering the issue, it is therefore important to focus on the future landscape, the market at scale, and not the current landscape. In our view, there is not sufficient evidence that other approaches can deliver the same benefits for members and the economy.

On the specifics of the noble Baroness’s amendment, there are also some concerns around the impact; it could create an unstable landscape if we were to focus on the performance at any point in time. Of course, the intention for any exemption is that it is a permanent feature of the scheme and is not subject to regular assessment. As we all know, past investment performance is not a guarantee of future success. If we went down this road, there would be times when exempted sub-scale schemes found that they were no longer delivering investment performance that exceeds the average of those at scale. That is not stable for members or employers, and does not support their interests.

Amendment 98 proposes an innovation-based exemption from the scale requirement for master trust schemes offering specialist or innovative services. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that innovation really matters; that is precisely why the Bill provides for a new entrant pathway so that novel propositions can enter the market and scale responsibly. But creating a parallel innovation pathway as an alternative to scale would dilute the fundamental objective of consolidation and risk maintaining a long tail of small schemes, with fragmented governance and limited access to productive investment.

I should say a few words on competition. Actually, I might come back to that.

Amendments 99 and 106 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would remove the £25 billion threshold from the Bill. We believe the threshold is a central pillar of the policy architecture. It has been set following consultation with industry and government analysis of the emerging evidence, to which I referred earlier, on the point at which the benefits of scale are realised. We believe that this is a key policy decision that should be in the Bill. We also believe, as the noble Baroness indicated, that it is very important that there is certainty for industry on this threshold at the earliest possible point. Putting the £25 billion on the face of the Bill assures industry that it cannot be changed without full parliamentary engagement.

I know the noble Baroness wants me to reassure her that this matter is open for further discussion. I regret that I will have to disappoint her. The Government are committed to this and have put it in the Bill for the reasons I just explained.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

If the intention is to maintain these specific limits in the Bill, I hope that consideration will be given to an existing new entrant pathway—rather than only a new entrant pathway from 2030 onwards—and some kind of innovation pathway, as suggested by my noble friends Lord Younger and Lady Stedman-Scott, so that schemes that either are already in existence or will come through over the next few years, if they are able to do so, will not be forced out of business or prevented even beginning.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about innovation. We recognise the importance of a proportionate approach to scale, which is why we created the transition pathway. I know that the noble Baroness thinks the number or scale is not right, but that is the purpose of the transition pathway: to give schemes that can reach scale within a reasonable time the chance to do so.

On innovation, although we want to see a market of fewer, larger pension schemes, the policy still encourages competition through allowing innovative schemes, such as CDCs, to develop and by enabling brand new innovative schemes to enter the market via the new entrant pathway. I know the noble Baroness is not satisfied with that, but that is our answer to her question: the new entrant pathway.

Amendment 102 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, would delete the regulation-making power on what values can be counted towards the scale threshold in order to probe how assets will be calculated. The market contains varied and complex arrangements. It is both prudent and necessary that affirmative regulations, consulted on with industry, set out the assets that may be included or adjusted when calculating the total value in the MSDA, with a focus on assets where members have not made an active choice.

Let me be clear on that point: the choices that will be made here are the ones that will create the big fat wallet, if you like, which will in turn drive the benefits of scale. The intent is that the regulations will focus on the default arrangement that the vast majority of members will be in. We want to see members of the same age who join the scheme at the same time get the same outcome, but the regulation-making power enables practical realities of how the market operates now—especially at the margins. We know that there is a variety in practice in the market, so engagement and consultation are crucial.

Amendment 104 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, would remove the regulation-making power to define “common investment strategy” and to set evidentiary requirements for the scale condition. I understand that the aim here is both to probe this power and to require the Government to define “common investment strategy” prior to Royal Assent. A common investment strategy will help to deliver a single approach to maximise the buying power of a scheme in terms of fees and the diversification of its investments. We think that is crucial because allowing, for example, multiple potentially divergent strategies within the MSDA would maintain fragmentation and drive away from the consolidation that we want members to benefit from.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the clarity of the exposition of her amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will try to explain what the Government are trying to do here and then pick up the specific points that the noble Baroness raised.

To maintain the policy on scale and secure its benefits for pension scheme members, there will need to be centralised decision-making over a large pool of assets. The Bill sets out that this will be delivered by the main scale default arrangement, which is subject to a common investment strategy. I recognise that the noble Baroness has raised concerns about the common investment strategy being able to accommodate different factors, but I will tell the Committee why it is there. A key purpose of the policy is to minimise fragmentation in schemes and to have a single default arrangement at the centre of schemes’ proposition. Fragmentation is an issue, not because it is a piece of government dogmatism but because it is in the interests of members that those who run their schemes have a big wallet at the centre to give the scheme the buying power and expertise they need, because that enables them to deliver on the benefits of scale.

When we consulted, the responses told us that there were schemes with hundreds of default arrangements that have been created over a long period of time and that this is a problem. Members in these arrangements get lower returns and pay higher charges, which some consultation responses also told us. It is important that we deal with that fragmentation and that we improve member outcomes.

However, the Government also recognise that there are circumstances where a different default arrangement is needed to serve specific member needs only—for example, for religious or ethical regions. These will be possible through Chapter 4 but they will not count towards the main scale default arrangement. If the scale measure encompassed multiple default arrangements or combined assets, as these amendments would allow, it would not drive the desired changes or support member outcomes derived from the benefits of scale. Following consultation, there was clear consensus that scale should be set at the arrangement level as that is where key decisions about investments are made. Simply put, centralised scale is the best way to realise benefits across the market for savers.

The pensions industry has told us there are too many default arrangements in some schemes, and that fragmentation—

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am going to answer the point and then come back, if that is okay. Just give me another two minutes.

That fragmentation does not benefit savers but can lead to increased charges and lack of access to newer, higher-performing investments. The Government are committed to addressing this fragmentation, which exists predominantly in DC workplace contract-based schemes.

To prevent further market fragmentation, Clause 42 allows for regulations to be made to restrict the creation of new non-scale default arrangements. To be clear, this is not a ban nor a cap on new default arrangements. There will be circumstances where they will be in saver interests and meet the needs of a cohort of members. As the noble Baroness says, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

On the point about choice, auto-enrolment has moved many members to save for the first time. The vast majority enter the default fund and do not engage in their schemes. Those who do can choose their own funds, and these measures do not interfere with that, but they are a minority, and these measures aim to support the millions who do not engage.

The noble Baroness is right that one size of default arrangement does not fit all, but the Bill requires a review to consider the existing fragmentation and why multiple default arrangements exist. That will inform us of which default arrangements should continue and the characteristics they possess that deliver better member outcomes or meet a specific need.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

The Minister has raised many points that I would like to ask further about, if that is okay. The fragmentation applies to legacy schemes: the contract-based schemes, as she says. These are the old personal pension-type arrangements—SIPPs, GPPs and so on—which were developed a long time ago. Typically, the more modern schemes have just one default, with one investment approach that is meant to suit all members. It is that approach that I hope and expect to be refined as we move forward so that there can be different types of default fund for different types of member. I do not anticipate that they will be people choosing their own. It will be on the basis of information that the provider seeks from its members, using that to send them down a slightly more appropriate investment route for their money. That does not stop the providers having large pools of money that they allocate members to, but it would not be in just the one central fund, as I say. Of course that is easier for the provider, but I think the providers owe members a different duty, which is to try to tailor a little more for those who do not choose, based on wider circumstances than just their chronological age, what is best for their investment and pension outcomes.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I have heard the noble Baroness’s explanation and understand the point she is making. The point about choice was not actually directed at her; it was directed at a colleague who mentioned choice and I was trying to explain that this is not about choice. I accept the point the noble Baroness is making that this is for those who do not engage.

If having a single default fund were simpler for the pension schemes, and that is what drove this, we would not have the number of defaults we have at the moment. We have huge numbers of defaults. I accept that many of those are the product of history, but the key is that we have to consolidate. To be clear, as I have said, we are not banning or capping the new default arrangements, but we want to ensure that any new arrangements meet the needs of members, so any new non-scale default arrangements will have to obtain regulatory approval before they can accept moneys into them. We have said that we are going to consult and we need evidence to look at whether anything else should be included, and that will come up when we consult.

I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making and I am happy to reflect on it, but we need consolidation and we need to consult to make sure that we have allowed for the right things. With that reassurance, I hope she feels able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

That was fun. I will have a go at explaining the Government’s narrative on this, which is an alternative to the narrative that has been established so far. I will then try to go through and answer as many of the questions as I can.

Let me start by stating the obvious. The amendments relate largely to the part of Clause 40 that determines which types of investment are deemed as qualifying assets for the purpose of meeting any asset allocation requirements were we to use the power. I stated in my opening reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that he said “when” mandation comes in, but it is very much “if”; we do not anticipate using this power but, if it were used, we would need to be clear about what happens next.

The most relevant provisions are found in new Section 28C(5). This broadly limits qualifying assets to private assets. The subsection provides by way of example that qualifying assets may include private equity, private debt, venture capital or interests in land—that is, property investments. It also clarifies that qualifying assets may include investments and shares quoted on SME growth markets, such as AIM and Aquis.

In contrast, according to this subsection, qualifying assets may not generally include listed securities, defined as securities listed on a recognised investment exchange. That approach reflects the aim of the power to work as a limited backstop to the commitments that the DC pensions industry has made, which relate to private assets only.

That brings me to the subjects of the amendments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann. I start by reminding the Committee of the rationale for this approach, because it stems from the Mansion House Accord. The accord was developed to address a clear structural issue in our pensions market. DC schemes, particularly in their default funds, are heavily concentrated in listed, liquid assets and have very low allocations to private markets. That is in contrast to a number of other leading pension systems internationally, which allocate materially more to unlisted private equity, infrastructure, venture capital and similar assets.

The reason the Government are so supportive of the accord is that it will help to correct that imbalance and bring the UK into line with international practice. A modest but meaningful allocation to private markets can, within a diversified portfolio, improve long-term outcomes for savers and support productive investment in the real economy, including here in the UK.

The reserve power in Clause 40 is designed as a narrow backstop to those voluntary commitments. For that reason, any definition of “qualifying assets” must be clear, tightly focused on the assets we actually want to target and operationally workable for schemes, regulators and government. That is the context on the question of listed investment trusts and other listed investment companies.

I recognise the important role that investment trusts play in UK capital markets and in financing the real economy. Pension schemes—as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out—are, and will remain, free to invest in wherever trustees consider that to be in members’ best interests.

However, the clear intention of this policy has been to focus on unlisted private assets. This is reflected in industry documentation underpinning the accord, which defines private markets as unlisted asset classes, including equities, property, infrastructure and debt, and refers to investments held directly or through unlisted funds. That definition was reached following a number of iterative discussions led by industry, as part of which the Government supported the definition being drawn in this way.

Bringing listed investment funds within the qualifying asset definition would be out of step with the deliberate approach of the accord and its focus on addressing the specific imbalance regarding allocation to private assets. It would also raise implementation challenges, requiring distinctions to be made between the different types of listed companies that make or hold private investments or assets. It would introduce uncertainty about what we expect from DC providers. We might justly be accused of moving the goalposts, having already welcomed the accord, with its current scope, in no uncertain terms.

But the line has to be drawn somewhere. This is not a judgment on the intrinsic qualities or importance of listed investment vehicles, nor does it limit schemes’ ability to invest in them. It is simply about structuring a narrow, targeted power so that it does what it is intended to do: underpin a voluntary agreement aimed at increasing exposure to unlisted private markets in as simple a way as possible and without cutting across schemes’ broader investment freedoms.

The legislation draws a general distinction between listed securities and private assets; it does not single out investment trusts. Any listed security, whether a gilt, main market equity or listed investment company, is treated in the same way for the purposes of this narrow definition.

Crucially, this concerns only a small proportion of portfolios. Under the accord, the remaining 90% of default fund assets can continue to be invested in any listed instrument, including investment trusts, where trustees and scheme managers judge that that would benefit their members.

I am just coming to the answers, but please ask some more questions.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. In a situation where trustees do not wish to put more than the prescribed amount in the qualifying assets, and they want to hold those through a listed closed-ended company because they are concerned about the structure of an open-ended fund and do not have the ability to invest directly, why would the Government want to fetter their choice in that way? I thank the Association of Investment Companies, which has helped me to understand some of the things that these companies do.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Stedman-Scott, and all noble Lords who have spoken. Let me start with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I completely appreciate her desire to make the VFM framework easier for everybody to understand. I recognise there is a need for clarity here and a role for regulators to support member engagement with something as complex as this, but our concern with her proposals is that they would reduce precision and could unintentionally weaken regulatory accountability and undermine comparability across schemes, and those are three pillars on which the VFM framework depends. There is a genuine challenge here, which is to balance technical accuracy with clarity for members. Obviously, the latter will help to overcome the kind of behavioural inertia that we all see and so will ensure that VFM assessments result in meaningful action, not just awareness.

That is distinct from the regulatory precision required for the VFM system, which is why these terms are in the Bill. That current wording of “fully delivering” and “not delivering” is not accidental: it is designed to reflect objective compliance with all the mandated metrics: costs and charges, investment performance, governance and member outcomes. The terms provide clarity for trustees and regulators about whether a scheme meets the required standards. Replacing them with “good value” and “poor value”, even if it sounds attractive on the surface, would introduce subjectivity. Good value is not a regulatory test. It risks creating ambiguity about what triggers action when a scheme falls short.

Members deserve clarity and I absolutely agree that language should be understandable. However, the right place for explaining concepts to members is in disclosures and guidance, not primary legislation. We intend to work with the Pensions Regulator, the FCA and industry to ensure that member-facing communications such as rating notifications to employers and the regulator-supporting guidance, which will be aligned with the implementation of VFM, explain these outcomes in plain English that is suitable for its intended audience. I take the challenge from the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, about how to make sure that happens. That is something I am really happy to reflect on quite carefully. However, changing the statutory terms dilutes precision, creates inconsistency and risks uncertainty. Our approach preserves enforceable standards while committing to clear, accessible explanations for members.

Amendments 64 and 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would limit the powers the Government have to specify the consequences for pension schemes that have had an intermediate VFM rating for fewer than five years in a row. Let me pause before I answer that to come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who always asks clear questions. One of her questions was “How is this going to work, anyway?” Let me give a very quick rundown, subject to time. The consultation sets out updated proposals—they were updated in response to the previous consultation—and draft FCA rules, showing how the VFM framework will work. The paper sets out the proposed metrics for performance, costs, charges and service quality. It outlines how the assessment process will work. It gives more details around the ratings structure and the consequences associated with each rating. Basically, trustees of in-scope DC workplace pension schemes and arrangements will have to publish standardised performance metrics and follow a consistent and comparative assessment of value to assign an overall VFM rating. The regulator will ensure compliance with those obligations and will have the ability to enforce transfer of savers—I will come back to that in a moment—from consistently poorly performing arrangements.

I said that the consultation had changed. There were five key changes from the previous consultation. The most relevant one here proposes, in response to feedback, the adoption of a four-point rating system: red, amber, light green and dark green. There was strong pressure to have more granularity, so that it was not quite as stark. I make it clear that it is only amber that could lead to possible enforced transfer. I hope that is helpful.

A good question is “How will members know what ‘fully delivering’ means?” Obviously, we are not proposing to use the Bill’s terminology when communicating ratings to members. Instead, the schemes will use the four-point RAGG rating. Red corresponds to not delivering, amber and light green to intermediate performance and dark green to fully delivering. It is proposed that this more accessible and granular terminology will be used in the assessment reports published by all schemes at the end of 2028, and the reports will be made publicly available. Guidance will also include plain English explanations and a summary of metrics so that members understand what the outcome means for them.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

In what the Minister has just described, I do not quite understand how dark green and light green fit with “fully delivering”. Only dark green would be fully delivering, so why is light green not in the intermediate category? To me, this is quite confusing. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I urge her to work with whoever is devising this to iron out this kind of confusion at this stage, rather than running with it, as seems to be the intention here.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

We are still consulting on this. We consulted on the initial proposal and the response came back that more granularity was needed. We have to accept that clarity pulls in one direction and precision and granularity pull in the other, so the job of the Government is to support the regulator in making sure that we end up with a framework that does its primary job, which is not just to work out where a scheme is now but what the right consequences are for that scheme and then to make sure that is communicated to those who need to know in ways that are appropriate. On the one hand, the noble Baroness wants clear, strict categories, and on the other she wants to have different consequences for schemes depending on their circumstances. We think it is important to be able to judge appropriately and come up with a scheme. I would be happy to write to point out all the areas and explain more about how this works, but the point is that this needs to be understood by those who will do the assessments and the communication of the results of that has to be in the right language for those who need to understand them. As the noble Baroness knows as well as I do, it is the nature of pensions that the challenge is that marketing simple language does not map neatly onto precise legal language. I hope that at least explains what we are trying to do on that.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My worry is we have a term “fully delivering” in this legislation. It does not seem to me that very many schemes are likely to be fully delivering, even in a light green capacity. Therefore, I think we are already sowing the seeds of confusion if we go along this route. That is all.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am going to explain a little bit about the consequences because the thing that matters most is the consequences. Amber schemes may be required to close to new employers. Red schemes must close to new employers. I am just getting that down for the record, which suggests that I probably did not say that a moment ago. Just to be really clear, amber schemes may close to new employers; red schemes must close to new employers. Much nodding, I hope, from behind me. Great sighs of relief all round. Excellent.

Let me come on to the consequences of this. On Amendments 64 and 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we think that making reporting less comprehensive, even for schemes with intermediate ratings, could reduce the early warning signals on which regulators will rely to protect savers. I fully understand her desire to make this reporting proportionate. The current framework is designed to strike a balance. Powers are designed to enable the Government to ensure that trustees keep sponsor employers informed and that any issues are addressed promptly via the improvement plan without putting unnecessary burden on schemes. The noble Baroness may want to note this bit. The Secretary of State has discretion under Clause 16 on the consequences of an intermediate rating and could require different consequences to flow from different levels of intermediate rating. It is not the intention that a requirement to close the scheme to new employers would necessarily flow from all intermediate ratings. I think that is what she is shooting at, so I hope that helps to reassure her. That enables some flexibility around the consequences for pension schemes that have, for example, received an intermediate rating for fewer than five years, which is the space that she was shooting into just now.

Changing the powers as suggested risks missing the signs that a scheme may be heading into trouble. Early sight of any negative impact on a scheme’s performance and value really matters. I am sure that the Committee agrees that it is better to catch problems sooner rather than later and to put in a plan to remedy things, ensuring that schemes provide value and avoiding harm to members and greater costs in the long run.

The amendment suggests that schemes should face full reporting only if performance issues continue for five years or more, but five years is a long time for problems to go unchecked. I think members deserve better protection than that. We certainly would not want to see situations where savers are left in a poorly rated scheme for many years. That is why we propose to give schemes in the intermediate rating a period of up to two VFM assessment cycles to make the improvements needed to provide value to their savers.

I know that Amendments 60, 61 and 69 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, are probing amendments that want to challenge and clarify the terms “reasonable period” and “relevant period”. The relevant period is the VFM period, or rather the annual reporting timescale for data collection assessment against VFM metrics, which we expect to run from January to December of the preceding calendar year. We expect to set that out in regulations following consultation. The reasonable period is a period during which the regulator would normally expect the scheme to deliver value for money. Due to the level of detail this will involve, this will all be outlined in regulations. We will, of course, formally consult on draft regulations, and I am more than happy to make sure that we engage with interested noble Lords during the consultation to provide an opportunity to feed thoughts into that. The finer proposals behind the VFM ratings, such as the conditions under which each rating will apply and when they should be used, are outlined in the joint consultation which is currently open and will be provided in full in regulations.

Turning to Clause 18, Amendment 69 seeks to understand the rationale for the maximum penalty levels for non-compliance set out in subsection (5). As pension schemes grow in size, it is vital that the fines we impose on schemes carry real financial weight. This ensures that compliance and enforcement remain effective, safeguard members’ interests and, of course, maintain confidence in the system. These figures represent a significant deterrent against non-compliance while not being overly excessive in the current market landscape. We have worked closely with regulatory bodies and taken care to ensure the penalties align with other powers taken in Part 2 of this Bill. We believe the figures are proportionate to both the current and future scale of schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am absolutely not going to answer that. If there is answer which is known to me, then I will be happy to share it with her, but it certainly not known to me.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for her responses and patience with the comments made, especially by me. I have ongoing reservations but will obviously look carefully at the consultation. I would be grateful if we might have a further discussion before Report, because this is a crucial area, for employers and members. Perhaps we can bring this back in some form to iron out this huge intermediate range that could have a wide variety of implications that might be quite costly—I know how much these reports cost when you try and commission them—to schemes that may be having a bad performance patch for a year or two, but for understandable reasons. I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

No. I was just saying, if you transfer assets in, that 2% charge does not apply and will not apply. Otherwise, obviously, it would be uneconomic. But I understand that the idea of NEST is that the transfer in of a pension from another provider does not incur the upfront charge of, I think, 1.8%. So that would not be an issue. It is just a 0.3% flat fee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on that element. There is a residual risk to government in moving somebody’s long-term assets from one provider to another if the other provider eventually proves not to deliver good value.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this. I will start by addressing the proposed amendments to Clause 22. I will say at the start that we regard this clause as being a vital measure to tackle the structural inefficiency caused by the ever-greater proliferation of small, dormant pension pots in the auto-enrolment market. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to consolidate these pots into authorised consolidator schemes, improving outcomes for pension savers and reducing unnecessary costs to providers.

Amendments 79 and 80, from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek to extend the dormancy period for a pot to be considered eligible for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 18 months. We concluded that the 12-month period strikes the right balance between legislative clarity and administrative practicality. The timeframe was consulted on extensively with industry in 2023, under the previous Government. I suspect the noble Viscount was the Minister, so he may recall this well. Twelve months represents a supported middle ground: long enough to ensure that pots are genuinely dormant but not so long as to delay consolidation unnecessarily. Extending the period to 18 months would create inefficiencies and higher costs for both savers and providers, and slow progress towards consolidation.

Amendment 80 proposes removing subsection (3)(b) from Clause 22 as a means of probing the circumstances in which a pot should not be treated as dormant. This was picked up, slightly glancingly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as well. I make it clear that the scope of the policy is deliberately aimed at unengaged savers in default funds, where fragmentation poses the greatest risk to value for money and retirement outcomes. It is not designed to consolidate pots from those who are engaged and have made active decisions about their pension.

The exceptions provision is designed for cases where investment choices have been made that are driven by factors other than active financial management, such as religious belief. For example, following the consultation in 2023, sharia-compliant funds emerged as a suitable case for this. The aim was to ensure that savers in those funds remain eligible for consolidation and the benefits it brings, because, even though they have made a choice to be in a sharia-compliant fund, Clause 22 would allow schemes to differentiate that choice from other forms of pension engagement which might indicate that the member would not want their pot to be moved. I make it clear that anyone brought into scope under these exceptions will retain the option to opt out, so member autonomy is preserved, and consolidated schemes would need to offer a sharia-compliant option for consolidation to ensure that members’ wishes continued to be recognised and respected.

Although the power allows for wider exceptions in future, proportionality is key. For example, it would not be appropriate to consolidate members in ethical funds into a default fund; nor is it feasible for consolidators to cater to every ethical fund in the market. However, this flexibility would ensure that the framework could evolve if another religious or other fund reached sufficient scale. It balances the inclusion of disengaged savers with the need to limit complexity, cost and operational burden for authorised consolidator schemes; that is crucial to ensure that the automatic consolidation model remains viable.

Again, to be clear, this is not about bringing into scope people who do not want to be consolidated; it is about ensuring that those who are likely disengaged on pension saving are not automatically excluded from consolidation and its benefits simply because of their religious beliefs. For clarity, I note that, similarly, this clause does not allow or compel a pension scheme to move someone who has not selected a sharia-compliant fund into a sharia-compliant fund.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noble Lords]

The noble Baroness should speak now.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness may do whichever she prefers.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Okay. I have not fully prepared for it, but I am happy to do that; it will save us time later on.

The concerns expressed in Amendment 136 and the amendments that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, mentioned—some of which I added my name to—revolve around schemes that are already established. There is uncertainty about whether the schemes that are currently below the level will be permitted as new entrants or be able to access new business.

I am already being told that advisers are opting to advise employers only to join schemes that are already almost at or above the current £25 billion default fund threshold, which is creating market disruption and preventing schemes currently below the scale threshold from growing, as they cannot access the amount of new business they would otherwise have anticipated. Therefore, the risk is that these schemes will close prematurely but could offer good value to members who would otherwise be able to benefit from a scheme that is potentially on track to enter the transition pathway but will not quite be there.

I will offer the Committee an example. One of the recent new entrants, Penfold, which was established in 2022, will not have the time that other new entrants, established a few years before it, will have—such as Smart Pension, which may well be on track to reach the goal by 2030. Penfold faces a cliff edge because it launched only in 2022, has already surpassed the £1 billion asset-under-management mark and could well quadruple business over the coming few years, which would be an extremely positive achievement, but it will not qualify it not to have to close.

There are other new potential entrants that were planning to enter the market in the next three or four years, but they cannot now do so unless they are able to enter the pathway. That is why Amendment 136 suggests that schemes that have been established for, let us say, less than 10 years—again, that is a probing figure—would be able to enter either the transition or new entrant pathway if there is a demonstrable case that they will be able to grow. However, I am completely aligned with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that big is not necessarily best and that there are risks of an oligopoly developing in this connection, which I hope the Government would not have intended. I am convinced that that would not necessarily be in the interests of the market, innovation or pension savers more generally.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for introducing their amendments. As this is the first time we are going to debate scale, let me first set out why we think scale matters. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with my arguments, but she is shaking her head at me already, so my optimism levels are quite low given that I am on sentence two—I do not think I am in with much of a chance.

Scale is central to the Bill. It adds momentum to existing consolidation activity in the workplace pensions sector and will enable better outcomes for members, as well as supporting delivery of other Bill measures. These scale measures will help to deliver lower investment fees, increased returns and access to diversified investments, as well as better governance and expertise in running schemes. All these things will help to deliver better outcomes for the millions of members who are saving into master trusts and group personal pension plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I feel that we will have to agree to disagree on this point. The Government are not obsessed with scale; the Government believe that the evidence points to scale producing benefits for savers. We find the evidence on that compelling. I understand the noble Baroness’s argument, but the benefits of scale are clear. They will enable access to investment capability and produce the opportunity to improve overall saver outcomes for the longer term.

I cannot remember whether it was this amendment or another one that suggested that a scheme that did well on value for money should be able to avoid the scale requirements; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is nodding to me that it was her amendment. The obvious problem with that is that schemes’ VFM ratings are subject to annual assessment and, therefore, to change. It is therefore not practical to exempt schemes from scale on the benefit of that rating alone.

We are absolutely committed to the belief that scale matters. It is not just that we think big is beautiful—“big is beautiful” has always been a phrase for which I have affection—but I accept that it is not just about scale. It is not so for us, either. We need the other parts of the Bill and the Government’s project as well. We need value for money; we need to make sure that schemes have good investment capability and good governance; and we need to make sure that all parts of the Bill work together. This vision has been set out; it emerged after the pension investment review. The Government have set it out very clearly, and we believe that it is good.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

The remarks that the Minister is making are of concern to me—and, I think, to other Members of the Committee—because they are just what the big providers would say. They have the power. I have seen this in the pensions landscape for years: the big players have this incredible advantage and lobbying power and the power to get their way on legislation somehow. That is not always bad for members; I am not saying there is something terribly wrong with the big providers. What I am saying, though—this is an important point—is that there is a real need for innovation, new thinking and new ideas in this space. Huge sums of money are under discussion here. If we are bowing to the existing incumbents and not making provision even for those small businesses that are currently established but will not necessarily reach that scale in time, I am not convinced that we are improving the market overall. I would be grateful for a thought on that, or for the Minister writing to me.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am going to push back on the premise of the noble Baroness’s comments. I understand that she feels very strongly about this, but the Government are not doing this to benefit large pension schemes. The Government are doing this to benefit savers. The Government established an independent pension investment review, looked carefully at the evidence and reached the view that the best thing for savers is, via these measures, to encourage and increase the consolidation that is already happening in the marketplace. It is our view that that, combined with the other measures in the Bill, will drive a better market for savers and better returns for savers in the long term. That is why we are doing it—not because we want to support any particular players in the market; that is not what we are about.

The noble Baroness mentioned her Amendment 136; I want to respond to that as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. There is an issue around whether schemes already in the market have enough time to make scale. From when the Bill was introduced in 2025, schemes have up to 10 years, if we include the transition pathway, to reach scale. We project that schemes with less than £10 billion in assets under management today could still reach the threshold based simply on historical growth rates. For example, a £5 billion fund today, growing at 20% a year, broadly in line with recent growth in the DC market, could reach £25 billion within 10 years—and that does not take account of the impact of consolidation activity, which we expect to see within the single employer market as a result of reforms brought forward in the Bill, such as VFM, which we expect to lead to poorly performing schemes exiting the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Is there a reason why the Government will not even consider allowing some transitional entry for schemes that are already established, such as the one I mentioned, which may or may not reach that number? This is not a magic number—£10 billion or £25 billion are not magic numbers—but these are businesses that are already established. It will put people off entering the market if suddenly, with no warning, a company that started in 2022 is under pressure. Let us say that there are bad markets or that it takes longer; as I was saying, at the moment, employers are not going to give these companies new business. If the Government could look at some minimum period of establishment that could get new entrants into the 2010 transition, that would be good.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The important thing here is clarity. The noble Baroness mentioned a single scheme. I am not going to comment on individual schemes, for reasons she will appreciate—she would not expect me to do so, I know—but we have to set some clear boundaries. The boundary has to be somewhere. As I said, we have actually gone for the bottom end of what was consulted on. We have created a transition pathway precisely to give schemes the opportunity to grow; they need to be able to persuade us that they have a credible path to do that.

In the case that the noble Baroness mentioned, if there were some particular market conditions that caused problems across a sector, she will be aware that in the Bill there is something called a protected period. There are powers in Sections 20 and 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 that give regulators the ability to delay temporarily the impact of the scale measures. That is to ensure that the consequence of a scheme failing to meet the scale requirement—having to cease accepting any further contributions—is planned and managed. There is a range of reasons why that might happen. It might be about an individual scheme that has been approved as having scale but has failed to meet the threshold or it might be a market crash that affects all schemes. There is flexibility there for the Government.

However, the principle is that we have to set some boundaries around that. The Government have reviewed the evidence carefully, and we have concluded that the point that we have chosen is appropriate. We have created a transition pathway in order to do that, and we have created new entrant pathways in order to accommodate those situations. We believe that that will protect members’ interests.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Absolutely. There may be—I am not saying that there are—risks that need to be explored around the use of sole corporate trustees. The consultation will look at that, and at generally improving the quality and standards of administration to improve service quality and so on. That runs until 6 March. My noble friend may wish to contribute to it; I commend it to him.

On safeguards, trustees will need to notify the regulator when they exercise the power to pay surplus. As part of that notification, we anticipate the provision to be made in regulations for trustees to explain how, if at all, members have benefited because that will help the regulator monitor how the new powers are being used.

In response to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, the Pensions Regulator has already set out that trustees should consider the situation of those members who would benefit from a discretionary increase and whether the scheme has a history of making such increases. Following this legislation—and as I may have said in the previous group—TPR will publish further guidance for trustees and advisers, noting factors to consider when releasing surplus and ways in which trustees can ensure members and employers can benefit.

On that broader point, we feel that it must be a negotiation, because increasing indexation would increase employer liabilities, so it is right that it ends up being a negotiation. All the safeguards are already there. My noble friend Lord Davies asked what advice trustees should take. We expect trustees to take appropriate professional advice when evaluating a potential surplus release and making a payment. As well as actuarial advice, this should also include legal advice and covenant advice to enable trustees to discharge their duties properly. Let us not forget that a strong covenant is the best guarantee a scheme has; not undermining the covenant, or the employer that stands behind it, is crucial to this.

Amendment 44 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on whether trustees’ duties should be changed to enable trustees to pay discretionary increases on pre-1997 accrued rights. It is not clear to us why this would be needed as the scope of trustee fiduciary duties do not prevent trustees paying discretionary increases, where scheme rules allow them to do so. We expect trustees to consult their professional advisers, including lawyers, on their duties if they are not sure.

Amendment 41 from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, highlights the importance of ensuring that members have access to good quality pensions advice. Although we understand the intention, we remain clear that we will not be mandating the use of surplus released from schemes. My noble friend Lord Davies made the good point that, in some ways, the greatest need for support is on the DC side rather than the DB side. DB scheme members expect to receive a lifelong retirement income, which trustees must regularly and clearly communicate to members. This is typically based on salary and length of service, offering strong financial security. For DB, the benefits they will receive on retirement are generally known.

The Government recognise the importance of robust guidance, however, and we already ensure that everyone has access to free, impartial pensions guidance through the Money and Pensions Service, helping people to make informed financial decisions at the right time. The MoneyHelper service offers broad and flexible pensions guidance that supports people throughout their financial journey.

A couple of other questions were asked, including what employers will use the surplus for. The Pensions Regulator published a survey last year, Defined benefit trust-based pension schemes research. In a sample of interviews, it found around 8% of schemes with a funding surplus reported having released a surplus in the last year. That equates to nine schemes. Of those nine, seven schemes used the surplus to enhance member benefits. One used it to provide a contribution holiday for future DB accrual and one to make a payment to a DC section established in the same trust. None of the nine schemes stated that the surplus was released to the employer.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and my noble friend Lord Davies, it was always the case that it depends on the scheme rules. I want to make sure I get this right. I had a note somewhere about it, but I am having to wing it now so I will inevitably end up writing and correcting it. If there is a DB and a DC section in the same trust, it could be possible, depending on the scheme rules, for trustees to make a decision to release funds from one to the other. But trustees may not be able to agree to that; it would obviously depend on the circumstances. However, as I understand it, there is nothing to stop an employer releasing funds—surplus released from a DB scheme back to an employer. The employer could then choose to put that money in, for example, a DC scheme. I understand the tax treatment would be such that the tax payable on one can be offset as a business expense on the other, making it a tax neutral proposal. In any case, as noble Lords may have noted, the tax treatment of surplus rate has dropped from 35% to 25%. A decision has been made to make that drop down. If by winging it I have got that wrong, I will clarify that when I write the inevitable letter of correction.

My noble friend Lord Davies asked about tax treatment. I will read this out, as it is from the Treasury, and I will be killed if I get it wrong. Amendments to tax law are required to ensure these payments—one-off payments—qualify as authorised member payments and are taxed as intended. The necessary changes to tax legislation will have effect from 6 April 2027. Changes to tax legislation are implemented through finance Bills and statutory instruments made under finance Acts. There will be consequential changes to pensions legislation where necessary, which will be dealt with through regulations. I hope that satisfies my noble friend. If it does not, I will write to him at a later point.

I hope I have covered all the questions. I am really grateful for that contribution; it is one of the ways in which this Committee illuminates these matters. But I hope, having heard that, the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. Although it is rather disappointing, I understand where she is coming from. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this group. There is a general feeling across the party divides—but obviously not unanimity—that lack of inflation protection is an issue. How or whether it is dealt with is the big question. I hope that maybe we can all meet and discuss this and how it could best be brought back on Report, if it is going to be brought back. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for setting out her amendments. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I must admit that I have learned more about actuaries in the past week than I ever knew hitherto, but it is a blessing.

Three different issues have come up. I would like to try to go through them before I come back to what I have to say on this group. In essence, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has us looking at, first, actuaries: what is their role, what are the standards and how do they do the job? Secondly, what are the right endgame choices—that is, what is out there at the moment? Finally, what should be in the surplus extraction regime? We have ended up with all three issues, although the amendments only really deal with the last of those; they deal with the others by implication. Let me say a few words on each of them, then say why I do not think that they are the right way forward.

We have just finished hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. Obviously, we are talking about the position now. DB schemes are maturing and, as such, are now prioritising payments to members. Given this context, they are naturally more risk-averse, as they are now seeking funding to match their liabilities. Since the increases in interest rates over the past five years, scheme funding positions have—the noble Lord knows this all too well—improved significantly in line with their corresponding reductions and liabilities.

However, when setting an investment strategy, trustees must consider among other things the suitability of different asset classes to meet future liabilities, the risks involved in different types of investment and the possible returns that may be achieved. The 2024 funding code is scheme-specific and flexible. Even at significant maturity, schemes can still invest in a significant proportion of return-seeking assets, provided that the risk can be supported.

On actuaries, actuarial work is clearly an important part of the process. It helps set out the picture, as well as highlighting the risks, the assumptions and the available options, but it does not determine the outcome. My noble friend Lord Davies is absolutely right on this point. Decisions on how a scheme uses the funds are, and will remain, matters of trustee judgment. The role of the actuary is to support the judgment, not replace it. Trustees are the decision-makers, and they remain accountable for the choices that they make on behalf of their members.

Of course, in providing any certification, actuaries will continue to comply with the TAS standards set by the Financial Reporting Council. I am not going to get into the weeds of exactly how the standards work but, on the broader points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we agree that the requirements and the regulations must work together. As my noble friend said, after the funding regime code was laid, the FRC consulted on revisions to TAS 300 covering developments; it has now published the revised TAS. These are complex decisions. Regulators need to work together. We will come back to this issue later on in the Bill, following an amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

In terms of the endgame choices, the independent Pensions Regulator has responsibility for making sure that employers and those running pension schemes comply with their legal duties. Obviously, the Government are aware of the recent transaction that resulted in Aberdeen Asset Management taking over responsibility for the Stagecoach scheme; we are monitoring market developments closely. Although we support innovation, we also need to ensure that members are protected. Following the introduction of TPR’s interim superfund regime and the measures in this Pension Schemes Bill, we understand that new and innovative endgame solutions are looking to enter the DB market and offer employers new ways to manage their DB liabilities. I assure the noble Baroness that we continue to keep the regulatory framework under review to ensure that member benefits are appropriately safeguarded.

Then, the question is: what is the right thing to be in the surplus extraction regime? I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is concerned that, following these additional flexibilities to trustees around surplus release, trustees continue to consider surplus release in the context of the wider suite of options available to their scheme, including buyout, transfer to a superfund or other options beyond those. Following these changes, trustees will remain subject to their duty to act in the interests of beneficiaries. As such, we are confident that trustees will continue both to think carefully about the most appropriate endgame solution for their scheme and to act accordingly. For many, that will be buyout or transferring to a superfund, rather than running on.

Let me turn to what would happen with these amendments specifically. Amendment 33 would link the operation of the surplus framework to existing standards on risk transfer conditions in TAS. In essence, it seeks to ensure the scheme trustees have considered a potential buyout or other risk transfer solution before surplus can be released. Amendment 33A has a similar purpose; again, it aims for trustees, before they can release surplus, receiving a report from the scheme actuary assessing endgame options and confirming compliance with TAS.

Although I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention to ensure that trustees select the right endgame for their scheme, these amendments are not needed because trustees are already required, under the funding and investment regulations, to set a long-term strategy for their scheme and review it at least every three years; that strategy might include a risk transfer arrangement. Furthermore, although I know the noble Baroness has tried to minimise this, hardwiring any current provisional standards into the statutory framework could have unintended consequences, including reducing flexibility for trustees and requiring further legislative or regulatory changes to maintain alignment as these standards evolve over time.

We are back to the fact that, in the end, trustees remain in the driving seat with regard to surplus release. As a matter of course, TPR would expect trustees to take professional advice from their actuarial and legal advisers; to assess the sponsor covenant impact when considering surplus release; and to take into account relevant factors and disregard irrelevant factors, in line with their duties. We are working with the Pensions Regulator regarding how schemes are supported in the consideration of surplus-sharing decisions. The new guidance already considers schemes as part of good governance to develop a policy on surplus. TPR will issue further guidance on surplus sharing following the coming into force of the regulations flowing from the Bill, which will describe how trustees may approach surplus release and can be readily updated as required. Alongside the Pensions Regulator, we will work with the FRC to ensure that TAS stays aligned.

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s contribution and the wider debate, but I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the Minister and everybody else who has spoken. I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and take what he says seriously. I am most grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.

I make no apology for the technical nature of these amendments, but I apologise that they had to be shoehorned in; this is such an important issue, though. This environment of higher inflation risk, excessive prudence and hoarding of surpluses is damaging pension adequacy. The de-risking overshoot has sucked innovation, energy and impetus out of the pension system and the economy. Indeed, the chair of the trustees of Stagecoach described to me that he faced what he termed co-ordinated and insidious behind-the-scenes lobbying against the trustees’ aim to try to obtain better pensions for their members; he also said that the lobbying was in favour of annuitisation as the best option for the scheme.

There is no lobbying for either improving member benefits or giving a lot more money back to employers at the moment. If we were able to get an amendment such as this one into the Bill, so that everybody must consider the range of available options plus innovative strategies, I would hope that the outcome of the Bill would be much better, more productive use—which is the aim of the Government: the Minister, Torsten Bell, has rightly talked about using surpluses in a productive manner.

The FSCS backs annuities. It has no government guarantee. I hope that, on Report, we may come back to the spurious safety of the current recommended future for this enormous amount of assets and find ways in which the Bill might be able to accommodate the need for a mindset change in this connection. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

State Pension: Triple Lock

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am certainly not going to answer for the leader of the Opposition. I will allow others who are rather better qualified than I am to do that. But I can assure her that the idea of means testing the triple lock, even if its meaning were clear, is not something we on these Benches embrace.

I can tell the noble Lord very clearly that we have a manifesto commitment that the triple lock will hold for the entirety of this Parliament. That is a huge commitment. The noble Lord mentioned winter fuel payments. Means testing those meant that a number of pensioners lost a sum of £200 or £300. By contrast, the amount of money we are investing in the state pension will mean that the annual rate will go up by up to £1,900 by the end of this Parliament.

The comments by my colleague, the Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell, were made as a private individual when he was the head of a think tank. It is the job of heads of think tanks to think big ideas and to talk about them. However, I assure the House that Minister Bell, along with me, is fully committed to the triple lock and the Government’s commitment to it. I hope the nation’s pensioners will be delighted to hear that.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Does the Minister agree that there is an inconsistency in the triple lock between younger pensioners, who tend to be better off and for whom the triple lock provides protection for their full new state pension, and the oldest pensioners, who tend to be poorer, or those on pension credit, who either have only the basic state pension triple lock protected, or, in the case of pension credit, no triple lock protection at all? Is there any plan for a review of how, generally speaking, the distribution of incomes among pensioners and the protection provided by the triple lock interact?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has raised a number of important and connected questions. Let me pick a couple of them out—as many as I can in the time. First, on the distinction between those on the old basic state pension and those on the new state pension, it is not a straight read across that people on one are getting more than people on the other. As she knows, it depends, of course, on what the national insurance contribution rates were and how many years they worked. How much contribution they made determines how much they will get. It is also a fact that many people on the basic state pension were contracted out and therefore will have occupational pensions and will have paid lower national insurance contributions as a result. Whichever of those state pensions people get, we will guarantee that it will go up by the triple lock, which is a massive investment, given the economic climate, and a huge investment in pensions.

On the broader question, the noble Baroness will know that in the second stage of the pensions review we will look at the whole question of the adequacy of pensions. We need to have in our country a system designed to be built, as she knows as a former Pensions Minister, on the foundation of the state pension but with an adequate second pension coming from occupational provision. On that, auto-enrolment, investment in the system, addressing gender pay gaps, and a whole range of questions are important. I will stop talking now as I have talked for far too long. The point is that we are investing in pensioners, we will get the pensions market working and we want this to work for everybody.

Pensioners: Winter Support

Debate between Baroness Altmann and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

On bureaucracy, 80% of people now apply for pension credit online. You can apply online, on the phone or on paper, or you can get help from the DWP or a third-party organisation, but 80% apply online. That is by far the simplest and quickest way to do it, not least because you end up answering, at most, 48 questions and sometimes only 35, because lots of things you do not have to go through are taken out. That might seem like a lot, but it really is not—the experience people have is fairly straightforward. If you do not like doing it online, you can phone up and that is the equivalent, because the person on the other end just does it for you—you are on the phone and they are entering all the details. Some weeks, only 5% of people apply on paper.

On how long it takes to process it, as we are expecting an influx of applications, we have redeployed another 500 staff to work on processing. We know that there will be slightly longer times and are warning people who apply that it could take up to nine weeks, but I assure the House that if anyone applies in time, they will get the money. If that means that for a small number of people there will be a cashflow issue, I encourage them go to their local authority to apply to the household support fund to tide them over that gap.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I encourage the Minister to recognise that the winter fuel payments are being taken away from the very poorest pensioners. Those on pension credit are not the poorest; those who are entitled to it and will eventually receive it will also not be the poorest because they will get thousands of pounds extra, including winter fuel payments. Those slightly above that—it is estimated there could be 1 or 2 million—have no means of receiving the money that they will need this winter. There is no protection for them. The Minister talks about the reduction in fuel costs. Last winter and the one before, those pensioners received one-off cost of living payments. With a Budget tomorrow, it may not be too late to recognise that this is a mistake; it is going to cause serious harm to a number of pensioners and cost the Government and the NHS significant sums.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, nobody went out thinking that this is where we would like to be, but the noble Baroness knows very well the economic situation that we inherited, and she will know exactly why it was necessary to save money in year. I remind the noble Baroness that, by definition, the poorest pensioners are getting the support they need provided they apply; we will make it as easy as possible for them to do that. For everybody else, the Government have committed to sticking to the triple lock for this Parliament. That means that somebody on the new state pension will find that, over this Parliament, the value of that state pension will rise by £1,700, and the value of even the basic state pension will rise by £1,300. That is where the huge extra support will come from for the pensioners that she is talking about.