Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

217: After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
“Review of public service pension schemes(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct and publish a review of the long-term affordability, intergenerational fairness, fiscal sustainability, and accounting treatment of public service pension schemes.(2) In conducting the review under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to—(a) the current and projected cost to the Exchequer of such schemes,(b) their affordability in the context of long-term public finances,(c) the impact of such schemes on different generations of taxpayers and scheme members,(d) the implications of demographic change, including longevity and workforce participation, for the sustainability of such schemes, and(e) the manner in which the liabilities associated with such schemes are recorded, disclosed, and accounted for within the public sector balance sheet and related fiscal reporting frameworks.(3) In preparing the review, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Office for Budget Responsibility,(b) the National Audit Office,(c) His Majesty’s Treasury, and(d) such other persons or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(4) The schemes to which subsection (1) applies are—(a) the NHS Pension Scheme,(b) the Teachers’ Pension Scheme, (c) the Civil Service Pension Scheme,(d) the Armed Forces Pension Scheme,(e) the Police Pension Scheme,(f) the Firefighters’ Pension Scheme, and(g) any other public service pension scheme designated by the Treasury by regulations as operating on an unfunded or pay-as-you-go basis.(5) The review must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.(6) Nothing in this section affects any pension entitlement accrued in respect of service.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of the long-term affordability, intergenerational fairness, fiscal sustainability, and accounting treatment of public service pension schemes.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 217 would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review of public sector pensions. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes for her support and am only sorry that she has other commitments this evening.

I have always worried about the cost and sustainability of such pensions. I am a beneficiary of a modest one myself from my years in the Civil Service, and it is generously uprated every year.

Interestingly, there is a lacuna in the work the Government are undertaking on pensions. We have the Pension Schemes Bill, which we are busy scrutinising and which addresses problems with local government pensions and value for money in private schemes; we have the Pensions Commission review, led by this House’s eminent pensions expert, the noble Baroness, Lady Drake; and we have another independent review of the state pension age in progress. I expect that that review, like the one I conducted some years ago, will recommend an increase in the pension age in due course, and ways to encourage people to stay in employment for longer—for many good reasons.

However, there is a glaring gap. As far as I can see, none of these initiatives will address the sustainability of unfunded public sector pensions, their accounting treatment, or how best to tackle the issue of intergenerational unfairness that is an almost inevitable result of the fiscal unsustainability of these schemes. They include pension provision for some of the most important public services: the NHS pension scheme, the teachers’ pension scheme, the Civil Service pension scheme, the Armed Forces’ pension scheme, the police pension scheme and the firefighters’ pension scheme.

The numbers are big. There are over 3 million active members in the NHS, teachers’, Civil Service and Armed Forces schemes, 2.2 million deferred members and 2.8 million pensioners. That is a total of 8 million individuals. As populations grow older, the proportion receiving gold-plated defined benefit pensions will grow if nothing is done.

This is a virtually forgotten area of inquiry, perhaps because all of the policymakers and public sector trade unions are beneficiaries. However, since I tabled my amendment, there has been a useful report on the subject by Policy Exchange. I have also discussed the problem with the Centre for Policy Studies and with the economist Neil Record. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea is speaking today, as he has addressed this subject in his book, Return to Growth. As we will no doubt hear, he is very passionate about the unfairness that this represents.

Most people are aware that Britain has a huge national debt, which already sits at £2.9 trillion—97% of GDP—and is growing. However, as Neil Record has argued, there is a second national debt, the public sector pension debt, reflecting the cost of public sector workers’ defined benefit pensions. This is kept out of the limelight but, on government figures, the past five years’ average public sector pension liability as a percentage of GDP is 74%. That is on a scale that approaches the order of magnitude of the actual national debt. At the heart of the problem is the fact that this is a very long-term issue, like the actual national debt, with reform virtually impossible to reconcile with the electoral cycle.

I need to explain some of the complexities. On the surface, things look fine. In 2025-26, according to PESA 2025, there was a total of £58.6 billion-worth of public sector pensions being paid to about 3.5 million pensioners—that is a CPS estimate. This compares to a total of employer and employee contributions of £57.3 billion, which has dramatically risen in recent years. So, apparently, all is well.

But I am afraid that is not the case. The sums paid in pension contributions by employees do not go towards their pensions but to pay the pensions of those already retired. There are no savings to pay future retirees. I know that the figures in the OBR’s Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report of July 2025 are lower than Mr Record’s, but it is partly a question of how you do the calculations. Estimates on longevity and long-term public sector salaries are particularly difficult to predict.

My main point today is that, on any credible estimate, the numbers are frighteningly large. Something must be done. Moreover, the situation is getting worse, as commitments grow over time. It is unfortunate and regrettable that the scale of the problem is not properly reflected in the national accounts, although this is very difficult to unravel, even for those who are reasonably financially literate.

It is hidden by a combination of the accounting conventions and the moves in interest and gilt rates, which have made things look temporarily much healthier than they are. One of the most important variables in pensions is the interest rate applied to notionally invested contributions. Higher interest rates result, according to standard accounting conventions, in lower pension costs, and, of course, vice versa. However, when the facts are unravelled, even if no new pension commitments are made from this point—that is, if all the current schemes were closed to new accruals—existing public sector pension payments will continue to rise until the early 2060s, which, on best estimates, will by then amount to some £130 billion a year, with no capping mechanism of any sort.

You will struggle to find any acknowledgement of this in our national accounts. The Government use a long-standing convention called SCAPE—superannuation contributions adjusted for past experience. I will not go into the detail, but it is uniquely vulnerable to manipulation and, according to informed opinion, has been manipulated with the use of artificial rather than market-based interest rates.

I have also discovered an allegation that there has been a surprising adjustment in the NHS arrangements—the largest of the public sector pension schemes. So, when employer contribution rates were raised, as they certainly needed to be, from 14.3% to 20.6%, the then Government decided to finance the gap of 6.3%—allegedly temporarily—by paying that amount directly from the Treasury rather than charging the NHS employing organisations. In 2024-25, the gap rose to 9.4%, or £6.6 billion per annum, which the Government have now decided to fund permanently. Although there is no overall impact on the public finances, this sets a poor precedent of obscurity in an already obscure system. So, can the Minister kindly let us know the justification for this decision to fund this gap permanently?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for introducing Amendment 217, which would require the Secretary of State to produce and publish a review of public service pension schemes, focusing on different aspects of the cost, affordability and accounting treatment of these schemes. I remind the Grand Committee that I am a member of the parliamentary pension scheme, and therefore of my appreciation of the work of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.

The noble Baroness is quite right to focus on the affordability of these schemes and what this means for intergenerational fairness, given that unfunded public service pension schemes pay out over £60 billion in pensions and lump sums each year and are often the single largest liability in the whole of government accounts.

However, as has been indicated already, and as the noble Baroness will know only too well, her party conducted a major review during the coalition Government, in the form of my noble friend Lord Hutton’s Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. That led to major reforms, including the new schemes to which all active members of the main schemes are contributing today, with a move from final salary to career average design, higher pension ages and higher member contribution rates. Due to the McCloud judgment and the resulting choice exercise for affected members, those members may have been building up only since April 2022, meaning that these major reforms are only now fully bedding in for all members. As my noble friend Lord Davies noted, the then Government committed to the 25-year guarantee, in effect committing to no further major reforms to public service pension schemes until 2040.

The proposed review would be conducted by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. However, I note that statutory public service pension schemes are the responsibility of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I know that the Treasury works closely with the OBR and the NAO on this policy area already.

The centrality of the questions that the amendment would require the review to consider means that much of this information is regularly published already. For example, the OBR publishes a forecast of the cash-flow cost of public service pensions over the coming years as part of its forecast at every fiscal event, including spending on pensions and lump sums, income from pension contributions and the net balancing payment to or from the Exchequer. The OBR also publishes long-term projections of spending on public service pension schemes as a share of GDP as part of its fiscal risk and sustainability reports. As noted, the most recent forecast from September 2024 projects that spending will decline from 1.9% of GDP to 1.4% of GDP over the next 50 years.

Demographic changes as a result of longevity or migration are taken into account in the OBR’s long-term analysis. The sensitivity of scheme liabilities to longevity is central to the four-yearly valuation reports used to set employer contribution rates across schemes. Both the valuation reports and the whole of government accounts contain detail on different accounting treatments of scheme liabilities and how to interpret the resulting headline figures. Given that all this information is regularly published already, and the reforms to public service pension schemes that have already been implemented, a government review into the affordability of these schemes would merely collate existing information in one place.

Let me address some of the specific questions that were raised, turning first to the treatment of pensions and the whole of government accounts. In recent years, liability has decreased significantly, falling from £2.6 trillion in 2021-22 to £1.4 trillion in 2022-23 and £1.3 trillion in 2023-24. The whole of government accounts report is fully transparent in explaining that these changes were driven by an increase in the applicable discount rate rather than changes in the amount of pension being accrued by scheme members. The whole of government accounts reports present this liability in accordance with the international financial reporting standards. There are no plans to change that approach and nor do we think there should be.

However, I am aware that members of the PAC have asked whether this liability could be presented on a more permanent basis, to show how it would change in the absence of changes to the discount rate, to aid user understanding. The Treasury is currently exploring options to present pension liabilities on a constant basis. To be clear, any such presentation would be purely supplementary and would not affect the underlying pension liability calculations or the way those are presented in the financial statements.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked why the Government are funding the gap permanently. The answer is that current contributions reflect the cost of current employment—pensions to be paid in the future. Current contributions are not intended to be and do not relate to current pensions in payment, which were earned years or indeed decades ago. So current pension costs reflect pensions earned. This is therefore not an appropriate basis to consider affordability. Traditionally, the central measure for Governments has been pensions as a proportion of GDP.

On whether it is right to be paying these kinds of pensions, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for his stirring defence. It is really important to recognise that, sometimes, this is discussed as though all public sector employees are calling in huge salaries and doing little for them. He defended how so many people in the public sector are driven by vocation and a calling into public service: they do things to serve and often have lower salaries than they might have elsewhere. I pay tribute to all those who are in that position.

It is true that, compared with the private sector, remuneration in the public sector is weighted towards pension. This is why public service pension schemes are so central to the Government’s fiscal forecasts. However, the noble Viscount is quite right: public sector remuneration has to be considered in the round, across pay and pensions. That is why pension provision is specifically taken into account as part of the pay review body process across the major public service workforces.

It is also important to distinguish between the generosity and cost of the schemes and their DB design. My noble friend Lord Hutton noted in his review for the coalition Government that they are a large employer capable of bearing the risks inherent in a DB design. It is thus in a different position from other employers. In a sense, cutting public service remuneration, whether from pay or pensions, would allow any Government to score savings for the Exchequer, but the fact is that reward packages for each public sector workforce have to be designed to maintain the required levels of staffing and to deliver the required public services.

Finally, it is worth remembering that the changes made following the Hutton review were significant. As I said, the scheme design changed from final salary to career average; pension ages were increased to state pension age for most schemes and to 60 for the police, firefighters and the Armed Forces; member contribution rates were increased across schemes, except for non-contributory Armed Forces schemes; and other aspects of scheme design were modernised, for example, in supporting flexible retirement. At the time, it was estimated that those reforms would save £400 billion over 50 years. Separately from the Hutton reforms, the then Government also switched the indexation of the scheme from RPI to CPI, in line with other forms of spending.

This has been a very interesting debate but, as I have said, most of the information that has been sought in the review is out there already, so such a review is not currently worth while. I hope the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support I have received this evening, particularly from my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, who, like me, cares a lot about transparency and favours a review. I listened with care to what the Minister said, and will look carefully at Hansard, but I do not think that the arrangements are very easy to understand, nor do I think that the OBR or government accounts are easy to understand or transparent.

I tabled my amendment because I wanted to air the problem of the unsustainability of public sector pension schemes as I see them. My noble friend Lord Moynihan described the current schemes as a Ponzi scheme, which was very strong, but he is right that we have a sustainability issue. That is in part caused, as has been mentioned, by the happy fact that we all now live longer. We face this issue in all our pension discussions and we cannot hide from it.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, helpfully agreed that a debate on these issues is needed. He and I go back, and we debate these things, which is very useful, but I was surprised to hear that a 25-year guarantee can be given by any Government. However, as has been said and is true, contributions by employers and employees in the public sector have increased as a result of Hutton, but we still have an unsustainable situation, so we need new thinking and certainly a review. I have been careful not to make any recommendations today, but to highlight the issues as I see them. It is wrong that this important Bill sidesteps the issue that is storing up problems—for our children and our grandchildren—from the pay-as-you-go schemes that we have.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving government Amendment 194, I shall speak also to government Amendments 195 to 202; I would welcome the Committee’s support for them.

The AWE pension scheme is a trust-based defined benefit pension scheme for current and former employees of AWE plc, the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Since 2021, AWE plc has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and this pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These proposed new clauses will allow the Government to defund the existing scheme, establishing a new central government pension scheme for its members. The assets held by the scheme will be sold, with the proceeds transferred to the Treasury. The Chancellor announced this measure in her 2025 Budget, but the principle was announced in a Commons Written Ministerial Statement on 6 July 2022.

The new scheme will be an unfunded public pension scheme. This is in accordance with wider government policy that when a financial risk sits wholly with the Government, as it does here because of the Crown guarantee, it should not hold assets to cover that liability. The taxpayer is already exposed to the risks and the liability can be managed more efficiently in the round, along with other unfunded liabilities met out of general taxation. This measure will help to ensure that liabilities are funded in the most efficient way while ensuring the long-term security of members’ benefits. I assure the Committee that these clauses protect the rights that members of the AWE pension scheme have accrued under the current scheme. Neither the terms nor the benefits will be affected. The new public scheme must make provision that is, in all material respects, at least as good as that under the AWE pension scheme.

The new clauses in Amendments 194 and 195 provide that the new scheme should be established by regulations and set out the kind of provision that may be made by these regulations and any amending regulations. Although these are fairly standard for public schemes, I assure the Committee that the Government have considered carefully how these may be relevant to this scheme. The new clause in Amendment 197 ensures that the scheme rules cannot be amended unless prescribed procedures have been followed. In most cases, the requirement is to consult. However, if the proposed amendment might adversely affect members’ rights, the regulations must prescribe additional procedures to protect the interests of members, including obtaining the consent of interested persons or their representatives.

The new clause in Amendment 198 will enable the Government to direct the disposal of the assets currently held by the pension scheme for the benefit of the Exchequer. As we expect that the bulk of the assets will be sold before the new scheme is established, regulations under this clause will ensure that the trustees’ liabilities will be met by public funds, thus ensuring that pensions in payment will not be affected. Regulations under this clause will also be able to exempt the trustee or AWE plc from any liability that might otherwise arise because they have complied with the Government’s direction. This will include the power to disapply or modify specified statutory provisions. These powers can be used only in relation to regulations made under this clause and are intended to protect the trustee. For example, we expect that we will need to disapply the scheme funding regime in relation to the scheme once the sale of the assets begins.

The new clause in Amendment 199 ensures that the transfer of the AWE pension scheme to a new public scheme will be tax neutral, meaning that no additional or unexpected tax liabilities will arise for those affected by the changes. The new clause in Amendment 200 will give the Government the power to make regulations requiring individuals or organisations to provide the information needed to establish the new public scheme, administer the scheme and transfer accrued rights. It should be noted that the Government do not expect to use these powers, as we are working with the AWE pension trustees and others to ensure a smooth transition for the benefit of all members. This provision will be required only in case of non-compliance.

New Clause 201 ensures proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made under this part of the Bill, particularly those affecting the establishment and operation of the new public pension scheme and the transfer of assets. The Government are required to consult the trustee of the AWE pension scheme before making regulations to establish the new public scheme, transfer accrued rights or transfer assets and liabilities. This ensures that the interests of scheme members will be fully considered. Regulations that could adversely affect existing rights, have retrospective effect or set financial penalties are subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that significant changes are subject to parliamentary approval and scrutiny. All other regulations under this part of the Bill are subject to the negative procedure, which provides flexibility while maintaining accountability. I hope that this explains the plans for the AWE pension scheme. I commend these amendments to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 194 to 202. The Government’s letter states that the liabilities of the AWE pension scheme will no longer be pre-funded, that the assets of the scheme will be sold and that scheme members will be protected in line with the approach taken to other pensions guaranteed by the Government. The proposed amendments to the Bill are said to provide the legislative framework to achieve this outcome. They would enable the creation of a new public pension scheme into which the accrued rights of AWE scheme members would be transferred. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 198 does not establish a conventional funded public sector pension scheme. Instead, it appears to create a hybrid transition mechanism which ultimately results in an unfunded public liability.

In a genuinely funded scheme, assets and liabilities move together into a continuing pension fund. The provisions break the link between members’ accrued rights and any dedicated asset backing. By contrast, a private sector defined benefit pension scheme is funded and backed by invested assets. It is governed by a statement of investment principles, which sets risk tolerance, balances growth and security, aligns investments with member liabilities and is overseen by trustees acting under a fiduciary duty to scheme members. Once members’ rights are transferred into the new public scheme, there is no guaranteed asset pool, there is no meaningful statement of investment principles and benefits are met from future public expenditure rather than from scheme assets, as the Minister explained.

The effect of this is a material change in the nature of members’ interests. Rights that were previously supported by a funded scheme, overseen by fiduciary trustees and governed by a statement of investment principles would instead rest on a statutory public sector framework. In that framework, the investment strategy and long-term funding are determined through central government processes and are therefore exposed to future fiscal and policy decisions. Although the Government’s interest in AWE plc is public in ownership terms, these provisions do not operate at a general or class level. They apply to a single named employer and to a closed and identifiable group of scheme members for whom a bespoke statutory framework is being created. This is the problem.

It is for these reasons that there remains a credible argument that the amendments are prima facie hybridising. I know about this because on Thursday 8 January I tabled my public sector amendment to the Bill, which is now Amendment 217. I was required to amend it before tabling because it named more than one specific pension scheme, as Amendments 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 202 do. Interestingly and I think unusually, Amendment 199 also deals with taxation, which is something I confess I have not seen before, but there may be a precedent. My amendment did not move members’ interests at all. It simply required a review of the affordability, sustainability and accounting treatment of public sector schemes. That stands in contrast to the far more substantive and immediate changes affected by Amendments 198 to 202. My original amendment was rejected on grounds of hybridity and I had to take out the specific scheme references. Somehow—and it feels rather suspicious—the Government’s hybrid amendment was accepted by the Public Bill Office.

I urge the Committee to reflect carefully on the nature and consequences of what is proposed and the precedent that it may set for hybridity. I invite the Minister to consider this and to consider perhaps introducing amendments to Amendments 195 to 202 or withdrawing the amendments until the implications are considered by an appropriate constitutional expert. Obviously, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why we are facing this situation at this point in time. My issue is with the hybridity rather than with the details of the AWE pension scheme, which is not a matter on which I am in any way expert.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I have one quick question to obtain reassurance, I hope, from the Minister in relation to Amendment 199 on taxation. I imagine that it is consequent on some of the problems that we had with the McCloud remedy, which required tax changes and the Treasury to intervene. The amendment uses the word “may”, which allows the Treasury to do it if it wishes. Should that not be “must”, in that what we are promising AWE is that nobody will be tax disadvantaged? I put that to the Minister and ask for some reassurance.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it may be that those are precedents that have been passed in legislation, but I am not clear that they have been put into this sort of Bill. The problem with the amendments is that they are a mixture of the general and the individual. That is what creates hybridity, which is why I ran into trouble with the Table Office when I tried to table my amendment. However, the Minister’s amendment seems not to have run into that issue, so that is something that we need to consider. Perhaps the Minister could have a look at it and bring the amendments back on Report, assuming that she is right and there is not a hybridity issue. I am very concerned about a constitutional innovation without expert guidance. She wrote a letter; I did not get it, but obviously I have been taking advice on this. It is slightly outside the remit of what we are able to agree on.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. In the light of her comments, I do not know enough about what she tried to do and why it did not work. I would like to be able to compare them. Given that she makes a perfectly sensible suggestion, I happy to withdraw the amendment and make sure that I can answer her question before we come back on Report, if that is okay with noble Lords. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly but enthusiastically in support of Amendment 205. The case for a review was eloquently put by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and its merits are surely obvious. I hope the Minister will be able to agree with that.

In particular, I hope the review will take a close look at the situation that many Gen Z people find themselves in. Many work in the gig economy or are self-employed. The Gen Z average savings are small: 57% have pots smaller than £1,000 according to PPI data, and half of them cannot estimate their pots in any case. Perhaps alarmingly, 45% of Gen Z people rely heavily on social media for financial information—presumably delivered by animated cats. The proposed review could and should examine this in much more detail.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in proposing a review of pension awareness and saving among young people.

When I had the honour to review the state pension age for the DWP in 2021-22, I was struck by two things that strengthened the case for better policy in this area. First, I found it much more difficult to get young people or their representatives, or indeed middle career workers, to engage in my review. Those who did were keen to keep pension contributions down and they did not believe the state pension would still be universal by the time they reached the retirement age of, say, 70. They were worried about buying a flat, as my noble friend has said, looking after their children and paying back their student loans.

Secondly, the level of financial education was dire. Schools were focusing well on human rights, the environment and ESG, which was discussed under the previous amendment, but not on pensions or financial management. They were not teaching the importance of early saving, the magical impact of compound interest, the value of a pension matched by the employer and the risk of new sources of profit like cryptocurrencies. Much more such education is needed in our schools but the Department of Education was resistant, partly because teachers are also often a little short on financial education. This is an important area and I am sure the Pensions Commission will look at it, but my noble friend is right to highlight what a big job we have to do.

[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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, one of the astonishing things about the Bill is that it not only stops choice but puts under statute a connivance between the regulators and that old boys’ club of large operators that run investment money in London.

The effect of this connivance is to weaken returns, increase costs, damage competition among funds and weaken the UK economy. It does that because—although you would not know from the Bill—the City of London is, by any measure, one of the world’s top three financial centres. That did not happen by itself. Three hundred years of innovation, progress, capital and scale, starting in Lloyd’s Coffee House in the 1700s, and continuing with the Rothschilds and the big bang 40 or 50 years ago, made the United Kingdom and the City of London a financial powerhouse. It created a tax gusher. That happened because people were able to use their intellect and talents to innovate to turn small acorns into large oak trees in so far as financial management is concerned.

All that is at risk. That is why I welcome the amendments from my noble friend Lady Noakes, which would re-establish the principle that you have to allow the creative destruction in a market economy to advance returns and service and add competition, all of which this Government would sweep aside. It is that sort of macroeconomic approach.

Of course, it also fetters people’s ability to make their own decisions in an adult way. I accept that after someone’s house, their pension may be their second largest asset. But that is not the same in every case, and there are people with sophisticated needs and requirements who ought to have that choice. That choice should not be foisted upon them, because it gives you those weaker returns, increased costs and damaged competition.

I am entirely in favour of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes and, once again, I call on the Government to have a fresh look at this, not least because the Prime Minister has identified fintech and all those sorts of innovative sectors—those start-ups in Shoreditch—as one of the large opportunities where this country can show competitive advantage. That would be snuffed out if these provisions in the Bill were implemented through regulation or other methods.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is fair to say that I am not keen on Chapter 4 of the Bill, which appears to allow the state to trample on and prevent the establishment of smaller funds, and, if necessary, requires their assets to be moved, presumably to another fund. “Squashing new entrants” was the telling phrase used by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to provide some reassurance.

I support the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes and have added my name to most of them. It is essential to permit the regulations to be pro- competitive rather than over-exclusionary, and for the review required by Clause 43—the timing of which we are yet to hear about—to consider the competitive landscape for pension scheme provision.

It is also important that the regulations made encourage innovation, as Amendment 170 would. The substantial £25 billion minimum provided for in the Government’s reforms seems set to deter such innovation—innovation that is characteristic of smaller, growing operators. We have heard that, at length, on several days, but we have not yet received an adequate answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has already raised some good points about other risks that may arise from the proposed arrangements.

My noble friend Lady Noakes rightly suggested that the Pensions Regulator should be made to consider the competitiveness of new entries. I share her praise for the fintech sandbox, although I would say that that was a long time ago—indeed, when I was a Treasury Minister about 10 years ago. I am, however, less sure about the FCA’s overall success. I have therefore added my name to my noble friend Lord Younger’s stand-part notice, which questions the need for Clause 45. The Government’s Explanatory Notes are far from helpful and the implications of this clause are unclear. Why does it extend the FCA’s supervisory jurisdiction to default arrangements under Chapter 4? What, if any, new delegated powers are being given to it?

I have encountered a lot of problems with the FCA over the years. The truth is that I have not found it business or fund-friendly. It presents itself as the champion of the consumer, but adds cost, delay, bureaucracy and uncertainty in a way that often raises prices and returns to the very consumer that it was set up to protect. I am therefore of the view that its role should be minor and constrained. What is the background and rationale for this clause? We need to know more if we are going to support it.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank everyone for their contributions. It might take 300 years to get it right, but we do not have 300 years; we are trying to get it right in the course of a few meetings, as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, pointed out. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, gave us the view from the coalface with regard to the decisions that trustees have to take and about trustees working on behalf of their members. The key concern, which is why I support these amendments, is that the default should be shaped around members’ needs and outcomes, not regulatory convenience or market consolidation by default.

The amendments in this group emphasise the importance of competition, innovation and transparency. They highlight the need for clear member communication before defaults are subject to mandation, for a value-for-money framework to be in place first and, I am afraid, for Ministers to justify why mandation is limited to automatic enrolment defaults. The amendments seek to put some meat on to what this Bill is meant to do. They are, I think, necessary to make sense of the precautions that are needed if this Bill goes forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, as I was saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, described so well, the aim of her Amendments 168 to 170 is to shift from measures aimed at restricting the creation of new non-scale defaults towards a wider remit to encourage competition and innovation; I will come back to that in a moment. In addition, her Amendment 171 would expand the statutory review under Clause 43 to examine the extent to which such non-scale defaults contribute to competition.

Although we share the noble Baroness’s desire to see a vibrant, innovative market, we want these characteristics to operate alongside, not separate from, scale. Our concern is that the changes would leave too many default arrangements in place, entrenching fragmentation and preventing members benefiting from scale. Inserting a competition function into this regime would significantly extend the remit of the Pensions Regulator; again, I will come back to that in a moment.

The Government’s view is that there is no tension between scale and competition. Scale enables meaningful competition on quality and on long-term returns. I am sure that noble Lords will have had a chance to read the impact assessment on the Bill—it was green-rated, of which we are incredibly proud—which estimates that between 15 and 20 schemes may operate in this market after the conclusion of the transition pathway in 2035. We think that, by any measure, that represents a market within which successful competition can function; I do not think it would pass the oligopoly test that has been suggested.

However, we also need to remember that a key ingredient for competition is competitive charges for employers. Nest has helped lower charges through its public service obligation. It is important that employers continue to have access to pension products that offer low-charge options; Nest and others will play a key part in that going forward. We see no reason why competition for market share would not continue as it has done in the past. The drive for it is clearly still there.

The new entrant pathway places innovative product design at its core. The aim is to create a space for new solutions while maintaining a strong baseline of member protection. Our view is that, although we understand its underlying intent, we do not believe that Amendment 170 would add greatly to the opportunities for innovative schemes to remain in the market that are already set out in the Bill. Our new entrant pathway will place relatively few additional requirements on new schemes beyond those that exist today.

I agree that, alongside the innovation and competition that will come from existing schemes, there must be space for new market participants—the disruptors. We want to enable them to come to market, but there also needs to be confidence that they can grow to scale—over time, of course—and can deliver good outcomes for members. We recognise that a new scheme cannot come with scale and will need time to build up, obviously, but we need new entrants to demonstrate their plan to build scale.

Innovation is a good indicator of a scheme’s ability to grow. The noble Baroness described what is happening, but the truth is that there is a weak demand side, and it is already difficult, as we have seen, for a new entrant to gain traction. We do not seek to limit innovation, but we want regulators to focus on what innovation can deliver for members and its impact on scheme growth and member outcomes. In short, the Government support innovation that improves outcomes, but we do not want to perpetuate sub-scale defaults at the expense of savers’ interests.

On Clause 45, it might be helpful if I set out the purpose of the clause—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, entry is essential to innovation. The idea that the big firms or any regulators are going to be able to decide the right path for the innovative future is picking winners, and it does not work in my humble business experience.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, we want innovation. That is what I have just tried to describe. TPR has made innovation the central pillar of its corporate strategy. It launched an innovation service, and it has had the industry test innovative ideas and proposals such as new retirement products and the like. That has been up and running for some time. We want innovation but we want innovation that will serve member interests.

The noble Baroness asked about TPR and competition. While TPR does not have a statutory objective in competition, it does actively consider it, and it forms part of its strategy. Competition has been part of its evolution in a changing landscape; it started off in a world of single employer schemes and it is now in a very different world with a market that has moved towards master trusts and an authorisation supervisory framework. Value for money is a key enabler to drive transparency and competition in the market, and TPR plays a direct role in delivering that for the sector alongside the FCA.

Clause 45 amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 so that the FCA has the necessary powers to monitor and enforce the default arrangement requirements and support the review of non-scale default arrangements on a consistent footing with TPR. In practice, that will mean gathering relevant information for the review, considering applications for any new non-scale default arrangements and—should regulations require it after the review—assessing consolidation action plans.

To make the distinction, Clause 42 relates to restricting new default arrangements for schemes in the market. It aims to reduce fragmentation that does not serve member interests but allows new arrangements to meet member interests. It does not restrict new entrants to the market. Clause 45 allows new regulations to set out the powers for both TPR and the FCA to approve new default arrangements and will work with both regulators to ensure there is alignment and co-ordination between them. In short, Clause 42 introduces the restriction of new default arrangements without regulatory approval and Clause 45 gives the FCA the powers to do this in relation to its functions on FSMA. I hope that has cleared it up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to say how strongly I support Amendment 176, so eloquently proposed by my noble friend Lord Younger. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, ignores the fact that the pension reforms of the last 15 years have led to a massive increase in the number of employees saving for retirement. I entirely agree with him that we are not there yet—not by a long chalk. There is much more to do. But for him to say that we are here to discuss this Bill as a result of the failure of the last Government to manage a proper pension scheme is unfair.

The point is made by my noble friend Lady Noakes in her Amendment 177, where she seeks to omit paragraph (b) because it assumes that all retirees are in the same boat with the same needs—just a guaranteed income for the rest of their life. She is absolutely right that different pensioners need different default schemes according to their needs—depending on whether they have debt or no debt, and whether they have heirs and successors to whom they are going to leave their assets. All these things are different, and personal choice plays a big part in that.

It is also important to consider, as my noble friend mentioned, the necessity for the regulators to be aligned. The Pensions Regulator has no objective to drive competitiveness and growth, compared with the FCA, which has such an objective. This difference is quite a problem. Without alignment of objectives, trust-based and contract-based schemes could be subject to different expectations. Savers could face inconsistent retirement experiences depending on the type of scheme and competitive distortions could arise between regulatory regimes. Clarity on timing, standards and supervisory approaches is critical. I look forward very much to hearing what the Minister has to say.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have three very simple questions. First, why in some areas is the delegated legislation by negative resolution and in some cases by affirmative resolution? In Clause 49, regulations under subsections (1)(b) and (6)(a) are by negative resolution, as are some in Clause 50. I would just like to understand why.

Secondly, I am very aware that people will differ, as has been said. Some will want to take their money earlier than others, perhaps because they are using their pension as some sort of early day fund, or perhaps because they have a serious illness and do not expect to last long. Is that variation provided for? I would like that assurance.

Thirdly, if somebody has two pensions—perhaps one saved under auto-enrolment, which is what we are talking about, and another, perhaps because they worked in the public sector, a defined benefit scheme—how is the pension provider covered by these clauses going to allow for that difference of need?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 49 is quite interesting. Clearly, we have been on a journey for some time. Going back 35 years, Maxwell raided his pension fund, completely screwing over his employees at the time, which led to the 1995 Act as a consequence. There were other items in there as well, but that brought in a much more controlling approach to aspects of pensions.

One of the liberations that happened in the previous pensions Acts a decade ago was that people did not have to do a particular thing with their money. I know this is money that was topped up by aspects of tax relief and the like but, ultimately, instead of being forced in a particular direction with an annuity in a different way, people had a choice. I am conscious that various scams happened when people were transferred from one to another. I hope those people will find a special place in hell; they have deprived people of the money that they had rightly gathered over the years and scammed them out of it. But ultimately this did give a choice to people, with all that money, about how they wanted to spend their retirement—instead of somebody else telling them what to do.

I am concerned that this clause, in effect, requires a guaranteed solution. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Noakes has talked particularly about removing the need for there to be a regular income as part of this solution, but if benefit solutions are going to be required by this legislation, there should not just be a choice of a minimum of one. There should be at least two, so that people can still have that choice. That is why in Clause 49(1)(a), I think that “one or more” should be “a minimum of two”, if that is going to be the way that we go.

The other thing that is not clear to me—perhaps I just have not spent enough time reading this—is what happens if people do not want the default pension. What choice do they have? It does not feel as though they have any choice at all. I am trying to understand something: what is the real problem that Ministers and the Government are trying to address here? Do not get me wrong—we want to make pensions as simple as possible for people. I know that my former employer used to set up a particular approach, saying that it was easy and that you could buy into it, but it was your choice what you did. That is why I am concerned about Clause 49 in particular. I hope that, by the time we get to Report, the Minister will have reconsidered whether ripping away freedoms is the right way for the people whom the Bill is intended to support.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, have a number of amendments in this group and I will address my remarks mainly to them. Amendments 99 and 106 recommend removing the specific figure of £25 billion from the Bill and replacing it with a figure to be determined by the Government nearer the time, I hope, after detailed consultation.

On the last day in Committee, when we debated Amendment 88 on small pots, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, which proposed a monetary limit of £10,000, the Minister rejected the amendment on the grounds that

“the Government are not persuaded that it is sensible to hardwire the cap in primary legislation”.—[Official Report, 22/1/26; col. GC 188.]

Quite right. The same applies here: my amendment follows exactly that principle. I am concerned about the risks involved in tying primary legislation to a fixed monetary sum.

First, a change in market conditions could render it inappropriate. Secondly, such a large sum risks stymieing the development of newer companies and gives an exceptional competitive advantage to those providers already of the required scale. There is no evidence—I have been searching—to suggest that big is always best and there is certainly no academic proof that £25 billion, £10 billion or any other number is the right dividing line between successful funds and failing funds.

Newer entrants with an interesting approach to member service, digital engagement or innovative investment may well take time to break into the market, but just because they have not reached what the Bill determines is the magic number should not mean that they are forced to close, which is what the Bill would do, in effect.

The Minister said that consolidation and scale will mean

“better outcomes for members … lower investment fees, increased returns and access to diversified investments, as well as better governance and expertise in running schemes”.—[Official Report, 22/1/26; col. GC 202.]

That may well be the case for many, but deliberately disadvantaging innovation and putting up barriers that damage recent or newer entrants, regardless of their merits, runs counter to those intended outcomes over the longer term. Using collective vehicles, for example, run by already established experts such as closed-ended investment companies, can replace the need for in-house expertise at each of the big pension funds. Indeed, that option is already available but is being discouraged by the Bill.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, a correlation is not the same as a causative impact. Putting £25 billion into the Bill creates a big issue with some of the newer companies that will fall into the vacuum between the new entrant pathway, which does not start until a scheme is established after 2030, and the transitional pathway, which requires this fixed £10 billion—I could have tabled amendments on that, but £25 billion is the same principle—if they have not reached that level.

What is worse—I tried to indicate this last week—is that, although I know that the Government want to inject certainty by including these numerical figures, unfortunately they are also blocking the progress and potentially forcing the closure of a number of schemes that have digital-first methodologies right now but have not been established long enough to reach the required scale and to which the market to raise growth capital is currently shut. Who would lend money to a newer company that may or may not reach the scale required by the particular date?

The Government need to think again about the merits of using a fixed number, as the Minister mentioned last week. I would be happy to meet officials or Ministers to go through the rationale that has had this damaging effect in the market. I hope that we will not give a hostage to fortune by specifying a particular number in the Bill that may or may not prove to be right, wrong or damaging. I hope that the Minister will help the Committee to understand whether the Government might consider this principle.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 91 and 95 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes, to which I have added my name. I apologise for not being able to contribute to the Committee’s discussions on Thursday because of competing business on the Floor of the House. I have read Hansard and I should record that I share the reservations expressed about mandation, a subject on which I have received many well-argued requests and emails. I commend the arguments that have been well put by my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie on the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I particularly dislike powers delayed into the future. If the Government decide that they need to legislate later, they can bring in another Bill that the House can scrutinise in the light of contemporary evidence.

I turn to the amendments in this group, so well argued by my noble friend Lady Noakes. I am uneasy, as others are, about the overemphasis on creating size and scale in the Bill: £25 billion is a big fund and, as my noble friend Lady Altmann said, it does not seem to be well evidenced. It is a Labour trend that needs to be treated with some scepticism. We see it in local government reorganisation, in rail nationalisation and now in the proposals for the police. I know from my business experience, which noble Lords know I always come from, that mergers of any kind always have substantial costs and that you need smaller, pushy innovators to keep sectors competitive. This might be contentious, but Aldi was good for Tesco because it kept us on our toes—and even better for the consumer, the equivalent of the saver in this case. The point is that reorganisations of any kind always have costs and only sometimes have benefits.

We have seen the growth in recent years of money purchase funds that are almost entirely digital, and they have brought beneficial competition to the market. We risk eliminating the next generation of innovation, real value creation and indeed British unicorn funds, generated by competition, if we leave the Bill as it is.

We must not allow good performers to be snuffed out by the movement to bigger schemes. That is why we are asking the Minister to look at excluding master trusts and group pension plans that deliver good investment performance from the scale and size requirements. Performance is, after all, what matters to those saving for a pension. Size, scale and growth are not everything, popular though they tend to be with the fund managers who benefit. Returns matter more, but the Bill at present rather underplays them in favour of scale. My noble friend Lady Noakes’s amendments are just what is needed, and I look forward to hearing how the Minister is going to solve the problem that she has identified.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 99 in particular but I generally associate myself with all the amendments in this group, including Amendments 95 and 98 in the names of my noble friends.

As we have heard, there is no conclusive evidence that bigger is best when it comes to investment management. Of course there are some large funds that do rather well, but, as I explained on a previous day in Committee, within the Local Government Pension Scheme it is the smallest fund in the Orkneys that has outranked the performance of all the 88 other schemes in the LGPS, and there is something to be said for that. It has never changed its investment manager, and there is a lesson there.

In my experience, the best returns are to be made in investing in companies where you either buy the product or know the management—not so that you can tap them for inside information, of course, but because it hardly ever pays to invest in bad people. I also like to buy when prices fall because, let us face it, buying high and selling cheap is never a good investment strategy. But there is no evidence at all that scale in and of itself is good. There is plenty of evidence that it is worse. As they say, the larger they are the harder they fall, and small ones are more juicy.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I will speak simply to support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. It seems to me that there is an extraordinarily wide use of delegated powers in the Bill and, for all the reasons that he set out, we should look at that again. If the Government do not feel able to make a change to respond to his very persuasive points, we should at least have a full list of every delegated power that will be used, what the plans are in each case, and perhaps some specimen regulations of the kind that we have seen in some of the Department for Business and Trade legislation.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments focuses on scrutiny, clarity and responsibility, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for setting out the merits of the super-affirmative procedures and their historical context. It was interesting to hear what he had to say.

As the Committee will have seen, the provisions to which these super-affirmative procedures would pertain allow Ministers, through secondary legislation, to impose requirements and prohibitions on scheme managers, to direct participation in asset pool companies, to require withdrawal from them and to impose obligations on those companies themselves. These are significant powers, exercised in an area that is highly technical, operationally sensitive and financially consequential.

This is precisely the sort of context in which unintended consequences can arise, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. These clauses are dense, complex and interconnected. They interact with fiduciary duties, local accountability, financial regulation and long-term investment strategy. Small changes in drafting or approach could have material effects on risk, returns, governance or market behaviour.

That is why I am glad that the amendment places particular emphasis on representations. The ability for Parliament, and expert stakeholders, to examine draft regulations, to make these representations, and for those representations to be meaningfully considered before regulations are finalised, is essential to the responsible exercise of these powers.

The super-affirmative procedure would ensure that Parliament is not simply asked to approve a finished product but is given the opportunity to understand the Government’s intent, to hear from those with deep expertise in pensions, asset management and regulation, and to see how concerns raised have been addressed. That is especially important where the primary legislation quite deliberately leaves so much to be filled in by regulation, as I explained earlier in Committee.

I hope the Minister will engage constructively with this point and explain why the Government believe the ordinary affirmative procedure provides sufficient scrutiny in this case, given the scale, complexity and potential impact of the powers being taken. I appreciate the short debate on this matter.

Welfare Reform

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for the question. Of course, she has a great deal of experience in this area; she knows only too well how the system works and how it has worked in the past.

This is one of the real problems with the current system. When people have been put through that binary judgment that they either can or cannot work, if they get into the “can’t work” category, the risks are so great that, if they try to work and fail, we will then come and say, “Ha, so you can work after all”, and then it will be taken away.

We are going to do a couple of things. First, there is a linking rule already there, which we will make sure that everybody is aware of, so that if you try a job and come back on to benefits within six months, you will be able to go back to your old benefits. That touches on a point raised by the noble Viscount as well. But we are going to go further: we are going to legislate to make it very clear that work in and of its own right will never be a reason for triggering a reassessment. It is really important that people know that. In the long run, we will break the connection between can and cannot work and support, because in the long run it is the PIP assessment and your abilities and needs that will determine how much support you get, not whether you can or cannot work. I hope that reassures my noble friend that we are determined to tackle this.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking from the Back Benches today because I am very concerned about the sustainability of the benefits system, with an ageing population and the ranks of the inactive and people on disability benefits, as the Minister described. I am sure that it is right to focus on getting people back into work—and I am absolutely delighted that Charlie Mayfield is helping the Government. He comes from retail, as I do, and retail is detail. That sort of person is very helpful in trying to make things work.

I have a couple of questions. First, I have done some work on fraud in the past, including trying to use AI to reduce the cost of fraud. I was very concerned to hear that only one in 10 assessments is face to face. What does the Minister feel the opportunity is in tackling fraud?

Secondly, on timing, the Minister mentioned that there would be a change in PIP in November 2026 and in the work capacity assessment in 2028. Given the scale of the problem, can she give me any reassurance about timing and getting on with those changes?

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments in the names of my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Noakes on the way she introduced this amendment.

There are valid concerns around the wording of the good intentions of this Bill to introduce criminal offences or financial penalties for avoiding employer debt or risking member-accrued benefits. But it is right to express some concerns that this should apply only if the person is either an employer or associated with the employer, so that professional advisers cannot be held criminally liable, nor banks just making loans in the ordinary course of business, nor even insurers for mistakes made in underfunding the pension scheme.

I welcome the long-overdue extension of the Pensions Regulator’s powers contained in this Bill, which can punish wilful or reckless behaviour and non-compliance with contribution notices and so on. I also welcome the intention to deter bad practice by scheme employers, and indeed scheme trustees from undermining their pension scheme. It is right to have a criminal offence, but, as currently written, the provisions under Clause 107 could criminalise anyone who deals with a pension scheme. I do not believe that is the intention, and it could leave parties reluctant to deal with a business because of its pension scheme, which could in turn jeopardise the ongoing solvency of the company. Therefore, I would welcome some reassurance from the Minister that this will not be the outcome of this legislation.

Some might say that advisers should surely share the responsibility were there to be attempts to avoid pension debt. I have some sympathy with this. So, once again, will my noble friend reassure us that this Bill will not see those acting in good faith being caught out by the actions of an employer, or even perhaps of complicit trustees who might act in ways that are detrimental to the scheme? I hope that this reassurance can be forthcoming.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann and the strong case they have made for these amendments. Noble Lords may recall that at Second Reading on 28 January I expressed some doubts about the scale and nature of the penalties in this Bill, which include a civil penalty of up to £1 million. I am still concerned that increasing them, especially the new criminal element, will deter the respectable people we need from becoming pension scheme trustees.

The world has been changed by the challenges of the coronavirus, as we have just heard. According to Patrick Hosking in the Times yesterday, using figures from pension experts Barnett Waddingham, FTSE pension deficits have soared by £45 billion to £210 billion since the start of the year, so that companies that have a deficit are now a good deal further away from closing it. This is an enormous strain on mostly well-run companies and schemes and reflects years of low interest rates caused by QE and turbulent equity markets. Who would want to get involved in pension administration? Yet its success is at the heart of the British savings system and vital to the future livelihoods of millions of hard-working people, often of modest means, up and down the country.

The Bill rightly reflects the need to plug a hole revealed by the Philip Green case and the furious debate in Parliament before Sir Philip was persuaded to pay up. However, as is often the case with legislation that responds to scandals, it is wide-ranging and takes enormous powers. It goes too far in my view towards burdening business at the expense of other stakeholders. The result will be less willingness to become a trustee and more administrative and other costs for pension schemes paid for, in the end, by the unfortunate pensioners, and the risk of more businesses being pushed into the Pension Protection Fund. This is the background to my unease with Clause 107 and why I moved an amendment in Committee with the help of my noble friend Lady Noakes, and why I now support her and my noble friend Lady Altmann with these amendments.

The criminal offences in Clause 107 are widely drawn. They try to catch bad behaviour by anyone who might be involved. But I maintain that this may have appalling perverse effects, injecting great uncertainty into what is permitted behaviour by those involved in pensions administration. My principal concern is with trustees, having been one and knowing what fine judgments one is called to make, but also with financial advisers, actuaries, accountants, insurers, property consultants and even secretarial support, all acting in good faith. It is one thing to provide for criminal sanctions against an employer, but wrong to extend this in such a vague and general way. A number of suggestions were made in Committee as to how one might tackle this, but disappointingly the Government have not listened—or not so far.

These new criminal offences will have a chilling effect on trustees and others involved, as my noble friend Lady Noakes explained, and I ask my noble friend the Minister to agree to think again and to narrow the very wide offences in this Bill to provide some comfort, either in this House or when it proceeds to the other place.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

Lord Naseby has withdrawn, so I call Lord Blencathra. No? I gather that there have been some problems, so I call the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes]

I shall be brief. I indicated that I want to speak on these amendments because I am concerned about the impact that they would have on companies’ ordinary transactions. Part of the problem would be that there is no distinction between ordinary dividends and something that might be regarded as an excessive dividend.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has taken the approach of saying that share buybacks are always less common and always have to be referred to the regulator but other distributions of capital by way of dividend are not. Life is never that simple; if you are sitting in a boardroom deciding on dividend policy, there is clearly an approach to ordinary ongoing dividends. Then there is what you do with surplus capital, which can go by way of either a special dividend or a share buyback. I do not know how this amendment could possibly differentiate between those.

When one gets into the detail of Amendment 51, which tries to set a level at which so-called ordinary dividends would trigger the potential interest of the regulator, we could potentially get into problems. I do not think that it would be healthy to have major uncertainty hanging over companies undertaking their ordinary approach to the distribution of profits alongside what might well already be a well-defined deficit repair plan with contributions already agreed with the pension trustees, and then have something on top be required to go to the Pensions Regulator. The definition of what the regulator should be interested in will end up with a lot of things being notified to the regulator that, frankly, cause no concern at all. I do not think that that is an efficient way to approach life.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has adapted his amendments to meet some of the concerns that we all expressed in Committee, for which I thank him, but I am afraid that I am still not happy with the two amendments that he has tabled. For example, nearly all pension schemes are in deficit. Amendment 50 would allow the Pensions Regulator basically to stop all buybacks, which is a matter not for this Bill but for a governance Bill—following proper review and consultation—because buybacks can be justified in some circumstances and we have not had a chance to debate that.

The coronavirus measures, with which a parallel was drawn, are unique and different—that has been made clear in parliamentary agreement to them—so it is better to leave the arrangements to ministerial discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested. We have to remember that, however good the regulator is, he or she introduces delay and uncertainty, so we need to make sure that the powers are used with care.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register: I am a non-executive director of London Stock Exchange plc, which has a pension scheme of which I am not a member.

I have signed both amendments, which are about getting priorities right on the matter of how a company uses spare cash and the importance of paying down deficits, especially if it is over too long a time. If there is spare cash around, deficit reduction should rank ahead of share buybacks and be balanced with regards to dividends. Both those issues have already been well elaborated, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux.

The amendments would not prohibit either of those eventualities; they would make them notifiable events. The regulator could then exercise discretion about whether there were good reasons; for example, checking that, in the circumstances, the quantum of the dividend was acceptable. I am less certain about good reasons for buybacks, but if there were any, they could be discussed. I therefore support the amendment. To deem it excessively cautious would not be to take it as it is intended. Although we say that the matter would need to be investigated, we would expect the Pensions Regulator to be reasonable in all the circumstances. For example, if everybody had fallen into big deficits, obviously the situation would be different, because of what was going on in the markets, from where a company was being a laggard in making up its deficits. However, we must not forget that if those deficits are not repaid and the company is under stress, it will be the workers and the pensioners who lose out in the end. They cannot always be put at the end of the queue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden [V]]

My Lords, I support all three amendments. The grouping is slightly odd, mixing the question of transactions with that of data accuracy; there is a relationship but it is only tangential. The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, have already explained the reasoning for the amendments so I shall try to be brief.

Amendment 52 would prevent a dashboard service from engaging in financial transactions. The matter has been well explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, so I will just say that the risks around pension-related transactions happening without proper advice are very well known. Dashboards are being created primarily for the purpose of allowing people to obtain better information about their situation. That information will be helpful when deciding whether to carry out some transactions but it does not in any way negate the need for proper advice, so allowing dashboards to become transaction platforms would make ensuring that proper advice had been taken much more difficult. At least until they have been fully established and the implications well understood, it really must make sense to prohibit dashboards from becoming transactional platforms.

The other two amendments along with Amendment 13, which was discussed in the first group, are about establishing appropriate processes to ensure the accuracy of the data on the dashboard. It almost goes without saying that a dashboard containing inaccurate information may actually be more damaging than no dashboard at all; I apologise for the echo of something else there. These dashboards are intended to help people and their advisers to make decisions about their future pensions. Inaccurate data will lead to wrong decisions being made. It is therefore critical that data must be fully and regularly checked and audited, so I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, as noble Lords know, I am as concerned as anyone with consumer protection. I therefore welcome the amendment which we have agreed to during the passage of the Bill to ensure that the Money and Pensions Service provides a public-owned dashboard. That was a great step forward, and we will come on to that on the next amendment.

However, I fear that this amendment could stop commercial experimentation, which is desirable if properly regulated. As I understand it, any organisation providing a pension dashboard must achieve authorisation from the FCA. Innovation is important and can help consumers and pensioners. If the amendment were passed, it could have a chilling effect and prevent innovation until another Bill had cleared Parliament—not, I suspect, a welcome prospect for HMG after the extent of the amendments made to this Bill.

I have a question for the Minister. I am a little concerned about compliance with GDPR, which obviously is important in securing equivalence in the EU context, where portability is a key requirement. I wonder if the amendment could run us into any trouble on that aspect of regulation.

[Baroness Janke [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendment 52. I also support the other two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as a result of the matter being much debated in Committee, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for her clear analysis of the issues involved.

Many would say that pensions dashboards are long overdue. They enable people to plan their future finances taking account of existing pensions, and to take a long-term view of future financial provision. However, the challenge of producing a dashboard that will adequately cover the complexity of the pensions landscape should not be underestimated. We are talking about millions of people, and the enormous number of lost pensions that we hear about shows both the need for and scope of the task. Given the level of complexity, the scope for scams and fraudulent actions increases and it is therefore essential that members of the public are sufficiently protected.

As many noble Lords have said, the vulnerability of many people means that they can be much more susceptible to scams and bogus claims and apparently attractive offers from the commercial sector. The additional factor that digital literacy and access can be problematic for some people also needs to be considered. That and the lack of sound advice can lead to bad decisions and life-changing, irreversible mistakes, as we heard from the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Altmann, in Committee.

Pensions is a complicated subject; it is not easily accessible by everyone. Lack of engagement, which has already been talked about, is a result and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, said, people often take the line of least resistance and take wrong decisions that they are unable to change. I hear the arguments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, about innovation. Certainly, it is an important factor, but I feel that the protection of pension holders is more important. Measures to provide full protection should be the subject of further primary legislation rather than secondary legislation, as indicated in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey [V]]

My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 63 because it is vital to allow the MaPS dashboard the best possible chance of reaching a wide public and establishing MaPS as a trusted and independent operator. This amendment would provide the MaPS dashboard with a head start of about 12 months. Without that, I doubt that MaPS would be able to do any of those things very successfully. I doubt that it could establish a wide customer base. If it is competing from the start with rival commercial organisations and their dashboards, those rival dashboards, whose eventual presence I would welcome, would be provided by organisations that have more resources than MaPS does, more consumer-facing expertise and more experience and skill in communications with consumers. Many would also have a very large existing consumer contact base, firmly established brands and loyalty, whereas MaPS would find it very hard to establish itself as a distinct, recognised and trusted independent operator in the clamour of a vigorous competitive marketplace. You need market share, visibility and actual customer experience to do that. That is probably impossible for MaPS in a very busy, very fragmented and possibly very confusing marketplace.

To make the MaPS dashboard work, we need lots of people to know about it and lots of people to use it. If we are to generate trust, we must provide high levels of consumer satisfaction and embed the notion and value of independence in the MaPS brand. The only way to do this is to allow MaPS a head start, to properly fund its launch and its communication campaigns, and to give it time to use what it learns in its first year. That would enable it to offer a very high level of service by the time that the huge marketing expertise of its well-funded and contact-rich competitors arrives on the scene. That is why I support Amendment 63.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

I welcome my noble friend Lord Young’s probing amendments on verification and timing, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister. I was very struck by the summing-up on the previous amendment by my noble friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who showed just how strong the Bill is on consumer protection and to what lengths the Government have gone to meet the House’s concerns. But others have just tried to use the Bill to bring in yet more burdensome measures.

For me, Amendment 63 takes the biscuit, because the Government have agreed to bring in a Money and Pensions Service dashboard so that there is a government, public-funded version that includes people’s various pension pots and the old-age pension. The proponents of this amendment are then trying to exclude the trail-blazing commercial version, which was behind the Bill in the first place and is designed to help savers, building on the good practice that exists out there in the best pension funds and elsewhere. The amendment would lead to a delay of a year for those dashboards, yet they will all be properly regulated and monitored and MaPS would be in the lead. Competition from others will be an incentive to quality and speed, helping to identify the bugs that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, who knows so much about pensions, referred to.

I cannot support this amendment. It is worrying that the Government are losing on a series of inappropriate amendments because noble Lords are not coming to the House to speak and listen, but can vote from their garden benches.

[Baroness Janke [V]]

I support Amendment 63 and am not voting from a garden bench. The case for this amendment has been very well stated and I will therefore not take up time by repeating it here. I support Amendment 63 and will vote for it if there is a Division.

--- Later in debate ---

So, while ministerial assurances are all very well, if we are to continue the sensible—and, I repeat, ethical—policies of the Railways Pension Scheme, it is essential that the Government accept this amendment and write it into the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

My Lords, I have little to add, but I very much agree with ensuring that

“the closure of schemes that are expected to remain open to new members, either indefinitely or for a significant period of time, is not accelerated”,

to quote from the amendment. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how he can meet the House’s concerns.

[Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too welcome this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Bowles to help keep open defined benefit schemes. This is to be applauded, as I believe that they are in the best interests not just of their members but of wider society. Open defined benefit schemes assist UK plc over the long term and reduce the potential burden on the state from inadequate pension provision.

As we have heard, the genesis of this Bill dates back to corporate failures such as Carillion and BHS. It is right that the Government look to address the shortcomings that led to these failures and the losses that members of those schemes unfortunately suffered—but it is important to learn the right lessons. BHS and Carillion were fundamental examples of pension schemes brought down by a failure of corporate governance to manage those companies properly, not of companies brought down by a failure to manage their pension schemes.

Like other noble Lords, I understand the Pensions Regulator seeking to protect members’ benefits, but it should look at defined benefit schemes, because they look to the future. They do not just look in the rear- view mirror but have a much wider responsibility to act in the best interests of all members—past, present and future.

Any moves to significantly reduce those returns by forcing schemes that remain open to new members to start investing in line with the risk profile of closed schemes will have unintended consequences. I shall certainly support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, if she decides to call a Division.

Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

I assure the noble Baroness that the issues and successes coming out of universal credit are continually under review. However, I will take her specific question back to the department and will write to her with an answer.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is clear that the department should put right the particular matter identified by the Court of Appeal. I note that the Minister thinks that some 1,000 cases are involved. However, does she agree that the universal credit system has stood up very well to the severe challenges posed by the consequences of coronavirus?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott [V]]

I assure my noble friend and the whole House that the universal credit system has stood up well to the increased demand of 600% additional cost. I have repeated the Answer that my ministerial colleague gave in the other House. We are determined to find a fix for this. We will keep the House updated, but we will need time to consider the judgment, which was issued only last Monday.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 4th March 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has done the job for me, but broadly speaking, I support this amendment. As well as what has already been elaborated, it plays into the feelings that have come up several times as we discussed the Bill as well; namely that, although the noble Earl has said that there is policy, a lot of implementation is also yet to come, and perhaps some of us feel that some policy is also yet to come. I therefore hope that a commission could come along subsequently and that it would be able to have an overview of some of the newer things as well as reviewing older things and looking forward. Therefore, I also support the notion of having this pension schemes commission.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister on this, but I confess that I have a little scepticism about this proposal. We have had many reviews of pensions, including the trailblazing Pensions Commission led originally by Adair Turner—the noble Lord, Lord Turner. Many changes have been made to the law, including auto-enrolment, which I think we in this Committee have all welcomed. Of course, those in the current Bill are important as we seek to tackle the issues raised by the BHS and Carillion cases and to introduce dashboards.

I am not convinced that this is the time for another commission and another review. I feel that this is the job of the Pensions Minister and the DWP. Quite a lot is going on in pensions, and the priority should be to make sense of the sort of issues we have discussed on this Bill or issues that arise on things such as exit from the EU, and to get on with those in a practical manner. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend. If she takes a different view, of course, I am happy to reconsider.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to this amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. We do not think there is a need for this new clause to be included in the Pension Schemes Bill, as legislation is not needed for a pension schemes commission to be established. The pensions landscape has changed considerably since the 2006 Pensions Commission; there have been major reforms to the UK pensions system. We have successfully rolled out auto-enrolment, introduced the flat-rate new state pension, abolished the default retirement age and raised state pension age.

The first independent review of state pension age was published in 2017, and this Government have committed to undertaking a review of state pension age every six years, in accordance with statutory requirements, to enable consideration of various factors, including the latest life expectancy projections. This Government are committed to maintaining a pension system that enables financial security for current and future pensioners. Further refinement and evolution will no doubt be needed in future to take account of changes in the labour market, home ownership and debt.

However, a commission is not the only way to identify and make recommendations for the future. We continue to engage extensively with key stakeholders, including consumer and employer organisations and the pensions industry, working collaboratively to identify and take forward a robust programme of work that builds on the strong foundations now in place.

For example, the Government carried out a review of the automatic enrolment scheme in 2017. Implementation of the review measures will be subject to learning from the recent workplace pension contribution increases; discussions with employers and others on the right approach; and finding ways to make these changes affordable. Once the evidence on our reforms is clear, we will look again at the right overall level of saving and the balance between prompted and voluntary saving. We are monitoring the impact of pension freedoms and the effectiveness of regulation of the market and information and guidance.

It is right that individuals are trusted with their own hard-earned money and savings. They are best placed to manage their money throughout retirement. While it is not the Government’s role to monitor individual people and the decisions they make, we recognise that it is important to support individuals in making decisions for their retirement. That is why we established the Pension Wise service to provide free and impartial guidance to help consumers make sense of their options.

This Government are focused on delivering and improving aspects of the existing pensions system. We are open to looking at aspects of the current system, but do not feel that an examination of the fundamentals of the pensions system is appropriate at this time.

My noble friend Lord Young made the point that my colleague, the Minister for Pensions, has shown support for a commission. Noble Lords are right to pay tribute to those who were part of the Pensions Commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, which was very successful at building consensus around the future of pensions policy. Although several individuals and groups have called for a pensions commission, there is currently little consensus about what the scope and structure of such a commission should be. We believe we can engage effectively with interested parties without needing another commission.

My noble friend Lord Young also mentioned Bright Blue and the Fabian Society calling for a pensions commission. Again, I understand that a number of key stakeholders have demonstrated their enthusiasm for a review of the pensions landscape.

I do not discount future reviews of some element of the pensions system. We have already undertaken some reviews and will no doubt undertake others. However, I believe that the fundamental structure of the pensions system, based on the recommendations from the Pensions Commission, is still valid.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

83: After Clause 128, insert the following new Clause—
“Tapered reduction of annual pension tax allowance: review
Within 6 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct a review of how legislation and policy governing pension schemes could be adjusted to mitigate adverse effects of the tapered reduction of annual allowance under section 228ZA of Finance Act 2004, and lay a report before each House of Parliament.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 83, which sets a deadline for a review and is essentially probing in nature.

I am unashamed. I want to put pressure on the Government to do something—and fast—about the impact of the cap on senior or long-serving doctors and consultants. We have a mini-crisis here which dates back many months, and the situation is even more serious given the potential impact of Covid-19. I join others in commending the Secretary of State and the CMO for today’s all-party meeting, and for setting out all that is being done to manage this alarming virus—including encouraging clinicians out of retirement.

There is a pension problem. As my noble friend Lord Balfe told Parliament on 30 October, a BMA survey showed that 42% of GPs and 30% of hospital consultants were reducing their hours. There have been similar figures from the Royal College of Physicians. Doctors are attracting substantial tax bills to care for their patients, and are therefore reluctant to do extra sessions to clear waiting lists or to take on management. There are reports that as many as half our doctors are retiring younger than they used to and that the lowering of the annual allowance from £255,000 in 2010 to £40,000 today, and the increase in the retirement age to 65, may well be factors.

The situation is worse in hospitals than in GP practices, mainly because the latter earn less. However, GPs can be caught out if their practice income peaks temporarily because of a vacancy or because a doctor is missing. The reward for all the extra work and stress can be an extra tax charge. This is especially difficult for small practices, which, unfashionably, I have found to be the best, because they provide continuity of care, which saves on drugs bills and hospital costs. However, that is a matter for another day.

That brings me to hospital consultants, who are generally better paid than GPs but are critical to patient outcomes. I will never forget the lady consultant at King’s who managed me through the latter weeks of a pregnancy, when my youngest son refused to move.

The situation is serious. The impact of the coalition fix—to allow people to carry forward unused allowance from the previous three years—is, I think, running low. The DHSC consulted recently on proposals to allow senior medical staff to opt to build up a pension at a lower rate. This was, however, dismissed by the BMA as a sticking plaster. Understandably, it wants a change in the rules. As always, given the noises made by senior politicians, there is much hope—including on my part—about next week’s Budget.

What, therefore, can and should be done? I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords who have been kind enough to support this amendment, and from the noble Lord, Lord Warner, whose Amendment 86 proposes new regulations to ensure that NHS pension scheme members are reimbursed if they are worse off. I look forward to hearing how that would work.

Other approaches might include getting rid of the annual pension cap—the so-called annual allowance—and relying entirely on the lifetime allowance, which has been reduced over time. Alternatively, and perhaps more radically, we could move relevant senior medical staff on to non-pensionable pay, above a certain level, but pay them as salary the notional employer pension contribution that they miss out on. They would have a higher tax charge, but they would not be punished for working, which I think is the concern.

Many very intelligent people have spent hours trying to fix this problem, so it probably is not easy. There are ways to do it, and we must have a solution by the time this Bill reaches Report if the NHS is to overcome today’s growing challenges.

[Lord Warner (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 86 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Janke. It is a rather simple amendment for tackling a complex problem that is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has said, causing a great deal of damage to the NHS and to patients.

I will not go into the intricacies of the interrelationship between pensions and tax policy, or repeat the data that I laid out at Second Reading about how this is affecting doctors. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has given a reprise of some of that data. There is plenty of data showing the impact on doctors and the NHS; you do not have to look very far to find it. Noble Lords will therefore be relieved to hear that I will not go over that ground again.

The point of this amendment is to address what is happening on the ground now in our NHS. We have arrived at a situation in which doctors can neither control their pension growth nor predict their tax bills; that is where we have got to. Tax bills cannot be calculated until the end of the tax year in which the tax has been incurred; by then it is too late for doctors to adjust their earnings. In some cases, the tax bill exceeds the entire take-home pay that the doctor would earn in a given tax year. We are getting to the point where doctors have to pay to work: that is the situation we have created.

The only way that they can avoid the tax bills is to reduce their work in anticipation, which is what they are doing. I have previously set out the implications of that form of workload reduction, so I will not repeat them, but they include, in many cases, taking early retirement. The serious implications this has for patients and the running of the NHS needs no exaggeration. Suffice it to say that there has been a very large decrease in NHS medical clinical capacity, with very serious implications for patients and the functioning of the NHS. The latest BMA survey of 6,000 doctors shows that even more doctors, in this year and in the past, are planning to reduce their work commitments in the tax year, which is only a month or so ahead. This is why the situation is incredibly urgent.

This problem was so serious that NHS England acted to take the unprecedented step of agreeing to cover annual allowance payments for NHS doctors for the current tax year to try to ease the significant winter pressures on the NHS. At present, as far as I know, there is no plan to suggest that this short-term mitigation will continue into next year, let alone the longer term. It is all very well for the Government to pass last week an NHS Funding Bill, but if there is a serious shortage of doctors, it will not do patients much good.

The Government have been reviewing this problem for some time, but my information from the BMA and others is that they have not so far offered any worthwhile mitigation scheme. All that is available is the option of paying these large tax bills from future pensions by generating a loan against your pension which attracts a high rate of interest and effectively reduces your pension. This option will not reduce the outflow of doctors. Amendment 86 requires the Secretary of State to extend the NHS England scheme on a permanent basis. It also prevents doctors incurring any interest-bearing loans that will reduce their eventual pensions. It has been prepared with the help of the clerks, for which I am grateful, and discussed and agreed with the BMA and other professional bodies.

I am not saying that my amendment is the only solution to the problem—the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has given some other options—but it is an attempt to apply an urgent response to stop more doctors leaving the NHS or reducing their capacity. If the Government can come up with a better solution, I will be delighted. So far, there is no sign of a solution acceptable to the profession that would stop the NHS haemorrhaging doctors.

Let us remember again that the new tax year starts in a month, and that the coronavirus epidemic threatens all of us. I listened yesterday to the Prime Minister and the Health Secretary referring to bringing back retired doctors; that seems to be an important part of their emergency plan for dealing with a potential epidemic. I wonder how aware they and their No. 10 special advisers are of this own-goal lurking in the bureaucracy. We can ill afford to lose doctors from our NHS through a self-inflicted government muddle when a solution is to hand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

The reviews are under way. They have not yet been concluded, but the conclusions will be announced on Budget Day.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, we have had a good debate and I think we have made it very clear that action is urgently needed in the NHS area. It goes wider, as the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, said, but my amendment was a probing amendment—of the kind that I could get through the clerk—about these problems in the NHS, particularly now that we have the added threat of coronavirus. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, put it very well. It is an own goal lurking in the bureaucracy, although if you look on the internet it is quite easy to find the scale of the problem.

Doctors are having to pay to work and can hit a tax cliff-edge, as the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, said—through no fault of their own, it seems to me—and are not able to forecast exactly when that cliff-edge might occur. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. My noble friend Lady Altmann, with her forensic knowledge of the sector, has pointed out that the problem is now some two years old and that the Government made a promise to resolve it. As the Deputy Leader made clear, we must wait to see what the Budget says, but I would like to be clear that I think all of us will want to return to this issue if we feel that we have not made progress in the Budget on 11 March. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 83 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

100: Before Clause 129, insert the following new Clause—
“Impact assessment
Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must lay an impact assessment before each House of Parliament setting out the expected costs of its provisions for businesses, and governmental and non-profit organisations.”

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe took great trouble in Grand Committee on 2 March—at column GC237 in Hansard—to respond to my earlier amendment on impact assessment. He made an admirable commitment to transparency, both on costs and benefits, on the range of measures in the Bill. Time is passing and I see no need to delay the Committee further. If it is in order, I will not move the amendment.

Amendment 100 not moved.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th February 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly—I have added my name to one of the amendments—to support the concept that has been so well explained already by noble Lords and to echo the warnings that this is a very important time in our defined benefit pension system, as we still have employers attached to schemes and, in some cases, members contributing. Some schemes are still not completely closed. Once a scheme has closed to new members, it will not be too long before it closes to new accruals and it will effectively be in run-off. While there are still employers with an interest in the scheme and before we get to the period, which will come in the next 10 years or so, when there is no economic interest between the employer and the scheme and it is seen merely as a major liability—with more and more companies looking for ways to get around the deficits—now is the time to be collecting as much money as possible.

Obviously, one does not want to damage the ongoing viability of the employer, but there needs to be more recognition of the fact that the pension scheme is a debtor of the company—not all companies see it in that way—and the choice between dividend payment and deficit funding should not be just between the interest of shareholders and the interest of pension scheme members. The pension deficit has people’s lives attached, so there is a higher importance here.

When one looks at the provisions of the Companies Act 2006, in particular with reference to Amendment 84, Section 830 says that a company should not be permitted to pay out a dividend if it has not made sufficient profit to cover its costs or if there are losses in the company. What is not explicit, but is made explicit in the amendment, which was originally part of my noble friend Lord Balfe’s Private Member’s Bill, is that the accounting measure of the pension deficit does not reflect the actuarial reality as estimated by a scheme actuary, or perhaps by trustees, of the true scale of the obligation—in other words, potential losses—that the company faces. Therefore, redefining the accounting measure and taking account of the actuarial measure would put the payment of dividend on a different plane. That is to be reflected in Section 830A, which would be added after Section 830, in terms of justification for payment of a dividend that might otherwise look viable.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister says about this and whether the sort of concerns that have been expressed are already dealt with somewhere else. A very good point has been made.

I want to ask a question on Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. He talks about the value of the assets of the scheme, and my noble friend Lady Altmann made this point; there is a big difference between an actuarial valuation and an insurance valuation in a scheme. If you were to base this on an insurance valuation, you would catch quite a lot of pension schemes, including those which probably could pay some dividends. I was a little concerned about that, and I would like some clarification when we come to wind up on what is intended.

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the principle behind Amendment 27, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but equally I have sympathy with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Flight. When it comes to dividends, the mischief may be done regarding money leaving the sponsoring employer’s company before the regulator can mobilise its full armoury of powers. This is particularly true where the dividends are paid to parent companies overseas, where pursuing a legal route by the regulator may be difficult, even more so if we leave the EU, because jurisdictions will change—except possibly foreign-owned UK banks, where in fact the PRA has the power to intrude pre-emptively on dividends going over to the parent company. To that extent, there is an element of precedent, and the PRA would take into account the debt in the pension fund in considering the sustainability issue when it strikes a view on dividends paid to the parent company.

I give credit to the proactive approach that the regulator is now taking to red flag where there is a kind of big ratio between dividends and deficit payment. However, that must be retrospective. The issue is capturing that mischief at the point when the money leaves the company; I am particularly concerned about where it is a foreign-owned company. Therefore, if some way could be found—perhaps by the regulator working with the department—to embrace dividends in some way in the notifiable events regime, that would be helpful. It is a problem, and once the money is gone, it is difficult to chase it, particularly when you have to go to jurisdictions where the power of TPR may not be strong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted]

The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is similar to the point that I was going to make. Some of the answers the Minister gave, in particular to my questions, were good and comprehensive, but they rely on having an appropriate plan in place. The point is that there are times when the appropriate plan is no longer appropriate, and at that point it all falls apart. I think what the Minister has said is that in regulations there will be things that will allay some of our fears, but it would be nice to have something about that in the Bill, because otherwise we are taking it on trust. It is not that we inherently mistrust the Minister or her officials. Of course there have been previous framework provisions that have been remarkably empty of policy, but that does not make it correct. The Government and this Parliament make policy. Regulators do not make policy; they shy away from it. There is no greater making of policy than putting it in the Bill.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

I would also like to be involved in the further talks. We have to try to find a way of dealing with big risks between recovery plans without gungeing up the system for the regulator so that it cannot focus on what matters rather than on what does not matter with the bureaucracy overtaking the objective.

[Lord Sharkey]

I also want to be invited. A critical feature of the discussion is the effectiveness of TPR. When we have the meeting—to which almost everybody seems to be invited—it would be very helpful to have a detailed discussion on what assessment the Government have made of the performance of TPR against its three key principles, certainly in the past year and perhaps slightly longer. I know the Minister gave an example of TPR being effective, but that was one example and I would like to see more data on why we should have faith in TPR’s ability to police this scheme or any scheme.