Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

212: After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
“Fossil fuels and climate change risk(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows.(2) In section 41A (climate change risk), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) must, within 1 year of the Pension Schemes Act 2026 receiving Royal Assent, prohibit the trustees or managers of schemes of a prescribed description from holding relevant assets.(6B) The relevant assets in subsection (6A) are issuance by issuers which, in relation to thermal coal—(a) derive 10% or more of annual revenue from its production, transport or combustion,(b) produce annually 10 million tonnes or more, or(c) have 5GW or more of power generation capacity.(6C) Within 2 years of the Pensions Act 2026 receiving Royal Assent, and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish a review on whether the definition of relevant assets should be extended to include—(a) issuance by issuers which, in relation to thermal coal, derive a smaller proportion of revenue, produce a smaller amount or have a smaller amount of power generation capacity than the proportion and amounts specified in (6B),(b) some or all new issuance by issuers of a prescribed description deriving a prescribed proportion or amount of their revenue from the extraction, transport, trading or combustion of prescribed fossil fuels, or(c) some or all new or existing issuance by issuers of a prescribed description investing a prescribed proportion or amount in exploring for, or expanding the extraction of, prescribed fossil fuels. (6D) Regulations under subsection (1) may implement the conclusions of the review referred to in (6C).”(3) In subsection (8), at end insert—““thermal coal” means coal and lignite used in the generation of electricity and in providing heat for industrial or residential purposes;“issuance” means all investable assets, including equity and debt.”(4) The Financial Conduct Authority must make general rules with effects corresponding to the provisions of subsection (1) for providers of pension schemes to which Part 7A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (inserted by section 48 of this Act) applies.(5) The Secretary of State must make regulations with effects corresponding to the provisions of subsection (1) for scheme managers of the Local Government Pension Scheme.(6) The rules and regulations under subsections (4) and (5) must come into force no later than the date on which regulations pursuant to section 41A(6A) of the Pensions Act 1995 (as amended by this Act) come into force.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require Government and the FCA to make regulations and rules on climate risk grounds restricting exposure of some occupational and workplace personal schemes to thermal coal investments and to regularly review whether the restrictions should be extended to other fossil fuel investments.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 212 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Griffin of Princethorpe and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I thank them for their support and look forward to their contributions. I also thank the Better Pensions Coalition for its input and advice—I should probably say “guidance” rather than “advice”, since no money changed hands.

This amendment has a simple purpose: it seeks to restrict pension investments in companies that undertake certain significant levels of climate-damaging activity Specifically, it would require the Government to legislate to exclude firms with high thermal coal exposure from pension scheme portfolios within one year of Royal Assent. It would require regular reviews on whether to extend the exclusion, and would permit the Government to legislate to implement the outcomes of those reviews. The amendment sets out to do this by amending Section 41A of the Pensions Act 1995, which was inserted by Section 124 of the Pension Schemes Act 2021 under the previous Conservative Administration.

Section 41A allows the imposition of regulation on trustees of pension funds in order to secure

“effective governance of the scheme with respect to the effects of climate change”.

The location of this clause means that all exclusions must be legislated for on climate-risk grounds, not on ethical grounds or approval or disapproval of certain investments. That is why the primary focus of our amendment is the risk to savers’ retirements generated by climate change. It is the case that savers are at risk, not just from fossil fuel assets that have become stranded as the cost of low-carbon energy falls, but from their pension schemes’ investments in fossil fuels funding increased global emissions, contributing to runaway climate change, which would damage returns and the value of their other investments.

There are no safe-haven assets that will be immune from the 2.6 degrees centigrade global warming we are currently steering towards. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has assessed that the current suite of global climate policies could shrink the global economy to half its current size. Alltech finance research indicates that UK pension portfolios could face valuation declines of between 25% and 50% under plausible climate scenarios. Pension savers risk a much more expensive retirement and poor quality of life from continued fossil use. The cost of housing, energy and food is likely to be much higher, partly because their pensions have funded dangerous levels of climate change.

The amendment starts with thermal coal, the most damaging and least necessary fossil fuel. Here in the UK, of course, we ended the use of coal on the power grid in 2024, but despite that, UK pension funds risk undermining this progress by funding the continuous expansion of coal overseas. New research recently published by Finance Innovation Lab has found that pension schemes hold around £10 billion in thermal coal and that this could be responsible for around 17 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. Ironically, that is the same as the entire reduction in emissions from the UK power network under successive Conservative and Labour Administrations between 2019 and 2025. In other words, the UK’s main climate policy achievement at home, replacing coal-fired power with clean energy, may have been cancelled out by pension scheme investments in coal overseas, using contributions from savers, employers and taxpayers.

Pension schemes also continue to hold many more billions, around £88 billion at the last estimate, in fossil fuel companies as a whole, including those involved in new coal and gas and oil exploration. This has some of the characteristics of a collective action problem. The International Energy Agency has warned that there is no scope for additional fossil fuel production if the world is to stay within safe climate limits. Schemes fear missing out on short-term returns that other schemes may be generating, so each scheme staying invested and funding further oil, gas and, especially, coal investment is jeopardising long-term returns for themselves and for everybody else.

The UK pension sector is the largest in Europe. It has the potential to move markets, hasten the global exit from coal and, in due course, to do the same thing for oil and gas expansion. I make it clear that our proposed amendment does not sacrifice member returns. Any decisions to require exclusion must be made on climate risk grounds in accordance with the provisions of Section 41A of the Pensions Act 1995, not on the basis of ethical or political objections, as I said. The amendment cannot be used by the Government to mandate or forbid other types of investment because only the investments set out clearly in proposed new subsections (6B) and (6C) are in scope. Any attempt by the Government to use our amendment to exclude a wider range of investments without demonstration of the climate risk would be unlawful. I should also mention at this point that steelmaking would be unaffected by our amendment: the ban would be limited to thermal coal. Over time, we will need to phase out coking coal as well, but this can take place when it can be done without disrupting the sector.

We have seen in our discussions in Committee that the Government would like to have a reserve power to mandate pension investment into private markets for member returns and wider economic benefits. For Peers who are opposed to the principle of mandation, as I am, I reassure noble Lords that the power to exclude contained in our amendment is very tightly constrained. It would permit a direction to exclude only on climate risk grounds, in accordance with the terms of Section 41A. The Government, as we have seen, are proposing a reserve power to allow direction on almost any grounds, as long as they produce a report first. Our amendment is limited to coal and other fossil fuels. The Government’s reserve power allows the direction of investment into any sector, jurisdiction or asset class, as long as it is not listed.

The Government may claim that the consolidation proposed in the Bill will help reduce investment in fossil fuels, but that seems unlikely on the basis of current behaviour. Industry research due to be published next month by Corporate Adviser Intelligence will show that seven of the largest 19 schemes used for automatic enrolment—including household names such as Aviva, Royal London and Scottish Widows—remain invested, via their default fund, in one or more of thermal coal, tar sands and Arctic drilling.

Transition plans also do not look likely to address our concerns. Labour’s manifesto proposed that schemes should be required to produce and implement Paris Agreement-aligned transition plans but, 18 months on, there does not appear to be a decision on whether to proceed with that. As I understand it, there is slated to be a consultation on policy detail in 2026 and there may be regulations in 2027, with plans perhaps to be produced in 2028—so probably no action before the next general election. But the Government have made strong commitments, both at COP and in their own targets, with the aim of an effective 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions between 2020 and 2030. Transition plans will be great for the 2030s and 2040s, but those plans can be built only on the emissions reductions that we achieve in this decade.

We need faster action to be able to achieve our targets. Our amendment will deliver some of that, and I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a director of Peers for the Planet and a previous chair of that organisation. In this group of amendments, we address long-term systemic risks and how pension schemes both assess and manage them. All three of the amendments that we are discussing recognise that it is pension savers who will pay the heaviest price if the financially material risks to their savings and standards of living posed by climate change and biodiversity loss are not properly accounted for.

I have added my name to Amendment 212, which was just introduced so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. It is important because, as he said, UK pension schemes and savers remain overexposed to the risks of stranded assets from fossil fuels—in particular, coal. New research by the Finance Innovation Lab suggests that UK pension funds have at least £10.5 billion invested in companies that are extracting or burning coal, which could pose significant risks to pension savers. To date, pension schemes have not been required to take mitigating actions, so the sector has not moved quickly enough or at the scale needed to insulate savers from the emerging market and physical risks linked to those very carbon-intensive investments.

I also welcome the constructive intentions behind Amendment 218E in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I look forward to hearing her speaking on it later. This amendment seeks to solve a major blind spot in the pension system by equipping trustees with the tools to understand how nature loss may affect asset values, as well as how global efforts to restore nature may reshape markets.

I now turn to my cross-party amendment, Amendment 218A. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Penn and Lady Griffin of Princethorpe, for their support in adding their names. I am grateful to the Minister and her officials for a useful and interesting meeting ahead of today’s debate, although I hope that she may be a little more optimistic in her response to my amendment today. I am also grateful for the briefings I have received from UKSIF, Unison and ShareAction, and I pay tribute to the Financial Markets Law Committee for both its work on fiduciary duty and its extremely valuable 2024 report.

That report highlighted the way in which the gap left in legislation relating to fiduciary duty causes confusion and uncertainty and can result in trustees interpreting duties in overly narrow ways. I do not want to repeat my Second Reading speech, but there is now a widespread acceptance that the current lack of clarity around fiduciary duty is a real problem for pension scheme trustees—for example, in how trustees balance maximising short-term returns, potentially at the expense of considering other material factors over the longer term, which can have real-world implications for members’ interests further down the line. Even the Treasury, in its recently updated Green Book, recommends that the business case for proposals with a lifetime beyond 2040 should now be appraised against warming scenarios of both two degrees and four degrees centigrade, a possibility under which scientists say that the risks to economic growth and financial stability go up and into uncharted territory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for introducing their amendments, and all noble Lords for contributing to a very interesting discussion. I will start with Amendment 212 from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

While I recognise the aim behind this amendment, the Government believe that decisions about whether to invest, divest or engage must rest with trustees, who are already legally required to invest in the best financial interests of their members and to consider climate-related risks as part of that duty.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I cannot get two sentences in before I am interrupted.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I am sorry, it will not happen again, but the Government are trying to do precisely what the Minister said they should not do: they are trying to mandate investments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Let me explain. We are concerned that replicating the climate provisions of Sections 41A to 41C of the biodiversity Act 1995 on a separate statutory track risks creating overlapping or potentially inconsistent strategies, metrics, scenarios and governance. Trustees could find themselves operating parallel regimes that could cut across one another, generating unnecessary process burden without necessarily improving outcomes for savers.

Crucially, there is also a sequencing issue. Although the evidence base on nature-related financial risk is advancing rapidly, nature data remain less mature than climate data, and the international baseline is still being established. Last November, the ISSB announced the beginning of nature-related standard setting, with the intention that these will become the global baseline. More than 30 jurisdictions worldwide have already adopted, or are preparing to adopt, these sustainability standards. Introducing a UK-specific statutory duty ahead of those developments would risk locking schemes into a domestic framework that could quickly be superseded internationally.

As I noted in our earlier discussion on Amendment 212, the Government are progressing their commitment to credible transition plans, beginning with companies. We believe that it would be premature to legislate for a separate, pension-specific biodiversity regime in advance of those cross-economy frameworks and the ISSB’s nature baseline. Our approach is to sequence reforms so that pension disclosures plug into a consistent, interoperable flow of corporate information, rather than obliging trustees to build bespoke and potentially temporary architecture. As part of our forthcoming statutory guidance on trustee investment duties, we will consider including concrete, good-practice examples of how schemes can identify, assess and manage biodiversity and broader nature-related risks, including supply chain deforestation, nature dependency mapping, data sources and stewardship escalation, as well as how to treat nature-related impacts where they are financially material.

The Government’s role is to enable and accelerate this momentum with coherent, internationally aligned frameworks; it is not to create parallel statutory silos. For these reasons, although we fully share in the intent behind Amendment 218E—I acknowledge the work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—we do not believe that this approach is correct. This has been a very good debate but I hope that, in the light of my remarks, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

The fact is that some, though not all, pension funds are invested in climate-changing activities. We need to do something about that, and we need to do it soon.

The other point I ought to pick up is, again, to do with statutory guidance. I have frequently asked when we will see the guidance, but the only thing I know for certain is that it will not be before this Bill becomes law. Parliament seems to be being bypassed in all this—and in all the secondary legislation that will be necessary to make this mean anything at all. It is reasonable for guidance to explain how pension schemes should go about considering certain matters, but it is not reasonable for what those matters are to go unscrutinised by Parliament and to be changeable at the whim of a Minister. Parliament will be unable to hold the Government to account. Why is it that, in the face of such concerns about guidance and fiduciary duty, as well as the obvious inherent dangers to the proper exercise of fiduciary duty, the Government choose to exclude Parliament?

I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 212 withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name would require the Government to review levels of pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy might better support earlier engagement with pension saving. Members of the Committee will have noticed that I have included certain steers as to what the review should focus on; I hope that this brief debate will enable Members to agree largely with what we are trying to do here.

For many people in their 20s and 30s, pension saving is driven almost entirely by automatic enrolment. In one respect, this is a success story: it clearly illustrates the impact that automatic enrolment has had, with around 71% of young people in full-time employment now contributing to a pension and often benefiting from employer contributions, tax efficiency and the long-term advantages of compounding. Of course, there are opt-outs, but I am pleased to say—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that opt-out rates remain relatively low.

Progress is, therefore, welcome. However, it still leaves nearly one-third of young people not saving at all. Starting to contribute at a younger age makes an enormous difference. Compound interest, where returns build, not only on contributions but on previous returns, means that early saving is particularly powerful. Small amounts saved early can matter more than much larger sums saved later.

Yet, the reality facing young people is difficult. Surveys consistently show that younger generations face an uphill financial struggle. For many, and I remember how I felt in my early 20s, retirement feels distant and abstract, something to worry about later, rather than now. Unsurprisingly, confidence among those aged 25 to 44 about their later life savings is among the lowest of any age.

We need to understand why this is the case. It is not enough for policy bodies to list familiar explanations, such as behavioural bias, lack of knowledge or low trust, and then publish discussion papers. The Government need to know in detail what is actually preventing young people engaging with pensions. If automatic enrolment is still leaving out around one-third of eligible workers, more work clearly needs to be done. As with most things in pensions policy, the answer will be complicated, but complexity is not an excuse for inaction.

We should be clear that automatic enrolment alone is not sufficient to deliver an adequate income in retirement. Of course, I am very aware that the pensions review will be looking at this as its stage 2 focus, and I will talk more about that later. Will the pensions review properly examine these barriers to saving among the young? If not, why not? I ask the Government to give a response on this.

Young people are often focused on more immediate priorities: for example, saving for a house deposit, building an emergency fund or paying off student loans understandably come first and spring to mind; pensions, as I said earlier, are seen as something for later life. But time does not pause and there are real benefits to saving early. Early contributions help smooth out market volatility and allow savers to benefit fully from compounding over decades. Most young people will be in defined contribution schemes, where these effects matter greatly.

There is also a deeper issue of confidence. Nearly half of Gen Z believe that the state pension will not exist by the time they retire. This is a generation shaped by repeated economic shocks, from the financial crisis to the pandemic and the cost of living crisis triggered by the war in Europe. For them, pensions can feel less like a promise and more like a relic. The question is, what do we do about it? I am disappointed, as I said earlier, that pension adequacy appears only in the second stage of the review. In my view, and many people’s views, this should be a priority. Your Lordships should be asking whether lowering the automatic enrolment age, removing the lower qualifying earnings band or increasing minimum contribution rates would deliver better outcomes.

We should be asking what more can be done to reduce the barriers that discourage young people from saving at all. This is why the amendment seeks to require the Government to move faster to review pension awareness among young people and how existing policy would better support early engagement—that is, to move now and not wait until stage 2.

Finally, reverting to the barriers that I alluded to, I will make one final point, which is on the question of compulsion—just to get my oar in on this before the end of today’s proceedings. Mandation, or even the threat of it, will fall most heavily on younger savers, a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Fuller earlier in the week. It risks burdening a generation who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement and who already face significant disadvantage within the system. There is already generational unfairness in pensions policy and we believe that mandation would only entrench this. It should have no place in the Bill, but we have rehearsed those arguments before. Without further ado, I beg to move.

[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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly under the auspices of Amendments 146 and 147 when we resume some of the discussions the Minister promised last week to continue, notably on mandation and statutory guidance. In our debate last week, I tried to establish the evidence base for the Minister’s assertion that

“the Government would not be proposing these powers”—

mandation—

“if there were not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see today in the market”.—[Official Report, 22/1/26; col. GC 218.]

The key words here are “strong” and “evidence”. There are certainly those whose opinions would align with the Minister’s assertion, but opinion is not the same as evidence and not nearly the same as strong evidence.

As I said last week, the DWP recently commissioned the Government Actuary’s Department to model four variations of pension scheme strategies. I will not list them again, but the study concluded that across a range of economic scenarios the model portfolios deliver very similar projected pension pot sizes. But it also showed that if the current underperformance of the UK versus global equities persists, UK-heavy allocations will underperform the baseline. The Government Actuary’s Department said in a post on GOV.UK on 15 November 2024:

“Our analysis showed that a greater level of exposure to private markets may deliver slightly improved outcomes to members. However, there is considerable uncertainty, particularly with the assumptions for projected future investment returns”.


That does not sound like strong evidence for anything.

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries makes the same point. It says that, based on the Government’s own impact assessment, “We do not think there is strong, clear evidence that in most foreseeable scenarios savers’ interests lie in greater investment in private markets and infrastructure”. It believes that there exists a very uncertain central estimate of an extra two percentage points over 30 years, equivalent to 0.066% a year compounded. It goes on to say: “Given the inherent uncertainty in such estimates, this is almost negligible and could easily turn out to be negative over the next 30 years or indeed much higher”. The IFoA goes on to say: “The point is that it is far from clear that there would be a material benefit”. That does not sound like strong evidence commendation either, yet this is the basis on which the Government seek to mandate investment, which raises as a consequence significant concerns about the operation of fiduciary duty.

The proposals in this Bill, for there is a power to mandate investment, cause uncertainty about trustees’ duties to their members. That uncertainty is understandable, especially because the case for mandation is weakly evidenced, if evidenced at all. The uncertainty is also unnecessary in many ways because of the existence of the Mansion House Accord for which, as others have said, 17 leading pension providers have already signed up. How will the anticipated statutory guidance, for example, contribute to the model of co-operation embedded in the Mansion House Accord? Is it no more than a useful threat? What role will the statutory guidance play in modifying the application of fiduciary duty? In fact, can the Minister confirm that the promised statutory guidance will have something to say about the possible clashes between mandated action and fiduciary duty, if only to confirm the primacy of fiduciary duty?

Minister Bell responded on 22 January to a Written Question from my honourable friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon about the scope of the coverage of the upcoming guidance on fiduciary duties. His reply did not refer to the mandation powers at all. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance will be non-binding and have the same have force as many other “have regards” that exist in the financial services sector? If the guidance has, or could plausibly be read as having, detectable, real-world influence, it should come before Parliament for scrutiny, and it should come before us when we can recommend changes.

Minister Bell’s Written Answer, as I mentioned a moment ago, says of the guidance that:

“Work will commence shortly beginning with an industry roundtable to gather views and technical expertise to ensure the guidance meets the identified need”.


I suppress my astonishment at this rather late start for thinking about statutory guidance. I notice that, in the reply, there was no mention of Parliament and the role it might play or of timescale in all this, except we now know that it has either just started or is about to start. In other words, as things stand, the likelihood of effective parliamentary scrutiny of anything to do with statutory guidance is unlikely. This is entirely unsatisfactory for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, has argued so forcefully.

There is no compelling evidence that mandation will work. If the Mansion House Accord is to be taken seriously and the Government play their part, mandation will be unnecessary. Mandation would interfere with or complicate the principal of fiduciary duty. It is also opposed by major stakeholders including, as I mentioned previously, the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries ends its latest assessment of the situation by saying that trustees should not be leaned on to invest in ways that conflict with their own best judgment. Instead, those investments and markets that the Government wish to promote should continue to be made more attractive through initiatives such as LTAFs and so on. The pension schemes will freely choose to follow in a way that is right for them and their members. We agree with that and will continue to try to convince the Government that the reserve power is not necessary or desirable—activated or not—and that there is no sound basis for using it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on the other amendments in this group before turning to Amendment 145 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. As noble Lords have already set out, Clause 40 represents a significant extension of regulatory influence over asset allocation in defined contribution default arrangements. Given the scale of that change, it is both reasonable and necessary that we consider carefully how risk, responsibility and accountability are apportioned within the framework the Bill creates.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Altmann, seek to introduce greater certainty and procedural fairness into the operation of the savers’ interest test. Removing an automatic time limit on exemptions, ensuring that schemes are not compelled to alter asset allocations while determinations or appeals are ongoing and requiring the authority to give reasons for its decisions are all, in my submission, entirely sensible propositions. They make the framework that the Bill creates more robust, transparent and defensible.

In a similar vein, allowing schemes to apply for the savers’ interest test over a limited number of consecutive years, while demonstrating a credible pathway to compliance, reflects a realistic understanding of how long-term investment strategies are developed and implemented. It recognises that good outcomes for savers are not always delivered by abrupt or mechanically imposed changes.

Several of the amendments in this group speak directly to the core point of fiduciary responsibility, which, as was powerfully reinforced during our debate on the final group last Thursday, is an absolutely central point to the approach being adopted by noble Lords across the Committee. The amendments reinforcing fiduciary duty and proposing a safe harbour for trustees acting in good faith on professional advice and in accordance with their duties are an attempt to clarify that nothing in this Bill should place trustees in an impossible position, caught between regulatory direction on the one hand and their fundamental obligation to act in the best financial interests of members on the other.

Related to this, the probing amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, asks an important and unresolved question: where investment decisions are mandated by the state, in effect, where does liability sit if those investments underperform? Even if the Government do not accept the mechanism proposed, the question itself cannot simply be wished away; I hope that the Minister will address it directly.

I also wish to touch on the amendments that deal with systemic risk, structural neutrality and herding behaviour. Requiring trustees to have regard to long-term systemic risks, including economic resilience and climate change, is entirely consistent with existing best practice and does not mandate investment in any particular asset or vehicle. Ensuring that listed investment funds are not structurally disadvantaged helps preserve choice and diversification. The amendment on regulatory herding speaks to a well-understood risk: overly prescriptive frameworks can drive homogeneity of behaviour, amplifying systemic risk rather than mitigating it.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will engage seriously with the questions these amendments ask around process, liability, fiduciary duty and risk. Even where the Government may not be minded to accept the amendments, as drafted, they highlight issues that, given the provisions in the Bill, deserve clear and careful answers.

As has been our consistent approach throughout these days in Committee, my own amendment seeks to probe the Government on a key question: why have they provided for a maximum civil penalty of £100,000 for failure to comply with the mandation requirements set out in this chapter? Given the nature of those requirements and the breadth of discretion that they confer on the authority, it is not at all clear in the Bill how the Government have arrived at that figure or why it is considered proportionate. We are dealing here with decisions around long-term asset allocation in pension default arrangements—areas where reasonable, professional judgment may legitimately differ and where the consequences of regulatory direction may not be apparent for many years. In that context, a six-figure penalty is not a trivial matter.

This amendment is designed to invite the Government to explain the rationale for the level of the penalty; how it is expected to be applied in practice; and whether sufficient regard has been had to scheme size, intent and the nature of any alleged breach. I hope that the Minister can set out clearly why £100,000 is the appropriate ceiling; how proportionality will be ensured; and what safeguards will exist to prevent penalties being applied in a blunt or mechanistic way.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I did not expect to lead this group, but due to the diligence of the Public Bill Office in tracking down consequential amendments, my Amendment 90 has come to the top.

My Amendment 110, which is my main amendment in this group and on which I will focus my remarks, seeks to delete new Section 28C of FSMA. At the heart of new Section 28C is the asset allocation definition, which is flawed not because of its aspiration but because it rests on a complete misunderstanding of what investment trusts or listed investment companies actually invest in, and it excludes them.

Last Monday, I explained the anti-competitive and reputational effects of encouraging the flow of investment exclusively via the new LTAF vehicle and excluding the long-standing listed investment company structure. Today I have touched on the role that they play in valuation. Before turning to the wider reasons why this clause is fundamentally flawed, I will dispel another misconception I hear in circulation: “Investment trusts do not do infrastructure”. Well, I do not know what you call the Thames Tideway Tunnel, Sizewell C, utility-scale onshore and offshore wind, schools, hospitals, hydroelectric schemes, solar and nuclear energy, space, communications and satellites—but I call them infrastructure. All are substantially invested in, at the building stage, by investment trusts. Perhaps the Minister would accompany me to see some of these, although maybe not in space.

I also hear the claim that they do not do the big infrastructure projects that the Government are focused on. That is not really true, but there is nothing in the asset list of private equity, private debt, venture capital and interests in land that says, “Only the mega size”, or that stops them being qualified assets when held by another route. Anyway, we all need all scales of infrastructure investment and ongoing funding for expansion.

On Monday this week, our much-vaunted new prospectus rules came into effect; they make it easier, cheaper and faster to raise both IPO and follow-on capital. This applies to listed investment companies, too. What was this for? It was precisely so that companies can grow faster, bigger pools of capital can be raised more efficiently and larger infrastructure projects and bigger funds can be built. What is the point of celebrating our new financial market regulation if the Government then block the very vehicles it was designed to support? Why are some people in charge of investment—yes, some of them are to blame, too—still of the mindset that investment trusts do not do primary investment, at the very moment when rule changes are being made to build on the boom in primary infrastructure investment that has come through this route in recent years?

I come on to mandation more generally. I am not against the underlying intent of encouraging more pension investment in private assets. However, there is already a far greater awareness of the need to do that. The policy argument is won, but we have only just got to setting up LTAFs and the listing rule changes. The Government have not given the financial industry the chance to show what it can do. It is hardly a vote of confidence in our largest industry—financial services. What message does that send to the world? It says, “Go somewhere else; we have to bully to get things done in London”. What does it say about our famous and canny asset management in Edinburgh? If the Government want to add encouragement, use “comply or explain”—or, better still, “always explain”—to add transparency and understanding to the system. My goodness, neither the Government nor parts of the pensions industry seem to know what goes on in the wider asset management industry. Do not just ask the same people who have driven the old pension investment strategies.

Then we come to trustees. I have amendments elsewhere in the Bill aimed at clarifying that they can and should look to wider systemic and economic effects, but they should not be overridden. At their core, members’ interests are paramount for trustees. New Section 28C does not have members’ interests paramount. It threatens deauthorisation and the disruption and cost that that would cause if, in the judgment of trustees and in full knowledge of the characteristics of their members, they consider that a little less infrastructure or private equity is appropriate. What if the phasing of big projects means that there is a dip when investments exit? What if you are still in the J-curve dip? If some things perform badly, or the rush to invest exaggerates prices, do trustees have to keep pumping money in at poor value? No, that is the moment for explanation and perhaps a modification of strategy, not compulsion or deauthorisation.

Let us be clear: a deauthorisation power of this kind is not neutral. It creates a structural pressure towards consolidation. If a scheme risks losing authorisation simply because its trustees judge that a different phasing or balance of assets is appropriate for its members, they get closed down or forced to merge. That is backdoor consolidation, not member-focused governance.

These are some of the reasons why I want to remove new Section 28C entirely. It does nothing but harm. It is economically inept, competitively unfair, legally unprincipled and blind to the regulatory opportunities that have only just come on stream. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow—and I did—my noble friend discussing the reserved mandatory powers in the Bill. I will speak to my Amendments 111, 161 and 162. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, for adding his name to all three and the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for adding his name to the first.

The purpose of these amendments is to remove the reserve power of mandation from the Bill. The case against these reserve mandatory powers has been set out by a large number of important institutions. Most criticism seems to focus on the issue of conflicts with fiduciary duty. Critics of mandation have argued, correctly in my view, that directing trustees to hold a fixed share of specified assets conflicts with the trustees’ duty to act solely in the interests of their members. Mandation of investment in specific asset classes for policy reasons rather than on a risk/return consideration risks subordinating members’ interests to political objectives.

This also exposes trustees to legal liability for breaching their duty, especially if the investments are seen as politically motivated or fail to deliver competitive returns. The lack of legal clarity around the scope of fiduciary duty, particularly regarding systemic risks or broader economic impacts may well exacerbate trustees’ concerns about litigation and regulatory risk.

I know that the Government are alive to the fiduciary duty issue and have promised to produce statutory guidance to help. At our meeting before Second Reading, I asked the Minister whether this guidance would have binding provisions. The answer was no. The guidance will have, apparently, the same force as the many other “have regards” in our financial services sector. I also asked the Minister whether we could see a draft of this guidance before the end of Committee, but I have not had a reply to date. I therefore ask the Minister again whether we will see draft guidance so that we may scrutinise it before the end of Committee, or at least on Report. It is easy to understand, in these circumstances, why some legal experts and industry groups have called for a statutory clarification of fiduciary duty and argue that only primary legislation can provide the cover that trustees need to invest confidently, as the Government wish, without breaching their duties.

There is also the question of definition. What is the appropriate test for “productive” when applied to mandated assets? What is the appropriate test for “UK investment”, or even “qualifying assets”? Can the Minister say what these tests are and when they are likely to be available to Parliament for examination? There are other significant concerns with mandation. For example, it may produce lower returns and higher costs if it drives crowded trades, pushing schemes into lower-quality or overpriced assets simply to hit targets. As the large DC providers have noted, if there are not enough good-quality opportunities in the mandated classes, schemes may be forced into illiquid or sub-optimal funds. This concern has been made clear as a condition of voluntary participation in the Mansion House Accord. Then there may be a risk in reducing diversification. Concentrating pension assets in restricted geography or restricted asset classes inevitably increases vulnerability to UK-specific economic shocks.

--- Later in debate ---

That is probably all I have time to say. We will come back to many of the details next week, but the Government recognise that the use of this power would be a significant intervention. We also recognise the need to tread cautiously and with scrupulous regard to the impact on savers. This measure has been designed in exactly that spirit. I look forward to discussing all this in more detail, but the powers are an important part of the Government’s overall package and, as such, I respectfully request that noble Lords do not press their amendments.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

Can the Minister respond to the point I made about statutory guidance?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I will answer that next week, if that is okay, when we discuss the issues of fiduciary duty.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

3: Clause 1, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(7A) Scheme regulations made under this section are subject to the super-affirmative procedure, as defined by section (Super-affirmative procedure).”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s willingness to subject regulations made under this section to the super-affirmative procedure, as defined in another amendment in the name of Lord Sharkey to after clause 120. It is connected to other amendments to clause 120 in Lord Sharkey’s name.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I will speak also to Amendments 221 and 222. These amendments would enable meaningful scrutiny of any of the Bill’s nearly 130 delegated parts when it seemed appropriate to Parliament.

The Bill before us is a skeleton Bill. The DPRRC says that the test for a skeleton Bill is whether it is

“legislation containing so many significant delegated powers that the real operation of the legislation depends entirely or in very large part on regulations made under it”.

This Bill, with nearly 130 delegated powers, clearly passes that test; in fact, it is an obvious and extreme example of a skeleton Bill. This means that parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill is severely restricted. That is because, as things stand, statutory instruments cannot be amended and, by convention, are not rejected. As a result, the Government are taking powers to make policy before they have decided what that policy should be or before critical policy details are in place.

The Constitution Committee was clear in its 2018 report The Legislative Process that:

“Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable”.


The DPRRC, in its recent report on the Bill, is equally critical and alarming. It says, among other things:

“We take the view that this Bill is in large part a licence for Ministers to make subordinate legislation … We would have found helpful an explicit declaration from the Department that the bill is a skeleton bill, accompanied by a full justification for adopting that approach, including why no other approach was reasonable to adopt and how the scope of the skeleton provision is constrained”.


The committee’s report, one of the most damning and disturbing that I have read, goes on to say:

“We would also have welcomed an opportunity to examine indicative regulations for at least some of the more important delegated powers given the large part played by delegated powers in this Bill”.


Can the Minister say whether and when the Government will comply with the committee’s suggestion on indicative regulations? We have seen no such indicative draft regulations. I understand that such drafts were circulating among government and industry after the summer. Is that the case? If it is, why has Parliament not been included in the circulation? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Parliament is being deliberately bypassed.

The affirmative procedure proposed in my Amendments 3, 221 and 222 is designed to deliver a measure of real scrutiny. Together, they would deliver a form of super-affirmative statutory instrument. Paragraph 31.14 of Part 4 of Erskine May characterises the super-affirmative procedure like this:

“The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form. (It should be noted that the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who is not in her place at the moment, when a Minister gave this House a helpful summary of how the procedure would work in practice, once the House had decided that the procedure should be followed in a particular case. She said that

“that procedure would require an initial draft of the regulations to be laid before Parliament alongside an explanatory statement and that a committee must be convened to report on those draft regulations within 30 days of publication. Only after a minimum of 30 days following the publication of the initial draft regulations may the Secretary of State lay regulations, accompanied by a further published statement on any changes to the regulations. They must then be debated as normal in both Houses and approved by resolution”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 376.]

According to the Library, the last time I asked, the last recorded insertion into a Bill of a super-affirmative procedure was by the Government in October 2017 into what became the Financial Guidance and Claims Act. When they are not doing it themselves, they have traditionally opposed its use on any or all of three grounds. The first is that it is unnecessary because the affirmative procedure provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The second is that it takes too long and the third is that it is cumbersome. We may hear any or all of these objections from the Minister today.

The first objection, that the affirmative procedure provides sufficient scrutiny, is plainly and simply wrong—unless the Government regard no effective scrutiny as sufficient. The second objection, that it takes too long, is to misread its purpose; the super-affirmative procedure takes longer, but that is because it contains provisions for real scrutiny, which necessarily takes time. This is not a negative—it is the merit of the procedure and the point of it. The third traditional objection, that the super-affirmative could turn out to be cumbersome and a disproportionate use of parliamentary time, has no force in the proposed use of the super-affirmative procedure set out in my three amendments. The procedure would be used only if either House decided that an issue was important enough to require the extra scrutiny that the procedure provides.

The House has debated the use of super-affirmatives before. In 2021, we addressed the matter in Committee and on Report on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill and other notorious skeleton Bills. There was very broad support for using super-affirmatives from around the Chamber, including from the late and much-lamented Lord Judge, who said:

“The wider use of the super-affirmative process would ensure better parliamentary scrutiny and control of the Executive, which for too long have simply ignored the constant urgings of the parliamentary committees in this House”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 654.]


When the proposal on that Bill was put to a vote, the result was: Content 320, Not-Content 236. Many distinguished Members voted for the use of super-affirmatives, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I beg to move Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I was going to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I am not sure that I am, really. I am sure he has not missed the fact that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, do not apply simply to the LGPS provisions in the Bill. They would have widespread application throughout the Bill and implications beyond it. I say that they would have all these implications and I am talking about trustees because they would have a significant impact on the way that all those actors in the pension space would be able to engage in future.

In the past, I have heard people around the House criticise Governments for making decisions at the centre without engaging with those in industry and business who have to deliver them. I know that, if the Government had given huge amounts of certainty and left nothing out there, the criticism would simply be the reverse of what we have heard today. We have to find a balance. The Government believe we have found the right balance. Some Members of the Committee will disagree. I have looked carefully into this, and I am defending the balance that the Government have come to, but I accept that if noble Lords disagree, we will have to come back to this in due course.

We think the existing framework already strikes the right balance between scrutiny and practicality, enabling Parliament to oversee policy development while allowing essential regulations to be made in a timely and orderly way. In the light of my comments, particularly about the proportionality of this, its comparability with previous pensions legislation and the degree to which it is in continuity with the way pensions legislation has traditionally been made by successive Governments, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this brief debate. The complexity described by the Minister is obviously real and clearly important, but one of the ways of dealing with complexity is to have the instruments to simplify it and discuss it. My response to the scenario painted by the Minister would be to say: let us have super-affirmative procedures and accept that they will take up a bit more time and involve a bit more work, but, as I pointed out, that is their entire point.

Skeleton Bills always limit parliamentary scrutiny, and the Pension Schemes Bill is not an exception to that; in some ways, it is a confirmation of it. I understood the Minister’s case, but the Government’s desire to limit parliamentary scrutiny is a mistake. The SIs generated by this Bill will have real consequences for the real economy. We cannot usefully discuss these consequences until we have the detail. It seems to me as simple as that. Of course, having the detail helps only if we can do something about it, and the super-affirmative procedure provides that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I am still mystified as to why Amendment 220 is not included in this group. It is left bereft, right at the end of the Marshalled List. Is there a reason?

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

If the noble Lord is asking why it is there, I am afraid I will have to plead the Public Bill Office.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am advised that Amendment 220 had been withdrawn, not just not debated. We will look into that, and the noble Lord will need to clarify it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I join the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, in saying how much I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White, especially since I too live in Tufnell Park.

It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister. We welcome an important set of proposals for reform. We would support many of these proposals, but several merit serious examination and probing in Committee. As things stand, I should say upfront that we cannot support the mandation proposals in the Bill. I hope that we can constructively modify these proposals during the Bill’s passage through the House.

The Minister will know that stakeholders have expressed significant concerns about risk to member security, trustee independence and long-term saver outcomes that may be contained in the Bill’s proposals. For example, there are worries that easing access to DB surpluses of employers could undermine member benefits. Phoenix has noted that surplus release thresholds will be set in secondary legislation. It believes that a post-release funding level is essential to protect members and limit covenant risks. It opposes lowering the threshold to “low dependency” and believes that surplus should only be released above buyout affordability. Some MPs and the ABI have called for stricter oversight, including retention of the three “gateway tests” to prioritise buyouts over superfunds.

The ACA also recommends that trustees have a formal role in assessing and agreeing any rule changes and in determining any refund of a surplus to an employer. The CEO of TPR, Nausicaa Delfas, whose name I googled—it means “burner of ships”—is on record as saying that:

“Where schemes are fully funded and there are protections in place for members, we support efforts to help trustees and employers consider how to safely release surplus if it can improve member benefits or unlock investment in the wider economy”.


It is not entirely clear how those two outcomes may be traded off, but I would be grateful if the Minister could say more about government thinking on member protection in release and distribution of surplus. I know that my noble friend Lord Thurso, who cannot be here today because he is undergoing a medical procedure in Inverness, will also wish to test the Government’s thinking in this area in Committee.

Then there is the critical question of mandated asset allocation. This Bill, as everyone knows, contains a reserve power to authorise DC master trusts and group personal pensions used for automatic enrolment to invest a minimum proportion of assets in “productive” investments, including UK assets. On the face of it, this cuts directly across trustees’ fiduciary duties and members’ best interest tests. It risks political direction of asset allocation. Does anyone really believe that the Government would be better at allocating funding than the markets? This mandation may well create significant market distorting effects if, for example, the demand for such “productive” assets outpaces their availability.

There is also the risk that such a power may be extended over time to influence allocation on an even larger scale than might be currently envisaged. It is worrying that the Governor of the Bank of England has been reported as saying that he does not favour mandation. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has said in a written submission:

“The criteria for Master Trust authorisation were intended to produce a safe and reliable savings environment and we do not believe the concept of qualifying assets belongs there”.


This power to mandate

“introduces a commercial conflict between pension providers and trustees over asset allocation, weakening the fiduciary accountability of the trustees … It is also premature to give the Government a sweeping power it does not expect to make use of (we note the percentage of mandated assets cannot be increased after 2035 but that might encourage a government to ‘use it or lose it’.) We would urge Parliamentarians to consider the implications of a future government—of any configuration—having a power to define qualifying assets as any project that the government of the day can meaningfully define, charging the capital costs to the auto-enrolled pension savings of the nation … Should mandating schemes to invest in accordance with Government direction proceed, it needs to be made clear what the respective responsibilities of Government and trustees are”

as the finances work themselves through.

I would be very grateful if the Minister could set out for us how mandation and fiduciary duty can be reconciled without complicating or diluting the proper exercise of fiduciary duty. Perhaps a definition of “productive” would be a useful start. My noble friend Lady Kramer, who is attending a funeral this afternoon, had intended to speak to this point and wanted to ask for a detail and risk profile of assets that will qualify as “productive”.

Most people contribute through auto-enrolment into default funds. They have few resources and should not be in high-risk investments—and certainly not without their permission. Ministers have promised statutory guidance to help resolve the issue of potential conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty. On Report in the Commons, Torsten Bell said

“I intend to bring forward legislation that will allow the Government to develop statutory guidance for the trust-based private pensions sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/25; col. 1043.]

He did not specify what kind of legislation or when. The Minister has told us that this guidance will not amount to direction and will have the usual force, or lack of force, present in the many existing “have regards” that exist in the financial services arena. She has also told us that this draft guidance will not be available before Committee begins. This is surely not ideal.

Can the Minister reassure us that, at the very least, this draft guidance will be available before the end of Committee stage? We need to be able to discuss the details of the guidance before we agree to legislation. That is especially the case if the Government intend to rely on the use of SIs, which would of course deprive Parliament of any effective means of scrutiny at all. May I ask her to take another look at the timing, so that we may be able to take guidance properly into account in our discussions of mandation?

Perhaps the Minister can also explain why the mandation currently has sunset provisions for expiry in 2035 if no regulations are in fact made. Why not use, for example, the Mansion House targets to generate a significantly earlier cut-off?

Then there are questions of value for money and consolidations, which have been discussed already. The ABI, as I am sure the Minister knows, pushes for regulatory mechanisms to force consolidation only when it clearly benefits customers. I heard the Minister endorse that approach. The key word here is “clearly”—what does this mean? What will be the test, and who will be doing the testing?

As important as any of these things is the question of pensions adequacy or inadequacy. It is very disappointing that the Bill does nothing to tackle such things as low contribution rates, self-employed exclusion and early savings barriers. The question of whether people are saving enough is probably easy enough to answer, but what to do about it is entirely absent from the Bill. We will want to discuss this further.

Finally, there is no substantive mention of climate issues in the Bill and no reference to, for example, the Paris Agreement. There is an obvious asymmetry here. The Bill provides for increasing investment in productive assets, which are to be defined. It says nothing about which assets should be avoided or minimised. Industry analysts caution that, if the mandation favours domestic growth sectors without, or which do not have strong, climate screening, schemes could be nudged into assets misaligned with the 1.5 to 2 degrees pathway. That would certainly conflict with the spirit, if not the letter, of the Paris Agreement, and it would damage everybody and every enterprise.

Proposed new Clause 19, brought forward at Third Reading in the Commons by my honourable friend Manuela Perteghella, addresses this issue. This new clause, not voted on, would have required the Government and the FCA to make regulations and rules restricting exposure of some occupational and workplace pension schemes to thermal coal investments, and to regularly review whether the restriction should be extended to other fossil fuels. We will bring forward a similar amendment in Committee.

This is a very important Bill with some obviously welcome proposals but also some deep causes for concern, especially as regards mandation and the failure to address pension inadequacy. We look forward to a constructive discussion with the Government and detailed examination of the Bill.

Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) and Pensions Dashboards (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Grand Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)]

My Lords, these draft regulations were laid before the House on 30 January. Good investments are central to well-run pension schemes and decisions made by the trustees of those schemes have a significant impact on growing savers’ pension pots. Subject to approval, these regulations will help occupational defined contribution pension schemes—the so-called DC schemes—make greater use of performance-based fees, which are payable to investment fund managers when they deliver healthy returns on their investments. This will put DC schemes on an even playing field with other institutional investors such as insurers, investment companies, defined benefit pension schemes and overseas investors when it comes to accessing the same range of investment choices that come with fees.

The regulations also place new duties on the trustees of most DC schemes to disclose additional information about their investments. They are designed to ensure that trustees reflect on the investment decisions they make, as part of their ongoing fiduciary duty to create a diversified investment strategy that delivers for savers. These regulations continue the Government’s commitment to ensure that millions of hard-working savers in occupational DC pension schemes are receiving the best possible value. I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Let me take a step back and put this in a bit of context. Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in the use of illiquid asset classes such as infrastructure, real estate and private equity within institutional investment portfolios globally. Meanwhile, DC schemes in the UK have relied on public markets to generate returns and diversify portfolio risk. Pension scheme trustees’ primary focus must always be on delivering an appropriate return to members. But by investing almost wholly in liquid investments such as publicly listed equity and debt, pension savers can miss out on the potential to achieve better returns from being invested for the long term. This is a particular concern in DC schemes, where decisions which reduce long-term returns will affect member incomes in retirement.

Currently, less than 10% of UK DC investments are estimated to be in illiquid assets. The Pension Charges Survey 2020 evidenced that two-thirds of DC schemes had no direct investment in illiquid assets within their default fund arrangements. This is at a time when the UK DC market is growing in scale and in ambition. DC pension schemes currently hold over £500 billion of assets, a figure that is set to double to £1 trillion by 2030. The Australian DC market, in comparison, invests somewhere in the region of 20% of assets, on average. This includes investment in major UK assets such as the King’s Cross redevelopment project and Manchester, Stansted and East Midlands airports.

The DWP has run several consultations to understand the reasons why DC schemes have largely avoided investing in private markets. The feedback received highlighted concerns that performance fees, typically associated with illiquid assets and levied by fund managers, would put schemes at risk of breaching the existing 75 basis-point regulatory charge cap. While the charge cap has successfully reduced costs, it has arguably led to more focus on costs than on the returns that different asset classes can provide. In January, the Minister for Pensions launched a consultation on proposals for a value-for-money framework, which aims to address this. These regulations continue that value-for-money theme. The essence of what we are trying to do here is to make it easier for DC schemes to access a broader range of investment opportunities that could generate higher return outcomes.

I will now say a bit more about the issues highlighted during the consultation. We listened carefully to earlier concerns raised during the consultation that this change to the cap could weaken existing saver protections, and we have acted on this feedback. Regulation 2 of this instrument sets out the criteria that “specified performance-based fees” must meet to be considered outside the charge cap. These include a requirement that fees must be paid only once returns to the scheme have exceeded a pre-agreed rate or amount agreed by trustees and the fund manager prior to investment.

The criteria include additional safeguards that trustees must also agree in advance, and that performance-based fee structures include mechanisms to guard against excessive risk-taking or fund managers being paid repeatedly for the same level of performance. The regulations provide for the use of high-water marks and fee caps, for instance, which are commonly applied in the investment market to give investors this extra level of protection.

The regulations are purposefully silent on what rate of returns or type of fee structure mechanisms must be applied. This is to allow trustees and fund managers to develop and negotiate terms that are in the best interests of savers. Provided that trustees and their advisers apply these terms, such performance fees will not erode retirement pots because they should arise only when savers have received a favourable return on their investments.

The DWP received positive responses to this change, particularly from larger DC pension schemes which said that the ability to remove these fees from their charge cap calculations will make it easier for them to consider new asset classes. The DWP has published statutory guidance to assist trustees with determining the criteria for performance-based fees that can be considered outside the charge cap. The guidance is very clear that trustees should seek professional advice on their investments where performance-based fees are prevalent.

To ensure transparency to members, performance-based fees incurred are required to be disclosed, and the value to members assessed, in the scheme’s annual chair’s statement. To be clear, these changes place no obligation on schemes to agree to investments that come with performance-based fee arrangements if this is not in their members’ best interest.

With any investment there is no guarantee of higher returns. In accordance with existing legal requirements, trustees must invest in a manner calculated to ensure security, liquidity and profitability, and have regard to the need to diversify investments. This provides that trustees are guided on assessing the risk of portfolios and, with this, managing the risk of lower as well as higher returns.

Regulation 3 of this instrument sets out new duties on DC trustees to include an explanation of their policy on investing in illiquid assets in their statement of investment principles. These explanatory statements, covered in the regulations, include whether investments in illiquid assets are held, the types of illiquid assets and why this policy is of advantage to members. Where investments will not include illiquid assets, trustees are expected to give reasons why, along with whether they have plans to invest in the future.

While some of our bigger DC schemes already provide this information, this is not the approach taken by all. Some master trust schemes also disclose information on the asset classes in which the scheme holds investments, but this is not commonplace and most members are not in receipt of this information. The regulations address this by placing a duty on trustees to disclose the percentage of different classes of assets held in the scheme’s default funds. Asset classes covering liquid and illiquid are prescribed in the regulations.

Greater understanding and accountability of the investment decisions made by trustees on behalf of their members will be key to improving value for members across all schemes. The industry’s response to these new duties was that the regulatory burden is reasonable and proportionate while still retaining the wider benefits these changes will bring. It is worth noting that asset allocation disclosure is already mandatory for Australian pension schemes.

The DWP will work with the Pensions Regulator to ensure that trustees are supported with the new duties. Information contained in chairs’ statements and statements of investment principles are monitored by the Pensions Regulator as part of its wider strategy on regulatory compliance.

We will also look closely to monitor the impact of our changes on investment performance. In addition, Regulation 7 of these regulations requires that a review of these regulatory provisions must be undertaken and published within five years of the regulations coming into force.

These regulations also correct a drafting error at cohort 1(b) of the staging profile in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022. The error relates to the staging deadline for master trust schemes that provide money-purchase benefits only. While we are not aware of any schemes being affected by this minor error, it is none the less appropriate to amend the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 to resolve this issue as soon as practically possible. With that, I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, this statutory instrument contains seven regulations. The first is to do with timings and commencement. We have no comment on this, except to ask why there will be a delay of 21 days in bringing the correcting dashboard regulation into effect.

Regulation 2 excludes specified performance-based fees from the charge cap, and the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the rationale. In paragraph 10.5, the Explanatory Memorandum speaks of

“sufficient safeguards for schemes and members to protect them from excessive charges”

consequent upon this regulation. This is clearly a critical area. The possibility of excessive charges is an obvious concern and was highlighted in the recent SLSC report on this instrument. Can the Minister set out what these safeguards are and on what basis and by whom they were judged to be satisfactory?

Regulation 3 will require schemes to include an explanation of their policy about investing in illiquid assets in their default statement of investment principles, as the Minister said. The taxonomy of asset classes is explained in detail in paragraph 25 of the statutory guidance and is given in Regulation 4(5). This has eight categories and does not attempt to define “illiquid”. In fact, I could find nothing in the instrument and its accompanying documents that approaches a definition. Of course, it may be that I have overlooked it somewhere; I would be grateful if the Minister could guide me on the matter, point to a definition and perhaps explain how it was arrived it and by whom. The chief purpose of this instrument is to remove barriers to investments in illiquid assets, and it would be rather odd if there were no criteria for assessing whether an asset was to be counted as illiquid.

Regulation 4 also requires trustees or managers to report on specified performance-based fees incurred by the scheme.

Regulation 5 requires such disclosures to be made public. This all seems very sensible, but nowhere is there any sense of an upper bound on these specified performance-based fees. In its report, the SLSC made this point.

Since the EM was produced, the DWP has published extensive statutory guidance—22 pages—which states that the rate or amount of these fees is for the trustees and managers of the scheme with support from their advisers and their fund manager to agree based on the nature of the investment proposed. At first reading, this seems a bit like an invitation to a fleecing. The Government were happy to install the charge cap in the first place. What consideration was given to capping these special performance-based fees? Paragraph 76 of the statutory guidance, “Volatility of returns and performance based fees”, states:

“The 2023 Regulations require that specified performance-based fees structures must include mechanisms that offer protections to pension schemes and their members. This is so fund managers are not taking excessive risk or being paid twice for the same level of performance or for performance which turns out to be impermanent.”


I cannot see where that is spelled out in the instrument as a must, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s help in clarifying the matter.

Regulation 6 corrects an error in the pensions dashboard, and we have no comment on that.

Regulation 7 provides for a review of the impact of Regulations 2 to 5 every five years, which seems sensible. We are particularly interested in seeing whether the modification of the charge gap and the disclosure requirements lead to an increase in investment in illiquid assets. The SLSC made this point in its formal recommendation to the House:

“As the fee changes made by these Regulations aim to encourage pension schemes to increase their investment in illiquid assets, the House may wish to ask the Minister how schemes’ subsequent exposure to an increased risk of lower, as well as higher, returns is to be monitored and how trustees are to be properly guided on assessing the risks to the portfolio.”


Those are very good questions, and I would grateful if the Minister could address them.

Pensions Dashboards (Prohibition of Indemnification) Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I can be very brief. We support this Bill and congratulate the honourable Mary Robinson MP on seeing the necessity for it, devising it and seeing its safe passage through the Commons. During that passage, the Bill attracted widespread and enthusiastic support from all sides, including from the Government themselves.

The Bill clearly fixes what could have been an extremely unfortunate loophole, and I confess to some chagrin that we did not spot the loophole at an earlier stage. I had thought that we had been pretty thorough—and lengthy—in our scrutiny. It is surely obvious that we should prevent trustees or fund managers who are fined for breach of the dashboard regulations reimbursing themselves from the funds of which they are trustees or managers. Equivalent prohibitions already exist for other aspects of pensions governance, and we clearly need to add the Bill’s prohibitions to that list.

We would also like to speed the progress of this Bill through this House, ideally unamended, to ensure that the loophole is closed quickly. We want to be able to prevent, for example, reimbursements for fines levied for failures to meet the required target dates for connection to the MaPS dashboard—although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, just pointed out, that may not be quite so pressing as it was before yesterday.

Having said all that, there are just a few areas in which I would welcome a little more detail from the noble Lord, Lord Young, who has introduced this Bill with his customary clarity and fluency. I understand that for a breach of the dashboard regulations, such as a failure to connect to MaPS on time, TPR can issue a penalty notice of up to £5,000 where the trustee or manager is an individual, or up to £50,000 where the person is a body corporate. These do not seem to me to be very large amounts, especially given the resources available to large pension funds. How were these amounts decided on and why is it thought they will prove an adequate deterrent to noncompliance with the regulations?

I understand that, under the terms of the Bill in Clause 1, the penalty imposed for use of the pension funds to reimburse managers for fines imposed for breach of the regulations would be, on summary conviction, a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum and, if convicted on indictment, a maximum of a two-year prison sentence, a fine or both. What is the level of the statutory maximum fine, is there is a similar limit to the fine levied for conviction on indictment—because that does not does not appear to be clear in the Bill—and could the noble Lord say, for these penalties, as for the penalties for breach of the regulations themselves, how they were arrived at and how they were assessed as providing sufficient punishment for breaching, or disincentive to breach, the regulations? Finally, I ask the noble Lord for reassurance that the extent of the recovery of any funds illegally diverted as reimbursement for fines will be taken into account when deciding the appropriate penalty for that action.

I conclude by once again congratulating Mary Robinson and the noble Lord, Lord Young, on this Bill and wishing it a speedy passage.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those remarks and concur with them. We have agreed on so much about this Bill: we support the new CDC pension schemes; we all want to see financial technology harnessed to benefit consumers and to make the financial markets work more efficiently; and we are keen to work constructively with the Government to bring innovations such as the dashboard to fruition.

Where we have differed is on the extent of the protections needed to mitigate the risk of consumer detriment and poor outcomes. We still believe that the weight of evidence is with our arguments, as are reports from various regulators. I hope that by the time the Bill is debated in another place, the reasoning behind our Report amendments on the head start for the public dashboard, on the risks of dashboard transactions and on questions of fairness will find favour.

The pandemic has pushed many consumers into digital engagement far faster than they may naturally have adapted to it. While that has kept our economy and society functioning, it has also exposed some consumers to greater risk of detriment. We might not see any consequential increase in the number scams until later in the year, but that means that the provisions in this Bill will be timely and welcome. More risks will emerge, including new ones as a result of Covid, so I urge Ministers to keep the House informed as regulators scan the landscape and the Financial Ombudsman monitors new kinds of complaint. Although they are not covered in this Bill, we wait with interest to see how the Government will regulate the newly emerging superfunds, given the economic impact of Covid.

Pensions are very long term, and it will take decades for the full effects of public policy decisions by any Government to be seen. That is why it is so desirable that pensions policy be built on the foundations of political consensus, and it is why I am grateful for the significant concessions that have been given during the passage of this Bill.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Drake, whose expertise and determination underpinned our campaign for the Government to commit to a public dashboard and have it operating from the start. I am grateful for support from across the House for that and for all the shared support for moves to secure commitments on governance, including ensuring that dashboard services will be regulated by the FCA. It was great to see cross-party working on climate issues, led by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, result in an agreed position with government and the first ever reference to climate change in domestic pensions legislation. I am grateful to the Minister for yielding to pressure from many quarters for amendments on transfers and on delegated legislation.

This is a better Bill than the one which entered the House, and I give thanks to all who made that possible. I thank my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton, but I am sad that it will be my last time sharing the Front Bench with him. He has given so much to this House and to our country in his decades of public service. I look forward to his continued contributions from the Back Benches.

I am a grateful to Dan Harris of our staff team, who has done sterling work on this Bill and is a joy to work with, as are all my colleagues who joined in during our proceedings. I am grateful to House officials and the broadcast teams. I am very grateful to the Bill team and all the officials who have met us repeatedly and patiently answered our many questions. I am grateful, too, to colleagues across the House for intelligent and thoughtful debates. I am grateful also to the Ministers: to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his gentle engagement and to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her co-operative spirit and her willingness to engage and to concede. This may have been her first Bill; I am sure that it will not be the last. I look forward to joining in and occasionally doing battle yet again.

We did the Committee stage of this Bill before Covid, crammed into the Moses Room with not a hint of social distancing. We did the Report stage in hybrid mode. To be honest, I will never get to love voting on my phone or get used to making passionate speeches to my iPad, but it has shown that this process can work. We have thoroughly scrutinised a vital and highly technical Bill, and we have made it better than it was. That is the job of the House of Lords in a nutshell. I am so glad we can still do it.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the very important new amendments concerning transfer rights. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I attempted to do, perhaps rather clumsily, what they do rather elegantly. We live in a time when scams are increasing, people are desperate for any return, online propositions are everywhere and can seem very tempting, and your money—occasionally all your money—is easy and quick to lose. These amendments will not solve those problems, but they will prove a valuable addition to the guidance armoury and to the better protection of consumers, and I welcome them.

My noble friend Lady Janke led the debate from these Benches with real insight and conviction. It is a pity that she cannot be with us today as the Bill concludes its passage through the House. She has asked me to thank, on her behalf, all the Members who have taken part in what has been a constructive and congenial process. She has particularly asked me to congratulate the Minister and her officials on their apparently unlimited patience, their evident willingness to listen and their responsiveness. I join my noble friend Lady Janke in her remarks, especially as concerns the Minister’s patience and forbearance. The Minister’s character determined the character of our discussions. I also thank all Members who joined in those discussions, especially my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake, Lady Sherlock and Lady Altmann. Their expertise was evident throughout and greatly added to the value of the debate. I believe that, collectively, we have made a good Bill better.

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund. I place on record that I have spoken on this Bill, I have tracked all stages of it and I pay a major tribute to my noble friend on the Front Bench, in particular for her care and attention regarding the less obvious aspects of a major Bill like this. If this is her first Bill as Minister, she has made an extraordinarily good start.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

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

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

My Lords, perhaps I may start by addressing the government amendments. I recognise that in Committee and in subsequent meetings, some noble Lords expressed concern over the regulation-making powers in Part 1 and how they might be used. I have considered those arguments carefully and am persuaded that your Lordships are, in many instances, right. Following your Lordships’ helpful comments, I am now persuaded that it would be more appropriate to make certain regulation-making powers subject to the affirmative procedure on all usages. I recognise that CDC schemes are a totally new form of pension provision in the UK and it is right that Parliament is, as a matter of course, able to debate changes to key parts of the regulatory framework surrounding them.

Your Lordships will recall that Clauses 11 to 17 set out the authorisation framework that all CDC schemes must meet. I know that the House was concerned by the delegated powers in respect of these clauses, as they provide for the core foundations of the authorisation regime. I am pleased, therefore, to announce that those delegated powers which were subject to the affirmative procedure only on first use will now be subject to the affirmative procedure on each use. In addition, the transfer-related regulations for CDC schemes, introduced by Clause 25, will now always be subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure.

The relevant provisions contain two powers to amend the timeframes set out in primary legislation which govern when action must be taken by trustees once a transfer out of the scheme has been requested. First, there is a power to extend the time in which trustees must facilitate a request to transfer out of a CDC scheme to a period longer than the specified six months. Secondly, there is a power to amend the three-week “cooling-off” period, during which trustees may not facilitate the requested transfer unless they receive written instruction from the member to do so. Given the importance a decision to transfer out of a CDC scheme may have for a member, it is right that regulations in respect of the timeframes for related action are debated in Parliament under the affirmative procedure as a matter of course.

Amendments 35 to 38 make changes to Clause 47 to make it clearer that this power is not as wide as it may have appeared on first reading. I understand noble Lords’ concern about this clause: it contains a Henry VIII power and as such it should be as clear as possible when and for what purpose it can be used.

Our amendments make it very clear that the power can be used only to provide for non-employer established schemes, such as master trusts, and other non-connected multi-employer CDC schemes as and when concrete scheme designs come to light over the next few years. Noble Lords may recall that the Work and Pensions Select Committee in its report on CDC schemes called for our legislation to be extended to provide for CDC master trusts at the earliest opportunity, and organisations from commercial pension providers to trade unions and even the Church of England have made similar requests.

However, there are clear administrative differences between a scheme with one closely involved employer and a master trust with many more distant employers. The authorisation and supervision legislation will therefore need to be tailored to reflect the risks posed by such schemes and providers so that members and participating employers are to be adequately protected.

This is what Clause 47 seeks to do. It is intended to allow us to make the necessary changes via regulations in a timely fashion so that master trusts and other non-connected multi-employer CDC schemes can be up and running as soon as possible, and employers and employees can benefit at the earliest opportunity. Without this clause, it is likely that the extension of CDC provision to master trusts and other non-connected multi-employer models would be delayed.

However, I assure noble Lords that any such changes required would be considered carefully and consulted on thoroughly before being brought before the House to ensure that they covered the right ground. Such changes would also be subject to the affirmative procedure, which would give the House opportunity to scrutinise the regulations.

The amendments before the House are intended to address concerns in key areas— authorisation, transfers and the provisions relating to the future expansion of CDC—and I am grateful for the informed and thoughtful comments that have led us to this point. The points that I have made also apply to the corresponding Northern Ireland provisions in Part 2 of the Bill. I hope that noble Lords are reassured by the amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharkey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to government Amendments 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 12 and 14 to 31, as well as to my related Amendment 2. First, I thank the Minister and her team for their close engagement with us on the Bill and their time, patience and occasional willingness to change their minds.

The government amendments are a good example of mind-changing. As the Minister said, they remove the instances in Part 1 of first-use-only affirmative procedures; that is a very good thing. The DPRRC’s report on the Bill in February this year was concerned about the use of these procedures. It pointed out that the powers in the regulations remain exactly the same on subsequent use. In Committee, I strongly urged the Government to remove this type of procedure; I very much welcome the fact that they have now done this. All the subsequent uses of the negative procedure have been withdrawn by these amendments.

However, one negative procedure remains: what is left of Clause 11(8) in line 18 on page 7. This is the subject of my probing Amendment 2. Subsection (8), as amended by government Amendment 3, prescribes the negative resolution procedure for regulations under Clause 11(2)(e). Subsection (2)(e) seems a little opaque. It seems to allow the Secretary of State to add persons or categories to those whose fitness and propriety TPR must assess. On 22 June, the Government confirmed to me in writing that this was the case. They believed that this was largely an operational matter and that the negative procedure provided

“appropriate scrutiny as well as opportunity for debate if desired”.

This is a mischaracterisation of the negative procedure, which in practice barely merits the label “scrutiny” at all. Possibly because I did not ask them to, the Government did not address why subsection (2)(e) was necessary at all or give examples of what kind of persons or categories of persons are envisaged in subsection (2)(e) and what role they may play in the schemes themselves. Any additional involvement of these persons or categories of persons may give them significant influence over the conduct of the schemes.

It is obviously desirable to have these new entrants assessed for fitness and propriety. The issue here is the Secretary of State’s decision to add persons or categories to the list without constraint, restriction or proper scrutiny. I would be grateful if the Minister could address these points when she replies.

[Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s amendments to this Bill and congratulate my noble friend on her initial speech, in which she so clearly explained what the Government intend to do. I also congratulate her on the way in which she has engaged with Members across the House and, together with the Bill team, has listened to the concerns expressed at previous stages of this Bill. I particularly welcome the change from the originally proposed first-use-only affirmative procedure and the comments made by my noble friend on the importance of, for example, the cooling-off period before pension transfers occur.

I must admit that I also support Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. I share his concerns and would welcome an explanation, such as he has requested from my noble friend when she comes to respond, of why only this area—assessment of whether somebody is fit and proper to run a CDC scheme—should be left to the negative resolution procedure and be wholly at the discretion of the Secretary of State without what we would normally consider to be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny in this important area. The CDC framework is completely new for this country. I therefore think that colleagues across the House who have expressed the same concerns are right in suggesting that it is important that we have as much scrutiny as possible.

I have an amendment in this group—Amendment 13—regarding the accuracy of pensions data that needs to be submitted to a CDC scheme. I will not move it at this stage; I will come back to this subject during debate on a later group with my other amendments.

I welcome the current government proposals and hope that my noble friend will listen to some of the concerns expressed. I look forward to hearing contributions from other noble Lords and colleagues as we go forward in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Naseby]

I think the amendments have been extremely well aired and I await the response from my noble friend on the Front Bench.

[Lord Sharkey [V]]

My Lords, I will restrict my remarks to Amendment 32, which is in my name and the names of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and my noble friend Lady Bowles. I thank them for their support. In Committee, we spent a long time discussing intergenerational fairness in CDC schemes. We did this partly because we knew from the Government’s excellent briefing note that concern about intergenerational fairness was raised by many respondents to the consultation and because it seemed clear that the risk to intergenerational fairness was an almost inevitable feature of such schemes.

We pressed the Government to legislate the requirement for intergenerational fairness into the schemes. We knew that the Government themselves were deeply concerned about the issue and seemed to be choosing mechanisms for intergenerational fairness over benefit stability; but as I remarked at the time, it was hard to tell how they might work, since the mechanisms for bringing this about were not yet explicit and no real assessment of effect was possible.

In her response, the Minister made it clear that she shared our commitment to ensuring intergenerational fairness and that the mechanisms for achieving it would be introduced, after extensive consultation, by regulations under Clause 18. This will be long after the Bill has become an Act, and leaves open the question of how we will assess the success or otherwise of these mechanisms. It also leaves open the question of how the assessment of any such mechanisms will be communicated to members and potential members of the scheme.

Our Amendment 32 proposes a way of addressing these issues. It provides that, whenever TPR issues a notice requiring a scheme to submit a supervisory return, the notice must include a requirement that the trustees

“make an assessment of the extent to which the scheme is operating in a manner fair to all members.”

The amendment speaks of fairness. Intergenerational fairness is a critical subset of fairness, but there are other kinds of fairness, too. For example, there is gender fairness, and single versus married status and the fairness implicit in that, or not. The amendment makes no attempt to define fairness; it relies on the trustees to do that, as they should in the normal operation of the scheme. Their definitions and assessments will help members of all classes, and potential members, understand the working of their scheme and the success of the trustees in operating it fairly in the interests of all members.

As I mentioned in Committee, AJ Bell noted that the DWP leaves little doubt that it will not allow schemes to be skewed in favour of one cohort of members over another. I am sure that is the intention, but AJ Bell also noted that fairness could make outcomes in CDCs less predictable and raises the spectre of pension cuts. It goes on to say:

“The DWP itself notes any reductions in benefits will not be well received, and so clear communication of this – not just upfront but on an ongoing basis – will be absolutely essential.”


Our amendment will bring some communication and transparency to the balancing required to produce, and to the consequences of producing, fairness across all member cohorts.

In Committee, the Minister explained how the proposed headroom mechanism for the Royal Mail scheme would be fairer than a capital buffer. All classes of members and potential members of the scheme need to know how well this headroom mechanism or other mechanisms generated by Clause 18 are working. Our amendment will require the trustees to explain these things and to assess their success in managing the scheme fairly for all members.

Given the acknowledged risks to fairness inherent in the scheme, and that Parliament’s opportunity to influence the mechanisms that might arise in regulation will be as small as usual, it is vital that scheme trustees are open and transparent about their success in producing fair outcomes for all members. That is what our amendment would help bring about, and I intend to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Sherlock [V]]

My Lords, I say at the outset that Labour supports Part 1 of the Bill and the move to create CMP schemes, provided, of course, that they are not used as a means of downgrading good DB schemes. The two amendments in this group deal with different concerns that have been expressed about CMP schemes. Amendment 32 acknowledges that there may be a divergence of interests between different sets of members in a scheme of this kind. It does not prescribe any particular action but it does require trustees to surface the issue and to assess the extent to which the scheme is fair to all members.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

32: Clause 27, page 18, line 10, leave out “The notice” and insert “Any such notice must include the requirement that trustees make an assessment of the extent to which the scheme is operating in a manner fair to all members and”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require any notice from the Secretary of State to CDC scheme trustees to include a requirement to report on the fairness to members of the operation of the scheme.

[Lord Sharkey [V]]

My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 32.

--- Later in debate ---

I support the Government’s cautious approach. I welcome it and I think that it is the right way to go forward for the time being.

[Lord Sharkey [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 72 and 74 in this group. Neither amendment in any way alters any of the important climate change amendments in the group, except in one respect: they require the Government to make something happen.

What the amendments would do is very straightforward: they would simply impose a binding legal obligation on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed description with a view to securing effective governance of the scheme with respect to the effects of climate change. They would also impose an obligation to include, in particular, the risks arising from steps taken because of climate change, whether by the Government or otherwise, and opportunities relating to climate change.

All those things are word for word in the Bill except that they are all governed by the word “may”. Our amendments would replace the two references to “may” with “must”. As the Bill stands, the Government are not actually obliged to do any of those things, or indeed anything at all, in this clause. The word “may” in subsections (1) and (2) is permissive, not directive—a point made by my noble friend Lady Bowles and me in Committee.

The Minister kindly wrote to us all in response on 5 March. She confirmed that the Government intend to take action and were wholly committed to legislating for effective governance of occupational pension schemes with respect to climate change. She concluded by saying:

“Changing the legislation to ‘must’ would therefore make no practical difference, because as a Government we are committed to making regulations under new sections 41A, 41B and 41C introduced by the Government’s amendment.”


This argument works both ways, of course. What can be the basis of the Government’s objection to “must” if they are committed to doing it anyway? What possible reservations, hesitations or changes of mind are being contemplated here? What can be wrong with having legal certainty that what has been promised will actually happen?

There is a parallel in this Bill to our discussions on the MaPS pensions dashboard. The Committee asked why the provision for MaPS to provide a public dashboard was only a “may”, not a “must”. In reply, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, confirmed that the Government were absolutely committed to MaPS providing a qualifying dashboard service. Several Members, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, noted that the Government being committed to MaPS producing a dashboard is not the same thing as saying that they will ensure that there is a MaPS dashboard. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made the point that a little amendment—“may” to “must”—would capture the Government’s assurances

“so that the next Secretary of State does not change their mind.”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 186.]

This argument clearly convinced the Government. They have now introduced their own amendments to make a MaPS dashboard a “must” rather than a “may”. I know that we are all very pleased about that.

Can the Government accept the same logic here? If it was right to change “may” to “must” for a pensions dashboard, why is it not right to do the same thing for climate change? I look forward to the Minister’s eager acceptance of the precedent and these amendments.

[Baroness Sherlock [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who raised climate issues in relation to pension schemes during our proceedings, especially those involved in the cross-party talks led by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. I also thank the Minister for listening and moving on from the broad government amendments brought forward in Committee.

This Bill has been on a journey. When it was first published there was no reference to climate change at all. Indeed, from having been given advice from the Library, I understand that climate change has never been included in domestic pensions legislation before in this country, so we are making history here today.

The Labour Benches had two priorities on this: first, to provide clarity on climate risk by ensuring that the Paris Agreement is referenced; and secondly, to ensure that trustees and managers take international climate treaties into account when making decisions. The word “account” is clearly significant. It recalls the Court of Appeal judgment that found that the Government had failed to take into account the Paris Agreement when permitting the Heathrow expansion. That was a good example of the need to make sure that positive action on the international level to combat climate change is not forgotten when Ministers make domestic policy decisions.

Our priorities are reflected in Amendments 73 and 79, but because we have secured cross-party consensus with the Government, they are also reflected in the government amendments in this group, especially Amendments 75 and 76. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s reply to the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about whether these refer also to the physical impacts of climate change and the impact of steps taken to transition towards a low-carbon economy, and for clarification that Amendment 76 includes the UK’s net-zero target.

However, as my noble friend Lady Jones said, we are only at the beginning of a journey to net zero. Divesting pension funds away from fossil fuels is a big challenge. The Government and the industry need to go further and quicker, with aligning investment strategies with domestic and international targets being the ultimate goal. For this Bill, we have reached a good place with broad cross-party support. I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 63 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. This amendment is very simple. It seeks to ensure a period of a year from the establishment of the publicly operated dashboard before competing commercial dashboards are allowed to operate. This may seem a small point, but it is quite important. Dashboards are a new concept and will include large amounts of sensitive and complex data from many sources. We do not yet know how they will used, whether the current design concepts are suitable in practice and whether changes will need to be made to ensure that they operate well and safely. Therefore, it must make sense for the system to be tried out in one place, with proper controls, and reviewed and reported upon, before we open it up to the commercial world. This period of a year will allow us to see how a dashboard is used and whether any unforeseen problems and consequences arise.

I am grateful to the ABI for its commentary on the amendments to this Bill, but I am afraid that I disagree with it on this matter. The ABI is right that making dashboards as accessible as possible is desirable, but that must be done in a way that ensures that unforeseen consequences are avoided. As I mentioned in an earlier debate today, a bad dashboard is worse than no dashboard. A year’s grace period to ensure that what the noble Lord, Lord Young, called the plumbing is working well, and to make any tweaks, seems a common-sense safeguard.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey [V]]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s analysis of the one-size-fits-all regulatory threat to open schemes. I also strongly support the proposed remedy, which would ensure proper consideration of the essential differences between open and closed schemes, is proportionate and is not unduly prescriptive. I hope the Minister will respond positively.

[Baroness Sherlock [V]]

My Lords, we all believe that trustees of DB schemes should have a clearly defined funding and investment strategy for insuring pensions in the long term. However, if that is pursued in a way driven by the need to protect members in closed maturing DB schemes, then schemes with strong covenants open to new entrants risk being swept up in an approach that is wrong for them. As closed DB schemes increasingly mature, the regulator will expect them to de-risk and reduce their deficits. However, if that approach is applied in a blanket form it will force some open schemes to de-risk prematurely, putting pressure on employers and, in the railway scheme with its shared-cost basis, on employees too. Given all the concerns expressed, will the Minister accept this amendment?