Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Minister said that consolidation and scale will mean

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Trenchard (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

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

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

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

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

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

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

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

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

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

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