Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness Altmann

Report stage
Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I hope the House will bear with me. I once bragged that if I were ever on “Mastermind”, GMPs would be my specialist subject, so I feel compelled to ask a question. Of course, through the Pensions Act 2012 the coalition Government made significant changes to the impact that GMPs had on people who retired after 2016. In effect, they were abolished and forgotten about. That issue was corrected in public service schemes but not in private schemes. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister could write to me and assure me that there is no difference in the effect of these amendments between people who retired before and after 2016.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 155, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. This amendment and the noble Viscount’s own Amendment 162, to which I have added my name, deal with the same point, which is something we talked about in Committee. They aim to secure provisions that were made in the Pensions Act 2004 which would allow schemes to be extracted from the Pension Protection Fund if there were a new opportunity; for example, for the pension scheme members to be treated to better pensions than those available in the Pension Protection Fund itself.

That provision, in Section 169(2)(d) of the Act, has never been commenced. That provision means that if an employer had two or three workers in a pension scheme, had a company which fell on hard times and became insolvent—at which point the members’ pensions went into the PPF—then had a particularly fortunate experience and found himself or herself in a position where they could try to remedy the shortfalls of the members’ pensions and wanted to be able to take the scheme back out of the PPF, then that would be possible. Currently, that would be against the law because the provision has not been commenced, even though it is in the Pension Act 2004.

These amendments seek to ensure that this is at least a possibility, especially now that employers may start to be more attracted to running pension schemes, given the different financial situation that surrounds pension schemes now that we no longer have quantitative easing, with schemes finding themselves more often in surplus. Therefore, I hope that the Minister might accept that this is a possibility. These amendments would not commit the Government—or anyone—to spending any money; they would merely bring into force a provision that was already provided for in 2004.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I welcome the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, on police pensions. It is a clear injustice that my noble friend the Minister will understand. The truth is that the only objection is the classic “read-across”—the implications it has for other groups—but I do not see that as a good reason to continue with an injustice. I am therefore happy to express my support for Amendment 164.

I do not support Amendment 157, calling for a review of public service pensions. In truth, the House deserves a proper, full debate on the issue and not as a by-product of this Bill. If other Members want to take the necessary steps to have a proper debate on the issue, I would welcome that. I am confident in that because I know that when such a review takes place, it will come up with the same conclusion as the last review.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that an unfunded pension scheme is not funded—it is inherent; it is in the name. Why do we fund private sector pensions? We do so to provide members with a guarantee. There is no ideological issue involved here. For members to feel safe about receiving their pensions, they want to see the employer putting aside the members’ money into a fund that will be there to provide the pensions when they get to retirement—that is why we have a fund. If the pension is being provided by the Government, we can rely on the Government. We have always relied on the Government, and so a fund is not necessary. Calculating what the fund would be, if it were funded, is an interesting exercise—I would do it myself for a reasonable fee—but it does not tell you anything about the management of that unfunded pension scheme arrangement.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, mentioned interest rates. Interest rates make no difference whatever to the cost of an unfunded scheme, because it is not funded. They do make a difference to the figure that you calculate at the current time, but that is purely a ghost figure—that is not the cost of the scheme. The cost of the scheme is what arises when you pay the benefits, which is not affected in any way by interest rates.

I look forward to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, introducing his amendment on member engagement. If I had seen it before this weekend, I would have been minded to add my name to it—I like the amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend the Minister will accept it, but I agree that it is time for a review of how members are engaged in their pension scheme. The system we have now dates back almost 30 years; it is post Maxwell. The Pensions Act 1995, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hague—as he is now—established the structure, and the operation of pension schemes has moved on so much since then.

An interesting wrinkle in the legislation comes in the light of the Goode report. Professor Goode was asked to provide advice on member involvement in the wake of the Maxwell scandal. He recommended that there should be member-nominated trustees. This was adopted by the then Conservative Government. The interesting fact is that the Goode commission recommended that there should be a majority of member-nominated trustee in defined contribution schemes, which, of course, is the majority form of provision at the moment. If we were to adopt its approach, as part of the noble Viscount’s review, we would want much greater involvement in looking after the money and taking investment decisions, which I regard as a very good thing.

There have been big changes since 1995. There has been massive growth in single corporate trustees, which precludes the possibility of member-nominated trustees—again, another good reason to support the noble Viscount’s amendment. Of course, how you have member involvement in schemes that are closed is a much more difficult issue than when they are open with active members.

There are good reason for having a review of how members are engaged in occupational pension provision. I have not discussed this with my noble friend the Minister but my guess is that she will reject the amendment, which is a bit of a pity but I will of course, as almost always, support the Whip.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 164 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. I agree that there seems to be something of an injustice in relation to survivor pensions for the police. For policemen who pass away, pensions for their spouse are suspended if the spouse remarries or even moves in with a partner. Do the same provisions apply in the Armed Forces, NHS and Civil Service pension schemes, or does the deceased member’s partner not lose their pension in those schemes if they remarry or cohabit, unlike for the police?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I support the amendment from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I think that anyone who looks at the detail, as he has done, will be convinced that somewhere in this series of events there has been a serious injustice. There is no question of that. These people have suffered financially through no fault of their own.

Getting to the bottom of it is difficult. Whatever “a review” means, I think it is appropriate that there should be some form of investigation. The problem they face is that the existing methods of investigation—in particular, the Pensions Ombudsman—just do not work in this case, so a bespoke review is required.

I have to emphasise that nothing I say should be taken as a criticism of professional colleagues and certainly should not be taken as constituting professional advice. But the injustice is clear. Other cases have been quoted by those who have suffered an injustice where the Government have taken action to support members of other, not directly analogous, but similar schemes, and this only increases their sense of injustice.

I urge my noble friend the Minister to indicate in her reply that the Government’s mind is not totally closed on this issue, because there is undoubtedly unfairness involved.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for the excellent explanation he has given. I agree completely with what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. This is clearly an injustice that has gone under the radar for far too long. Indeed, I have spent the last 20 years of my life trying to help people in this kind of position, where their pensions have been taken away from them, reduced or in some way impacted by problems that were not of their own making.

This is probably the worst example I have seen of instances where people were misled into moving their money into something that was totally different from what they were led to believe. For example, the members asked the Government Actuary’s Department, which reassured them before they moved their money that the scheme they were moving it into was pretty much the same as the one they left, without any mention of the risk that they could lose the whole thing. Indeed, in 1996 there was no Pension Protection Fund, and they could have lost the whole of their accrued benefit that was transferred over.

They asked:

“Did the GAD document state anywhere that the AEAT pension fund was at greater risk than the UKAEA pension fund?”—


the private fund that they transferred to. In the written reply, the Government Actuary’s Department said it did not. In the private sector, how many people have paid a fortune for mis-selling for much less lack of risk warning than that? In Parliament, Ministers at the time gave assurances, such as that from Richard Page MP in debate on the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, which did the privatisation. He said:

“I have made it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention whatever of selling employees short. Their terms and conditions and pension rights will be fully protected”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/5/1995: col. 210.]


That is just not what has happened.

I do not think it was an intentional outcome, but it is a real outcome to the members who are trying to survive on so much less than they should have. The Pensions Ombudsman could not investigate this because the scheme was privatised in 1996 and failed in 2012. The statute of limitations expires after 15 years, but the company did not fail until 16 years later. The Parliamentary Ombudsman office could not investigate because it is involved with public sector pensions, but the ombudsman felt so strongly that this was an injustice that they helped to draft a Private Member’s Bill for the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—he is not in his place and I had hoped he might make it; I think he is coming later—to try in that way to achieve proper justice for the AEAT members. We are talking about fewer than 1,000 people in the closed section who transferred their entire public sector pension accrual over into this new private scheme with a new company. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in the first group concerned a lacuna in protection. If this is not a huge lacuna in protection, I am not quite sure what is.

I remind noble Lords that in 2024 the Government allocated £1.5 billion to enhance by 32% the pensions of 112,000 former mineworkers. I am not criticising the Government for doing that. They also, in the last Budget in 2025, allocated £2.3 billion of taxpayers’ money to enhance coal staff pensions, even though that money would have come back to the public purse in 2029. That was given to those mineworkers. Again, I am not criticising the Government for that. However, I cannot help wondering whether the shortfall for 2029 that would arise as a result of this may have driven in some regard the £2,000 national insurance salary sacrifice cap, which will, perhaps coincidentally, kick in in 2029.

What I am saying is that, if this country can afford to enhance those pensions at taxpayers’ expense, how much more worthy and important is it for us as a country to honour the accrued rights of workers who in good faith transferred their pensions on the advice, as we have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, of the Government Actuary’s Department? They believed they were doing the right thing and have ended up losing so much as a result.

I hope that the Minister and the Government might think carefully about the speeches that we have heard this evening and give serious consideration to addressing this injustice.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness Altmann

Report stage
Thursday 5th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I want to contribute, by supporting the Government, a bit of sense to this debate. We have heard so much doom and gloom, but what is the reality? What impact are these measures going to have? I am sure my noble friend the Minister will be able to tell us.

The first point to understand is that salary sacrifice for pension contributions really makes no sense. It is a form of regulatory arbitrage. It has never made any sense and it is notable that previous Governments have taken away almost all forms of salary sacrifice on other in-work benefits, without forecasting the end of incentives for working. I have always been against it in principle—I would be happy to see it removed entirely, but possibly that might be politically suicidal—but a £2,000 limit seems an entirely reasonable approach to providing some fair incentive without the opportunity for, in truth, gross inequality. We are told that this measure hits the lower paid and not so much the higher paid, but of course the people who make most use of this are people with enormous bonuses. That is where the money is going and these measures will stop that.

Secondly, it is not an essential element in our current pension system. The key question that none of the previous speakers has addressed is: what is the right level of tax incentive for pension saving? That is a proper debate, and it cannot be answered by saying that more is always better. We have to draw up a fair judgment on where, and how far, tax incentives to encourage people to save for retirement should go. It is obvious that, if you reduce tax incentives, there will be an impact on people’s decisions. One impact that it might have is to encourage them to save more, because, if they have a target pension in mind, they will need to save more money than they did previously.

Thirdly, figures are quoted for the impact on individuals, particularly those under the higher-rate threshold. Well, I have a spreadsheet and I have calculated those figures, and, as I said at Second Reading and in Committee, the effect on basic-rate taxpayers on incomes around and above the median level is marginal. What sorts of figures do you think we are being told are going to have such a shattering effect on the pension system? For someone on median earnings, paying the median contribution rate, it is nothing. Maybe, if you earn a bit more towards the tax threshold, it will be something like £40 a year.

Now, nobody likes paying more tax. I could explain that the reason why there is this demand for more taxes is 14 years of mismanagement by the previous Government, but I will leave that to my noble friend. But it does annoy me that so much emphasis is placed on what is essentially a sideshow to the important questions of pension provision that we are going to have to address.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

As I think the noble Lord knows, I have enormous sympathy with everything he says, and there is a strong case for reforming and improving the incentives for low earners. However, does he not accept that, if you change for the worse the incentives on the people who earn least, for whom it is most difficult to contribute, there is bound to be an effect at the margin, however large or small the difference is? If your pension is giving you lower take-home pay because something you have is being taken away, that can have only negative consequences. Therefore, there are risks in this proposal as it stands.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thought I said in my earlier remarks that there will be a marginal effect: I accept that, although we do not actually know what that marginal effect will be. It is all hypothetical at the moment. One thing we do not know from the OBR figures is quite what the reaction will be and how people will adjust their behaviour between now and when this comes in.

I accept the noble Baroness’s point but, as I say, nobody likes paying tax and nobody wants to pay more tax. If you ask people whether they want to pay more tax they say no, but it has to fit in with the Government’s overall financial strategy.

Of course, only some people gain an advantage from salary sacrifice. Many private employers just do not offer it. The number is increasing all the time, which is part of the problem because it is increasing the cost. Nobody in the public sector benefits from salary sacrifice. We can, and will, have an interesting debate about public service pensions, but noble Lords should understand that it is unequal that people in the private sector can take advantage of salary sacrifice but people in the public sector cannot.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness Altmann

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that her scheme would work the other way round, because older members will tend to have more pre-1997 service that younger members, whose pre-1997 service will be relatively limited? A scheme along the lines she proposes will have some element of generational fairness.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I thank the noble Lord. I would certainly say that there is a significant and obvious element of fairness in this proposal for lump sums to be paid. I argue that it would level the playing field, because those who have lost the most at the moment will continue to lose the most, whereas if you recognise the past losses and the forward uplifts are still being paid then you equalise, to some degree, the fairness and the losses between people of different age groups.

I hope that we can come back to this matter on Report and that we might have a meeting to discuss the potential for something of this nature to be introduced in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have Amendment 203ZC in this group, but unfortunately the Committee has not received a copy of my amendment.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

It is on a separate sheet.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Good. I now have it and I want to check that everyone else has it too. That is my first question dealt with.

In speaking to this amendment, the aim is to enable members of pension schemes that have gone into the PPF after their assessment period to be extracted, with regulations laid that will govern the terms on which they can be extracted. This is particularly relevant to the AEAT scheme: I know that we will come to this in later groups, with a requirement for a review of the situation. My amendment is trying to facilitate a practical resolution to the problems faced by the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. There are parallels with the Atomic Weapons Establishment or AWE scheme: employees originally had a scheme similar to and in fact derived from that of the UK AEA.

The AWE staff and their pensions were transferred to the private sector, and in 2022 the Government granted a Crown guarantee to the private company scheme. However, members of the AEA scheme were told that the scheme that they were encouraged to transfer to in 1996 would be as secure as that provided by the Atomic Energy Authority public sector scheme. This was not the case, though, because it was not offered a Treasury guarantee. It would appear that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to carry out a proper risk assessment of the various options offered to those members in 1996. Indeed, they were apparently specifically told not to worry about the security of the scheme to which they transferred all their accrued benefits. Of course, all these accrued benefits are pre-1997.

What happened after that is that they went into a private sector scheme. It was a closed section of that scheme, only for the members who transferred their public sector rights into it. The public sector rights had full inflation protection for pre-1997 and members paid an extra 30% or so contribution into that private sector scheme in order to conserve the inflation protection. However, as part of that, the pension they were saving for, the base pension, was lower than the one for those members in the open scheme who had joined not from the public sector. They were working on the principle that that their scheme was secure and that they would be getting the uplifts of inflation. When it failed—the private sector company went bust in 2012—and they went into the PPF in 2016, they suddenly discovered that they had paid 30% more for inflation protection, which was gone. And because they had paid 30% more for that protection and were accruing a lower pension, a 180th instead of a 160th scheme, their whole compensation was lower than that of everybody else who had not had any assurances from the Government that transferring their previous rights into a private sector scheme would generate these kinds of losses.

This is probably the worst example I have seen of government reassurance and failed recognition of the risks of transferring from a guaranteed public sector scheme into a private sector scheme. This amendment seeks to require the Government to lay regulations that would transfer members out of the PPF, those members of the closed scheme, if they wish to. I am not forcing anyone to do so within this amendment. You have to offer them the option of going or staying if they are satisfied with the PPF. Also, a sum of money may need to be paid to the PPF, which would take away the liability and thereby reduce PPF liabilities, but also sets up an alternative scheme that could be along the lines of the AWE arrangements, for example. That would potentially be another option. On privatisation, the Government received a substantial sum of money from the sale of that company, the private sector takeover of the commercial arm of the Atomic Energy Authority. That delivered less money than was paid to the private sector scheme to take over the liabilities. Therefore, the Government have money to pay with, which they have never really acknowledged.

I hope that this amendment is a potentially direct way to help the AEAT scheme, if the Government are minded to consider it. It builds on a provision that is already in the Pensions Act 2004, which talks about situations whereby there is a discharge of liabilities in respect of the compensation, which this amendment would be doing. It prescribes the way in which subsection (2)(d) of Section 169 of the Pensions Act 2004 could be used to help the AEAT scheme.

I have also been approached by a private sector employer whose scheme failed and went into the PPF. At the time, the employer did not have sufficient resources to buy out more than the Pension Protection Fund benefits for his staff. He now is in a position to do that and would like to do so but, at the moment, he cannot get his scheme extracted. He is willing to pay an extra premium to do that, in pursuance of a moral duty to try to give his past staff better-than-PPF benefits. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve. It is built on the connection between AEAT and AWE, but could also help other private sector schemes if the employer feels—it would normally involve smaller schemes—that there is a moral obligation that they can now meet, financially, to recompense members at a level better than the PPF, once the assessment period is over and the resources have gone in, and to take it back out again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am going to try to put this issue into context. This is the third leg of our discussion, which centres on what we do now in relation to benefits that accrued for pensionable service prior to 1997.

I am going to take the Committee into a little history. The 1997 date was set by the Pensions Act 1995. I was there; although I had long left the TUC, because the TUC’s normal pensions officer had taken leave of absence for a few months, I was, in effect, acting as the TUC’s pensions officer at the time. On the background, in terms of what people understood about pension increases at that time, I will go all the way back to 1971, when the Pensions (Increase) Act was passed. In 1971, it was obviously under a Conservative Government. They linked public service pensions to inflation—initially RPI then subsequently, from 2011, CPI. That was all well and good. It set the standard, quite properly, for the Government of good pension provision, including increases. I make no apology for that. I am sure that we will return to this issue when we have the debate at our next meeting on public service pensions. The Conservative Government set that standard.

Then, in 1981—again, under a Conservative Government —Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, decided, egged on by Aims of Industry, that there should be a review of pensions and pension increases. She took a personal interest—it is all there in the Thatcher archives—and established the Scott inquiry. Chaired by Sir Bernard Scott, a prominent businessperson at the time, it was a five-person inquiry that undertook a detailed study of pension increases, starting with public service pensions. We do not hear much about this inquiry now—there is another more famous Scott inquiry—because it came up with the wrong answer. Despite the committee being hand-picked by the Prime Minister, it came up with the answer she did not want. It said that index-linking was justified—it is worth saying here that, when it says “index-linking”, it is talking about the limited price index, or LPI, so not full indexation in all circumstances but up to a limit—and that there was no case for its removal from public service schemes.

The committee decided that public service pensions were not overly generous overall. It pointed out that the main driver of costs for public service pensions was not index-linking but the final salary benefit structure. Again, as an aside, it is worth noting that, from 2011 onwards, public service schemes moved away from that; they are now all average salary schemes. The committee advocated for parity of pension increases with state pension increases. So this committee, which was set up to tell the world how bad index-linking was, said that everyone should have index-linking. That was in 1981.

There is another stage. Originally, when schemes contracted out, they promised to provide GMPs. Initially, the GMPs were not index-linked but had a flat rate, and the state scheme was left to provide the indexing on the fixed flat-rate private sector schemes. However, by 1986, it was decided that the private sector schemes could provide LPI, initially at 3%. The scheme had to provide GMP, but it provided inflation linking up to 3%, and inflation over that would still come from the state scheme. This is where the contracting out becomes incredibly complicated, of course. That change to the GMP was when a Conservative Government introduced an additional element of index-linking in occupational schemes.

Then we had the Maxwell scandal, the subsequent Goode report and the Pensions Act 1995. There is a theme here. It was a Conservative Government; William Hague was the Secretary of State. From 1997, they introduced LPI index-linking, initially up to 5% and subsequently reduced to 2.5% in 2005—unfortunately, that was a Labour Government, but there you go. So there is this whole consistent move towards limited price indexation in occupational schemes. It became the accepted approach to providing occupational schemes. A scheme that did not provide some element of indexation in retirement was seen as an inferior scheme.

I was there, as I say, so what was my experience? Many schemes, particularly larger schemes, had LPI in the rules pre 1997, following Scott in the early 1980s. Schemes have gradually introduced it more and more; of course, index-linked bonds were introduced specifically as a follow-on from the Scott report. So many schemes, particularly large schemes, had LPI in the rules.

Other schemes said, “We’re going to provide indexation but we’ll do it under discretionary powers”. However, they still expected to provide increases and funded for them. It is my view, having been there, that, pre 1997, the number of schemes making no allowances for LPI increases was vanishingly small. For some, it was in the rules; for others, it was in the funding basis. Practically every member had a reasonable expectation of LPI in retirement in respect of the benefits that they accrued pre 1997. The statutory requirement was introduced to cover all schemes, as recommended by the Goode report; that was absolutely right.

So the suggestion that people are unreasonable in expecting their pre-1997 benefits to be increased is entirely wrong. It was entirely reasonable for them, and that is what people believed at the time, although they may not have a legal entitlement. This does not affect just the PPF or the Financial Assistance Scheme, where we are told that, if the scheme did not have it in the rules, it will not get these increases. It particularly affects active pension schemes—not necessarily those with new entrants, but those with pensioners to whom the scheme is paying money.

Many of the members will have benefits accrued before 1997, and those members have a reasonable expectation of increases. That is why I move Amendment 203 as a basis for discussion at this stage. In the light of what we hear, I may come back to the issue on Report. The law can now move to requiring increases on pensions accrued pre-1997, whatever it said in the rules, because it is a question of not legal but political justification. Politically, people can reasonably expect the Government to provide them with justice, and there is a reasonable moral expectation that they should now get limited price indexation on their benefits accrued prior to 1997.

The issue here is the position in which so many members find themselves. Their trustees—who were perhaps more engaged, years ago, with the operation of the scheme in those days—gave them a reasonable expectation of the benefits. I wrote to many schemes around that time, asking them what their practice was, having got an increase in the rules. Many of them wrote back to me and said, “Yes, we expect to increase these pensions and we are funding the scheme on that basis”.

Trying now, 30 years later, to distinguish between schemes that provided for these increases in the rules and in the funding basis is politically and morally wrong. These people have a reasonable expectation, and we have this opportunity to see that they are treated correctly. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, and I would love the Government to find themselves able to accept it. I would certainly agree on the moral case and on the historical justification for members having reasonable expectations that their pensions would not suddenly be whittled away to a fraction of what they would previously have had. The Goode report recommended unlimited inflation protection, but it was limited when it came in and it was only from 1997 onwards rather than retrospectively. There are echoes there of what we have just heard about the Pension Protection Fund.

I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is here; he was instrumental in campaigning for the Allied Steel and Wire members and worked so hard to help them, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also did. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is no longer here, but this would certainly apply to the Allied Steel and Wire members, and I urge the Government to look at the amendments. I fear that there may be little appetite, given that our previously much more modest suggestions were rejected and bearing in mind that not all schemes are in surplus—there may be an issue. But, if the Government were so minded, there is certainly a good case for considering the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, so ably moved.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness Altmann

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I possibly touched on this issue in the wrong group, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, has indicated, I raised, in essence, the same points in the previous debate.

I am in favour of mandation, but what worries me is that the Government do not seem to understand—and have never acknowledged—the consequences, which have been set out so clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. There are consequences if the Government tell people how to organise their retirement income and if, having told them how to proceed to achieve a good income, it subsequently turns out that the Government are wrong. As I said last week, they will not necessarily be legal consequences, but political consequences and moral consequences.

I draw attention to the Financial Assistance Scheme, which we are going to be debating later this week. It was established because the Government had to acknowledge their failure to introduce the appropriate law and protect people, and they lost income. That is an exact precedent for where we are now. That Government had a responsibility to protect those people and failed to do so. After a vigorous campaign by those who had been affected, and the threat of losing a case at the European court, which was possibly more influential on the Government, they had to act. It is not wild speculation that the Government will end up having to meet these moral and political consequences; it has already happened. The Government have to face up to what they are proposing here.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support this amendment in principle. I share the concerns just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, about the risk of mandating a substantial proportion of any pension fund to be invested in what is, in effect, the highest-risk end of the equity spectrum, which is meant in other circumstances—if you ask the Pensions Regulator and so on—to be the risky bit of investment.

The Government may need to think again about the consequences of potentially being so narrow—of course, in the Bill, we do not even have the exact definition of what the assets are going to be in terms of these unlisted opportunities—because the opportunity set for risky investments that can actually benefit the economy is a lot wider than seems to be indicated in the Bill. Surely the more diversified the portfolios, the better risk-adjusted returns members can expect. I hope that the Government will give the Committee a more precise understanding of their expectations for the types of assets and for the consequences of being automatically enrolled in a scheme that invests in private equity assets or other unlisted assets that end up failing completely—as has happened so frequently with that type of investment in the past.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness Altmann

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support every word that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has said. I hope the Minister understands that this series of amendments is designed, once again, to help the Government.

The policy of excluding the very asset classes that the Government want to promote and want pension funds to invest in, just because they are held in a particular form, seems irrational. The process used to introduce it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, outlined, was materially flawed. There was a lack of consultation and the policy is directly contrary to some previous ministerial Statements and to the stated policy intention. I cannot see how any reasonable person could argue that excluding these companies is a legitimate means of achieving the stated policy objective. The decision goes against common sense and defies economic logic. It opens pension scheme members up to less choice, higher long-term costs and, potentially, new risks such as gating or frozen investments.

Amendments 122 and 123 are designed specifically to ensure that, if a closed-ended investment company holds the assets in which the Government want pension funds to invest as a result of the Mansion House Accord, they can do so. Amendment 123 includes these as qualifying assets under the Bill and Amendment 122 talks about ensuring that, if securities are

“listed under Chapter 11 of the UK Listing Rules or the Specialist Fund Segment that provide exposure to the qualifying assets”,

they too can be included.

These amendments would not change the intentions of the Bill or the Government’s policy; they would reinforce them. If schemes cannot invest in listed securities, we will exclude the closed-ended funds that hold such assets, for no obvious reason other than, perhaps, the fact that the pension funds or asset managers that are launching the long-term asset funds will obviously prefer to have their own captive vehicle under their direct control, rather than those quoted freely on the market.

I would argue that, by excluding investment trusts and REITs as qualifying assets, we will fetter trustees’ discretion as to what assets they can invest in and how they can do so. I do not believe that the Government want to do this. I think this is an unintended consequence of wanting not to allow schemes just to say, “Well, I invest in Sainsbury’s and it has a lot of property in the UK, so that’s fine”. But this is a very different argument. I hope that the time spent by this Committee on these funds will prove worth while and that this dangerous, damaging exclusion can be removed from the Bill.

If the Government want—as they say they do—pension schemes to invest in UK property, the amendments on this topic would allow them to choose to hold shares in Tritax Big Box, for example, which is a listed closed-ended fund. It is a collective investment REIT, not a trading company, and UK regulators, the stock market and tax regulation recognise its functions as a fund. It is just like a long-term asset fund, but it is closed-ended instead of open-ended. Under the Bill, pension funds would not be able to invest in it, even though it holds precisely the type of private assets targeted by this section of the Bill.

The amendments would maximise schemes’ choice of investable assets within the target sectors. This would widen competition, which should bring downward pressure on asset management costs; it would reduce the risks of inflating asset prices, by channelling demand into fewer investment pathways; and it would enhance potential risk-adjusted returns. There is simply no reason why master trusts and other pension schemes should object to being given additional freedom to make investments to meet the requirements of these reserve powers. Why are we discriminating against a particularly successful British financial sector offering a proven route to holding the assets in which the Government want pension funds to invest? I have not seen any argument to say that, if we include these amendments, pension funds would have to invest in these companies, but they could use them if it suited their needs.

I look forward to the Minister’s answer. I know and accept that she is in a difficult position, but I have not heard a coherent answer as to why we are going down the route that we are. Tritax Big Box is just one example. It owns and develops assets worth £8 billion and controls the UK’s largest logistics-focused land platform, including data centres, which the Government designated as critical national infrastructure in 2024. Tritax Big Box announced that its data centre development strategy will be partnering with EDF Energy, which manages the UK’s nuclear power, to develop such infrastructure. It is remarkable that such a homegrown success story should be excluded from the opportunities available to pension schemes.

This sector has reinvented itself over the past few decades, from being a holder of diversified quoted equities to managing real illiquid assets. It is generally recognised that it is an ideal structure for holding illiquid assets—it has renewable assets, wind farms, solar farms and National Health Service GP surgeries. All these elements of the economy need significant investment and pension funds could be using their assets to support them. Surely that should be part of the Government’s intention for the Bill. I hope that this possible error in the Bill can be recognised and corrected so that we can move forward without further discussion on this topic.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, called on the support of reasonable people. I think of myself as a reasonable person, and I support her. I find the Government’s position on this totally inexplicable. I say in all honesty to my noble friend the Minister that the reasons given so far for these provisions do not in any way explain their position. It is inexplicable.

In my view, it is possible to make an argument that closed-end funds of this sort are more suitable than some other sorts of investments for pension investment because of the possibility of there being additional liquidity. That makes it even more inexplicable. A further problem is that pension funds could invest in an investment company that is not a closed-end fund but holds these investments. However, if it decided to float on the stock exchange, it could not do so because it would lose all the pension fund investments. So there is not logic at all to the Government’s position. There may be some logic, but we have yet to hear it.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Davies of Brixton and Baroness Altmann

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

There is a phrase, “esprit d’escalier”—is that how you say it?—for when you are walking down the stairs and you suddenly think of the thing you wish you had said in a previous discussion. Well, this group of amendments provides an ideal opportunity to avoid that very problem.

I do not want to delay the Grand Committee unnecessarily but I feel forced to say something. In essence, these amendments are fundamentally misconceived. I do not object to these questions being asked, but have the two previous speakers ever looked at a Local Government Pension Scheme valuation report? All the information for which they are asking and more is set out in those reports, in accordance with the professional standard that all actuaries must meet.

It is worth saying that that professional standard is set not by actuaries but by the Financial Reporting Council, which sets technical standards for the actuarial profession. The profession looks after professional standards but technical standards, and specifically what should appear in a valuation report, are set by the Financial Reporting Council, which is not part of the actuarial profession. Obviously, there is big actuarial input, but the final decision is made by the council, and all the information called for by the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness is in those reports. Of course, there may be cases where it does not appear in those reports, in which case that is a case of technical malpractice and the Financial Reporting Council should be told.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I apologise for intervening, but I feel that there is a bit of misdescription here. Yes, it is true that Regulation 64, for example, includes this information, but the FRC does not have the authority to insist on these issues being fed through. Indeed, there is non-statutory guidance that seems to override all this. For example, it says that you should not consider changes in contribution rates on the basis of liabilities that have changed due to market changes, so the interest rate environment, which has changed so fundamentally, is supposed not to feed through to the conclusions on contribution rates. That is part of this mindset which, I feel, it is so important for us to try to adjust as we go forward, given the fundamental changes that have happened.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I apologise, but I do not understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Actuaries have to comply with these professional standards; any valuation report they produce has to meet them—that is not a question for debate. If a report does not meet those standards, it should be pursued on its merits. To claim that this information is not available is simply untrue: it is there in the valuation reports. I always have problems with the word “transparency”, because to me it looks like something you can see through and you cannot see it, but I take it to mean that a full explanation of the degree of prudence, a wide evaluation of the assumptions chosen, what effect different assumptions would have and the outcome in terms of the contribution rate all have to be set out. They are publicly available.

The second point is that actuaries do not decide on the valuation assumptions; the management committee decides, on actuarial advice, what the assumptions should be. The local, democratically elected representatives take the decisions, including about what the contribution rate should be. We are currently in an odd state where lots of information on the situation is becoming available, but that is because we are at the end of a three-year cycle of valuations. By the end of this year, all these issues will have been resolved. Not everyone will be pleased; it is entirely possible that some admitted bodies will find that their contributions go up. Perhaps they had significant changes in their workforce—who knows? But the mere fact that some contribution rates go up while the overall move is a reduction does not in itself mean that the system is broken.

I find it difficult to understand what exactly these amendments intend to achieve. The information is available, the decisions are made by the local government bodies involved, and they take the decisions based on their democratic responsibility. What more could we want?

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Perhaps I could assist the Committee. These amendments are asking for a publicly available report that clarifies and sets out all this information on a basis that council tax payers, for example, whose money is being used, can see with clarity: it is provided to them. With all due respect, they will not read the actuarial report, but having a properly set-out review that explains all this clearly, in language that people can understand, would have huge value.