Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[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.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat the long list of government missteps on a global, international stage from those politicians who have interfered with people’s retirements. Safe to say, it represents moral hazard.

There is a mismatch between the long-term investment needs of people who are saving for retirement half a generation ahead—in particular, the youngest members of our workforce—and the short-term political wants of those who might direct. Politics is transient. MPs come and go, but the hangover from bad decisions lasts a long time. The 1997 changes to dividend taxes have cast a long shadow that has deprived millions of a secure retirement. We should have learned that lesson but, no, we have not. Mandation risks repeating that mistake all over again and benighting a new generation of youngsters who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement. There is already generational unfairness in the system. Mandation will perpetuate it again. It should have no place in the Bill, yet here we are discussing it.

I align myself fully with the proposers of these amendments and hope that, even at this late stage, between Committee and Report, the Government will look at this matter once more. Mandation should not be part of the Bill because of that simple moral hazard. MPs and the Treasury love to tell people what to do, but they will not be around to pick up the pieces when, or if, it all goes wrong.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 167, which was tabled and spoken to eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by many noble Lords. This amendment touches on a set of concerns that we raised at Second Reading and to which we will return in considerably more detail in our debate on the next group.

For the sake of brevity, at this stage, I will confine myself to the central point of principle. The issue here is not simply asset allocation but where risk is placed and who should take it when investment decisions are shaped by government direction, rather than trusty judgment. The mandation power introduced by the Bill is targeted narrowly at automatic enrolment default funds—the schemes that are relied on by those who are least likely to have made an active choice and are least able to respond if outcomes are adversely affected. That targeting matters. Mandation does not apply evenly across the pensions landscape. It does not touch defined benefit schemes, self-selected funds, SIPPs or bespoke arrangements but falls with notable precision on default savers—those who depend most heavily on the neutrality and integrity of the system to act on their behalf.

Amendment 167 raises a legitimate question about protection and accountability in that context. If default funds are required to follow mandated investment decisions and if those decisions underperform a simple, low-cost benchmark, should the consequences fall entirely on members who neither chose the strategy nor, in practice, have the capacity to respond to it? Of course, it may be said that members are free to move to another fund, but that response lacks behavioural realism. Automatic enrolment defaults exist precisely because many savers do not actively choose, do not regularly review and do not feel equipped to intervene in complex investment decisions. How can we put them in that position?

For a significant proportion of members, remaining in the default is not an expression of preference but a reflection of constraint, limited time, limited confidence and limited financial literacy. Behavioural realism tells us that these savers will not simply move in response to policy changes, however well signposted. To place the full downside risk of mandated investment decisions on that group is therefore not neutral; it is a deliberate allocation of risk to those least able to manage it. The noble Baroness’s amendment is therefore not an attempt to eliminate risk but to highlight the asymmetry that mandation introduces and the absence of any corresponding safeguard for those most exposed to its effects.

These issues around mandation, choice, fiduciary duty and the position of default savers run through the architecture of the Bill. We will return to them in much greater depth in the following group. For now, I simply underline that the concerns raised by Amendment 167 and all those who have spoken are not isolated. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will take note of the concern laid out to them today and do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to touch on some basic principles here. As we go through the Bill in Committee, I go back to look at the whole basis of what the Government are trying to do, which I broadly support.

However, it essentially says here that members should benefit from these reforms and get better outcomes and greater value for their pension and invested funds. Therefore, although in general I agree with the first of these amendments, if one looks further into Amendments 172, 173 and 174—which I want to concentrate on here—they remind us of the interesting power balance we seem to be developing. I am somewhat concerned, as a trustee of a fund, that my accountability has always primarily been to the members, to achieve the outcomes that the Bill suggests should be achieved.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke a few minutes ago about responsibility of government. Of course, the responsibility of trustees has been enormous, and is very important as a protection for members but also as a barrier between the way investments take place and the way regulation takes place. I was investigated myself when I first became a trustee because I was appointed by a company and under Section 72—I think it was, at that time—of the Pensions Act, the regulator checked to see whether I was too closely connected to the company. It is true that I was a good friend of the company directors and so on, but I had to prove that I would act in a dispassionate manner and that I would do the very best for members at all times.

Of course, however, in doing that chore, I have had issues regarding the position of the regulator and the relationship between the regulator and the PPF in determining the nature of investment the trustees have made. The balance of trustees’ investments has always been a critical factor in reporting—as has been necessary—to the regulator and to the PPF. This is all essential stuff. Therefore, in view of the mandation proposals and looking at Amendments 172, 173 and 174, all of which refer to important elements, I have one question. How will this future relationship be in existence for the benefit of the members? Amendment 172 talks about informing members, and one of the criticisms of trustees—sometimes coming from members, or sometimes from the regulator—has been that not enough information has been provided to scheme members for things that have been done on their behalf. Is the process we are now looking at really going to allow for that information to be objective and put to the members appropriately by the people who ought to do it—the trustees?

Value for money for anything that is mandated is a decision to be made, and we had that debate in the last group. I am concerned about that, too.

Finally, on the question of the reduction of members’ choices—trustees inevitably inform their members of the options available to them—a genuine and legitimate choice must be available to members at all times. If that is not the case, it is very difficult for trustees to perform their duties and not fall foul of what will still be a very heavy set of regulations on the choices that they make.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendments 177, 179 and 180 in this group are all probing amendments. Amendment 177 would delete Clause 49(3)(b). Subsection (3) defines “default pension benefit solution”, and paragraph (b) says that it must be

“designed to provide a regular income”

in an individual’s retirement. I wish to probe whether it is right to force all prospective pensioners into a lifetime income solution. There is a problem with “one size fits all”. If a pensioner is going to continue working on a full-time or part-time basis, as many do, they may not need to draw income for at least part of their retirement. But paragraph (b) seems to be a straitjacket requiring an income for all their retirement years, even if the pensioner does not need it. In addition, smaller pots do not lend themselves to lifetime income solutions because they can produce insignificant amounts of income and are also costly to administer. The Bill does not provide for a de minimis exemption.

Furthermore, a prospective pensioner who has significant accumulated debt pre retirement may well benefit more from clearing those debts with a capital sum than having income throughout retirement. I see that Clause 49(6) regulations can make provision about the term

“designed to provide a regular income”,

but that, using normal language, does not appear to be capable of encompassing the payment of lump sums without a lifetime income component within the use of such a power.

Amendments 179 and 180 concern Clause 50, which deals with the people called “transferable members”, who are basically those for whom their pension scheme determines that they do not fit with its scheme for pension default benefit purposes—I paraphrase, but that is the gist of it. The pension scheme determines that these are the members they cannot design a default pension for. Subsections (14) and (15) allow regulations to require certain pension schemes to accept transferable members, while subsection (16) allows regulations to prohibit or limit the charging of fees in respect of transfers. Hence pension scheme A can determine that some of its members are too difficult to devise default retirement solutions for, and then the Government can tell pension scheme B that it must take them and might not even get paid for it. This sounds like quite an extraordinary set of powers, which is why my Amendments 179 and 180 would delete subsections (14) to (16). I would be interested to hear the Minister explain why the Government need such draconian powers and what limits will be placed on them.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, there are three clauses here and one would have to be pretty churlish to want to reject and disagree with the thrust of what they are trying to achieve. But I am concerned, as is my noble friend Lord Younger, about how we might put in these contractual arrangements. I am concerned that we are going to sleepwalk into a situation where there is unrealistic customisation and we are going to set unrealistic expectations about the ability of schemes—particularly the larger schemes, because we know schemes are going to be much bigger than today—to give personalisation.

We are going to see, if I read these regulations correctly, a huge number of bespoke arrangements. There is going to need to be candour, not just from the schemes themselves but from the members when they are asking questions. What is the duty upon the person to take advice? Normally, at the moment, if you want to change your pension arrangements, you need to take advice and pay for it. Who will pay the fees? Is it the member or the scheme itself?

When I think about candour, it leads me down the path of thinking about what happens to people who are in impaired life situations. Perhaps they have cancer or another terminal disease. I am not going to trespass on the arguments that are made every Friday in your Lordships’ House, but as we have learned from those debates, there is a lack of certainty about people who are in those impaired situations.

That leads on to my noble friend’s point about capacity and capability of trustees to make these judgments—that is difficult. So I am entirely in agreement with the idea that people should be able to have control and a bespoke arrangement just for them, but I am concerned about the practicality of delivering what can be subjective judgments of the trustees. In these large schemes you may have to deal with hundreds or thousands of these applications.

In local government—a parallel world— the EHCP system mandates a personalised regime for children’s special educational needs. I suppose my concern is that it has led to a huge bureaucracy—a cottage industry of a huge amount of appeals, process and, of course, delay. When you have pensions, you cannot have a delay because people are at the end of their lives—are they going to make it?

I want to agree with the thrust of this, and these are probing amendments, but I am interested in the Minister laying out in some detail how these bespoke arrangements might be calculated and defended by trustees with lots of other things to do. I am also very much drawn to the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about being realistic about the current ways of work, in which people have blended retirements, and about the requirement to have indexation and all those sorts of things. It does seem complicated, and I am interested to hear what the Minister might say about it.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

This part of the Bill is particularly important and the part to which I gave the strongest welcome. There is, inevitably, a caveat: we do not know much of the detail because it depends so much on what the regulations say and require. But this is the necessary and right framework to provide pathways for people to get the sort of benefits in retirement that best suit them.

I have some concern that there has been discussion of having more than one default, which rather defeats the concept of a default. Either the member will have to choose the appropriate default or someone else will, which places a particular responsibility on whoever will take the decision. It is important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords may want to consider Amendment 180A an amuse-bouche before we get back into the real meat and honey, as it were. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for having also signed this amendment. We have already made it clear that the Pensions Act 2008 set out the requirements for auto-enrolment into pension schemes, which was commenced and brought into effect in 2012. As such, all employers are now required to provide a workplace pension scheme and to make contributions.

The question I pose in this amendment is not whether pensions should be well regulated—that is a given—but whether the current regulatory architecture best supports effective supervision, good member outcomes and long-term system stability in this emerging ecosystem of pensions. I contend that it would do so only if occupational pensions, though not self-invested pensions, were regulated solely by the Pensions Regulator without the overlapping or parallel oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority. This is fundamentally an issue of regulatory design.

The Pensions Regulator was established with a clear statutory mandate: to protect members’ benefits; to reduce the risk of calls on the Pension Protection Fund; and to promote the good administration of work-based pension schemes. Its regulatory approach is deliberately scheme-centric, focusing on governance, funding, the employer covenant, trustee capability and long-term risk management. By contrast, the Financial Conduct Authority’s framework is product and transaction centric. It is designed around the regulation of firms that either make, distribute or advise on financial products, with a particular emphasis on conduct at the point of sale, disclosure and consumer choice.

The FCA’s tools, culture and regulatory philosophy—whether that is speed, competition, disclosure or transactional fairness—are shaped, in effect, by retail finance. That approach is fine, but I suggest to the Committee that it is not so well suited to not only the current pensions world but the evolving world of pensions that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating. Let us be clear: the FCA’s consumer duty is to the individual. That is not what we see with workplace pensions more broadly, where we have the trust-based approach.

The ongoing involvement of the FCA in pensions risks creating, if it has not done so already, regulatory overlap without regulatory coherence. I am aware that there are statements of co-operation but, particularly with the evolution of the pensions world for employees through the Bill, this should lead us to consider a change in the regulatory approach. The contract-based approach is evolving and, as we have already debated, will now be able to be overridden. For that reason, I come back to the question of whether we should think about the Pensions Regulator being the sole regulator, apart from for self-invested personal pensions; I can see that the consumer duty element under those individual schemes is well suited to the FCA.

The danger of dual regulation is real, costly and can be confusing. The uncertainty is evident. In having two different ways, there are some conflicts over how certain assets or schemes can be treated. There is the risk of misclassifying pensions as short-term financial products, rather than what could be really long-term social contracts. We know that people often remain disengaged from their pensions. Their outcomes therefore depend far more on scheme design, trustee competence and the long-term investment strategy.

I think that the Pensions Regulator understands this reality much better. It recognises that good outcomes come from strong governance, clear fiduciary duties and long-term risk management in not only defined benefit schemes but defined contribution schemes. As I have already mentioned, I am conscious that, although there is collaboration, the risk of regulatory drift is still real. This would be solved by moving, in essence, to having one regulator for all occupational pension schemes.

The Pensions Regulator has already shown that it can evolve. It has strengthened its focus on value for money, professional trustee standards, consolidation and other elements on which it is doing well. A single regulator would deliver clarity, coherence and confidence, which is why I have tabled this amendment seeking a review. More specifically, in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, I suggest

“a review to assess the viability”.

I say “viability” deliberately but then, in subsection (2), I offer a little leeway on that review, including whether the Pensions Regulator should take it on. This may feel to many like dancing on the head of the pin but, actually, we are seeing these two regimes in parallel. In effect, we are starting to see almost the removal of the contract-based approach. As a consequence, we should grab the challenge and make this change.

I am conscious that the Minister may ask, “Why did you not do this when you were in power?”, which is a fair question. But as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott will know from the time we were doing the 2021 pension scheme, when we were bringing in certain measures, including dashboards, once the Treasury gets hold of something it does not want to let go. Let us not pretend otherwise.

We are coming on to a debate shortly about superfunds. I am not going to reveal every battle that we had then; nevertheless, it was certainly a challenge. That is no disrespect to my other noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, because she was a great Treasury Minister. But it is a case of making sure that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating what is happening. It is going back, in effect, almost to a paternalistic or maternalistic approach, so it makes sense to at least review this change now. I hope the Minister will give it careful consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the advantage of Committee is that we can bat around some batty ideas without troubling the scorers too much. I am not going to violently disagree with either of my noble friends or the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in this respect, but it oversimplifies the pensions landscape. I totally endorse the idea that we need to have a fresh look at the regulatory environment within which pensions operate, because things have not gone right.

There has been a regulatory groupthink. The example of the LDI, the liability-driven investments disaster, is a case in point, because the LDIs anchor schemes that are in deficit and can never climb out of that. That is sort of how they work. The regulator has bamboozled and misdirected trustees over many years not to focus on maximising the returns, so that there is sufficient money in a scheme to pay the pensions as they fall due over its lifetime—that would be a good long-term objective. No, the regulator has forced them to look, three years at a time, at how they can focus on the deficit, not on the term. There has been a failure of regulation and that needs to be remedied.

The amendments in the names of my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focus on the Pensions Regulator, which we have heard is much more corporate-focused, and the FCA, which is much more individually aligned, but they fail to see the wider landscape. Any review, in my opinion, should consider the Bank of England because, ultimately, it directed the whole industry and the other regulators to go down the LDI route. That finished and grievously damaged so many private schemes on that false altar of deficit focus rather than asset maximisation.

Then there is a triumvirate. There is the Government Actuary’s Department, which I accept is not occupational; it is for public schemes, but it sets the tone. Then there is His Majesty’s Treasury, which has just been mentioned, and the Pension Protection Fund. I agree with the thrust of the amendments that have been tabled, and we are only in Committee, but I would widen the scope of the report to include those other actors—the Bank of England, the Government Actuary’s Department, the Pension Protection Fund and His Majesty’s Treasury—so that we can see regulation in the round, because unless we do so, we will not cover up those regulatory cracks that some schemes have fallen down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I am interested, of course, in the opinion of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, about the exam, but the Minister has provoked me to respond. I am not against the FCA or the Pensions Regulator. As she says, they have their roles and responsibilities. But there is a piece of work on the interaction between all the actors in the pension space. The old saying is, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, but there has been enough that is broken to require a fresh look. All the bilateral arrangements between TPR and the FCA, which she explained and which are all very interesting, do not talk about those other wide environmental links to the Bank of England, GAD, the PPF and His Majesty’s Treasury. That is where there should be some work, with a little humility about how the scheme has gone.

I am not making a political point here; I am just making the factual observation that the schemes are not working as I think any of us would like them to. This pensions Bill remedies some of those shortcomings, but the excessive focus purely on the FCA and the Pensions Regulator is obscuring that wider picture. I am not asking to promote some hatred and discord; I am just asking to try to get everyone sat around the table so that we can work out not just the roles and responsibilities but the linkages—and avoid the groupthink, because that is the worst thing. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for aligning himself with my points. So it is not just me, unless the noble Lord is against everything as well, which I do not think he is.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for clarifying his view and apologise if I misrepresented it. I will not respond at any length but will simply say that there is already considerable join-up between the actors in this space. I do not feel it is necessary to have a single review just to work that out.