Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to open today’s debate on the remaining groups of amendments relating to the Local Government Pension Scheme. We are conscious that Ministers have already undertaken to write to the House on a number of points, and we do not wish to add unduly to that correspondence or set exam questions. However, we hope that today’s debate may allow some of these issues to be addressed in real time.

Let me be clear at the outset that this is a probing stand-part notice intended to seek clarity from the Government. Clause 6 is striking in its brevity, but the power it confers is anything but modest. It would allow scheme regulations to provide for the merger explicitly, including a compulsory merger, of local government pension funds. Compulsory merger is a significant and, in many cases, irreversible intervention. It has profound implications for governance, funding positions, local accountability and, ultimately, the retirement savings of millions of scheme members and the obligations of employers. We are dealing here with very substantial sums of public money and the livelihoods of millions of people.

Before such a power is afforded to a Secretary of State who may have little or no specialist expertise in pensions, it is only right that the Committee understands clearly how this power will be exercised and what safeguards will apply. The clause itself, however, tells us very little. It provides no indication of the process that will be followed, the criteria that will be applied or the protections that will be in place for members, employers and administering authorities. I therefore hope that the Minister can assist the Committee on a number of points.

First, on expertise and decision-making, pension scheme governance is highly complex and technical. What confidence can the Government offer that the Secretary of State is the appropriate decision-maker for imposing compulsory mergers, particularly in the absence of any requirement in the Bill to obtain independent expert pensions advice?

Secondly, on process, what precise procedural steps will be required before a compulsory merger can be ordered? Will there be a statutory consultation and, if so, with whom? Will affected scheme managers, administering authorities, employers and scheme members have a formal opportunity to make representations before a decision is taken?

Thirdly, on safeguards and accountability, what independent checks and balances will exist to ensure that the Secretary of State cannot act unilaterally? Will decisions be required to meet defined tests, such as necessity or proportionality, and to be supported by evidence? Will there be any right of review or challenge where a fund believes a compulsory merger is not in the best interests of its members?

Fourthly, on financial risk, given the scale of the assets involved, what assurances can the Government provide that members’ savings will not be exposed to undue risk or that decisions will not be influenced directly or indirectly by political or short-term considerations rather than long-term fiduciary interest?

Finally, on precedent, does the Minister accept that conferring such a broad enabling power sets an important precedent for ministerial intervention in pensions governance more widely? If so, how do the Government justify that approach, and why are the limits of this power left entirely to secondary legislation?

We ought to have answers to these questions before the conclusion and passing of the Bill. Clause 6 confers wide discretion in a highly technical and sensitive area, with potentially far-reaching consequences. It is therefore entirely appropriate for the Committee to press the Government to explain how this power will be exercised, what safeguards will be in place and how the interests of scheme members will be protected. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as has been stated, this clause introduces compulsory mergers of Local Government Pension Scheme funds, and the word “compulsory” worries me. We on these Benches accept that consolidation can sometimes improve efficiency and governance, but compulsion—I emphasise this—is a serious step that demands strong justification and clear safeguards, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, stated.

At present, the Bill establishes the power without clearly setting out the criteria, process or routes of challenge. That sequencing matters. Trustees, employers and members need confidence that mergers will occur only when there is compelling evidence of benefit to the people—that is, the pensioners themselves. We on these Benches are concerned that forced mergers, if poorly handled—and some may well be poorly handled—could undermine trust rather than strengthen it. Before endorsing compulsion, which we are asked to do, Parliament should understand how decisions will be made, how dissent will be treated and what protections exist if a merger proves detrimental.

At this stage, it is quite right that there should be probing as to what is behind all this and what will happen in all the various circumstances that need to be in place to protect members of the Local Government Pension Scheme. I wait to see further information as the Bill progresses.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for speaking after the Liberal Democrats—the noble Lord got up rather quickly.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I apologise. I did not see you.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I endorse everything that both speakers have said about understanding more about the use of this power. I want to go back to the Explanatory Notes. They say that Clause 6 amends Schedule 3, et cetera,

“to clarify that, in the case of the LGPS, the responsible authority’s powers also include the power to make regulations”.

That implies that the Government believe that this is a declaration of an existing power. If that is the case, can they explain why they feel it is necessary to put Clause 6 in this Bill? Can they also explain the history of mergers with the involvement of the regulatory authority and what problems, if any, have led to the need to insert this in Clause 6? As the noble Lords who have spoken said, it looks like a very draconian power to be taking and yet the Explanatory Notes imply that they already have the power. It would be useful to have some more background.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 14 and 15; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her explanation of the thinking behind them. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that on this occasion I find it difficult to agree with much of what he said.

I agree that these schemes have been a success. I do not see these amendments as suggesting that there is a massive failure, but I am frightened that we could be about to snatch defeat from the jaws of the victory that these schemes have so far been able to provide. It is vital that there is a cost and sustainability review, as well as a review of the actuarial valuation methodologies. I do not feel that this issue can be swept under the carpet; to some extent, there is, or has been, a desire to do just that.

Excessive prudence and hoarding of excess assets are not, in my opinion, good governance. At least part of the surplus belongs to the employer, who is the council tax payer. This series of amendments, and indeed the whole Bill, need to be approached with the view that defined benefit pension schemes are no longer a problem that needs solving. We had that mindset for so many years that it seems we cannot easily get away from it but, actually, these funds have turned into a national asset, which needs to be stewarded responsibly. It can help to deliver both good pensions and long-term support for the economy, if we just use the opportunity that is presenting itself now.

The LGPS has very much changed position, especially because the needs of local and national economies have also changed. Council tax should be used responsibly and not to keep putting money into pension funds that already have more than they need. The risk of non-payment of these pensions is extremely low anyway, but the risk of council failure has been rising. The same is true for some other employers that are contributing here, such as special schools, academies, care homes and housing associations; a number of authorities and groups that are really important to our national well-being have also been caught up in this situation.

I must thank Steve Simkins of Isio, who has been helping me to understand some of what is going on at the local authority level. I have found his insights extremely valuable. Although the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that we had the 2013 review under the local authority regulations—I think he quoted LGPS Regulation 62. That is in place but, as the years have gone on, the review and its terms have been used as a smokescreen for super-prudence. I have something of a problem with the argument about stability, because we were not as worried when we thought there were massive deficits in schemes, but we do not seem to want to take even a temporary respite from the ongoing contributions, which actuaries say are not needed, when things have become better.

I support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the need for these regulations. They are meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested, to help review contributions in the interim, but it is not clear what the definitions on which the review is based mean. The word “desirability” is so vague: desirable to whom? Even the word “stability” can be interpreted differently, depending on whether you are talking about stability immediately or over the long run. Does “long term cost efficiency” include the cost of holding too much money? Is that efficient? We also have “solvency”, of course; on what basis is that measured?

I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in imploring the Committee to have supreme confidence in the actuarial profession’s conclusions about these funds—I have to declare an interest in that my daughter is an actuary, although I stress not on the pension side. Of course, actuaries are a very professional, well-educated group, but the issue for me is not so much with the wording of the regulations but the mindset that is behind what is done with those valuations. The LGPS, the scheme advisory boards, the MHCLG and even the LGPS officers, advisers and investment managers themselves seem to want to interpret everything in the most negative way, so I think that the noble Baroness has done the Committee a service in raising these issues.

We will talk more about this in the next group, but I urge the Minister to consider carefully, in the context that councils are running out of money and cannot afford basic services, that 20% to 25% of council tax goes on employer pension contributions into schemes that do not, as I say, seem to need the money. Could we be stewarding this national resource, and even the local authority budgets, far better and use the opportunity of the pension success to drive better growth and better local well-being?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I must first remind myself to declare that I am a member of the Local Government Pension Scheme: I could not fail to be, having been 28 years on the London Borough of Barnet Council, but I tend to forget about it because it is quite a while ago. A payment does come monthly into my bank account, so I must declare that I am a recipient. I also served on the pensions committee of the London Borough of Barnet, so I have some knowledge of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, has been very eloquent about.

These amendments propose reviews of the Local Government Pension Scheme, and I think we have to get back to exactly what these amendments are asking for, which is sustainability and actuarial practice. We on my Benches support both, in principle. The Local Government Pension Scheme is a long-term, open scheme with unique characteristics, and pressures on admitted bodies, including housing associations, merit careful examination.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, spoke eloquently about the profession of actuaries. I have always found that actuaries do not have a unified view. There are different actuaries and different views, and as a chartered accountant I have always thought they were impressively prudent with what they said the funds needed to be protected against.

Similarly, actuarial practices such as desirability, stability and solvency are not always applied consistently, despite our applause for actuaries as a profession. Greater clarity would help employers plan and would reduce disputes. Reviews, which is what these amendments ask for, are not admissions of failure; they are tools of good governance. We on these Benches therefore see these amendments as constructive and not critical.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, spoke very eloquently about stabilisation and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, talked about cost and stabilisation review. Excess prudence, or super-prudence, is not sensible, and it is so easy to be prudent as the easy way out. There is an argument for temporary respite. All these come into the question of review, which is what these two amendments ask for. Our question is whether the Government can accept the value of structured, evidence-based review in strengthening confidence in the Local Government Pension Scheme. Review is not a question of failure; it is a question of prudence, which I would have thought actuaries would be in favour of.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been another interesting and wide-ranging debate, and I am sorry to see that the accord that we had on Monday— the horseshoe accord, I am going to call it—between my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, has broken down. Sadly, in my experience these things do not last that long.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I support these amendments because I believe that transparency is good. I will need to address some of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. He is right from an actuarial point of view, obviously. He said the decision is made by the council; in fact, it is made by the management committee of that council. The management committee of most councils will consist of councillors who are neither actuaries nor particularly great financial wizards. What happens in practice is that those people on the council’s management committee that is deciding take the advice of its pensions advisers, stockbrokers and actuaries. It happens on that basis. Do they understand it? My general view is that they are swayed by the people who make the arguments to that committee.

So this group of amendments addresses transparency, benchmarking and surplus. To most people, these are technical matters and ones on which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, speaks with great expertise from an actuarial point of view. But the impact on employer contributions and public services is real. Where valuations are materially more prudent than market benchmarks, we need to understand why.

My noble friend Lord Thurso talked about risk appetite. Most local authority pension committees will not have a great deal of appetite for risk. Their idea is that they are custodians of their employees’ pensions and they will naturally fall on the opposite side of taking risk. That is probably quite right. These amendments are a step in the right direction: they are a clearer explanation of assumptions and benchmarks, which strengthens the local government pension schemes by improving accountability and understanding.

Our question is whether the Government and the Minister agree that transparency is a safeguard and not a threat. This is what the amendments talk about—transparency. We need to make it as transparent to the management committees of these pension funds as it can be. That is what these amendments try to do: they would bring this on to a more generalised basis, not just picking the ones that do well in the Orkneys or wherever, but ones that maybe need guidance. Therefore, these Benches support these amendments, and I hope that they see some light at the end of the tunnel.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been another interesting and wide-ranging debate. I am pleased to see that the horseshoe accord has, to some small measure, broken out again. I must say that I am not as pleased to see the conversion—maybe I am being unfair in characterising it as a Damascene conversion—of the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and other Members opposite into the prudence of having well-funded local government to provide local services, after the underfunding of local authorities for a fair amount of time. Would that that sentiment had been shown by the Benches opposite when they were on our side of the Committee, but we are where we are.

These amendments show a clear desire to provide greater transparency in the triennial valuation and contributions rate-setting process. I agree it is important that all scheme employers understand how their contribution rates have been set, and members need to have confidence in the long-term sustainability of the fund.

These amendments also show a keen interest in the funding level of the Local Government Pension Scheme and the balance that administering authorities must strike between the long-term sustainability of the fund and affordability to its employers. As a public sector scheme, it is right that we are mindful of the costs to the taxpayer of funding the scheme.

I will address up front why the surplus extraction measures in Clauses 9 and 10 do not apply to the LGPS, to avoid confusion. The LGPS already has a triennial valuation process where contribution rates for employers are set. This is effectively a point where surplus extraction can take place, as this is where contribution rates can be reduced in response to an improvement in the funding level. As we will come on to later, there is also an interim contribution review process for employers who find themselves in difficulty. Therefore, an additional surplus extraction process is not required.

Furthermore, I urge caution in viewing surpluses in the LGPS as a potential windfall or as a means of managing broader revenue pressures for scheme employers. As in all defined benefit schemes, surpluses are maintained to absorb future shocks, manage demographic risk and ensure that promises made to members are kept. Poor decision-making can now lead to higher costs for future generations of taxpayers.

For context, the 2025 valuation will conclude in a few weeks, as we have discussed, with employer contribution rates set for April 2026 onwards. Following this, the Government Actuary’s Department, under Section 13 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, will undertake a review for the Secretary of State of all fund valuations, on whether compliance, consistency, solvency and long-term cost efficiency in the scheme has been achieved. Under usual timeframes, the report will be published in mid-2027.

Although I appreciate that the Committee is concerned about rising surpluses in the scheme, it surely cannot be right that we make amendments that would have a material impact on future valuations without having a full review of the outcomes of the 2025 valuation. It is anticipated that there will be reductions in contribution rates for many employers from April, and we need to take account of how the current system has coped with the significant changes in market conditions since that 2022 valuation—we discussed that on both this and the previous group—before making changes to the valuation process.

The LGPS is a locally administered and managed scheme. It is administering authorities that are responsible for managing their surpluses through employer contribution rate changes, and for working with their actuaries to set appropriate assumptions as part of the valuation. Authorities are required under government regulations to provide valuation reports to employers to support them in their longer-term financial planning. So we must consider whether it is right for the Government to exert a more significant level of influence over the setting of contribution rates through these amendments, and whether this is compatible with local accountability.

It is right, in a locally managed scheme, that funds are able to set their own approaches to stability and prudence, reflecting both the needs of employers in understanding their medium-term financial obligations and the different risk profiles of their investments. The balance of these is key to delivering the intergenerational fairness mentioned by noble Lords opposite, particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Younger—and indeed we all want to see that.

On transparency, revised statutory guidance on the funding strategy statement, which all LGPS funds must publish, was issued by the scheme advisory board on behalf of MHCLG in January 2025. Under this guidance, administering authorities should consult all employers in the fund on their funding strategy statement, which should outline how administering authorities will manage surpluses and deficits, outline the approach to contribution rate stability, and summarise the main actuarial assumptions used at the valuation.

Amendment 16 would require the Secretary of State to set a statutory funding objective for LGPS funds, including considerations for administering authorities, setting their funding strategy and contribution rates. There is already detailed guidance on how funds should manage surpluses and deficits in their funding strategy, but, as locally managed schemes, it should be for administering authorities to consider how to strike the right balance in setting the contribution rates, with appropriate considerations of prudence and the long-term sustainability of the scheme and contributions. Furthermore, a funding objective would still require a degree of interpretation and so would not provide the clarity that the noble Lord seeks to achieve with his amendment.

In 2020, the Supreme Court found that LGPS money is not, in fact, public money, but that it belongs to its members, which further justifies why a statutory funding objective is not appropriate for the scheme.

Amendment 17 would require fund valuations to be benchmarked against insurer and gilt-based pricing, with a report laid before the relevant local authority. The triennial valuation and contribution rates-setting process is already a robust and collaborative process between administering authorities, actuaries and employers. Many authorities already follow best practice in consulting scheme employers alongside the contribution rate-setting process. This gives employers the opportunity to challenge contribution rates and consider whether they are sufficiently stable, or whether excessive prudence is built in.

Statutory guidance already sets out that funds should publish the actuarial assumptions used as part of the funding strategy statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referenced the role of the Financial Reporting Council in the valuation. The valuation reports, which are publicly available, will include Financial Reporting Council compliance statements that technical actuarial standards have been complied with. In addition, I have already raised the Section 13 report by the GAD, which reviews the fund-level actuarial valuations. As part of the review into the 2022 valuation report, for example, when assessing consistency, there was a review of assumptions, including the discount rate.

Finally, this amendment points to a perceived excessive risk aversion undertaken by the LGPS. This is not an accurate characterisation. In fact, around three-quarters of LGPS assets are invested in return-seeking assets, vastly outweighing the equivalent figures in private schemes, which are heavily geared towards matching assets.

Amendment 18 would require administering authorities to publish and justify their approach to the treatment of surpluses over 120%. First, we must consider if this is the level that we would wish to set in the context of the LGPS. Elsewhere in defined benefit schemes, the Government are considering the funding threshold for surplus release, and there has already been consideration of what this would be. But we must remember that the valuation process already provides a route to return surplus to employers, which allows for changes every three years, whether or not a threshold—whatever it is—has been met.

Furthermore, each valuation is prepared on a local basis, meaning that the funding level will depend on the discount rate set. The discount rate converts the value of future benefits to a current value so it can be compared to the current value of assets; it is used to determine the employer contribution rate required to pay future benefits. It is based on the assumed future returns of the individual fund’s investments, taking into account the portfolio of assets held by the fund, the demographic profile of its members and its attitudes to risk. That means that a funding level of 120% in one fund will simply not be comparable to that of another if the discount rates applied are significantly different.

I think that the Committee will surely agree that the purpose of a buffer is to provide a surplus in well-funded times and guard against a fall into deficit in more challenging times. As a locally managed scheme, it is for the funds, not for the Government, to decide what the right level of surplus is. Introducing these additional reviews and requirements would risk undermining the valuation process and the locally managed nature of the scheme.

On Amendment 19, we had an interesting discussion on transparency—certainly transparency and accessibility is something that we should all seek. I appreciated the discussion between my noble friend Lord Davies and the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, on the accessibility of the actuarial statements. Maybe I would say this, but I thought that my noble friend put up a good defence of the professional standards that actuarial firms set themselves with regard to matters of accessibility.

I appreciate that the intent of Amendment 19 is to increase the transparency of actuarial valuations for all scheme employers and for members of the public. In addition to the requirements that I have already mentioned, regulations also require the administering authority to publish and send copies of any valuation, report or certificate made under Regulation 62, or Regulation 64, to all employers. I do not recognise that as limited transparency, but I concede that there is scope for greater visibility—and that is something that we should always seek to pursue. While there is scope to look at whether these publications could be made easier to understand for employers, that should be considered in the round—I suggest following the conclusion of the 2025 valuation.

The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked me to comment on his example of valuations increasing despite surpluses, and I would say that there is a robust valuation process in place into which employers feed. We must wait for completion of the scheme valuation and its formal result—but if this is the case as set out by the noble Viscount, the Government Actuary’s Department will review the results in the valuation under regulations in Section 13.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, asked about funds not using a discount rate that is more prudent than a gilt basis. I have already talked about the wider inaccurate characterisation of excessive risk aversion, but at this point I add that the LGPS is a funded scheme with diversified assets and its discount rates are set by fund actuaries on a scheme-specific, prudent basis that reflects long-term expected returns. The valuations are reviewed nationally by the GAD on compliance, solvency and long-term cost efficiency. Without the results of the 2025 valuation or the Section 13 review, we cannot say for certain what the current approach is, taken across all funds.