Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in speaking to Motion B1, I welcome that the Government have committed to a review of Regulation 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. That is an important and necessary step, and their further commitments today are most welcome.

However, if the GAD review is to be meaningful, it must first focus on the factors that directly drive employer contribution rates. In particular, it should examine the effectiveness of consultation between fund actuaries, administering authorities and scheme employers.

Secondly, the GAD review must examine outliers in valuations. There is increasing evidence that some funds are applying discount rates that are significantly more prudent than those implied by gilt yields or insurer pricing, despite the Local Government Pension Scheme being an open, funded and asset-backed scheme.

Thirdly, Section 151 officers are rightly expected to scrutinise expenditure rigorously, including pension contributions, just as they would any other area of spending. When budgets are tight and local taxpayers are under strain, those responsible must be able to understand the methodologies being used, weigh the trade-offs and, where necessary, challenge the conclusions reached by fund actuaries.

It was with these concerns in mind that amendments were tabled in Committee, as the Minister is aware. Where such issues arise of the kind that I have outlined there is currently little recourse. Employers may be forced to wait up to three years for the next valuation cycle before any action can be taken. That is a considerable period to carry contribution rates that may be excessive or difficult to justify. The principle in our amendment is simple: the review identifies the problem and the interim review under Regulation 64A provides the remedy.

On these points, I am glad that the Government have broadly recognised the concerns I have raised in my amendment. I shall listen to the remainder of the debate on this group, but I am more reassured now that this is a priority for the Government and that they are aware of the concerns that we have been outlining. I thank the Minister for his movement on this.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining things in great detail from the Government’s perspective.

I will speak to Motion B1, which the Minister said has already been met. The Local Government Pension Scheme already has mechanisms to review and amend employer pension contributions and funding practices; for instance, under Regulation 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. There is even an existing GAD reporting mechanism under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which reports on compliance, consistency, solvency and long-term cost efficiency, with such reports having been carried out in 2018, 2019 and 2024. Therefore, we on these Benches think that the Government’s efforts should be focused—as they are, I think—more on implementing the recommendations of those reports, rather than duplicating efforts. We will probably abstain on Motion B1; we recognise its importance but think it is already being met.

Motion C is a government Motion, so I come to Motion D. Amendment 13 would extend the period before a pension pot is classified as dormant, increasing the threshold from one year to three years. We supported this increase earlier in the passage of the Bill, as it would provide greater flexibility for savers such as mothers, those on sabbatical or mature students. Motion D1, from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Motions D and D1 are the opening Motions of the next group.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Have they been moved?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

Not yet.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

It says “D1” on the Order Paper.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

It is in the second group.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I see. I am sorry. Forgive me, I was going on to the next group.

On Motion B1, we will abstain rather than vote against it, because we think that these things are already in process, if dealt with properly.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am glad that, for once, our debate on the LGPS has been short and sweet. I thank both opposition Front Benches for their engagement on this issue. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, recognised that there has been movement. We understand the importance attached to the nature of the reviews. I hope that what I said has met his need for us to demonstrate that we are taking it seriously, which, of course, we are.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, I hope that he will be in a position where his abstinence will not be needed because the noble Viscount will not be testing the opinion of the House, but we shall see. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I note that my noble friend the Minister went out of her way to mention pre-1997 increases, even though they do not come up in any of these amendments. The House will welcome future increases being paid, but the failure to do anything about lost increases is still a big topic that is not going away.

I share many of the concerns about small pots expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Motion D1. However, I was reassured by the comments that my noble friend the Minister made in introducing this group about the flexibility inherent in the proposals in the Bill. I hope she will reassure us that the issue will be kept under review and that, if the problems that some of us worry about arise, the necessary action can be taken without the need for primary legislation.

I also support the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I am glad to hear that the issue is being taken forward—more power to his elbow.

I could speak at great length on the issue of Motion J1, picking up the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her speech introducing it. However, I very much welcome what my noble friend said in introducing this group. I fully agree with all the arguments she made, so I will leave it there.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, prior to this debate we had a Statement showing what can be done in haste, when you should stop and think, in the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America. I use that analogy here, because one year to move pots is a miniscule amount of time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that two years would also be short but would be more appropriate. I hear that she has decided not to press this Motion. If she had, we on these Benches would have supported it because one year is not enough, just as a flick of the Prime Minister’s eye was not enough to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. We need two years. I understand that it is not going to happen here today but, before the Bill is finalised, I ask the Minister and her colleagues in the House of Commons to consider tweaking it to make one year two years. It would please a lot of people and would be a safeguard for people with small pots, who are the least interested in how their pensions work until they find that they are not what they thought they were, they cannot find them or whatever it is. The point about the pensions dashboard was well made.

I welcome the consultations that we have had with Government Ministers. In many ways, we have worked together on this Bill, and we have managed to make some of the points about which we feel strongly. On the pots, I hope that one year could be two years. It does not have to be done now; it could be done quietly, with no fuss at all.

Motion J1, the Conservative Motion, would insist on Amendments 77 and 85. We on these Benches supported these amendments on Report, because we agreed that it would be important for the Government to comment on this issue. However—and I think this shows what I was saying before—we have been convinced by the arguments made by the Government on the content of these amendments overlapping with existing reporting mechanisms. We are happy that that has happened.

I hope that the Government Ministers will take cognisance of the fact that we are not making problems just for the sake of debate in this Chamber. We think that, for small pots, it should be one year, not two. We will be talking in the next lot of amendments on mandation and we hope to convince the Government on that and on the size and range of pension funds.

We will not be voting on the Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. If the Conservative Benches call a Division on Motion J1, we will probably quietly abstain.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for their Motions in this group. In the interest of brevity, I shall focus my remarks only on Motion J1.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is fundamentally asking the important question of whether we are being sufficiently clear about the long-term sustainability and transparency of the system as it currently stands. The central concern is this: unlike funded schemes, these pensions are not backed by accumulated assets. They are paid out of current taxation, and that means that the cost is not contained within a fund but passed forward, year by year, to future taxpayers. As the number of public sector employees grows, and as people live longer, those obligations grow with them.

There is also a question of incentives. Decisions about expanding the public sector workforce or adjusting pay inevitably carry pension implications that stretch decades into the future, yet those costs are often diffuse, uncertain and ultimately borne by the Exchequer. Without a clear and accessible understanding of the long-term consequences, it is difficult, if not impossible, for decision-makers to weigh those trade-offs properly. A review would allow us to bring together the evidence, to test the assumptions and to ensure that policy is being made on the basis of a clear and realistic understanding of the facts.

For those reasons, including the four key reasons outlined by my noble friend, I believe that there is a strong case for the review proposed, and I am very pleased to support this Motion.