Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare) (Lab)]

As do I.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

So do I.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

And I.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call Mark Garnier, the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Thank you very much for coming to give evidence. It can be a little intimidating, even for us, to see so many Government Back Benchers sitting across the table.

I will start with the most controversial point: the mandation of local government pension schemes when it comes to amalgamation and being forced to go into assets. There are two parts to my question. First, is it fundamentally right to entrust trustees with looking after the interests of the members of pension schemes and then, separately, to tell them how they should be investing that money? Secondly, are there any guardrails to protect pension fund members from being forced to invest in unwise investments?

Zoe Alexander: We are concerned about the precedent set by the reserve power in the Bill. We realise that it might not be used, and we hope that that will be the case. We hope that the work the industry has done to create the Mansion House accord and get DC schemes on track to invest more in the UK will fulfil its promise. The presence of the power creates a series of risks, and certainly enacting it would create a series of risks for savers in terms of its impact on investments, on price and, ultimately, on the value that is accrued to savers in the market.

We are looking for more guardrails on the power. We would like it to be constrained to apply specifically to the commitments in the Mansion House accord, and no more than that. We think that is appropriate, because the market and the Government have together set out what “good” looks like. If we agree on that, let us put that in the Bill and make it clear that that is the extent of the power.

We would also like the sunset clause on the power to be brought forward from 2035 to 2032. That would give more than enough time for the industry to deliver on the commitments in the Mansion House accord, and for the Government to assess progress and whether the power is required. We feel that keeping it on the statute book until 2035 would introduce undue political risk.

[Mark Garnier]

Q To summarise, you are saying that the general direction of the policy, which is to get more investment into the UK and therefore more infrastructure, is not in itself a bad thing.

Zoe Alexander: We absolutely support the general direction of the policy. Our members are very committed to investing more in the UK and they are doing a huge amount of work on that. They have already invested heavily in the UK, with huge investments from schemes such as the local government pension scheme. On the DC side, schemes are maturing; they need time to get to the scale of investment of schemes such as the LGPS, but they are on the journey and they are committed to doing that. We do not take this position because we do not agree that schemes should be investing more in the UK; it is to do with trustee discretion to make the decisions about where to invest.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Ironically, I met some annuity providers who are enthusiastic to invest in equities, but they told me that they are being prevented from doing so. For example, an investment in the equity of a wind farm is a very good asset, because there are predictable returns from it, contracts for difference in the price, and all the rest of it, but they are not allowed to invest in that because they are not allowed to invest into equities. Do you think there are better ways the Government can achieve its aims—that mandation is a bad way of achieving it, but that there are other, better ways that are being missed out in the Bill?

Rob Yuille: Yes, there are better ways. The specific point that you mentioned about prudential regulation rules are not for this Bill, but other measures that could be taken, essentially to make the UK an attractive place to invest, are the kind of things that the Government are trying to do. Along with the Mansion House accord, which we were delighted to take forward with Pensions UK and the City of London Corporation, we agree with the Government’s assessment that use of the reserve power should not be necessary and will not be necessary.

Firms are already investing in the UK. The Pensions Policy Institute’s latest statistics show that 23% of DC assets are in the UK, and annuity providers say that it is around two thirds, so we are talking about hundreds of billions of pounds in the UK. There is the appetite to invest in the home market, because they know it best, in the kind of projects that the Government are trying to drive forward and provide policy certainty about. We share the concern about the precedent it sets and the potential impact on scheme members, and we would propose another guardrail.

There is already provision for a review, were this power to be used, of the impact on scheme members, which is right, and the impact on the economy, which is also fair enough, but they should also look at the impact on the pensions market and the market for the assets that would be mandated, because there is a risk that it would bid up prices in those assets, and that it would create a bubble in them. There are guardrails, but more important, there are other measures, including things that the Government are already doing, that make this power unnecessary.

[Mark Garnier]

Q I have one final question. The key point, from the point of view of your members and the local government pension scheme, is that the interest of the members should not be trumped by the interest of the wider economy—their interest comes first. Is that right?

Zoe Alexander: That is right, but often those things are consistent, and our members would agree with that. Those things are not inconsistent.

Rob Yuille: I agree.

[Sarah Edwards]

Q I am interested in hearing a little more about unlocking surplus and some of the challenges, particularly in the way that it is described or calculated, and what the thresholds might be. Obviously, there is an opportunity, but there is also a balance around conflicts arising when an employer might wish to access the surplus. Perhaps you could comment on your understanding and interpretation of how the Bill deals with that issue.

Rob Yuille: The challenge is aligning it with scheme members’ interests so that they are not put at risk. If a surplus turns to a deficit, which it can do because it is by no means guaranteed, and if an employer then fails, there is actual detriment to those scheme members. As we know, economic conditions can change. It is an opportunity for employers, though—that is the purpose of it—and schemes can and do extract surplus now, often when they enter a buy-out with an insurer.

It does need guardrails, and the Bill includes the provision that it has to be signed off by an actuary and it is the trustees’ decision. That is important, but there is a related challenge about the interaction of the surplus and superfunds. Each of those is okay: you can extract a surplus, for the reasons that we have discussed, and you can go into a superfund if you cannot afford a buy-out. The problem is, if a scheme could afford buy-out, extracts a surplus and then no longer can, and then it enters a superfund, the scheme members are in a weaker position than they would otherwise be. There are a couple of things that could be done about that: either leave the threshold for extracting surplus where it is—which is buy-out level, rather than low dependency—or change the Bill so that the combination of surplus and superfund cannot be gamed to get around that. In any case, as you say, it is important to monitor the market, and for the regulators to be alive to potential conflicts of interest.

Zoe Alexander: Pensions UK is content with the idea of using the low dependency threshold for surplus release. We think the protections are sufficient. Providing that the actuarial certification is in place, the sponsoring employer is in a strong financial position and a strong employer covenant is in place, we think there are real benefits to be had from surplus release. We highlight the fact that some employers and trustees will be looking to move benefits from DB to DC using surplus release, or even to a collective defined-contribution scheme. We are interested in the potential of that to bolster the benefits of those types of scheme, and we would like Government to look at the 25% tax penalty that applies when doing that, because if those funds are kept within the pensions system, that is to the benefit of savers, so perhaps that tax charge need not apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Thank you very much for coming to give evidence. Can I get straight into a detailed question regarding the repayment of surpluses, starting with the local government pension scheme? I am advised that regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013 currently allow for surpluses to be paid out of local government pension schemes, but the problem is that actuaries and trustees get nervous when a local government pension scheme is in surplus and are reluctant to allow the surplus to be paid. The provisions of the Bill therefore try to address something that has already been addressed, but they are not tackling the right problem.

Patrick Coyne: I think that question is more relevant to me. The reforms across the Bill could be good for savers, but they could also be good for the UK economy. What you are pointing to is a wider, systemic issue in the marketplace, where we have a patchwork quilt of regulation that has built up because the pension system is idiosyncratic, and in some cases 70 years old. The Bill is trying to give trustees the tools for the job. On surplus release, it is trying to give them a statutory override, to look across the piece and say, “When I am a well-run, well-funded pension scheme, is it right that I can extract surplus if it is safe to do so?” We think that is a really important principle.

[Mark Garnier]

Q I agree that is an important principle, but if you are a trustee, you are potentially personally liable for any deficits, and you could get yourself in trouble. I will come on to the defined benefit pension schemes in a minute, in relation to the same point. At the end of the day, if you have an actuary who is advising you, “It is fantastic that we are in surplus now, but markets change, we could have a stock market crash and we could be in deficit next week,” you may be more cautious than the Bill would perhaps like to encourage you to be. Do you think that is a fair criticism?

Patrick Coyne: Another important part of the Bill is making sure that we get implementation right. There will be a period now when we can consult, and all of us—Government, industry and the regulators—have a role to play to make sure that that happens. I would say that the Bill will actually prompt a discussion that might not have been had by many trustee boards over the last few years. If you look at the amount of surplus that has been released in recent years, it is in the tens of millions, not the billions. We now estimate that three quarters of schemes are in surplus on a low-dependency basis, which is an actuarial calculation of self-sufficiency. That means there could be up to £130 billion across the market. We think it is right that well-funded, well-governed schemes can consider releasing that surplus, if it is in the interest of members to do so.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Would you be happy if the full £130 billion was released, and therefore these pension funds were right down to the wire, even if they are still technically in surplus?

Patrick Coyne: I think it is highly unlikely that that scenario would happen. Our engagement with the marketplace tends to show that firms considering a different endgame option, which might include running on and releasing surplus, tend to be doing so on a basis where they have hedged their assets, so that they can manage economic volatility, and they are using growth assets above that limit to consider surplus release.

[Mark Garnier]

Q I will turn to DB pension schemes—where you have a sponsor company. For example, I have heard the British Telecom pension scheme described as a pension scheme with a telephone provider attached to it. One of the criticisms I have heard is that, because of the rules that were brought in as a result of Maxwell raiding the pension schemes many years ago, DB pension funds are reluctant to invest in equities, because they could end up going into deficit reasonably quickly. One of the intentions with the Bill is to get funds investing more in equities, but there are still elements left behind encouraging behaviour that does not follow the grain of the Bill. Those particular rules—I refer to them as the Maxwell rules—that defend against host employers raiding a pension scheme are having a wider detrimental effect, but that is not being addressed by the Bill.

Patrick Coyne: It is important that we have a regulatory framework that can cope with different economic conditions. Over a number of years, Parliament has introduced a number of pensions Acts to ensure that defined benefit schemes, which are mostly mature—mostly closed—are secure.

There is a real opportunity in the Bill to build on the fantastic success that we have had in creating a nation of savers—11 million more people putting something away for retirement—and turn that system into something that can provide an adequate income in older life. That means turning the focus of the DC system on to value for money. That is where I believe the real potential is.

[Mark Garnier]

Q You just triggered another question. Charlotte, can I quickly ask you about the retail distribution review? The retail distribution review came into effect on 1 January 2013. One of the criticisms at the time was that moving from a commission-based model, where IFAs were paid by commission, to being paid by cash, reduced the number of people seeking financial advice from something in the region of more than 50% to something in the region of 9%. RDR, although a very well-intentioned change brought by the FCA, has had the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for people who need that advice to get it from an IFA. Have you guys had a think about that within the FCA?

Charlotte Clark: It is not in this Bill, but there is a very large work programme going on at the moment around the advice guidance boundary review. As Patrick said, as pensions have changed—there have been big changes in the market over the last 10 years or so—more and more people have come to need support, particularly at the point of retirement, but also in thinking about how you build assets in pensions and more generally. All the targeted support work we are doing is about how you help people more to make these difficult decisions. This Bill is very much about, “How do you get the market right?” but at the same time, we want to make sure that savers have the right support to make the right decisions at the point of retirement or before.

[Mark Garnier]

Or, indeed, when they first start to work. As somebody once said, compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

Q I definitely agree about the eighth wonder of the world. Thank you for coming this morning. This is the Committee’s first sitting, and it is great to have both of you before us. One of the features on the DC side of our pension landscape is the two different regimes that we are operating. The Government’s policy intent is that, from the experience of the saver, they do not see a difference between the trust and the contract regime in so far as possible. That will certainly be true for their experience of the measures in the Bill on value for money and decumulation. Could you share a bit about how the FCA and the TPR are working together to make sure that is the case?

Patrick Coyne: Over a number of years, we have worked closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that when we deliver interventions within the pensions landscape, the outcomes are consistent. One way we have done that is through an update to a joint strategy. We also have almost daily calls with one another to ensure that when we consider interventions and how to enable the system to provide value for money and support people at retirement, we do so in a coherent and comprehensive way. We must really understand the different constituents of our marketplace, whether they be workplace versus non-workplace pensions, or, in the People’s Pension space, pensions analogous to the master trust offer.

Charlotte Clark: To add to Patrick’s point, we meet fairly regularly. There are various different forums and working groups. As you say, Minister, there is that sense that it does not matter where you save. Most people are probably saving in both the contract-based side and the master trust side, given that people have pots in lots of different places. It is important not that people understand where the regulation is, but that the regulation is consistent and there is no arbitrage between the two systems.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now take oral evidence from Christopher Brooks, head of policy at Age UK, and Jack Jones, pensions officer at the TUC. Once again, we must stick rigidly to the timings in the programme motion, as the Committee has previously agreed. For this session, we have until 10.55 am. Could the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record?

Christopher Brooks: I am Christopher Brooks, head of policy at Age UK. We are the national charity for older people.

Jack Jones: I am Jack Jones, pensions policy lead at the Trades Union Congress.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Thank you. I am particularly interested to hear from the two of you, because one of the interesting things about this Bill is that we have had a lot of lobbying from the profession but very little on behalf of the members of these pension funds, who are so important. Mr Jones, if I may start with you, Unison made the point that there is a clear lack of member voice in the Bill. Do you think that is a fair criticism?

Jack Jones: I believe that was aimed specifically at the LGPS requirements, but yes, I would certainly agree with that, and it probably extends to some other areas of the Bill as well. Unison is not alone; all the unions involved in the LGPS scheme would agree that the pooling structures mostly have a clear lack of member representation on their governance boards. There is a real mishmash of governance arrangements and of reporting and transparency arrangements across the different pools at the moment.

We have some examples of quite good practice—there are pools with a meaningful number of member representatives on them, but they are few and far between. Many have no representatives or only have observers that do not have any voting powers. Member representation has an important role in the LGPS, with a long history of ensuring that members’ interests are represented when investment decisions are made. Moving away from that has taken something away from the scheme.

It is particularly important when looking at measures that will make investment decisions more remote from members by pooling into larger geographical areas and larger funds, and by requiring—or expecting—them to invest in more complicated assets with higher up-front fees. That is the point at which it becomes even more important to have oversight, to give reassurance that members’ interests are at the heart of all those decisions.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Could you expand a little on the technicalities of how that would work? Obviously, the trustees are there to represent the members, but they are merely a small board of individuals. If you take something like the British Telecom pension scheme—I do not know how many people are in it, but it is perhaps tens of thousands—how would a group of trustees find out what members are thinking about what they would like? You could have representation, but would you have polls?

Jack Jones: That is a good question, and it is a wider issue. Member representatives are there to ensure that people with skin in the game are around the table when decisions are made. They are there to reassure members that people like them—those who will be relying on the scheme for their retirement income—are involved in those decisions. Yes, they cannot represent the full range of any large scheme’s membership. A lot of interesting work could be done around how you find out what members think about how their money should be invested and how we then take that into account in decision making.

That is one area where, at the moment, there is potentially a little bit of a gap. The trustees have clear guidance that they can take into account non-financially-material ESG factors, but we hear a lot from unions that there is a very high level of wariness from schemes about actually doing that. They quite often point to their fiduciary duty and say, “Actually, our primary responsibility is towards the financially material factors.” They quite often ignore the guidance that says they can take into account other factors where they know it is in their members’ interest. Work needs to be done on what the best mechanism is to find out what Members think, but there is also a job to make sure that trustees know that they can and potentially should act on that.

[Mark Garnier]

Q You raise a very interesting point. Members could come up with an idea. For example, you mentioned ESG, which is a fine thing—I would not disagree with that—but sometimes it could be right to invest in something that a lot of people feel uncomfortable about, such as the arms trade or weapons manufacturers. Very sadly, they are having a bonanza at the moment, because of all the problems that are going on in Ukraine and Gaza. As I say, it is for very tragic reasons. None the less the pension itself could do very well out of investing in that, yet the members may decide it is a bad idea on ethical grounds to invest in something like munitions manufacturing.

Jack Jones: Well, it is the members’ money that is being invested. You have to make a balancing decision, but where you have clear evidence that the majority of members have these ethical beliefs that they want to see reflected in how their money is invested, you need to take that into account.

[Mark Garnier]

Q My last question—Chris, leap in at any point if you feel you have an answer—is about paying out surpluses, either to local government or defined benefit pension schemes. Lots of people have argued why it is a good idea and good for the country, and all that kind of stuff, but are there any concerns in the TUC or Age UK that it could put some of these pension schemes—particularly the private ones, the defined-benefit ones—into risk unnecessarily and the wrong thing could happen, even though the intention was well meaning.

Jack Jones: Clearly that risk is there, and it would have to be managed very carefully.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Do you feel the Bill covers that management?

Jack Jones: I think it puts a lot of responsibility on trustees to make that assessment. I think it is fair enough to set out the criteria under which trustees might consider surplus release—that is where you have sustained and high surpluses on quite a prudent basis. Whether you actually make that decision to release that surplus and whether you think that is in the members’ best interests relies a lot on trustees making that decision.

One particular weakness at the moment is around potentially allowing sole trustees to make that decision. This is usually where you have a closed DB scheme that, instead of having a fully constituted board with member representation, will have a sole corporate trustee appointed by the sponsor. There, the conflicts seem too great to possibly manage for that corporate trustee to make a decision on behalf of the members and say, “Yes, we think it is appropriate for surplus to be released.”

It would also be really useful for guidance to lay out the ways in which any kind of surplus release must benefit members as well as the sponsor. There is obviously the argument that if the sponsor then goes and invests that money in, for example, either higher pay or better contributions for DC members or investing in the business, that is in the members’ wider interests, but we need to recognise that although employers suffered quite a lot because of the really high deficits that we saw over a sustained periods by having to put in those employer deficit coverage contributions, members also suffered.

You saw schemes being closed and benefits being cut in various ways. We had reductions to accrual, changes to indexation and that kind of thing. Guidance should probably recognise that and say to the trustees, “If you are going to consider releasing surplus, it needs to be done in ways that both benefit the member directly by improving their benefits in some way.” It is a complex question: what is the best way of doing that? I would not want to prescribe that too much. However, the principle that trustees have to consider is how that money is used to actually improve benefits, as well as potentially to—

[Mark Garnier]

Q Christopher, do you have any thoughts on that, quickly?

Christopher Brooks: We do not work on final salary pensions, so I do not take a view on it.

[Torsten Bell]

Q As we have just heard, there is some cross-party agreement that the main purpose of the changes is ensuring that we drive up the returns to members—particularly financial returns, but also more generally. What do you think will make the most difference, from the perspective of the returns, particularly to DC savers? Balance between VFM; scale metrics; decumulation changes; small pots—all of these are about driving up returns for members. What are you most excited about?

Christopher Brooks: I think they all work together, so I would say it is a combination of them, but scale seems to be one of the main drivers. I am thinking about NEST in particular, which has been leading the way in terms of investing in private assets. It is able to negotiate a good deal, because of its scale. If you can drive that with similar outcomes across the marketplace, it will be really beneficial to members.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Thank you very much for coming along to give evidence this morning. I want to start with a general question: what do you see as the risks associated with surplus extraction? As we know, a lot of the funds are now in surplus, but we only need interest rates to start crashing back again—it is probably unlikely—and they could go back into deficit. Do you think the safeguards for surplus extraction are sufficient?

Colin Clarke: It is a very good question. There are risks that an employer could extract surplus so that it puts the scheme in a position where something might happen in the future that caused them to be underfunded. It is quite key that, although the Bill has some very high-level rule-making powers at the moment, the guidance that comes out alongside that makes very clear the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for trustees to be able to do that.

Scheme rules aside, trustees today are able to extract surplus, and they have to follow fiduciary duty, follow a process and get advice from independent advisers to make sure that what they are doing will not jeopardise the security of members’ benefits. The Bill itself is mainly to override any sort of constraints that trustees have within their rules that might prevent them from doing that. However, trustees would still have to follow the same process they would follow today to make sure that they are in a good position from a funding perspective, that they do not take anything out too hastily and that they look a few years ahead. It is not just a case of being able to extract surplus from an affordability point of view today; they need to be looking ahead to the long-term funding position as well.

[Mark Garnier]

Q One thing we have not talked about is what the surplus extraction will be used for. If a host company starts taking advantage of this and they invest in building the business, most people would probably agree that that is rather a good thing. However, if they pay out dividends, is that a good thing? If they do share buy-backs, is that a good thing for the host company? How do you think trustees should examine what the purpose is of the fund extraction, and whether it is a good idea or a bad idea—or even an unethical idea?

Dale Critchley: It is a trustee decision to take. I do not necessarily think that the trustees need to take into account what the employer is using the surplus for. They are looking at whether it is appropriate to return the surplus to the employer.

If you look at a case from 2023 that went to the ombudsman, Aviva was involved in the buy-out for a company that subsequently returned £12 million of surplus to the employer. The trustees, the ombudsman found, had acted quite rightly by taking into account the fact that the company had made considerable contributions, including considerable deficit contributions, over the years, and that it was right, in the trustees’ opinion, that once all of the benefits promised to the members had been secured, the excess was delivered back to the employer. I am not sure that that company or those trustees took into account what that company was going to use the money for; they just looked at whether or not it was appropriate to return the surplus to the employer.

[Mark Garnier]

Q But is that right? Do you think that is a good use? Ultimately, as we have discussed, there is always the tricky question about how a fund could go back into deficit again. The flipside of that is that deficit then appears on the balance sheet of the host company, so there is an incentive not to raid it too much. A lot of private equity is very good, but there are certainly accusations that some people can invest into a company through private equity and be quite punchy in terms of revving up the balance sheet of a company, taking out dividends and borrowing lots of money to pay back to the shareholders. If you start opening up the possibility that a pension fund could raid—to use the word “raid” is provocative, but you see what I mean—then an unethical investor could do the wrong thing, even though it is legal.

Dale Critchley: I am not a defined benefit pension scheme trustee, but I would expect the trustees to look at the members first of all: are the benefits secured that were promised to the members? Is there room to reasonably augment those benefits? However, to say, “We will only give you this surplus back if you use it for x” is, I think, overstepping the duty of the trustees.

[Mark Garnier]

Q That is interesting; I will go and have a think about that one.

Both of you manage annuity funds. For the record, I have had a chance to meet representatives of your organisations and have had long discussions about this. One of the interesting points that has come out of conversations with many people and organisations in your position is that, while the thrust of the opportunity of this Bill is to bring together pensions and make them more efficient, and another is to be able to unlock opportunity to invest into the UK and into various opportunities, yet there are some rules that are not being addressed. As one of your colleagues mentioned to me, Dale, an annuity fund is not allowed to invest into equities, yet investing into something like a wind farm would be an ideal opportunity to get a predictable return. Do you think the Bill is missing out on some of these measures that could be updated?

Dale Critchley: I do not think it necessarily needs any change incorporating into the Bill. It is a matter for the Prudential Regulation Authority to allow us to make the investments that back our annuities. We would be quite happy to take that up afterwards, but I think that could be achieved through a change to PRA rules rather than incorporation into the Bill.

[Mark Garnier]

Q Also, similarly on the equity point: with defined benefit pension schemes, as I mentioned a bit earlier, if you have a deficit, that then appears on the balance sheet. The behavioural outcome of that is that if you are a trustee or from the host company, you would want to avoid the risk—rather like with the BT pension fund, which I think is £7 billion in deficit, and which now restricts the ability of BT to raise money. The behavioural outcome is that you do not invest into something that has high volatility but long term growth, i.e. the equity market. The 1987 stock market crash was hideous at the time—I am probably the only one present who remembers that—but the long-term growth over the equity market proved that was just a mere blip. However, at that time a company would have had a deficit on its balance sheet. Should we change those rules about the deficits on the balance sheet in order to allow pension funds to invest into equity, which is really what we want to get out of this?

[The Chair]

Can I ask for short answers now, please, because we need to move on to other Members.

Colin Clarke: It is an interesting question. It is not something I am a huge expert on, to be honest, and it needs careful thought, because there could potentially be some unforeseen consequences that I have not considered. If there were going to be any suggestions to change any rules in that regard, there would have to be evidence gathered to understand what the potential implications of that would be.