Pension Schemes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[John Milne]

We have tabled a number of amendments designed to improve people’s access to advice. As I said in a previous sitting, for me, the biggest missing link in this Bill is the absence of action on pensions advice. Relatively few people are able—or perhaps willing— to access paid advice, and that situation is not likely to change. We have to find another way.

The purpose of new clause 1 is to help people to properly understand their pension options through universal access to free, impartial advice at key life stages. We previously debated how that might be funded—slightly ahead of time—but this is purely about the principle of that advice.

Most people find pensions very complicated. It is hard to persuade people to engage with the issue at a young enough age, and it is even harder for someone to grasp what would constitute an adequate pension many years before they might have to draw on it. The Work and Pensions Committee, of which I am a member, has repeatedly highlighted this issue and examined ways to improve things.

The intention of new clause 1 is to ensure that everyone—not just the financially literate or well advised—can make informed decisions about retirement. Advice would be offered at or around age 40, which is a critical moment for mid-life planning and pension consolidation, and again within six years of expected retirement, to support decisions about drawdowns, annuities and retirement income options. That change is designed to give people confidence and clarity about their pensions, and to avoid poor decisions that would undermine retirement security.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have read the new clause with interest, and listened carefully, and I am sure that this Committee is united in wanting there to be good advice on pensions. It would help me to better understand the proposal if the hon. Member could describe why he thinks the Money and Pensions Service is not already providing that, and why he thinks there is a gap that would justify this type of measure.

[John Milne]

I thank the hon. Member for her question. We have to look at performance: over the years, most people—the great majority of people—have not been getting any advice. Those who do tend to be better off because they have more private pensions, so they are obviously far more engaged, but the majority of people, especially now we have many on auto-enrolment, have minimal engagement. There are some very good services on hand—such as Pension Wise advice, which is free; I will come on to that in another measure—but, overall, people are simply not accessing that advice.

We are keeping the wording of the new clause reasonably open to establish the principle. There are many ways to solve the problem, and we will come to some of those in other new clauses. We are hoping to get agreement on the principle, though there are many ways to crack this particular egg.

Moving on to new clause 40, this is about targeted advice access for under-saving cohorts. Its purpose is to put the focus on groups of people who have historically been among the worst served by our current pension system.

Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

I highlight again that the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the monitoring and evaluation plan in the impact assessment to be weak. It said that although everything would be reviewed around 2030, there were not many other points that the Government had committed to reviewing.

In the new clause, I probably would not have picked a timescale of 12 months after Royal Assent, given the length of the road map and the timings for the introduction of a significant number of things. I appreciate that as the new clause is crafted, it can pick up on problems before they occur. If things are moving towards consolidation in advance of the timelines, the Government should be able to analyse where the prospective issues are. However, the Minister could commit to providing Parliament with a review, and either giving information to the Work and Pensions Committee or making information and statistics publicly available.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Member has spoken passionately about local government schemes, and I have quite a lot of experience of them. Does she agree that they have many regulations that would meet some of the proposals in new clause 2? That might allay some of her concerns and mean that we do not need a Division on the new clause.

Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

If the Government amendments in relation to the local government pension scheme go through, I have an interest as I am a deferred member of a local government pension scheme in Scotland.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I also wish to declare such an interest.

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

So do I.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q Many aspects of the Bill command cross-party support, but I want your view on where the Bill does not quite go far enough, and where it perhaps goes too far.

Zoe Alexander: I would probably lean towards talking about the local government pension scheme in that context. There are some parts of the Bill where we feel powers are being taken that may not be required; one is around requiring funds to choose a particular pool, and one is requiring particular pools to merge. We think that the LGPS is moving in a very positive direction. Obviously two pools have been closed, and funds are merging with other pools already. We are not sure that those powers are actually required. We think that the direction of travel is set and that the LGPS understands that, so we feel that those powers might be overstepping the mark.

Rob Yuille: I have no view on local government. I think what I am about to say should have cross-party support, or at least cross-party interest. It is a macro Bill about how the market and the system work, but it is also about people and the decisions that they need to make. We are glad to see the small pots provision in the Bill, but it is on an opt-out basis, similar to the default pension benefits solutions. People have decisions to make, such as whether to stay in or not, and they need to be supported in the decision making. We are proposing a textbook amendment that would enable schemes to communicate electronically in a way they currently cannot and in a more positive way—even where people did not have a chance to opt in to that kind of communication, which is seen and regulated as direct marketing. We know that there is cross-party interest in the ability to communicate more clearly with customers, specifically in relation to those provisions.

[Rachel Blake]

Q I want to probe the suggestion that the mandation sunset clause should come back from 2035. You alluded to your rationale for that, but can you expand on the argument about what difference that could make?

Zoe Alexander: If you put yourself in the position of pension scheme trustees, having the presence of the reserve power, which may or may not be exercised, to direct the way that you invest does not necessarily feel like a comfortable position to be in. We understand why the Government are taking that power. We understand the imperative to get more investment in the UK and we support that. Clearly, the longer the power abides on the statute book, the longer there is that risk hanging over those trustees. They may be required to invest in particular ways. We do not know where we will be politically in 2035. We do not know what Government will be in place. It pushes us potentially into another Government, another Parliament—it is the unpredictability. So we did talk with many of our members about this, and had lively debates about whether it should be 2030, 2032 or 2035. There was a really strong consensus around bringing it forward to 2032. We do not want it too early because it might pre-empt a decision that need not be taken. But 2035 felt too far away.

[Rachel Blake]

Q My understanding is that there is broad industry support. You have alluded to it in terms of recognising the direction and the purpose of the mandate. So there does not seem to be that much difference between those years, is my observation.

Zoe Alexander: I think the trustees we have spoken to, of the schemes in our membership, would disagree. It is a significant point to them, which they have asked us to pass on.

[Rachel Blake]

Q Mr Yuille, in terms of your analysis of why there is a higher rate of investment in the UK from international funds than UK funds, do you think that the direction of the Bill will address those causes?

Rob Yuille: I am not sure there is, first of all. Canadian and Australian schemes have a big presence here, but I am not sure that they invest more, especially compared with our bigger schemes or in percentage terms. But will the Bill help that? Yes, it will. Driving scale and consolidation, which was happening anyway but which the Bill will accelerate, will open up different types of investment opportunities for those firms. They will be more likely to have in-house asset capability and bargaining power to invest in those kinds of assets. One caveat, however, is that they will be able to invest globally—the same as Canadians and Australians—so it is not a given that they will invest more in the UK. The UK still needs to work hard to be an attractive place to invest.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

For the last question, I call Rachel Blake.

[Rachel Blake]

Q I want to go back to member and trustee transparency around surplus flexibility. Could you be more specific on what preparations and possible changes would be needed to give that confidence to trustees and members about any surplus flexibility?

Jack Jones: Like I said, I think the one specific measure is not allowing surplus extraction where you have a sole corporate trustee.

[Rachel Blake]

Okay, so that is the one specific measure.

Jack Jones: Yes, that is the one specific one. More generally, I think there should be guidance that makes it clear to trustees that they have to weigh up the benefits to members, or to make sure that any kind of surplus extraction benefits members through improved benefits, rather than just through improving the company or returning money to the sponsor in some way, which they may or may not then use to do things that would give the member more security in various ways as an employee. Those are the two areas.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much indeed. We have a couple of minutes, actually—

[Rachel Blake]

Can I follow up, then?

[The Chair]

Please do.

[Rachel Blake]

Q Do you foresee any risks or additional challenges to the regulator in overseeing some of those decisions that might be made by trustees on surplus flexibility?

Jack Jones: It sounds plausible, but we have not really looked at that yet. However, that is certainly something that we can do, and we will look at including that in our written submission.

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move now to the next panel. Thank you very much indeed.

Examination of Witnesses

Colin Clarke and Dale Critchley gave evidence.

Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting)

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[John Milne]

I think you have answered all my questions already. We have tabled an amendment, and I would really appreciate your input on whether we could improve it or argue around it between now and when it is raised in Committee.

Roger Sainsbury: Thank you.

[Rachel Blake]

Q Thank you very much for your evidence and your considered responses. There has been a discussion about the £12 billion surplus. Have you done any research on what you estimate would be the extent of the cost of RIPA—the scheme that you have promoted?

Roger Sainsbury: That is a very timely question, because for the past couple of years, we have been working on the basis that the RIPA scheme would cost £5.5 billion. That was the estimate given to us by the PPF. Now—I might almost say hallelujah!—about three days ago, the PPF notified us that they had redone the calculation using a much superior methodology. I think it is a phenomenally difficult calculation to do, but they have redone it, and the answer now is not £5.5 billion, but £3.9 billion, or possibly a bit less. Whereas for two years we have been arguing that £5.5 billion is eminently affordable, £3.5 billion, for example, is obviously even more affordable. We do not get that much good news, but that was definitely a bit of good news we recently received. I am pleased to be able to share it with you, if you did not know it.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q You said that it is a very complicated calculation. How much confidence is there in that calculation? What input has there been from your members and part of your group on the confidence of that calculation?

Roger Sainsbury: We would not have any ability to do that calculation at all. It all depends on the statistics held by the PPF of the age of all the members, the amount they have all been receiving and so on. It is way beyond us to make that calculation.

Terry Monk: I worked with FAS before FAS even came about—at the conception, rather than the birth, of FAS. The PPF and I have worked closely with them for over 20 years. I have immense trust and faith in what they do, how they do it, and what they deliver. Whenever we ask them for help, they give it to us as far as they are able.

Roger Sainsbury: I would support that. The PPF have been very helpful and I have had a good working relationship with them. I have to say, that was not always so—about three years ago, it looked as if we would be fighting a continual battle against them, but over time we have got to a really good working relationship, and they have been very helpful. In a question of challenging or doubting their ability to do this sort of calculation, when you look at the asset returns that they are getting, boy, they have got some people that know how to handle numbers, haven’t they?

[Rachel Blake]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, can I thank the witnesses for their evidence this afternoon? I will move now to the next panel of witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Rachel Elwell gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

Q Thank you for coming today. Reflecting on the Bill as a whole, what would you particularly like to see weakened or strengthened in the Bill? What particularly leaps out at you?

Rachel Elwell: There are some fantastic provisions in the Bill, particularly around implementing the good governance review, and the clarity of roles and responsibilities between the different parties within the LGPS. About five or six years ago, we, along with some of the other pools, commissioned some work looking at good practice internationally, so talking to about 15 others—from Australia, the Canadians, the Dutch, the Norwegians—and looking at the journey they had been on with this. They are about 15 years ahead of us, really, with that policy. We wanted to learn from what they had done.

There were various success factors, some of which Michelle shared with you earlier, but one of those was real clarity about the Government’s policy intent, and I think the Bill really does help with that. That will help us, in turn, engage with our pensions committees and partner funds to make sure that we are providing a holistic joined-up view. There are some areas in the Bill where, particularly for the LGPS, the detail will be in the regulations. I would just make a plea, given the timelines we are working towards, that we see the regulations sooner rather than later, please. I have already said that I think it would be helpful to maybe get a bit more clarity on the circumstances in which we may be directed by the Secretary of State.

[Rachel Blake]

Q I used to be on a local government pensions committee, so I bring some of that experience to this question. The Bill talks about the merging of funds and what benefits that could have for savers and members, but it does not talk that much about administration. What impacts do you think that might have on local government pension administration—either positive benefits, or what risks you foresee that perhaps the Committee should consider?

Rachel Elwell: The primary focus of the Bill is the consolidation of the assets in pools, but there are provisions, particularly when we see some of the wider things that are happening in policy such as local government reorganisation, where that might lead to closer working between funds and potentially merger. I am fortunate enough—I think Roger Phillips mentioned this earlier—that Tyne and Wear and Northumberland are part of the Border to Coast pool, so I was there and living that experience with them personally. They were working very hard together, with very joined-up thinking and close relationships, and it was still fairly hard work.

I suppose from that perspective, like any merger of entities, it comes down to relationships and people. Administration in the LGPS is complex, and many funds have been facing recruitment challenges. What we are seeing already is funds working closely together. For example, again within Border to Coast, Tyne and Wear has recently taken on the administration for Teesside, bringing it in-house. It was previously an outsourced arrangement. There are benefits from that, but it needs to be done very carefully and thoughtfully—it is not something we should rush at.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witness

Torsten Bell gave evidence.

Carer’s Allowance

Rachel Blake Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wish to mention an interest: my husband works for an organisation that allocates funding to Carers UK.

It really is a privilege to follow such thoughtful contributions, particularly those of Members who have shared such powerful personal testimony—my hon. Friends the Members for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). I warmly welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrats chose to provide this opportunity for us to discuss this important issue. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for sharing his personal experience as a carer and rightly moving this issue up the political agenda.

I pay tribute to the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), whose previous work chairing the Work and Pensions Committee did so much to highlight the injustice of the overpayment scandal. I am pleased to see him in his Government role, able to put into action all that work.

For the past 14 years, carers have been woefully let down by the Conservatives, and they have been let down today by their completely inadequate defence of the overpayment scandal. After decades of cuts, too many are on the waiting list for local authority care, and local authority services have been called upon time and again to do more with less. Carers like Shirley Islam, one of the 500 registered unpaid cares in the City of London, who met me to highlight her experience as a carer, have borne the brunt of that failure; as have carers from Westminster Rethink Mental Illness, who I also spoke with recently. I look forward to working with local residents on this issue.

Nowhere is the previous Government’s failure to administer basic services more evident than when it comes to carers. Under the previous Government, the Department for Work and Pensions saddled thousands of carers with unnecessary financial burdens at a time when they had more than enough on their plate, including the 34,000 carers who received fines of up to £20,000. So today they need to hear these words: “We are sorry for the injustice and indignities you have suffered under the previous Government. We will do everything that we can to put them right. Thank you for your work and service.”

At the election, the Prime Minister promised a politics that treads more lightly on people’s lives, so I am glad that in today’s announcement the Department has scrapped the planned replacement of cash payments to carers with vouchers. We should not be telling carers how to spend their own money.

I eagerly await the announcement of a national care service, as promised in our general election manifesto, and I know that my constituents do too. I look forward to the publication of the Government’s review and the delivery of much-needed and long-awaited justice.