Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I will not disappoint the Minister: I assure him that broadly agree with an awful lot in the Bill. However, as we touched on in our meeting earlier today, there are some areas where we have concerns that are similar to those expressed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), in more ways than one.

As Liberal Democrats, we want individuals to have confidence and be given the ability to invest in pension schemes that they know all about. We also want businesses to be supported to get their pensions out, supporting their employees. Elements of the Bill are about re-engineering to drive better outcomes for those who have pensions, which is to be very much welcomed, and about investment. We want to ensure that the individuals are front and centre of that support.

As others have said, we know that there are 12 million people who are not saving enough. In my own constituency of Torbay, some people have challenges just to get enough money to put bread on the table and cover their bills, and to save for a pension is beyond their wildest dreams. Reflecting on how we can drive that agenda of supporting people to make those changes around how they can save is absolutely essential.

My father was a haulage contractor—more commonly, a lorry driver—and self-employed. He saw the poverty that his father lived in, and in the 1980s he chose to save for a private pension, as Mrs Thatcher suggested. He put probably more than half of his income at times into savings, but because he was poorly advised, the stock market crashed and he was left with less money than he put in. That was horrific for him. Fortunately, the systems are now more protective of people who put into pensions, but that is a cautionary tale of what can go wrong. Ensuring that we support those individuals is absolutely essential.

As Liberal Democrats, we really welcome the development of larger pots, which will hopefully drive better outcomes for individuals. We know that in our more complex world of employment, many people will have small pots. While we welcome the idea of drawing these together in certain pots, we are not convinced that the pots should follow the pensioner rather than having certain pots that the Government would manage, but that is to be discussed elsewhere as part of the proposals before us.

The final area I will explore is investing in our economy, because growth is clearly absolutely essential. If our pension industry can be part of what oils the wheels of growth, that is to be welcomed. As Liberal Democrats, ensuring that we drive the social rented housing that is desperately needed and our high streets and see if those can be areas that benefit from investment is absolutely essential. However, we have concerns around mandation—colleagues have already raised this point, and I agree with them. The Minister has said positive things around mandation, and we look forward to unpicking that in Committee with him, but we believe that part of that is about ensuring transparency. As Liberal Democrats, we would like to ensure that there is clear evidence of how pensions are helping us to prepare for and tackle climate change in a positive way.

As Liberal Democrats, we want to ensure that the pensioner themselves is front and centre. We welcome the reorganisation, but driving that positive growth in our economy is absolutely essential as part of these proposals. We look forward to working with the Minister and his colleagues in getting this positive legislation through.

Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Q This question is for Ms Alexander. A lot of my constituents are driven mad by small pots; they have worked in different jobs and have no idea how much money they have saved for a pension, so please could you outline the benefits of the small pots reforms to people in my constituency, and the practical steps needed to make the small pots regime work—for example, by way of IT?

Zoe Alexander: The small pots reforms are absolutely critical. The problem of small pots was foreseen by the Pensions Commission years ago. We all knew we would face that problem with automatic enrolment, and I think people would agree that it has taken too long to grasp the nettle. We at Pensions UK are really delighted to see the measures in the Bill to deliver the multi-consolidator model. It is really important that the pot size is kept low, as is proposed in the Bill, at least initially, to solve the problem of the smallest pots in the market. Pensions UK has undertaken a feasibility study, working with Government, to look at how that small pots system might be delivered in practice. That work is publicly available. It gets quite technical quite quickly, so I will not go into the details of it, but we believe there is a feasible model of delivering the small pots solution at low cost—one that should not involve Government in a major IT build.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Q We have already had some exploration of mandation and other opportunities around getting greater investment within the United Kingdom. I would welcome some more drawing out of how investing in UK opportunities could be amplified without the need for mandation.

Rob Yuille: We have both mentioned the Mansion House accord already. In addition to the ambition to which providers committed, there were a series of critical enablers. Several of those are in the Bill already—thank you for that—including value for money and the drive to consolidation. But there were other things in there as well, including the need for alignment by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority of their rules and guidance in relation to the charge cap pipeline of infrastructure projects, which I know the Government are proceeding with separately; and the need to ensure that the whole market buys into the value-for-money framework. In the pension investment review, Government did not take forward regulation of intermediaries—employee benefit consultants and so on—and we think that they could keep that under review.

The Government are seeking to take other steps that will evolve over time, such as crowding in investments. There are examples such as the British Growth Partnership and the LIFTS scheme, where the Government are either convening or investing alongside providers, which we would like to see more of. Outside of DC, as has been mentioned already, it is about working with annuity providers on eligibility for certain assets.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q There is a question around surplus release, and the power of trustees in relation to surplus release. It makes sense that there should be surplus release, but trustees may feel under pressure from employers to release the surplus when it might not be the right thing for scheme members. Do you think the Bill has got that balance right? How can that be monitored to ensure that trustees are not pressured when it is not the right thing for scheme members?

Rob Yuille: The most important thing is that trustees do have the power that is in the Bill—that power should stay there. Conflicts of interest were mentioned earlier; it is interesting what surplus release could do to make occupational schemes more like commercial schemes. With master trusts, commercial schemes and superfunds, if pension schemes could be run for the benefit of the employer by taking surplus, that gives rise to a different relationship and potential conflicts. The Pensions Regulator needs to be alive to that. In any case, TPR is becoming more like the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority as a regulator, and I think that needs to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling]

Q We have heard a little about value for money from the previous witnesses. I would welcome some reflections from you on how that could be shaped appropriately to allow risk taking without dumbing down the returns for members, because the crucial thing is driving maximum return without too much risk taking. I would welcome some reflections on how the proposed value for money terms could be tweaked in the best interest of investors, because it could force down returns significantly if people are playing it too safe.

Charlotte Clark: I will talk a little about the value for money framework and then specifically about your concern on risk. The value for money framework, which is an area we are working on very closely, will have three aspects to it. One is costs. One is, as you say, investment performance and investment allocation, and one is service. All of those will be important aspects of getting the value for money assessment right.

On the investment side, I hear the opposite charge, actually, rather than dumbing down. There is a sense that a scheme could take too much risk so that it looked like value for money, but there is a trade-off between risk and return. If you are going to do that, and if you have high-risk assets in a downturn, there is a possibility of volatility. Within all these schemes, you still have trustees, independent governance committees and professional advisers who make sure that the investment allocation is right for the saver. That is almost the first part before you get to the value for money assessment. I do not think there should be a dumbing down of investment.

One of the other challenges, which links to the move into private assets that has been raised a couple of times, is the possibility of pension schemes getting more involved in things such as infrastructure. One thing that the industry has asked us to consider is whether, when you invest in those sorts of assets, there is a J-curve in terms of the returns; there might be a suppression at the beginning as projects get up and running. We have been looking at the Australian examples and we do not really see that happening in their data, but it is something we are considering and we are talking to the industry about how to get it right. We do not want the value for money assessment to stop people being able to invest in those sorts of assets.

Patrick Coyne: Just to add that the competitive pressure on the marketplace at the moment is on cost, and cost is not value. To illustrate that point, for the average saver, a 1% increase annually in investment returns would generate a pot that is 20% bigger at the end of a lifetime of saving. We have to move the competitive dynamic, but implementation, as Charlotte said, is critical.

[Steve Darling]

Q The other element I just want to touch on briefly is whether you have any thoughts on educating firms’ trustees about what value for money really is? Quite often, as you have alluded to, it is the cheapest investment, rather than the one that gives the maximum return, that they might be seeing from the HR department of a company, rather than getting a broader perspective. That would be really helpful. Any thoughts around that world?

Patrick Coyne: I think bringing consistent comparable metrics that matter to the marketplace in a format that people can trust can start to drive competitive pressures on what matters, which is holistic value. Trustees—and across the Bill—want to do the right thing. They want to act in members’ best interests, but they do not have the tools for the job. The starting point is to provide them with quality information to act on that intent.

[John Grady]

Q With DC—defined contribution—schemes, as you know, savers themselves have discretion about where they put their money. The issue we face, illustrated by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton’s regular review of asset returns, is that people are not saving in things that will get them a long-term return, are they? The other issue we face is that there has been a real shift from public markets to private markets over the past 25 years or so. If you are not investing in those, you are missing out on returns that mean more money when you retire. I was just wondering, Ms Clark, if you could just put into context the work you are doing on the advice guidance boundary review and wider advice to savers, and how that will help pension savers and, therefore, help these reforms succeed?

Charlotte Clark: It is important to say that most people who are saving in a pension are probably saving in the default. When you say that they are choosing their investment, most of them are not. Whether it is the trustees of that scheme or whether it is the independent governance committee of that scheme, most people are going into that default, so the importance of the default is really crucial. While it is important to really think about engagement and talk about the advice guidance boundary review and some of the work that is happening there, it is also important that some people will not want to make those decisions. It is only people like us who seem to care about these sorts of things. Getting other people engaged in their investment is quite a challenge.

You are right that we are doing quite a lot of work, largely around the ISA area and the at-retirement area. One of the challenges at the moment is people taking money out of their pension and then putting it in cash. That may seem like a really wise decision if you are 55, but if you do not need that money for 20 years, it may keep track with inflation but you are going to miss out on asset returns, equity returns or other aspects of investment. So, we are really thinking about how we engage with people about those sorts of discussions. How can we make sure they are getting the right support? It comes back to the targeted support programme, which goes live in spring next year. So, working with providers at the moment on how they can support people when they are making these sorts of decisions, and just think about whether, if it is not full financial advice—I understand that can be very, very costly—are there other areas where we can give people help that is not as kind of extreme as that but allows people to think about those decisions in the round?

Patrick Coyne: I would just add that one of the reforms in the Bill around guided retirement is reflective of that default conundrum we face. We have a brilliant system—11 million more savers—but nobody making an active choice. That means that when people approach retirement, only one in five has a plan to access and when they do, as Charlotte said, half are taking it as cash. That cannot be the right outcome. Within the Bill, introducing a guided retirement duty enables those institutional investors to start to guide individuals or cohorts of members into the right kind of products for them, with clear opt-outs for them to choose a different way. As Charlotte said, the type of support and new form of regulated advice could really help inform savers and make good choices at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling]

Q Thank you both for coming. My questions are for Christopher Brooks. From your perspective at Age UK, what are the three wicked issues that the Bill could help tackle—the ones that come most often across your desk at Age UK, which people find a challenge in later life?

Christopher Brooks: That is a really good question. I think that first, I would flag the decumulation provisions, which are a really excellent idea. They are exactly what should be happening at the moment. Because it is a new regime, there are lots of challenges around designing and implementing it, which probably need quite a bit of thinking through, just to make sure we can get it right for members.

There are some tensions in that process: if you are defaulted into something at, say, 65, there would be some tensions around the point at which you should do certain things. I think the general consensus is that it will result in people purchasing an annuity further down the line—probably around, say, age 75 or 80. We have seen for many years, pre-freedom and choice, big issues with the annuity market, with people shopping around, or failing to shop around, to get a better deal. If you are encouraging people to do that at age 80, that is potentially a recipe for disaster. First, because people will be taking a decision that they are not familiar with, and it is alien to them. Secondly, at age 80, a number of people are experiencing cognitive decline, so it is going to be even more challenging than it would have been at 65. That kind of thing, exactly how it works, needs thinking through in more detail.

On that point, I still think that ultimately, if you are going to force people into the open market, you probably need some kind of clearing house, so that it removes the risk, because there will be scammers out there, listening to this session, I am sure, and rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of lots of people taking those decisions.

The second point is about the contractual overrides, which are clearly crucial to make the whole system work. I think we need to make sure that the best interests test is working for members. When I read the Bill initially, the thing that stood out most for me was that there seemed to be a lack of consumer protection at that point. When the provider undertakes the best interests test, if they are making an external comparison, they only have to compare with one other situation, one other scenario. That is what it says in the Bill. I do not think it is sufficient. I think the Bill should be amended, at least to say, “Make two comparisons,” or possibly to be a bit vaguer and say, “Make a reasonable number of comparisons,” so that it can be left open-ended and give a bit more scope for flexibility. That seems to be one area.

I think the best interests test needs to consider different classes of members as well. At the moment, it just looks at members as a whole, but there are different people in different situations within any scheme. For example, people approaching retirement are in a completely different position from people in their 20s or 30s, so any decisions about transfers need to make sure that all those interests are considered.

Probably the main point is about the independent assessor, who will then look at the best interests test and how it has been conducted and rubber-stamp it according to some FCA regulations yet to be written. We think quite strongly that the independent assessor should have some kind of fiduciary duty applied to them. I do not think there is any reason why this could not work, but at the moment they do not seem to be fully incentivised to act in the members’ interests or prioritise members’ interests above those of the scheme.

That is another really clear addition to the Bill that we think should take place. I think that would make the system so much more robust. There are potentially some really negative outcomes for members if they are transferred into inferior arrangements. I am sure it is not the intention of the Bill to do that, and it is probably not the intention of most providers, but it could still happen. I think putting some kind of fiduciary duty on the independent person would give this a lot more strength and make it fairly watertight for members.

[Damien Egan]

Q Christopher, a number of us are on the Work and Pensions Committee and we know that one of many big issues is people coming up to retirement and being prepared—even knowing how much they have got to take into retirement. How do you see this Bill—you have talked through some of the challenges—helping people to prepare for their future, know how much money they will have and make decisions at a better time?

Christopher Brooks: How the Bill tackles that is probably through the governance structures that will be put in place. When there is a fiduciary duty, the governance is reasonably strong. I believe it is stronger under a fiduciary duty than under the contract-based system. For example, the trustees are better placed than IGCs—independent governance committees. I think we will see IGCs potentially play a greater role in some of the transfers. That is an opportunity to make sure that IGCs can do their job more effectively and have better access to the necessary data, which was flagged previously by the FCA as not always being the case. Clearly they need to be independent, so it will not be appropriate to have employees of the firm sitting on them any longer. I believe a number of them do at the moment, but I do not think getting employees taken off will be an issue.

Once you are in retirement, you have a separate issue. Because the decumulation part of the Bill leaves a lot to the regulators to decide in the future, it has not been clearly specified how the governance will work, so there is an issue about making sure, when those regulations are written, that it does work well for people. There is clearly going to be a gap around information as well. We recently did some research with Aviva, and one of the recommendations was that we need some kind of intervention for people in their mid-70s about how they look after the rest of their lives and how they manage their pension. That kind of support is going to be crucial if people are expected to take a decision in their late 70s or early 80s with regard to annuitisation or how they draw down the rest of their money. There is a big gap there as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling]

Q Thank you both for coming. Reflecting on pensions systems around the world, what one silver bullet would you both say would help drive positive change through this Bill and strengthen it if applied to it?

Colin Clarke: That is a good question. Both our companies have recently been on various trips, to Australia, in particular, and there are various references in the Bill impact assessment to measures that are being or have been done there. One of the key learnings is around improving adequacy. In the round, there are lots of measures in the Bill that will help achieve that—for example, the introduction of the value for money test and the potential for better returns. One of the learnings we took away was around Australia’s “Your Future, Your Super” test, how they define value for money and how appropriate it is to set certain benchmarks. What are the risks if you do set those benchmarks, like the risk of investment herding and things like that? I think the value for money framework, if it is done right, has the potential to improve outcomes for members.

Contributions, obviously, is one big thing—I know that is not in the Bill. The Pensions Commission is going to be looking at that for adequacy in the round. I think that the measures around performance and value, and ensuring that the focus shifts away from cost to value, are among the key things that the Bill will seek to deliver.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q My question is related to that. Aviva, in your written evidence, you spoke quite a lot about the value for money framework. Could you expand on what you think the benefits and challenges are? You also referred to the Australian regulator’s model, in terms of learning. You have already covered a bit of it, but if there anything you could add on what we could learn from that model about incentivising investments in the right areas, that would be great.

Dale Critchley: What we have heard from Australia is that the thing to avoid is regulator-defined targets, which will probably lead to herding, and can lead to schemes avoiding certain investments. For example, in Australia, property includes social housing and commercial property, but there is one benchmark for everything. So pension schemes do not invest in social housing, because they cannot achieve the benchmark through investing in social housing, as the benchmark is common across all property. Those are things to watch out for.

The other piece is that if you have set benchmarks, people will look to achieve the benchmark and not exceed it—they do not want to be the white chicken among all the brown chickens. Those are the things to avoid, in terms of the value for money benchmarks.

Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Torsten Bell]

Q Given that you think that it is in savers’ interests to be well above the Mansion House targets, why have some people not got to those targets? Are they failing in their fiduciary duties? Why have they not got there yet?

Ian Cornelius: It is hard to speak for others, but scale is an important factor, as we have talked about. You need scale and sophistication to access these investment opportunities. NEST has that scale and is building that sophistication. It often involves quite innovative solutions and partnering. Partners want to partner with someone who has got scale and assets coming in at pace, and we have those things. There are some unique circumstances that have made it attractive for us. I will let Patrick speak for People’s, but it is on that journey as well.

Patrick Heath-Lay: Yes, we are, although we are much nearer the start of that journey. Again, it comes back to the scale point. Why is £25 billion or £30 billion about the right amount? Because it is about the right part that you can economically start investing in those items.

To answer your question, and to pick up a more general point, it is incredibly important that we work collaboratively on the issue, because, as an industry, there is not much point in us all sailing our own little boats around trying to find the right harbour to invest. There is a degree of collaboration that the industry, together with Government, can do to open up the opportunities where that investment needs to go and how it can be executed in the most efficient manner. The biggest risk with investing in private markets is that they are expensive. If the vehicles that are being used on a commercial basis are not sharing the economics of that investment well enough with savers, it will certainly not be an investment that we are interested in pursuing.

The other point is that putting down the foundations for this to be a pipeline of repeatable investment activity is critical. Because of its scale, NEST has got ahead of where we are today, but that is the phase we are in at People’s at the moment. There is over £1 billion a year from our scheme alone that will be invested in those markets on an ongoing basis. Given the scale that we are both experiencing, in terms of how we are scaling up, that will be an ever-increasing number, so it is important that we have reliable and very cost-effective routes by which we can deploy that capital.

Ian Cornelius: Going back to your original question, I think that the industry is moving in the right direction. The Mansion House accord had 17 signatories and we are seeing the right moves.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Q Default solutions are an important part of the Bill. I suspect that, for the more modest savers, they will colour the outcomes for a lot of their pensions. How can the final offer in that area be enhanced so that we get the best outcomes? What tweaks would you make to the Bill to ensure that we are looking after those with more modest incomes, around these final solutions?

Ian Cornelius: There is no doubt that there is detail to work through across the whole Bill. One of the really interesting areas will be the interaction of targeted support and default solutions. There is now a consultation on targeted support, being led by the Financial Conduct Authority. That opens up lots of opportunities to provide an enhanced level of support to people who cannot afford to take advice. The fact is that financial advice is only available to about 9% of the population. Nearly all our members cannot afford to take financial advice, so they need that enhanced level of support, either to check that they are making the right choices—“Is the default solution the right one for me?”—or because they might have circumstances that mean that they want to explore something different. Targeted support is very welcome, and we look forward to engaging with the Pensions Regulator and FCA in making that a reality and making it work for low and moderate earners.

Patrick Heath-Lay: I am probably going to sound quite boring, but this is an area in which value for money and making sure the solutions are developed in the right way to support consumers can be really quite effective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

Q What would be the challenges of that extension and scope?

Tim Fassam: We see it predominantly as opportunity. We are not saying that the rules necessarily need to change. We are just saying these new opportunities should be extended to a wider group of available schemes, but the infrastructure we are putting in place regarding workplace auto-enrolment savers can be utilised across the piece.

[Steve Darling]

Q The bar for small pots is currently set at £1,000. Is that ambitious enough? Should it be £2,000? £5,000? Or is it a matter of eating an elephant and having to be sensible about what is achievable?

Tim Fassam: I think eating an elephant is a very good way of putting it. I think £1,000 is certainly a good place to start. This will be an incredibly valuable part of the pensions ecosystem, but it will be complex and getting it right will require a lot of thought and a lot of close working between Government regulators and industry. Having that narrow and focused scope allows us to get it in place and get it working; then it would be perfectly reasonable to look at the level at a later date. For the time being, I think that is a very clear cohort of individuals who are likely to benefit from consolidation, because at the moment they are in uneconomic pools.

[The Chair]

I call Kirsty Blackman. Very quickly, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Q So while we were all running around like headless chickens trying to figure out what was going on, you were saying, “We told you so. We knew that was going to happen.”

Michelle Ostermann: It is definitely something that was on our radar. When we build the investment strategy for an open DB scheme, such as those I described, it is quite different and less susceptible to that type of risk.

[Steve Darling]

Q I seek some clarification from Michelle. At the moment, there is a fee extracted to support your organisation. What if that fee were ceased?

Michelle Ostermann: I assume you are speaking of our levy?

[Steve Darling]

Yes.

Michelle Ostermann: We have several types of levies that support our organisation. If I may, I will just take a step back to help everyone to understand what role they play.

The PPF is not terribly well understood because we are a bit unique in this industry and there are only half a dozen bodies like us in the world. The UK is one of the few countries that have a protection fund such as this. In some ways we back as an insurer in that we collect premiums or levies from the industry from the 5,000 corporate DB schemes and backstop 9 million potential future members that still sit in those schemes. We collect the levies and hold them in reserve much like an insurance company. We are not an insurance company, but we do so much like they would mathematically and with similar models.

At the same time, if a corporation fails, we take its pension scheme, which is usually underfunded, and its orphan members and put them into a pension scheme. We are both a pension manager and an insurer of sorts. When there is a failure and a scheme comes to us with insufficient assets to make good on its pension liabilities, we take some of our reserves almost as a claim, and move them over to the pension fund so that it is fully funded at all times using a largely liability-driven investment-type strategy. The levies that we collect are twofold: first we collect a levy related to the risk of the industry. You may be familiar with our purple book and the industry-wide assessment we do. We monitor the risk of that entire complicated £1 trillion industry to decide how much to set aside as reserves.

Our reserves are often referred to as a surplus, but they are not a surplus; they are reserves sitting there for potential claims in 50, 80 or 100 years. We will be the last man standing in this industry. We are here as an enduring and perpetual solution. As long as there is DB in the industry, we will have to backstop it. We set aside those reserves for the 9 million members and current £1 trillion in case of future market environments that we cannot predict today. Those levies have been collected over 20 years from the constituents of that industry. We have collected just over £10 billion from that levy system and have paid out £9.5 billion of it as claims to the pension fund.

As those levies were coming in over that 20-year period we were investing them in an open DB growth-type strategy. As such, we have built up £14 billion of reserves and so now consider ourselves largely self-funding. We no longer need to collect that levy from the industry now that those reserves are sitting there—in so far as we can best tell with our models today. We prefer to reserve the right to turn it back on should we need it in the case of a market correction event, some unforeseen circumstance or an evolution in the industry. However, right now, those fees are no longer required by us; it is a risk assessment that is suggesting that.

[Mr Bedford]

Q Building on Steve’s question on the levy, some hon. Members have asked about surplus extraction feeding into the overall risk profile in the markets. Clearly, if that was to happen and there was perceived to be an increased risk, it could result in an increase in the levy. The Bill allows for the levy to be reduced to zero. What are your thoughts about that?

Michelle Ostermann: We have thought a fair bit about that. We do not see very many scenarios in which we would need to turn it on, although it is always difficult to predict. As you know, the industry evolves in many ways and over the 20 years we have seen quite an evolution, including the creation of new alternative covenant schemes and commercial consolidators. We will backstop those as well, and we will need to charge a levy for them. There could be an unforeseen market event, similar to that just described, so we need the ability to turn the levy back on—simply to keep it as a lever. Today, the legislation reads that if we were to lower it to 0%, we can only increase it year on year by 25%. However, 25% of zero is zero, so we are a bit cornered. We have asked for a measure that would allow us to increase it by as much as a few hundred million a year. The most we have ever charged in one year was just over £500 million.

As I said, we have collected £10 billion gradually over many years. The new measure allows us to increase it by no more than 25% of the ceiling number every year, which is currently £1.4 billion. That means we could go up as much as £350 million in a single year, if needs be. However, we are a very patient long-term investor. Even though we are taking on closed corporate DB schemes, we run it as if we were an open scheme, because we are open to new members all the time. As such, our investment strategy does most of the heavy lifting for our organisation now.

On our £14 billion reserves, we make over £1 billion a year in gains from that investment strategy, which funds the £1 billion we pay out in the pension scheme to members. We are now a mature organisation that should be able to maintain a steady state. The most we would be able to increase the levy by in one year is £350 million, but we would expect to be patient, wait a few years, and try to ride out the situation not needing it, only turning it back on should we need it. We consult before we turn it on and we take a lot of feedback on this. We are quite thoughtful, as we have always been, and I hope people agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

That is very helpful, thank you. I am very conscious that other Members will almost certainly have questions, but I must say that I entirely agree with you that a sum of money set aside for compensation should not be brought into the Government’s balance sheet.

[Steve Darling]

Q Have you done any reviews of the impact of enhancing payments to those in receipt of the financial assistance scheme? You alluded to some suggestions around VAT payments and tax payments if payments were enhanced. Have you engaged with any studies on that, and what that input may be?

Terry Monk: We have looked at all sorts of scenarios. I do not know whether Michelle is still here, but the problem is that, although the PPF has done all sorts of “what if” calculations about all sorts of “what ifs”—we have had copies, and the Work and Pensions Committee has had copies—we do know what the “what if” is. We know what our members have lost, but we will not know, until such time as we hear from the Government, what they are proposing. We have offered time and again to meet not just the current Pensions Minister, but previous Pensions Ministers—I have to say that a few of them would not even meet us. This Minister has met us, and he knows the issues, but we do not know what is in the mind of the DWP or the Treasury in dealing with this issue. Once we know that, we will know whether we are fighting or we are working together, and what the answer will be. To answer your question, there is a net effect benefit of paying that amount, but we are in the dark—we do not know how long the bit of string is.

Roger Sainsbury: Incidentally, one of the benefits of the cash coming in, supposing we do get indexation, is that it would at least make a contribution if the Government had decided they were also going to pay money to the FAS members. It would be a contribution to help offset the Treasury payments that would have to be made for the FAS.

Terry has referred to the situation, but I think the key thing is that in 2023 the Select Committee asked the PPF to provide financial estimates for what it would cost to do indexation. The PPF then produced some really excellent tables that showed a number of different hypothetical systems for delivering indexation. It was a bit like a restaurant menu. There was a possibility to have a scheme that would not be hugely beneficial, but that would not cost all that much money to administer, right through the range to a Rolls-Royce scheme, which would obviously cost a lot more money.

We have been asking for RIPA. Just to be absolutely clear, we are not asking for the grim reaper; we have had enough of him already, with people dying. This the bountiful RIPA—retrospective indexation plus arrears. We are pressing for that, but we did not invent it. It was not invented by the DPA. It was part of the menu that the PPF produced, and we merely picked it from the menu. RIPA is reasonably high up the menu, but it is not at the very top. There are other things that we are not asking for that we might have asked for, so we are not being greedy.

With respect to Terry, we are not bothering too much about what is in the PPF’s mind or in the Government’s mind. We are much more concerned with what we are trying to put into their mind. When we decided to go for pushing for RIPA, it was because RIPA is the minimum scheme of indexation that would have the effect of doing away with what is presently a two-tier membership within the PPF. There are two classes of membership: those with indexation and those without. There is nothing in the Bill making any provision for that. It is grossly unfair and it needs to be done away with, and it just happens that the RIPA option is the minimum way of getting rid of that deplorable two-tier membership. I think that gives you perhaps a fuller answer about the situation.

Terry Monk: Are we virtually out of time?

[The Chair]

We are not quite out of time, but I am going to call other Members to ask questions of the panel. I call Kirsty Blackman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

Q The other thing to touch on is that all the pools are moving towards FCA authorisation. What is your experience of that? Obviously, you are further ahead than most.

Rachel Elwell: This is before I was employed to bring it to life. This is a decision our partner funds made really early, because they recognised the real benefits that can come from being FCA regulated. This is really important. We will hopefully be managing over £100 billion on behalf of the LGPS, and a good proportion of that is managed directly within my team. We are managing that for, hopefully, 18 different customers—effectively, investors and our owners. We need to have those disciplines in place, and we need to make sure that we are following those regulations. We do not need another regulatory set. There are already some very good, strong regulations that exist, so we, as a partnership and as a company, think that is the right thing to do.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Thank you very much.

[Steve Darling]

Q I have two key questions. We have heard repeatedly in evidence today about questions to do with secondary legislation and guidance. As we go through the Bill Committee and further stages, what confidence do you have as Minister that you will be able to give some clear signalling to the industry about what is likely to be in that guidance and legislation, to drive the confidence it needs in the short to long term?

The other area that I want to ask about relates to the information that we heard from Nest: only 40% of its members had signed up online. That demonstrates that the issue is about getting positive engagement from those who are perhaps less financially secure. Are you confident that we are doing all we can through the Bill to help those who are most financially challenged? How are you going to hold yourself to account as we proceed to ensure that that is the case?

Torsten Bell: Those are great questions. On regulations, you are absolutely right. This pensions Bill, like most recent ones—although there have been exceptions that have come with unintended side effects, to go back to what was just mentioned—does rely heavily on secondary legislation. My view is that that is the right thing to do and is almost in the nature of pension schemes. That is partly because the detail should rightly be consulted on and partly because things will change in the context.

You are right that there is a large reliance on secondary legislation. Yes, in some areas, as we go through the detail, clause by clause, we will be able to set out to you where our thinking is up to. In lots of cases you will already see consultations by the FCA and TPR, starting to develop the work that will then feed into the regulations—that is particularly true, for example, on value for money, which we have just been discussing. I also think that it is important for us to provide clarity on when we will bring forward those regulations and when we will consult on the input to them, so that people know that. That was why, when we published the pensions reform road map, and when we published the Bill itself, I set out when we anticipate bringing forward those regulations so that everyone in the industry and in the House can see when that will happen. Page 17 of the road map sets out how we envisage that happening, and it is absolutely right. When we come to the clause-by-clause discussion, there will certainly be things where we will not be able to say, “This is exactly what will happen,” and rightly, because there needs to be further consultation with the industry on those things.

On the broader question of engagement with people, particularly those with smaller pensions—there is a very heavy correlation between the chance of someone being engaged with their pension and the size of that pension pot, partly for obvious reasons, but for wider context reasons, too—the pensions dashboard that Chris Curry mentioned earlier is a large part of facilitating that engagement. Lots of countries have had versions of the dashboard; it does make a material effect. One of the lessons from Australia is that the average size of DC pots, as they start to build rapidly—as that becomes the default system in an auto-enrolment world—does have a material effect.

I was with someone who runs one of the big supers recently; her view was that they hit a tipping point when there was suddenly this huge engagement where people were looking at the app provided by the super every week. There are pros and cons to that, by the way. Remember that there is a reason why we default people into pension savings. There are good and bad ways to engage with your pension. We do not want people on an app, in the face of a short-term stock market downturn, making drastic decisions to do with their investments that have long-lasting consequences. It needs to be done right; that is exactly why, when it comes to the dashboard, we are user testing it extensively.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q I have two questions. If the Minister could just answer “yes” to the first one, that would be great. The Regulatory Policy Committee has said in its assessment of the impact assessment that the monitoring and evaluation plan is weak—it has used that word. It has said that more detailed plans are needed on monitoring and evaluation, outlining success metrics, reporting requirements and methodologies. Will the Minister commit to considering those and to updating us during the course of the Bill Committee about when monitoring might happen?

Torsten Bell: I am happy to take that away. Obviously, the monitoring will need to be different for different parts of the Bill, which are on different timelines.

Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is great to be starting what I hope will be quite a quick canter through today’s work, Sir Christopher. The Opposition welcome the broad grain of this entire Bill; it seeks to do a lot of very useful things in the pension industry across the UK. We have some contentious points, but those will not come up today.

Regarding clause 1, we welcome the creation of asset pool companies. These are sensible and pragmatic steps towards modernising the local government pension scheme, and much of the work had already been done under the previous Government. Consolidating funds represents a responsible approach that should deliver more effective management and investment of pension assets. The LGPS, as we have heard, is among the largest pension schemes in the UK, with 6.7 million members and £391 billion of capital. Before pooling, of course, it was 86 separate local authorities, which caused huge inefficiency, inequality of opportunities and, in some cases, poorer outcomes for pension beneficiaries.

I should mention at this point, Sir Christopher, that I am a member of the LGPS and also that, as a councillor on Forest of Dean district council, I was responsible for looking after some of this activity in terms of pension management. It was not an efficient way of doing things, so pooling is an incredibly good idea. We welcome the Government’s continuing our work to make these pension funds work more efficiently and deliver better returns for members, and ultimately we all want to see improved returns and lower employer contributions. Small funds, whether in local government or elsewhere, are rarely fit for purpose in the global investment environment.

We have some concerns. The broad framing of the powers contained in chapter 1, clause 1 could allow for the mandation of certain investments by Government. Pools should be investing in line with the investment approach set out by their underlying asset owners in order to deliver against the fiduciary duties of LGPS funds. Governments should not take powers that would erode fiduciary duty.

There are concerns about the costs of the Government’s decision to reduce the number of asset pools from eight to six. This is an administrative cost. We have heard from one council, Wiltshire, which is one of 21 LGPS funds in England now looking for a new pooling partner. Jennifer Devine, head of the Wiltshire pension fund, has said that the cost of closing its asset pool could come to as much as £100 million. There will be some costs incurred, but, none the less, the general thrust of the whole process is one that we support and we certainly would not stand in the way of these amendments.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, and echoing the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, I broadly welcome the thrust of the Bill. We heard in evidence that a lot of the industry is playing catch-up and is about 15 years behind those who are best in class. As Liberal Democrats, we are keen to make sure that we are supporting particularly those who are more challenged in being able to save or to make the right decisions, and that we use what levers we can to tackle issues such as climate change and cleaning up our environment. We look forward to working with colleagues on this Committee.

On the local government pension schemes and the pots, we welcome the direction of travel. However, for us it is about making sure that we keep local links to communities, and driving positive change through that investment in our local communities is absolutely essential. I look forward to the debates over the next few weeks.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I declare an interest as a holder of deferred membership of a local government pension scheme in Scotland, which will come into scope should the Government amendments go through, as I imagine they will. First, I thank the Government for working with the Scottish Government to make these changes and for taking the decision to agree with the Scottish Government’s request for these changes to be made. It is appreciated.

While I am on thank yous, the people who manage local government pension schemes are managing an incredibly significant amount of money and are ensuring that benefits are provided to many millions of people in those schemes. The hard work they do to steward those funds appropriately cannot be overestimated, so I say thank you to all the trustees who take that action on behalf of so many of us. Those working in the public sector tend to get a lower salary than they would in the private sector, but they often get access to a defined-benefit pension scheme or a career-average pension scheme, which is better than many people in the private sector get. There is a bit of give and take there.

On Tuesday, we heard from the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board and also from one of the pension schemes. There was a commitment that came forward in the evidence to ensuring trustees are appropriately trained—I am not for a second saying that they are not appropriately trained right now, but we must ensure that level of training is provided when they have many other competing demands on their time. It is important that the Government ensure the correct monitoring, evaluation and also support of those organisations, so that if new training is required—for example, if environmental, social and governance provisions change, or decisions about where it is best to invest funds change—the Government commit to ensuring that trustees are given all the training they need. I believe that all pension trustees have a difficult job, but particularly those managing local government pension schemes, who are often local councillors—a task that, I know, is not a part-time job and is incredibly busy.

The other concern raised on Tuesday, and which was just mentioned by my Liberal Democrat colleague, the hon. Member for Torbay, is about the locality of the decisions made. It is important that the pooling of resources means more investment in important and key projects than would result from a smaller organisation. Hopefully, the reduction in administrative costs will ensure that those schemes are significantly more efficient, but I am keen that we do not lose the local voice within the pension schemes that we have now.

The case was made very eloquently on Tuesday that, while pension schemes take into account value for money—what we would have called best value in local government in Scotland—in decision making, they should ensure that they are not supporting projects that the community are absolutely up in arms about, because so many of their members will live in that community. Scheme members need that guaranteed return, but they also need their communities to be nice places for them to live.

I am slightly concerned that, with pooling, the ability for local projects to be put forward could potentially be lost. Although I am not asking for any specific changes, I would ask that the Government keep an eye on that. Should there be significant numbers of smaller projects that are not being supported because of the changes that previously might have been supported, the Government should consider whether they need to take action to ensure that those voices are better heard and that those smaller projects still have the opportunity for investment.

Thank you very much for allowing me to speak on this, Chair. I am assuming that we have also spoken on the clause stand part and are unlikely to debate that again at the end; I have therefore made most of my general comments here rather than particularly specific ones on the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes. I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.

[Steve Darling]

I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] I am sure that for all of his life he has wanted to be sitting on a pensions Bill Committee on his birthday.

More seriously, when we were in desperate measures in my time as a local authority councillor in Torbay, we borrowed to invest and make money for the local authority—that was once upon a time, because it is no longer possible—so I know from experience that authorities often have to invest elsewhere in the country to get the best financial returns. Our experience in Torbay was that a lot of our investments in the south of England got in the money that we needed to keep the local authority ticking over.

I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we get the balance right. Clearly, investors would want to invest in the local area to drive economic development, but there is a need to balance that with getting positive outcomes for the pension fund. Some guidance from the Minister on how he sees that balance being struck, as the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Mid Leicestershire have alluded to, would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

On new clause 31, as we have heard, the local government pension scheme in England and Wales has reached a record surplus of some £45 billion, which is 112% of funding levels, as of June 2024, with some estimating that it will rise to more than 125% by the end of 2025. Despite that strong funding position, no measures have been introduced to make it easier to allow councils or employers to reduce contributions or take contribution holidays. The surplus could be used to create contribution holidays for local authorities, as we have heard, or potentially to reduce council tax or increase the money available for spending on local services.

The current Government focus remains on asset pooling and local investment strategies, rather than enabling the more immediate and flexible use of surplus funds. Councils can already reduce employer contributions under regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. The problem is that, in practice, actuaries and administering authorities hold the cards, and the guidance has been used to shut down reviews even when funding levels are strong.

The Minister needs to consider issuing better guidance to councils to make the process more transparent, to rebalance the power between councils and funds, and to ensure that actuaries properly consider reductions when the funding position justifies it. The mechanisms that are currently in place mean that the assumptions are overly prudent, reviews come only in cycles, and councils have no leverage in disputes.

New clause 31 seeks to introduce provisions to allow employers within the local government pension scheme to take contribution holidays or reduce employer contributions when surplus funding is confirmed, with actuarial valuations, subject to maintaining the security of member benefits. It would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how surpluses could be prudently deployed to balance member security with local fiscal needs. That would enable councils to better manage budgets, support local services and stimulate local economies without compromising pension schemes.

However, the Minister seems to be working with the Opposition on trying to find ways to move all this forward, so for the sake of brevity we will seek to withdraw new clause 31.

[Steve Darling]

The Minister spoke of a couple of opportunities for regulation in this area, and we heard oral evidence about how an awful lot of this Bill is to be drawn out in secondary legislation. Will he give us timelines for when he plans to share the regulations, or at least begin the consultation on them, and say what he sees as the key elements of those regulations that will break cover in due course?

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

For the avoidance of doubt, new clause 31 will be put to the vote much later on. At that stage, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest will be able to withdraw it if he so chooses.

Clause 3

Exemption from public procurement rules

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move amendment 244, in clause 5, page 6, line 6, at end insert—

“(2) In the case of merger of schemes for local government workers, the Secretary of State must consider the geography of scheme areas and ensure these areas align with strategic authority boundaries before implementing the merger.”

This amendment requires the Government to explicitly consider the geography of new LGPS areas in any reorganisation.

The amendment would amend the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to explicitly empower the Secretary of State to make regulations if there was a merger, including a compulsory merger, of two or more LGPS-funded schemes. The change in clause 5 would support flexibility for structural consolidation to enhance fund management and efficiencies; however, there is uncertainty about how the Government will confirm geographical boundaries for the local government pension scheme asset pools amid local government reorganisation.

Currently, LGPS reform aims to consolidate assets and strengthen local investment, but concerns remain about the implementation timescales and risks of disruption. Stakeholders highlight the need for clarity on new geographical boundary definitions and on alignment with new or existing local authority boundaries. Potential challenges exist in meeting asset-pooling and Government deadlines if changes coincide with wider local government changes.

Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to explicitly consider, for any LGPS scheme merger, the geography of scheme areas, and ensure alignment with strategic authority boundaries. This would help to provide clarity, promote smoother transitions and reduce disruption from concurrent local government reorganisations. The amendment emphasises the importance of integrating pension scheme boundaries with local government structures to support effective government and investment strategies. We hope the Government will reflect on this issue as the Bill progresses through the House.

[Steve Darling]

As the Lib Dem spokesman for this part of the Bill, I welcome the direction of travel.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the hon. Member for Wyre Forest can confirm that he does not intend the change to apply in Scotland, because we do not have strategic authorities, I am quite happy not to vote for or against it and to leave it to those who do have strategic authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister for his comments. We agree that the law needs to be updated to reflect current circumstances, and it makes sense to ensure that companies that have not made pre-2016 resolutions are not unfairly penalised. We broadly support the update to the law because it corrects an important imbalance. However, it is crucial, as we move forward, that we maintain the necessary guardrails and uphold the independence of trustees to protect scheme members’ interests. These important aspects will be further discussed in relation to clause 9.

I will raise a couple of points made by people we have been engaging with while looking at the Bill. First, the Pensions Management Institute highlighted its disappointment that the Government did not take the opportunity of this legislation, which broadly talks about defined-benefit funds, to make it easier and more tax efficient for employers and schemes to use scheme surpluses to fund contributions under defined-contribution arrangements, including those not held in the same trust. That would have opened up possibilities for many entities that have long since moved their ongoing DC provisions to a master trust or contract-based arrangement.

The Phoenix Group also highlighted an issue. To protect funding levels after surplus release, schemes may adopt more cautious investment strategies, reducing allocations to private and productive assets. That could undermine the Government’s growth objectives. Aside from those points, we are happy with the clause.

[Steve Darling]

I very much echo what the hon. Member for Wyre Forest said. Clearly, surpluses have built up over a number of years since the last crash. There has been a level of overcaution. It is important for our economy that those surpluses are appropriately released, which could drive economic growth. I am sure that all of us in the room want to see that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Any decision to release surplus funds from defined-benefit pension schemes should rest firmly, as we have discussed, with the trustees. It is important to emphasise that trustees bear the ultimate responsibility for such decisions. We believe that surplus repayments to employers should be permitted only when members’ benefits are fully protected and robust safeguards are in place to maintain the security and sustainability of the scheme.

The Bill notes that the detailed criteria for surplus payments will be set out in forthcoming regulations, and those regulations must be subject to close scrutiny with a primary focus on safeguarding members’ benefits before any funds can be released. There remain important unanswered questions regarding what appropriate guardrails for surplus release should look like. One firm belief is that defined-benefit pension funds should be funded to buy-out levels, to the extent that they are capable of securing members’ benefits with an insurer. Additionally, any surplus extraction should demonstrably provide clear benefits to scheme members, rather than simply serving the employer’s interest—although we heard evidence on Tuesday that did not necessarily agree with that.

We acknowledge that there are broader issues facing defined-benefit pension schemes that we intend to explore further when the Committee considers the new clauses. In particular, the post-Maxwell accounting framework is a significant constraint on defined-benefit pension funds. The requirement to show deficits on company balance sheets suppresses growth potential. The Bill should not miss an opportunity to address those structural hurdles.

One of the behavioural outcomes we have seen is that defined-benefit pension funds have been investing large amounts of money into bonds, including Government bonds, and not into equities where there is the greatest growth potential in the economy. That throws up a couple of problems in this area. First, the money is not going into equities, which are much more volatile than bonds. Secondly, if we see surplus extraction from some of those funds, that money will come from the Government bond market—the gilt market—and there may be an impact on the Government’s ability to borrow funds, which is something we will hear more about on 26 November. Crucially, the Minister will now be part of that, and I suspect he will be taking into account the bond market’s ability to meet Government borrowing requirements when he gets close to that date.

Moreover, there is nothing in the current legislation to prevent surpluses from being used for purposes that do not support economic growth, such as share buybacks or dividend payments by the host employer. Neither of those outcomes necessarily aligns with the Government’s growth agenda, although it could be argued that the money is going back into the wider economy and finding its way back. None the less, we would like to see more guidance on how that money is to be spent. Simply repaying—potentially—private equity funds a large dividend will not necessarily help the greater good.

The Bill proposes new flexibilities for defined-benefit schemes in surplus. Currently, the Bill is unclear on the level at which employers can extract that surplus and there is concern that, once a scheme is fully funded on a low-dependency basis, buy-out could happen. That is a lower threshold than for a gold standard buy-out and, while it may free up capital for employers and support investment, there are concerns that the change could risk members’ security, as buy-out remains the safest way to guarantee benefits. Amendment 247 would provide strong protection against a change of environment where DB funds start to slip back into deficit positions.

Our amendments 260 and 261 are linked. Just Group plc wrote to the Committee to highlight that members of pension schemes that undertake employer surplus extractions should receive proper notification. Engagement with members should be undertaken before extraction, because ultimately any decisions on surplus extraction could be impactful on them. Setting out clearly in legislation what effective engagement would look like, including the role of the actuary in the process, would help trustees to understand their obligations and Parliament’s intent.

Amendment 260 requires trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers, and ensures that members receive full information about proposed surplus payments, enabling informed participation. Amendment 261 aims to strengthen an actuary’s role in oversight of schemes accessing surplus, by requiring confirmation that member notification has occurred before certifying surplus payments. Both amendments strengthen the guardrails around DB surplus extraction, as part of our overall strategy of putting member interest first and protecting trustees. We will be pressing these amendments.

[Steve Darling]

I rise to speak in respect of amendments 265 and 267, which echo the issues already covered by the shadow Minister. Allowing 60 days’ notice to scheme members is extremely important to the Liberal Democrats—and, to be fair, I am sure it is also important to the Government—and the central intention is to protect outcomes for members of schemes and ensure that there is enough flexibility. That 60 days’ notice is really important to us.

Ensuring that there is enough money in the scheme for any buy-out is the second element, which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has already alluded to. We think it is very important that the finances are there and that we put scheme members at the centre of the proposals before us. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what reassurance he is able to give us on those points.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will speak specifically to amendments 260 and 265. Any communication with scheme members is a good thing, particularly if there are to be changes such as those we have been discussing. Sometimes, surplus extraction may not be for the benefit of scheme members; sometimes it may be for other reasons, and trustees have a duty to make clear what they think it is for and to release a surplus only if they think it is a reasonable thing to do. However, they may not have a full understanding of how members feel about what the surplus could be used for. For example, scheme members who are active members might feel that they would love their company to invest in something to make their lives and their jobs easier, and might be keener on that extraction than the trustees might think, so it would be great to have that input.

Amendments 260 and 265 are incredibly similar—surprisingly similar, in fact—and I am happy to support both, were they put to a vote. Amendment 261 is consequential; on amendments 247 and 267, I do not feel I have enough information on what trustees think to make a reasonable judgment on whether either amendment would be a sensible way forward for trustees to meet their fiduciary duty, which is to provide the best guaranteed return for scheme members. I will step out of votes on amendments 247 or 267, but I will support the amendment that requires members to be consulted in advance.

[Torsten Bell]

My overall reflection on the amendments is that in most cases what is being requested is already happening, or risks reducing flexibility for trustees. I will set that out in a bit more detail, but I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and for the amendments targeting important areas of concern.

Amendments 247 and 261 aim to maintain the buy-out funding threshold for surplus release from DB schemes. Member security is at the heart of our changes, as I have already set out. We are clear that the new surplus flexibilities must both work for employers and maintain a very high level of security for members, as we all agree. Under these proposals, surplus sharing will remain subject to strict safeguards, including the actuarial certification and the prudent funding threshold, which is the same threshold that the TPR under the previous Government had put in place for defined-benefit schemes to aim for more generally. The defined-benefit funding code and underpinning legislation require that trustees aim to maintain a strong funding position more generally, leaving aside the question of surplus release. They do that so that we have very high confidence that members’ future pensions will be paid.

However, the Government are minded to amend the funding threshold at which surplus can be released from the current buy-out threshold to the full funding on a low dependency basis, as I mentioned earlier. That is still a robust and prudent threshold that aligns with the existing rules, as I have just said. The goal here is to give more options to DB scheme trustees. Again, that is true across the Bill: we are aiming to provide trustees with more options about how they proceed.

Many schemes are planning to buy out members’ benefits with an insurer. In many cases that is the right thing for them to do, but other schemes might want to continue to run on their scheme for some time without expecting future contributions to be required from an employer. The low-dependency threshold will give flexibility to trustees to do so. It is right that they have a variety of options to choose from when selecting the endgame for their scheme.

The Government will set out the details of the revised funding threshold in draft regulations, on which we will consult. More broadly, we think it right that that is done via secondary legislation, not primary legislation.

[Steve Darling]

Can the Minister give us some timescales? I asked previously about timescales, regulations and secondary legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could address that.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member rightly returns to an important question. As I set out at the evidence session on Tuesday, our pension policy road map, published at the same time as the Bill, details exactly when we are planning to bring forward regulations. My understanding is that these particular regulations should be consulted on in the spring of next year—if that is not right, I will make sure we come back to him with further details. As I say, the road map provides the details of that timeline. It is a very important question for people to be clear on. In that consultation, I am sure the evidence we have heard will be taken into account.

Amendments 260 and 265 correctly aim to ensure that members are well informed and represented when it comes to their pension schemes and retirement. The new paragraphs would be inserted into clause 9 of the Bill, which amends section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995. Section 37 already provides that regulations must require members to be notified in relation to a surplus payment before it is made.

This is therefore not about the flexibility of trustees; it is redundant, given the requirements already in the Bill. It is similar to the existing requirement under section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995, and we will again consult on these draft regulations following Royal Assent. Furthermore, trustees already have a clear duty to act in all matters in the best interests of the beneficiaries of their scheme, and they are best placed to decide, in consultation with the sponsoring employer, what actions are best for members—I will not keep repeating that point as we go through the rest of this Bill.

Finally, I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for proposing amendment 261, with its requirement for actuarial confirmation that proposed payments from a DB surplus to employers will not adversely affect members’ benefits, and that members have been notified ahead of that release. Those are valuable objectives, but they are already achieved by the robust safeguards in place, including trustee discretion, the prudent funding threshold —on which we will consult—and the actuarial certification that a scheme is well funded.

In addition, the defined-benefit funding code and the underpinning legislation already require trustees to aim to maintain a strong funding position, and that is actively overseen by the Pensions Regulator. I believe the safeguards we have put in place put members at the heart of the policy, which is a point of cross-party agreement, and will allow trustees to continue to be the people who strike the correct balance between the benefits for employers and members. I hope this offers some reassurance to the Committee that, for the reasons I have outlined, these amendments are unnecessary; I urge hon. Members not to press them.

Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

Amendment 260, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert—

“(e) requiring the trustees to provide a prescribed notification, as set out in (f) below, with the members of the scheme (or their representatives) not less than 60 days before making any payment under this section;

(f) the prescribed notification should include—

(i) the proposed amount of surplus to be paid to the employer,

(ii) the reasons for the proposed payment,

(iii) the impact on member benefits,

(iv) the scheme’s funding position after the proposed payment, and

(v) how members may make representations regarding the proposal;

(g) requiring the trustees to have regard to any representations made by members or their representatives having received the prescribed notification.”

This amendment would require trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers. It ensures members receive full information about proposed surplus payments, enabling informed participation.

Amendment 265, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert——

“(e) requiring the trustees to provide a prescribed notification to members of the scheme, or members’ representatives, not less than 60 days before making any payment under this section,

(f) requiring the prescribed notification under subsection (e) include—

(i) the proposed amount of surplus to be paid to the employer,

(ii) the reasons for the proposed payment,

(iii) the impact on member benefits,

(iv) the scheme's funding position after the proposed payment,

(v) how members may make representations regarding the proposal, and

(g) requiring the trustees to have regard to any representations made by members or their representatives having received the prescribed notification under subsection (e).”

This amendment would require trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers.

Amendment 267, in clause 9, page 8, line 30, at end insert—

“(e) requiring that, where the scheme actuary certifies under subsection (a) that the scheme’s assets exceed the cost of securing each member’s accrued rights with an authorised insurer for a continuous period of at least six months, the trustees must first secure a full buy-out of those rights before any payment of surplus may be made to the employer or any other person, and

(f) requiring that subsection (e) does not apply if the scheme actuary certifies that any surplus extraction would, after the extraction, still leave the scheme’s assets exceeding the cost of securing each member’s accrued rights with an authorised insurer.”

This amendment inserts a requirement to ensure that surplus extraction prior to a buyout does not adversely impact the scheme’s ability to reach buy-out.

Amendment 261, in clause 9, page 8, line 36, at end insert

“and including confirmation that the proposed payment (surplus access) will not adversely impact members’ benefits and that the prescribed notification has been completed in accordance with regulations made under subsection (2A).”

This amendment would aim to strengthen an actuary's role and oversight of schemes accessing surplus, by requiring confirmation that member notification has occurred before certifying surplus payments.

Does Mr Darling wish to respond further in this debate?

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I am happy for the Committee to proceed.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Sir Christopher, I am happy to proceed in order to get things moving.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I should start by saying that I do not recognise the purist approach that we have heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. This is an issue close to my heart, because my father, having seen the poverty that his father was in, saved significantly in his private pension scheme as a lorry driver. Sadly, however, he was extremely poorly advised, and as he approached retirement he put thousands and thousands of pounds into equities; then, in the late 1980s, there was a stock market crash. He might as well have burned half of his money. The further we drive the health of the pension industry, the better, and particularly knowledge for those who may not be very much in the financial world.

We heard in evidence from NEST that only 40% of people have even registered online to know what their pension is doing. For people for whom the financial world is a complete challenge—and even for many of us in this room, getting our head around it totally is a bit of a challenge—it is essential that we use every possible lever to make sure that quality advice is available. As Liberal Democrats, we will unashamedly use every opportunity in the Bill to provide high levels of education for those who are in receipt of pensions and to give them as much wind in their sails as possible.

[Torsten Bell]

I shall give a short speech, because there is a worrying habit developing of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North giving the Government Front-Bench speech for me. I should encourage that as we go on—she might be slightly traumatised by that, but we are where we are. Everybody in this room will agree on the importance of the principle that has been highlighted, and we have just heard a powerful point exactly along those lines.

Although the Government understand the intent behind amendment 3, there are two reasons why we will not support it. The first is a point of principle, which I have already set out: it is for trustees, not the Government, to decide how surpluses that benefit members should take place. We discussed the issue of discretionary benefits just now.

The second reason is less a point of principle and more a matter of reality. The amendment would provide advice only to existing members of specific schemes. I think we all agree, particularly in the light of the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, that the main problems are about the defined-contribution space and people coming up towards retirement. Lots of the people who are in schemes who would be coming forward for surplus release are already drawing down a very well-defined pension income.

It is not the ideal way to focus on the particular problem that we all agree exists, but we completely agree that robust guidance that assures that everyone has access to free and impartial advice is very important. That is the job of the Money and Pensions Service, but I completely hear what has been said about how it needs to go further. I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions, but I urge the hon. Member for Horsham to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Division 5

Ayes: 5

---

Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 11

---

Labour: 10
Scottish National Party: 1

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move amendment 264, in clause 9, page 9, line 4, at end insert—

“(e) Where regulations under subsection (2A) lower the funding threshold for a surplus payment to below the full buy-out funding level, the Secretary of State must—

(i) conduct an assessment setting out—

(A) prescribed stress scenarios and their impact on funding,

(B) a maximum permissible extraction percentage for each scenario, and

(C) contingencies to restore funding;

(ii) consult the Pensions Regulator, the FCA, and such actuarial bodies as may be prescribed; and

(iii) lay a report of the assessment before Parliament.”

This amendment requires the Secretary of State to conduct an assessment when the DWP calibrates any extraction threshold below buy-out.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 258, in clause 9, page 9, line 21, leave out

“in subsection (2A), after ‘section’ insert ‘37(2A),’”

and insert

“in subsection (2), after ‘virtue of’ insert ‘(za) section 37(2A)’”.

This amendment would make all regulations on DB surplus extraction subject to the affirmative procedure all times they were made rather than just after first use.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

Amendment 264 would provide a backstop and a check where there are potential extractions and buy-outs. It would give an opportunity for the Secretary of State to cast an eye over the process when the DWP does an assessment. It goes back to safeguarding: as I am sure this Committee will discuss repeatedly, we need to ensure that we have investors’ and beneficiaries’ best interests at heart. I hope that the Secretary of State will take the proposal at face value, as an appropriate guardrail, and I look forward to its endorsement.

[Mark Garnier]

Conservative amendment 258 would ensure that all regulations made under proposed new section 37(2A) of the Pensions Act 1995, which governs surplus payments from defined-benefit pension schemes, are subject to the affirmative procedure always, not just the first time that they are made. That would give Parliament ongoing oversight and scrutiny of any future regulations in the area. Without the amendment, regulations on defined-benefit surplus extraction would not consistently require parliamentary approval. That would potentially lead to insufficient scrutiny.

The amendment aims to provide better parliamentary control over regulations as they are introduced. The key worry is the risk that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, might use these powers to allow the payment of a surplus at funding levels below buy-out standards at some point in future, which could jeopardise scheme security and could happen without parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment is about improving the transparency and accountability of surplus extraction regulations for DB pension schemes, ensuring that Parliament maintains consistent oversight and guarding against premature surplus extractions that might undermine scheme funding security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I think I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her attempt to fire me. To clarify, carrying out the kind of prescribed stress scenarios and assessments set out in the amendment would require the Department for Work and Pensions to examine the DB landscape. In this specific area, that is the role of TPR and the PPF.

I turn to amendment 258. The first regulations on surplus will be subject to the affirmative procedure, for exactly the reasons that have been set out, and exactly because at that point they will be new but also comprehensive. As with every other pensions Bill, what we do not want to see is the affirmative procedure being used for small, technical changes that come to those regulations in the years that follow. However, our approach does allow for the necessary debate when those regulations are made. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to support the Bill as drafted.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 258, in clause 9, page 9, line 21, leave out

“in subsection (2A), after ‘section’ insert ‘37(2A),’”

and insert

“in subsection (2), after ‘virtue of’ insert ‘(za) section 37(2A)’”.—(Mark Garnier.)

This amendment would make all regulations on DB surplus extraction subject to the affirmative procedure all times they were made rather than just after first use.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

Clause 9 will amend the safeguards on the sharing of surplus. The details will be set out in regulations, the parliamentary procedures of which we have just discussed. These safeguards will place the safety of members’ benefits at the heart of the policy.

Proposed new subsection (2B) of section 37 of the Pensions Act 1995 sets out the requirements, which are there to protect members, that must be set out in regulations before trustees can pay a surplus to the employer—namely that before a trustee can agree to release a surplus, they will first be required to receive an actuarial certification that the scheme meets a prudent funding threshold, and that members must be notified before surplus is released.

The funding threshold will be set out in regulations, which we will consult on, as discussed. We expect that release of the surplus will be permitted only when a scheme is fully funded on a low-dependency basis. Trustees are already required, through existing legislation, to set a long-term funding and investment strategy that targets exactly this funding level. These funding conditions will be set out in regulations made under the affirmative procedure and debated when first introduced.

Proposed new subsection (2C) will provide the ability to introduce additional regulations aimed at further enhancing member protections, where considered appropriate. Superfunds will be subject to their own regime for profit extraction; I am spelling this out, because we will come to it later in the Bill. The proposed new subsection will allow regulations to be made that are consistent with those provisions. Regulations may prevent payments from superfunds for a period, if surplus regulations come into force earlier than the superfund legislation, which we will debate later in the Bill. Crucially, decisions to release any surplus will remain subject to trustee discretion. I also note the removal of the statutory test in section 37(3)(d) of the Pensions Act, on the grounds that it does no more than reflect trustees’ existing duties.

The technical and consequential amendments at subsections (4) to (7) of clause 9 are to ensure that the new measures sit correctly in existing legislation but do not affect the overall policy. In summary, the clause will ensure that the release of a surplus is subject to strict safeguards. I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Relevant schemes: value for money

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move amendment 269, in clause 10, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(aa) make, publish and keep under review the consistency of—

(i) regulated VFM schemes, or

(ii) regulated VFM arrangements,

with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy;”.

This amendment, with Amendment 270, would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 272, in clause 10, page 10, line 10, at end insert—

“(aa) make, publish and keep under review the compliance of—

(i) regulated VFM schemes, or

(ii) regulated VFM arrangements,

with statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges by water and sewerage undertakers,”.

This amendment, with Amendment 273, would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the compliance of water and sewerage companies they invest in with targets for reducing sewage discharges.

Amendment 270, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert—

“(d) publish or share with prescribed persons, for the purpose of enabling VFM assessments to be made, prescribed categories of information (referred to as ‘climate alignment metric data’) regarding the scheme’s exposure to climate-related financial risks and the alignment of its investments with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy.”

This amendment, with Amendment 269, would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Amendment 273, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert—

“(d) publish or share with prescribed persons, for the purpose of enabling VFM assessments to be made, prescribed categories of information (referred to as ‘sewage discharge compliance data’) regarding the scheme’s exposure to, and investment in, companies holding permits to discharge sewage, including those companies’ performance against statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges.”

This amendment, with Amendment 272, would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the compliance of water and sewerage companies they invest in with targets for reducing sewage discharges.

Amendment 271, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(iv) the consistency of the investment portfolio with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy, including metrics for assessing climate-related financial risks and opportunities;”.

This amendment would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement.

Amendment 274, in clause 12, page 12, line 21, at end insert—

“(iv) the compliance of the investment portfolio with statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges by water and sewerage undertakers, including metrics for assessing related environmental and financial risks and opportunities;”.

This amendment would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the performance of water and sewerage companies they invest in against targets for reducing sewage discharges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

In tabling these amendments, we wanted to make sure that we calibrated them carefully. It is not about giving a clear instruction that says, “You must do this”; it is about ensuring that investors are alive to the Paris agreement on climate change and clean energy and that our water companies are complying with cleaning up our rivers and seas. Introducing a duty to report on how funds are having an impact on that would ensure a level of awareness without dictating to investors and thereby having an impact on the fiduciary duties that trustees should clearly have.

Throughout the Bill, the Government have quite rightly highlighted how pensions can be a force for good for our economy and for those who invest in it. The amendments would reinforce that approach. On climate change, clean energy and cleaning up our seas and rivers, the amendments are writ much larger, without interfering in where the money should be invested.

[Mark Garnier]

These are not amendments that we feel particularly inclined to support. They would require pension fund managers to make, publish and keep under review data to show that their portfolio investments are consistent with the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change and clean energy. That would include publishing prescribed information relating to climate change alignment and sewage discharge. Those are immensely important and worthy ambitions and intentions; we share their spirit, as we want a cleaner planet, cleaner waterways and improvements to our climate, but I do not think that this is the place to do it. Pension funds should be allowed to look at the best interests of their members, irrespective of wider public and social aspirations, so this is not a proposal that we feel we can support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

My support for the Welsh Government’s Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is on the record, so I get to disagree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North on something, which will be a relief for everybody.

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the amendments. Clearly, addressing climate change is absolutely central to this Government’s agenda. It needs to be done in the right way. Pension funds hold significant capital, and I am pleased to say that at every conference and every session I hold with people involved in the industry I see that investors and pension schemes do now use their influence on companies to encourage them to take responsible action. That has been a big change over the course of the last decade. It can lead to better risk management and potentially also improve returns on investments, as well as helping companies to perform better in relation to environmental targets.

My overall argument, though, is that trustees must already consider financially material risks, including ESG factors. The statement of investment principles and the implementation statement are key tools that are already in place for disclosing a scheme’s approach to ESG issues, including climate change. Ultimately, the amendment is about disclosures; that is what it aims to achieve. Additionally, large schemes with assets above £1 billion, which in future will be the majority of schemes because of the scale measures that we will come back to, must also report on climate-related risks and opportunities, in line with the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures.

We are looking to strengthen sustainability reporting, exactly as the hon. Member for Torbay wishes to see, through new UK sustainability reporting standards and our transition plan’s commitment, which the Government consulted on this summer. Taken together, our policy initiatives will modernise the UK’s framework for corporate reporting, giving pension schemes vital information about companies’ decarbonisation plans and about whether to escalate their engagement efforts with investee companies on environmental issues. The DWP is contributing to that work and will review the effectiveness of climate reporting requirements later this year, as part of our post-implementation review of the requirements of the Taskforce on Inequality and Social-related Financial Disclosures.

Given the existing reporting requirements, the Government’s position is that we will gently resist the amendments, to avoid duplication.

[Steve Darling]

Climate change is an existential threat to humanity, and although sewage may not be such a threat, it is still a significant issue; indeed, it is a wicked issue that needs to be tackled by our society as a whole. I wish to press the amendment to a vote, to show the Committee’s intent ahead of the Bill’s next stage.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, I should say that it is not clear to me whether Mr Darling wishes to speak to amendments 1 and 2, which are in this grouping.

[Steve Darling]

That had eluded me, Sir Christopher, so thank you for drawing me out on this one. Amendments 1 and 2 ensure that there is consistency and that there are no gaps where schemes could perhaps fall between the cracks of legislation. We feel that the amendments would give that continuity of support to schemes.

[Torsten Bell]

In response to the hon. Member for Torbay, I should say that I have already set out the case for the value for money framework not covering defined benefit pension schemes, which is what the effect of the amendment would be.

To the questions raised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, broadly, the answer is yes: the regulations will be published in detail as part of the consultation. Significant consultations have already gone on with a very wide range of stakeholders, both by the TPR and by the Financial Conduct Authority. There are further consultations, and then draft regulations, to come. It is worth thinking about how a lot of the changes in the Bill reinforce each other. It is important that we make reasonably swift progress on the value for money regulations, because the value for money regime is a requirement for us to be able to then make progress on some of the other bits that we will come to discuss, such as contract override and, indeed, small pots.

Amendment 28 agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Publication etc of metric data

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Clause 12 seems fairly reasonable in its approach. Liberal Democrat new clause 42 seems in the broadest sense to follow our amendment 254 in respect of the Australian model; should it be pressed to a vote, we would be happy to support it. I have nothing more to add.

[Steve Darling]

As I stated earlier, one of our key drivers is making sure that people are able to make quality, informed decisions about their financial long-term future. The debate on the new clause drives that agenda. I am sure that the Minister has the best intentions, but what we are discussing is still within regulations that have yet to break cover. We would be more comfortable if it was in the Bill rather than tucked away in regulations. We will seek to press the new clause to a vote when the time comes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Member satisfaction surveys

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Torsten Bell]

It will be a great relief to everybody to hear that clause 13, although vital, is relatively small. Importantly, it enables requirements relating to member satisfaction surveys, of a kind that I know hon. Members are supportive of, to be set out in the value for money regulations. As I have just argued, quality of service is one of the key pillars of the value for money assessment, and member satisfaction is a key aspect within that pillar. These surveys will allow schemes to better understand their members’ experience and to gauge just how good a service they are providing for scheme members. Members’ experiences and views on the quality of service will provide inputs to the holistic assessment of value that this entire part of the Bill aims to offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. The story that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay, told about his father is the most important point here. As we come to the point where we want to cash in the defined-contribution pension, we could find ourselves cashing in at completely the wrong moment. In a stock market crash, although it could be just a blip in a long-term bull market, none the less the hon. Member’s father would have seen a 37% drop in the value of his equities if he was benchmarked to the FTSE 100. If he was in higher growth businesses, he could, as the hon. Member said, have seen a 50% drop. So we have to be very careful.

We can be as risky as we like when we are 21 years old. I cannot remember whether it was Adam Smith or Einstein who said that the eighth great wonder of the world is compound interest. Obviously we want to take risk early but, as we come up to that day when we finally turn our papers in and go home on the last day of work, we need to make sure we have got as much money out of our pension fund as we possibly can. That is why it is important to ensure that the VFM framework does not cause problems.

[Steve Darling]

This is a very interesting debate as lives continue to lengthen. In terms of people’s capabilities at different ages, 70 is probably the new 60. The reality is that someone might want to take out a proportion of their pension and hope for growth into their 80s, and then crystallise it at that stage of their life. Not that long ago, we had to buy an annuity, and there was not much choice, so we hit a hard wall. There is greater flexibility in the system now.

I want to talk about chickens. We heard talk in the evidence earlier this week of herding chickens, and of people not wanting to be the only white chicken in brown chicken world. It is about allowing the risk that drives growth. We know that allowing that risk can also drive a more vibrant economy. I welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how this framework can avoid that herding and how he would do that. I fear that the answer will be, “It will all be in the regulations and secondary legislation”, but some words of wisdom from the Minister would be welcome.

Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

This is a very uncontentious and highly technical part of the Bill. We have no objections to any of these provisions and so will be supporting them.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I echo that this is a direction of travel that we welcome. The vast majority of the proposals that are before us today are uncontentious. They follow the correct direction of travel in growth and change that we want to see in our pensions system in the United Kingdom.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29

Further provision about contents of small pots regulations

[Torsten Bell]

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 29, page 27, leave out lines 14 and 15.

This amendment clarifies that small pots regulations may confer rights of appeal more broadly than just in relation to the refusal of an application for authorisation.

--- Later in debate ---

Secondly, for providers, the current model is not just inconvenient, but a drag on the system. It is fragmented, inflates costs, blocks economy of scale and undermines the returns that savers get on their investment, whereas a lifetime model would streamline the process and cut unnecessary costs. The obvious benefits of consolidation are clear, but the lifetime pension pot model gives people a sense of ownership of their pensions. I hope the Minister takes on board my comments.

[Steve Darling]

As Liberal Democrats, one of the key lenses through which we look at the legislation is: how does it simplify the world for those who are not the most financially literate savers into their pensions? As Liberal Democrats, we strongly support the “pot follows member” approach, as it would simplify matters for people. It would ensure a clearer mechanism for savers to be aware of the level of their pension as their life moves on, and allow investments to be drawn together more easily. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s reflections on that, and on why the Australian model is unsuitable for the United Kingdom.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I want to add a few things to what my hon. Friends have said, and to reflect on the Minister’s rejection of our new clause as a significant administrative burden. I think we are talking about two sides of the same coin, because to have to keep hunting out small pension pots is a little like looking for things in the dark.

First, we are effectively advocating for a “Who Wants to be a Millionaire?” approach, where someone banks at each stage. I have done that while moving jobs over my lifetime, but I am fairly financially literate. It would be helpful if there were a box to tick on a form when changing job to say, “Yes, I want to move it to this company,” a bit like we do with our P45—we are quite capable of taking our tax with us from job to job. If there were a way of taking our pension with us as well, that would be helpful.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire said, that approach would put ownership in the hands of the employee, and it would mean that they did not have a niggling feeling in the back of their mind that they had missed a pot that they had forgotten about. Anything to enable people to have ownership of that pot, rather than be constantly on the back foot trying to hunt it down, would make significant sense. Allowing people to choose rather than having to accept what is offered to them would be incredibly helpful. Ultimately, it is up to them to do what they wish, but they would at least have the choice.

We heard a lot in the evidence sessions about the challenge of communication. We have seen that with Equitable Life and all sorts of other things to do with pensions. When someone changes employer, if there were a simple way to say, “I wish to take the pension with me to the new job,” that would reduce, not increase, the administrative burden. I appreciate what the Minister said, but although we are not looking to push our new clause to a vote, it is an incredibly pragmatic suggestion that warrants further reflection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

We have no objection to the technical amendments, but we will oppose the whole clause.

[Steve Darling]

We have no issue with the technical amendments. However, for us the crucial issue in the Bill is driving an environment of positive investment, and a system in the United Kingdom that individual investors—as in, would-be pensioners—can believe in.

The mandation element causes concern. As has been alluded to, there are assumptions that Ministers are reasonable people; however, we do not have to look that far across the Atlantic ocean to see politicians behaving unreasonably. It concerns us as Liberal Democrats that giving powers in the Bill without clear management of them is potentially a step too far. While the Minister, and other Ministers in the current Government, may be reasonable, who knows what is coming down the line in a very turbulent political system?

We therefore continue to have grave concerns around mandation, and look forward to hearing what assurances the Minister is able to give. The key outcome for us is making sure that there is a stable pensions system in which people can have confidence, because confidence is crucial for driving the positive investment that I am sure everybody in this room wants to see.

[The Chair]

I remind all Members that we are talking about the technical amendments. There will be a chance to talk about the clause later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I am reassured that our agreement that scale is the desirable outcome is clear. It is great to have that on the record. I also put on the record that there is agreement about the value of innovation and about new entrants. I think that the only distinction is between a new entrant that then grows and a new entrant that does not. Our approach is to allow new entrants, but they need to be ones with a plausible sense that they can get to scale. Inherent to most of the innovation in the market—for example, in collective defined-contribution schemes—is that they would have to operate at scale to be effective. I think that the banking analogy is actually quite apt.

[Steve Darling]

Would the Minister be kind enough to reflect on a situation currently at play in the market, whereby Phoenix Group is withdrawing the management of billions of pounds from Aberdeen Group? These master products offer opportunities that could significantly impact on viability. Could the Minister reflect on that?

[Torsten Bell]

Let me just finish the point about the financial crisis, then I will come to the hon. Member’s question. The lesson from the financial crisis was that banks were too big, and the lesson that we all agree about is that pension schemes are too small. That is the distinction—that is why we are doing this Bill now and why the previous Conservative Government introduced different changes after the financial crisis. We are in a very different situation. That said, we need to prepare for the future and, when there are bigger pension schemes, we want a world where new entrants can come into them. I hear what has been said. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we want to see new entrants offering innovative products. I take the point about services, which we will come back to when we come to amendment 113, but that needs to be a pathway, not a permanent carve-out that risks undermining the scale requirements.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I shall speak briefly because I am conscious that we need to adjourn shortly for Treasury orals, which I know everybody will be joining us for. I will not rehearse the arguments I have already set out against the purpose of amendments 248 and 249, other than to note that I do not agree with the characterisation by the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire.

Amendment 275 seeks to prevent the Government from designating securities in UK water companies as qualifying assets for the purpose of the asset allocation requirement. I recognise the points that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest made, and I am not surprised to hear that Reform has not thought through its policies in this regard. The Government have set out the safeguards we have put in place around the use of this power. We do not think we should single out a particular sector in primary legislation, so I ask Members not to press their amendments.

I thank the hon. Member for Horsham for introducing new clause 4. The investment he references is exactly the kind that we think would raise financial returns and improve quality of life at retirement. That is the purpose of these changes. He rightly raises the bringing together of the demand side—that is, the Mansion House accord and the change in investment behaviours—with the supply side. That is exactly what the Government are doing via planning permissions and everything else, to ensure that the pipeline of projects is there, including via the British Growth Partnership work, which is intermediating all of that. On that basis, we think that the new clause is unnecessary, but I completely agree with much that it contains.

[Steve Darling]

Reflecting on events over the weekend, may I congratulate the Minister on being one of the few who remained in post? There is talk of the Prime Minister using all levers of power to drive forward work on certain wicked issues. One of the big wicked issues is the lack of affordable housing. In my constituency of Torbay, only 8% of our housing stock is social-rented, compared with a national average of 17%. I encourage the Minister to reflect again on this and take the opportunity of new clause 4—surely socialists should vote for clause 4. This is another opportunity to apply all the pressure we can to drive more social-rented housing, to support our communities and those most in need in society.

[Torsten Bell]

I just point out that many of the measures in the Bill will support exactly that kind of investment in social housing, including those on scale and the local government pension scheme. On that basis, I think these amendments are unnecessary.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 9th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister for talking through the amendments. We understand the intention behind them, but we are worried that, as can often be the case, there may be an unintended consequence: the creation of a closed shop for master trusts. We do not want suddenly to find that, in trying to make a transition pathway, we end up making things more difficult because it has been interpreted in the wrong way. We are minded to oppose the amendments, but perhaps the Minister could instead give us his thoughts on how we can ensure that they do not get used the wrong way and that we do not end up with a closed shop of master trusts.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I echo what the shadow Minister has just highlighted. We all want the reform that the Bill introduces, but we do not want what results from this process to be set up forever, with a lack of opportunity for change; I will talk a little further about that when we come to new clause 3. Some reassurance from the Minister that there is an opportunity for new entrants and innovation would be extremely welcome.

[Torsten Bell]

I apologise for my slip of the tongue at the start of my speech. This group of amendments deals with transition pathway relief. Here, in many cases we are talking about existing schemes that may not meet the £25 billion threshold, but which have a plausible path to that scale requirement over the following five years—I think that is a point of consensus across the Committee. That is what we are engaging with here. It is a reasonable approach to avoid a cliff edge, for exactly the reason that the shadow Minister set out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

These amendments clarify aspects of the approval criteria for prospective new entrants into the multi-employer DC market after the scale requirements come into force. Amendment 112 requires that a new prospective provider must have no current members—it must actually be new to the market. We want to ensure that the route is used only by those for whom it is intended, rather than as a loophole around the main intent of the Bill.

Amendment 113 requires that new entrants have strong potential to grow in order to meet the scale requirements under section 28A, and that the prospective scheme in question has an innovative product design. I think we will come to the question of product shortly, but to skip ahead, the regulations would allow us to talk about innovation in the nature of the service, not just in the product. That is a question for us to take away in the design of those regulations. That is not in the Bill itself, but it is an important clarification.

The remaining amendments in this group are consequential on amendment 113. They will offer greater clarity to potential applicants to this pathway, and I commend them to the Committee.

I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 3 and acknowledge his wish that the pathway for new entrants into the DC multi-employer market be as supportive as possible for new providers. We of course agree with that sentiment. We want to see fewer, bigger schemes, but not a lack of competition in the longer run, even though we are a long way from that.

From an innovation viewpoint, the new clause is not necessary to achieve that aim. Competition will come from the possibility of innovation, but must also flow into the building of scale, which is the overall intent of the legislation. Given that the spirit of the new clause is achieved by the new entrants pathway, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.

[Steve Darling]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

Will the Minister put a little more flesh on the bone in respect of the ladder of opportunity for new entrants? We need to make sure that we do not end up with a system with large schemes and nobody being able to get into the super-league of opportunity that we have currently. We want to see innovation over time and hoped that, through the new clause, we could bake that into the system. We can have aspirations for how future Ministers deal with these matters, but we must give confidence to the industry in respect of future entrants, so that it continues to be a vibrant industry that drives investment and growth for people’s pensions. That is essential. We would be extremely grateful for some more flesh on the bone.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I appreciate the Minister’s clarification that I had talked about amendment 113 prematurely, but it was relevant in the context of the previous discussion.

I also appreciate the Minister’s clarification on the definition of “product”. I understand why he wants to make the amendment to tighten the Bill up a wee bit; however, it potentially tightens it up too much. Before Report, will he consider whether the use of the word “product” is right? Does he need to look at including that word in the definitions provided at the end of clause 38—I do not think it is currently included—to cover not only the physical things or offerings to people in terms of the products and investments they could look at, but the niche and specific service provision that might be attractive to people who are looking to invest their pensions because they have specific life conditions, or because their life and work does not fit into a normal box? I appreciate the earlier clarification in respect of the default products, which was incredibly important and helped to clarify my mind, but it would be helpful if the Minister agreed to take away my suggestion.

I can understand why the Liberal Democrats tabled new clause 3. We should consider where we are with the innovation pathway, and the fact that the new entrant pathway exists and the relevant regulations have not yet been created. I assume that the Minister and his team will listen to a huge number of people. Clause 38 says that

“such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

must be consulted; I hope that will be a wide group of people with significant experience in the industry.

Given that so many of us have mentioned challenger banks and new financial institutions, perhaps the consultation will look at what has been learned in that respect and whether some of the innovative decisions, and the regulations that allowed the provision of innovative products, should be included in the scope of the regulations. I would rather the innovation be quite wide, rather than quite tight, given that the scale thresholds and requirements have to be met anyway.

If somebody has a credible plan to reach that scale, surely pretty much any of the innovative solutions they may be suggesting are good, because they are also providing a credible plan to get that significant level of scale and the efficiencies that come along with that. Potentially the definition of products in the defined terms at the end could be a good vehicle for the Minister to ensure that the scope is as wide as he would like it to be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. There is not a formal requirement on the Secretary of State to carry out a review as we are going. My honest view is that any regulator and Secretary of State will want to actively monitor what happens. I very strongly expect that this will be discussed at great length at every single pension conference around those years, because all the providers will be talking to each other about how they are taking these things forward.

The hon. Lady will remember the discussion last Tuesday with some providers, including the National Employment Savings Trust and People’s Pension, about how they are already planning to bring these solutions forward. Although they are new for the industry, most providers had already been thinking about this, because they know that it would be the right thing to do even if there were not a Government requirement to do it, and because I have been clear with them for quite some time that this is the direction of travel in both the trust market and the GPP market.

I am not sure that we need a rigid, set date for a review, but I will take away the hon. Lady’s wider question about what reassurance we can offer that people will be actively monitoring what has happened rather than just watching and seeing what happens. I can certainly write to the regulators, for example, to make it clear that that will be our expectation.

Amendment 147 agreed to.

Amendments made: 148, in clause 42, page 55, line 11, at beginning insert

“at least in such circumstances or”.

This amendment allows for regulations to provide that particular events (as well as times or intervals) trigger a requirement to review default pension benefit solutions.

Amendment 149, in clause 42, page 55, line 13, leave out “relevant” and insert “pension”.

This amendment ensures that the definition of “pension benefit solution” is capable of operating in relation to a pension scheme that is not a relevant scheme (such as a collective money purchase scheme).

Amendment 150, in clause 42, page 55, line 25, leave out

“as a default pension benefit solution,”

and insert

“of the scheme as the pension benefit solution under which—

(i) the eligible members of the scheme generally, or

(ii) a subset of those eligible members,

will receive pension payments unless they choose to receive pension payments under a different pension benefit solution,”.

This amendment clarifies the definition of “default pension benefit solution”.

Amendment 151, in clause 42, page 55, line 40, at end insert

“;

(d) such other factors as may be prescribed.”—(Torsten Bell.)

This amendment allows other factors to be added by regulations to the factors that trustees or managers of a relevant scheme have to take account of in determining what default pension benefit solutions the scheme should make available.

[Steve Darling]

I beg to move amendment 279, in clause 42, page 55, line 40, at end insert—

“(4A) The trustees or managers of a relevant scheme, in determining whether to adopt or vary a default pension benefit solution, must—

(a) issue a written notice of the proposal to all members of the scheme, including—

(i) the expected impact on benefits and investment strategy, and

(ii) a written attestation that a market-wide assessment of all available options was undertaken;

(b) ensure a consultation period of at least 60 days has elapsed;

(c) confirm that fewer than 10 per cent of eligible members have objected in writing.”

This amendment adds the “without member opposition” safeguard to defined contribution schemes when changes to default pension benefit solutions are considered. It also requires a whole of market assessment to ensure the best solutions are chosen for members.

It is a privilege to move the amendment, because as Liberal Democrats we want to make sure that pensioners are at the heart of the Bill, as do many colleagues of different parties in this room, I am sure. For us, it is about driving a positive culture of engagement. The expectations that these proposals would place on managers or trustees would drive a positive engagement culture, as well as putting guardrails and protections around investments. I would welcome the Minister’s reflections on how the Bill would tackle our aspiration for the positive engagement culture that I am sure all Members in the room wish to see achieved through the Bill.

[Torsten Bell]

The amendment is absolutely right that trustees should consider a wide range of options when they are developing their default pension benefit solutions. As I have just remarked to the hon. Member for Aberdeen North, I suspect that that will be a big focus for trustees and scheme managers in the years ahead. Clause 48 does make provision for trustees or managers to consider the needs and interests of scheme members. I would emphasise that as the priority, as opposed to considering every option already on the market, because we are looking for them to develop the right solutions. In most but not all cases, that will be in-house; we will come back to some of the cases where they will not be doing that. We do not want to make it sound like an off-the-shelf situation in lots of cases, although I appreciate that doing their job will require them to look across the market.

I have a slight worry about setting a hard 10% of membership expressing an objection as a way of vetoing an approach. First, in many cases, there will not be a single default solution for members within a scheme; there will be a number of them for different cohorts within that scheme, not least based on the size of pots or their wider situation. We do not want a subset of a scheme to be able to vote down the solutions for everybody within the scheme, which is what the amendment would allow. The amendment would also allow those who are a very long way from retirement to shape the outcomes for those who are about to come to retirement.

My most important point, however, is that individuals have an absolute right to opt out. Although we talk in terms of default, just as we talk about automatic enrolment, the purpose is that this is a softer default than automatic enrolment. That is partly because we are expecting multiple defaults, not a single one where everyone is required to save at least a certain amount, but also because people will be able to opt out and have a range of different defaults.

I hope that I have provided reassurance that the Bill already includes important safeguards, and that trustees and scheme managers will already need to consider the issues that the Liberal Democrat amendment rightly puts on the table.

[Steve Darling]

I thank the Minister for his positive feedback. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 152, in clause 42, page 56, line 1, leave out

“are to assess the needs and interests of its”

and insert

“of a scheme are to assess the needs and interests of the scheme’s”.

This amendment corrects a minor verbal inconsistency.

Amendment 153, in clause 42, page 56, line 14, leave out “money purchase benefits” and insert

“benefits falling within paragraph (a) of the definition of ‘money purchase benefits’ in section 181(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993”.

This amendment restricts the definition of “eligible member” of a relevant scheme so that it does not include members who are accruing or entitled to collective money purchase benefits.

Amendment 154, in clause 42, page 56, line 16, leave out “established under a trust”.

This amendment amends the definition of “relevant scheme” so schemes that are not established under a trust may fall within the definition.

Amendment 155, in clause 42, page 56, line 25, at beginning insert “(1)(b) or”.—(Torsten Bell.)

This amendment provides for negative parliamentary procedure for regulations that prescribe when or in what circumstances default pension benefit solutions need to be reviewed.

Clause 42, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Transferable members