(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“Report on the impact of pension market consolidation(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, publish a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market.(2) The report must include an assessment of—(a) the level of market concentration among pension scheme providers, including trends in the number and size of schemes;(b) the effects of consolidation on competition, innovation, and consumer choice in the pensions market;(c) the potential barriers to entry and growth for small and medium-sized pension providers;(d) the adequacy of existing regulatory and competition safeguards in preventing anti-competitive behaviour regarding—(i) exclusivity arrangements,(ii) exit charges, and(iii) pricing structures;(e) the role of The Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority in monitoring and responding to market concentration;(f) the merits of policy or regulatory measures to support new market entrants.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Government to report on the impact of market consolidation on competition and new market entrants.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, this amendment has the distinction of being in a grouping all of its own, which obviously shows how important it is. The proposed new clause in it would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on
“the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market”.
It would ensure, I hope, that Parliament and the public have transparency on how consolidation is reshaping the sector. We know that consolidation is accelerating in the pensions market and, although scale can deliver benefits—I hope—it can also raise risks: reduced competition, fewer choices for savers and further barriers for new entrants. A clear evidence base is an essential part of the solution to strike the right balance.
The report referenced in this amendment calls for information on a number of things. The first is market concentration—for instance, trends in the number and size of schemes and the level of provider dominance. The second is effects on competition and innovation: whether consolidation is driving efficiency or stifling creativity and diversity. The third is consumer choice: how member options are being affected. The fourth is barriers to entry: challenges faced by small and medium-sized providers in entering or growing in the market. The last is an assessment of whether current competition and regulatory safeguards are sufficient.
The report would also have a particular focus on exclusivity arrangements, exit charges and pricing structures that may distort the market. Furthermore, the Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority would have a role in overseeing these risks. The review would also examine potential policies or regulations to support new entrants and maintain a healthy and competitive pensions market.
To summarise, we know that consolidation must serve savers’ interests, not just the interests of the largest providers. This proposed new clause would ensure that Parliament is properly informed—it should be informed on all things, whether on this or on the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—that regulators are held to account and that future policy is based on evidence. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, well-functioning markets matter. Competition, diversity of approach and the ability for new entrants to challenge incumbents are essential if savers are to benefit over the long term. Ministers need to explain why a formal review of consolidation is resisted, given the scale of structural change this will accelerate. We are asking just for a review, and we hope the Government will not think this too much to ask for before we enter this new realm. I beg to move.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate and respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his Amendment 184. I am grateful to him for raising this issue, because it goes to the heart of how we ensure that pension reform delivers better outcomes for savers rather than simply neater market structures on paper. I think there is reasonably wide backing across the pensions industry for the Government’s broad objective of greater consolidation and efficiency within the defined contribution market. Many stakeholders accept, and indeed support, the proposition that increased scale, when combined with robust governance, strong investment capability and appropriate oversight, has the potential to deliver stronger long-term outcomes for members. Few would argue for fragmentation for its own sake.
However, support for consolidation is not the same as support for consolidation at any cost, or consolidation pursued without sufficient regard to its secondary effects. Well-founded concerns remain that the current design of the scale test risks it being too blunt an instrument. In particular, it does not distinguish adequately between schemes that are genuinely underperforming and those smaller or mid-sized providers that, despite operating below the proposed thresholds, none the less deliver consistently high-quality, well-governed and, in some cases, market-leading outcomes for savers. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis underlines this risk. The chart contained in paragraph 70 of the Government’s 2024 report shows no clear or consistent correlation between assets under management and gross five-year performance across large parts of the master trust and group personal pension market.
The principal scale-related concern identified appears to relate not to well-run schemes operating below the threshold but to the very smallest arrangements, in particular certain single-employer schemes where governance capacity and resilience can be more limited. That matters because consolidation in a pensions market is not a neutral process. This is not a typical consumer market. Savers are largely captive, choice is constrained, switching is rare and inertia is high. In such an environment, reductions in the number of providers can weaken competitive pressure long before anything resembling a monopoly appears. The risk is not always higher charges tomorrow but slower innovation, less responsiveness and poorer outcomes over time.
That is why this amendment is important. It would ensure that consolidation serves savers and that Parliament retains a clear grip on how the market is evolving. Small distortions in competition today—barely visible in the short term—can compound into materially worse outcomes over 30 or 40 years of saving. In a system built on long horizons, early and structured scrutiny is essential.
There is also the question of innovation. Smaller and newer providers have often been the source of advances in member engagement, digital capability, decumulation options and investment design. If consolidation raises barriers to entry through disproportionate compliance costs, restrictive exit charges or exclusivity arrangements, innovation risks being squeezed out, even where headline charges appear to fall. Efficiency gains that come at the expense of progress are a poor bargain for future retirees.
The report required by this amendment would not obstruct sensible consolidation; nor would it second-guess the direction of travel. Rather, it would provide Parliament with the evidence needed to ensure that consolidation is proportionate, targeted and genuinely in the interest of savers. It would help ensure that regulatory and competition safeguards remain fit for purpose as market structures change, and that opportunities for new high-quality entrants are not inadvertently closed off.
For these reasons, I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance. It is supportive of reform, alert to risk and grounded firmly in the long-term interests of those whose retirement security depends on the decisions we take today.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment, which would require the Government to conduct a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions sector within 12 months of the Act being passed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her remarks and her acknowledgement of the benefits of consolidation and the widespread support for it.
The fact is that consolidation is already happening across the pension landscape. The number of DC pension providers has reduced from roughly 3,700 in 2012 to about 950 schemes today. On the DB side, the number of schemes is similarly down from about 6,500 in 2012 to 4,800 in 2026, with a record number of transactions currently estimated in the buyout market. Our aim is to accelerate this trend of consolidation through the DC scale measures and DP superfunds. As I have said before, scale brings numerous benefits directed at improving member outcomes, including better governance, greater efficiency, in-house expertise and access to investment in productive markets.
I am not going to respond in detail to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on innovation and other things, because we have given them a decent canter in previous meetings in Committee, but it is absolutely essential that pension schemes remain competitive post-scale. We expect that schemes with scale will innovate and drive competition, especially, for example, in consolidating single-employer trusts. The market will evolve, as will the needs of members, and we expect that the schemes and the industry will be able to align with this.
It is absolutely right that the Bill will lead to major change in the occupational pensions market. Although I do not agree with this particular proposal, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we must understand and monitor the impact of these reforms, because the impacts of consolidation really matter. That is why a comprehensive impact assessment was produced, analysing the potential impacts of the Bill, with plans to evaluate the impact in further detail. An updated version of the impact assessment was published as the Bill entered this House; crucially, it included further details of our ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans, including critical success factors and collaboration across departments and regulators.
We have provided the market with clarity on our approach so that changes can be put into effect, but we need to allow time to assess and evaluate the impacts following full implementation. We will assess the overall impacts over an appropriate timeframe, given that the full effects of consolidation will be after the Bill has been implemented.
As I have mentioned before, we published a pensions road map, which clearly sets out when we aim for each measure to come into force. The fact is that many of the regulations to be made under the Bill will not have been made or brought into force within a year of the Bill becoming an Act. Any review at that point could be only very partial. However, the Government are committed to strong monitoring and evaluation of this policy, especially of its impact on members. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is absolutely right to point to the crucial role of the Pensions Regulator and the CMA. They are best placed, in the first instance, to monitor the impacts of consolidation as part of their respective statutory functions, including an analysis of emerging trends. The Pensions Regulator, for example, will play a key role in monitoring the impact of consolidation on the trust-based DC pensions market via its value-for-money framework.
I can therefore assure the Committee that we will keep this area under review, consistent with our stated policy aims for the sector and for good member outcomes. We will also continue to monitor our working arrangements with the regulators; this includes their ongoing monitoring of the pensions industry. We will submit a memorandum to the Work and Pensions Select Committee with a preliminary analysis of how the Act has worked three to five years following Royal Assent. The committee may then decide to conduct a fuller inquiry into the Act, consistent with standard practice, as set out in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation.
Given the above, a separate government report risks duplicating work while putting an undue burden on all those involved. If issues are identified by regulators before the Government submit a post-legislative memorandum, and there is a need for government action, then an evidence-based response can be taken. I completely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this and I thank him for raising this debate. However, I hope that he feels reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that; it gives me some reassurance, and I am always happy to say when that happens. The aim of the amendment is to improve the Bill, not to undermine it. Some of the things that the Minister has suggested may happen are already happening. When figures are quoted quickly—such as 950 schemes of one sort and 4,826 of the other—the numbers do not seem so large, but they are pretty substantial in terms of those impacted.
We are worried about the impact of consolidation. I rather get the impression that the Minister is aware that there could be problems that need to be reviewed as we go along, and we will need time to assess what is happening. I take cognisance of the Minister’s reassurances: they take us along the same path as I am suggesting. We will have time, obviously, to review what is happening as time progresses. In the light of that, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 7 to the Pensions Act 2004 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the Government recognise that the pension compensation system and the safety net it offers need to work harder for members. Payments from the Pension Protection Fund, the PPF, and the Financial Assistance Scheme, FAS, based on pensions built up before 1997, do not get uprated with inflation—pre-1997 indexation. Over time, they have lost a significant amount of their value in real terms. I am therefore particularly pleased to introduce Clauses 108 to 110, which together provide for pre-1997 indexation in the PPF and FAS, and extend this provision to members covered by the Northern Ireland legislation.
Clause 108 amends the relevant provisions in the Pensions Act 2004 and the Pensions Act 2008. It introduces increases on compensation payments from the PPF that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. These will be CPI-linked and capped at 2.5%, and will apply prospectively to payments for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. Clause 109 makes equivalent amendments to the relevant Northern Ireland provisions, in the same way that Clause 108 does to GB legislation. This will ensure that PPF members covered by Northern Ireland legislation are treated in the same way as their counterparts in Great Britain. Clause 110 amends the relevant FAS regulations to introduce increases on compensation payments from the FAS that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. As with the other clauses, these increases will be CPI-linked, capped at 2.5% and applied prospectively for members whose former schemes provided for these increases. We expect that first payments will be made to members whose former scheme provided for increases from January 2027.
Some affected members only had annual pre-1997 increases within their scheme due to the guaranteed minimum pension, or GMP, part of their pension. There is a statutory requirement for pension schemes annually to uplift any GMPs earned between April 1988 and April 1997. As such, PPF and FAS members who had only a post-1998 GMP will also receive increases on a proportion of their pre-1997 compensation payment. That is because the PPF is not legally required to separately identify GMPs when a scheme transfers to the PPF or qualifies for FAS.
We will therefore calculate a standardised percentage amount for PPF members to ensure that those who had this legal requirement for increases do not miss out. That will be done via regulations, and careful consideration will be given to this standardised approach. The Secretary of State will make the equivalent determination for FAS. Clauses 108 and 109 also give the PPF board the same discretion to adjust the percentage rate of pre-1997 indexation as it currently has for post-1997 increases.
These reforms bring a step change that will make a meaningful difference to affected PPF and FAS members. Incomes will be boosted by an average of around £400 for PPF members and around £300 for FAS members per year after the first five years. The pension compensation system will now offer a stronger safety net for members who, up until now, had lost out on pre-1997 inflation protection following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.
We have tabled eight minor and technical government amendments that amend the relevant provisions in the PPF legislation, including the Northern Ireland legislation and the relevant FAS regulations. These are to ensure that the pre-1997 increases in the PPF and FAS are implemented as intended and that affected members are able to receive the appropriate increases.
These amendments apply where an eligible scheme operated with more than one benefit structure. For example, a scheme may have paid increases on pensions built up before 6 April 1997 for one group of members but for another group the scheme may have paid increases only on GMPs built up on or after 6 April 1988. As the provisions were originally drafted, the latter group would not have had an entitlement to pre-1997 increases from the PPF or FAS. We want that group of members to receive indexation on a proportion of their pre-1997 compensation, and these amendments remedy the position.
I will comment on the other amendments in the group when I respond at the end of the debate. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I will speak to my Amendment 203ZB. I thank my noble friend for the decision in the Budget to grant future increases. That is very much to be welcomed. As for the technical difficulties, I would love an opportunity to start discussing GMPs and even better if we got on to the anti-franking rules, but that is not the issue that I wish to raise today. As I have not moved the lead amendment, I have only 10 minutes.
In working out what I had to say, I realised that there are three groups dealing with pre-1997 increases: this group, group 2, the next group, group 3, where the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, will move her amendment, and group 5, where at last I get 15 minutes as the mover of the amendment. There are issues that run through all three groups. That is not to downplay the importance of group 4 and the AWE proposals. There are intertwined issues here. There is the reduction in real terms of members’ benefits since they came into payment and the introduction of future increases. There is also the issue that is the subject of my amendment in group 2 and of the amendments in group 3, which is the losses that have been incurred by pre-1997 pensioners.
I am glad that the Minister said that those pensioners have lost out. I am glad that we have that common ground: they have lost out. Then there is the issue of pre-1997 benefits for schemes that are still active. Whether or not they are open to new members, they have pensioners and their legal entitlements to pre-1997 benefits differ from those post-1997. There are common themes there and I suspect that my remarks on all three groups could be put together and make a more coherent whole. In particular, there is a big issue about inflation protection for pre-1997. It is all about pre-1997. What was the feeling about inflation protection back in those days when it was under discussion? Even though it applies to this group, I am going to save that for group 3, when I shall move my Amendment 203.
I am not going to address in this group, although this is probably the most important point of all, the impact that this has had on the individuals concerned. I have had a substantial postbag, most of it by email, pointing out the problems that they have faced. I am not going to focus on that now because I have a limited amount of time, but to me it is the crucial point.
I shall start with the PPF and then come to the FAS in a moment. The principle has been established that PPF pensioners deserve increases in their pensions in respect of pre-1997 service. The Government agree with that principle but they are only going to implement it for the future. The same principle should apply to the past as to the future. Why should they be entitled to increases in the future if they are not entitled to exactly similar increases for the past? I am not talking about retrospection. This amendment has nothing to do with retrospection; it just says that these pensioners deserve pensions now in real terms that are the same in monetary value as they were when they came into payment.
The only reason why one would make a distinction between the increases in the future and making good the increases that have been lost in the past is the cost. I cannot think of any other plausible reason. There is no difference between them in terms of justice; it is simply about the cost. However, we know, because the PPF has given us the figures, that that does not apply here. The money is in the PPF that can afford these increases. It has a significant and growing excess of assets over liabilities and, because of that, the levy is being suspended. The employer providing these schemes is gaining the benefit—in effect, a sort of refund of the surplus that has been built up. Well, fair enough, they have paid for it, but so have the members and they are entitled to the increase. Whatever they had when their pensions came into payment should be increased from January 2027 to allow for what they would have got in respect of post-1997 benefits. That is clear and I hope that the Government will accept the point.
Then we come on to the FAS. The big difference between the PPF and the FAS is that the FAS is funded out of general taxation. However, let us be clear why the FAS is there: it is because Governments of both parties failed to provide the protection that they were required to give under European law, in the face of the fantastic campaign that was run on behalf of the pensioners of schemes that became insolvent—and employers that became insolvent—prior to the implementation of the PPF. That is the only reason why they are in the FAS. It was the Government’s failure; it was not their failure. Why should they lose out? Governments failed to provide them with protection. They only introduced the PPF from 2005, but the people who lost their pensions prior to that date are just as entitled. The Government gave in because of the fantastic campaign, as I say, but also because of the threat of further legal action at the European court that they knew they would lose. To make a distinction between FAS members and PPF is totally unfair and unreasonable.
There will be a cost and, because it is the FAS, it will fall on the taxpayers, but one principle is clear: where the Government have a debt to make good something that they have got wrong, they cannot excuse themselves from that debt by saying, “Sorry, we don’t quite have the money”. They should pay up. It is quite clear that the same treatment should be afforded to the FAS members as to the PPF members.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I support Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton. I shall also address the government amendments in this group. I have signed the noble Lord’s Amendment 203, which we will come to later, recognising that he has professional expertise far greater than mine in dealing with these matters and believing that he comes to these issues, as I am certain he does, from a position of recognising that one group of workers in particular—those of Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff—were extremely badly treated over 20 years ago, about which I spoke earlier in our deliberations.
I listened with interest and concern to the explanation given by the Minister for introducing these amendments, and I am far from certain as to whether, when enacted, the discretion to which she referred will give former employees of Allied Steel and Wire any of the redress which they seek for the pension loss they suffered with regard to their pre-1997 employment. Are we today recognising the fairness of their claim but not providing any vehicle by which it can, in fact, be met? That is my fear.
In Committee in the other place, my Plaid Cymru colleague, Ann Davies MP, introduced two amendments to provide indexation for compensation under FAS and the PPF to cover both pre-1997 and post-1997 service, and to reimburse members for the annual increase they should have received. The Government rejected those amendments, saying they would not work. Ann Davies MP came back on Report proposing a new clause to provide indexation. The Government rejected that clause so, in considering these and possibly later amendments, I ask the Minister whether their combined effect will do anything at all to give the pre-1997 pensions full indexation and not limit them to the 2.5% cap which Ministers supported in the other place? Will they do anything to reimburse those members for the annual increases which they never received?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support and have added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I support all his remarks, especially on the only excuse for not recognising that people need pre-1997 indexation going forward. There is a wrong that is being corrected; therefore, that wrong probably applies even more to benefits from the past. One of the reasons why I say “even more so” is because the members who have the most pre-1997 accrual are the oldest—by definition, they must be. They have much less time left to live and many of them have, sadly, already passed away. Therefore, to right this wrong by promising people money in future that they may never see, or will see almost none of, does not seem a solid way of righting a wrong.
I understand—I will go through this in more detail in the next group—that the Financial Assistance Scheme, for example, is supposedly funded by public money, while the PPF itself and employer contributions, in the form of the levy, provides the money for PPF compensation, but £2 billion from the scheme was transferred to the public purse. Thankfully, when we were trying to improve the Financial Assistance Scheme in 2005, Andrew Young recommended stopping annuity purchase, which had been happening and, unfortunately, transferred much of the money to insurers rather than putting it towards the Government to pay out over time. Nevertheless, the Financial Assistance Scheme itself represents some of the biggest losers and the ones with the most pre-1997 accrual.
Therefore, I urge the Government to recognise that the cost of the requirements in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, are easily affordable from the PPF reserve—£14.5 billion is available. The cost estimate for this retrospective addition to the pre-1997 accruals that were not paid in terms of inflation uplifts could be around £500 million out of the £14.5 billion, depending on how the arrears are paid. I would be grateful to the Minister if she could confirm some of the Government’s estimates for what this would be; I have looked at the PPF’s estimates.
I add that the Financial Assistance Scheme does not only help those who affected by insolvency. The European court case was about insolvency, but the MFR protected employers who just wanted to walk away from their schemes before the law changed. Paying in only the MFR was hopelessly inadequate to afford the pensions. There was a brilliant campaign by the unions that went to the European court, and the Government had a great fear that they would lose that. Prior to that, we had an appeal by the workers of Allied Steel and Wire and many of the other schemes to the Pensions Ombudsman, who found in their favour and against the Government, and to the Public Accounts Select Committee. Then we had to go to the High Court, taking a case against the Government, and we won. We also went to the Court of Appeal, taking a case against the Government, and we won on behalf of those whose schemes had failed, whether the employers were insolvent or not, which means that they are all now included.
Even so, the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF have not recognised the pre-1997 inflation losses that have left many of these members with half their pension, or even less in some cases. I hope that the Government will look favourably on the amendment. I welcome it, and I am very grateful to the Minister for the recognition that we need to do something—there may be further consideration of that; we will come back to it in subsequent groups—to recompense for the losses of the past.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I wish only to say that I agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the lengthy exposition from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I give them my support.
This group deals with technical amendments in the main, but they go to a question of basic fairness for pensioners whose schemes have failed. There are eight amendments in the Minister’s name, which shows that Bills can be amended, because the Government are amending their own Bill. Their amendments are no less important than those proposed on this side of the Room or those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on the other.
The Government have accepted the principle of restoring inflation protection for pre-1997 service in the PPF and the FAS. These amendments ensure that the policy operates as intended, covering cases where the schemes technically add indexation rules that did not apply to all pre-1997 service.
The concern here is consistency and completeness. As has been said by other speakers, without these clarifications, some pensions will fall through the cracks due to historic scheme design quirks, rather than any distinction of principle. Any schemes that were and will be proposed will have quirks that are going to be found out in due course. I ask the Minister to confirm that the Government’s intention is to deliver equal treatment for those with equivalent service histories and that no group will be excluded because of technical anomalies.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will mainly speak to and concentre on the government amendments in this group. I start by thanking the Minister for setting them out so clearly. We welcome the additional clarity that they provide.
In particular, these amendments ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme and the PPF payments are treated consistently where a pension scheme formally required pre-1997 indexation but where that requirement did not in fact apply to the specific pre-1997 service for which financial assistance is being paid. Put simply, this is a technical clarification to ensure that indexation under the FAS reflects a member’s actual scheme entitlement, even where a scheme nominally provided for pre-1997 indexation but did not apply it to the service being compensated. We believe that this is a useful and sensible point of clarification—one that helps to ensure that the system operates as it should do.
However, I would be grateful if, when she closes, the Minister could confirm that it is now the Government’s view that these amendments are sufficient to close what may previously have been a gap in the original drafting. In particular, can she confirm that the Government are satisfied that these changes are enough to avoid confusion, to avoid the risk of legal challenge and to ensure that the Financial Assistance Scheme remains, in essence, what it should be—a safety net—rather than becoming an unintended upgrade?
I want also to make a broader process point, because these changes emerged relatively late in proceedings in the other place. I would welcome assurances from the Minister that the relevant stakeholders have been properly consulted and that the Government do not anticipate the need for further amendments on this issue in the Commons—or, indeed, as the Bill continues to go through Parliament. The Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell, has previously stated that this change will affect around 250,000 members of the PPF, increasing their pension payments by an average of around £400 a year. The Minister cited that figure in her opening remarks, but is that still the Government’s firm and final assessment of the scale and impact of this measure? Perhaps the Minister could clarify that for us.
I also note the comments made by Sara Protheroe, the PPF’s chief customer officer, who said:
“While implementing this change will be no small task”—
that is probably an understatement—the PPF is
“fully committed to delivering this at the earliest opportunity if and when it becomes law”.
That welcome commitment raises an important practical question for the Government, does it not? What assessment has the Minister made of the extra resources that might be required? What support will be provided to the PPF to ensure that delivery can take place smoothly and without delay? Have the Government assessed whether additional resources, which could come via capacity or funding, will be required to implement this change effectively? If so, how do they intend to provide that support?
Regarding Amendment 203ZB, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I will have more to say in subsequent groups. As the noble Lord said, there are amendments on the FAS and PPF in three different groups today. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I delay my brief comments. I also listened carefully to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It is best that I make comments in later groups.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his amendment and I look forward to the subsequent instalments of his reflections on these important areas. The Government’s reforms are a significant step forward in making the compensation system and its safety net better for members, but I recognise that it does not go as far as some affected members, or indeed some noble Lords, would want.
We recognise the impact that the issue of pre-1997 indexation has had on affected PPF and FAS members. My colleague, the Pensions Minister, has met with many representatives and has heard at first hand the impact on them. I have also had representations coming into my inbox and I understand the position of those who have contacted me. I recognise the intention behind Amendment 203ZB from my noble friend Lord Davies.
This amendment would increase the pension on which indexation is calculated in respect of PPF and FAS members’ compensation. The PPF has fully assessed the impact of retrospection and arrears. I say in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, that the cost of providing prospective and fully retrospective indexation and arrears—in line with CPI capped at 2.5% for members whose original schemes provided for these increases—is significant, totalling around £5.6 billion: £3.9 billion for the PPF and between £1 billion and £1.7 billion for FAS. If I have understood my noble friend’s amendment correctly, it would have the effect of increasing the baseline compensation paid to all PPF and FAS members, irrespective of whether their original scheme provided for 1997 increases. This would further increase the costs to the PPF and FAS.
The reforms put forward by the Government offer targeted support and introduce changes to indexation to compensation payments prospectively. The Government’s proposal to introduce pre-1997 indexation in the PPF will reduce the PPF reserve by £1.2 billion and cost around £0.3 billion to £0.6 billion for FAS, totalling £1.8 billion over the lifetime of both schemes. This is a significant shift, reflecting the value of the increases to members’ compensation payments.
The PPF reserve protects current and future members, as well as underwriting future claims across the almost £1 trillion DB system. Prudent management of the reserve is needed to ensure that the security it provides for its members, and the DB pension universe, is not compromised. In introducing this change, the Government had to strike a balance of interests for all parties—including eligible members, levy payers, taxpayers and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk—against the backdrop of a tight fiscal envelope. We believe that our reform achieves the right balance. Any further reduction of the reserve increases the risk to members and the PPF’s ability to manage future risk.
While the PPF has confirmed that the Government’s proposal does not affect its plan to switch off the levy, going beyond our proposal increases the possibility of the PPF needing to return to levy payers in the future. As it stands, this is a win for members and for those businesses. Any changes to compensation levels in the PPF and the taxpayer-funded FAS have significant implications for the public finances. Increases to PPF liabilities affect the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, because the present value of these liabilities change annually, which is counted as a cost in the public finances. Any increases to payments from FAS come at a direct cost to the taxpayer. This is why we are concerned about the risks of going further, as well as the risks to the PPF that I have described.
The bottom line is that the PPF and FAS are compensation schemes: they were never designed to fully replace members’ pensions. Members are in a better financial situation than they would have been before these compensation schemes were established. Our changes to the pension compensation system will offer a stronger safety net for members who, until now, had lost out on pre-1997 compensation increases following their employer’s insolvency or scheme failure.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked me about the solidity of the amendments and whether they would be enough to avoid legal challenge. If a legal challenge were to be brought forward, the Government consider they can successfully defend any such challenge. I hope that reassures him.
We understand that members will want to have a conversation quickly, and the PPF has rightly said that it would like to do it as soon as is practicable, but we have concluded that the earliest opportunity to provide pre-1997 increases to PPF and FAS members is January 2027, because implementation will require the PPF to identify eligible members in order to implement the changes. That is the first possible opportunity to uplift members’ payments pending the appropriate parliamentary processes. We will do it when and as soon as it can be done, but we have to be sensible about that.
I was asked how many members would benefit. I said that more than 250,000 PPF and FAS members are set to benefit from this change. Up to 90,000 may not benefit, although we know that includes a number of people who will benefit where they had post-1988 GMPs, and we are working with the PPF to identify the number of members who had post-1988 GMPs. Some 85,000 PPF and FAS members do not have any pre-1997 service, so they do not fall within the scope of this change.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is going to ask about Allied Steel and Wire. The Minister for Pensions has met Financial Assistance Scheme members, including former Allied Steel and Wire workers whose scheme qualified for FAS, and he has heard first hand of the experience of those members. I am happy to confirm that former members of Allied Steel and Wire will benefit from the Government’s proposals of prospective legislation. If that is the question the noble Lord was going to ask, I hope that is enough to satisfy him.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am very grateful and I hope that the benefit will be substantial.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
Just for clarity, the benefit will be exactly as I described in the Government’s amendments—which obviously is incredibly generous but, just to be clear, that is the benefit under question. In the light of this, I am grateful to my noble friend and all noble Lords, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Baroness Altmann
“(2A) After paragraph 28, insert—“Lump sum compensation
28A (1) In all cases which qualify for an increase in periodic compensation under paragraph 28(2A) to (2I), the person may also qualify for a lump sum payment or payments, the amount of which must be—(a) related to the loss of inflation protection on pre-1997 pension benefits, and(b) paid by the Pension Protection Fund out of excess reserves,in recognition of the years of pension increases that were unpaid since the failure of the pension scheme.(2) The Secretary of State may issue guidance about lump sum payments under this paragraph.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to make provision for lump sum payments from the Pension Protection Fund to persons who qualify for an increase in periodic compensation for pre-1997 service to compensate for unpaid increases in the years since the failure of the pension scheme.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the amendments in this group are designed to give the Government another way of recognising the injustice that has occurred, which their very welcome amendments recognise for members who have lost their pre-1997 inflation protection. I am trying, through this route, to give the Government a way of increasing the amounts paid to people who have lost out on pre-1997 indexation in the past without the striking costs that the Minister suggested would be involved in retrospection and arrears for everybody in the PPF and the Financial Assistance Scheme.
The method by which this could be achieved is to offer lump-sum payments which do not increase the base cost of the pension but do recognise the losses suffered in the past. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues might be able to look favourably on this suggestion, which is another way in which the Government could put right what they have already recognised is a serious wrong.
If my amendments are accepted, the Pension Protection Fund reserve could be used alongside the Government’s welcome Amendments 186 and so on in the previous group. For anyone who is going to receive the prospective inflation protection in the future, the PPF reserve will or could be used to pay a lump sum to be determined related to the losses that they have suffered. That will be a one-off, or it could be over two or three years if so desired, to recognise the past problem to help the oldest people in a practical way and to ensure that there is some modicum of fairness, particularly for those who have the most pre-1997 accrual, who, as I have said, are the oldest.
My Amendment 203ZA is the same proposal for the Financial Assistance Scheme, but subsection (3) of my proposed new clause would allow specification, in consultation with the Pension Protection Fund, as to how this will be funded. Obviously, there is a significant reserve in the Pension Protection Fund. It has written to members, suggesting that there is affordability, and the ability to pay for some element of retrospection—again, to be determined. By the way, the Minister suggested that people would get what they paid for but, of course, with a 2.5% cap on CPI increases, many of them would have paid 5% going forward. So, it is not full retrospection or prospective protection for pre-1997.
I know that the Minister is proud of what the Government are doing, and I welcome it too, but her words that it does not go as far as some affected members would want are absolutely correct. I would say that it does not go as far as some affected members deserve, in the course of an argument about fairness and justice.
Are there any government estimates for the cost of these lump-sum payments, either one-off or spread over two or three years? It is probably easier administratively to make it a one-off, so that only one payment is required. That would also need to be protected in the same way that the new payment in other schemes is protected in terms of the tax system, so that it is not treated as an income in that particular year. If the Government were minded and able to accept the principle of recognising the past in a different way from the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, which I also support if that were possible, it would not add to the long-term costs of running the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme. It will be a one-off recognition of the past and the future liabilities would be based on the pension as proposed now.
Do the Government have estimates for any possible size of payment that would be acceptable, so that we could then work backwards to finding a lump sum that could be paid and afforded out of the PPF’s obviously significant reserve? There is far more money than is required; it is just sitting there, whereas these pensioners really need the pensions that they paid for and are getting nowhere near. I hope the Minister might be able to help, or I am happy to meet and see whether we can work through some figures that might be acceptable as a way forward to recognise the past and satisfy a number of the people who are seriously ill and may not live to next April or much beyond it and feel so aggrieved—having campaigned with me for years to help people, get the PPF started and improve the Financial Assistance Scheme—that they are not getting the recognition that younger people who are benefiting from their hard work will get. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I offer my support for the amendment moved and the other amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She suggested that, in some ways, her amendments are more important than mine. I agree and I will come on to why that is so in a moment. I recognise the importance of the government amendments but, in the words of my noble friend the Minister, we have to recognise the impact of the lack of past increases on those affected.
Retrospection has been mentioned. It is a complete red herring. By its nature, any form of compensation will be retrospective. We are not going to compensate people for what happens in the future. The compensation being paid all too slowly to the Post Office managers is retrospective. The money being paid to the infected blood victims is retrospective, but we still have to pay. “Retrospection” is not a relevant word in this context. We are clear, and we all agree, that these people have lost out, to use the words of my noble friend the Minister, so retrospection is a red herring.
My noble friend the Minister also mentioned the significant impact on public finances. That is true because it has been defined in that way, but we are setting the rules. We are not being subjected to rules imposed by outside interests. If the Treasury does not have the wit or ingenuity to adjust the rules in a way that would allow for these payments from the PPF, which, in reality, would have no impact whatsoever on public expenditure, those who have been affected by the lack of increases will draw their own conclusions as to what the Government really want to do. My noble friend also said that this is a compensation scheme and that it was never designed to offer full redress. Well, that is what we are debating; it is exactly what we are saying is wrong and should be rectified.
The point that I wish to emphasise in this section is the need for urgency. That is why this amendment is the important one. To be brutal, we are dealing with a declining population. It has been estimated that more than 5,000 pensioners with pre-1997 rights are dying each year. We have to take action. Even my amendment, which I proposed to bring the pension up to its current real value, does not address the issue for these people because many of them will not be here. Compensation via lump-sum payments, along the lines suggested in these amendments, are, I believe, the way in which this problem should be addressed. I strongly support these amendments.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of the amendments. I emphasise that they look at how to do this by lump-sum payments, rather than by increasing pensions. That is important. It is what we in my profession used to call “creative accountancy”. It seeks to achieve a result by lump sums, more or less off the Government’s balance sheet. There has been some blending of the funds in the past. It is a way of doing it in a creative accountancy way, largely getting rid of the problem by lump-sum payments. I hope that the Government will look at this in a creative way in order to provide some justice without incurring an ongoing debt.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 187A, 188A, 189A and 203ZA tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. She has long been a formidable and principled advocate for pension savers and much of the Committee will be sympathetic to the underlying concerns that she raised in her remarks. In particular, her consistent focus on member protection, governance and long-term security has materially shaped the debate on pensions policy over many years—and rightly so.
However—the Committee might expect me to say this—while I share the noble Baroness’s objectives, I am not persuaded that the amendments, as drafted, strike the right balance in this instance. I listened carefully to her remarks and her constructive suggestions as to how such payments could be made in the form of lump sums, whether through several lump sums or another way. As ever, she is constructive and positive, and I accept that. These amendments would use the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to make retrospective lump-sum payments to compensate for unpaid historical indexation. We think that that would represent a significant shift in principle.
I listened carefully, as I always do, to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, who called retrospection a red herring. I was not absolutely sure what he meant by that. As I see it, retrospection is just that: retrospection. I think that it describes the payments in the way that it is meant to do. However, the PPF was designed as a forward-looking safety net, not as a mechanism for reopening past outcomes or making retrospective compensation payments. The Minister, to be fair to her, made this clear in her closing remarks in previous groups.
Such an approach would raise serious concerns about cost, complexity and consistency. Although we are somewhat clearer about costs from the helpful remarks from the Minister in the previous group, I am still uncertain—as, I think, other Members of the Committee are—about what the overall costs would be and what the impact would be on the levy and on other contributors. That uncertainty makes me cautious about supporting these amendments, which risk turning a clearly defined insurance mechanism into an open-ended compensation scheme. I suspect that the Minister—without wanting to steal her thunder—may take a similar view in her response, judging from her remarks in the previous group.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord just said that this would impact on the levy, but if there is a one-off payment, it would not affect the scheme going forward. Therefore, it should not impact the levy at all; it is a lump-sum payment rather than an increase in the base pension payable going forward.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
As ever, that is a very helpful clarification, but I will leave it up to the Minister to answer that. I stick with my view that we are not persuaded by these amendments. Perhaps there is more debate to be had. I have said all that I need to say; I am afraid that I am unable to support these amendments.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing her amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken. I am afraid the noble Viscount has given a spoiler regarding my response, because I articulated many of the arguments on this in the previous group in response to my noble friend Lord Davies.
The Government recognise that pre-1997 indexation is an important issue for affected PPF and FAS members. That is why we listened and took the action that we did. The changes proposed by Amendments 186A, 187A, 188A and 189A would, essentially, award payments of arrears for PPF and FAS members who have missed out on pre-1997 increases up to now. As the noble Baroness described, that would mean a one-off lump-sum payment to be made from the PPF reserve. Amendment 203ZA would require the Secretary of State to determine how those additional payments would be funded in FAS.
I acknowledge the impact on members. This has been a long-running issue and, for reasons that noble Lords have clearly articulated, members will want to see their increases quickly now that we have made a decision to act. As I said, we expect that the first payments will be made to eligible PPF and FAS members in January 2027, which is the earliest possible opportunity to do so, and we are working closely with the PPF on implementing that. I recognise that prospective increases do not restore the erosion of the real-terms value of members’ retirement incomes. However, the Government’s reforms will make a meaningful difference to affected members while balancing the impact on levy payers who support the PPF, taxpayers who pay for FAS and affordability for the Government.
In response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, any payment that comes out of the PPF reserve will reduce the size of that reserve and therefore, in our judgment, must make it more likely that there may be a need for a levy to be reintroduced at some point. I shall come back to the arguments in a moment, as I said to my noble friend, but I have noted the importance of responsible management of the PPF reserve following the introduction of our reforms. The noble Baroness’s proposal—creative though it is, and I acknowledge that—would clearly also reduce the reserve. Although the reserve is forecast to grow, without a really substantive PPF levy the PPF will depend on its reserves and its investment returns to manage the risks from existing liabilities and future claims across the £1 trillion DB system.
Historically, the PPF has supported nearly £10 billion in claims, funded in part by the amount collected through levies. Without future levies, the reserve has to cover upcoming claims. The reserve offers protection against future risks, such as new claims and longevity risks, and, as I have said, avoids the need for a significant levy reintroduction. I also noted the significant public finance implications of changes in my earlier remarks.
The Government have not made an assessment of the noble Baroness’s proposal because we considered carefully what we thought it was appropriate to do. We worked with the PPF and fully considered the broader context of introducing pre-1997 indexation in both the PPF and FAS. In the end, it is the responsibility of the Government to strike an affordable balance of interest between all parties. We believe our reform achieves that. This measure is a fundamental shift in the level of protection afforded by the PPF and FAS to their members, but we think that is right and the appropriate balance. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank those who have supported this group, and I hope that I might be able to persuade colleagues on this side to offer their support.
I understand the Minister’s dilemma, but I have to ask: what is the PPF reserve for? It is just money sitting there, way above what is needed for the current liabilities, before you take into account new schemes that themselves will have assets attached, and the vast majority of schemes are in surplus at the moment anyway.
There was talk of the cost, complexity and consistency involved in these proposals. The cost we know, because one can design the lump-sum payments to fit the desired cost envelope. The complexity is actually far lower than the Government’s current proposals because they are a one-off payment related to past losses, which will have to be calculated anyway if one is going to do anything of this nature.
Consistency is particularly important here, otherwise we will be treating members of the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme very differently based on their age, in effect. Those who are young will get better protection. Those who are older—and need it most, I argue, because they have lost most—get little or nothing from the Government’s welcome proposals. So, at the same time as the Government are designing their forward-looking acknowledgment of the need for pre-1997 uplifts, I hope that we might be able to persuade them that, alongside that, there is an overwhelming case for some recognition of the past.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Does the noble Baroness agree that her scheme would work the other way round, because older members will tend to have more pre-1997 service that younger members, whose pre-1997 service will be relatively limited? A scheme along the lines she proposes will have some element of generational fairness.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I thank the noble Lord. I would certainly say that there is a significant and obvious element of fairness in this proposal for lump sums to be paid. I argue that it would level the playing field, because those who have lost the most at the moment will continue to lose the most, whereas if you recognise the past losses and the forward uplifts are still being paid then you equalise, to some degree, the fairness and the losses between people of different age groups.
I hope that we can come back to this matter on Report and that we might have a meeting to discuss the potential for something of this nature to be introduced in the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 5 to the Pensions Act 2008 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 28 of Schedule 6 to the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the transferor’s PPF compensation is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 17 of Schedule 4 to the Pensions (No.2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the pension compensation is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 9 of Schedule 2A to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the annual payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 3 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
“, or
(iii) included such a requirement but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the ill health payment is payable.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes clear that sub-paragraph (2B) of paragraph 6 of Schedule 5 to the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 (inserted by this clause) applies also to a case where a pension scheme required pre-1997 indexation but that requirement did not apply in relation to pre-1997 service in respect of which the financial assistance is payable.
Baroness Sherlock
“Chapter 2AAWE Pension SchemeNew public pension schemes
Establishment of new public schemes and transfer of rights(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations establish one or more schemes (“new public schemes”) which provide for pensions or other benefits to be payable to or in respect of persons who are or have been members of the AWE Pension Scheme (“qualifying persons”).(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the transfer of qualifying accrued rights to a new public scheme (without the need for any approval or consent of the trustee company or AWE PLC, or any other person, to the transfer). (3) Regulations under subsection (2) may include provision for the discharge of liabilities in respect of qualifying accrued rights that are transferred.(4) In this Chapter—“qualifying accrued rights ” means—(a) any right to future benefits under the AWE Pension Scheme which, at the qualifying time, has accrued to or in respect of a qualifying person,(b) any entitlement under the AWE Pension Scheme to the present payment of a pension or other benefit which a qualifying person has at the qualifying time, or(c) any entitlement to benefits, or right to future benefits, under the AWE Pension Scheme which a survivor of a qualifying person has at the qualifying time in respect of the qualifying person;“the qualifying time ” means the time immediately before the date specified or described in regulations.(5) For the purposes of the definition of “qualifying accrued rights”—(a) references to pensions or other benefits (including future benefits) includes money purchase benefits, and(b) references to a right include a pension credit right.(6) Regulations under subsection (4) specifying or describing a date for the purposes of the definition of “the qualifying time” may make provision for the purposes of transfers of qualifying accrued rights generally, transfers of a particular description or a particular transfer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause provides for the pension scheme of AWE PLC (a wholly owned government company) to be transferred to a new public sector pension scheme, while preserving existing rights of scheme members. It will be the first clause of a new Chapter in Part 4 of the Bill.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, in moving government Amendment 194, I shall speak also to government Amendments 195 to 202; I would welcome the Committee’s support for them.
The AWE pension scheme is a trust-based defined benefit pension scheme for current and former employees of AWE plc, the Atomic Weapons Establishment. Since 2021, AWE plc has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence, and this pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These proposed new clauses will allow the Government to defund the existing scheme, establishing a new central government pension scheme for its members. The assets held by the scheme will be sold, with the proceeds transferred to the Treasury. The Chancellor announced this measure in her 2025 Budget, but the principle was announced in a Commons Written Ministerial Statement on 6 July 2022.
The new scheme will be an unfunded public pension scheme. This is in accordance with wider government policy that when a financial risk sits wholly with the Government, as it does here because of the Crown guarantee, it should not hold assets to cover that liability. The taxpayer is already exposed to the risks and the liability can be managed more efficiently in the round, along with other unfunded liabilities met out of general taxation. This measure will help to ensure that liabilities are funded in the most efficient way while ensuring the long-term security of members’ benefits. I assure the Committee that these clauses protect the rights that members of the AWE pension scheme have accrued under the current scheme. Neither the terms nor the benefits will be affected. The new public scheme must make provision that is, in all material respects, at least as good as that under the AWE pension scheme.
The new clauses in Amendments 194 and 195 provide that the new scheme should be established by regulations and set out the kind of provision that may be made by these regulations and any amending regulations. Although these are fairly standard for public schemes, I assure the Committee that the Government have considered carefully how these may be relevant to this scheme. The new clause in Amendment 197 ensures that the scheme rules cannot be amended unless prescribed procedures have been followed. In most cases, the requirement is to consult. However, if the proposed amendment might adversely affect members’ rights, the regulations must prescribe additional procedures to protect the interests of members, including obtaining the consent of interested persons or their representatives.
The new clause in Amendment 198 will enable the Government to direct the disposal of the assets currently held by the pension scheme for the benefit of the Exchequer. As we expect that the bulk of the assets will be sold before the new scheme is established, regulations under this clause will ensure that the trustees’ liabilities will be met by public funds, thus ensuring that pensions in payment will not be affected. Regulations under this clause will also be able to exempt the trustee or AWE plc from any liability that might otherwise arise because they have complied with the Government’s direction. This will include the power to disapply or modify specified statutory provisions. These powers can be used only in relation to regulations made under this clause and are intended to protect the trustee. For example, we expect that we will need to disapply the scheme funding regime in relation to the scheme once the sale of the assets begins.
The new clause in Amendment 199 ensures that the transfer of the AWE pension scheme to a new public scheme will be tax neutral, meaning that no additional or unexpected tax liabilities will arise for those affected by the changes. The new clause in Amendment 200 will give the Government the power to make regulations requiring individuals or organisations to provide the information needed to establish the new public scheme, administer the scheme and transfer accrued rights. It should be noted that the Government do not expect to use these powers, as we are working with the AWE pension trustees and others to ensure a smooth transition for the benefit of all members. This provision will be required only in case of non-compliance.
New Clause 201 ensures proper consultation and parliamentary scrutiny for regulations made under this part of the Bill, particularly those affecting the establishment and operation of the new public pension scheme and the transfer of assets. The Government are required to consult the trustee of the AWE pension scheme before making regulations to establish the new public scheme, transfer accrued rights or transfer assets and liabilities. This ensures that the interests of scheme members will be fully considered. Regulations that could adversely affect existing rights, have retrospective effect or set financial penalties are subject to the affirmative procedure. This ensures that significant changes are subject to parliamentary approval and scrutiny. All other regulations under this part of the Bill are subject to the negative procedure, which provides flexibility while maintaining accountability. I hope that this explains the plans for the AWE pension scheme. I commend these amendments to the Committee and I beg to move.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to government Amendments 194 to 202. The Government’s letter states that the liabilities of the AWE pension scheme will no longer be pre-funded, that the assets of the scheme will be sold and that scheme members will be protected in line with the approach taken to other pensions guaranteed by the Government. The proposed amendments to the Bill are said to provide the legislative framework to achieve this outcome. They would enable the creation of a new public pension scheme into which the accrued rights of AWE scheme members would be transferred. For the avoidance of doubt, Amendment 198 does not establish a conventional funded public sector pension scheme. Instead, it appears to create a hybrid transition mechanism which ultimately results in an unfunded public liability.
In a genuinely funded scheme, assets and liabilities move together into a continuing pension fund. The provisions break the link between members’ accrued rights and any dedicated asset backing. By contrast, a private sector defined benefit pension scheme is funded and backed by invested assets. It is governed by a statement of investment principles, which sets risk tolerance, balances growth and security, aligns investments with member liabilities and is overseen by trustees acting under a fiduciary duty to scheme members. Once members’ rights are transferred into the new public scheme, there is no guaranteed asset pool, there is no meaningful statement of investment principles and benefits are met from future public expenditure rather than from scheme assets, as the Minister explained.
The effect of this is a material change in the nature of members’ interests. Rights that were previously supported by a funded scheme, overseen by fiduciary trustees and governed by a statement of investment principles would instead rest on a statutory public sector framework. In that framework, the investment strategy and long-term funding are determined through central government processes and are therefore exposed to future fiscal and policy decisions. Although the Government’s interest in AWE plc is public in ownership terms, these provisions do not operate at a general or class level. They apply to a single named employer and to a closed and identifiable group of scheme members for whom a bespoke statutory framework is being created. This is the problem.
It is for these reasons that there remains a credible argument that the amendments are prima facie hybridising. I know about this because on Thursday 8 January I tabled my public sector amendment to the Bill, which is now Amendment 217. I was required to amend it before tabling because it named more than one specific pension scheme, as Amendments 194, 195, 196, 198, 199, 200 and 202 do. Interestingly and I think unusually, Amendment 199 also deals with taxation, which is something I confess I have not seen before, but there may be a precedent. My amendment did not move members’ interests at all. It simply required a review of the affordability, sustainability and accounting treatment of public sector schemes. That stands in contrast to the far more substantive and immediate changes affected by Amendments 198 to 202. My original amendment was rejected on grounds of hybridity and I had to take out the specific scheme references. Somehow—and it feels rather suspicious—the Government’s hybrid amendment was accepted by the Public Bill Office.
I urge the Committee to reflect carefully on the nature and consequences of what is proposed and the precedent that it may set for hybridity. I invite the Minister to consider this and to consider perhaps introducing amendments to Amendments 195 to 202 or withdrawing the amendments until the implications are considered by an appropriate constitutional expert. Obviously, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation of why we are facing this situation at this point in time. My issue is with the hybridity rather than with the details of the AWE pension scheme, which is not a matter on which I am in any way expert.
Viscount Thurso (LD)
My Lords, I have one quick question to obtain reassurance, I hope, from the Minister in relation to Amendment 199 on taxation. I imagine that it is consequent on some of the problems that we had with the McCloud remedy, which required tax changes and the Treasury to intervene. The amendment uses the word “may”, which allows the Treasury to do it if it wishes. Should that not be “must”, in that what we are promising AWE is that nobody will be tax disadvantaged? I put that to the Minister and ask for some reassurance.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I have a couple of questions. I must confess that these stem from previous occasions when promises to be at least as good do not appear to have happened, as in the AEA transfer. I am a little suspicious of this, as it seems to be in the same kind of area.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have Amendment 203ZC in this group, but unfortunately the Committee has not received a copy of my amendment.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Good. I now have it and I want to check that everyone else has it too. That is my first question dealt with.
In speaking to this amendment, the aim is to enable members of pension schemes that have gone into the PPF after their assessment period to be extracted, with regulations laid that will govern the terms on which they can be extracted. This is particularly relevant to the AEAT scheme: I know that we will come to this in later groups, with a requirement for a review of the situation. My amendment is trying to facilitate a practical resolution to the problems faced by the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. There are parallels with the Atomic Weapons Establishment or AWE scheme: employees originally had a scheme similar to and in fact derived from that of the UK AEA.
The AWE staff and their pensions were transferred to the private sector, and in 2022 the Government granted a Crown guarantee to the private company scheme. However, members of the AEA scheme were told that the scheme that they were encouraged to transfer to in 1996 would be as secure as that provided by the Atomic Energy Authority public sector scheme. This was not the case, though, because it was not offered a Treasury guarantee. It would appear that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to carry out a proper risk assessment of the various options offered to those members in 1996. Indeed, they were apparently specifically told not to worry about the security of the scheme to which they transferred all their accrued benefits. Of course, all these accrued benefits are pre-1997.
What happened after that is that they went into a private sector scheme. It was a closed section of that scheme, only for the members who transferred their public sector rights into it. The public sector rights had full inflation protection for pre-1997 and members paid an extra 30% or so contribution into that private sector scheme in order to conserve the inflation protection. However, as part of that, the pension they were saving for, the base pension, was lower than the one for those members in the open scheme who had joined not from the public sector. They were working on the principle that that their scheme was secure and that they would be getting the uplifts of inflation. When it failed—the private sector company went bust in 2012—and they went into the PPF in 2016, they suddenly discovered that they had paid 30% more for inflation protection, which was gone. And because they had paid 30% more for that protection and were accruing a lower pension, a 180th instead of a 160th scheme, their whole compensation was lower than that of everybody else who had not had any assurances from the Government that transferring their previous rights into a private sector scheme would generate these kinds of losses.
This is probably the worst example I have seen of government reassurance and failed recognition of the risks of transferring from a guaranteed public sector scheme into a private sector scheme. This amendment seeks to require the Government to lay regulations that would transfer members out of the PPF, those members of the closed scheme, if they wish to. I am not forcing anyone to do so within this amendment. You have to offer them the option of going or staying if they are satisfied with the PPF. Also, a sum of money may need to be paid to the PPF, which would take away the liability and thereby reduce PPF liabilities, but also sets up an alternative scheme that could be along the lines of the AWE arrangements, for example. That would potentially be another option. On privatisation, the Government received a substantial sum of money from the sale of that company, the private sector takeover of the commercial arm of the Atomic Energy Authority. That delivered less money than was paid to the private sector scheme to take over the liabilities. Therefore, the Government have money to pay with, which they have never really acknowledged.
I hope that this amendment is a potentially direct way to help the AEAT scheme, if the Government are minded to consider it. It builds on a provision that is already in the Pensions Act 2004, which talks about situations whereby there is a discharge of liabilities in respect of the compensation, which this amendment would be doing. It prescribes the way in which subsection (2)(d) of Section 169 of the Pensions Act 2004 could be used to help the AEAT scheme.
I have also been approached by a private sector employer whose scheme failed and went into the PPF. At the time, the employer did not have sufficient resources to buy out more than the Pension Protection Fund benefits for his staff. He now is in a position to do that and would like to do so but, at the moment, he cannot get his scheme extracted. He is willing to pay an extra premium to do that, in pursuance of a moral duty to try to give his past staff better-than-PPF benefits. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve. It is built on the connection between AEAT and AWE, but could also help other private sector schemes if the employer feels—it would normally involve smaller schemes—that there is a moral obligation that they can now meet, financially, to recompense members at a level better than the PPF, once the assessment period is over and the resources have gone in, and to take it back out again.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, this group concerns the proposed transfer of the AWE pension scheme into a new public sector pension arrangement, as set out after Clause 110 in government Amendments 194 to 202, with the associated measures on extent and commencement in government Amendments 223 and 224.
At first glance, these new clauses are presented as technical and perhaps little more than an exercise in administrative tidying up, reflecting the fact that AWE plc is now a wholly government-owned company. However, on closer inspection, several questions come to mind. This represents a material transfer of long-term pension risk and does so in a way that raises serious questions around principle, process and precedent.
On an IAS 19 accounting basis, AWE plc reported a defined benefit pension deficit of £97 million as at 31 March 2025. The company has already made significant one-off contributions: £30 million in March 2024, following an earlier £34.4 million in March 2022. These payments form part of a recovery plan agreed with the trustee and the Ministry of Defence, and the position is subject to ongoing review. This is an active funding challenge, one that should be considered carefully.
The provisions before us establish a bespoke statutory framework for a single named company. They provide for the creation of a new public sector pension scheme, the transfer of assets and liabilities, the protection of accrued rights, specific tax treatment, information-sharing powers, consultation requirements and arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny. All of this is meticulously itemised and carefully drafted.
Yet my concern lies not with the drafting but with the policy and constitutional choice that sit beneath it. We are told repeatedly that members’ rights will be preserved; that phrase carries considerable weight. The question is a simple one: which rights precisely are being preserved? Are we referring solely to rights accrued through past service or does that protection extend to future accrual as well? Does it encompass accrual rates, indexation arrangements, retirement age and survivor benefits or are members’ entitlements merely frozen as a snapshot at the point of transfer? What happens if the rules of the receiving public sector scheme change in future? These questions go to the heart of both member security and parliamentary responsibility. They deserve answers in the Bill, not assurances in principle or reliance on mechanisms that may evolve long after this Committee has given its consent.
There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. How exactly will trustees be formally discharged of their responsibilities? Additionally, does this change relate to DC members? Will each defined contribution pot be automatically converted or will past defined contribution rights be crystallised, with future accrual taking place under a defined benefit structure? For scheme members, these questions go to the very heart of retirement security.
I also question the decision to legislate company by company. This new clause is not objectionable because it concerns pensions; it is objectionable because it concerns one named corporate identity. Primary legislation should set rules of general application.
If the policy rationale here is sound, and if it is right that the pension schemes of wholly owned government companies should be transferred into the public sector on certain terms, that principle should be capable of being expressed generally and should not be hard-coded for AWE alone. Otherwise, we will face an unhappy choice in the future: if AWE’s status changes again, Ministers must either live with an outdated statute on the books or return to Parliament with yet another Bill to amend it. Neither outcome represents good lawmaking.
There are also practical questions that I hope the Minister will address. Will members receive individualised benefits statements, comparing their position before and after the transfer in clear, comprehensible terms? What support will be made available for members who need independent guidance, rather than reassurance from the scheme sponsor itself? Will there be formal consultation with scheme members and recognised unions, and will the responses to that consultation be published?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by discussing Amendment 203ZC and then come to the other amendments.
Amendment 203ZC would add new provisions to the Pensions Act, which would mean that, if an alternative sponsor provided a sufficient premium, a cash payment or alternative arrangement could be provided for members of that scheme that secured better benefits than the PPF level of compensation. The amendment seeks in particular to help members of the AEA Technology pension scheme. As we have heard, AEAT was formed in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority—UKAEA—and was subsequently privatised in 1996. Employees who were transferred to AEAT joined the company’s new pension scheme, and most of them opted to transfer their accrued UKAEA pension into a closed section of the AEAT pension scheme. In 2012, 16 years later, AEAT went into administration, and the AEAT pension scheme subsequently entered the PPF.
I express my sympathy for all AEAT pension scheme members; I recognise their position. I am pleased to say that on pre-1997 indexation in PPF, which is an issue for AEAT members, we have listened and acted. Those with pre-1997 accruals and whose schemes provided for pre-1997 increases, which includes AEAT members, will benefit from this change.
However, the Government do not support this amendment. The noble Baroness outlined some of the issues around AEAT, but this case has been fully considered. We set this out in our response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee inquiry on DB pensions. These investigations included, but are not limited to, reviews by three relevant ombudsmen, debates in the Commons in 2015 and 2016 and a report by the NAO in 2023. This matter has also been considered by previous Governments in the period since AEAT went into the PPF, all of whom reached the same conclusion.
AEAT members have asserted that upon privatisation, insufficient funds were transferred into the scheme. As I understand it from historic responses, this amount was based on the financial assumptions at the time, and the trustees of the scheme agreed the transfer value. Members have also outlined that, given the amount transferred to the PPF, with investment, they could now be paid their full pension. However, the PPF does not work that way; let me explain why.
When schemes enter PPF assessment, evaluation is generally undertaken to determine whether there are enough assets to secure at least PPF-level benefits. Sufficiently well-funded schemes can come out of the assessment supported by PPF-appointed trustees to secure greater benefits than PPF compensation. Schemes that are funded below this level are transferred into the PPF. The PPF does not permit transfers out because it does not work as a segregated fund where individual scheme contributions are ring-fenced and can later be transferred out. That is due to PPF investment policies because the only grounds on which that might happen would be, for example, if PPF investment policies were such that they then became better funded.
The reason that does not work is that the PPF is a compensation scheme operating in the interests of all its members. It is not a collection of individual pension schemes. Funds transferred in from underfunded schemes and insolvency recoveries, alongside the levy and investment returns, are all brought together. Allowing members of schemes that have entered the PPF to transfer back out would undermine its ability to provide compensation for all its members and for future schemes in the case of employer insolvency.
This amendment changes the purpose of the PPF as a compensation fund and that safety net in case of employer insolvency. Schemes go into the PPF either because an alternative sponsor cannot be found to take on the scheme’s liabilities or because the scheme is unable to secure benefits that correspond to at least PPF compensation levels. We do not expect alternative sponsors will be found to pay a premium for schemes that have transferred into the PPF. Additionally, it would place a different role on the board of the PPF to undertake a member-by-member assessment of whether members would get better benefits through a transfer. We do not underestimate the difficulty of this, given the decades since many schemes, such as the AEAT, entered the PPF. Changing the PPF’s role and how it operates as set out would need to be much more broadly considered, alongside impacts on the PPF and potentially unintended consequences.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
Section 169(2)(d) in the Pensions Act 2004 seems to make provision for this to happen. Therefore, what is the purpose of that clause? I am trying to build on that to specify circumstances in which it could happen. Of course, when a scheme is in the assessment period, it can be extracted. I am trying to say that if it has gone in and can improve the funding of the PPF by paying a premium and give members more than they would have in the PPF, why would there be an objection?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The challenge of this is that of course schemes can come out in the assessment period. That is the point of the assessment period: to work out whether there is a sponsor or enough funds, which could, with appropriate support, be able to deliver greater-than-PPF benefits, in which case the scheme may go out again. It goes into the PPF only if that cannot be the case. Once it has gone in, the scheme does not exist anymore. There are no scheme assets because, at that point, the members are not scheme members but members of a compensation scheme. It cannot be the case that, years later, someone should come along and say, “We now want to try to move a group of former members of a particular scheme back out of the PPF”. That simply does not work.
The noble Baroness asked something else. I apologise for being slightly confused earlier on: I thought this was going to be part of the previous group, so I am slightly scrabbling around trying to put my speaking notes in the right place. The noble Baroness is trying to draw a comparison between AWE and this. Although they were both DB pension schemes in the nuclear industry, the two situations are entirely different. AEAT was created in 1989 as the commercial arm of the UKAEA. It became a private company, with no further government involvement in ownership or management.
By contrast, AWE, which is responsible for manufacturing, maintaining and developing the UK’s nuclear warheads, has since the 1950s either been government owned or the Government have held a special share in the company. It became fully owned by HMG again in 2021, when it became an NDPB. As the Government own and fund AWE, they are also responsible for funding its pension scheme responsibilities. That is why the AWE has a Crown guarantee, granted in 2022, shortly after it became a public body of the MoD, having previously been government owned. I hope that explains why the two are differently treated.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I respectfully ask the Minister to consider the possibility, which is arising, of someone who can come along after the assessment period and pay more than the PPF can provide. As I say, that could help the PPF’s funding. It should not in any way impact on the levy, and it is an option to permit that to happen. So my amendment, building on what is already in the Pensions Act 2004 but which has not yet been used, given that schemes are in surplus, would allow them to do that.
The other thing I will say is that everyone in the closed section of the AEAT with accruals before 1997 was in the public sector. They were members of a public sector scheme, and they were advised by the Government Actuary’s Department that if they transferred they would not need to worry about the security of their pension, but that turned out not to be the case. I therefore hope the Minister can see the parallels. I know she is in a difficult position on this, but I thank her for her consideration.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am not in a difficult position. The Government’s position is clear: these are not comparable schemes. One has a Crown guarantee, for the reasons that I have explained, while the other does not because, for a significant portion of its history, it was a private company. It was privatised, and it subsequently went into administration. Those are not comparable situations. While I have sympathy for the position of individual scheme members, that does not make the two comparable or the Government’s responsibility comparable. I am certainly not aware that someone is out there waiting to sponsor this, although the noble Baroness may be. She is nodding to me, and if she wants to share with the Committee that she has a sponsor ready to do that, I would be glad to hear it, but the idea that this would routinely be a pattern where, for lots of long-dead pension schemes, sponsors are waiting to draw them out just would not be practical for the PPF.
I am also advised that the subsection 2(d) that the noble Baroness mentioned is not in force. That does not make a difference to her argument, but it may make a difference to the nature of this.
I shall try to return now to the issue that we were talking about earlier on, the AWE scheme. On hybridity, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that my understanding is that hybrid bills affect the general public but also have a significant impact on the private interests of specified groups. In this case, there is no impact on the general public, only on AWE members. That follows the precedent in Royal Mail and Bradford and Bingley/Northern Rock legislation. This also refers to schemes that were or are to be defunded and replaced with public schemes. I hope that explains why this is not hybrid. I cannot comment on why the clerks did not accept her amendment because I did not quite catch what it was that she was comparing it with.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, it may be that those are precedents that have been passed in legislation, but I am not clear that they have been put into this sort of Bill. The problem with the amendments is that they are a mixture of the general and the individual. That is what creates hybridity, which is why I ran into trouble with the Table Office when I tried to table my amendment. However, the Minister’s amendment seems not to have run into that issue, so that is something that we need to consider. Perhaps the Minister could have a look at it and bring the amendments back on Report, assuming that she is right and there is not a hybridity issue. I am very concerned about a constitutional innovation without expert guidance. She wrote a letter; I did not get it, but obviously I have been taking advice on this. It is slightly outside the remit of what we are able to agree on.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a very fair point. In the light of her comments, I do not know enough about what she tried to do and why it did not work. I would like to be able to compare them. Given that she makes a perfectly sensible suggestion, I happy to withdraw the amendment and make sure that I can answer her question before we come back on Report, if that is okay with noble Lords. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton
“Indexation of pre-1997 pensions(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows.(2) In Section 51 (annual increase in rate of pension)—(a) omit subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c)(ii);(b) in subsection (2)—(i) omit “on or after April 1997”;(ii) omit “to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(iii) omit “or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(c) in subsection (4ZE), omit “or, as the case may be, to payments in respect of employment carried on or after April 1997”;(d) in subsection (5)(a), omit “6 April 1997 or”;(e) in subsection (8)(a) and (b), omit “at any time on or after 6 April 1997”.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would remove references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to require that annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI apply to pensionable service both before and after 6 April 1997.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I am going to try to put this issue into context. This is the third leg of our discussion, which centres on what we do now in relation to benefits that accrued for pensionable service prior to 1997.
I am going to take the Committee into a little history. The 1997 date was set by the Pensions Act 1995. I was there; although I had long left the TUC, because the TUC’s normal pensions officer had taken leave of absence for a few months, I was, in effect, acting as the TUC’s pensions officer at the time. On the background, in terms of what people understood about pension increases at that time, I will go all the way back to 1971, when the Pensions (Increase) Act was passed. In 1971, it was obviously under a Conservative Government. They linked public service pensions to inflation—initially RPI then subsequently, from 2011, CPI. That was all well and good. It set the standard, quite properly, for the Government of good pension provision, including increases. I make no apology for that. I am sure that we will return to this issue when we have the debate at our next meeting on public service pensions. The Conservative Government set that standard.
Then, in 1981—again, under a Conservative Government —Margaret Thatcher, the Prime Minister, decided, egged on by Aims of Industry, that there should be a review of pensions and pension increases. She took a personal interest—it is all there in the Thatcher archives—and established the Scott inquiry. Chaired by Sir Bernard Scott, a prominent businessperson at the time, it was a five-person inquiry that undertook a detailed study of pension increases, starting with public service pensions. We do not hear much about this inquiry now—there is another more famous Scott inquiry—because it came up with the wrong answer. Despite the committee being hand-picked by the Prime Minister, it came up with the answer she did not want. It said that index-linking was justified—it is worth saying here that, when it says “index-linking”, it is talking about the limited price index, or LPI, so not full indexation in all circumstances but up to a limit—and that there was no case for its removal from public service schemes.
The committee decided that public service pensions were not overly generous overall. It pointed out that the main driver of costs for public service pensions was not index-linking but the final salary benefit structure. Again, as an aside, it is worth noting that, from 2011 onwards, public service schemes moved away from that; they are now all average salary schemes. The committee advocated for parity of pension increases with state pension increases. So this committee, which was set up to tell the world how bad index-linking was, said that everyone should have index-linking. That was in 1981.
There is another stage. Originally, when schemes contracted out, they promised to provide GMPs. Initially, the GMPs were not index-linked but had a flat rate, and the state scheme was left to provide the indexing on the fixed flat-rate private sector schemes. However, by 1986, it was decided that the private sector schemes could provide LPI, initially at 3%. The scheme had to provide GMP, but it provided inflation linking up to 3%, and inflation over that would still come from the state scheme. This is where the contracting out becomes incredibly complicated, of course. That change to the GMP was when a Conservative Government introduced an additional element of index-linking in occupational schemes.
Then we had the Maxwell scandal, the subsequent Goode report and the Pensions Act 1995. There is a theme here. It was a Conservative Government; William Hague was the Secretary of State. From 1997, they introduced LPI index-linking, initially up to 5% and subsequently reduced to 2.5% in 2005—unfortunately, that was a Labour Government, but there you go. So there is this whole consistent move towards limited price indexation in occupational schemes. It became the accepted approach to providing occupational schemes. A scheme that did not provide some element of indexation in retirement was seen as an inferior scheme.
I was there, as I say, so what was my experience? Many schemes, particularly larger schemes, had LPI in the rules pre 1997, following Scott in the early 1980s. Schemes have gradually introduced it more and more; of course, index-linked bonds were introduced specifically as a follow-on from the Scott report. So many schemes, particularly large schemes, had LPI in the rules.
Other schemes said, “We’re going to provide indexation but we’ll do it under discretionary powers”. However, they still expected to provide increases and funded for them. It is my view, having been there, that, pre 1997, the number of schemes making no allowances for LPI increases was vanishingly small. For some, it was in the rules; for others, it was in the funding basis. Practically every member had a reasonable expectation of LPI in retirement in respect of the benefits that they accrued pre 1997. The statutory requirement was introduced to cover all schemes, as recommended by the Goode report; that was absolutely right.
So the suggestion that people are unreasonable in expecting their pre-1997 benefits to be increased is entirely wrong. It was entirely reasonable for them, and that is what people believed at the time, although they may not have a legal entitlement. This does not affect just the PPF or the Financial Assistance Scheme, where we are told that, if the scheme did not have it in the rules, it will not get these increases. It particularly affects active pension schemes—not necessarily those with new entrants, but those with pensioners to whom the scheme is paying money.
Many of the members will have benefits accrued before 1997, and those members have a reasonable expectation of increases. That is why I move Amendment 203 as a basis for discussion at this stage. In the light of what we hear, I may come back to the issue on Report. The law can now move to requiring increases on pensions accrued pre-1997, whatever it said in the rules, because it is a question of not legal but political justification. Politically, people can reasonably expect the Government to provide them with justice, and there is a reasonable moral expectation that they should now get limited price indexation on their benefits accrued prior to 1997.
The issue here is the position in which so many members find themselves. Their trustees—who were perhaps more engaged, years ago, with the operation of the scheme in those days—gave them a reasonable expectation of the benefits. I wrote to many schemes around that time, asking them what their practice was, having got an increase in the rules. Many of them wrote back to me and said, “Yes, we expect to increase these pensions and we are funding the scheme on that basis”.
Trying now, 30 years later, to distinguish between schemes that provided for these increases in the rules and in the funding basis is politically and morally wrong. These people have a reasonable expectation, and we have this opportunity to see that they are treated correctly. I beg to move.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have every sympathy with the noble Lord’s amendment, and I would love the Government to find themselves able to accept it. I would certainly agree on the moral case and on the historical justification for members having reasonable expectations that their pensions would not suddenly be whittled away to a fraction of what they would previously have had. The Goode report recommended unlimited inflation protection, but it was limited when it came in and it was only from 1997 onwards rather than retrospectively. There are echoes there of what we have just heard about the Pension Protection Fund.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, is here; he was instrumental in campaigning for the Allied Steel and Wire members and worked so hard to help them, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, also did. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is no longer here, but this would certainly apply to the Allied Steel and Wire members, and I urge the Government to look at the amendments. I fear that there may be little appetite, given that our previously much more modest suggestions were rejected and bearing in mind that not all schemes are in surplus—there may be an issue. But, if the Government were so minded, there is certainly a good case for considering the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, so ably moved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 203 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, and I am grateful to him for his tour d’horizon on the history behind this issue with the uprating, going back through several parties and Parliaments. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I fully understand why members find this proposal attractive. The idea that pensions should keep pace with inflation feels intuitively fair, of course, but we think that mandating inflation increases for all pre-1997 service in live defined benefit schemes would be a step too far.
This amendment would dictate in statute how trustees and employers must use scheme resources and any surplus. We believe that this is overly prescriptive and risks being actively anti-business. Many employers are already using DB surpluses constructively, and that includes improving DC contributions for younger workers, supporting intergenerational fairness, and strengthening scheme security through insurance-backed arrangements and special purpose vehicles. We think that these are sensible negotiated outcomes, reflecting the needs of both members and sponsors.
It is also important to remember that employers have carried DB risk for decades. When funding assumptions proved wrong, when markets fell or when longevity rose faster than expected, it was employers who stepped in, often for many years, through additional contributions and balance sheet strain—that might be an understatement. I choose to use a casino analogy, not to make light of a serious subject but to illustrate the basic logic of risk sharing. Here goes.
In a defined benefit scheme, the employer and members effectively walk into a casino together. Trustees place bets on behalf of the scheme on how much risk to take in the investment strategy, what funding assumptions to use, how quickly to de-risk, how to price longevity and inflation exposure. Members benefit if those bets perform well because the scheme is safer and more likely to deliver the promised pension in full. But, crucially, if those bets go wrong—that is, if markets fall, inflation spikes, people live longer than expected or the assumptions prove too optimistic—the bill lands not on members but on the employer. The sponsoring employer is legally on the hook to repair the damage, often through years of additional contributions, cash calls at the worst possible moment and significant strain on the balance sheet. That is what the employer covenant means in practice: it is the backstop when the world does not behave as forecast, which, as we know, it often does not.
So, if we accept that the employer is the party that must cover the losses when the scheme is underwater, surely it cannot be right to argue that, when the scheme comes in above water—when investment returns are strong, funding improves and a surplus emerges—the employer must be barred in principle from any share of that upside. That is not risk sharing; it is risk asymmetry. Heads, the members win; tails, the employer loses. In any rational system, if one party is compelled to underwrite the downside, that party must be permitted—subject, of course, to trustee oversight and member protection—to share in the upside. If we legislate for a system where the sponsor carries all the risk but is denied any benefit when outcomes are good, surely we distort incentives. We make sponsorship less attractive and encourage employers to close schemes faster, de-risk more aggressively or avoid offering good provision in the first place.
This is a crucial point. The fair outcome is not that employers take everything or that members do. It is that surplus is discussed and allocated jointly by trustees and employers, balancing member security, scheme sustainability and the long-term health of the sponsoring employer. That is partnership. Legislation should support that balance but not override it; that is a crucial point.
Mandating automatic inflation uplift would also have wider consequences: higher employer costs; increased insolvency risk, ultimately borne by the PPF; knock-on effects on wages, investment and employment; and, potentially, higher PPF levies. For PPF schemes, uplift is manageable because the employer covenant has gone and Parliament controls the compensation framework. Imposing similar requirements on live schemes, however, risks destabilising otherwise healthy employers. In short, uplift should be an option, not a statutory obligation. As I said earlier, decisions should rest with trustees and employers together and not be compelled by legislation.
That said, focusing on choice does not mean ignoring power imbalances, because in some schemes genuine deadlock leads trustees to sit on surplus and de-risk further. That may be understandable, but I think it is fair to say it is inefficient. Government should be looking at how to enable better use of surplus by agreement, not mandating outcomes. Much more needs to be done on breaking deadlocks, but we believe that Amendment 203 is not the right way to do it.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
May I just correct the record? I believe that the Goode committee may indeed have recommended limited price inflation up to 5%, and I apologise to the Committee.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for introducing his amendment and for the history lesson. It is living history, but he always has the edge on me because he goes back to 1975, and at that point I was more interested in boys and make-up, so I simply cannot compete, I confess, on that front.
The reality is that this Government have to start in 2026 and where we are now, so we have to address what the right thing to do now is for the DB pension universe and for the schemes in general. I can totally understand why my noble friend has introduced this amendment. Members of some schemes are concerned about the impact of inflation on their retirement incomes, and I am sympathetic. We have been around this in previous groups. This amendment would remove references to 6 April 1997 as the start date for the legal requirement on schemes to pay annual increases on pensions in payment. Obviously, as my noble friend indicated, legislation requires increases on DB pensions in payment to be done only from 6 April 1997. That has been a pretty long-standing framework which reflects the balance that Parliament judged appropriate at the time between member protection and affordability for schemes and employers. These changes are normally not backdated; they are normally brought in prospectively.
Most schemes already provide indexation on pre-1997 pensions, either because it is required under the scheme rules or because they choose to award discretionary increases. The Pensions Regulator has done some analysis and is doing more work on this. The latest analysis indicates that practices differ, but many schemes have a track record of awarding such increases. However, imposing a legal requirement on schemes now to pay indexation on pre-1997 benefits would create costs that schemes and employers may simply not have planned for. These costs may well not have been factored into the original funding assumptions or contribution rates. For some schemes and employers, these additional unplanned costs could be unaffordable and could put the scheme’s long-term security at risk.
Many employers are working towards buyout to secure members’ benefits permanently. Decisions on discretionary increases must be considered carefully between trustees and employers against their endgame objective. The reality is that the rules for DB pension schemes inevitably involve striking a balance between the level and security of members’ benefits and affordability for employers. But minimum requirements have to be appropriate for all DB schemes and their sponsoring employers. A strong, solvent employer is essential for a scheme’s long-term financial stability, and that gives members the best protection that they will receive their promised benefits for life, as the employer is ultimately responsible for funding the scheme. Any change to that statutory minimum indexation has to work across the full range of DB schemes. This amendment would increase liabilities for all schemes, regardless of their funding position or governance arrangements. While some schemes and employers may be able to afford increasing benefits in this way, others will not.
The way DB schemes are managed and funded since the 1995 Act was introduced has changed, but the basic principle remains that we cannot increase scheme costs on previously accrued rights beyond what some schemes might be able to bear or that many employers will be willing to fund, and that remains as true now as it was then. Our view is that schemes’ trustees and the sponsoring employer have a far better understanding than the Government of their scheme’s financial position, their funding requirements, their long-term plans and therefore what they can and cannot afford. They are also best placed to consider the effect of inflation on their members benefits when making decisions about indexation. The regulator has already been clear that trustees should consider the scheme’s history of awarding discretionary increases when making decisions about indexation payments.
We discussed earlier in Committee the Government’s reforms on surplus extraction. They will allow more trustees of well-funded DB schemes to share surplus with employers to deliver better outcomes for members. As part of any agreement to release surplus funds to the employer, trustees will be better placed to negotiate additional benefits for members, which could include discretionary indexation. Although I understand the case my noble friend is making—I regret that I cannot make him and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, as happy as they wish—I hope that, for all the reasons I have outlined, he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank those who have taken part in this debate on an important issue. Many people out there—I have had messages from people who are watching this debate—hope for better news. I am sorry that at this stage the Government are maintaining the line.
On the question of history, I could go back to the 1960s and Richard Crossman’s national superannuation if people would like—I am even slightly tempted to start. But the bit of history I remember is in the 1980s, when many schemes had surpluses and the Government introduced, through the Inland Revenue, limits on surpluses, compelling schemes to deal with them. At that time, employers said to us—I was involved in many negotiations—“Okay, it’s fine, we’ll take the surpluses now, but depend on us. When things get tough, we’ll come up with the additional money required”. What happened is they gave up and walked away. That is why the Labour Government in the early part of this century introduced funding requirements, the Pension Protection Fund and so on because, ultimately, when employers and trustees were put to the test, all too often they failed to deliver the promises that they made when surpluses were available.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, rightly tied this to the issue of surpluses and certainly there will be an opportunity on Report to discuss the linkage between employers getting refunds from their schemes and providing better increases for members. That is such an obvious linkage. I would want to go beyond that, but the issue will continue. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“(b) may impose a scheme-based pension protection levy in respect of a description of eligible scheme (or in respect of all eligible schemes) or may impose both a risk-based pension protection levy and a scheme-based pension protection levy in respect of a description of eligible scheme (or in respect of all eligible schemes).”Member’s explanatory statement
If the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) needs to raise a pension protection levy in future, this amendment would give the PPF more flexibility as to how to raise a levy and to decide at the relevant time whether to raise a risk-based levy, a scheme-based levy, or both (as well as the appropriate proportions between them).
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is removing the requirement for the Pension Protection Fund to charge a levy each year, and the PPF has said for some time that there will not be one this year. Indeed, our discussions on other issues today have taken us into speculation as to whether there would ever need to be a levy again if the PPF is self-funding on the investment income from its current surplus assets.
The purpose of these amendments is to give the PPF more flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances and the changing landscape should a levy be needed in the future, recognising that that future might be quite a long way away. As we are now in a more robust world than when the levy was created, with the PPF and this £14 billion surplus, the levy is no longer needed and we do not know when it will need to be raised again.
Amendment 203A would add flexibility to the PPF fund-raising provision so that it can raise funds that are either scheme-based or risk-based or both. That replaces the present Bill position that a scheme-based levy can be provided only if there is also a risk-based levy. Amendment 203B is consequential, and Amendment 203C would remove the requirement for at least 80% of the levy to be risk-based, which is obviously incompatible with the all-round flexibility that I am proposing in Amendment 203A. Thus, the PPF would be able to decide the type of levy and the balance between the two. The PPF itself has already publicly commented that it would support greater flexibility, and there might need to be a case for a greater proportion of any levy to be scheme-based.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I very much support the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to ensure there is proper flexibility in the levy paid by companies to the PPF. The PPF can then use its discretion to decide which companies should pay more than others and which companies are more secure than others in terms of their pension schemes. The current requirement is based on circumstances that have fundamentally changed over the past 20 years or so, since the whole system was first thought of.
The PPF is one of our incredible success stories in terms of protecting people’s pensions by successfully investing money that it has taken in. It has worked far better than anyone would have anticipated at the time, and we need to pay tribute to those who have been running the PPF; they have done an extraordinarily good job in the face of sometimes very difficult circumstances. I hope that the Government will think favourably about the possibility of allowing the PPF this kind of flexibility, given that the situation with pension schemes, surpluses and funding levels has changed so fundamentally.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, are thoughtful and proportionate. They raise genuinely important questions about how we can future-proof the operation of the Pension Protection Fund.
Clause 113 amends the provisions requiring the PPF board to collect a levy that enables the board to decide whether a levy should be collected at all. It removes the restriction that prevents the board reducing the levy to zero or a low amount and then raising it again within a reasonable timeframe. We welcome this change. It was discussed when the statutory instrument passed through the House, at which point we asked a number of questions and engaged constructively with the Government.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would go further; once again, the arguments she advances are compelling. Amendment 203A in particular seems to offer a sensible way to shape behaviour without micromanaging it—a lesson on which the Government may wish to reflect more broadly, especially in relation to the mandation policy. If schemes know that the levy will always be raised in one rigid way, behaviour adapts, and not always in a good way. In contrast, with greater flexibility, employers retain incentives to keep schemes well funded, trustees are rewarded for reducing risk and the levy system does not quietly encourage reckless behaviour on the assumption that everyone pays anyway.
This amendment matters because it would ensure that, if the PPF needed to raise additional funds, it could do so in the least damaging and fairest way possible at the relevant time. I fully appreciate that the PPF is a complex area but, as the market has changed and is changing, and as the pensions landscape continues to evolve, the PPF must be involved in that journey. These are precisely the kinds of questions that should be examined now, not after rigidity has caused unintended harm.
I turn briefly to Amendment 203C. We are open to finding ways to prevent the levy framework becoming overly rigid, which is precisely why we supported the statutory instrument when it came before the House. Instead of hardwiring an 80% risk-based levy requirement into law, this amendment would place trust in the Pension Protection Fund to raise money in the fairest and least destabilising way, given the conditions of the year. Flexibility may well be the way forward. I have a simple question for the Minister: have the Government considered these proposals? If the answer is yes, why have they chosen not to proceed? If it is no, will they commit to considering these proposals between now and Report? I believe that that would be a constructive and proportionate next step.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for introducing her amendments and explaining why she wants to advance them. As she said, taken together, they would give the PPF much more flexibility—full flexibility, in fact—in deciding how to set the levy by removing the requirement for at least 80% of the PPF levy to be risk-based. Obviously, in the current legislation, 80% of the levy has to be based on the risk that schemes pose to the PPF; this supports the underlying principle that the schemes that pose the greatest risk should pay the highest levy.
Although the PPF is responsible for setting the pension protection levy, restrictions in the Pensions Act 2004 prevent it significantly reducing the levy or choosing not to collect a levy when it is not needed. As has been noted, the PPF is in a stronger financial position and is less reliant on the levy to maintain its financial sustainability. That is why, through the Bill, we are giving it greater flexibility to adjust the annual pension protection levy by removing the current legislative restrictions.
Clause 113 will enable the PPF to reduce the levy significantly, even to zero, and raise it again within a reasonable timescale if it becomes necessary. To reassure levy payers, Clause 113 provides a safeguard that prevents the board charging a levy that is more than the sum of the previous year’s levy and 25% of the previous year’s levy ceiling. The legislative framework will also enable the PPF to continue to charge a levy to schemes it considers pose a specific risk. In support of this change, the PPF announced a zero levy for 2025-26 for conventional DB schemes and is consulting on setting a zero levy for these schemes in the next financial year. That would unlock millions of pounds in savings for schemes and boost investment potential, and it has been widely welcomed by stakeholders.
On the way forward, as the PPF is not currently collecting any levies from conventional schemes, whether risk based or scheme based, the make-up of the split is less consequential for schemes: a different percentage of a zero charge is still zero. But, while the PPF is strongly funded, it underwrites the whole £1 trillion DB universe, as I said. There is inevitably huge uncertainty about the scenarios that could lead to the possibility of the PPF needing to charge a levy again in the future, but it cannot be entirely discounted. We recognise the concern that, if that were to happen, the proposed legislation does not go far enough to allow the PPF to calculate the appropriate split between risk-based and scheme-based levies, particularly as the number of risk-based levy payers is expected to diminish over time.
Obviously, the amendments tabled here would give the PPF full discretion on how the split of the levy is calculated and set. While that may be welcomed by some, our view is that we need to consider any changes carefully to ensure that any legislation is balanced, is proportionate and gives the right flexibility while maintaining appropriate safeguards. That will take time. We will continue to consider whether further structural change to the PPF levies may be required in the future and, where it is, whether it works for the broad spectrum of eligible DB schemes, the PPF and levy payers.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Government’s view is that there is a reason the framework is set in legislation: to give levy payers confidence on future calls. But, as I said, we will consider the way forward. I cannot say to the noble Baroness that we will do that between now and Report—it will take time to reflect on future changes and, if there are to be any, to make sure that they happen—but I am grateful to her for raising the matter and for the debate that it has produced. I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I thank noble Lords who spoke. I freely admit that they know more than I do about these aspects, so I am glad that the conversation has started. I understand that this might bring something a little less wide in due course. It is a conversation that, having started, I hope will be continued. I will think about whether I can invent something that is a little less adventurous for Report, but in the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Pension investment in social bonds: framework, value for money and market enablement(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish an assessment of whether a pension-specific framework should be established to support trustees of occupational pension schemes who wish to invest, where they consider it appropriate, in social bonds and other forms of social infrastructure investment.(2) The assessment must consider the extent to which such a framework could—(a) provide clarity on the application of trustees’ fiduciary duties in relation to social bonds,(b) set out principles for assessing risk, return, liquidity, duration and transparency of such investments, having regard to the long-term nature of pension liabilities,(c) support consistency and comparability in the evaluation of social bonds across schemes, and(d) facilitate trustee confidence and member understanding of such investments.(3) In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether, and how, the social and economic outcomes associated with social bonds could be reflected within the value for money framework applicable to occupational pension schemes, including—(a) the relevance of long-term economic impacts to member outcomes,(b) the extent to which such investments may mitigate systemic or economy-wide risks material to pension savings, and(c) the presentation of information to members in a clear and proportionate manner.(4) The assessment must also consider how a pension-specific framework could support the development of a credible and investable pipeline of social bond opportunities, including— (a) how public bodies, local authorities, social enterprises or other issuers might bring forward proposals in a form suitable for consideration by pension schemes,(b) the role of standardisation, intermediaries or aggregation vehicles in reducing transaction costs and improving investability, and(c) how such proposals could be assessed on a consistent basis without imposing any obligation on pension schemes to invest.(5) In developing the assessment, the Secretary of State must consider what metrics and evidential standards would be required to ensure that any framework for social bonds is pension-specific, including—(a) metrics relating to long-term risk-adjusted financial performance,(b) alignment with the duration and cash flow characteristics of pension liabilities,(c) the financial materiality of social and economic outcomes to pension savers over time, and(d) the avoidance of reliance on generic or non-financial impact measures not relevant to pension scheme decision-making.(6) Following the assessment, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the conclusions of the assessment, and(b) where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, issue statutory guidance or make regulations establishing a pension-specific framework for the prudent assessment, reporting and communication of investments in social bonds.(7) Nothing in this section—(a) requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class, or(b) alters the requirement that trustees act in the best financial interests of scheme members.”
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 204. I make clear that this amendment does not require trustees to invest in any particular asset class, nor does it seek to redefine or dilute fiduciary duty in any way. Those safeguards are explicit in the amendment. Trustees must always act in the best financial interest of scheme members, and nothing here displaces that principle, consistent with the approach that we have taken throughout our deliberations in Committee. Instead, the amendment asks the Government to step back and consider whether trustees who wish to explore investments such as social bonds or social infrastructure would benefit from clearer pension-specific guidance and a more coherent framework within which to operate.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218C; I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for supporting it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that pension schemes invest their funds in a manner that is
“consistent with those provisions of human rights and international law which have been ratified by the UK”.
It would require scheme managers to take appropriate steps to identify, prevent and mitigate the risks that investments may contribute to adverse human rights impacts. These obligations would apply to investments globally.
As the Prime Minister of Canada pointed out in his powerful speech at Davos, it seems
“that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can and that the weak must suffer what they must”.
At such a time, we are under an obligation to do whatever we can to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law includes, of course, the duty on nation states to honour and put into effect the obligations that they have explicitly undertaken to observe by ratification of the relevant treaties.
The great jurist Lord Tom Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law in his seminal book of the same name. He said:
“The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.
Consistent with that, the current Ministerial Code, binding on British Ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations laws.
This point was reinforced by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in the House when he said of compliance with international law:
“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]
He developed that point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute on 29 May 2025, in which he gave this rejection:
“The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change ... The international rules-based order soon breaks down when States claim that they can breach international law because it is in their national interests … The argument … that the United Kingdom can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional traditional, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law”.
Today, 81 years after the end of the Second World War, in which tens of millions of people gave their lives, the global edifice of international law, erected specifically to prevent the repetition of such horrific events, is in tatters. No matter how justified the perpetrators believe it to be, the fact is that Russia is conducting war on Ukraine; the Israeli state has attacked Gaza and permitted attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank; and the United States has attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, and threatens military and economic attack on Greenland, Iran, Cuba and other states. Iran is waging war on its own people. There are many other conflicts around the world where the United Nations conventions are flouted, humanitarian law is breached and war crimes are committed. As legislators, we have a duty to do what we can to sustain international law and restore its impeccable norms throughout the world.
Amendment 218C is intended to play its part. The pension schemes to which the amendment would apply include the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is one of the largest public sector pension schemes in the UK, with more than 6 million members and managed assets of some £392 billion. It is made up of 86 pension funds, most of which are, as I understand it, administered by elected councillors sitting on a pensions committee. There are other public sector pension schemes, too—they are, like the LGPS, equally emanations of the state—but the amendment would also apply to private sector schemes. It is the UK’s duty to ensure that the entities it regulates and over which it has power do not place it in a situation in which it is non-compliant with its international obligations—in other words, obligations that it has voluntarily ratified and by which it continues to be bound.
The provisions of this Bill evidence the regulatory power that the UK state exercises, and can exercise, over pension schemes within its jurisdiction. The Government have the power to ensure that the pension schemes regulated by the Bill do not put the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. The UK must adhere to its fundamental international law obligations in all circumstances—obligations such as the prohibition of genocide, the prohibition of war crimes, the upholding of the Geneva conventions, the elimination of racial discrimination and apartheid, and respect for the right to self-determination. That goes without saying. However, the UK must also refrain from rendering aid or assistance to another state’s serious breaches of these peremptory norms. It must co-operate with other states to take all reasonably available measures to bring to an end any such violations of those peremptory norms.
The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance to administering authorities to give effect to the duties, by requiring an end to investments in companies that aid or assist in the commission of grave violations of international law. It would also issue directions to administering authorities in the event of non-compliance. Local administering authorities must ensure that their investment strategies give effect to the prevention and non-assistance duties. They must refrain from making new investments in companies involved in serious breaches of international law and take reasonable steps towards divesting from such companies.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, which I have signed. The amendment seeks to remind the Government of existing obligations under treaties and other international law with regard to measures in the Bill. Many existing, relevant statutes and treaty obligations apply here. However, the amendment applies in a neutral way across a range of international contexts. It does not single out any country, but instead sets out clear expectations for how pension schemes should “identify, prevent and mitigate” involvement in serious human rights abuses and breaches of international law by taking proportionate steps to responsibly exit investments where necessary.
One example of where the amendment could apply is China, specifically the Uyghur region. International human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch, have documented crimes against humanity committed by the Chinese Government against Uyghurs and other Turkic Muslims. These crimes include mass detention, forced labour, cultural and religious erasure, and family separation. Pension fund investments connected to supply chains benefiting from forced labour or other crimes against Turkic Muslims raise clear risks of complicity in these abuses.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, mentioned Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Research has found that the Local Government Pension Scheme holds approximately £12.2 billion in companies linked to alleged violations of international law by Israel. This includes investments in firms supplying weapons, surveillance technology and military equipment to the Israeli armed forces, as well as companies engaged in the construction, financing and maintenance of illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. These activities have been widely recognised as contributing to war crimes and systems of repression and persecution against Palestinians.
The third example is Yemen. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have led military operations in Yemen that have repeatedly involved unlawful airstrikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure. This raises serious concerns about investments in companies supplying arms, military equipment or logistical support used in the conflict. As we have heard, the UK already has duties under international laws not to aid or assist serious breaches of international law, and to prevent human rights harms connected to state-linked corporate activity. The amendment simply clarifies how those duties would apply to public pension fund investment and would make them operational in domestic law.
The amendment provides guidance around fiduciary duty versus international legal obligations. As we heard earlier, fiduciary duty requires lawful, prudent and long-term decision-making. It does not require maximising financial return at any cost, nor does it permit public bodies to disregard the UK’s international law and human rights obligations. The clear regulation provided by the amendment would help address uncertainty and hesitation by setting out how those obligations should be reflected in investment decision-making in a lawful and proportionate way.
The amendment would also provide clarity and consistency. At present, administering authorities are left to interpret complex international law obligations on their own. The LGPS advisory board has said that it has reached the limits of what it can do without government guidance. The amendment would place a responsibility on the Government to provide clear advice on these issues, while ensuring that pension funds such as the LGPS are acting within the Government’s legal obligations.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, for proposing this important amendment. I very much hope that the Government will look at its content and support its inclusion in the Bill.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
My Lords, I rise nervously since it has been only one week since I made my maiden speech. I should declare an interest, as I have worked in the field of responsible investment for the past 25 years; I am not paid for any action there but, on occasion, my old employer allows me to use an office in the City when I have a meeting there.
I want to make two observations. One is about this Committee, which I have been sitting in on over the past few days, and one is more about this debate.
My observation on the Committee is that I am so impressed by the standard of the questioning. I am also extraordinarily impressed by the magisterial answers that can be given in pulling together what is a really complicated pensions Bill, much of which I admit not to understand. I have noted that, in our discussions and debates, there is often a great unity of purpose in terms of where we want to get to, but also some questions around how we might want to get there.
With that in mind, I want to address the issues that we are discussing today. I think that where I want to get to is very similar to the places the proposers of these amendments want to get to, but I might caution them a little to think about the ecosystem for which we are writing rules. If you look at a big UK pension fund, its equity portfolio is probably index-tracked, so it is buying entire markets rather than individual companies. It probably holds stakes in 5,000 different companies, or something like that, so we need to think practically about how we are influencing it.
We also have a situation—I find this extraordinary; I know that both the Government and the Committee are concerned about this—where an average British pension fund might have more equity investments in Nvidia and Apple than in the entire UK stock market because of the way in which assets are allocated. The UK pensions system is, therefore, a very small holder in a very large number of companies. I profoundly agree that we need to uphold international law on human rights, but, if we are to do that, do we not need to think about how we can get everyone to work together on that, rather than just a small proportion that might ultimately divest?
I note that Principles for Responsible Investment, which has $130 trillion of assets under management, has promised to be active owners and to incorporate social and environmental issues into its investment and ownership practices. Might there be some way in which we can hold those promises to account? Also, when thinking about how we can address human rights issues such as modern slavery—we have talked to companies about this—the campaigners often tell us, “Don’t have the companies ticking boxes saying that they know nothing about modern slavery. It is everywhere, and we need to be fighting it everywhere. Let us be open about how we do this”.
One initiative that I support, both in an advisory role and financially, is the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre, a network that investigates 1,500 human rights abuses by companies all around the world. It goes back to the companies and says, “You’ve got to fix this”. I have been particularly keen that, if the company does not fix it, the network can then see their shareholders and make sure, at the next shareholder meeting, that those questions are being raised with the companies. I wonder whether that is something we could leverage.
Recognising how difficult this is, I led the finance initiative to persuade British companies to divest from Myanmar 15 years ago, just before Aung San Suu Kyi took over. Of course, things have gone backwards since then. I was at a party before Christmas where someone remonstrated with me about what a terrible decision it was for British companies to withdraw from Myanmar. This is quite complicated stuff. How do we build on what is already there?
I love the passionate support for new asset classes, because it is so important that we move them forward. What we want to do is to get money flowing to social causes. I am not quite sure that there is always one solution. I was very involved in the development of the green bond market, which reached a $1 trillion issuance last year—that is pretty good. We also have to think about the traditional ways we can get this. Housing associations borrow on normal markets, so how do we get more of that? We have Bridges and the LGPS, which the noble Baroness talked about. I wonder whether we should always want things to be pension specific—although I do know that this is a pensions Bill, so perhaps that is part of it.
Then there is the question of knowing the social impact. We need to be careful about what social impact is. I am struck that, if you were to set up a pension system, a lending system or even a saving system in the developing world, you would be praised for the massive social impact you would make. Similarly, Henry Duncan’s trustee savings bank—he was Scottish, like me, as were Wallace and Webster, who set up the first pension fund—had a huge social impact. As we think about the social impact of the pensions and finance industry, I note that both in terms of its liability—what it is giving the public for their savings—and the assets it is holding on their behalf, the industry is thinking about both sides of that social impact.
Going back what I said earlier, I hear quite a lot of consensus about where we want to get to. Whatever happens to these particular clauses, I wonder whether we could work together on this issue—it is a very big one—in the future in some way. Britain is an absolute leader in responsible investment. If we can listen to beneficiaries, talk to sponsors and gather the industry—and if the Government can help set the framework—we can do something that would be really worth while.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I will speak very briefly to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. I know how passionate the noble Baroness is about the issue of social impact bonds, so it seems to me that this is a very modest and well-constructed amendment that could have significantly positive impacts on growth and local amenities. It would also specifically say, after Clause 117:
“Nothing in this section … requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class”.
So it does not in any way require this to happen, but it seeks to facilitate a system set up for pension funds to invest in this way in assets that, potentially, would have a significant social benefit, of which the noble Baroness spoke so passionately, having seen the positive results.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I emphasise that this amendment is to propose regulations that will be drafted by the Secretary of State. One would expect the Secretary of State to determine whatever issues there are about international law. By the way, international law itself is quite clear. It is about whether the factual situation on the ground meets the particular requirements of international law, but I think that could all be dealt with in regulation.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I am just not convinced that one would want to put this type of responsibility on the Government. Of course, judgments in international law change from time to time, and trustees are investing for the very long term. I recall the example of Myanmar given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. There are difficult issues that I understand the Government might regulate for. How pension trustees then build that into their asset allocation is another layer of complexity that I have concerns about, but I certainly have every sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. It is a difficult one. I just caution that getting to that level of prescription could be the thin end of the wedge for pension trustees, who already have so many responsibilities upon their shoulders.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, to the Committee. His comments have inspired me to make a very small intervention. It is true that there is a lot of index investment, and inevitably that will capture things inadvertently, but there are now many more indices that will be socially responsible or environmentally responsible, and trustees can choose to use them.
If pension trustees collectively and pension funds made a little more noise and made more approaches to the index providers, we may well get indices that are more pushy in what they do for social and environmental protection. Ultimately, most of the time they are paid to invent an index or they are doing it for their own platforms, but I see an open door there to apply pressure.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson—may there be many in the future. In coming to the Moses Room for the pensions Bill debate, I never thought that I would have to declare an interest, but according to the Companion I need to say that I am the president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I need to put that on the record because of what has been said.
I understand where we are coming from, but the trouble is that in the modern world, investments are global. You do not necessarily have one cup being manufactured in the UK or in the countries mentioned by noble Lords. Very often, you have bits of equipment manufactured here, in Israel, in America and elsewhere. I give the F35 aircraft as an example: the parts are assembled from all parts of the world. It becomes a global thing, and it is difficult in the global economy to identify where something is manufactured or whatever.
The point at issue—it is a good point—is that trustees have to make the decision. They will take into account all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and my noble friend Lady Janke, but at the end of the day they have a fiduciary responsibility to their members. This is not the first time this has happened. Hertfordshire very recently had an amendment to divest from one country. It was passed on the chairman’s vote. What happened? It went back to the pensions committee of Hertfordshire County Council, which decided that its fiduciary duty was not to make political statements but to look after the investments under its control. Whether it is Myanmar, Israel, China or Russia, it is a very slippery slope when you do that. So, as people involved in pensions, we have to leave it to the trustees to use their judgment, taking into account all the factors that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and others mentioned. It is a fiduciary judgment. Our view is that the fiduciary duty should be robust, not restrictive, focused on long-term member outcomes, informed by real-world risks and clear enough to avoid defensive or overly narrow decision-making. I do not support this amendment.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I belatedly state my interest: I am a member of the LGPS. I apologise; I should have said that at the beginning of my speech, so I just put it on the record.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for introducing their amendments. On top of the usual suspects, it is nice to welcome my noble friend Lord Hendy and particularly my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson, who was brave enough to come to Committee and speak on these kinds of topics when he has only just made his maiden. We should all be delighted to have him here, and I especially thank him for his kind words about the Committee. It is a joy, and I look forward to having him here for many more pension debates.
Amendment 204 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, gives me an opportunity briefly to update the Committee on how the Government are unlocking pension fund investment in projects with social and environmental benefits. We have talked quite a bit about the Mansion House Accord in recent Committees—for newcomers, this is the commitment by 17 major workplace pension providers to invest at least 10% of their default DC funds in private markets by 2030, with a minimum of 5% ring-fenced for UK-based assets.
The Government welcome this initiative because it is going to see funds flow into major infrastructure projects and clean-energy developments. The Sterling 20, set up in October 2025, is a new investor-led partnership between 20 of the UK’s largest pension providers and insurers and will be channelling billions into affordable housing, regional infrastructure and broadband. Initiatives such as the £27.8 billion National Wealth Fund will help increase the UK pipeline of investable opportunities. It is a UK government-created public finance institution designed to crowd in private capital, including pension investment, towards clean energy, low-carbon infrastructure and social housing projects.
This is already happening. Pension schemes have the flexibility to invest in bonds, social housing and green technology where such investments are in members’ best financial interests. Industry is clearly acting. Legal & General has pledged $2 billion by 2030 to deliver 10,000 affordable homes and create thousands of jobs. Nest has committed £500 million to Schroders Capital, including £100 million for UK investments and £40 million for rural broadband. The measures in the Bill, especially those relating to scale and governance for occupational and local government pension schemes, are intended to ensure that pension schemes reach the levels of scale and expertise to be able to invest more in a broader range of assets, including social infrastructure. The Government will be able to monitor those commitments.
It is always a delight to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, being passionate about the issues in which she has such experience. I understand the intentions behind the amendment, but the Government are worried that the proposed statutory review-and-fix framework could make the system more complex and costly to operate without a clear enough indication it would deliver better results for savers. However, I am with my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson that we should all keep talking about these issues. It is one of the debates in which we share so many objectives. We are just talking about the best way in which to do this.
I turn to Amendment 218C from my noble friend Lord Hendy. Again, I fully recognise the intentions behind it and the concerns about human rights issues and investment decisions. UK pension schemes are, in general, not just passive holders of capital but long-term responsible investors required by the regulatory framework to assess environmental, social and governance—ESG— factors across policy setting, integration, stewardship and reporting, all grounded in their statutory duty to consider financially material risks. In many schemes, responsible investment policies set clear expectations on human rights standards. For example, the People’s Partnership policy explicitly sets out how it identifies, manages and mitigates these risks.
UK pension funds invest globally, as my noble friend Lord Pitt-Watson said, but within strict fiduciary duties, requiring them to prioritise members’ long-term interests, rather than simply chasing the highest return. Ethical considerations, including human rights, therefore increasingly shape capital allocation decisions as trustees weigh financial returns alongside reputational, social and sustainability risks. That role carries a significant responsibility for thorough due diligence across the portfolio. Fund managers will typically undertake screening to ensure companies meet minimum ESG standards, including sectors such as weapons, tobacco or fossil fuels and identifying weak labour rights or sustainability practices. Such screening helps manage long-term financial and reputational risks.
A core part of this is human rights due diligence assessing company policies, supply chain practices, labour standards and processes for addressing risks such as modern slavery. Managers also consider controversy histories, sanctions lists and engagement records to identify systemic concerns that may warrant action or divestment. Governance factors, board effectiveness, anti-corruption controls, executive incentives and transparency are also examined, as weak governance signals elevated long-term risk. Investors increasingly expect companies to provide meaningful ESG and human rights data consistent with UN recommendations placing risks to people and planet at the centre of decision-making.
We have seen internationally, most notably in the Netherlands, that funds will divest from companies linked to UN-identified human rights violations. UK schemes, too, are acting. We heard mention of LGPS funds. Southwark has divested itself from companies linked to conflict and genocide. In the private sector, People’s Pension withdrew £28 billion from State Street over reduced ESG and human rights engagement, reallocating the assets to managers with stronger stewardship commitments. These actions demonstrate a clear readiness to adjust strategies where human rights issues affect long-term value or reputational risk. To support such decisions, UK investors draw on respected international frameworks, including the UN guiding principles on business and human rights and the OECD guidelines. Evidence from the 2024 DWP call for evidence shows that trustees actively using these standards and the UN Global Compact to guide their management of social risks.
The DWP and the Pensions Regulator also provide guidance on social factors. The 2024 Taskforce on Social Factors offers practical support on risks such as modern slavery and child labour. As part of our forthcoming statutory guidance on trustee investment duties, we will consider how to embed further practical examples of good practice, from schemes such as Nest, Brunel and People’s Partnership, ensuring that trustees of schemes of all sizes can draw on proportionate, real-world illustrations of effective human rights risk management.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I shall conclude briefly. I hope that it is clear from the discussion this afternoon that there is a shared concern across the Committee to see pension schemes operate responsibly, prudently and in the best long-term interests of their members. Where we differ is on how that objective is best achieved. In my view, the strength of our pensions system lies in its balances: clear legal parameters set by Parliament, coupled with trustee independence, evidence-based judgment and accountability to members.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, who made a valuable and excellent contribution. He made my heart sing, and I think that our hearts beat in concert in terms of responsible and social investment. I am very keen to learn more from the noble Lord about his experience of responsible investment.
I appreciate the Minister’s response. She has been very clear—message received. I look forward to discussing social impact bonds more with the Minister and anybody else in the Committee who wishes to take part. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, if it comes back on Report, I will be very happy.
“Review of pension awareness and saving among young people(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, carry out a review into—(a) levels of pension awareness and understanding among young people, and(b) the effectiveness of existing measures to support young people to begin saving into a pension.(2) The review must consider—(a) barriers to pension saving faced by young people, including low earnings, insecure work, and gaps in financial education,(b) the impact of the automatic enrolment age and earnings thresholds, and(c) options to improve engagement, participation, and long-term retirement outcomes for younger savers.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report of the review before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Government to review pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy could better support earlier engagement and saving into pensions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 205 in my name would require the Government to review levels of pension awareness among young people and to consider how existing policy might better support earlier engagement with pension saving. Members of the Committee will have noticed that I have included certain steers as to what the review should focus on; I hope that this brief debate will enable Members to agree largely with what we are trying to do here.
For many people in their 20s and 30s, pension saving is driven almost entirely by automatic enrolment. In one respect, this is a success story: it clearly illustrates the impact that automatic enrolment has had, with around 71% of young people in full-time employment now contributing to a pension and often benefiting from employer contributions, tax efficiency and the long-term advantages of compounding. Of course, there are opt-outs, but I am pleased to say—I hope that the Minister will confirm this—that opt-out rates remain relatively low.
Progress is, therefore, welcome. However, it still leaves nearly one-third of young people not saving at all. Starting to contribute at a younger age makes an enormous difference. Compound interest, where returns build, not only on contributions but on previous returns, means that early saving is particularly powerful. Small amounts saved early can matter more than much larger sums saved later.
Yet, the reality facing young people is difficult. Surveys consistently show that younger generations face an uphill financial struggle. For many, and I remember how I felt in my early 20s, retirement feels distant and abstract, something to worry about later, rather than now. Unsurprisingly, confidence among those aged 25 to 44 about their later life savings is among the lowest of any age.
We need to understand why this is the case. It is not enough for policy bodies to list familiar explanations, such as behavioural bias, lack of knowledge or low trust, and then publish discussion papers. The Government need to know in detail what is actually preventing young people engaging with pensions. If automatic enrolment is still leaving out around one-third of eligible workers, more work clearly needs to be done. As with most things in pensions policy, the answer will be complicated, but complexity is not an excuse for inaction.
We should be clear that automatic enrolment alone is not sufficient to deliver an adequate income in retirement. Of course, I am very aware that the pensions review will be looking at this as its stage 2 focus, and I will talk more about that later. Will the pensions review properly examine these barriers to saving among the young? If not, why not? I ask the Government to give a response on this.
Young people are often focused on more immediate priorities: for example, saving for a house deposit, building an emergency fund or paying off student loans understandably come first and spring to mind; pensions, as I said earlier, are seen as something for later life. But time does not pause and there are real benefits to saving early. Early contributions help smooth out market volatility and allow savers to benefit fully from compounding over decades. Most young people will be in defined contribution schemes, where these effects matter greatly.
There is also a deeper issue of confidence. Nearly half of Gen Z believe that the state pension will not exist by the time they retire. This is a generation shaped by repeated economic shocks, from the financial crisis to the pandemic and the cost of living crisis triggered by the war in Europe. For them, pensions can feel less like a promise and more like a relic. The question is, what do we do about it? I am disappointed, as I said earlier, that pension adequacy appears only in the second stage of the review. In my view, and many people’s views, this should be a priority. Your Lordships should be asking whether lowering the automatic enrolment age, removing the lower qualifying earnings band or increasing minimum contribution rates would deliver better outcomes.
We should be asking what more can be done to reduce the barriers that discourage young people from saving at all. This is why the amendment seeks to require the Government to move faster to review pension awareness among young people and how existing policy would better support early engagement—that is, to move now and not wait until stage 2.
Finally, reverting to the barriers that I alluded to, I will make one final point, which is on the question of compulsion—just to get my oar in on this before the end of today’s proceedings. Mandation, or even the threat of it, will fall most heavily on younger savers, a point made powerfully by my noble friend Lord Fuller earlier in the week. It risks burdening a generation who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement and who already face significant disadvantage within the system. There is already generational unfairness in pensions policy and we believe that mandation would only entrench this. It should have no place in the Bill, but we have rehearsed those arguments before. Without further ado, I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly but enthusiastically in support of Amendment 205. The case for a review was eloquently put by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and its merits are surely obvious. I hope the Minister will be able to agree with that.
In particular, I hope the review will take a close look at the situation that many Gen Z people find themselves in. Many work in the gig economy or are self-employed. The Gen Z average savings are small: 57% have pots smaller than £1,000 according to PPI data, and half of them cannot estimate their pots in any case. Perhaps alarmingly, 45% of Gen Z people rely heavily on social media for financial information—presumably delivered by animated cats. The proposed review could and should examine this in much more detail.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in proposing a review of pension awareness and saving among young people.
When I had the honour to review the state pension age for the DWP in 2021-22, I was struck by two things that strengthened the case for better policy in this area. First, I found it much more difficult to get young people or their representatives, or indeed middle career workers, to engage in my review. Those who did were keen to keep pension contributions down and they did not believe the state pension would still be universal by the time they reached the retirement age of, say, 70. They were worried about buying a flat, as my noble friend has said, looking after their children and paying back their student loans.
Secondly, the level of financial education was dire. Schools were focusing well on human rights, the environment and ESG, which was discussed under the previous amendment, but not on pensions or financial management. They were not teaching the importance of early saving, the magical impact of compound interest, the value of a pension matched by the employer and the risk of new sources of profit like cryptocurrencies. Much more such education is needed in our schools but the Department of Education was resistant, partly because teachers are also often a little short on financial education. This is an important area and I am sure the Pensions Commission will look at it, but my noble friend is right to highlight what a big job we have to do.
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I add my words of support to the concept being promoted by my noble friend Lord Younger. I hope the Government will look into this, as it might well be a good topic to task regulators with in making sure that either they or pension schemes themselves are helping people to understand pension schemes better, how they work and the free money that goes along with a pension contribution in terms of your own money. There is, as I say, extra free money added by, usually, your employer and other taxpayers. I do not think young people always understand just how beneficial saving in a pension can be relative to, let us say, saving in a bank account or an ISA, or indeed the value of investing. It would be in the interests of the regulators and, indeed, the providers to help people to understand that. The Government’s role in guiding that and setting up this kind of review could be very valuable.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing his amendment and all noble Lords who have spoken.
As we have heard, the amendment would introduce a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State to conduct a review of pension awareness and saving among young people. I agree with the Committee about the incredible importance of this issue, and I understand why the noble Viscount has tabled the amendment, but I hope to persuade him that there is another way forward.
The starting point, inevitably, is that last year the Government revived the Pensions Commission. The original commission did an astonishing job; its legacy under the previous Labour Government in effect lead to the creation of workplace pension saving via automatic enrolment. Since then, with support from both parties, automatic enrolment has transformed participation in workplace pension saving. It has been a particular success for younger people. Our participation for eligible employees aged 22 to 25 has gone up from 28% in 2012 to 85% in 2024.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I will make just a few rounding-up comments. I am very pleased to have the support for my amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in particular, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. It was very helpful to hear from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe the information she received directly from the review that she undertook into retirement age.
The Minister referred to the importance of education; I took note of her very helpful answers on what is happening at the sharp end of schools. I also took note of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the helpful suggestions that the regulators could perhaps play a more proactive role in this area.
I believe that Amendment 205 is modest but necessary. If we are serious about improving retirement outcomes, we must start by understanding why so many young people are disengaged and by shaping policy that meets them where they are, rather than where we wish they were.
I am delighted to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, is in her place. We are all very keen to know what will come out from the Pensions Commission.
One question I put to the Minister now is about the timings. My understanding is that stage one will report in early 2027—one year’s time—but stage two, which is on this subject of pensions adequacy, will be at a later stage. Can the Minister clarify those timings, as they are still a bit unclear? I understand that she is undertaking a huge amount of very important work, but that would be very helpful.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I will simply say that there will be a report early next year. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord to confirm any future timings.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I appreciate the answer to that. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.