Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, those noble Lords who have examined the Marshalled List will know that Amendment 46A constitutes what was in Amendment 46 but with an extra paragraph (e) in the proposed new subsection; that is the difference. The amendment proposes a small number of matters that value for money “must”, rather than merely “may”, take into account. The Bill ultimately leads to schemes being graded as performing or non-performing, so the framework must be sophisticated enough to reflect long-term investment reality, not just short-term metrics.

Value for money is a judgment about appropriateness, risk, purpose and fairness. Paragraph (a) of the proposed new subsection is based on long-term assets requiring a long-term view. I suggest assessments over three, five and 10 years, but that is to illustrate the point, rather than being a fixation. Private assets often show negative early returns and we need a way of understanding valuations through the cycle, especially where valuations drive fees. As more investments are moved into private assets, especially if back books have to be adjusted to meet authorisation percentages, there will be cluster effects. I worry about that and its effect on value for money.

How can we check valuations in the private equity context as well? There is a lot of literature around how it is useful to have a market price comparator for what is an otherwise opaque and infrequent exercise. Listed investment companies are routinely used in institutional analysis as a valuation cross-check for private assets because they provide daily pricing for similar underlying exposures and frequent net asset value valuations. For example, the ICAEW’s 2020 report, Fair Value Measurement by Listed Private Equity Funds, notes that listed funds provide observable market prices for benchmarking unlisted investments. The Bank of England has noted in several financial stability reports that market price vehicles, including listed funds, provide useful information about liquidity conditions and valuation dynamics in private markets, particularly when model-based valuations adjust slowly. These valuation and transparency credentials make it all the more extraordinary—and, I dare say, suspicious—that the Bill shuts them out.

My second point—paragraph (b)—is that value must be assessed in the context of the nature, spread and purpose of the assets. Long-term infrastructure behaves differently from assets for liquidity or inflation protection. The question is whether the assets are good value for what they are meant to do. Some assets, or the way in which they are packaged, serve hybrid purposes—as listed investment companies have long done—combining private asset exposure with market liquidity. Directly held assets have fewer fees, but selection and achieving wide diversity are more challenging. LTAFs will package a mix of illiquid and liquid assets and it will be interesting to see how it works over time.

My third point—paragraph (c)—is that value must be seen in the context of the characteristics of members. Those on lower incomes cannot afford excessive risk or prolonged losses; they are more likely to remain in default funds, and trustees will be mindful of that. A more cautious strategy in lower returns may be entirely legitimate for value for money. Trustees must retain the ability to choose strategies that are appropriate for their members, not strategies that score well on a narrow template. This is particularly relevant because assessments created for the DC default funds may well be adopted more widely.

My fourth point—paragraph (d)—concerns the risk of herding. Too much measurement, comparison and advisory consensus can drive correlated strategy. The Bank of England has repeatedly warned about pro-cyclical behaviour and systemic vulnerabilities. A value-for-money framework must not unintentionally reinforce those behaviours; not going with the crowd is sometimes the value-preserving strategy. If we reduce value for money to consensual metrics, we will distort behaviour and risk repeating the mistakes of the charge cap era.

My final point—this is the new one, paragraph (e)—concerns fairness between cohorts. Private assets, especially private equity, typically follow a J-curve: early losses or flat value followed by rising value and, often, high late gains. Gaming or late realisation of value scores high in performance fees. That can be emphasised deliberately or just through the valuation timetable. Thus early cohorts end up bearing the set-up losses while later cohorts—these are long-term assets, so it may be 10 or 20 years later—are the ones that benefit from the late-stage gains. This will be exaggerated, too, if there is back-book adjustment. Performance fees and valuation-linked fees distort fairness over time. If value for money is to be fair, these effects need to be managed—as, indeed, they do for the payment of the pensions.

Additionally, as funds scale, investment will shift from external vehicles to internal management—the models used in Australia and Canada and, increasingly, by Nest and USS in our own pension funds. It will be important to observe how that affects fees and performance.

I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on member services, which I would have added to my essential list if I had thought of it first—but I did not steal it. I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, on fee transparency, with the caution, again, that we must not repeat the mistakes of the current cost disclosure regimes, which do not properly recognise where costs are borne. I note that it will take more ingenuity than fee percentage transparency to get the full picture out of private equity. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 46A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to which I have added my name and which she so eloquently explained. I will speak to my own Amendment 47, which she referred to and which looks at the value-for-money ratings from the point of view of members. For me, that is an extremely important element that is often overlooked when concentrating on the investment side alone—not that that is not important.

I draw the Committee’s attention to some of the specifications that I have made in my Amendment 47, which I think are crucial to understand when one is choosing a pension scheme for one’s workforce. The quality of service for members can be extremely important and can indeed drive adequacy in ways that are not recognised by the investment side. The investment side is of course important, but if quality of service and the education, guidance and support provided to members are working well, that can be a driver to encourage members to increase their contributions. Ultimately, that can be at least on a par in importance with investment performance over time. If members gradually build up their contribution levels to, say, twice what they were before by adding 1% a year every time they get a bonus, that combined with the investment performance can be an extremely powerful driver for value for money over the long run, which is of course where we are meant to be examining and assessing the schemes.

On communications with members, I have specifically included in that what I call “jargon-light” communications, because I have not yet seen a communication with members about pensions that does not include baffling or off-putting terms, including—I will come to this later—the very term “default funds”. We all know what this refers to, but if you are talking to a young worker or someone in later life who is not on a high salary and does not know a lot about pensions and you tell them that what they are supposed to do with their money is to put it into a default fund, that may not sound terribly attractive to them. The last thing that most people want to do with their money is default.

The Minister is looking somewhat askance at my remarks, but this is just one example. I apologise—perhaps she is just looking at something in her notes. Certainly, those are the kind of looks that one sometimes gets from the pensions industry, which does not tend to understand that the ordinary person has never heard of a default fund and it does not sound particularly attractive. If we can include, in communications, words in plain English that may sound more enticing than the usual pension jargon, I think it could be helpful. I would argue that that is potentially a measure of the value offered in a workplace scheme, which is what the ratings are going to be looking at. I hope that the Committee will understand the aims of my specifications in Amendment 47 and, perhaps as we go through, Members of the Committee may suggest other elements.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

58: Clause 15, page 16, line 29, leave out “fully delivering” and insert “good value”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to simplify the language in Value for Money assessments, to make them more intuitively understood by members, especially as 'fully delivering' may give an expectation that all required metrics are being fully met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 58. My remarks will apply to all the other amendments in this group, apart from Amendments 64 and 65, to which I will speak shortly, and Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, which I also support.

My views on this group of amendments follow on from the comments I made earlier about jargon and trying to make pensions more member-friendly—more intelligible to the ordinary person. I believe that this is an extremely important area, having met so many members who simply do not understand what they are being told. The remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, encapsulate some of that: if we cannot understand what we are being told in the communications, neither can members.

It was interesting to see that the original consultation suggestions of red, amber and green, which people would have at least a good chance of understanding, have instead been put into the Bill as “fully delivering”, “intermediate” and “not delivering”. Delivering what? We are talking about value; this is not Ocado or Amazon. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her remarks on the first group used the terms “good value” and “poor value” as if they were in the Bill—but they are not. My proposals in these amendments—to change the term “fully delivering” to “good value”, and “not delivering” to “poor value”—simply respond to what most people would expect this clause to tell them. I hope that the Minister understands that. Obviously, this is a probing amendment, so she may prefer other ways to express what we are trying to achieve here, but I hope that the intention behind these amendments will, in some way, feed into both the Bill and how the value-for-money framework will be considered when we develop it. It is a very sketchy framework at the moment.

I take the point about the consultation, but I have a related question. The critical players in moving away from the idea of cost to value, when assessing the merits of any particular scheme being used for the workforce in auto-enrolment, will be the employee benefit consultants. They advise the employers that they currently simply use cost as their major recommendation metric. They are not, in any way, properly scrutinised or regulated. Having done all this work to develop a value-for-money framework, will any attention be given to ensure that the people advising the employers on whether a scheme should be used will properly use the value-for-money framework that we will devise?

Amendments 64 and 65, which are also probing amendments, specifically address the “intermediate” rating, which is designed to have many levels or gradations. However, it seems that all of them could lead to scheme closure. They will all certainly lead to significant costs for a scheme rated “intermediate” due to the extensive reports and explanations that need to be given. My amendments simply seek to avoid significant extra costs, or the risk of scheme disclosure, for schemes that receive an “intermediate” rating on a shorter-term basis. It seems that it is almost possible that a “not delivering” rating will have a similar outcome to an “intermediate” rating because of how the Bill is phrased.

My suggestion is—and it is, as I said, probing and open for discussion and change—that you have to have an intermediate rating every year for, say, four years before the extensive requirements of this section kick in, so that in cases of up to five years you would need to notify the employer if you have changed from a good value to intermediate and the scheme would need to explain why this rating has been given and what plans it has for improvements. That would not be an extensive report, but it would obviously be helpful and would focus the minds of the scheme without the draconian implications that seem implied by the consequences of the intermediate rating as specified in the Bill. That brings me briefly to my support for Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which probes what the penalties are, how they have been assessed and whether they are appropriate. I beg to move Amendment 58.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. My noble friend has explained the importance of clarity in who decides whether something is fully delivering. I want to ask about the different assessments being made at this point. We are now, effectively, on Clause 15 onwards. We have the ratings coming through. My noble friends on the Front Bench will explain why they do not agree with certain elements. There is merit, however, in trying to work out whether something is taking a nosedive and whether it is it fixable, but we need to be more specific about a reasonable period, and then a prescribed number of VFM periods needs to be put in the Bill, which it is not at the moment.

Thinking through what has been suggested, I am trying to understand how this will work. Clause 13, which we have discussed briefly, has a certain amount of potential calculations. We then have the trustees doing their own assessment, and then we jump forward to Clause 18 and the Pensions Regulator may check. This is all feeling quite random. Normally when we do ratings, the CQC or Ofsted make that judgment, so I am trying to understand how this will work in practice. Are the guidelines going to be fixed—for example, the average or the benchmark across all pension schemes is this, or the FTSE 100 index has changed this much, or the costs are this percentage? It would be helpful to start to get a proper pitch. I appreciate that the consultation may have gone out, but there must be thinking in the Government’s mind, not just the regulator’s, on what “good” looks like. There are risks, as identified by my noble friends, that we may be overburdening to the point that the minutiae become an industry in their own right. I am surprised to see the penalties put in primary legislation, which is unusual nowadays, although I agree that we need a better sense of how that compliance element, as set out in Clause 18, will work alongside the other amendments. My noble friend is right to say that we need to keep this straightforward and simple for people to be able to understand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Stedman-Scott, and all noble Lords who have spoken. Let me start with the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I completely appreciate her desire to make the VFM framework easier for everybody to understand. I recognise there is a need for clarity here and a role for regulators to support member engagement with something as complex as this, but our concern with her proposals is that they would reduce precision and could unintentionally weaken regulatory accountability and undermine comparability across schemes, and those are three pillars on which the VFM framework depends. There is a genuine challenge here, which is to balance technical accuracy with clarity for members. Obviously, the latter will help to overcome the kind of behavioural inertia that we all see and so will ensure that VFM assessments result in meaningful action, not just awareness.

That is distinct from the regulatory precision required for the VFM system, which is why these terms are in the Bill. That current wording of “fully delivering” and “not delivering” is not accidental: it is designed to reflect objective compliance with all the mandated metrics: costs and charges, investment performance, governance and member outcomes. The terms provide clarity for trustees and regulators about whether a scheme meets the required standards. Replacing them with “good value” and “poor value”, even if it sounds attractive on the surface, would introduce subjectivity. Good value is not a regulatory test. It risks creating ambiguity about what triggers action when a scheme falls short.

Members deserve clarity and I absolutely agree that language should be understandable. However, the right place for explaining concepts to members is in disclosures and guidance, not primary legislation. We intend to work with the Pensions Regulator, the FCA and industry to ensure that member-facing communications such as rating notifications to employers and the regulator-supporting guidance, which will be aligned with the implementation of VFM, explain these outcomes in plain English that is suitable for its intended audience. I take the challenge from the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, about how to make sure that happens. That is something I am really happy to reflect on quite carefully. However, changing the statutory terms dilutes precision, creates inconsistency and risks uncertainty. Our approach preserves enforceable standards while committing to clear, accessible explanations for members.

Amendments 64 and 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, would limit the powers the Government have to specify the consequences for pension schemes that have had an intermediate VFM rating for fewer than five years in a row. Let me pause before I answer that to come back to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, who always asks clear questions. One of her questions was “How is this going to work, anyway?” Let me give a very quick rundown, subject to time. The consultation sets out updated proposals—they were updated in response to the previous consultation—and draft FCA rules, showing how the VFM framework will work. The paper sets out the proposed metrics for performance, costs, charges and service quality. It outlines how the assessment process will work. It gives more details around the ratings structure and the consequences associated with each rating. Basically, trustees of in-scope DC workplace pension schemes and arrangements will have to publish standardised performance metrics and follow a consistent and comparative assessment of value to assign an overall VFM rating. The regulator will ensure compliance with those obligations and will have the ability to enforce transfer of savers—I will come back to that in a moment—from consistently poorly performing arrangements.

I said that the consultation had changed. There were five key changes from the previous consultation. The most relevant one here proposes, in response to feedback, the adoption of a four-point rating system: red, amber, light green and dark green. There was strong pressure to have more granularity, so that it was not quite as stark. I make it clear that it is only amber that could lead to possible enforced transfer. I hope that is helpful.

A good question is “How will members know what ‘fully delivering’ means?” Obviously, we are not proposing to use the Bill’s terminology when communicating ratings to members. Instead, the schemes will use the four-point RAGG rating. Red corresponds to not delivering, amber and light green to intermediate performance and dark green to fully delivering. It is proposed that this more accessible and granular terminology will be used in the assessment reports published by all schemes at the end of 2028, and the reports will be made publicly available. Guidance will also include plain English explanations and a summary of metrics so that members understand what the outcome means for them.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

In what the Minister has just described, I do not quite understand how dark green and light green fit with “fully delivering”. Only dark green would be fully delivering, so why is light green not in the intermediate category? To me, this is quite confusing. I understand what the Minister is saying, but I urge her to work with whoever is devising this to iron out this kind of confusion at this stage, rather than running with it, as seems to be the intention here.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

We are still consulting on this. We consulted on the initial proposal and the response came back that more granularity was needed. We have to accept that clarity pulls in one direction and precision and granularity pull in the other, so the job of the Government is to support the regulator in making sure that we end up with a framework that does its primary job, which is not just to work out where a scheme is now but what the right consequences are for that scheme and then to make sure that is communicated to those who need to know in ways that are appropriate. On the one hand, the noble Baroness wants clear, strict categories, and on the other she wants to have different consequences for schemes depending on their circumstances. We think it is important to be able to judge appropriately and come up with a scheme. I would be happy to write to point out all the areas and explain more about how this works, but the point is that this needs to be understood by those who will do the assessments and the communication of the results of that has to be in the right language for those who need to understand them. As the noble Baroness knows as well as I do, it is the nature of pensions that the challenge is that marketing simple language does not map neatly onto precise legal language. I hope that at least explains what we are trying to do on that.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My worry is we have a term “fully delivering” in this legislation. It does not seem to me that very many schemes are likely to be fully delivering, even in a light green capacity. Therefore, I think we are already sowing the seeds of confusion if we go along this route. That is all.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am going to explain a little bit about the consequences because the thing that matters most is the consequences. Amber schemes may be required to close to new employers. Red schemes must close to new employers. I am just getting that down for the record, which suggests that I probably did not say that a moment ago. Just to be really clear, amber schemes may close to new employers; red schemes must close to new employers. Much nodding, I hope, from behind me. Great sighs of relief all round. Excellent.

Let me come on to the consequences of this. On Amendments 64 and 65 from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, we think that making reporting less comprehensive, even for schemes with intermediate ratings, could reduce the early warning signals on which regulators will rely to protect savers. I fully understand her desire to make this reporting proportionate. The current framework is designed to strike a balance. Powers are designed to enable the Government to ensure that trustees keep sponsor employers informed and that any issues are addressed promptly via the improvement plan without putting unnecessary burden on schemes. The noble Baroness may want to note this bit. The Secretary of State has discretion under Clause 16 on the consequences of an intermediate rating and could require different consequences to flow from different levels of intermediate rating. It is not the intention that a requirement to close the scheme to new employers would necessarily flow from all intermediate ratings. I think that is what she is shooting at, so I hope that helps to reassure her. That enables some flexibility around the consequences for pension schemes that have, for example, received an intermediate rating for fewer than five years, which is the space that she was shooting into just now.

Changing the powers as suggested risks missing the signs that a scheme may be heading into trouble. Early sight of any negative impact on a scheme’s performance and value really matters. I am sure that the Committee agrees that it is better to catch problems sooner rather than later and to put in a plan to remedy things, ensuring that schemes provide value and avoiding harm to members and greater costs in the long run.

The amendment suggests that schemes should face full reporting only if performance issues continue for five years or more, but five years is a long time for problems to go unchecked. I think members deserve better protection than that. We certainly would not want to see situations where savers are left in a poorly rated scheme for many years. That is why we propose to give schemes in the intermediate rating a period of up to two VFM assessment cycles to make the improvements needed to provide value to their savers.

I know that Amendments 60, 61 and 69 from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, are probing amendments that want to challenge and clarify the terms “reasonable period” and “relevant period”. The relevant period is the VFM period, or rather the annual reporting timescale for data collection assessment against VFM metrics, which we expect to run from January to December of the preceding calendar year. We expect to set that out in regulations following consultation. The reasonable period is a period during which the regulator would normally expect the scheme to deliver value for money. Due to the level of detail this will involve, this will all be outlined in regulations. We will, of course, formally consult on draft regulations, and I am more than happy to make sure that we engage with interested noble Lords during the consultation to provide an opportunity to feed thoughts into that. The finer proposals behind the VFM ratings, such as the conditions under which each rating will apply and when they should be used, are outlined in the joint consultation which is currently open and will be provided in full in regulations.

Turning to Clause 18, Amendment 69 seeks to understand the rationale for the maximum penalty levels for non-compliance set out in subsection (5). As pension schemes grow in size, it is vital that the fines we impose on schemes carry real financial weight. This ensures that compliance and enforcement remain effective, safeguard members’ interests and, of course, maintain confidence in the system. These figures represent a significant deterrent against non-compliance while not being overly excessive in the current market landscape. We have worked closely with regulatory bodies and taken care to ensure the penalties align with other powers taken in Part 2 of this Bill. We believe the figures are proportionate to both the current and future scale of schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am absolutely not going to answer that. If there is answer which is known to me, then I will be happy to share it with her, but it certainly not known to me.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for her responses and patience with the comments made, especially by me. I have ongoing reservations but will obviously look carefully at the consultation. I would be grateful if we might have a further discussion before Report, because this is a crucial area, for employers and members. Perhaps we can bring this back in some form to iron out this huge intermediate range that could have a wide variety of implications that might be quite costly—I know how much these reports cost when you try and commission them—to schemes that may be having a bad performance patch for a year or two, but for understandable reasons. I thank the Minister and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 58 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, this is an appropriate time to stand, because Amendment 83 is signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and by me. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, today, and having discussed the matter with him, I speak on my behalf and his to Amendment 83. As has been stated, it is intended to deal with the risk that consolidating small pots might worsen the problem of lost or forgotten pensions.

We are all aware of the problem of people losing track of small pension pots: a problem that has increased in recent years as people tend to move between jobs more frequently, and may therefore end up with several small pensions, perhaps from many years ago. Chapter 2 of the Bill allows the Government to make regulations to consolidate small, dormant pension pots. I, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, support this as we believe that providing additional scale to small, dormant pots should enable greater efficiencies and a reduction in costs.

However, a possible unintended consequence could be to make it more difficult for a person to trace a forgotten pot if it is moved to a consolidator without their knowledge: for example, if any notice is sent to an old address. The introduction of a pension dashboard, as enabled by the Pension Schemes Act 2021, was intended to make it easier for people to identify pensions that they have lost track of or even forgotten. This has been somewhat delayed, but progress does, at last, seem to be happening. The connection deadline is October 2026, so hopefully people may start to be able to access the dashboard in the not-too-distant future.

In order to avoid making the problem of lost pensions worse, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and myself, simply says that the regulations that would mandate the consolidation of a dormant, small pot could not be made until the dashboard had been available for at least three months. The three months is designed to give a bit of time to ensure that it is actually working and that any teething issues have been resolved. I think it prudent to ensure that we do not cause unintended consequences from what is otherwise a good policy, I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the intention of the course outlined in Amendment 83.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 83, which has received wide support. I think it is really important, as is the idea of lengthening the 12-month period for so-called dormant pots, and Amendment 81 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, where, for example, a woman may take time off to care for children or other loved ones and intends to return, but her pension will have been moved before she gets back. Those are distinct possibilities under this scheme. We are talking about moving somebody’s savings—or investments; I am doing it myself—from one place to another, just because they have not done anything with their pension for a while. The pension fund is not meant to have anything done with it when you are younger; it is meant to just sit there and stay there.

Of course, the big problem that needs to be solved here is the costs to providers of administering all these very small pots. But the aim of the dashboard itself is meant to be to help people move their pots from one place to another. It seems to me that this particular section of the legislation is trying to deal with something that is meant to be dealt with by a different policy area. The consolidators, of course, will be attractive to providers to establish, and the money saving from not administering these small pots will also be attractive to the providers. But have the Government given any consideration to the idea of making, for example, NEST the consolidator? That is a Government-sponsored scheme. It has obviously had to have reasonable charges. Any transfers do not incur an upfront fee. That would run less of a risk of having consolidators that end up perhaps not performing well.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about NEST. It is a brilliant organisation. But my recollection is that it does charge 2% on the transfer of assets into it. That is not something we should be particularly encouraging.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

No. I was just saying, if you transfer assets in, that 2% charge does not apply and will not apply. Otherwise, obviously, it would be uneconomic. But I understand that the idea of NEST is that the transfer in of a pension from another provider does not incur the upfront charge of, I think, 1.8%. So that would not be an issue. It is just a 0.3% flat fee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on that element. There is a residual risk to government in moving somebody’s long-term assets from one provider to another if the other provider eventually proves not to deliver good value.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this. I will start by addressing the proposed amendments to Clause 22. I will say at the start that we regard this clause as being a vital measure to tackle the structural inefficiency caused by the ever-greater proliferation of small, dormant pension pots in the auto-enrolment market. It empowers the Secretary of State to make regulations to consolidate these pots into authorised consolidator schemes, improving outcomes for pension savers and reducing unnecessary costs to providers.

Amendments 79 and 80, from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek to extend the dormancy period for a pot to be considered eligible for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 18 months. We concluded that the 12-month period strikes the right balance between legislative clarity and administrative practicality. The timeframe was consulted on extensively with industry in 2023, under the previous Government. I suspect the noble Viscount was the Minister, so he may recall this well. Twelve months represents a supported middle ground: long enough to ensure that pots are genuinely dormant but not so long as to delay consolidation unnecessarily. Extending the period to 18 months would create inefficiencies and higher costs for both savers and providers, and slow progress towards consolidation.

Amendment 80 proposes removing subsection (3)(b) from Clause 22 as a means of probing the circumstances in which a pot should not be treated as dormant. This was picked up, slightly glancingly, by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, as well. I make it clear that the scope of the policy is deliberately aimed at unengaged savers in default funds, where fragmentation poses the greatest risk to value for money and retirement outcomes. It is not designed to consolidate pots from those who are engaged and have made active decisions about their pension.

The exceptions provision is designed for cases where investment choices have been made that are driven by factors other than active financial management, such as religious belief. For example, following the consultation in 2023, sharia-compliant funds emerged as a suitable case for this. The aim was to ensure that savers in those funds remain eligible for consolidation and the benefits it brings, because, even though they have made a choice to be in a sharia-compliant fund, Clause 22 would allow schemes to differentiate that choice from other forms of pension engagement which might indicate that the member would not want their pot to be moved. I make it clear that anyone brought into scope under these exceptions will retain the option to opt out, so member autonomy is preserved, and consolidated schemes would need to offer a sharia-compliant option for consolidation to ensure that members’ wishes continued to be recognised and respected.

Although the power allows for wider exceptions in future, proportionality is key. For example, it would not be appropriate to consolidate members in ethical funds into a default fund; nor is it feasible for consolidators to cater to every ethical fund in the market. However, this flexibility would ensure that the framework could evolve if another religious or other fund reached sufficient scale. It balances the inclusion of disengaged savers with the need to limit complexity, cost and operational burden for authorised consolidator schemes; that is crucial to ensure that the automatic consolidation model remains viable.

Again, to be clear, this is not about bringing into scope people who do not want to be consolidated; it is about ensuring that those who are likely disengaged on pension saving are not automatically excluded from consolidation and its benefits simply because of their religious beliefs. For clarity, I note that, similarly, this clause does not allow or compel a pension scheme to move someone who has not selected a sharia-compliant fund into a sharia-compliant fund.

--- Later in debate ---

With all of those questions and points, I look forward to both the debate and the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, have done the Committee a great service. I wish to flag up that these amendments are really important for us to consider before we come back on Report.

The noble Viscount’s comments on Clause 31 potentially being dangerous are right on the mark. Many of the wide powers suggested here should say “must” rather than “may”, but they say only “may”. We are talking about moving somebody’s money, potentially without their knowledge; yes, we will have to write to them, but we know very well that many schemes have dormant pots because either they have lost track of the members or the members have lost track of the scheme. There is a danger here in public policy terms.

In connection with this policy area, the Minister mentioned at the beginning of the debate that there are risks to members and providers. I understand the risks to providers of having small pots, as well as the costs of administering them being higher than the fees they receive from managing them, but what is the risk to the member of having their money stay where it is until they come along and ask for it to be moved? There are risks in leaving as well as in staying if they are moved into a scheme that is less suitable for them, performs less well or has a different charging structure.

What if the member is away for a couple of years on a secondment, for example? What kind of protections will there be? Pensions are typically designed to be left alone. Having default funds, making regular contributions and not being able to take any of your money back until you are 55, for example, are part of the whole structure—indeed, the intention—of private pensions. Is there any intention to ensure, for example, that the member and the dashboard have been operational? I know the Minister said—we talked about this in the previous group—that there might be conflicts between the intention of the small pots legislation and the timing of the requirements relative to the timing of the dashboard, but if a member is moved and it is discovered that they are suffering a loss as a result of the move because their scheme was better or because they have come back to that scheme after a temporary absence, is there any consideration of who might be responsible for any compensation due for money that was moved when the member might well have known nothing about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 134, 137 and 138 in this group are in my name. I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for adding her name to Amendment 137; unfortunately, she needs to be in the Chamber imminently so was unable to stay in the Committee.

I support the other amendments in this group. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, is not in his place; I hope he has not been silenced by his Front Bench. On our first day in Committee, I found myself in near agreement with the noble Lord—that is quite unusual for me—when he said that he was not totally convinced by the Government’s line that big is necessarily beautiful. He said that he was open to that debate, but my position is less nuanced: I am absolutely certain that big is not always beautiful. There are plenty of examples of big being beautiful. The US tech industry is probably a good example of that, at least from a shareholder perspective. On the other hand, there are many examples of where being big is not good. Big can be bureaucratic and low-performing. It can be hampered by groupthink, unresponsive to customer needs and hostile to innovation and competition; we can all name organisations in that category, I am sure.

I buy, as a general proposition, that an investment management scale has many attractions, including efficiency of overhead costs and the ability to diversify into a wider range of asset classes in order to achieve superior investment returns, but I have absolutely no idea whether £25 billion is the right threshold for forcing people into certain kinds of investment. I am absolutely certain that we should not dogmatically force all organisations towards that asset threshold in order to leave the door wide open for new entrants and players who can demonstrate good returns for savers and innovation.

My Amendment 137 would widen the qualification for the new entrant pathway relief so that it can include schemes that will produce above-average performance. If smaller, more agile providers can provide equal or better returns than the big boys, why should they be excluded? If a provider has a winning formula, why must it also demonstrate that it will achieve scale? What benefit is there for pension savers in restricting the market in this way? Noble Lords should also ask themselves why the big providers in the market, in their emails to us, have generally not challenged the scale proposals. The answer is very simple: this Bill acts as a barrier to entry, and large players love barriers to entry. We must not let them get away with it.

Amendment 134 probes why subsection (2)(a) of new Section 28F, which is to be inserted into the Pensions Act 2008 by Clause 40, restricts new entrant pathway relief for schemes that do not have any members. The main scale requirement is to have assets of £25 billion under management by 2030. The transitional pathway is for existing smaller players, provided they have assets of £10 billion under management by 2030 and have a credible plan for meeting £25 billion by 2035. The new entrant pathway relief is available only to completely new schemes—that is, those with new members—and only if they have strong potential to reach £25 billion. This leaves a gap in which new players that have been set up very recently, or will emerge between now and when this bit of the Bill comes into force, will not qualify for new entrant pathway relief and may also not qualify for transitional pathway relief. They may well have strong potential to pass the new entrant test—that is, if they were allowed to because they had no members—but they would not satisfy the regulator that they have a credible plan for transitional pathway eligibility.

Growing a business is not a linear matter. At various points, additional capital will generally be needed, but the Bill will make it difficult to raise funds because of the significant uncertainty about whether a pension provider would satisfy the transitional pathway test; and failing that test would mean that the business could not carry on and would thus be very risky for investors or lenders. Do the Government really intend to drive out of the market new providers that have only recently started or will start between now and the operation of the scale provisions? I am completely mystified by this.

My Amendment 134 deals with the substance of Amendment 136 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, which she has degrouped into a separate group and which will not come up until later. I think they deal with the same issue, but I will wait to see what she has to say on her amendment in due course.

Finally, my Amendment 138 seeks to delete subsection (4) of new Section 28F in order to probe why the Government need a regulation-making power to define “strong potential to grow” and “innovative product design”. The Government are probably the last place I would go to find out about growth or innovation. The regulators that will implement the new entrant pathway are, or ought to be, closer to their markets and therefore will understand in practice how to interpret the terms for the providers they regulate. Why can the Government not simply leave it to them? What value can the Government possibly add to understanding how these terms should be implemented in practice? I look forward to the Minister trying to convince me that the Government know about growth and innovation.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, my Amendment 136 is in a later group and was degrouped deliberately to explore the issues that she has just raised. If the Committee is comfortable for me to deal with Amendment 136 here today, I do not mind doing so, but that would potentially cause a problem for the Ministers or other Members of the Committee. May I do so? Alternatively, I could speak to it later; whatever the Committee decides is fine with me.

[Noble Lords]

The noble Baroness should speak now.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness may do whichever she prefers.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Okay. I have not fully prepared for it, but I am happy to do that; it will save us time later on.

The concerns expressed in Amendment 136 and the amendments that the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, mentioned—some of which I added my name to—revolve around schemes that are already established. There is uncertainty about whether the schemes that are currently below the level will be permitted as new entrants or be able to access new business.

I am already being told that advisers are opting to advise employers only to join schemes that are already almost at or above the current £25 billion default fund threshold, which is creating market disruption and preventing schemes currently below the scale threshold from growing, as they cannot access the amount of new business they would otherwise have anticipated. Therefore, the risk is that these schemes will close prematurely but could offer good value to members who would otherwise be able to benefit from a scheme that is potentially on track to enter the transition pathway but will not quite be there.

I will offer the Committee an example. One of the recent new entrants, Penfold, which was established in 2022, will not have the time that other new entrants, established a few years before it, will have—such as Smart Pension, which may well be on track to reach the goal by 2030. Penfold faces a cliff edge because it launched only in 2022, has already surpassed the £1 billion asset-under-management mark and could well quadruple business over the coming few years, which would be an extremely positive achievement, but it will not qualify it not to have to close.

There are other new potential entrants that were planning to enter the market in the next three or four years, but they cannot now do so unless they are able to enter the pathway. That is why Amendment 136 suggests that schemes that have been established for, let us say, less than 10 years—again, that is a probing figure—would be able to enter either the transition or new entrant pathway if there is a demonstrable case that they will be able to grow. However, I am completely aligned with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, that big is not necessarily best and that there are risks of an oligopoly developing in this connection, which I hope the Government would not have intended. I am convinced that that would not necessarily be in the interests of the market, innovation or pension savers more generally.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for introducing their amendments. As this is the first time we are going to debate scale, let me first set out why we think scale matters. I hope to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, with my arguments, but she is shaking her head at me already, so my optimism levels are quite low given that I am on sentence two—I do not think I am in with much of a chance.

Scale is central to the Bill. It adds momentum to existing consolidation activity in the workplace pensions sector and will enable better outcomes for members, as well as supporting delivery of other Bill measures. These scale measures will help to deliver lower investment fees, increased returns and access to diversified investments, as well as better governance and expertise in running schemes. All these things will help to deliver better outcomes for the millions of members who are saving into master trusts and group personal pension plans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I feel that we will have to agree to disagree on this point. The Government are not obsessed with scale; the Government believe that the evidence points to scale producing benefits for savers. We find the evidence on that compelling. I understand the noble Baroness’s argument, but the benefits of scale are clear. They will enable access to investment capability and produce the opportunity to improve overall saver outcomes for the longer term.

I cannot remember whether it was this amendment or another one that suggested that a scheme that did well on value for money should be able to avoid the scale requirements; the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, is nodding to me that it was her amendment. The obvious problem with that is that schemes’ VFM ratings are subject to annual assessment and, therefore, to change. It is therefore not practical to exempt schemes from scale on the benefit of that rating alone.

We are absolutely committed to the belief that scale matters. It is not just that we think big is beautiful—“big is beautiful” has always been a phrase for which I have affection—but I accept that it is not just about scale. It is not so for us, either. We need the other parts of the Bill and the Government’s project as well. We need value for money; we need to make sure that schemes have good investment capability and good governance; and we need to make sure that all parts of the Bill work together. This vision has been set out; it emerged after the pension investment review. The Government have set it out very clearly, and we believe that it is good.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

The remarks that the Minister is making are of concern to me—and, I think, to other Members of the Committee—because they are just what the big providers would say. They have the power. I have seen this in the pensions landscape for years: the big players have this incredible advantage and lobbying power and the power to get their way on legislation somehow. That is not always bad for members; I am not saying there is something terribly wrong with the big providers. What I am saying, though—this is an important point—is that there is a real need for innovation, new thinking and new ideas in this space. Huge sums of money are under discussion here. If we are bowing to the existing incumbents and not making provision even for those small businesses that are currently established but will not necessarily reach that scale in time, I am not convinced that we are improving the market overall. I would be grateful for a thought on that, or for the Minister writing to me.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am going to push back on the premise of the noble Baroness’s comments. I understand that she feels very strongly about this, but the Government are not doing this to benefit large pension schemes. The Government are doing this to benefit savers. The Government established an independent pension investment review, looked carefully at the evidence and reached the view that the best thing for savers is, via these measures, to encourage and increase the consolidation that is already happening in the marketplace. It is our view that that, combined with the other measures in the Bill, will drive a better market for savers and better returns for savers in the long term. That is why we are doing it—not because we want to support any particular players in the market; that is not what we are about.

The noble Baroness mentioned her Amendment 136; I want to respond to that as well as to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. There is an issue around whether schemes already in the market have enough time to make scale. From when the Bill was introduced in 2025, schemes have up to 10 years, if we include the transition pathway, to reach scale. We project that schemes with less than £10 billion in assets under management today could still reach the threshold based simply on historical growth rates. For example, a £5 billion fund today, growing at 20% a year, broadly in line with recent growth in the DC market, could reach £25 billion within 10 years—and that does not take account of the impact of consolidation activity, which we expect to see within the single employer market as a result of reforms brought forward in the Bill, such as VFM, which we expect to lead to poorly performing schemes exiting the market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Is there a reason why the Government will not even consider allowing some transitional entry for schemes that are already established, such as the one I mentioned, which may or may not reach that number? This is not a magic number—£10 billion or £25 billion are not magic numbers—but these are businesses that are already established. It will put people off entering the market if suddenly, with no warning, a company that started in 2022 is under pressure. Let us say that there are bad markets or that it takes longer; as I was saying, at the moment, employers are not going to give these companies new business. If the Government could look at some minimum period of establishment that could get new entrants into the 2010 transition, that would be good.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The important thing here is clarity. The noble Baroness mentioned a single scheme. I am not going to comment on individual schemes, for reasons she will appreciate—she would not expect me to do so, I know—but we have to set some clear boundaries. The boundary has to be somewhere. As I said, we have actually gone for the bottom end of what was consulted on. We have created a transition pathway precisely to give schemes the opportunity to grow; they need to be able to persuade us that they have a credible path to do that.

In the case that the noble Baroness mentioned, if there were some particular market conditions that caused problems across a sector, she will be aware that in the Bill there is something called a protected period. There are powers in Sections 20 and 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 that give regulators the ability to delay temporarily the impact of the scale measures. That is to ensure that the consequence of a scheme failing to meet the scale requirement—having to cease accepting any further contributions—is planned and managed. There is a range of reasons why that might happen. It might be about an individual scheme that has been approved as having scale but has failed to meet the threshold or it might be a market crash that affects all schemes. There is flexibility there for the Government.

However, the principle is that we have to set some boundaries around that. The Government have reviewed the evidence carefully, and we have concluded that the point that we have chosen is appropriate. We have created a transition pathway in order to do that, and we have created new entrant pathways in order to accommodate those situations. We believe that that will protect members’ interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, before I start, I apologise to the Grand Committee for failing to be here to speak a previous amendment. It was unavoidable, unfortunately. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for stepping into the breach. I have had an exciting afternoon moving from R&R to pension schemes. I apologise that I am afraid I am going to be in the same position next week, so it will not be me speaking to my Amendment 119. Anyway, there we go.

I speak in support of Amendments 111, 161 and 162, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I have added my name. To be honest, I support all the amendments in this group that seek to remove the asset allocation mandation powers, which is probably the most controversial part of the Bill. The trustees or managers of pension schemes have an obligation to act in the best interests of scheme members. That is their fiduciary duty. It is not their job to carry out government policy and they should not be forced to act in a way that they may believe is not in the best interests of scheme members. That is the clear implication of mandation. If the assets that the Government wish to mandate are so suitable or attractive for the relevant scheme, the trustees would presumably already be investing in them. If mandation is required to force trustees to invest in such assets, it implies that they have decided that they are not suitable assets for the scheme. That drives a coach and horses through the whole fiduciary principle. As we will come to in a later group, personally I would feel very uncomfortable about taking up a trustee role in such circumstances.

It begs a range of questions. Who will be liable if the mandated assets perform poorly? The Bill is silent on this. Why should scheme members take a hit because of government policy? Are the trustees liable for any below-par performance? Why do the Government feel they know better than professional managers and trustees? I do not see any evidence at all that the Government are a better manager of investments. Who will decide on the asset allocation, and based on what criteria? There is nothing in Bill that sets out the purpose or criteria for the asset allocation: just some examples, including private equity, which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, mentioned, which will be looked at in a different group. All the Bill says specifically is that the allocation may not include securities listed on a recognised exchange. How will the impact be measured and reported? The Bill does require the Secretary of State to publish a report setting out the expected impacts on scheme members and UK economic growth, but there are no reporting requirements on the actual outcomes.

Surely it would be better to try to understand why pension schemes are not currently investing in these so-called productive assets. What are the barriers to them doing so? That is not a rhetorical question; I would very much like to hear why the Minister thinks this has not been happening. What is, or has been, stopping the pension schemes investing in those assets they believe are so desirable? Surely, the better answer must be to try to remove those barriers, to make the assets more investable, rather than mandating, perhaps by refining regulation or adjusting tax—Gordon Brown’s dividend tax raid has, I am sure, quite a lot to do with this—or taking whatever other actions may be required to remove or reduce the identified barriers. Mandation is, frankly, the lazy option. We should identify and deal with the root causes if we want a sustainable solution.

The Government say they do not intend to use the mandation powers and, in some ways, that is worse than using them. The powers are there as a stick in the background, to force trustees to invest as they want, but without giving the trustees any of the protections that might exist if they could at least show they were acting as required by law. In any case, as a matter of principle, Governments should never take powers that they have no intention of using. This mandation power drives a coach and horses through the fundamental fiduciary duties of trustees. The Government say they do not intend to use it; it should be removed.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I echo the words of noble colleagues in the Committee about the dangers of the Government mandating any particular asset allocation, especially the concerns about mandating what is the highest risk and the highest cost end of the equity spectrum at a time when we are aware that pension schemes have probably been too risk-averse and are trying to row back from that.

What is interesting, in the context of the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, is that I was instrumental in setting up the Myners review in 1999, which reported in 2001, under the then Labour Administration. As Chancellor, Gordon Brown’s particular concern was about why pension funds do not invest much in private equity or venture capital. That was the remit of the review. The conclusions it reached were that we needed to remove the investment barriers, to change legislation, to encourage more asset diversification, to have more transparency and to address the short-term thinking driven by actuarial standards—at the time, it was the minimum funding requirement, which was far weaker than the regime established under the Pensions Regulator in 2004.

So this is not a new issue, but there was no consideration at that time of forcing pension schemes to invest in just this one asset class. The barriers still exist. In an environment where pension schemes have been encouraged, for many years, to think that the right way forward is to invest by reducing or controlling risk and to look for low cost, it is clear that the private equity situation would not fit with those categories. Therefore, I urge the Government to think again about mandating this one area of the investment market, when there are so many other areas that a diversified portfolio could benefit from, leaving the field open for the trustees to decide which area is best for their scheme.

I am particularly concerned that, as has been said in relation to previous groups, private equity and venture capital have had a really good run. We may be driving pension schemes to buy this particular asset class at a time when we know that private equity funds are trying to set up continuation vehicles—or continuation of continuation vehicles—because they cannot sell the underlying investments at reasonable or profitable prices and are desperately looking for pools of assets to support those investments, made some time ago, which would not necessarily be of benefit to members in the long run.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. When I came to draft my own amendments, I discovered that this area of mandation was a rather crowded marketplace, so I decided not to enter it. I will not speak at length on the subject, but I endorse everything that has been said so far and wish to commit my almost undying belief that mandation must not remain in the Bill.