Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and to take part in this Bill, which is a historic measure proposed by the Government with noble intentions. I need to declare my interests as an adviser to NatWest Cushon and a non-executive director of Capita Pension Solutions. I too look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White, who has so much success and experience to offer the House. I thank the Pension Protection Fund, CityUK, Pensions UK, the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, and the Pensions Action Group for their helpful briefings and information for this speech.

The Bill introduces reforms that aim to improve pension outcomes for members of defined benefit schemes, defined contribution schemes and local government schemes and to increase investment in UK productive assets via the route of consolidation into a few larger asset pools or by ensuring default arrangements for direct pension funds in a way that the Government will mandate. I certainly support the aim of increasing UK investments by UK pension funds and the aim of improving pension outcomes. I warmly welcome many of the Bill’s provisions, but I believe that some of the assumptions underlying these reforms could prove dangerously false and that there is a real risk that there will be a lack of innovation in future as smaller, newer providers drop out or do not even start, while the Government could and should be bolder in encouraging pension schemes to support UK growth than the measures in the Bill provide for.

Using both unlisted and listed investment seems to make far more sense than just requiring a specific exposure to private unlisted assets. I hate to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, but I think we are on a similar page when it comes to the Government’s specific proposals. Many of our listed companies are selling at attractive ratings or discounts to their real asset value.

There are many aspects of the Bill that my remarks today could cover, but I will have to try to concentrate on a few and leave the rest for Committee. The aim of increasing UK pension fund support for UK growth is right and long overdue. However, much more could be done with the Bill. According to the Government’s workplace pensions road map, the UK has the second largest pension system in the world, and it is clearly the largest potential source of domestic long-term investment capital. Taxpayers provide £80 billion a year of reliefs to add to individual and employer contributions, but most of that money helps other countries, not ours. If taxpayers were presented with the question, “Would you like £80 billion of your money to build roads and fill potholes in other countries, rather than keeping it here in Britain?”, I am not convinced that they would answer in the positive.

UK pension funds have stopped supporting British companies, large and small. I believe that the future of British business can be successful and I believe in Britain, but it seems like our own pension funds do not. Even the parliamentary pension scheme has about 2.8% of its equity exposure in the UK. The Bill does not address that, as the Government are focusing on DC and local government schemes. One of the proposals that I would like to put to the Government is to see whether there are ways in which, instead of mandating specific areas that the Government want pension funds to invest in—which happen to be, in my view, some of the riskiest areas that they could support—the Government should require, let us say, at least 25% of all new contributions into pension schemes to be put into UK assets, listed or unlisted.

The UK listed markets have become exceptionally undervalued in a global context because our pension funds no longer support our markets. We used to have a reliable source of long-term domestic investment capital. If schemes want taxpayers to put huge sums into their pension funds each year, and if managers and providers wish to continue to receive such sums, is it so unreasonable to ask that they put, as I say, maybe just one-quarter of those contributions into the UK? That could include unlisted assets, listed assets or infrastructure—that would be up to trustees to decide—and if they wanted to put more than 75% overseas, they could go ahead, but should not expect taxpayers to give them money to do so. That seems to me to be not mandation but a proper incentivisation, using the incentive mechanism that we already have of tax relief, which does not have to support Britain at all.

We find ourselves in constrained fiscal circumstances. New Financial recently showed that each bit of the UK pension system has lower allocations to domestic equities as a percentage of assets, as a percentage of their equity allocation and relative to the size of the local market than other countries. What is wrong with Britain? I believe in Britain, and there are reasons to expect that pension schemes—after all, 25% of the pension is tax free—should do far more now to protect and boost our growth. This would not have to wait until 2030, either; it could happen immediately.

If I may, I want to cover the question of relying on consolidation as the answer to driving better returns, and what that might do to the marketplace. Defined contribution workplace schemes and the LGPS are supposed to somehow automatically generate better long-term returns by being bigger. Well, there is a case for that, and some studies would support it, but the figure of £25 billion that must be reached by default funds, and the £10 billion by 2030 that is required, are totally arbitrary. There is no rationale that says that is the right number, yet we are putting it in primary legislation. That is most unwise. What if there is a market crash between now and 2030, for example? What is magic about that number?

Can the Minister say what evidence there is that scale is a reliable future predictor of returns? What consideration have the Government given to the damage to new entrants by favouring these large-scale incumbent funds? The risk of schemes herding and all doing the same thing with such large pools of capital, especially in global passive funds, could distort markets. What consideration has been given to that? What level of confidence is attached to the predictions that the Government have made for improvements in outcomes?

I have heard from new entrants to the market, such as Penfold, which say they are now unable to get new business because they are growing fast but may not reach the £10 billion by 2030—and of course people cannot recommend that employers now invest in them. That company has innovative financial methodologies and is offering a new way of reaching out to pension scheme members, as are Cushon and Smart Pension, which may be further down the line in reaching the target. I have concerns that the Bill will stop new competition and new entrants coming in. An oligopoly is not normally the best way for a market to succeed.

I am particularly puzzled by the explicit exclusion of closed-ended listed companies within the Bill. Part 2 says that none of those investment trusts that have invested in precisely the types of investment that we need, and that the Government want to encourage to boost the UK economy, are excluded from the Bill. I do not understand why the Government would be doing this. I know that they want to encourage long-term asset funds, which are open-ended structures, but there are enormous reasons for and benefits from having closed-ended structures when holding such illiquid assets and long-term growth assets. These are proven companies that have produced very good returns in net asset value yet have shrunk to discounts, due partly to macro factors but also to regulatory overkill, which needs urgently to be reviewed.

Investment in just UK infrastructure and renewables by this investment company sector has exceeded £18 billion. Overall, in the kind of assets that the Government want to encourage—funding solar and wind projects, energy efficiency initiatives, social housing, biotech, property and private equity—these companies have put more than £60 billion to work. But they are now struggling to survive and having to buy back their shares, rather than invest in the kind of growth assets that they could otherwise be selling and managing for pension funds in this country.

I hope that the Minister will help us understand whether the Government are going to reverse this particular exclusion and recognise the benefits of this long-standing, world-leading investment sector. Unquestionably, it can be part of the answer in this scenario. I also urge the Government to clarify what fiduciary duty means. I know that there have been many calls for that to be put into statutory guidance, and I would support this.

Finally, as regards the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme, I welcome the flexibility that is being put in to allow the levy to be changed. I welcome the change in the terminal benefits. I welcome the acknowledgment of the injustice of the pre-1997 frozen payments, with the oldest people both in the Pension Protection Fund and particularly in the Financial Assistance Scheme, suffering most. I also welcome the flexibility that will mean that, where a scheme is unsure whether the previous rules would have granted increases on the pre-1997 benefits, it will be assumed that they will. The terminal illness increase, from six to 12 months, is again very welcome. But I would urge the Government to look carefully at how we can recognise the injustice to the pre-1997 members, such as Terry Monk, Alan Marnes, Richard Nicholl and John Benson, who gave years of their lives to achieve better outcomes in the Financial Assistance Scheme, and promote the PPF, which has been such a success. I have also heard from Carillion workers who were in the Civil Service pension scheme and have ended up in the PPF, losing their pre-1997 benefits. This injustice hurts, especially in light of the Government’s generosity to mineworkers and the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, which has been given a 30% to 40% increase to pensions that is effectively publicly funded. I hope that the Government will think again about potentially one-off increases, or some other way of helping the pre-1997 members who lost their benefits.

Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) Order 2025

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for bringing this important matter to the attention of the Committee, notwithstanding the fact that the actual instrument that we are debating is not contentious. I thank the Minister and her officials for their engagement before this debate and for taking seriously some of the issues that we are expecting to hear about today. Of course, I also thank the Pension Protection Fund for its briefing note. I commend it on its excellent work and thank the staff for all that they have been doing to help those pensioners, or members of pension schemes, who are at a time of their lives when they are incredibly stressed—they will have seen their company go bust and feared what was going to happen to their future. At least we have in place a system which gives some comfort and underpin to the pension promises that they would otherwise be relying on, which could have disappeared were it not for the Pension Protection Fund and the way it has been managing its investments.

I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I point out that, although this is talking about the maximum levy that can be imposed, it has never been imposed in all the 20 years of the PPF’s existence. Yet, each year, the maximum levy keeps going up with average earnings; it was at 4% this year, after being some 8% the previous year, and it has to be reviewed every 12 months. That was born out of the origins of the Pension Protection Fund—and I know that, at the time, other noble Lords were with me in trying to help the Government of the day to understand what was happening to the current members of the Financial Assistance Scheme, which paved the way for the Pension Protection Fund, who have been paid out so well by the PPF.

Given the PPF’s robust financial position—partly as a result of the cap on benefits, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, but also as a result of the investment management policies that it has put in place and maintained, which one must give them credit for—it would be really helpful, now that we have 20 years’ experience of the fund and seen the subsequent development of defined benefits scheme in this country, to consider the flexibility that we do not currently have in the levy-setting process. The Pensions Act 2004 could probably never envisage a situation, 20 years after its creation, where so many schemes had not called on the PPF, and so many employers had managed through all the different economic cycles to still fund their schemes and be heading toward buyout—which I will return to.

Section 177(5) of the Pensions Act 2004 says that the maximum year-on-year levy increase cannot exceed 25%, which has clearly meant that it is impossible to have a levy holiday. As these reserves have built up over time—thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I shall not refer to “surplus” because reserves is a much better word—the PPF and, I presume, the employers’ organisations, would have wished a significant reduction in the levy to be introduced, if not a zero levy. Yet that proved to be virtually impossible because of the fear that they could never put it up again. In practice, of course, a levy of zero could never be increased; you are stuck with it for the rest of time. I hope that the Minister will help us understand what considerations are being given to the flexibility that we have heard about, which the Government would, laudably, like to see, and whether a levy of zero is possible and whether the required law change might be in the scope of the Bill that we are all eagerly anticipating.

My second point, which again echoes the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is that I am seriously concerned by the lack of pre-1997 indexation. The Pension Protection Fund has an element of older members, many of whom had a significant accrual before 1997, and their own schemes may have had inflation linking. Not all did—it was not a legal requirement—but many schemes that I worked with from 2000 to 2004, before we had either the Financial Assistance Scheme or the Pension Protection Fund, had pre-1997 increases that were lost and will be lost for ever unless we change the legislation. I would be grateful for the Minister’s take on that.

I make a particular plea for the Financial Assistance Scheme to mirror, as it has done all along, any changes made to the Pension Protection Fund, because those are schemes that failed before the Pension Protection Fund started. By definition, a much greater percentage of its accruals will have been before 1997, so the issue is of even greater importance and will cause greater hardship for those members.

In addition—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned this but did not really go into it—the Government’s desire to use pension assets for productive investment is one that I wholeheartedly share and would very much like to see progressed much further. But this is a classic example of assets that could be used for productive investment but that are not, partly because of the existence of the PPF and the regulator’s desire to protect against PPF entry, which has driven so many schemes to look to buy out. The extra restrictions on sponsors of defined benefit schemes have caused many employers to look to buy out, if they have not done so already. The expectation is that £300 billion of pension assets will be buying out over the next five years. Some 85% of all schemes are under £250 million; it is clear that there is money that could be used for productive investment.

I hope to get this on the record: before a buyout, the distribution of assets tends to be 70% in gilts and government bonds, and about 30% in corporate bonds. There is very little, if not any, in equity investment or productive investment. After buyout, that 70% in gilts and other sovereign-type debt falls to 10% or so, maybe 15% at the most, and corporates become 80% to 85%. There are clear and present dangers for the gilt market itself from this trend. Anything that we could do to halt the buyout, perhaps by encouraging consolidation or more of that money to go into productive investment, given our experience of the Pension Protection Fund so far, would be beneficial to both the Government’s aims for the economy and the wider pensions landscape. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain some of this thinking.

I wish to place on the parliamentary record my commendation of the work of both the Pensions Action Group and the “Stripped of our Pensions” campaign, which I worked on for many years with many good people to get to where we are now in terms of pension protection. I also laud in particular the work of the late Mr Peter Humphrey, who passed away just a few days ago and was one of the absolute leading stars of that campaign; he and his family lived and breathed pensions for so many other people. I hope that the Minister might join me in commending his work and that of so many others.

State Pension: Triple Lock

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am certainly not going to answer for the leader of the Opposition. I will allow others who are rather better qualified than I am to do that. But I can assure her that the idea of means testing the triple lock, even if its meaning were clear, is not something we on these Benches embrace.

I can tell the noble Lord very clearly that we have a manifesto commitment that the triple lock will hold for the entirety of this Parliament. That is a huge commitment. The noble Lord mentioned winter fuel payments. Means testing those meant that a number of pensioners lost a sum of £200 or £300. By contrast, the amount of money we are investing in the state pension will mean that the annual rate will go up by up to £1,900 by the end of this Parliament.

The comments by my colleague, the Minister for Pensions, Torsten Bell, were made as a private individual when he was the head of a think tank. It is the job of heads of think tanks to think big ideas and to talk about them. However, I assure the House that Minister Bell, along with me, is fully committed to the triple lock and the Government’s commitment to it. I hope the nation’s pensioners will be delighted to hear that.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Does the Minister agree that there is an inconsistency in the triple lock between younger pensioners, who tend to be better off and for whom the triple lock provides protection for their full new state pension, and the oldest pensioners, who tend to be poorer, or those on pension credit, who either have only the basic state pension triple lock protected, or, in the case of pension credit, no triple lock protection at all? Is there any plan for a review of how, generally speaking, the distribution of incomes among pensioners and the protection provided by the triple lock interact?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has raised a number of important and connected questions. Let me pick a couple of them out—as many as I can in the time. First, on the distinction between those on the old basic state pension and those on the new state pension, it is not a straight read across that people on one are getting more than people on the other. As she knows, it depends, of course, on what the national insurance contribution rates were and how many years they worked. How much contribution they made determines how much they will get. It is also a fact that many people on the basic state pension were contracted out and therefore will have occupational pensions and will have paid lower national insurance contributions as a result. Whichever of those state pensions people get, we will guarantee that it will go up by the triple lock, which is a massive investment, given the economic climate, and a huge investment in pensions.

On the broader question, the noble Baroness will know that in the second stage of the pensions review we will look at the whole question of the adequacy of pensions. We need to have in our country a system designed to be built, as she knows as a former Pensions Minister, on the foundation of the state pension but with an adequate second pension coming from occupational provision. On that, auto-enrolment, investment in the system, addressing gender pay gaps, and a whole range of questions are important. I will stop talking now as I have talked for far too long. The point is that we are investing in pensioners, we will get the pensions market working and we want this to work for everybody.

Pensioners: Winter Support

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

On bureaucracy, 80% of people now apply for pension credit online. You can apply online, on the phone or on paper, or you can get help from the DWP or a third-party organisation, but 80% apply online. That is by far the simplest and quickest way to do it, not least because you end up answering, at most, 48 questions and sometimes only 35, because lots of things you do not have to go through are taken out. That might seem like a lot, but it really is not—the experience people have is fairly straightforward. If you do not like doing it online, you can phone up and that is the equivalent, because the person on the other end just does it for you—you are on the phone and they are entering all the details. Some weeks, only 5% of people apply on paper.

On how long it takes to process it, as we are expecting an influx of applications, we have redeployed another 500 staff to work on processing. We know that there will be slightly longer times and are warning people who apply that it could take up to nine weeks, but I assure the House that if anyone applies in time, they will get the money. If that means that for a small number of people there will be a cashflow issue, I encourage them go to their local authority to apply to the household support fund to tide them over that gap.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I encourage the Minister to recognise that the winter fuel payments are being taken away from the very poorest pensioners. Those on pension credit are not the poorest; those who are entitled to it and will eventually receive it will also not be the poorest because they will get thousands of pounds extra, including winter fuel payments. Those slightly above that—it is estimated there could be 1 or 2 million—have no means of receiving the money that they will need this winter. There is no protection for them. The Minister talks about the reduction in fuel costs. Last winter and the one before, those pensioners received one-off cost of living payments. With a Budget tomorrow, it may not be too late to recognise that this is a mistake; it is going to cause serious harm to a number of pensioners and cost the Government and the NHS significant sums.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, nobody went out thinking that this is where we would like to be, but the noble Baroness knows very well the economic situation that we inherited, and she will know exactly why it was necessary to save money in year. I remind the noble Baroness that, by definition, the poorest pensioners are getting the support they need provided they apply; we will make it as easy as possible for them to do that. For everybody else, the Government have committed to sticking to the triple lock for this Parliament. That means that somebody on the new state pension will find that, over this Parliament, the value of that state pension will rise by £1,700, and the value of even the basic state pension will rise by £1,300. That is where the huge extra support will come from for the pensioners that she is talking about.

Pensions Regulator Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice 2024

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a DB pension scheme trustee as recorded in the register. I thank my noble friend Lord Davies for securing this debate. This is an important code, and it should not pass without comment.

As the Explanatory Memorandum and my noble friend observe, while aggregate DB funding levels have improved in recent years, financial markets and economic conditions are changeable and funding positions can quickly deteriorate. There is a dynamic in the pensions world related to economic circumstances, whether fiscal policies, investment returns, gilt yields or the impact of technologies on markets, to name but a few.

An intended purpose of the code is to allow TPR to be more proactive in identifying and mitigating emerging risks in a targeted way. There have been significant instances over the past 30 years of regulatory failure to identify or respond quickly to emerging risks in DB pension provision, some with dreadful consequences. What do the Government believe are the most compelling levers in this code that will materially improve mitigating such emerging risks?

The new code sets two key requirements: planning for the length of the scheme’s journey plan to get to full funding at an appropriate pace of de-risking and assessing current funding positions when carrying out valuations. As part of that planning, the code trustees must set a funding and investment strategy—that is, the journey to getting to the planned endgame for the scheme. The strategy must set out how the trustees will transition from the scheme’s current funding position to low employer dependency funding when the scheme is mature. In making that transition, how risk can be supported by the employer and the strength of the scheme has to be made clear.

During the consultation a lot of concern was expressed that the new code could weaken an important fiduciary power of trustees to make the investment allocation decisions by requiring trustees to invest in line with the investments set out in the funding and investment strategy that must be agreed with the sponsoring employers. In response to those concerns, although changes have been made to the code to clarify that decisions in relation to the scheme’s investment allocation are not constrained by the notional investment allocations in the funding and investment strategy, an inference remains that, in most instances, TPR expects trustees to align their investment strategy with the funding and investment strategy. Will the Minister confirm unequivocally that the code will not remove the power of existing trustees to decide on the scheme’s investment allocation? It is an important power in addressing moral hazard.

The code places a welcome greater emphasis on the strength of the sponsoring employer covenant, which is of fundamental importance but is often lost in debate, when considering funding and investment risk. The level of cash generated by a sponsoring employer and its future prospects will be key determinants of how much investment risk a scheme should take. The strength of an employer covenant can change very quickly following mergers, acquisitions, restructurings et cetera. Such changes may result in changes to the level of debt in a company, dividend policy, free cash flow, covenant and longevity. The code requires any funding deficits to be repaid as quickly as the sponsor can reasonably afford, but trustees will have to consider the impact on the employer’s sustainable growth. Trustees will need to assess such affordability annually; they will also have to provide evidence for their view of what is reasonably affordable and their opinion on the maximum supportable risk that a sponsor employer can bear.

These are potentially significant areas for disagreement between sponsoring employers and trustees, with one seeking to discharge a fiduciary duty to protect its members and another wanting maximum freedom from the liability of funding a pension scheme, but TPR has still to provide its covenant guidance on the main areas that trustees must consider when assessing the employer covenant. In that sense, there is a significant area of this code where an important point of detail is missing. Can the Minister advise when such covenant guidance will be issued?

The code emphasises a flexible and scheme-specific approach to regulation, taking into account the variety of DB schemes. It contains provisions for schemes that remain open to new members and may not be maturing, such as schemes that are now closed. Again, that is quite a controversial issue in the initial iteration and consultation on the development of this code. The considerations around investment strategy and the ability of trustees to choose how to invest now recognise the different characteristics of open schemes compared to closed schemes; the importance to open schemes of long-term planning; and a more flexible approach to assessing investment risk, which is supportable by the covenant and the scheme.

Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum—I shall pick up with brevity a point that my noble friend elaborated on in more detail—states:

“The approach to monitoring this legislation is that there is no requirement to carry out a statutory review of the draft Code”.


However, as we all know, the previous Government were—and, more so, the current Government are—focused on the issue of wider funded pension scheme consolidation and scheme investment strategies. Although I recognise that the Minister cannot comment on the outcome of such considerations or what may flow from the first pension review, if those outcomes had an impact on the provisions of the DB code, what would be the mechanism and consultation for revising the code as a consequence?

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on securing this important debate. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Drake: the code is an important document that certainly deserves the attention of this Committee. I apologise to the Minister because this debate may well end up lasting more than the half an hour that was apparently expected; I will try to be as succinct as I can.

The overall aim of the defined benefit code is to protect member benefits. The whole point of the code was that, in the past, there had been a kind of free-for-all where employers and trustees could invest and take as much investment risk as they wished. Given other circumstances in the market, hundreds of thousands of members either lost their benefits or were at significant risk of doing so. I welcome the fact that there is now a stronger regulator, the Pension Protection Fund and this kind of code, which is constantly being revised and updated.

However, I stress that I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that this particular document, like previous documents, is rather too prescriptive, with excessive requirements placed on trustees, who may or may not need them. It seems to attribute spurious accuracy to an inherently uncertain outcome of events. The kind of box-ticking and groupthink approach that needs to be revised within 15 months of each new valuation will be costly to the schemes, and it is not clear what value will be added if the long-term strategy is unchanged or not likely to change.

Some of the issues we are grappling with, in this code and in the defined benefit universe as a whole, are dependent on and the result of the exceptional period of quantitative easing introduced in 2009. It was deliberately designed to drive down government bond yields and, concomitantly, to clearly put a much greater inflation risk on liabilities. That is indeed what happened. Initially, assets did not keep up with liabilities, but the fears of ongoing falls in gilt yields over that subsequent period, as quantitative easing, gilt printing and the driving down of long-term bond yields continued, have made anyone involved in the defined benefit space rather nervous of what are called “non-matching assets”.

We had a reversal of conventional thinking about defined benefit pension schemes. They were supposed to invest to take risk and welcome risk placed judiciously. This thinking became: do not take risk or try to beat the gilt market, because the gilt market may beat you and increase your deficit. So a whole groupthink built up around the idea that defined benefit pension schemes should have as much as possible in so-called matching assets, because you want to match your liabilities. The fact is that, if you want good funding, you need to outperform your liabilities—just matching them is not sufficient—but I am not sure that that is reflected very much in the code for schemes that are not in healthy surplus.

I welcome the Minister’s comments on the fact that we are talking about estimated liabilities based on expected future values, relative to current mark-to-market actual values for the assets, and on whether the risks of attributing that spurious accuracy to the long-term liabilities have been sufficiently considered. In this regard I declare my interests: I work with some defined benefit pension schemes, and have done so in the past, to advise on investment strategy.

It seems to me that part of the thinking going through this defined benefit code is that it is better for all schemes to fail conventionally than for too many schemes to try to do unconventional things that might succeed but incur greater risk. I feel we need more scheme-specific flexibility there, and we need to consider the impact of quantitative tightening and how that will be different for the pension liabilities associated with these schemes.

I welcome the differentiation mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, between open and closed schemes. I urge the Government to consider going further in allowing and enabling open schemes to take advantage of investment opportunities from a diversified array of risk assets, even in circumstances where there is, perhaps, some nervousness about the sustainability of the employer.

There is concern about the stability of the gilt market, but there is also an inherent conflict between that desire for stability and the need for outperformance of liabilities that these schemes could be delivering. If capitalism is not at an end—one might argue that it is—then investing in assets of higher risk than government bonds or the supposedly safer assets should, on aggregate and in the long run, deliver better returns. On top of that, we have a Government who rightly want to use more pension assets to boost the economy. There are assets such as infrastructure, small growth companies and equities as a whole, both domestically and internationally, that could deliver that objective, but they entail risk. That is where I hope the funding code may be further refined.

Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

That an Humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Social Fund Winter Fuel Payment Regulations 2024 (SI 2024/869), laid before the House on 22 August, be annulled because they would significantly reduce state support for pensioners without sufficient warning and without a proper impact assessment, and because they present a significant risk to the health and wellbeing of many pensioners on low incomes.

Relevant document: 2nd Report by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would like to say from the start that I believe the noble Baroness opposite is a very, very good woman and I hope that the House will forgive me in some way for bringing this before your Lordships. But I have spent my life trying to stand up for people who have no voice and trying to do what I believe is right. On this particular occasion, with a heavy heart, I believe I must do so.

Let me read some of the words of those people from whom we are taking away £200 or £300 this winter. These are the poorest pensioners. We will hear that the Government is protecting the poorest. It is simply not the case. I apologise, but that is the reality. “I do not qualify for pension credit. I live on my state pension and one small occupational pension that pays me the cost of a couple of bags of carrots and potatoes a month in an annuity. I receive just a little over the qualifying limit and fall into that group of pensioners who are in limbo. I am 75 years old and not in great health. I will be trying very hard not to turn my heating on this winter. I have only a few pounds a week for food, toiletries, insurance or any other repairs. Why is this being done? I always turn off the lights and am very careful, but I don’t know how I will get through the cold weather this year. I have arthritis and COPD and need to keep warm for my health.”

Another says, “I am 82 years of age and live alone. I am on £220 a week state pension and therefore £2.85 a week over the pension credit limit. Since the cost of living crisis, I have not been able to afford any central heating for the last two winters. I did not put on my gas central heating and I will not be putting it on again this year. My welcome winter fuel payment went towards my electricity bill, which increased due to the single room heater I used. I work on the ‘heat the person not the room’ principle. I fall into that group of pensioners who do not qualify for pension credit, and I am not sure how I can economise further”.

One more example says, “I am 91 years old and my husband and I struggled to keep our home warm enough last winter. The fuel bills rose so much, and even though our home is small we were spending so much on heating that we only had the heating on in the sitting room and our bedroom. He had Parkinson’s and I have had cancer, but we looked after each other. We spent our time in the one room downstairs and used lots of blankets, as well as often having three cardigans on. We went to bed early so we could turn off the heating, and would try to keep the heating off in the bedroom most of the time, but we would cuddle up together to keep warm. My husband passed away a few months ago and I don’t know how I will manage this winter. I don’t have enough money to warm the house more, and my small pension has put me over the limit for pension credit”.

This is the reality of the statutory instrument we are debating. I agree with the Government’s aim of removing a tax-free payment from millions of people who do not need it. Indeed, I have called for that to be done for a long time, or for it at the very least to be taxed: it could perhaps be rolled into a higher state pension but then become taxable.

I would support this measure if it was dated 2025 instead of 2024, giving time to put in place some mitigation and protection for these poorest pensioners. Those on pension credit are not the poorest as they get extra help—as the Minister herself has said, some get thousands of pounds extra. It is those who are just a few pounds a week above the limit or those who are eligible but do not claim or receive it who are the poorest. Nothing in these regulations will ensure they receive the money they expected, which has been withdrawn from them with no warning or time for them to economise in time for November, when it was due, or for the colder weather this winter.

I believe that the Government do not want to hurt these people. I do not expect that the needs and situation of these very poorest pensioners were really considered when this announcement was made. The aim, which I fully endorse, was to take the winter fuel payment away from the quarter of pensioners who have assets worth £1 million, and from those higher up the income scale, who clearly can manage without it. But that is not the impact that I am concerned about if we pass this measure today.

I am particularly concerned because of the wording in the statutory instrument document itself:

“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, public or voluntary sector is foreseen”.


If that had been the expectation, since that publication the voices of Age UK, Independent Age, Silver Voices and the trade unions have all warned clearly that what the Government perhaps did not foresee is indeed foreseeable and potentially about to happen.

The Government’s Explanatory Memorandum says:

“No consultation was undertaken ... Whilst making the necessary Exchequer savings, it retains support for pensioner households on the lowest incomes”.


This is simply not correct, and I am trying to help the Government see that what I believe they do not wish to do, they may not need to do. I understand that there are pressures on the public finances, and I completely support the idea that a universal payment to those who do not need it, especially one that is tax-free, should not be made. Why not work out a system whereby they do not receive it, but the consequence of taking it away is not that we also have to take it away from perhaps 3 million of the poorest pensioners in the land?

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has brought this issue to the attention of the House:

“We are unconvinced by the reasons given for the urgency attached to laying these regulations and are particularly concerned that this both precludes appropriate scrutiny and creates issues with the practicalities of bringing in the change at short notice”.


That is the problem I have, the short notice. It is not the aim of the policy that I query: there is no time to prepare, no time to increase pension credit—although that is a worthy aim, and I hope a few extra people will claim it. According to the Government’s own figures, more than 800,000 households are eligible but not claiming. The idea that they will receive the money this winter, having gone through the 243 questions on the application form, be approved and start receiving it, is simply fanciful. With the best will in the world—and I believe the Government have the best will to try to increase take-up—even if half the households were to receive it, the savings the Government say are so essential to make will be wiped out. This argument does not make sense. It is not logical to say that we have to take it away from the poorest because we want to take it away from the well-off.

Taking this money from people is, effectively, a 3.4% state pension cut this year. For anyone on the old basic state pension who is over 80, £300 is 3.4% of the money they received from the Government last year. This measure was introduced in 1997 and it has been an essential part of the state pension support package for pensioners ever since. No Government have said it will be removed; indeed, that was suggested and rejected time and again. I believe there could, and will, be a way of dealing with this. For example, to save money, you could tax it rather than axe it; or you could just say that anyone paying higher rate tax will have their tax coding adjusted and the money will be taken back from them. If you pay 40% or 45% tax, of course you do not need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I commend my erstwhile noble friend the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on her powerful opening of this debate. I agree with the arguments she put forward, as well as those of my noble friend on the Front Bench. There is very little for me to add to what they have already said about this decision that the Government have made and for which they have no mandate. They have not even had the respect to set out a proposal in a Budget in a much more rounded way, as put forward by my noble friend Lady Altmann.

I want to make a bigger point. What a lot of people find quite hard to take at the moment is that, alongside this decision, the Prime Minister has the gall to say that his Government are acting in a way which will restore public trust. He seems not to understand that all of us in the political class over the last few years have lost public trust—himself included—because of our disregard and disrespect for what the electorate have been demanding from us. For this Government now to take decisions that affect people so directly without any notice—believing that such decisions can be justified because the Prime Minister and his Chancellor are convinced that they know best—damages public trust further.

Of course, the impact of this politically on the Labour Party is a matter for it, but I urge the Minister and the rest of her Government to accept the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Altmann today. I hope that she does not mind me calling her my noble friend; she will always be “my noble friend” to me.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Absolutely. She will always be my noble friend.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

I also urge the Prime Minister to drop his misplaced belief that he and his Government are somehow morally superior and are acting in a way which will restore public trust. On the basis of this decision, they are not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I too welcome the noble Baroness to her position on the Front Bench. She brings huge expertise and value to that position. I hope that we can work together in the future on other pension-related issues—but on this issue, I have listened carefully to all noble Lords who have spoken and I have not heard any reasonable justification at all for the hurry to take this money away from the poorest pensioners this year. I have heard a marvellous case for changing it, and about the excellent work that is being planned to try to improve the take-up of pension credit and maybe to help people get the support fund, but none of these off-sets the loss for the possibly 3 million of the poorest pensioners—I repeat, the poorest pensioners, who are not the ones who are already on pension credit or might have a chance to receive it with the current take-up increase plan. This year they are at risk in their homes. This is the last chance to protect them and help them keep warm this winter.

For me this is about policy, not politics. I do not welcome any of the undertones or overtones that have tried to look at politics in this. There is none for me. My whole pensions policy life’s work has been about the idea that pensions are about not just money but people and giving them a better life in retirement. On that basis, I have not heard how the Government can possibly protect the poorest this winter.

We have heard about the triple lock. A triple lock increase of 4% on the basic state pension next April will give pensioners—many of whom, demographically, will not survive that long, regardless of the winter fuel payments—an extra £6.80 a week. They will not recoup a £300 loss until about February 2026. They need the money for their bills this winter. As I said, if the Government were to talk about this for next year, I would not be here—and believe me, I wish I was not here.

I know how hard it is to defy a Whip. I also know, though, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, that the conventions of this House are just that: conventions. We are the only mechanism left to protect the poorest pensioners and help them keep warmer this winter. With a very heavy heart, I believe that I must now test the opinion of the House.

UNICEF: Child Poverty Rankings

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Wednesday 28th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I come back to the point that it is important to have statistics that are grounded. The noble Baroness will know that, over many years, we have used our own statistics for poverty, which are cross-government. The Government prefer to look at absolute poverty, as the noble Baroness knows, rather than relative poverty, as the latter can provide counterintuitive results. The absolute poverty line is fixed in real terms, so it will only ever worsen if people are getting poorer and will only ever improve if people are getting richer.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend, who is an excellent Minister, is very concerned about this issue. I apologise for questioning him further, but it remains a struggle for unpaid carers of working age, who perhaps have children as well, to stay in or find work. What more can the Government do to support this important group?

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate and thank my honourable friend Jonathan Gullis on initiating this Private Member’s Bill in the other place. I also thank my honourable friend the Pensions Minister, Laura Trott, my noble friend Lord Younger, the Lords Minister, DWP officials and the Bill team, the Public Bill Office, the Lords Library and the Lords clerks.

This Bill reflects the strong cross-party support in both Houses and continued political consensus on auto-enrolment. In that regard, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Drake, whose work on the Pensions Commission recommended automatic enrolment, and the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Palmer, for their speeches supporting the Bill, which paves the way for half a million younger people and at least 2.5 million older workers to build bigger pensions, particularly for the low paid. I look forward to the promised early consultation to confirm the details and timing of the regulations, which will see the provisions of the Bill implemented by all employers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for piloting the Bill through this House and I share her thanks to the Minister and his team, and all noble Lords who participated. Auto-enrolment is a much-loved child with more than one parent. As the noble Baroness said, the work came from the Pensions Commission, set up by the last Labour Government and on which my noble friend Lady Drake and the noble Lord, Lord Turner, served with such distinction. The coalition Government implemented it in 2012, and there has been a welcome growth as a result in the number of people saving for a pension. We can all celebrate that—but, as we noted at Second Reading, pensions adequacy is still an issue, so we need to look at continually improving auto-enrolment and addressing the question of the gender pensions gap, which remains a matter of serious concern.

This simple, permissive Bill would allow the Government to make progress in fulfilling their commitment by implementing some of the 2017 review measures, namely reducing the lower age limit for being auto-enrolled and removing the lower earnings limit. The Minister confirmed at Second Reading that the Government were still committed to doing that in the mid-2020s. Without wishing to be depressing, as 2023 begins its descent towards the sea, I wonder if the Minister can give us any hint as to whether 2024 might be the year, or is this gently rolling into the grass beyond the election?

The Opposition fully support this Bill. I thank again all those involved in proposing it and look forward to its passage.

Reducing Parental Conflict

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Very much so. The noble Lord may know that we had a first challenge fund, and we now have a second challenge fund with eight interesting initiatives as part of RPC. For example, one of the challenge funds is looking at the digital side. This has a particular focus on ensuring that those who are not particularly digitally aware can be. The results of that will come out in due course, but I hope that answers directly the noble Lord’s question.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to hear about all the work that my noble friend and the department are doing and that they have recognised how important the role of stability and the family unit is in creating family cohesion. Does my noble friend agree that it is also important to include the role of grandparents and intergenerational aspects? What are the Government doing in this respect on policy and actions?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My noble friend makes an excellent point about the role of grandparents because I think, and I am sure that the Government think, that for stability within families—which now come in all shapes and sizes, and we must recognise that—the role of grandparents is incredibly important to feed down to their grandchildren certain lessons in life. The family test, which the House will know about, was introduced by the Government in 2014. It aims to bring a family perspective into policy-making, and various tests are used. This is something for which we are responsible in my department, particularly looking at the guidance and the raising of awareness about this initiative.

Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) (No. 2) Bill

Baroness Altmann Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Altmann]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to sponsor the Bill before the House today. It brings to fruition the hard work of dedicated colleagues across the Chamber, who have advocated tirelessly for the improvement of workplace pension coverage and adequacy, especially for younger workers and low earners.

I thank and pay tribute to my honourable friend Jonathan Gullis MP, who championed the Bill in the other place and saw it through its stages there earlier this year. His hard work paved the way for the Bill to come to us today and has been praised fulsomely, with cross-party support welcoming these improvements to retirement provision for millions of our fellow citizens. I also pay tribute to my noble friend the Minister, who I am very pleased to see today, and to my honourable friend the Pensions Minister in the other place, Laura Trott MP, and the department officials who have done so much work and are supporting the Bill.

The Bill has two main objectives: first, to pave the way for extending auto-enrolment to workers under the age of 22, the current minimum age for automatic enrolment to a workplace pension; and, secondly, to allow the Government to abolish the lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band, which will increase the overall amounts being saved, as pension contributions under auto-enrolment will be calculated from the very first pound of earnings rather than from £6,240, which is the case now.

Auto-enrolment into workplace pensions has been a celebrated success, bringing 10.9 million more people into pensions since the programme started in 2012, with 2.2 million employers complying with their duties and an extra £33 billion being invested in pensions in 2021, relative to 2012. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for the seminal work she contributed in the Pensions Commission in 2008, which led to auto-enrolment in the first place.

It is now time to move on to the next stage of this successful programme. In 2017 there was a year-long major review of the policy, which recommended, among other things, the two measures put forward in the Bill today. The aim is to allow the Government to help improve people’s private pensions. There are several benefits of extending auto-enrolment to workers under the age of 22: it will improve inclusivity and will give younger generations longer to benefit from the power of compounding long-term investment returns, giving them a chance to build bigger pension funds. It can also simplify the administration of workplace pension schemes, which will save money and reduce the risk of errors if a minimum age is no longer in place—although that will be determined in due course by regulations.

The Bill should also help lower the likelihood of 22 year-olds opting out of an employer pension scheme, which is the risk at the moment, as their take-home pay suddenly falls due to pension contributions starting to be deducted as they pass their 22nd birthday. It is expected that 600,000 private sector workers aged 18 to 21—and, as I said, there could be more if the age is somewhat lower—could benefit from these measures. I hope that the consultation for regulations will include not a minimum age of 18 but a removal of the limit altogether, so that every worker, even those who leave school at 16 and start work at that age, can start a pension.

There are also significant benefits from removing the lower earnings limit, the other important strand of the Bill. Employer contributions for lower earners who want pensions will be significantly higher as a result. Currently, those who are under 22 also have to request to join their employer pension and do not benefit from the powerful behavioural nudge that sees those over 22 automatically enrolled into the pension scheme. While younger workers can ask their employer to join, the estimates suggest that only 32% of those eligible workers are actually paying into a pension at work—far less than the nearly 90% of eligible workers over 22, who are building a pension at work after being auto-enrolled.

There will also be the opportunity to help people to start the pension habit earlier, establishing even more clearly the principle that workers in this country can expect their employer to cover tax, national insurance and pension for them. This Bill will therefore particularly pave the way to help underpensioned groups, including lower earners, women, people from ethnic minorities, the disabled, multiple job holders, young workers and those in the gig economy.

Helping to narrow the gender pensions gap is an issue that many of us across this House have been exercised with for some time and is another reason to support these measures. Of course, this alone will not close it entirely. The ABI estimates that, at the moment, the average woman aged 65 has a pension pot worth just one-fifth of the value of that of a man of the same age. Due to lower-paid work, lower lifetime earnings, interrupted careers and more part-time jobs, women have always lost out on this earnings-related private pension system. By ensuring that all their earnings are used to calculate contributions in future, even lower-earning women will build much bigger pensions. Instead of someone on, say, £10,000 receiving contributions on just £3,760 of her earnings, she will—once this Bill and subsequent affirmative resolutions are hopefully passed—be able to receive nearly twice as much again, as the full £10,000 will be used to calculate her and her employer’s contribution. This means that, instead of receiving £300 a year into her pension, it will be £800 a year.

The Bill provides regulation-making powers to amend the automatic enrolment framework set out in the Pensions Act 2008. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will be required to carry out a public consultation on the proposed use of these powers to lower the minimum age and abolish the lower earnings limit, with the findings having to be reported to Parliament before regulations are made. It is promised, I believe, that the consultation will be later this year, so I do not think that we will have to wait too long. All noble Lords will therefore be able to consider and vote on the detail of the proposals for secondary legislation before they become law. I hope that noble Lords will therefore be able to support these enabling measures in the Bill today.

Colleagues across the House may have concerns about bringing more people into pensions and increasing contributions for lower earners if they are going to be put into pension schemes that administer tax relief by the net pay system. However, the Treasury has announced a new system, which will make top-up payments to low earners in met pay schemes—many of whom are women, of course—to address the net pay and relief at source anomaly. This is planned to be introduced for contributions from the 2024-25 tax year onwards, so should time well with the start of measures provided for in this Bill, following the laying of regulations. I am therefore delighted that the Bill before us today will set us on the path to the next successful chapter—I am sure—in the story of automatic enrolment. It will bring undoubted benefits of pensions savings to younger people and to those hard-working, lower-paid workers, including women with caring responsibilities, who deserve the opportunity to build a more secure retirement for themselves and their families.

As the Government have promised, this measure will be in place—or the intention is that it will be in place—by the mid-2020s. Of course, there is more to do, including extending auto-enrolment to workers with earnings in any one job below £10,000 as well, but that can be covered elsewhere, and to the self-employed. However, these measures are an important start. I welcome the improvements, and I hope that noble Lords across the House will do so. I commend the Bill to noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and to my noble friend for their contributions to this excellent debate. I have just a few brief words.

The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, expressed her concerns about younger workers perhaps being off-payroll. She is right in the warnings that she has put on record, and about the issue of the national minimum wage for a part-time female worker, for example, who might still be excluded because of the £10,000 trigger. Indeed, the issue of small pots will grow as a result of these measures. I know the Government will look at ways to solve that. I urge my noble friend to proceed with the measures currently under consideration and the consultation.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, is absolutely right to raise the issue of the gender pensions gap, which I think all noble Lords who have spoken will have concerns about. He is right that more women being on low pay means that fewer women will have as good pensions as men, but I hope he might be persuaded that the fact that we will be taking earnings contributions from pound zero will make a difference. It might be a small one, but it will make a difference in the right direction to the gender pensions gap. As I said, someone on £10,000 per year, who is more likely to be a woman than a man, will suddenly have £800 going into their pension instead of £300. That will help to build a better amount over the long term, but he is clearly right that more can and should be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is right that there is more to do on auto-enrolment, but I appreciate the welcome for these measures. I also welcome him to our merry band of pension Peers. As he pointed out, it is always the same individuals across the House.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is right to celebrate the success of auto-enrolment. She asked about the opt-out rate. As far as I am aware, the DWP published some research in August 2022 which suggested that there was a slight uptick in the auto-enrolment opt-out rate for newly enrolled workers, rising to 10.4% from 7.6% in January 2020. In contrast, for the workers who stopped contributing once they were in, there was actually a reduction to 3.1% in August 2022, down from the figure of about 5% that she mentioned. As a previous Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, has written, the auto-enrolment programme so far seems to be remarkably robust, but we clearly had not had the worst of the cost of living crisis in 2022. This needs to be monitored, but I am pleased that the DWP is doing that.

My noble friend the Minister is right to say that the Secretary of State can review the trigger each year. Therefore, there is a potential for those earning below £10,000 a year to also be included at some point.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.