Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, my Amendment 81 is very small; I hardly need to say anything about it. It came from one of those occasions when you are going through the Bill and you write a little query which you then convert into an amendment. It concerns Clause 22(3)(b), which says that a pension pot can be moved into a consolidator if

“the individual has, subject to any prescribed exceptions, taken no step to confirm or alter the way in which the pension pot is invested”.

There are instances in which a person may want to stay attached to a pension fund they have in a workplace, particularly if they do not necessarily have a long relationship with an employer or have done some intermittent work and then gone off to have a family, because they may have an informal agreement to go back. How do you cater for that? I realise that it might just fall under “any prescribed exceptions”, which you write in a note to deal with, but that is the basis of the amendment. I am sure it will be very simple for the Minister to say, “Yes, that is covered”.

While I am on my feet, I support Amendment 83. I also support Amendment 88 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because it is worth having some guardrails for things that are doing very well.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 88 proposes to limit the power in Clause 34 to increase the size of the pot classified as small so that it is limited to £10,000. I welcome the fact that the power to make regulations under Clause 34 has to be consulted on and that they will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but we know that Parliament has close to zero power to alter the content of regulations, so it is important that the guardrails around the power are sufficiently strong.

There is widespread acceptance in the industry that there should be consolidation of small pots of £1,000 or less. I understand that there are already around 13 million pots of that size, and that is predicted to rise to over 30 million in only a few years’ time, so this is clearly an important issue. There is a concern, however, that the Clause 34 power could be used beyond its core purpose, which is to ensure that multiple small pots do not accumulate within pension providers and that individuals do not lose track of their own pension pots. It is one thing to use the power for sensible tidying up, but it would be quite another if the power were used to drive further consolidation, for example, which would not necessarily be in the interests of either savers or pension providers.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Will the Minister say what the evidence base is for the assertions she just made?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I was going to come on to that, but I am happy to do so now. Our evidence shows that across a range of domestic and international studies, a greater number of benefits can arise from scale of around £25 billion to £50 billion of assets under management, including investment expertise, improved governance and access to a wider range of assets. This is supported by industry analysis, with schemes of this size finding it easier to invest in productive finance. International evidence shows funds in the region of £25 billion invested nearly double the level of private market investment compared to a £1 billion fund. Obviously, we consulted on these matters and we selected the lower band, but there is further evidence that demonstrates the greater the scale, the greater the benefits to members. We did go for the lower end of that.

I turn to the amendments to Clause 40 from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. This probing of how exemptions might operate, especially in relation to CDC schemes, is helpful. Our intent is clear: to consolidate multi employer workplace provision into fewer, larger, better run schemes. To support this, exemptions will be very limited and grounded in enduring design characteristics; for example, schemes serving protected characteristic groups or certain hybrid schemes that serve a connected employer group. I can confirm that CDC schemes are outside the scope of the scale measures. Parliament has invested considerable effort to establish this innovative market, and we will support its confident development while keeping requirements under review.

I turn to the broader point about why the exemptions are intended for use for schemes for specific characteristics; for example, those that solely serve a protected characteristic or those that serve a closed group of employers and has a DB section—hybrid schemes. I agree with the noble Lord that, if we were to have too many exemptions, it would simply mean the policy had less impact, but we need to have some flexibility and consultation.

Amendment 92 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, proposes that master trusts delivering “exceptional” value under the VFM framework could be exempted from scale and asset allocation requirements. Exemptions listed in new Section 20(1B) relate to scheme design and are intended to be permanent. Introducing a performance based exemption tied to ratings would be inherently unstable for members and would risk blurring two parallel policies. Scale and VFM complement each other, and both support good member outcomes. However, we do not agree that VFM ratings should be used to disapply structural expectations on scale, and we do not wish to dilute either measure.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn now to Amendments 134, 137 and 138 from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. Amendment 137 would make exceptional investment performance a gateway to the new entrant pathway. That would elevate performance above structural considerations and, in practical terms, is ill suited to a scheme with no members. It would also risk undermining consolidation by creating a performanceled exemption to scale, which I realise is what the noble Baroness wishes to do.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I am struggling to understand why the Government are setting their face against good performance. They seem to be obsessively pursuing scale and consolidation of the industry, unable to see that, for pensioners and savers, equally good or better returns can be achieved from sub-scale operators. That is a question of fact. The evidence that the Minister gave earlier merely points to there being a correlation between size and returns; it is not an absolute demonstration that, below a certain scale, you do not achieve good returns for savers. I hope that the Minister can explain why the Government are so obsessed with scale rather than performance for savers.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

We expect schemes with scale in a future landscape to deliver better outcomes for members. Consolidation is not created by the scale measures. It is already happening in the market, but we expect it to accelerate. Those running schemes are expected to carry out due diligence and act in the interests of their members in any consolidation activity. If there is anything else I can say on that, I will write to the noble Baroness. I am happy to look at it. The core question is whether it is a matter for those running schemes to make those judgments.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

Does the Minister understand that if you are currently a small scheme, unless you have certainty about being able to qualify to go into transitional relief, you will not be able to raise any money to facilitate your growth? It becomes a Catch-22. The Bill is creating uncertainty, which is destroying the businesses of those who might well be able to come through, but will not be able to convince equity or debt providers that they will be a viable business at the end because of the hurdles that the Government are creating in this Bill.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I understand the noble Baroness’s concerns, but I contend that we are doing the opposite. We are creating certainty by being clear about what the intention is, what the opportunities are and where we expect schemes to be able to get to and in creating transition pathways but making it clear that people will have to be able to have a credible plan to do that. We are making that clear now. I have given the reasons why I anticipate that there is a pathway to scale for schemes that are around at the moment, but that is a judgment that schemes will have to make. If they do not believe that they can make scale, they will need to look at alternative futures in a way that is happening in the market already through consolidation. I accept that it may accelerate it, but it is not creating it.

Amendment 134 seeks to remove the no-members requirement entirely, accepting that it would potentially allow any existing DC workplace scheme to claim new entrant status, circumventing the scale policy, which, while contested, is the point of our proposal. Our inclusion of the no-members provisions in Committee in the Commons clarified the original intent and prevented a loophole.

Amendment 137 would mean that existing schemes would be able to access the new entrant pathway if they had stronger investment performance than can be achieved by schemes with scale, which we have touched on. While I understand the intention to reward and maintain strong investment performance, the focus there would be on short-term rather than long-term outcomes. There are various practical problems with doing that in any case, but I am also conscious that there will be occasions where a scheme that depends on its investment performance does not deliver and no longer qualifies on the pathway. That is then not a stable position for employers that use the scheme or its members. At the heart of the requirement is the need to create buying power for schemes to drive lower fees and increase returns. A small scheme simply cannot generate the same buying power, and schemes with scale are expected to deliver better outcomes over the long term.

Amendment 138 would strip the power to define “strong potential to grow” and “innovative product design” in regulations. The Government believe that these are key attributes of a successful new entrant in the market. Like other noble Lords, I know about the importance of ensuring that the measures we implement will be clearly understood and workable in the complex pensions landscape. The form that innovation will take is, by definition, difficult to predict; we would not seek either to define its meaning without input from experts and industry or to fix that meaning in law without retaining some flexibility. Consultation with industry will be important in ensuring that schemes can demonstrate these attributes; to be clear, we will consult on this and other aspects of the new entrant pathway relief first, before regulations determine the meaning of these terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and I have only one amendment in this group: Amendment 109, which would remove the Government’s broad mandation power. That has been very much the theme of this debate, of course. I want to be absolutely clear at the outset that we are also seriously and fundamentally opposed to investment mandation in the Bill, which I sure will come as no surprise to the Minister.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

These are my questions on this group of amendments, which is about the principle behind the surplus. How much of a surplus is surplus surplus? At 110% to 120%, if you have a major correction in the markets, you could undoubtedly lose that in a year—not actually but notionally. How much of a surplus is available to be released? How do we deal with putting guard-rails around that, as the noble Lord mentioned? Who shares that surplus? How much goes to the employer and, most importantly, how much goes to the members? How much of either of that will ultimately go into investment? For me, the important questions are: what are the guard-rails; what will be done with it; and how do we get the best out of it?

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I will say a little more in our debate on the next group about how surpluses should be used, but we must recognise that employers in defined benefit schemes underwrite defined benefit scheme finances; they are the ones who have been putting in very large sums of money to keep these schemes going for the past 20-odd years. It is only right that we should recognise the interest that employers have in taking money that is no longer required within a scheme.

We have had so many years of deficits in pension schemes that we have rather forgotten that this was like an everyday happening in the pensions world, if you go back to the 1990s, when surpluses arose. Indeed, pension schemes were not allowed to keep pension surpluses; there were HMRC rules which made that rather difficult to do. These were perfectly ordinary transactions in the pensions world which we have just forgotten about because of the deficits that have existed for the last 20 or 30 years, which employers—not employees—have had to bear the burden of.

On the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I understand the technical point about removing assets rather than surplus, but surplus is the language that has always been used in the context of pension schemes; it is in the 1995 Act. The noble Lord’s amendments amend only this Act; as I understand it, they do not go on and amend the earlier Act. It is just language that has been used for a long period; I think people know what it means, and it will be very confusing at this stage to change the language.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for putting these amendments down and speaking in detail about them. We also heard good words from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I almost thought, “Is there any point in getting up and speaking?” but I am a politician.

This group goes to first principles. What is a defined benefits pension surplus and what is it for? For us, DB surplus is not a windfall or an accident, as I think others have said. It is a result of long-term assumptions, member contributions, employer funding decisions and investment outcomes—all those—but above all, it exists within a framework of promises made to members in return for deferred pay. We are therefore concerned about renaming—we keep on coming back to this—“surplus” as simply “assets” available for redistribution.

Language matters here because it shapes both legal interpretation and member confidence. Treating surpluses as inherently extractable risks weakening the fundamental bargain that underpins DB provision. Our position is not that surplus should never be accessed, but that it should be considered only after members’ reasonable expectations have been fully protected. That includes confidence in benefits security, protection against inflation erosion, and trust and accrued rights not being retrospectively interpreted. I have always thought that with DB pensions you need prudence. How far do prudence and good governance go?

Finally, the question for Ministers is whether the Bill maintains the principle that DB schemes exist first and foremost to deliver promised benefits or whether it marks a shift towards viewing schemes as financial reservoirs once minimum funding tests are met. In that case, one has to think, “What is the minimum for the funding tests?” We shall come on to that in an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has put down later in the Bill on where companies fail. It is a question of when those surpluses are available, if they are ever available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I rise principally to speak to my Amendment 38 in this group and to support my noble friend’s Amendment 44, to which I added my name. I am in broad sympathy with the mover of Amendment 26.

I think we can all agree that we would like to deal, if possible, with inflation eroding the purchasing power of a pensioner. As was said on the last group, there is basically a contract between the employer and the employee in a DB scheme, where the employee expects to receive a certain pension. The case I raise in my amendment stems from the many pension schemes that do not offer an absolute inflationary rise as part of their terms and conditions. Quite a number do, but some say in their terms that there would “normally” be an increase of an inflationary amount, but it is not guaranteed. There are a number of schemes where the literature at the time the person went into the scheme—in the 1980s, 1990s or whenever—indicated that they may reasonably expect to get inflationary increases, but they did not.

In this instance, I am grateful to the BP Pensioner Group, which brought its case to my attention and helped with the drafting of this amendment and my others. Broadly behind its request is the fact that the BP scheme, which is now closed, is an extremely good scheme with quite a large surplus in it. It is very well funded and therefore, as per the last group, may well be something that could go back to the company in part. But it has chosen for a number of years to refuse the request of the trustees to make discretionary increases.

It is worth noting just how pernicious the effect of inflation is on these incomes. I used the Bank of England inflation calculator to see what had happened. Bearing in mind that the statutory amount is 2.5%, if you go back with the inflation calculator to 2005, it is 2.8%—you might say that is not too bad—but inflation from 2015 to 2025 was 3.11% and, from 2020 to 2025, it was 4.35%. In every year there has been a modest but rising and quite large difference between what the statutory cap would allow and what the actual inflation was.

Of course, that compounds every year. So, every year, the loss is compounding up. Today, a pensioner may well be significantly worse off than if they had been getting something. By definition, surpluses comprise funds in excess of those required to meet the totality of members’ entitlements in full; they are, therefore, the resource out of which discretionary payments can be made. As such, any payment of surplus to the employer could prejudice the possibility of a discretionary payment to members. What I am seeking, and what my amendment seeks, is to make sure that that is in balance.

As I mentioned, since 2021, inflation as measured by CPI has been well over 4%, much ahead of the cap of 2.5%. The Pensions and Lifetime Savings Association’s survey indicated that, during the recent period of exceptional inflation, only 12% of UK pension funds made permanent discretionary increases to protect the purchasing power of members. In looking at surplus being distributed in part to employers and in part to members, the economic good if the part of the surplus that goes to the employer is used in investment is obvious, but let us not forget the economic good in increasing the purchasing power of the pensioners. There is an equal economic good on both sides of this argument.

The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made the valid point that a great many companies supported their pension schemes during the difficult times of the late 1990s and early 2000s, but I would argue that that was in their contracts because they had contracted to make the payment at the end. We are now in a situation where, through the far better quality of trustees, the training offered by the Pensions Regulator—I have taken it and can attest that it is well worth doing—and the governance rules that have been brought in, we have the ability to make those surpluses available.

What this amendment would do is add to Clause 10 that the regulations to be made by the Secretary of State would include the words on the Marshalled List, which would mean simply that the Secretary of State could regulate to ensure that trustees took inflationary pressures into account. That is pretty modest, on the scale of the amendments that are being put forward, to deal with the surplus. Although the amendment is probing at this stage, if it is not met with some sympathy now, it may become a bit more than probing as we go on.

My noble friend Lord Palmer’s Amendment 44 is along the same lines, although it addresses pre 1997, which my amendment does not specifically do; I will leave my noble friend to argue the case for that. In passing this legislation, we owe it to those pensioners who have been left behind to do something to help them catch up.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the motivation behind the amendments in this group, which call, in one way or another, for inflation protection, in particular for pre-1997 pensions that do not benefit from indexation to have a first call on pension scheme surpluses. I do not, however, support these amendments.

When compulsory indexation was first introduced by statute, it was applied only to pension rights which accrued after April 1997. That was a deliberate policy choice by government at the time. Although the cap and the index have been tinkered with over time, the basic policy choice has remained intact. The 1997 change was itself quite costly for those employers that had not previously included indexation or inflation protection in their pension offer to employees, which was quite common at the time. I am sure that the Government at the time were aware that imposing indexation on all accrued pension rights would have been very expensive for employers and would very likely have accelerated the closure of DB schemes.

The period after 1997 saw the evaporation of the kind of surpluses that used to exist, which, incidentally, vindicated the 1997 decision to exclude the pre-1997 accrued rights, because if they had been included, that would almost certainly have accelerated the emergence of deficits, which led in turn to employers considering how they could cap their liabilities by closing schemes entirely or future accrual. As we know, the period of deficits lasted until the past couple of years; they lasted a very long time.

Alongside this period of deficits emerging, there was a mutual interest among trustees and employers to de-risk pension schemes. That is why they shifted most of the assets into things such as gilts, which, in turn, increased the sensitivity of the defined benefit schemes to gilt yields, as we saw in the LDI crisis, and resulted, when interest rates started to rise again, in the surpluses starting to emerge. It was not the only cause but a very significant cause of the surpluses that we now see. We now have schemes in surplus: DWP figures suggest £160 billion—that figure will probably change daily as interest rates change—but that was only after significant employer support throughout the 1990s and the noughties was required, when significant deficit recovery plans had to be signed up to by employers to keep their defined benefit schemes afloat.

The amendments in this group seem to be predicated on the thought that these surpluses are now available for member benefits, as though employers had nothing whatever to do with funding their emergence. Because DB pension schemes are built on the foundation of the interests of members, it is obvious that the surplus will have to be shared between the two—that was partly covered in the previous debate—but the one thing we must always remember is that they have emerged largely from the huge amount of funding that has had to be put in since 1997 to keep the schemes afloat. That the surpluses have emerged does not mean that they are available for whatever good thing people want to spend them on. I certainly do not think it is right to use surpluses to rewrite history to create rights that deliberately were not created in 1997, for the very good reasons that existed at the time. For that reason, I do not support these amendments.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I want briefly to enter this discussion to identify another group not captured in the neat divide of employers and scheme members. When there is £160 billion knocking around, people tend to work out elegant arguments for why some group or another has a claim on that money. I understand the arguments for the pre-1997 claims, but I have to say that what my noble friend Lady Noakes just said is a very accurate account of the history and the thinking at the time. There is indeed an argument that, looking back, there was a fundamental change in the character of the defined benefit pension promise with that legislation then, which probably ended up as the reason for their closure. A with-profits policy became one where you had a set of rights, which were more ambitious and have proved in many cases too onerous for employers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I want to comment briefly on Amendment 35, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, where he seemed to characterise the need to have members in the room alongside employers and trustees. He seems to forget that trustees’ responsibility is to act for the members. The members are fully part of the negotiation through the trustees. I personally do not agree with his amendment requiring formal consultation, as with some of the existing listed changes to pension schemes. But there was a good reason why the release of surpluses was not included when that legislation was first drafted, and I have seen no reason to change that.

My Amendment 42 is rather unlike other amendments in this group, which is why I spoke in the previous group and probably should have asked for my amendment to be grouped there. I reiterate my remarks in that group on the importance of the interests of the sponsoring employers, who have for the most part provided the funding which has now led to the surpluses emerging, which is the subject of these clauses in the Bill. My Amendment 42 simply says that regulations made under new subsection (2A) of Section 37 of the 1995 Act may not replace restrictions on employers once surpluses have been paid to them.

The DWP’s post-consultation document on the treatment of surpluses said:

“Employers could use this funding to invest in their business, increase productivity, boost wages, or utilise it for enhanced contributions in their Defined Contribution (DC) schemes”.


The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to that being used elsewhere as a justification for these new release powers. I agree that they could use it for those things, but there are also other things that they could use it for. For example, they could use it to fund a reduction of prices in the goods and services they sell to gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The thing that concerns me in particular is whether the funds are used to pay dividends or to make a return of capital, because companies have shareholders and that would be a fairly normal use of surplus funds. My key concern is that the Government would use the power in new subsection (2A) to specify that employers could not use the money in the way they chose, and in particular in relation to dividends and share buybacks.

I completely understand the Government’s desire to see more investment, but holding money within the company might be the economically illiterate thing to do. Businesses make investments in assets, productivity or people if they think they have a reasonable prospect of making a return. They do not invest because they happen to have some surplus cash lying around. If they cannot be reasonably sure of making a decent return themselves, the right thing to do is to return the money to the shareholders and let the shareholders recycle that into other investment opportunities which make a reasonable return. That is why low-performing companies are often under pressure to return capital to the shareholders. In the context of the whole economy, that is the sensible thing to do, because it gets capital to the right place in the economy. Therefore, I hope the Minister can reassure me that new subsection (2A) will not be used to restrict what companies do with the surpluses extracted from pension schemes.

The Minister made some quite helpful remarks in the first group about the Government not telling people what to do with the surpluses, but I hope she can be specific in relation to the use of the power in new subsection (2A) that that would not be used to restrict what companies can do.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I support my noble friend Lady Noakes in her assertion that members’ interests are already taken into account on many trustee boards. In fact, all but the very smallest schemes have procedures and requirements to appoint member-nominated trustees. It is almost so obvious that it is hardly worth saying, but it is the truth. It is the job of the member-nominated trustees, not the unions or the members themselves, to represent the interests of that cohort. Even the local government scheme has arrangements whereby the needs of the employers and the employees are balanced, so it is not just a question of the private schemes; all schemes have those balances as a principle, and that is entirely appropriate.

I am disappointed to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, because I felt we got on so well in the previous two days in Committee, but, on this occasion, I part company with him. I do not think his amendments are needed, because of the existence of that member-nominated trustee class. It is their job, and if the members do not like it, they can get another one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

Just to recap quickly, I was looking at a scenario where an employer had received a surplus from a pension scheme but soon afterwards became bankrupt. Normally, the PPF will rescue, but that is limited to 90%, which means that employees will face a haircut in their pension rights. So the only possibility to help to protect employee pension rights is to prioritise payment to the pension scheme from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt entity. In other words, pension schemes must be paid before any other creditor.

Deficits on pension schemes of bankrupt companies are not uncommon. I was adviser to the Work and Pensions Committee on the collapse of BHS and Carillion, and we looked at that closely. I also wrote a report on the collapse of Bernard Matthews for the same committee. Basically, they showed all kinds of strategies used by companies to deprive workers of their hard-earned pension rights.

This probing amendment seeks to protect employees by ensuring that pension scheme deficits not met by the PPF are made good by being first in line to receive a distribution from the sale of the assets of the bankrupt company. This applies only where the employer has taken a surplus in the last 10 years. As I indicated earlier, there is nothing sacrosanct about 10 years; if noble Lords wish to support this, it could be changed.

From a risk management perspective, it makes sense to put pension scheme creditors above other creditors. Unlike banks and financial institutions, employees cannot manage their risks through diversification. Their human capital can be invested only in one place. Employer bankruptcy is a tragedy because employees lose jobs and pension rights. For those of your Lordships who are not familiar with portfolio theory, the basic message is that there is a correlation coefficient of plus one, and it multiplies their risks. As human labour cannot be stored, employees will have no time to replenish their pension pots, and as we all get older, our capacity to work is also eroded. So, despite making the required contractual payments, employees will face poverty and insecurity in old age.

I urge the Government to protect workers’ pension rights. They should not be left in a worse position after the extraction of surpluses by employers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I do not support Amendment 45A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I am not sure that the kind of regulations envisaged in this amendment could actually create a creditor which has a priority in insolvency where a creditor does not exist at present. At present, a deficit in a pension scheme is generally not as a matter of law a creditor if the sponsoring employer goes bust.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I had better write to the noble Lord. I am afraid I do not have the details of that particular case to hand, but it is our understanding that it was coming from a voluntary perspective. But rather than speculating—I do not have the details here—I am very happy to write to him with more detail.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, but I am not sure that he answered the question about why the Government need to take power to specify the sources of advice that scheme managers must take and whether that would result in a closed list of scheme advisers that had to be used in any event. Not only is that undesirable from a competition standpoint; it also seems likely to work against producing better returns longer term, because you will just ossify the situation as you find it at the point that the Government decide to make that decision.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. I do not know whether this will give her complete satisfaction, but I understand that requiring funds to take advice from their pool could potentially be a conflict of interest. I would say that, first, asset pool companies will be required to have robust conflict of interest policies and procedures for identifying and managing those areas of conflict. As I said fairly early on in my remarks, integrated models—

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

It has nothing to do with conflicts of interest; it is about whether the Government can specify a limited number of sources of advice that can be given to scheme managers, what the purpose of that is and whether that does not in fact work against achieving the best returns for members over time.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am sorry; I probably misunderstood the direction of the noble Baroness’s questions. I had better write to her to set that out. I think it is fair to say that—this might help a little—in contrast to external advisers, because asset pools are solely owned by old GPS administering authorities, they exist to provide services of their interests and they do not stand to gain financially, even from partner funds taking their advice or providing poor-quality advice. I am not entirely sure that that gets at her question, but the point is that we do not feel that there will be that impact from limiting sources of advice. I will write to her to provide more detail on that point.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. But, not for the first time, she will find that I disagree with practically everything she has just said.

I have a few problems with the Bill, which has a number of sensible things in it. I will focus on aspects of the Bill that are being sold as supporting UK business investment and hence the Government’s growth mission.

I have big concerns about pension scheme money being seen as available for investment in ways that the Government choose but which conflict with the views of trustees, who have a duty to act in members’ best interests. I am as patriotic as anybody, but I do not think it is right to allow the Government to require investment in the UK. There have been times when investing in the UK was a terrible idea financially. I can remember the 1970s, when the only reason anyone held assets in the UK was the existence of exchange controls—we could not get money out. I say to my noble friend Lady Altmann that forcing or incentivising pension schemes into listed UK assets does absolutely nothing to enhance UK growth. These are existing assets; they have nothing to do with new investment.

The Government’s proper role is to create the economic environment where businesses want to invest. That requires confidence in the economic future, taxes that are predictable and low, and regulatory burdens that are kept in check. Anti-business and anti-growth Budgets, and changes to employment laws, are the main drags on investment in the UK at the moment, and no amount of playing around with pension fund assets will change that. With the exception of scale-up financing, which is a problem in the UK, there is no evidence that funds are not available to back profitable business investment in the UK. The powers in the Bill need to be judged against that background.

The part of the Bill that concerns me most, in line with many other noble Lords who have spoken, is Chapter 3 of Part 2, which deals with scale and asset allocation. These provisions go much too far. I get the benefits of scale, both in terms of cost efficiency and the ability to diversify into alternative asset classes. However, I do not think that there is any conclusive evidence that £25 billion is a magic threshold. I am concerned that the Bill will have the effect, after first having consolidated the market, of ossifying the pensions landscape. As I have said many times in your Lordships’ House, I am a believer in competition and markets.

Large players love regulations that create barriers to entry, because they insulate them from market disrupters. The Bill says that subscale players—new entrants—have to be regulated. Risk-averse regulators are not the best people to judge growth potential or the power of innovation. The Bill should encourage new entrants into the pensions market, even if that means a prolonged period of operating below scale. We need to look at how the long term for pensions investment can be protected and I will want to explore that in Committee.

The real shocker, of course, is asset allocation. Put simply, I believe that mandating asset allocation is wrong in principle and carries a significant risk of moral hazard. Pension trustees have a clear fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their members. The Government should have no right to say to trustees that they must invest in particular things, especially if that conflicts with trustees’ views. I do not doubt the sincerity of the Government’s desire to get pension schemes to invest in a wider range of investments to improve returns for their members: that is broadly what scale facilitates. The danger comes with eliding that desire to facilitate higher returns for members with wanting to direct the investment into particular things, which may or may not turn out to deliver those higher returns. Legally requiring certain types of investment will inevitably result in calls for the Government to pick up the tab if the returns from those sorts of investments fall short. The moral hazard implications of these provisions for mandation are huge.

I am also disturbed to read proceedings in another place where some MPs wanted to direct pension schemes assets into their pet projects; they talked about social housing, hospitals and net zero. Such investments may well be socially desirable but there is no confidence that they will yield high returns for members of pension schemes. If the Bill does not rule out that kind of mandation, I am sure that it should. At the end of the day, trustees need to seek the best possible returns for their members, because it is investment performance that drives the retirement income of defined contribution members.

The drafting of the mandation clause is also a horror story; I will not weary the House with a commentary on that today, but I give notice that I shall want to examine it in Committee. I am sure that in Committee we will also want to look at capping the percentage which could be mandated—if indeed we wish to keep mandation at all, which I suspect we will not.

The other area that I wanted to talk about today is Clause 9, which creates a welcome ability to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. While only a tiny number of private sector DB schemes are still open to new members, very many employers are still burdened with schemes which have been long closed to new members or indeed to future accrual. Gordon Brown’s tax raid in 1997, followed by the prolonged period of low interest rates, meant that for the last 25 years, employers have had to pay large amounts to support the funding status of their defined benefit pension schemes. Recently, the good news is that some of those have swung back into surplus. It is only right that there should be an opportunity for those employers, who have borne this burden for such a long time, to get some of that surplus back. Doubtless, trustees will want to argue for further benefits for members in return for returning surpluses, but I hope that they will be mindful of the fact that the corporate sector has borne significant costs of keeping the defined benefit pension promises intact over many years, and they deserve a major share of those surpluses.

The Government have portrayed this as supporting business investment in the employing company, which it might do if the business environment is right for those companies to invest, but it may also be entirely rational for those companies to return excess money to their shareholders because that would be the best outcome for those shareholders. There is a provision in Clause 10 which allows conditions to be set on making payments. I shall want to ensure in Committee that this power cannot be used to direct what companies do with liberated pension surpluses once it has been agreed that it is safe for those surpluses to be removed from the pension scheme.

The Bill focuses on pension schemes, but it does not deal with many of the other problems that continue to exist in the pensions world. The Pensions Commission will tackle some but not all of those problems. In particular, around £1.3 billion of unfunded public sector pension obligations will weigh very heavily on future generations—that is currently largely hidden from sight at the moment. Into that category I would also put the continuation of the triple lock. This Bill is not the end of the pensions story.

Workers (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I was a member of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee when this report was produced, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley’s leadership of that committee.

We produced our report in December 2022. It then took about four months for the Government to respond and another nine months for us to get this slot to debate the report. As I have said before in your Lordships’ House, our reports really must be debated on a timely basis. The delay is a particular problem for this debate, not only because the data on which our report was based are out of date but because it is difficult to work out exactly what has happened subsequently, as my noble friend Lord Bridges and others referred to. The Office for National Statistics has paused its Labour Force Survey and is using new, experimental workforce data. We simply do not have a complete picture of what is happening at present.

In October 2022, there were 8.9 million economically inactive 16 to 64 year-olds, some 565,000 more than the pre-Covid era, which had been characterised by falling inactivity numbers. The latest figures published by the ONS, which my noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley referred to, show 9.3 million, reflecting a reweighting by the ONS. Other factors mean that the percentage inactivity increase is somewhat less. Whatever the precise number or percentage, there is clearly a problem and the trend is out of line with international experience.

As other noble Lords have said, the workforce participation rate is key to the growth of our country’s economy. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s 2023 Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report tested scenarios that increased or decreased health-related inactivity by 0.5 million. This moved the participation rate by a little more than 1 percentage point up or down, but the debt to GDP ratio moved by around 3 percentage points by 2027-28. Understanding what drives participation and inactivity rates is one of the most important issues facing economic management.

Behind the headline increases of economic inactivity, we found two key contributors: long-term sickness and inactivity among 51 to 64 year-olds. Most commentators, including the OBR, describe this in terms of the 50-plus age group getting sick and therefore leaving the workforce. Our examination found a different explanation, in that the over-50s became sick after they had decided to leave the workforce.

We really do not know much about the drivers of long-term sickness or early retirement. We were much encouraged during our evidence sessions that the Government were carrying out a workforce participation review. Several of our recommendations were aimed at ensuring that the review addressed many of the grey areas that we had identified. We thought that more work should be done on long Covid and the impact of NHS waiting lists. We wanted the review to focus on whether there had been a secular change in attitudes to work in the 50-plus demographic, and what could encourage them to stay in or return to work. We also recommended further work on the impact of savings and the furlough scheme on inactivity.

It was disappointing that the Government’s response to our report made no reference to the workforce participation review. My noble friend Lord Bridges of Headley then wrote to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who replied saying that the review had resulted in a number of changes in the 2023 Budget. However, there was no sign of the further work that we had suggested. I find it curious that the Government do not want to get to the bottom of the issues impacting workforce participation and inactivity.

The government response, as is typical of government responses, listed lots of initiatives of varying degrees of significance. I do not doubt the Government’s desire to reduce economic inactivity. What I cannot see is a forensic approach to the problem. The initiatives might well produce results, but it is not clear that they are underpinned by a clear understanding of the underlying issues. This does not appear to be the best way to proceed.

I will highlight just one other area dealt with in the report, namely the impact of ageing on the UK’s workforce. This is not a new phenomenon, but in the past the reduction in the workforce due to retirement was masked by other factors, in particular the increased participation in the workforce of women. A simulation by the Bank of England shows that population ageing is increasing, knocking about five percentage points off the workforce each year by about 2032. Other factors are thought to be broadly static, so ageing will start to be a really big factor in the size of the workforce. The implications of this for economic growth are clearly significant.

In addition, successive reports from the OBR have shown how demographic changes contribute to a dramatic increase in the growth of debt as a percentage of GDP. The Government must face some difficult decisions, including about pensions and taxation, pretty soon if a longer-term financial crisis is to be avoided.

The response to our report was described as “the Government’s formal response”, but it came from the Department for Work and Pensions and ignored the broader economic issues of an ageing population. I hope my noble friend the Minister will be able to respond on behalf of the whole of government, including the Treasury, when he winds up.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Noakes]

46: Clause 107, page 90, line 36, at end insert “, and
(d) the person was—(i) an employer in relation to the scheme, or(ii) a person connected with or an associate of the employer.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confines the criminal offences in Clause 107 to persons connected with the pension scheme employer.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 46, I shall also speak to Amendments 47 to 49, which are in my name and those of my noble friends Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe. There was a wide-ranging debate in Committee on the two new criminal offences and two new financial penalty powers in Clause 107. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present for that debate, but my amendments were moved by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I have read the record in Hansard.

The scope of the offences and penalties is very widely drawn and, while they do not apply if there is a “reasonable excuse”, there is no clarification of that term in the legislation. My noble friend Lord Howe spoke at length and helpfully in Committee, but it remains the case that there is considerable anxiety from pensions professionals and from companies about the impact of these provisions on ordinary commercial transactions. In Committee, the Government resisted attempts to define “reasonable excuse” and preferred to leave this to non-binding guidance from the Pensions Regulator—that may or may not be forthcoming as there is no obligation on the regulator to produce any guidance—and ultimately to the decision of the courts. We therefore have the classic formula for uncertainty for all those who might be affected by Clause 107, and that uncertainty could of course last many years, until enough cases establish the boundaries of the new offences and penalties.

My amendments today take a different approach from that in Committee and seek to limit the offences and penalties in the same way as the contribution notice regime in the Pensions Act 2004—namely, to the employer or to an associate or connected person of the employer. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Howe gave some examples of the people that the Government intended to be covered by Clause 107. On my reading of the scope of the contribution notice regime, all those mentioned by my noble friend would indeed have been covered by the amendment. If the Government think that the contribution notice’s scope is inadequate, I would have expected them to amend that scope in this Bill; after all, the contribution notices are there to make sure that defined benefit schemes are adequately funded. Criminal penalties and financial sanctions might make everyone feel better, but they do nothing directly to protect scheme funding.

I suspect that the Government intend these new provisions to apply to more people than are covered by contribution notices. In that case, it would seem to me essential that the Government set out clearly who they want to be covered by Clause 107. It cannot be right to create criminal offences without such clarity. However, even if the Government will not do that, I hope that the Minister can be clear about who they do not intend to be covered by Clause 107.

I shall concentrate my remarks on two groups—lenders and landlords—but the problem is wider and extends to all commercial counterparties. I should at this stage declare my interests as recorded in the register, including my directorship of the Royal Bank of Scotland.

I start with an employer who has a loan from a bank. That could fall due for repayment, because its term has ended or covenants have been breached. If the bank seeks repayment of a loan or decides not to renew it, that may cause financial difficulties for the employer. At one end of the spectrum, it could impair the employer’s ability to continue to trade as a going concern. In less extreme cases, it could impact, for example, the employer’s ability to meet payments under an agreed deficit repair plan. In either case, the result is material detriment within the terms of Clause 107. A bank should be well aware of this, because lenders have to know basic financial facts about their customers, including their pension commitments. That is clear within the language of Clause 107, but is it what the Government intend? If not, will the Minister say that clearly?

Similarly, a landlord may decline to renew a lease or decide to enforce early termination due to breaches of covenants. This can cause or amplify financial stress in an employer and have a knock-on impact on its ability to support its related defined benefit scheme. Is the landlord within these new offences and penalties or not? In the case of landlords and banks, there is no commercial or other nexus between them and the defined benefit scheme, yet they are drawn within the net of Clause 107 because their actions or conducts could indirectly impact the benefits payable by the scheme.

I remind my noble friend that we have not even begun to see the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic on businesses. The wonderful financial support provided by the Government in these early days of the pandemic will soon come to an end. Many businesses will be facing an uncertain future and are likely to have taken on additional debt. They may need more debt to survive. Many have chosen not to make quarterly rent payments this year. Their pension scheme deficits will almost certainly have worsened, due to extremely low interest rates and weak asset prices—a double whammy. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, referred to this in an earlier group of amendments. Banks and landlords will be making big decisions about enforcing existing loans or leases, as well as making new ones.

The impact could go beyond concerns about particular commercial transactions, with a chilling effect more widely. Defined benefit scheme employers may well become untouchables as counterparties, if there is major uncertainty about the implications for those who deal with them. My preference would have been for the Government to be clear about what counts as a reasonable excuse for the purposes of Clause 107. My Amendments 46 to 49 have instead concentrated on the persons who are intended to be covered by the new offences and penalties in order to invite the Government to provide certainty to third parties about whether they can expect to be covered by Clause 107. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

It is clear that the majority of those involved with pension schemes want to do right by the members. However, I hope no one would disagree with the proposition that there should be sufficient safeguards to protect members’ pensions from the minority who are willing to put them at risk. If the scope of the offences as introduced in Clause 107 were to be narrowed, then the deterrent and the safeguards provided by the offences would, without a shadow of a doubt, be weakened. With that in mind, and in coming back again to the point I made a moment ago that this is in no way about trying to frustrate legitimate business activities conducted in good faith, I would hope that my noble friend feels sufficiently reassured to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I was pleased to get support from my noble friends Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Altmann and Lord Trenchard.

I am grateful for what my noble friend the Minister has said, in particular that Clause 107 is not aimed at legitimate business activities conducted in good faith. He went on to say that there were other activities which might harm the defined benefit scheme but that they would be caught only to the extent that there was not a reasonable excuse. We will come back to that being the heart of the problem because there is no real comfort about what is included in “reasonable excuse”. We are invited to rely on future guidance on prosecution issued by the Pensions Regulator and guidance on how the regulator would approach the reasonable excuse.

I say to my noble friend that the pensions advisory industry has not always found guidance issued by the regulator helpful in guiding, as opposed to giving warnings about what the Pensions Regulator does not like. I do not think there is a lot of hope that that guidance will necessarily put an end to the uncertainty—and, at the end of the day, we are left with major uncertainty hanging over business until cases come before the courts and we see what the Pensions Regulator does in practice.

Having said that, as my noble friend knows, I never intended to divide the House and am grateful for what he has been able to say today. I will want to reflect on it further with those who have helpfully provided briefing on this. I know that some parts of the industry may want to stay in dialogue with the Government as the Bill goes forward. We will obviously have Third Reading in your Lordships’ House, but the Bill is a Lords starter and it will be taken in another place. So, while for today I will withdraw my amendment, and while I believe that we have made a lot of progress, we may not have made quite enough in making people comfortable that the range of transactions which could potentially be caught by this will not unintentionally fall within the ambit of Clause 107. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 46 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my noble friend will feel able to reassure the House or even perhaps accept Amendment 50, if not now then perhaps at Third Reading. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on tabling these amendments. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Noakes]

I shall be brief. I indicated that I want to speak on these amendments because I am concerned about the impact that they would have on companies’ ordinary transactions. Part of the problem would be that there is no distinction between ordinary dividends and something that might be regarded as an excessive dividend.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has taken the approach of saying that share buybacks are always less common and always have to be referred to the regulator but other distributions of capital by way of dividend are not. Life is never that simple; if you are sitting in a boardroom deciding on dividend policy, there is clearly an approach to ordinary ongoing dividends. Then there is what you do with surplus capital, which can go by way of either a special dividend or a share buyback. I do not know how this amendment could possibly differentiate between those.

When one gets into the detail of Amendment 51, which tries to set a level at which so-called ordinary dividends would trigger the potential interest of the regulator, we could potentially get into problems. I do not think that it would be healthy to have major uncertainty hanging over companies undertaking their ordinary approach to the distribution of profits alongside what might well already be a well-defined deficit repair plan with contributions already agreed with the pension trustees, and then have something on top be required to go to the Pensions Regulator. The definition of what the regulator should be interested in will end up with a lot of things being notified to the regulator that, frankly, cause no concern at all. I do not think that that is an efficient way to approach life.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]]

The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has adapted his amendments to meet some of the concerns that we all expressed in Committee, for which I thank him, but I am afraid that I am still not happy with the two amendments that he has tabled. For example, nearly all pension schemes are in deficit. Amendment 50 would allow the Pensions Regulator basically to stop all buybacks, which is a matter not for this Bill but for a governance Bill—following proper review and consultation—because buybacks can be justified in some circumstances and we have not had a chance to debate that.

The coronavirus measures, with which a parallel was drawn, are unique and different—that has been made clear in parliamentary agreement to them—so it is better to leave the arrangements to ministerial discretion, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, suggested. We have to remember that, however good the regulator is, he or she introduces delay and uncertainty, so we need to make sure that the powers are used with care.

Pension Schemes Bill [HL]

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, it is some time since I have spoken on a pensions Bill. Indeed, I think the last occasion may well have been when the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie of Luton, was sitting in the place now occupied by my noble friend the Minister and I was sitting where the noble Lord now sits. I particularly recall many hours late into the night spent debating the powers of the Pensions Regulator in the Pensions Act 2008. I shall return to that when I speak about Part 3 later in my speech.

I shall start with collective defined contribution schemes. These account for more than half the pages in this quite long Bill. We are promised large volumes of delegated legislation to follow. I have no particular objection to CDC schemes, but the plain fact is that this extraordinarily complex legislation is being introduced to accommodate just one employer, namely Royal Mail. Despite a wide-ranging consultation and exposure in the specialist media, there has been absolutely no other corporate interest in CDC schemes. Other private sector companies have transitioned in whole or in part from their DB schemes unaided and it is far from clear to me that this is a good use of government and parliamentary time.

Nevertheless, now that we have the Bill, I would like to raise one question with the Minister. The Government have been clear that they wish to ensure that pension freedoms are available to members of CDC schemes as they are to members of other schemes. At one level, that sounds perfectly okay, but I am concerned about the impact that this might have on the notion of shared risk, which is an intrinsic part of CDC schemes. My particular focus is on longevity risk.

Pension freedoms are not always used wisely, but one clear beneficial use case—it applies even to defined benefit schemes—concerns members whose health status means that they can do better by removing their funds and purchasing an impaired life annuity. If members of CDC schemes in this situation acted rationally and took their share of the assets out of the scheme, that could well disadvantage the remaining members. The average life expectancy of those remaining would increase and, all other things being equal, the benefits payable to them would reduce. Are the Government comfortable with this outcome, in effect allowing selective risk-sharing under this new arrangement? This is a subset of the wider issue of intergenerational fairness, which has been raised by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey.

I now turn to Part 3 and the Pensions Regulator. I thank the Association of Pension Lawyers for its analysis of the new offences, which I know has already been provided to the Minister’s officials. Very briefly, its concerns relate to the scope of the new criminal offences set out in Clause 107, the meaning of “likelihood” and “materiality” in that clause, and the way in which the reasonable excuse defence will work.

When the Government first announced these new offences, they were explained in terms of people running their companies into the ground. It often happens that, when legal draftsmen get to work, an intuitively reasonable proposal ends up being so wide that it can trap the unwary. The issues that have been raised are serious and I hope the Minister will be able to allay the fears expressed. In doing so, I hope that she will not simply fall back on the courts acting reasonably in interpreting the new offences. If we have to wait until we get a body of case law, which could take a decade or more, that will mean major uncertainty for the business community.

I have a separate question for the Minister on Part 3, concerning the new financial penalties of up to £1 million in Clause 115. I support the principle of the Pensions Regulator being able to take swift action, but such powers carry dangers, especially when used against those concerned with the pension funds of smaller companies. I would like to understand what checks and balances exist within the system to ensure that this power is used in a proportionate way. Can a person in receipt of a financial penalty challenge the Pensions Regulator? Will there be an opportunity for an appeal to an independent body? This is particularly important because the invocation of the penalty powers involves several key judgments, including materiality and likelihood, just like the criminal offences, but there is no court to interpret them. The Minister will know that something more accessible than judicial review is needed because in practice that is simply not available for those with limited resources.

My last topic is the pensions dashboard in Part 4. I have to say that this is at best a half-baked policy. We have no idea exactly how this will work. Part 4 is littered with rule-making powers which may well tell us in due course what is involved. The impact assessment has a huge range of potential costs between £0.5 billion and £2 billion over 10 years. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred to the figure of £1 billion, but it is over £2 billion if you take the set-up costs and the ongoing costs over the first 10 years. If this were a business proposition, it would be sent away and told not to come back until the costs and precise impacts had been precisely worked up. Furthermore, benefits have not been clearly identified and the impact assessment admits that the behavioural impacts are “highly uncertain”. I do not doubt that having 10 or 11 jobs over a working life means that keeping track of pension entitlements is a problem. But I am far from clear that the dashboard is the answer and we are no further forward in giving people access to advice, as opposed to guidance, on what to do when faced with the information that the dashboard contains.

I have long thought that a more sensible approach would be to facilitate the consolidation of pension pots, which means tackling the cost and bureaucracy involved when people attempt to do that for themselves. Switching bank accounts has been made pain free for consumers but there has been no equivalent for pensions. I completely accept that the issues are far more complex for pensions than for bank accounts; equally, the industry has no real interest in solving this problem. The Government would be doing pension savers a great service if they set their sights a bit higher than this dashboard.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has already spoken of some support from these Benches for his amendment. I will not repeat what I said at an earlier stage, but I wish to support him again, and also, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has just said, to support the device of regulation as a practical way forward.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, my heart is completely with Amendment 84 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, but I have trouble in my head to completely agree with the amendment, mainly because we are opposing a retrospective burden without any evidence of what that impact might be. I completely understand the case for the individuals who are affected. We do not know where the cost will actually be borne. The cost is low overall, but it is not correct to compare it to the amount of assets under management, as was done in Committee, because the instance might be in very small pension schemes. It might be the instance of a relatively small scheme with a relative small number of members, one highly paid member with a civil partner—or married in a same-sex couple—who is very much younger. That would have a very disproportionate impact on the actuarial valuation of the liabilities in that small scheme, which could be a charity or a small business. I would be much more comfortable if we knew what the impact was. We may still, knowing the impact, go ahead, and that is why I strongly support Amendment 84A but have a little difficulty with Amendment 84.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Higgins]

My Lords, two themes have run through the debate. On one there is almost universal agreement that we must seek to achieve equality. We also have to recognise that there are differences between the two forms of marriage. Having said that—and I am sorry that I do not carry the noble Lord, Lord Alli, with me—it seems to me that we need effectively to recognise both the need for equality and the point that I have just made. I led from the Front Bench on the Civil Partnership Bill, which was a great step forward. None the less, it is perhaps unfortunate that its terminology did not recognise the aspect of equality, and it has certainly not been recognised by the country as a whole. What we need, therefore, is some recognition that there are two forms of marriage. If we do that, marriage will appear on both sides of the equation, representing equality. As suggested in Amendment 34, we need to have traditional marriage on the one hand, and same-sex marriage on the other. If we do that, we can achieve both of the objectives we seek, and reconcile the differences which have otherwise been apparent in the debate. One hopes that both the gay community and the community as a whole will recognise the status of these two forms of marriage as equal. I see no reason why this can not be done.

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, normally I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Higgins says. I am in profound disagreement with him today. He has emphasised that he believes that marriages between same-sex couples and heterosexual couples are different. There are all kinds of marriages that are different: marriages between divorced people; marriages with and without children; death-bed marriages. However, we do not find different terms for those. Noble Lords need to ask themselves serious questions about why they wish to continue to emphasise sexual orientation in the names that they give certain statuses. By perpetuating giving a different name to marriage in the context of gay and lesbian people, we are wishing to continue to regard them as different from us. Inclusion is what this Bill is about, and what we should be about in society generally, because that is what will make us a stronger society.

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the legislation itself refers to two different types of marriage. It is there in how it is written. I am concerned that the attempt to find some common ground between deep divisions is being interpreted as some sort of wrecking amendment. The idea of union is fine; it says everything. I cannot see any difference. The English language is very rich in giving precision to meaning, but sometimes it is not precise enough. We do not want to make it less precise. For example, the Indian languages Hindi and Punjabi have different words for “uncle” and “aunt” depending on which side of the couple they come from, the mother’s or the father’s. These words give precision so that you know what you are talking about. Here, if you use the words “union” and “marriage”, that is fine; we know what we are talking about. There is nothing to suggest that one is less equal than the other, which would be totally wrong.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Baroness Noakes Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Noakes]

My Lords, it is a privilege to start our second day of debate on this important Bill. Yesterday our debate was a wonderful demonstration of this House’s ability to tackle difficult issues with restraint and respect, and I hope that we may continue in that vein today.

There are three main reasons why I support the Bill. First, I support it because I am a firm believer in marriage. Enduring relationships between couples, based on love, respect and responsibility, are good for the people involved and, in turn, strong relationships are good for society. Couples who want to share their lives together do not have to get married, and the Bill will not change that, but many value the sustainability and stability that marriage offers. I believe that marriage is a great environment in which to raise children but, for all kinds of reasons, marriage today is not defined by children or even by the possibility of procreation. Marriage is a much bigger concept than that.

Being gay or lesbian is not a lifestyle choice but an essential fact about a small but significant minority. It is as natural for them to seek lifetime relationships with a person of the same sex as it is for most of us to share our lives with an opposite-sex partner. As a happily married woman, I will gladly extend marriage to committed couples who happen to be of the same sex. I genuinely find it difficult to work out why other happily married people want to deny them the privilege of marriage, and I certainly reject the suggestion made yesterday that same-sex couples should invent their own name in place of marriage.

My second reason is that same-sex marriage has popular support. The House of Commons Library note on the Bill makes it clear that polls can be skewed by the questions asked, but the clear evidence from the various polls that have asked straightforward questions about same-sex marriage is that there is a majority, and an increasing one, in favour. The most important feature is that support is huge in the younger age groups, and only those over 65 show net opposition. I hope that noble Lords will reflect today that same-sex marriage will have its greatest impact on age groups that are barely represented in your Lordships’ House.

Freedom is my third reason for supporting this Bill. We have to ask very serious questions about why the law should deny people the freedom to do things that they want to do. Of course, there are strong public policy grounds for stopping people from doing all sorts of things, but I struggle to see what public policy grounds should prevent same-sex couples from being married. If we embrace the freedom to marry in the Bill, it will surely bring happiness to a minority. I have heard nothing in the debate thus far that points to clear and specific harm to other groups in society.

I could have seen a public policy reason for objecting to the Bill if it rode roughshod over the ability of the established religions to maintain their own concepts of marriage, but the quadruple lock arrangements in the Bill seem to me—and to the Church of England, if I read its announcement last month correctly—to provide robust protections for religious freedoms.

Marriage is a great institution that belongs to society as a whole, not to particular groups. Parliament is the right place to guard access to marriage. We have the privilege of a free vote and we must use it with wisdom, for the benefit of society, regardless of our personal preferences. If the noble Lord, Lord Dear, decides to divide the House, I hope that we will respect the clear decision of the other place on a free vote. We can then move on to the job that we are good at, as a revising Chamber, testing all the detailed concerns that have rightly been raised by noble Lords in this debate.