Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Fuller Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I endorse everything that both speakers have said about understanding more about the use of this power. I want to go back to the Explanatory Notes. They say that Clause 6 amends Schedule 3, et cetera,

“to clarify that, in the case of the LGPS, the responsible authority’s powers also include the power to make regulations”.

That implies that the Government believe that this is a declaration of an existing power. If that is the case, can they explain why they feel it is necessary to put Clause 6 in this Bill? Can they also explain the history of mergers with the involvement of the regulatory authority and what problems, if any, have led to the need to insert this in Clause 6? As the noble Lords who have spoken said, it looks like a very draconian power to be taking and yet the Explanatory Notes imply that they already have the power. It would be useful to have some more background.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 6, as your Lordships have just heard, includes the powers to merge funds. It is a slim clause, so I will be briefer than you might expect, but I want to ask the Minister what the circumstances are in which these powers would be used and to what end the Minister would require the compulsory merger of funds.

On Monday, when we debated the earlier groups, I pointed out that the country’s smallest fund, the Orkney fund, has the best performance of all the funds in the LGPS. I think that there are lessons to be learned from that—and, furthermore, it has never changed its investment manager. What would happen if the two funds happen to be in different asset pools? What steps would be taken to indemnify the losing and the gaining members and taxpayers for the quite exceptional transition costs in these circumstances? You would be ramming some schemes together, having split them asunder beforehand.

In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, we will shortly contemplate local government reorganisation. I do a bit of work on this and I can certainly contemplate that mergers of councils across county boundaries could be contemplated. With Wiltshire already unitised, it is not unthinkable for Swindon to be placed either in Oxfordshire or perhaps in Berkshire. Paradoxically, the efficiencies of merging councils under LGR may result in the demerging of pension funds to different pools. What discussions have been had and what contingencies have been put in place as Ministers start to take decisions on local government reorganisation?

Going back to scheme mergers, can the Minister tell us whether similar criteria have been published, as with LGR, and how we would consider comparing the relative merits of different proposals for schemes merged? Having announced that schemes are candidates for merger, it is not unthinkable that several competing bids may come forward: “We want this particular scheme”, or rather, “We don’t want that particular scheme, for all sorts of reasons”.

What criteria might be published so that, on an evidential and neutral basis, the decisions can be justified? Are we going to consider population size, assets under management, the number of members, the cost per member, or geography? That is important, because under the earlier parts of the Bill a scheme may be a member only of a single pool, and those pools have become geographically focused, because there are provisions, if the Bill is enacted, for the schemes to connive with their local strategic authorities. You can see straightaway that there could be a mismatch between the host strategic authority and its pool, which may not be local.

This is a small clause, but with big consequences. Following a merger, how might decisions be taken as to which successor authority would be the administrating authority? That begs the LGR question of which authority will assume the pension administration if all the councils in that territory have been abolished. How will we ensure that appropriate governance structures are in place so that all parts of the disaggregated territory are appropriately represented? We see this in local government, at parish council level when two parishes come together. So that not all the members of this community council come from one parish and none from the other, there is a process of warding: the representatives on the board must be distributed from among the previous constituent authorities. What steps might be taken in that case?

I do not think that this clause has been thought through at all. If I think of the Norfolk scheme for a moment, of which I have been a board member since 2007, we have over 100,000 members and I am sure that they would all want to know who is going to be sending P60s, helping with IHT valuations and answering questions. I have previously complained about the length of the Bill, but this shortest of clauses may have the biggest impact. It will directly impact up to 6.7 million workers in our nation, so I support my noble friends because, without the detail that I, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and other Members who have spoken, have asked for, Clause 6 is inadequate and cannot and should not stand part of the Bill as currently constructed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I knew my love-in with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, could not last, having got on so well with him on our first day in Committee on Monday. I want to come to the defence of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott because I do not think that she was talking about a disaster. It is common ground that the Local Government Pension Scheme—by some measure, the fourth-largest or fifth-largest scheme in the world, although it is in 89 separate pots, all of them aggregated—is a strong British success story. There is wide alignment on that on all sides of this Committee.

Having defended my noble friend, I shall part company slightly with some of the points she made—but only in one small regard. My noble friend spoke of a council—we do not know which one it is, but that does not really matter; it is illustrative—whereby the numbers were fixed in time, and that led, as the result of a revaluation, to an exceptionally high contribution rate. I do not want to trespass on the next group of amendments, but I will return to this idea. My noble friend almost came to a point where she wanted to deny—she did not say this, but I took it this way—that we should have some sort of stabilisation. I want to talk for stabilisation in the periods between revaluations in the LGPS.

We have done this in our scheme in Norfolk, so you avoid the peaks and the troughs. There is a stabilisation method whereby you take, if you like, a floating average over a number of things to give stability in the public finances. I accept that, as my noble friend said, if you have these huge differences—and it is not small change; you have to find lots of money—if it is overly variable every three years, that is not conducive to the public good. So I shall speak in favour of stabilisation, which is partly to do with longevity risk, which is referred to in Amendment 16.

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, accurately stated that the LGPS valuation that is currently under review was dated 31 March 2025—10 months ago. I am sure that noble Lords do not need reminding that, on the very next day, the President of the United States announced a whole load of trade barriers and the stock market fell like a stone. You might say that the LGPS got away with it. Had the President made his announcement just one day earlier, those reductions in stock market values would have been crystallised in a much less favourable outcome than we hope will be the case, or are expecting, for this current valuation.

Given the vicissitudes of all of these varied changes and events, it is important that we have attenuation and stabilisation between things. I do not think that my noble friend quite made that point, so I want to make it. The further points made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will be covered in our debate on a later group, but I want to talk for stabilisation as a counter, if you will, to the case made by my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 14 and 15; I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her explanation of the thinking behind them. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that on this occasion I find it difficult to agree with much of what he said.

I agree that these schemes have been a success. I do not see these amendments as suggesting that there is a massive failure, but I am frightened that we could be about to snatch defeat from the jaws of the victory that these schemes have so far been able to provide. It is vital that there is a cost and sustainability review, as well as a review of the actuarial valuation methodologies. I do not feel that this issue can be swept under the carpet; to some extent, there is, or has been, a desire to do just that.

Excessive prudence and hoarding of excess assets are not, in my opinion, good governance. At least part of the surplus belongs to the employer, who is the council tax payer. This series of amendments, and indeed the whole Bill, need to be approached with the view that defined benefit pension schemes are no longer a problem that needs solving. We had that mindset for so many years that it seems we cannot easily get away from it but, actually, these funds have turned into a national asset, which needs to be stewarded responsibly. It can help to deliver both good pensions and long-term support for the economy, if we just use the opportunity that is presenting itself now.

The LGPS has very much changed position, especially because the needs of local and national economies have also changed. Council tax should be used responsibly and not to keep putting money into pension funds that already have more than they need. The risk of non-payment of these pensions is extremely low anyway, but the risk of council failure has been rising. The same is true for some other employers that are contributing here, such as special schools, academies, care homes and housing associations; a number of authorities and groups that are really important to our national well-being have also been caught up in this situation.

I must thank Steve Simkins of Isio, who has been helping me to understand some of what is going on at the local authority level. I have found his insights extremely valuable. Although the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said that we had the 2013 review under the local authority regulations—I think he quoted LGPS Regulation 62. That is in place but, as the years have gone on, the review and its terms have been used as a smokescreen for super-prudence. I have something of a problem with the argument about stability, because we were not as worried when we thought there were massive deficits in schemes, but we do not seem to want to take even a temporary respite from the ongoing contributions, which actuaries say are not needed, when things have become better.

I support the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, about the need for these regulations. They are meant, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested, to help review contributions in the interim, but it is not clear what the definitions on which the review is based mean. The word “desirability” is so vague: desirable to whom? Even the word “stability” can be interpreted differently, depending on whether you are talking about stability immediately or over the long run. Does “long term cost efficiency” include the cost of holding too much money? Is that efficient? We also have “solvency”, of course; on what basis is that measured?

I have enormous sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, in imploring the Committee to have supreme confidence in the actuarial profession’s conclusions about these funds—I have to declare an interest in that my daughter is an actuary, although I stress not on the pension side. Of course, actuaries are a very professional, well-educated group, but the issue for me is not so much with the wording of the regulations but the mindset that is behind what is done with those valuations. The LGPS, the scheme advisory boards, the MHCLG and even the LGPS officers, advisers and investment managers themselves seem to want to interpret everything in the most negative way, so I think that the noble Baroness has done the Committee a service in raising these issues.

We will talk more about this in the next group, but I urge the Minister to consider carefully, in the context that councils are running out of money and cannot afford basic services, that 20% to 25% of council tax goes on employer pension contributions into schemes that do not, as I say, seem to need the money. Could we be stewarding this national resource, and even the local authority budgets, far better and use the opportunity of the pension success to drive better growth and better local well-being?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

Your Lordships will be pleased to know that peace has broken out again: I agreed with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, and I do not accept the characterisations that the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, laid out in full.

I have sat on five triennial actuarial revaluations of the Norfolk scheme over 20 years, and I can tell noble Lords that we are not unique. We agonise over how we deal with the valuation over months. We look at the assumptions, the different types of employer and the different scenarios that we might realistically use. There is a fan of opportunities that the actuaries run; I would say a thousand or a very substantial number—many hundreds—of different potential scenarios based on membership of the scheme, the sponsoring employers and even the life expectancy per member calibrated by postcode, using the Club Vita methodology. Of course, we think primarily about governance as well.

To a certain extent, if that is going on, one might ask why we need these amendments at all. We do because, as those of us who are involved in the LGPS know, brighter days ought to be ahead after some pretty tricky periods over the last 20 years. But just because the sun is coming over the horizon today, it does not mean it might not set in the future. A Bill like this will have longevity, so we need to get it right rather than be overly optimistic. Overoptimism is the counter to excessive prudence.

I support many of the amendments in this group, but I will start with Amendment 18. I have seen schemes with valuations in the low 70s, when interest rates were low, but some schemes are now funded well into the 130s or 140s. We have heard today about a scheme that is funded 150%. Without excessive prudence, more of them might have been in that bucket.

The sums of money for these fluctuations are enormous. For a mid-sized county scheme with £5 billion under management, 10% could still be £0.5 million—a large sum that can go a long way. So there is a temptation to trim employer contributions when times are good, safe in the knowledge that there is still a substantial cushion to fall back on. I have no problem with that as a principle: after all, when times were bad, employers had to chip in a lot more, so it is only fair that there is a two-way street and hoarding is no good to the member, employer or taxpayer when there is a bypass to pay for.

The problem is how you apportion that rebate or discount to the members if there is a surplus. When times were bad and more contributions were needed, the contribution rate was calculated differently for each employer depending on the maturity of that scheme, the number of members of the employer, the covenant strength of the employer and their individual deficit and funding position. Clearly, a tax-raising council, which does most things itself and can jam-spread those changes over many employees, will have a lower contribution rate for the deficit than a largely contracted-out services authority with much fewer staff. That is why one authority that used to employ a lot of people, but had to let them go by outsourcing most of their services to private contractors, has a contribution rate of 50% on salaries. That is a huge sum of money. However, a well-run council like my own—we do most things ourselves—was in the 20s. That is not unfair; it is just the arithmetic.

As an aside, I would say that outsourcing is all very well but, as the litany of failed outsourcers has shown—Carillion, Connaught, Mears, Steria and many more—when they go bust, those pension liabilities come boomeranging back to the host council that thought it was being smart but was not. One city not far from where I live has had to learn that painful lesson on more than one occasion. At least those councils that are tax-raising bodies, with ratings typically one notch below sovereign, can stand those shocks.

Let us consider one class of admitted body: the academies, which are admitted to the scheme of local government workers for their classroom assistants. There are maybe only a few per school, but they benefit from a Department for Education underwriting. That is a pretty good state-backed guarantee there. They may not be able to raise taxes, but their liabilities are gilt edged. However, when you then think of the small youth work charity which could go bust tomorrow if its local authority cuts its funding, there is a risk there. My point is that all the employers play a different contribution rate within each scheme that relates to their circumstances. That is for one scheme, but there are 89 such schemes, each with their own circumstances. Yes, it is untidy, but matching assets and liabilities to the exact and precise needs of those cohorts provides the best value to the taxpayer and accuracy in computation. So, when you add or take away those contributions, if you are in surplus, the value of the rebate can be calculated accurately.

I am not just trying to be difficult; I am just providing the reality of the situation. To focus on Amendment 18 for a moment, which requires the repayment of surpluses, it is a good proposal, but we need to allow for a much greater degree of complexity there. I hear what my noble friend has said, and there is a specimen number of 120% there. My instinct is that it is significantly more complicated than that, and there should be some sort of covenant-strength weighting—a hard-coded number is not right. Different schemes need different numbers. The underlying principle that, when the surplus gets to a certain amount, there should be a rebate is sound, but I am just really concerned that we overly simplify it and miss the target there.

We certainly need to be aware, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned in an earlier group, about the cost cap, and be aware of the situation, which is mainly in the statutory unfunded schemes, where valuations are split between the employer and employees. I was a member of the fire services scheme, an unfunded scheme, and we nearly got into the situation in 2018-19 where there was an excess and we had to take money away from the employees; then in 2023, I think it was, or possibly four years later, it was going the other way. Mercifully, it was so complicated that nothing was done, so we ended up where we were. Just the cost cap in and of itself is a blunt tool. But I am getting ahead of myself.

Each scheme needs its own methodology for its own circumstances, and, of course, there are four separate actuarial companies in competition, so there is innovation which we must welcome—it is invidious to mention their names; some of us know who they are. They get their fees by constantly becoming more and more accurate and refined, and that is a good thing, not just for them but for the taxpayer, the members and employers. So, we need to have that combination of flexibility, but I can see the virtue of standardisation, or at least a standard method of expressing those particular schemes on a common basis so they can be consistently compared, so that my good friend Roger Phillips—who is newly OBE-ed, for the record—can publish his scheme advisory board census annually.

I have explained why each scheme needs its own bespoke valuation, but that does not help Roger. And, in the non-LGPS schemes, the GAD—the Government Actuary’s Department—provides figures because they are a provision for risk sharing between government and members, and so forth.

Amendment 19, and to a certain extent Amendment 17, on benchmarking, are important, but they cannot be the substitute nor override for bespoke measures in each scheme. In the case of benchmarking, the amendment would have been strengthened had we been able to look at cost per member, and there are other metrics too which can help people develop confidence in the schemes.

It is in the public interest that the amendments are accepted. Just because brighter years are ahead—we hope—does not mean that there is no value to these amendments. We need to allow for circumstances when those silver linings may have clouds again, to mix metaphors. I do not want to dilute the thrust and importance of the statutory funding objectives for the LGPS, because it ultimately provides a method by which we can balance appropriate risk with reward for each of the scheme members and the taxpayer who underwrites it all in the end—and that is a good way of doing it.

To a certain extent, the thrust of these amendments would put on a statutory footing the work that the LGPS advisory board does on a voluntary basis. That would be a very good thing for transparency and confidence, demonstrating further the success that is the local government scheme in this country. It is the closest thing that we have to a sovereign wealth fund, and anything that improves its standing has to be a good thing, so I commend this set of amendments.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I shall just comment on Amendment 19. To summarise what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, said, there are actuaries’ reports that have all this information, and actuaries understand those reports. Amendment 19 concentrates on publishing something in a form accessible to employers and the public, and I think that that is very important, because actuarial practice is quite difficult to understand sometimes. It cannot be assumed that a member of the public could understand actuarial language. We need to be able to communicate in a way that is accessible to the people who actually bear the costs of the local authority pension scheme—the council tax payers. I do not think that that is met by the actuaries’ reports, which doubtless comply with all kinds of standards issued by the FRC and long-standing actuarial practice but, in my limited experience of looking at these things, are pretty difficult to understand.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I do not think that I said that it was okay if actuaries understood the report even if no one else did. I have in front of me the last valuation report from the pension panel of the London Pensions Fund Authority. I have been looking through it and I think that it is a wonderful example of presenting difficult actuarial information in a way that is understandable to any member of the fund who is prepared to put a modicum of effort into understanding it. The report starts with a very clear and concise executive summary, picking out the important points, then goes through all the issues that need to be explained, around levels of prudence and why particular assumptions have been made. It is all in there, with lots of appendices alongside if you want a deep dive into the detailed data.

I do not think I said that these reports were understandable only by actuaries; these are big commercial organisations which support their clients by providing information in an accessible manner. That is part of their job and it is what I always tried to do when I was a scheme actuary. The feedback that I received was that people were pleased to understand what was happening to their money.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

In my scheme, and in the one that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, talked about, we take pride in what we do—but if only all the schemes did that. The value of these amendments is in taking the best schemes, which set the bar, and making sure that other schemes meet that bar in terms of transparency. Just a few of them doing it is not good enough; we want all of them to be doing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and of the National Association of Local Councils. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 20. I do not intend to relitigate the arguments that have already been so clearly set out, but I wish to underline how pressing this issue becomes in the context of local government reorganisation.

Local government reorganisation introduces a level of structural uncertainty that pension schemes are simply not designed to absorb without flexibility. In particular, the costs facing pension schemes will not be ring-fenced during the LGR. In those circumstances, it is not inevitable that administrating authorities will respond with increased prudence. If so, does that not risk higher contribution rates being locked in? This would not be because of deteriorating fundamentals, but because of the uncertainty created by this Government.

There is also a timing problem. We do not yet know when the LGR will take place. It may well fall outside the actuarial valuation window, which would make access to interim contribution reviews not merely helpful but essential. Without them, schemes and employers can be left operating on assumptions that no longer reflect the reality of the structures beneath them.

I would also be grateful if the Minister would clarify the position on valuation cycles. In 2025, we did not set contribution rates for a three-year period. We face the very real prospect that some councils, whose rates are now being set, may not even exist by the time the next triennial valuation takes place.

This leads me to funding strategy statements. In the Minister’s view, have councils been given sufficient guidance from the Government to prepare these statements appropriately in the context of the LGR? These documents underpin long-term funding assumptions, yet many authorities are being asked to draft them without clarity on their future form or boundaries.

Finally and critically, the treatment of assets and liabilities following reorganisation must be handled with absolute care. Ensuring that these are carved up fairly and accurately post-LGR is vital to maintaining confidence in the system. That process must be demonstratively independent, transparent and robust, not left to negotiation under pressure.

Amendment 20 seeks not to obstruct reform but to ensure that, during a period of structural upheaval, pension schemes are not forced into unnecessary rigidity, excessive prudence or long-term misallocation of risk. For these reasons, I strongly support the principle behind the amendment.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I rise ahead of the noble Lord, Lord Davies—perhaps he can follow me and say how much he agrees with me this time. I support my noble friend’s Amendment 20 and will echo some of my noble friend Lady Scott’s points. Although promises made to members, once earned, are inviolate, the costs fall on the local taxpayer and employees, based on regular re-evaluations. These re-evaluations come thick and fast, rather like painting the Forth Bridge: once you have completed one, you start the next. I strongly support my friends in advancing the new clause, because it would place interim reviews on a statutory basis. However often and regularly they come, there will always be exceptional circumstances where a valuation is needed.

Like my noble friend Lady Scott, I think that structural change is an obvious circumstance where an interim review is not just needed but required. I will give an example. Local government workers can retire early on a full pension, having attained the age of 55, if they are made redundant on efficiency grounds. Local government reorganisation is nearly always, automatically, retirement on efficiency grounds. I estimate these strain costs, to be borne by the employer and local taxpayers, to be in excess of £1 billion, and we know that none of these figures have been taken into account in any of the financial analysis that the department has relied on to advance its plans for local government reorganisation.

That aside, the extreme turbulence caused by a comprehensive LGR—not just the odd county here or there but a comprehensive LGR by 2028—may require an interim review of employers’ rates, because of the different styles of councils being rammed together, as I explained earlier: operating versus outsourced. Without a reworking, schemes and employers could be operating not just on assumptions that no longer reflect the reality but on councils that do not even exist any more.

Administering authorities are being left in limbo as it is, so there must be at least the option to recalibrate the treatment of assets and liabilities following the reorganisation, representing a new landscape. This is important, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, partly because of such a dramatic variation between the contribution rates of particular employers. But I do not agree with her reasoning because, as I tried to say on an earlier group, this is important because you cannot have one employer cross-subsidising another. I know it is not my role to debate the noble Baroness—that is for the Minister—but I seek to be helpful on this. The contribution rates have to bear in mind all the variabilities from one employer to another. There is a world of difference between a charity that is nearly bankrupt, for which the contributions are payable at that point, and a large tax-raising council with many thousands of employees to jam-spread the contributions over.

That is why it is proper that there are these variations; they are there for a good reason. Unfair as it may seem, that is the arithmetic. Otherwise, we end up with the moral hazard of the weakest employers, with the poorest covenant strength, going bust and everybody else having to pay for it. I realise that is not entirely encompassed by Amendment 20, but I wanted to respond to the noble Baroness because I have been in this situation in a fund of which I am a trustee, and that is what we had to do.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I just wanted to say that I completely agree with my noble friend. All these amendments are asking for is a level of transparency that we do not currently have. Obviously, if an employer needs a different contribution rate from another one, we would not expect everybody to pay the same rate. But at the moment, I do not think the general public know what the rates are—and I am talking only about rates for local authorities, not for the charities and so on; it is up to them whether they produce that. If you look at Amendment 20A, it is talking about the local authorities specifically rather than the other employers in the scheme.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I was coming to a conclusion anyway, so I will not detain your Lordships any further. I have made the points that I wanted to make.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

At the risk of receiving a glare from my Whip, I feel I have something to contribute to this group as well.

I will first make a general point. If noble Lords and noble Baronesses are going to quote specific examples, we need chapter and verse in order to understand what is happening. If we are just given figures, we are meant to absorb and draw some conclusion from them, which is not possible; we need to know chapter and verse of any examples that noble Lords quote so we can analyse and see what is really going on in that particular case. I have to say that my assumption is that, with all the examples we have been given, there is a readily available, understandable situation, and somewhere along the line there has been a failure of understanding.

On Amendment 20, my question for the noble Baroness, which she sort of answered, was: why is this amendment required? I think we were told that it is all too difficult, but of course it is not all too difficult. There is a big example: the London Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, which has a Conservative-controlled council, earlier this year made an interim change in its contribution rate to zero because its investment policy had been so successful. It is worth noting that it has a very successful investment policy and it is one of the smallest local government funds—something to bear in mind during the other debates on the Bill.

There is a question: how often should you undertake a valuation? There is a strong argument for three years because that provides some level of stability to the council’s finances. You have to remember that, over the last year or two years, a council may be paying too much or it may be paying too little, but that is not money down the drain; it either goes into the fund or does not, and it will be available or not available at the end of the three-year period. The money does not disappear if contributions are up, and it will be reflected in the future contributions that that council will pay.

I am also concerned that of course an employer will seek a review when it thinks its contribution is going to go down. I bet it will not seek a review if it thinks its contribution is going to go up, which provides exactly the sort of ratchet effect that the noble Baroness said she wanted to avoid. So it would be perfectly practical to do a valuation every year with the strength of the computers we have available now. It a long time since the day when I had to sit at a large square sheet of paper and do all the figures by hand: you just run the computer and there are the figures. I am sure the consulting firms will be happy to get all the additional fee income, but does it actually produce the advantages that we are told will be achieved through this amendment?

I note the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Bybrook. I think it is a very valid point. It is a shame that whatever the local government department is called nowadays has not been involved with the Bill; it could have brought some perspective to where we are.

On Amendment 20A and benchmarks, I draw the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to a regular report from a group whose name I shall not get right—but there is a national group of local government pension schemes. Following each valuation, it produces a detailed report providing all the information she asks for. Again, the information is available. She is asking for this information, when it is already easily available online. On my iPad, I can look up all the information which it is being suggested is being hidden away. The importance of the Local Government Pension Scheme is obvious, and obviously there should be transparency, but the idea being promoted that we do not know what is going on in these funds is gravely unfair to the pension schemes concerned.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Lord opposite, I can confirm that my opening remarks will be relatively short. Amendments 21 and 22, tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, are largely probing amendments, directed not at altering the policy intent of the Bill but at testing the completeness of the framework that it sets out.

Clause 8 is an interpretation clause. It defines what is meant by the management of Local Government Pension Scheme funds and assets for the purposes of this chapter, and it does so by listing a number of illustrative activities. As drafted, those activities focus primarily, though not exclusively, on investment decision-making—that is, buying and selling assets, setting asset allocation, establishing pooled vehicles, selecting investments and so on. We fully accept that the clause makes it clear that this list is non-exhaustive. The phrase “include (among other things)” is well understood. None the less, what appears in a Bill still matters. It signals what Parliament understands to be central to the concept being defined and it shapes how subsequent powers are interpreted, exercised and defended. That is the purpose of these amendments.

Amendment 21 would make it explicit that “management” includes ensuring that activities comply with relevant laws and regulatory rules. Amendment 22 would similarly make it explicit that “management” includes handling risks, including how they are identified, assessed and kept under review. Neither amendment seeks to impose new duties or redefine existing obligations. Both simply ask whether the Government agree that compliance and risk governance are not peripheral but intrinsic to asset management.

Local Government Pension Scheme managers are fiduciaries; they operate within a dense web of statutory, regulatory and prudential requirements. Ensuring compliance with those requirements is not an administrative afterthought but a core managerial function. Likewise, risk management is not something that follows investment decisions; it informs them at every stage.

The reason why we raise this issue is not theoretical. Elsewhere in the Bill, powers are framed by reference to the management of scheme assets, and it therefore seems reasonable to ask the Minister to confirm on the record, if he could, that when the Government use that term it is intended to encompass the full spectrum of responsibilities that scheme managers already discharge, including legal compliance and risk oversight. In other words, is the Bill deliberately neutral as to those aspects because they are already assumed, or does the narrower emphasis of the illustrative list reflect a more constrained conception of management, one focused primarily on asset pooling and allocation? Our amendments invite that clarification.

In legislation of this kind, when significant powers are being taken and fiduciary duties are central, it is important that Parliament is clear about the assumptions that underpin the language being used. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that the Government agree that compliance with law and active management of risk are integral to the management of the LGPS assets, and that nothing in the Bill is intended to narrow or sideline those responsibilities. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response and clarification, and I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

I speak as the vice-chair—former chairman—of the Local Government Pension Committee, the body that represents the employers’ part of the LGPS in the scheme advisory board. I welcome this set of amendments because it gives us an opportunity to place on record the breadth of what it takes to run a pension scheme: not just the sexy bits—investment and all that sort of stuff that you might read about in the Financial Times—but the real boilerplate of operating a scheme for nearly 7 million people.

It is wise to put on record some of the nuts and bolts that hold that boilerplate together. It is not just about risk management, governance, data quality, member engagement or the huge dashboard project. There are benefits statements, which have to be calculated accurately of course, within timeframes, and engaging with the department—I see in the Box some faces that I recognise in that respect. It is about advising on bulk transfers in and out, AVCs, commutation, tax, survivor benefits, McCloud, GMP, the exit cap, ill health adjustments and subject access requests—to name a small subset of about 100 different activities that pension fund administrators undertake. There is interpretation of regulations and helping software providers to keep up with the torrent of regulations so that pensions can be paid to the beneficiaries accurately and in a timely manner.

This work often encompasses helping bereaved families at a difficult time in their lives to navigate changes in benefits, inheritance tax and so forth. It is also a very important part of it that the scheme works together to train up a new generation of administrators alongside engaging with the Local Government Association, their Welsh colleagues, COSLA in Scotland and the Northern Irish scheme. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of these people engaged in these activities, and when you meet them you realise the fragility of the behemoth that is the LGPS. I pay tribute to their dedication, which is completely unsung, which ensures that the promises made to local government workers are kept and will be kept.

All those things that I have mentioned the Bill is silent on, which is a real shame. While it is not the purpose of a Bill to enumerate every single detail, more could have been said about the breadth of the work that is involved in running a pension scheme, which goes beyond fund management. These amendments from my noble friend seek to right that wrong, and I commend them.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, without wishing to take anything away from what my noble friend Lord Fuller has just said, it is true that this definition of management relates to the funds and assets of the scheme, not the totality of the operation of everything that is managed within a scheme. Having said that, non-exhaustive lists are always problematic. However, the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Younger is crucial to the management of assets, and its absence seems strange to me.