Pension Schemes Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I will briefly intervene because the probing amendments here are important to how we look at the precise nature of surpluses. Clearly, the principle of making it easier to return a genuine pension scheme surplus to employers is worthy of support, particularly given how much has historically been paid by employers into DB schemes, often at the expense of capital investment. But safeguards are absolutely critical—this is the point I want to make about the relationship between employers and trustees in this area. It must be a trustee decision to distribute surplus, and trustees must be required to consider how the surplus has accumulated, as was touched on by the proposer. Was it due to employer contributions, member contributions or strong investment returns?

Under the proposed legislation, employers will no doubt apply immense pressure to steer the distribution towards them and not the members. In exercising their discretion, trustees must be unencumbered, properly advised and protected from the undue and inappropriate pressure that sponsoring employers will no doubt place on them. That is a real concern to me. We must be wary of employers exercising their powers to put in place weak trustees, who will not act in members’ best interests. We must also be wary of making it harder for trustees to distribute surplus to members in favour of employers.

Surplus distributed to members through increased benefits will directly improve the position of the real economy through increased domestic expenditure and of course increased tax receipts. If we are to restrict the use of surplus assets away from scheme memberships to employers, we must ensure that surplus distributed to them is used for reinvestment in the UK economy through capital expenditure. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on that.

On what a surplus is, the changes made by the Pensions Regulator to the DB funding code of practice in November 2024 have codified the requirement for pension scheme trustees to fund DB pension schemes very prudently—I think that those are the words that he used. Further, the investments that trustees are strongly encouraged to hold, through that code of practice, mean that the investment strategies are usually much lower risk than the insurance companies that many pension schemes are now being transferred to en masse under bulk annuity contracts.

In June 2025, the Pensions Regulator issued guidance that suggested that excessive prudence or hoarding of surplus could be considered poor governance by trustees. If we are to make it easier to distribute surplus from pension schemes, the bar for that should not be so low that the security of member benefits is weakened and it should not be so high that it requires schemes to be excessively funded. The current bar of buyout funding is, in my opinion, far too high.

Safeguards are important. It is absolutely critical that trustees are required to take appropriate advice and that actuarial advice is compliant at all times with the relevant technical actuarial standards. Trustees must be able to make informed, evidence-based decisions, unencumbered by the interests of the insurance industry and free from undue employer pressure. That particular relationship concerns me most in our probe into the functions of the surpluses. I hope that the Minister can give reassurances about the position of trustees—how they will be protected and by whom—in this particular contest or area of decision-making.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, we come to three groups of amendments. The next two deal with what you might do with the surplus, and I have amendments in those. This group deals with the principle of what a surplus is. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for giving us the chance to consider that.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords— that was a very interesting debate. I will come to some of the detail in a moment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for explaining their amendments.

We do not have a smorgasbord here, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, observed. Essentially, Amendments 26, 32, 38 and 39 would, in different ways, allow regulations to require member benefit enhancements prior to surplus release, require regulations to do so, and require trustees to consider indexation and the value of members’ pensions before making a surplus payment.

I say at the outset that I understand the concerns of scheme members whose pensions have not kept pace with inflation. They may have made contributions for many years and are understandably upset at seeing inflation erode the value of their retirement income. But I am afraid that I am not able to accept these amendments, for reasons I will explain.

I will give a bit of context first, because it is worth noting that over 80% of members of private sector DB schemes currently get some form of pre-1997 indexation on their benefits. However, as I explained in the previous group, we think the way forward is that our reforms will give trustees greater flexibility to release surplus from well-funded DB schemes and will encourage discussion between employers and trustees on how those funds can be used to benefit members.

In response to the final question from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, about deadlock-breaking, we do not think it is necessary because, in a sense, it is not a balanced position between employers and trustees. Trustees are in control. Employers cannot access surplus directly. Trustees are the ones who make a decision. If the trustees do not agree to release the surplus, the surplus is not being released. In a sense, it is quite intentional for the power to sit with the trustees, and that is the appropriate way to manage that issue. We think that that way of putting trustees in the driving seat is a better approach than legislating for how surplus should be used. I found that discussion of history, from the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Fuller, and others, very helpful.

The DB landscape is a complex situation. It has a varied history and there are variations within it: within schemes, over time, between schemes, across time and across the landscape. Benefit structures have varied, in many cases over the course of a scheme’s history. Although some schemes may not provide pre-1997 indexation, they may have been more generous; they may have been non-contributory or may have provided a higher accrual rate at different points in time. All schemes are different. That is why we do not think it is possible to provide an overall requirement on schemes for indexation. We think it is better that trustees, with their deep understanding of the knowledge of individual schemes, their characteristics and history, remain at the heart of decision-making in accordance with their fiduciary duties. In addition, of course, as I keep saying, they must act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation. However, does she agree that a case where the employer has the right to prevent the trustees making a payment—with some surpluses, the trustees may wish to make a payment but the employer can stop it if it is not going to them—is a special case, which needs to be looked at slightly differently?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I will need to come back to the noble Viscount on that specific point. Obviously, at the moment, a minority of trustees have the power in the scheme rules to release surplus; our changes will broaden that out considerably. If there is a particular subcategory, I will need to come back to the noble Viscount on that. I apologise that I cannot do that now—unless inspiration should hit me in the next few minutes while I am speaking, in which case I will return to the subject when illumination has appeared from somewhere.

It is worth saying a word on trustees because we will keep coming back to this. It was a challenge in the previous group from my noble friend Lord Davies. The starting point is that most trustees are knowledgeable, well equipped and committed to their roles. But there is always room to better support trustees and their capability, especially in a landscape of fewer, larger consolidated pension funds. That is why the Government, on 15 December, issued a consultation on trustees and governance, which, specifically, is asking for feedback on a range of areas to build the evidence base. It wants to look at, for example, how we can get higher technical knowledge and understanding requirements for all trustees; the growth and the use of sole trustees; improving the diversity of trustee boards; how we get members’ voices heard in a world of fewer, bigger schemes; managing conflicts of—

--- Later in debate ---

Our Clause 10 stand part notice pulls together all our questions about the provisions in Clause 10 that are to be defined in regulations. I think that, by now, the Committee and the Minister understand our reasons for raising objections to this, so I hope she is able to address this in the round in her response. I beg to move.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 34 and 37 and will briefly comment on the other amendments. Quickly, before I do that, I seek to assist the Minister with the question I asked her on the last group. I was written to by people who came together as a small group to protest against the failure of a trustee and an employer to award discretionary increases, contrary to their joint policy of matching inflation, originally published in 1989 and repeated in pensions guides and newsletters over the years. For the last four years, the employer has refused consent to modest discretionary increases recommended by the trustee and supported by the independent actuary. That is the situation I am looking at. I hope that is helpful.

I turn to the current group. Let me say, first, in response to the noble Viscount’s amendment and his Clause 10 stand part notice—as he said, both are probing amendments—broadly speaking, I concur with him. If we had had regulations, draft regulations or just something to look at, an awful lot of these questions would not have needed to be put at this stage. As a matter of principle, I am always in favour of the affirmative procedure, rather than the negative one; I shall leave that there.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, will speak eloquently to his own amendments in a moment, but they are a bit of a variation on the theme of the ones in my name. My Amendment 34 would, in Clause 10 and at line 23,

“after ‘notified’ insert ‘and consulted’”.

What that would do is to say that the trustees would have not only to notify the members but to consult them. My Amendment 37 is very much along the same lines. It would insert, at the end of proposed new subsection (2B), a new paragraph—paragraph (e)—

“requiring that the trustees are satisfied that it is in the interests of the members that the power to pay surplus is exercised in the manner proposed in relation to a payment before it is made”.

Both amendments seek to explore the relationship between the employer, the members and the trustees.

I have listened to the arguments where it has been put forward that the employer has underwritten the surpluses, almost, and is at the mercy of the trustees. The case that I have put forward shows that, actually, there is often a power imbalance between the members—they are probably at the bottom of the pile—the trustees and the employer. I completely concur that the idea of mandating a response is wrong, but it is open to have regulations that require the trustees both to have regard to and to look at that, so that we reach a situation where members’ interests have at least equal value, in the eyes of the trustees, as the requirements of the employer.

I feel that these amendments are very modest. Who knows what might happen later on, but this stage the amendments are designed to reinforce members’ ability to be consulted and know what is going on.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My amendments address how members’ interests can best be represented whenever a release of assets is under consideration.

As the Bill stands, the first members will know about such proposals is when they are a done deal—that is, when the decision has been made by the trustees, having talked to the employer. That is what the Bill says, and that is clearly wrong. There is also nothing in the Bill about any involvement of members in the process, such as consultation. This is obviously unacceptable; they should be involved fully from the start. I support the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso.

I would probably oppose Amendment 42 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, but, obviously, I shall wait to hear what she says before coming to a conclusion—although the noble Baroness’s remarks on the previous group gave me the gist of what is proposed. Finally, I shall await my noble friend the Minister’s response to the questions raised by the amendments in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie.

My Amendment 36 is relatively straightforward and, I hope, uncontentious. Members need to be told before, not after, a decision is made by the trustees and agreed by the employer. This is a point of principle. Scheme members are not passive recipients of their employers’ largesse; they should be equal partners in a shared endeavour, and they have the right to be involved.

My other two amendments would bring scheme members’ trade unions into the process. A question has been asked a number of times during the passage of the Bill in the Commons: who represents members when a release of assets is proposed? The answer, of course, is their trade unions. This is a matter of fact. Consultation is inherently collective and there is now extensive and detailed legislation on how members are to be represented collectively. This applies here, as it does to all other terms and conditions of employment. I should emphasise that this is a requirement to consult on the employer, not the trustees. It applies to trade unions recognised for any purpose under the standard provisions of employment law.

Amendment 36 is relatively straightforward. It would simply require the employer to inform recognised trade unions at the same time as scheme members of the proposals that it is considering in discussion with trustees to release scheme assets. Amendment 40 would go further; it would require an employer to consult with those recognised trade unions before reaching any agreement with the trustees. The requirement to consult with trade unions about changes in pension arrangements that they sponsor is not a new provision. I am not proposing anything radical or new. Pension law already requires consultation with trade unions in this particular form; it requires them to take place before major changes in employees’ collective arrangements. My case is simply that the decision to release assets is a major change and hence it should be brought within the consultation requirements that are already set out in legislation.

This is all in accordance with Section 259 of the Pensions Act 2004 and the regulations under the Act. These are the Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Consultation by Employers and Miscellaneous Amendment) Regulations 2006, that is SI 349 of 2006. These regulations require employers with at least 50 employees to consult with active and prospective scheme members before making major changes—known as listed changes in the legislation—to their pension arrangements.

The key requirements set out in the legislation includes a mandatory consultation period. First, employers must conduct a consultation lasting at least 60 days before a decision is made. Secondly, there must be a spirit of co-operation. Employers and consultees are under a duty to work in the spirit of co-operation and employers must take the views received into account. Thirdly, the affected parties consultation must include active members, those currently building benefits, and prospective members—eligible employees not yet in the scheme. Deferred and pensioner members are generally excluded, which I have always regarded as a shortcoming in the legislation.

The listed changes that currently trigger statutory consultation are: an increase in the normal pension age; closing the scheme to new members; stopping or reducing the future accrual of benefits; ending or reducing the employer’s liability to make contributions; introducing or increasing member contributions; changing final salary benefits to money purchase benefits; and reducing the rate of revaluation or indexation for benefits. It should be noted that this is not just about changes in benefits; it is about changing the financing of the scheme. A release of assets is a change in the financing of a scheme, and so it should be included in the list in these regulations. My amendment would simply direct that regulations should be laid that will add release of assets to the list of these listed changes.

There are consequences under the legislation for employers that fail to comply with it, but the spirit here is one of setting out a process of working together, in order, as far as possible, to reach changes to the scheme that are accepted to both sides of the employment relationship.

Pension Schemes Bill

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

The economy runs on incentives, but in this Bill the Government are disincentivising individuals to save in pensions and investments. Not every provision in the Bill is wrong, and there are plenty to be welcomed, but on so many fronts it misses the target. I congratulate my noble friend on attempting to establish a purpose clause to give clarity, coherence and, yes, confidence to a population that is sceptical that doing the right thing is for them.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I am not entirely certain that I am wholly in favour of the concept of a clause at the beginning of a Bill that sets out its purpose in the way that the noble Viscount has set down, but I appreciate the opportunity to speak to one of the points that it makes.

First, I am not sure whether it is a declarable interest but I will declare it anyway: I am a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, for which I do not get remunerated—none of us does. As far as I am aware, nothing in the Bill affects that scheme, and therefore I am declaring it just in case. Secondly, I apologise for not having been here at Second Reading. I had to attend something extraordinarily rare: a hospital appointment in Inverness. I am afraid that not even I could get from Inverness to here in the required time for the Second Reading. I apologise for that, but I have read the Second Reading debate and was very taken by what was said.

The specific point that I want to come to is the point that the noble Viscount makes in proposed new subsection (1)(h) and his reference to

“responsible and innovative use of pension scheme surplus”.

What does he mean by an innovative use of the surplus? When the Minister comes to respond, will she say what the Government’s purpose was behind what they are doing on surpluses? I know we will come to that in much greater detail later on.

It seems to me that two things are behind this. One is doing something with a surplus, which begs the question: how much of a surplus should actually be taken? Also, how is that surplus calculated, bearing in mind that a range of actuarial factors—including the strength of the employer covenant, the level of risk of the investment, the actuarial factors regarding life and death, and so on—go into making up a surplus? All those factors can, at each valuation, move the surplus considerably. Therefore, how much is considered surplus surplus, as it were, as opposed to prudent management by the trustees?

The second thing is, I think, the underlying thought that the money given back to the employer will be used for investment. I see no evidence to suspect that will be the case. I have a horrible suspicion that, although we might have a desire to have more money for companies to invest, with the best will in the world, it is more likely that they will take the money, run it through the P&L and use it to pay dividends.

Those are the two issues I am looking at: the quantum of surplus and, in general terms, the principle behind that; and, secondly, the extent to which the Government expect it to be used for investment. If they do expect it to be used for investment, how do they hope that will happen?

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a current member and director of a pension trust. I want to take us back to the amendment for a moment. I shall refer to the reference to surpluses made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, because it is an indicator of how this Bill is going to move; I suspect we shall get a surplus of comments about surpluses.

I go back to the amendment. We are starting to hear remarks suggesting that this amendment is critical. I do not criticise it at all because this is an enormously complex and comprehensive piece of legislation. Bringing our minds closely to the purpose of what we are going to debate, if ever a piece of legislation required it, this amendment is an essential ingredient. I fully support all parts of this amendment, which seem to encapsulate all the different areas to which we shall give more detailed consideration as we proceed.

However, I want to refer briefly to something already referred to: the matter of pension scheme surpluses under subsection (1)(h) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 1. I referred to this at Second Reading; I will not repeat word for word what I said then—that would not be appropriate—but I want to probe my noble friend and, in particular, the Minister on this matter a little.

We all know that, historically, when we had low interest rates in this country, deficits often used to be repaired with any surpluses that might occur in schemes. As a result, employers that did not have DB schemes were obviously at a disadvantage. I am interested in how we might deploy surpluses in future. For instance, will they be deployable for capital expenditure? That seems quite desirable, particularly looking at the economy at present.

My second point concerns crossovers, referred to here, enhancing the contributions that already exist in DC schemes. How on earth can crossovers be legitimately and properly handled? That seems rather difficult to me.

Finally, I turn to surplus sharing. There is a case going on at the moment; I referred to it in my speech at Second Reading so I will not go back to it now. The encouragement of surplus sharing between employers and between members is terribly important. How can that be done fairly and equally? Will we be able to rely—as we should, I believe—on the powers of trustees always to do everything in the best interests of members? Pressures from employers, for instance, must be curbed when it comes to those decisions that might be taken.

It is a difficult area. I know that we will look at it in more detail, but it is worth mentioning at this starting point because this list is perhaps another example of how complicated things are and how we need to get a grip. Whoever has been responsible in the past for legislation in this field, this is an ideal opportunity, which I greatly support, for us to get this right. I therefore fully support Amendment 1 and hope that, as we move forward, we will use those objects as the basis for our discussions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I will briefly give my support to the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I believe that many schemes would absolutely like to put money into social housing. The scheme of which I am a trustee, and which I mentioned earlier, has recently put 5% into social housing—it is entitled to do that, and it did so based on an investment case. It has put a further 5% into social infrastructure—it has also done that based on an investment case; it is part of the protection assets within the fund. We are allowed to do that, so can the Minister therefore say whether anything in the Bill prevents the funds that we are discussing from doing exactly the same thing?

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we come to another group of largely probing amendments, which I welcome. A good deal of the process on the Bill will be about unpacking what the Government intend, how these provisions will work in practice and what the industry can anticipate. Certainly, those are the questions that have been raised with me in my engagement with representatives.

I will speak briefly to the amendments in the names of other noble Lords, many of which are clearly probing in nature and raise important and legitimate questions about how Local Government Pension Scheme assets might be deployed to support wider economic and social objectives. We welcome that debate. It is right that Parliament explores how long-term patient capital can help support UK growth, infrastructure and social outcomes. I recognise the spirit in which these amendments have been brought forward.

However, from our side, we believe that it is important to be clear about a central principle: LGPS funds are, first and foremost, fiduciary vehicles. Scheme managers have a legal duty to act in the best financial interests of members and beneficiaries, and that duty must remain paramount. However, I note that the Local Government Pension Scheme’s advisory board has already warned that:

“New government regulations could ‘directly usurp’ the most fundamental duty of council pension funds”.


Could the Minister address that in his response?

Opportunities for investments in areas such as UK growth assets or social housing should therefore be presented, structured and made investable in a way that meets risk-adjusted return requirements and not mandated or directed through statute. There is a clear difference between creating a strong pipeline of investable opportunities and compelling capital allocation. Once we move from encouragement to prescription, we risk undermining trustee independence.

Many of the amendments in this group helpfully test where that boundary should sit, and I hope that the Minister can reassure the Committee that the Government’s approach is to enable, not to direct, in order to attract pension investment through quality and value, not through compulsion. If we keep fiduciary duty at the centre and focus on making UK opportunities genuinely competitive investments, growth and good pensions will go hand in hand. That is the balance that we are keen to see maintained.

I shall speak to my two amendments in this group, Amendments 9 and 11, which are intended to improve clarity, accountability and future-proofing in Clause 2, rather than to change the underlying investment powers of the scheme managers.

Amendment 9 would require scheme managers to publish an annual report on the local investments held within their asset pool companies, including both the extent of those investments and their financial performance. If local investment is to play an increasing role within LGPS portfolios, transparency is essential. Members, employers and taxpayers are entitled to understand not only where capital is being deployed but how it is performing. This amendment would not mandate local investment; nor would it direct decision-making. It simply asks that where such investments are made, they are visible, measurable and open to scrutiny. The question it poses to the Government is straightforward: is transparency, rather than compulsion, the right way to build confidence in local investment? We believe that it is.

I add at this point that a great many Bills are coming before your Lordships’ House in which the interaction with post-devolution structures is far from clear. The Government should be making more of an effort to provide clarity on the post-devolution picture when drafting legislation. I therefore ask the Minister—here come the exam questions—how do the Government intend to keep the definition of strategic authorities under review as devolution evolves? What assurances can be given that future legislation will align properly with the new devolved arrangements? Do the Government accept that there is a risk of confusion and overlap if these definitions are not regularly updated to reflect constitutional changes? More broadly, what steps are the Government taking to ensure a coherent and consistent approach to the interaction between the new powers and devolution settlements? Crucially, how will assets and liabilities be carved up post devolution, and can the Minister assure us that this will be done independently? I am very happy for the Minister to write, rather than bombarding him with a massive amount of work now—although maybe we should; I do not know.

Amendment 11 is probing in nature and concerns the definition of strategic authorities. Currently, the Bill hard-codes a specific list of bodies in primary legislation, yet the architecture of English devolution is changing rapidly, not least through the forthcoming English devolution Bill. This amendment therefore asks whether that definition is sufficiently agile and future-proofed or whether it risks becoming outdated almost as soon as it is enacted. It invites the Minister to explain how the Government intend to ensure that LGPS governance can adapt to evolving local and regional structures without requiring repeated primary legislation.

Taken together, these amendments seek to strengthen Clause 2 by reinforcing accountability on the one hand and flexibility on the other, while preserving the core principle that investment decisions must remain firmly rooted in fiduciary duty. I look forward to the Minister’s response to the questions the amendments raise and his reassurance that the Government’s approach is to enable good investment decisions through transparency and clarity rather than prescription.

--- Later in debate ---

I see that the noble Viscount wants to intervene. I was just about to come to his point, but perhaps he is intervening on another point, so I will sit down.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that ESG and responsible investing is perhaps best summed up in the stewardship code, which most responsible investors use?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I could not have put it better myself. We have to be careful in regarding ESG as fashionable politics, inserting itself into a fashionable investment space. We have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater and to really appreciate that there are good reasons why certain investments are more popular and investments in other areas are being shunned. There are trends in industry and society as to what products and classes of investment are popular. Sometimes, we can overthink these things.

I am pleased that the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, popped up because I was just about to address his question about the Bill preventing funds setting targets on local investment, on this theme. I hope this answers his question: they must set a target, but it can be any value that the fund considers appropriate. They retain that element of flexibility, which I hope is helpful.

Regarding Amendment 9, the Government will require some administering authorities to report on their local investments, including the total investment, and on the impact of investments, in their annual reports through guidance. We consider that Amendment 9 would be an unnecessary duplication of a requirement that was already set out in guidance and in regulations. We think that it would not add anything to the Bill, as that regulation is already good practice—it is already there.

Amendment 12, spoken to by noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Altmann, seeks to expand the definition of local investments beyond stretching point: it could mean investments for the benefit of persons living or working in any of the administering authorities’ local areas. Our fear here is that the amendment would, in effect, break the definition of local investment, as it could mean any investment in England and Wales. We contend that local investment, as it stands, has a broad definition, as it can refer to investments that have measurable beneficial impact for people living or working in areas local to, or in the region of, the administering authority, or of its pool partner administering authorities. As a consequence, this is broad enough to capture an appropriately wide geographic range while ensuring that there are still benefits for the local area.

To ensure a clear and firm trajectory to consolidation and benefits at scale for the scheme as a whole, along with the assurance I hope I have provided to the noble Lords in discussing these amendments, I respectfully ask my noble friend Lord Davies to withdraw his amendment.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [HL]

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 31st October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Brookeborough]

My Lords, I support the amendment and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for saying half of what I was going to say.

However, I should like to add one other point. Yes, this is about protection of the consumer and, secondly, advice. However, there is another word for advice: education. This is not simply about advice for people who go to the right places—very often they do not know where to go unless the advice is put in front of them—but about educating people. In our report on financial exclusion and in the FCA report, it is absolutely clear that there has to be continued learning and education throughout people’s lives. They are at school and then go to their first job and may not be able to save much money. Then they think of settling down, then they want a mortgage, then they want a car and so on—and then they want a pension.

We must look at the fact that a vast proportion of post-graduates—I do not have the figure in front of me now but we have all heard it recently—say that the most important omission from their education is financial education. It is therefore not a wonder that we have to do this. Taking the amendment in isolation, I can see why the Government may not want to accept it, because it is another addition to the legislation. However, it would not be so important if the Government accepted that education in schools should be not only controlled but monitored to ensure that it takes place. However, other things have been allowed to lapse. There are not the checks and the compulsory education, which should start at school and then continue. If there were, people would automatically want to be more educated in financial affairs as they go through life because they would know of their importance at an early stage. This is why this kind of amendment must be brought in at this stage to educate people and keep them in line for the future part of their lives.

[The Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I have followed the passage of this Bill with great interest but I have not felt the need to intervene. However, today I support my noble friend in this amendment based on two experiences.

The first is as a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund, which, as I am sure many Members know, is a well-run fund and gives a great deal of excellent advice. However, it is always surprising to discover how many well-educated, highly numerate and literate people fail to grasp much of what there is to do with pensions. If those of us who regard ourselves as reasonably well educated, quite numerate and quite literate are having difficulty with pensions, it stands to reason that many people who have not had those advantages will have even greater problems. To my mind, therefore, the need for advice is a case that is clearly made.

The second experience arises from my time on the banking commission of the Treasury Select Committee in another place. We worked extremely hard to ensure that the Financial Conduct Authority had a proper consumer remit. I am delighted that the Government accepted what we had to say because the FCA has proved to have undertaken the remit well and with a degree of teeth. If we want to ensure that a regulation works, we must make sure that the person promulgating it has teeth. It is absolutely right that the FCA should be the body to make the regulations and to follow up on them.

In summary, it would not surprise me if there is considerable resistance from the Treasury, but that is simply a manifestation of its well-known terminal “not invented here” syndrome. Experience shows that where the Treasury is obliged to take on regulation, it comes round to accepting its wisdom in due course. The test of this amendment, therefore, is not “Why should we?” but “Why shouldn’t we”.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment. We support not only the manner in which it was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, but all other noble Lords who have spoken in support of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that it was about making the system work better, while the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, reminded us that it is not about making this mandatory. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, talked about the need to look at pensions. We have looked at mortgages in the past, but now is the time to make sure that pensions are fully protected. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said that having freedoms is one thing, but being able to use those freedoms effectively with financial knowledge is important. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, reminded us again of the importance of financial education and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, outlined the importance of the FCA.

Amendment 24 is clear in its purpose. The FCA must require all trustees and managers of pension schemes to ask people, at the point at which they seek to access or transfer their pensions, whether they have received the information and guidance available to them from the new financial guidance body under Clause 3. If they have not received that guidance, the FCA may require the trustee or the pension scheme manager to provide the individual with access to it before the manager proceeds with the access or transfer request. In effect, the FCA can require that people at risk are defaulted into guidance through their scheme.

Public pension policy is now predicated on, effectively, dividing pensions into two elements: a saving phase and an access phase. In the saving phase, the barriers to individuals’ acting in the face of complexity, which inhibits optimal decision-making, are recognised and regulated defaults have been introduced—auto-enrolment and default investment funds. In the access phase, policy assumes behaviours to be dramatically different, with individuals bearing direct responsibility for making good choices, even though the evidence is clear that they need more support. People are nudged by public policy to save, but they are left to their own devices when accessing or transferring their savings. As the chief economist at the Bank of England, Andy Haldane, commented on 18 May at the annual dinner of the think tank New City Agenda,

“I consider myself moderately financially literate. Yet I confess to not being able to make the remotest sense of pensions. Conversations with countless experts and independent financial advisers have confirmed for me only one thing—that they have no clue either. That is a desperately poor basis for sound financial planning”.


The radical reforms to accessing savings, introduced in the 2014 pension freedom and choice flexibilities, introduced new risks attached to individual decision-making, which will only increase over time as more pensioners become dependent on defined contribution savings. Many people are not well-equipped to make informed decisions. Many of the pension draw-down products do not have the governance and value for money requirements that workplace pensions possess in the savings phase. The prevalence of scams has increased as a direct result of the new freedoms as, increasingly, fraudsters try to get hold of people’s hard-earned savings.

As the FCA observed in the interim report on its retirement market study following the introduction of the new pension freedoms, consumers are poorly placed to drive effective competition. The retirement income market is not working well and the introduction of greater choice and more complex products will reduce consumer confidence and weaken the pressures on providers to offer good value.

The governance of the UK private pension system remains a challenge and the creation of the single financial guidance body is intended, in part, to address market failures and support people to make informed decisions that are in their interest. That will happen only if people access the guidance available—if those at risk of poor decisions use it and are referred to it before they make their decisions or their decisions are implemented. That is precisely what the amendment seeks to achieve, by requiring trustees and scheme managers to ask people whether they have taken the guidance available before they access or transfer their pensions and, if necessary, by requiring the trustees and managers to provide access to that guidance, in line with rules drawn up by the FCA, before proceeding to implement the individual’s decision. Requiring providers to ask people before they make their decision whether they have received guidance from the new body will improve public knowledge of the service and, in some circumstances, address the known barriers put in place by some providers that are reluctant to see their customers access impartial guidance, for fear that they will not buy a product or service from them as a result. Requiring trustees and managers to provide access to that guidance before proceeding to act will directly help to protect savers from making poor decisions.

The case for the amendment is also provided by the FCA’s recent Retirement Outcomes Review: Interim Report. The FCA observed that,

“pension freedoms have made consumer decisions much more complex … consumers struggle to understand their options and to think through the implications of their decisions … leading consumers to choose what … may not be the best decision for them”.

Some consumers cannot, or will not, engage with those decisions. Not all will take advice because of its cost and availability. That is a market gap. Indeed, the FCA expressed concern about whether a competitive market in retirement products can ever develop in the future. It identified four areas of remedy, one of which was to get savers to use the free and impartial guidance. That guidance is currently available from Pension Wise, the Pensions Advisory Service and Citizens Advice, but will transfer to the new body. The FCA explicitly recognises that favouring more guidance will,

“require cooperation across the Government, regulators”,

and industry. The amendment is an important requirement in securing that co-operation and protecting the increasing number of vulnerable savers. For the vast majority of people, a poor financial decision at the point of retirement or on transfer is a mistake for life. It cannot be remedied.

In conclusion, if noble Lords needed further reason to support the amendment, I refer them to the briefing from the Association of British Insurers on the amendment, delivered yesterday evening, which states:

“Enhancing access to advice and guidance is essential, and the SFGB has the potential to play a crucial role in helping more people understand their pension options. This should include exploring with industry and the DWP how we can make the use of guidance a recognised, positive norm when people choose to access their pension savings. The ABI would like to explore how this could work in practice, for example through options such as defaulting or auto-enrolling customers to guidance, earlier retirement communications to prompt people to use guidance, and introducing a Midlife MOT”.


I urge support for the amendment.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Viscount Thurso Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Steve Webb]

The case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers is in the courts now—before this policy has been implemented—so it is not specifically about this policy, but about a broader issue concerning the private rented sector. So it is a challenge to the regulations that his party was responsible for.

I will say more in a moment about the specific way in which we are planning to address the position of disabled people, because that is an important issue. Roughly two thirds of all social tenants have a disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, based on the measure used in our impact assessment. That is a similar proportion to those affected by this measure, so it is not disproportionate. If we look at the stock of social tenants, we inevitably find that about two thirds of them are in that category, and that is true of this specific measure.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

My hon. Friend will know about the lengthy correspondence that I have had with his colleague, Lord Freud, on my concerns regarding remote rural areas, of which there are a considerable number in my constituency. Will he or the Secretary of State agree to meet me to look at the potential for transitional arrangements that could assist those areas with specific needs relating to the change-over to this policy?

[Steve Webb]

We are always happy to meet my hon. Friend. He raises an important issue about rural areas, and that will obviously be germane to some of the concerns that members of the nationalist parties have raised today—