Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I do not think I was suggesting that it was an anti-competitive move by the pensions industry, but there are segments in it that are advantaged by it. The other concern is that the meetings that took place prior to the signing of the Mansion House agreement were very particular to certain types of organisation; I have yet to know of any that really had interests in listed investment companies or of any of them that were invited. Perhaps the Minister does not know because this is not her field, but I have to say, I am very concerned that this has been a secretive consultation, not a public consultation, among a selection rather than among the many.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to say any more than I have now. The noble Baroness has made a series of complaints about cartels, secrecy and lack of integrity—all kinds of things—none of which are merited. I simply felt that I needed to put something on the record to counter that, and I do not have anything to add. We have made it clear that these were iterative discussions with the industry, looking at what was going to happen specifically in relation to the accord, and I have made the Government’s view on that clear.

On enforcement, Amendment 145, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has added her name, probes whether the maximum penalty of £100,000 per employer in new Section 28I is proportionate. We have worked closely with the regulators and benchmarked against comparable penalty regimes. The intention is to set a maximum that is meaningful as a deterrent to wilful or repeated non-compliance but is not routinely applied. I assure the noble Baroness that it is a cap, not a fixed sum, so the regulators will take account of the facts in each case; in practice, the potential loss of qualifying scheme status for auto-enrolment is likely to be a far more significant consequence than any fine.

We are keen to work with schemes, trustees and providers to ensure that any future use of the reserve asset allocation powers, were that to come to pass, is carefully targeted, evidence-based and consistent with trustees’ duties. We believe that the Bill provides the right framework, including the savers’ interest test, the requirement for a prior report and a proportionate enforcement regime. In the light of all that, I hope that noble Lords can withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

The noble Baroness mentioned those who are perhaps on lower salaries or have a different risk appetite. On this, I have to come back to the fact that diversification is key. It is perhaps worth reminding the Committee that, currently, the vast majority of mass market DC schemes have little or no private markets in their default funds, in contrast to many international peers. Clearly, in those cases, a small allocation to private assets—such as the 10% baseline that signatories to the Mansion House Accord have committed to—can potentially offer new opportunities for diversification. I fully accept that the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, is not going to be persuaded by the arguments, but I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would like to ask me some more questions.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

If this is such a good idea, why not just mandate it for all pension funds?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The Bill as a whole is trying to pursue scale and is trying to mirror what the Mansion House Accord did. I have been through that argument many times. We are seeking solely a reserve power to act as a backstop to an industry-led decision. The industry itself has decided to go in this direction. It is a simply a reserve power, and the reason why we are using it is that we know that there remains a risk that people will not all follow through on it because of the excessive focus on cost and the competitive advantage that may come from backsliding on that. I fully accept that the noble Baroness does not agree, but those are the Government’s arguments. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Scott of Needham Market) (LD)]

I inform the Committee that if this amendment were to be agreed to, I cannot call Amendment 175A for reasons of pre-emption.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I support the general issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, has raised. Of course, if this whole clause were deleted, the amendment that I am seeking in addition would disappear.

I want to speak to my amendment which is about new Section 117D(2), which says:

“The best interests test”, in relation to a unilateral change, is that it is reasonably likely that effecting it will”,


change. I do not like the words “reasonably likely”. We have to examine what “reasonably likely” means in legal terms.

Reasonably likely is a threshold of probability that is lower than the civil standard of “more likely than not”. More likely than not means above 50%, so reasonably likely means less than 50%. Having “reasonably likely” means that lower than 50% might have a better outcome, which is unacceptable. I find it hard to believe that that is what is intended. When you look at a phrase such as “reasonably likely”, you would think that the reasonable is somehow enhancing the likeliness, but in legal terms it is not. It is taking away from it. Therefore, I hope that that can be looked at and that the Government will address that issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and others for their contributions. Clause 48 inserts new Part 7A, on

“Unilateral changes to pension schemes”,


referred to as “contractual override”, into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. As has been clear, that will enable providers of FCA-regulated DC workplace pension schemes to override the terms of a pension scheme without the consent of individual members. To be clear, that will mean that providers will be able to transfer members to a different pension scheme, to make a change that would otherwise require consent, or to vary the terms of members’ contracts. The Bill provides important protections around the use of such powers, which I will come on to.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked why we want to do this—why change anything? I will explain. Providers can have thousands of DC arrangements for different employers, which will include a large number of legacy schemes that predate the introduction of auto-enrolment. Some of those arrangements will be delivering poor value for members but, due to the challenges of engaging with members, there is often little that providers can do about it. That is because, currently, providers have to gain individual consent from each member of the scheme to enact the changes that will be allowed under this part. That is time-consuming, costly and often simply impractical. In many cases, members will not even have kept their contact details updated.

Contractual override aims to address that issue and, in doing so, it would establish broad equivalence with the trust-based market, where trustees already have the power to conduct bulk transfers. The measure is necessary to help drive better outcomes for members and help to establish fewer larger pension schemes that are delivering value for money, supporting the scale measures and value-for-money framework also implemented by the Bill.

We want to protect consumers, so the Bill introduces a number of important safeguards, including the best interests test, which must be met and certified by an independent person with sufficient expertise before a contractual override can occur. That test is the focus of the amendments. Amendment 175 from noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, probes the test to assess whether this should proceed. She asked about the relationship to the FCA’s consumer duty—I think she asked why we need it at all if we have the FCA consumer duty. The answer is to provide an additional and clear safeguard. We believe that that is necessary given the nature of what is being provided for here.

However, the Government are committed to making sure that this works well. We will continue to work closely with the FCA as it beds in the consumer duty, and to engage with stakeholders about their experience of the duty and its impact. The FCA will develop its rules for contractual override in its usual manner and will consult on that, so there will be an opportunity for people to respond to the way that engages and to identify any of the issues that have been raised.

Amendment 175A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, would alter the threshold for the best interests test from requiring that a change is “reasonably likely” to achieve a better outcome to requiring that “there is evidence” that the change will achieve a better outcome. I will explain why the Government believe that our test strikes the right balance between providing robust consumer protections and still making it practical for schemes to carry out a contractual override where it is the right thing to do. The test itself allows for a contractual override to take place only when the provider has reasonably concluded that the change is reasonably likely to lead to a better outcome for directly affected members and no worse an outcome for the other members of the scheme. I will break down some of the specific requirements that must be met for it to be satisfied. First, the provider must conclude that it is “reasonably likely” that the contractual override will lead to a better outcome for directly affected members, taken as a whole, and no worse an outcome for the other members taken as a whole.

The provision accounts for the fact that, although no provider can predict the future with certainty, they must conclude based on the information available, with a reasonable level of certainty, that the outcome is better for the directly affected members taken as a whole and no worse an outcome for the other members taken as a whole. That means that the provider must clearly evidence this assertion in order to proceed. We believe that changing the test from “reasonably likely” to “there is evidence”, as in the amendment, would lower the threshold of the test and reduce consumer protection, because the alternative wording provides no requirements about the strength of the evidence and leaves open the possibility that decisions could be taken on the basis of limited or poor evidence. By contrast, the existing wording requires providers to demonstrate that the outcome is a real prospect.

Secondly, a provider must reasonably conclude that the test is met. This requirement is deliberately included to address the risk of a provider reaching a conclusion that is not based on valid evidence or reasoning. The FCA, as the regulator responsible for contract-based workplace pensions, must make detailed rules regarding contractual override. That includes rules about the considerations and information that providers must take into account in determining whether the best interests test is met. As I have said, the FCA will develop those rules in its usual manner, which will include consultation.

Finally, new Section 117E requires that an independent person, with expertise to be defined in FCA rules, has to certify that the best interests test has been met, providing a further safeguard.

Overall, the contractual override policy establishes broad equivalence with the trust-based market and, in doing so, it delivers on a long-requested industry ask, promotes better member outcomes—which is key—and helps to achieve the wider goals for DC pensions that this Bill will deliver. We believe it strikes the right balance, and I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I appreciate that the response was prepared on the basis of the wording, and I accept that my “evidence” wording was a marker. But will the Minister please look up what the legal “reasonably likely” really does imply? She does not have to take my word for it; I did look it up. Therefore, I maintain that the words “reasonably likely” need adjustment. I hope that can be investigated and accepted, and maybe the Government can come back with their own amendment.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am happy to reflect on the noble Baroness’s point. If it leads the Government to believe that we have phrased the test badly, then of course we will take appropriate action; if not, then we will say where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

In the event of such a market failure, the powers would enable the Government to ensure that the system operates as intended by introducing one or more schemes that are required to accept a transfer from any scheme; they could be master trusts or, perhaps, schemes that have been designated as default consolidators for the purpose of consolidating small pots. However, the Government intend to seek volunteers to operate as a scheme of last resort and to conduct a consultation on the concept; we would expect to test that assumption further as part of a formal consultation ahead of introducing any requirements in regulations.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I have not intervened on this group because I have not really delved into it. I wonder whether the Minister will go into some of the points she is making. Obviously, there are cases where you want consolidation in order to produce a solution that gives a reasonable retirement income, rather than having it in different bits. However, I am concerned that some people will want to keep things in different pots and have different bits. When the guidance on what might be exempted and so on comes out, will there be any consultation on that so that there is provision for people who have got alternative incomes and other means? They may want to defer taking their pension for a lot longer than is the norm while they have other income.

There is a whole universe of things; indeed, a whole universe of things is happening to me on these issues, in terms of whether I start something or leave it. It is all made more complicated when the Government come in and tax it, but there are all these things that go on. Will all of that be open to a public consultation before guidance comes out to make sure that it is taken account of?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I do not know who we had in mind when we were designing this measure, but I am pretty confident that it was not the noble Baroness. If she were to ring up and say, “I want to take my pension pot”, and we said, “Here is a solution”, she would absolutely be able to say, “Do you know what? I don’t want to do that, thank you very much. I already know what I want to do with it”, or to have a conversation about the alternatives. This is really aimed at and concerned with those who would not be in a good position to make these complex decisions.

However, the consultation will explore these things. We have already talked about what kinds of thing trustees might have to take into account. There will be a range of things. If there is anything specific on which I can write to the noble Baroness, I will do so, but the intention is to consult on the nature of how this will work in practice and all of the design requirements. That is one of the reasons for keeping so much in regulations: to keep it flexible.

We are already finding, though, that providers are coming up with interesting, innovative solutions. Some schemes are offering flex then fix, which would give some flexibility in the years ahead. There are schemes that are doing different things, and we do not want to shut those down because we want there to be alternatives. I do not want to give the impression that we are forcing people into it, that they have to do only one thing before being allowed to take their pension or that their pension freedom has been taken away; none of that has happened because that is not what we are trying to do. I thank the noble Baroness for giving me the opportunity to clarify that.

Amendment 180 would remove regulation-making powers to enable the charging of fees for transfers to be prohibited or limited. The Government recognise that pension schemes rely on the charges they impose on members to operate the administration of the scheme effectively. There is an existing cap on charges, which can be placed on default funds under auto-enrolment, whose purpose is to shield individuals from high and unfair charges that could significantly erode their savings. The guided retirement measures were very conscious. They will introduce the concept of a default route and were, therefore, alive to the risk that individuals placed in a default plan may not scrutinise the costs involved. Therefore, we expect to consult on any detailed policy set out in regulations; we would test any assumptions about the impact of introducing a cap or a prohibition, including for transfers, as part of that consultation.

The Clause 51 and 57 stand part notices from the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, seek confirmation that Clause 51 will provide members with clear and consistent information. I am very happy to provide that assurance. The Government understand the power of communications and the importance of members understanding the default pension plan provided by the scheme, alongside the other options. Through this clause, the Government have the power to specify the format and structure of communications. There is also a requirement that all communications issued by schemes are in clear and plain language to help members make better decisions regarding their retirement income when they wish to do so.

As the noble Viscount mentioned, Clause 53 requires the development of a “pensions benefit strategy” by relevant pension schemes, which will be expected to include details of how the scheme will communicate its default pension plans to its members. Schemes will have to make these strategies available to scheme members and to the regulator for effective scrutiny; the Bill includes corresponding arrangements in respect of FCA-regulated providers. As a minimum, we expect the strategy to present the evidence base for the chosen default or defaults to give the member the opportunity to compare their circumstances and those on which the default is based.

Clause 57 is the corresponding provision in relation to FCA-regulated schemes. This inserts into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 a new section that will deliver default pension benefit solutions to FCA-regulated pension schemes, ensuring that members on both sides of the market benefit from default solutions. Clause 57 requires the FCA to make rules, having regard to the rest of Chapter 6 of the Pension Schemes Bill, to make default plans available to members of FCA-regulated pension schemes. This helps ensure that regulatory frameworks are aligned and that members experience broadly equivalent outcomes; it also maintains fairness and consistency across the market. Clause 57 also requires the FCA to aim to ensure, as far as is possible, that the outcomes to be achieved by its rules in relation to this chapter achieve the same outcomes as the rest of this chapter achieves in relation to schemes regulated by TPR.

The noble Viscount asked how schemes will be supported rather than forced into defensive behaviour. The regulator will issue guidance for all trust schemes. DWP officials have been engaging, and will continue to engage, with industry ahead of introduction, including through formal consultation.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked why the negative procedure and why the affirmative one. The affirmative procedure has been used for certain delegated powers where the power touches on a central aspect of the policy. For example, the power in Clause 49(4)(d) can be used to influence the defaults designed and offered by a scheme, so the affirmative procedure is used.

I have tried to answer all the questions that were asked. I hope that those explanations have been helpful and that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Katz, will be pleased to know that this will be my shortest intervention. With my Amendment 181, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has added her name, we now move on to superfunds, which are an excellent innovation that allow employers to shed their DB liabilities while also protecting or enhancing members’ interests.

My Amendment 181 is a small, technical amendment designed to address an issue to which I was alerted by Pensions UK. Clause 65(2) sets out the onboarding conditions that must be met for superfund transfers. Superfunds are designed to deal only with non-active members, as is clear in subsection (1); however, for some reason, the time at which this condition is tested is when the application for approval of the transfer is made by virtue of subsection (2)(a). I understand that it is quite possible for arrangements for transfer to a superfund to be made on the basis that members will become deferred—and, therefore, no longer active members—as soon as the transaction has taken place. I am therefore not sure what purpose is served by requiring all of those members to be deferred at the date of the application to the regulator, since that could be many months before the transfer will take place.

I look forward to the Minister’s comments and beg to move.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, everyone—apart from insurers, perhaps, who prefer buyout and the regulatory cash bonus it brings them—is in favour of superfunds. They should improve member benefit security. They can enhance members’ benefits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, just said. They can return cash to employers when appropriate, supporting UK businesses. They can also invest more in productive finance than a buyout or a DB scheme can.

However, numerous barriers make it difficult for superfunds and my Amendments 182 and 183 seek to address two of them. Amendment 182 seeks to remove gateway test 1, which is the test that prevents a scheme that can afford a buyout entering a superfund. The policy of pushing everything to buyout is intended to address risk, but it is not always in the members’ best interests; that could be considered more. Discretionary benefits, which can often include things on which expectations are based, may be lost. For example, spouses’ entitlements and increases in pensions are often discretionary; I know that that is the case in parliamentary schemes.

In a buyout, discretionary benefits are likely not to be paid, but a superfund could pay them. There seems to be some underlying assumption that superfunds do not serve risk reduction, but that does not reflect the extremely secure funding position that superfunds are held to by the regulations. Additionally, the test is unstable because funding levels vary. A scheme can start the process unable to afford buyout, and therefore be deemed able to go into a superfund, but if later on it could afford buyout part-way through, it would be required to reverse out and would be forced into a buyout. That can mean a lot of wastage of cost and time, as well as worse-off pensioners. Removing the test would give schemes more flexibility in the course they pursue, and may be better for the economy. If they chose a superfund, it would mean that more schemes could keep money invested in pensions and pay out more generously, rather than that extra money being lost in the insurance companies.

Amendment 183 is about the wind-up trigger and the protected liabilities threshold. This in, in essence, the point at which a superfund’s funding drops to such a level that it must close and enter the PPF. The recent PPF indexation means that the protected liabilities threshold is now above the low-risk trigger—that is, the technical provisions threshold—which is upside-down from the policy design, where the low-risk trigger is intended to be a less critical warning scenario than the wind-up trigger and is the point at which the scheme funds must be boosted by investor money.

This upside-down formulation will make it harder for superfunds to attract investor capital and will probably push pricing up closer to buyout levels, narrowing the slice of the market that superfunds can operate in. That is good if you are shareholders in insurance companies but, again, not for pensioners, who lose benefits. The amendment proposes a “lower of” formulation for the definition of the protected liabilities, which would set it at lower and more reasonable levels.

There could be other ways to fix this or remove the protected liabilities threshold entirely and rely on trustee powers in distressed situations, which is normal practice for regular DB schemes. But staying in the upside-down formulation does not seem right and risks stifling the nascent superfund model. I appreciate that this is a recent development because of the indexation and possibly one that the Government did not originally foresee, but it none the less needs tackling.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 182 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. Gosh, superfunds—that has been quite a journey. It must be about six years ago that I apparently received a letter from Andrew Bailey, who I think was running the Prudential Regulation Authority at the time. I never actually received it, but I read it in the FT and on Sky. It told me that it all seemed very unfair compared with the Solvency II reform, which is what insurers had to go by. That is why I am strongly concerned about Clause 65(2)(a) being in this Bill.

I think we are seeing the hand of the ABI again here, trying to basically squeeze out other activity when we should be focused on what is in the best interest of the pension scheme members. We also want to try to make sure that we do not have never-ending firms going into the PPF. The superfunds, which I recognise the Government have embraced through this, are definitely a good option but are different to having an insurer buyout, even with some of the changes that have happened away from Solvency II to whatever version of Solvency UK. There has been more reform with less risk around some of the margins in that regard.

So I encourage the Ministers to think again about whether subsection (2)(a) is really the right approach for the outcomes they seek. Otherwise, why bother? Why bother having a superfund if you can get only the equivalent of what it is to get the insurer buyout?

I could go further, but I am conscious that the dinner business break is bringing exciting business and that the Committee wishes to finish by a certain time. So I will leave superfunds for another time, perhaps in the Bishops’ Bar. But, with that, I support my noble friend in Amendment 182.