Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, briefly, I support everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said. I also thank the Minister: I recognise that there has been significant movement on the part of the Government on some of the other issues.

Unfortunately, although just constraining the mandatory power in the way the Government have proposed is better than it was before, it is not okay for members. Normally, if there is an expectation of market failure, we would wait until that failure is proven before we pass primary legislation, in case it were to arise. It has not been proven. Indeed, if the schemes that invest in the way the Government want—and in accordance with the voluntary accord we are trying to mimic—perform better, as the Government expect, then others are likely to follow, but forcing them to do so against their better judgment cannot be right. There is no compensation if the investment decisions go wrong. The Government have, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, said, inexplicably excluded listed investment companies, which will potentially hold exactly the investments that the Government wish pension schemes to invest in. Therefore, it does not seem that the Government themselves are the best judge of how to invest.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in insisting on the omission of mandation in Motion A1. The proposal has made the Government unpopular in the City and, as an ex-businesswoman and ex-pension trustee, I urge Ministers to think more radically and get rid of the power altogether, even in its constrained form.

Moving on, I thank the Minister and the Minister of State, Torsten Bell, for Amendments 85C, 85D and 85E in Motion D, which respond positively to my proposal for a review of public sector pensions. The work promised by the Government Actuary’s Department should provide the transparent analysis of this complex area that I have been calling for, with the support of the Centre for Policy Studies, the economist Neil Record, my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, and the coverage in the Times and the Telegraph. It was reassuring to know from the Minister that the important complementary work responding to the Public Accounts Committee’s concerns about the whole of government accounts 2023-24 will be published within the one-year timeframe in the amendment.

I have been addressing not just a technical matter but serious problems, such as intergenerational unfairness and the long-term affordability of our important public service pensions. I trust that, as a result of the new work, we will be able to tackle the issues better and in a much more informed way.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I will briefly add my support to Motion A1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to remove the mandation reserved power. On Monday, the Minister told us:

“On the question on fiduciary duty, nothing in the Bill disapplies trustees’ existing duties of loyalty, prudence and acting in members’ best interests”.


Her argument was that

“the savers’ interest test allows a scheme to seek an exemption if it can show that compliance would cause material financial detriment to members”.—[Official Report, 20/4/26; col. 591.]

I hope that noble Lords can see the rather fundamental flaw in that argument. Not causing “material financial detriment” is very different from acting in members’ best interests. Would the Minister put her pension savings into a fund that promised only that it would not cause material financial detriment? Of course she would not, but that, as she has said, is the standard to which the mandated asset allocation will be held. So, contrary to what she keeps claiming, the power to mandate asset allocation, even with the latest proposed constraints, quite clearly undermines the fiduciary duty of trustees to act in members’ best interests, and it has no place in pension scheme regulation.