Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Willetts Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome many features and proposals in this substantial and significant Bill. It does, of course, draw on the work of the previous Government, and indeed continues progress on pensions that has long been conducted on a cross-party basis. I think back to my time as shadow Work and Pensions Secretary 20 years ago, when I worked with the then Pensions Minister James Purnell as he investigated auto-enrolment; I then served in the coalition Cabinet with Sir Steve Webb implementing these proposals. I remember also many years of debating with my noble friend Lady Altmann, and I agree with a lot of what she has just said. I look forward to the maiden contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady White, and I rather suspect that during her time in the No. 10 Policy Unit she may have also been engaged in some of these debates.

The Bill comes before the proposals from the re-established Pensions Commission, and I hope that it will have the flexibility to make it possible to implement ideas that emerge from the Pensions Commission. There is a still a crucial question hanging over the original Pensions Commission work, and it is great to see the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, in her place. She knows that I agonise over whether there was a scenario where defined benefit pension schemes could have been saved 20 years ago. They had become very onerous, and over decades successive Governments had added to the regulations to make the defined benefit promise more and more generous and more and more cast iron. Eventually, they had become so onerous that companies closed them to new members, so what had always been intended as an intergenerational contract was made so generous that it became a once-off special offer for the members of those schemes when they closed. It is possible that a significant reduction in the burdens on employers might have enabled some version of those schemes to survive. That is relevant to today’s debate on measures such as collective DC, which is an attempt to recreate some of those strengths. We went instead to pure DC, and younger employees have not been able to enjoy anything like the pension promise of older members of company schemes.

We did some work on this at the Resolution Foundation back in 2023. I cannot remember what has happened to the chief executive at the time, but perhaps I can quote some figures from our intergenerational audit in 2023. We estimated that millennials born in the early 1980s will reach the age of 60 with, on average, £45,000 less in pension assets than boomers born 20 years earlier. That is the challenge of boosting the pensions savings of the younger generation, which I hope is the cross-party basis for this legislation.

A particularly acute example of how this generational unfairness can work is that some of those defined benefit schemes closed to new members were in deficit. The company plugged the deficit gap by using revenues generated by all of its workers, including the younger workers, which it put into the defined benefit scheme available only to some of the workers. We now have some very interesting examples of what happens when these schemes find themselves now, thank heavens, in surplus. The recent Stagecoach deal is a very interesting example; it has been widely welcomed in the media, and in many ways it is good news. However, the Stagecoach pensions scheme closed to new members in 2017. After that, the younger workers had no opportunity to join it. There will now be a distribution of the surplus. I hope the Minister might comment on the feasibility of some of the uses for that surplus, which are not in the current provisions. We heard from my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott about the importance of pension adequacy. Would it be acceptable for one use of the surplus to be to pay increased auto-enrolled employer contributions into the pension schemes of employees of Stagecoach who joined post 2017 and were therefore not in the earlier scheme? Some of their work will have generated the revenues that created the surplus. Would helping them through the successful auto-enrolment model not be one way forward? Another use, which is being talked about, is funding a collective DC pension arrangement to help get those schemes going. I very much hope we will move beyond the single CDC we have at the moment with Royal Mail. Pensions UK has an interesting proposal for some tax waivers for extra contributions going into CDC, especially out of pension surpluses. Again, I hope the Minister might be able to give that a welcome.

The closure of DB schemes and the creation of pure DC was the background to some of the big shifts we have been talking about. There has been a massive shift from equities into bonds and away from UK assets into assets held abroad. We are talking about this as if it is just rational capitalism working and trustees exercising their discretion, but I have a lot of sympathy with the points that my noble friend Lady Altmann made, because the British model is a very unusual model. I believe it is largely to be explained, not by some higher economic rationality, but by the strange features of the closure of DB and moving to pure DC. It means that the percentage invested in UK equity fell from 50% 20 years ago to 5% now. That makes us a complete outlier across the OECD for the willingness of our pension funds to invest in UK assets.

This is not what the pension fund members and contributors expect. As we know from recent polling published by the London Stock Exchange, when you do a survey of 1,000 current members of workplace pension schemes and ask them how much of their pension contributions they think are going into British business, their estimate is 41%—nearly 10 times larger than what is actually happening. If you ask them whether they think their pension scheme should invest more in British industry, even if this would involve some sacrifice in their future pensions, 61% say yes.

Most funded pension schemes in other advanced western countries are much more deeply rooted in their own national economy and realise that part of what they are trying to do is create the environment in which their national pensioners thrive in a healthy economy in a generation’s time. It is absolutely right to have this debate now in Britain and, for me, having been involved—and still being involved, in different ways—in the science base and research, it is deeply frustrating that we have one of the world’s great research bases and one of its great financial centres but we have totally failed to link the research base with the commercial investors in the City. That needs to change.

Successive Chancellors have been trying to do this, and of course we have had the Mansion House compact and now have the Mansion House Accord. There is now a fraught debate about mandation, and I realise all the delicacies about it. I personally think that the recent proposal from the London Stock Exchange is a very interesting way forward: not specifying the asset allocation by type of asset but saying that, whatever asset allocation has been decided upon, 25% should go into UK assets—absolutely not with full mandation but expecting this as a provision for UK DC default funds. So I hope the Minister will say that the Government are considering this proposal from the London Stock Exchange, now backed by 250 founders and chief executives of UK companies. I hope she will assure the House that, if that proposal were to go forward, this Bill would provide the necessary legislative framework, which I am assured is not an ambitious set of changes. There are things that can be done to secure a far greater understanding of the value of investing in British industry and other British assets than we have seen over the last few years.

I will briefly raise one other issue involving the other Pensions Commission: the investigation of pension age. I hope the Minister may be able to say something about this, because the clock is ticking. There was a half-hearted partial announcement of the decision that the pension age should go up further under the previous Government, which has not been followed up. My view is that that debate has got totally trapped in a preoccupation with life expectancy and using projected life expectancy as the only metric—what I call RIP minus X—or formula that has to be used. What pension age you set is not simply a mechanical calculation around life expectancy but an important fiscal decision. As in all other decisions, there are other factors, including long-term public expenditure costs and the likely income of pensioners from other sources.

I hope therefore that we will not find that we look back on this debate and ask why we missed another opportunity to prepare the ground and properly consider whether, given the fiscal constraints that any Government face, we should also be considering increases in the pension age.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Willetts Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 14th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I have one question following the Minister’s very helpful explanation. I was involved in the internal government discussion leading up to the 2013 legislation, and at the back of our minds was the whole issue of merging local government pension schemes for economic and investment reasons. The model that emerged of seven or eight umbrella bodies shaping their investment strategy was seen as the best way to deliver that. The Minister’s list of reasons why there might be compulsory mergers excluded any investment or economic argument, so is he assuring the Committee that the Government do not envisage using these powers to secure specific economic or investment objectives?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am seeking help from my noble friend Lady Sherlock in a helpful conference on the side. The investment assets are in pools, so that is not necessary. The backstop powers are very clear: if there is a need for a merger or we are worried about a failing scheme, there is that backstop power and this is why. It would not be used to direct particular investment strategies.

Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Willetts Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

May I ask my noble friend a couple of questions? I totally accept the rationale for the change happening only post-1997, but does he accept that because we now have surpluses and there is this gap, a one-off payment would be a potential way of recognising the problem faced by the pensioners without changing the long-term funding position of the scheme?

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I am not against such payments. As I say, I think this is highly discretionary—there would be a negotiation. I absolutely understand that argument, and we have all received letters from the people suffering financial distress in some circumstances because of not having pre-1997 inflation protection. But I just want to bring in another consideration and try to find out where it would fit in when the employers or the trustees are reaching a decision.

The Government have a policy, or rather we now have on a cross-party basis, a successful policy of auto-enrolment. The levels of pension contribution to the next generation, who are not in these schemes, are way lower than the pension contributions that have generated these large surpluses. It would be great if we could see increasing contributions. Where might a decision fall if an employer says, “We have now turned our scheme into surplus because of the work of the company, and one thing we could do with the money is to put some enhanced contribution into the auto-enrolment pensions of the next range of employees, whose pension rights at the moment will be far lower than those of the people covered in this debate”?

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

I am quite pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, because I feel that we are fishing slightly in the same pond. I added my name to the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and I support doing something for the pre-1997 people. When you look at something as long-term as pensions and you have different cohorts coming in, moving along and coming out, you have to somehow get into cohort fairness. You will always have the circumstance that people have paid into something and then they get something out when there is something else in the pot. We will come to this even more so when we start to deal with private assets, so I shall not go on at length here, because I will go on at length there. I am in the same camp as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in thinking that you do not say that it is clean cut and these people are in and those people are out—you have to look at fairness more broadly across the piece.