Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 4th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I refer Members to the Chair’s provisional selection and grouping of amendments, which should give them a guide as to which amendments are grouped and which are not.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes. I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.

[Steve Darling]

I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] I am sure that for all of his life he has wanted to be sitting on a pensions Bill Committee on his birthday.

More seriously, when we were in desperate measures in my time as a local authority councillor in Torbay, we borrowed to invest and make money for the local authority—that was once upon a time, because it is no longer possible—so I know from experience that authorities often have to invest elsewhere in the country to get the best financial returns. Our experience in Torbay was that a lot of our investments in the south of England got in the money that we needed to keep the local authority ticking over.

I would therefore welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we get the balance right. Clearly, investors would want to invest in the local area to drive economic development, but there is a need to balance that with getting positive outcomes for the pension fund. Some guidance from the Minister on how he sees that balance being struck, as the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Mid Leicestershire have alluded to, would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move amendment 245, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out from first “in” to end of line 39.

This amendment changes the definition of local investment to remove the reference to the benefit of persons living or working.

This amendment runs closely with amendment 246. Amendment 245 changes the definition of local investment to remove ambiguous reference to the benefit of persons living or working in the area. It is a small, technical amendment, but it is about giving more focus on the key need to members of the fund.

[Mr Bedford]

At present, the Bill arguably lacks a clear definition of how the priorities of the asset pools must follow, particularly on what qualifies as local investments. Our amendment seeks to address that gap by simplifying this. Put simply, we believe that local should mean local. These asset pools should prioritise investment in large-scale projects, actively promote local growth or make tangible improvements in local infrastructure—improvements that directly benefit the people in that local area.

Where no such opportunities exist, other investment options should be considered, but we cannot allow a situation where, for example, an LGPS fund raised in the midlands is continuously redirected elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, the Bill appears to suggest that the other areas included in the consolidated LGPS schemes could benefit disproportionately. My constituents may ask me, “Why aren’t these funds being used locally by investing in local opportunities, rather than being gifted to councils in other areas of the country, assisting in the same way?” I believe the amendment will add clarity on that to the Bill, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I was thinking about how the amendment would work in practice in my local area. I live in the Aberdeen city council area. We are landlocked. We are surrounded by the Aberdeenshire council area. If those local authorities were in separate local government pension schemes, the effect of the amendment would be that Aberdeenshire council could not class an investment in Aberdeen as a local investment despite the fact that its local authority headquarters are in Aberdeen. That is the only sensible place for them because Aberdeenshire goes all around Aberdeen, and it is the only place to which someone can reasonably get transport from all the areas in Aberdeenshire.

Although I understand what the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Mid Leicestershire are saying about the classification of local investments, I am not uncomfortable with the fact that the clause includes

“for the benefit of persons living or working in”

the area. If, for example, people in Aberdeenshire invested in a new swimming pool in Aberdeen city, I imagine that it would be used by a significant number of people in Aberdeenshire, and would absolutely be for their benefit.

We should remember that the local government pension schemes will have to prove that the thing they are investing in is for the benefit of local people living or working within the scheme area, although it may be slightly outside it. For example, if they invested in a small renewable energy project providing renewable energy to local people across a border, they would fall foul of this. It would not be classed as a local investment despite the fact that it would be very much for the benefit of people living or working within the scheme area.

The level of flexibility in the clause, and the fact that the schemes will have to justify their investments anyway, is more sensible than what the amendment suggests. I understand the drive to ensure that provision is made for local investment in local areas, but because of the nature of some of those boundaries, it makes more sense to keep the clause the way that the Government have written it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will speak specifically to amendments 260 and 265. Any communication with scheme members is a good thing, particularly if there are to be changes such as those we have been discussing. Sometimes, surplus extraction may not be for the benefit of scheme members; sometimes it may be for other reasons, and trustees have a duty to make clear what they think it is for and to release a surplus only if they think it is a reasonable thing to do. However, they may not have a full understanding of how members feel about what the surplus could be used for. For example, scheme members who are active members might feel that they would love their company to invest in something to make their lives and their jobs easier, and might be keener on that extraction than the trustees might think, so it would be great to have that input.

Amendments 260 and 265 are incredibly similar—surprisingly similar, in fact—and I am happy to support both, were they put to a vote. Amendment 261 is consequential; on amendments 247 and 267, I do not feel I have enough information on what trustees think to make a reasonable judgment on whether either amendment would be a sensible way forward for trustees to meet their fiduciary duty, which is to provide the best guaranteed return for scheme members. I will step out of votes on amendments 247 or 267, but I will support the amendment that requires members to be consulted in advance.

[Mr Bedford]

I rise to speak to amendment 260. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for outlining our rationale for the amendments. My comments regard informing members. I support the right to pay surplus to employers—I think that is the right thing to do, so long as the correct safeguards are in place—but it is right to inform members of that decision. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will improve member engagement in the whole pensions process. I made a point in Tuesday’s evidence session on the importance of financial education, and a number of witnesses supported that position. By more actively engaging with members, we will ensure that they take part in their own pension provision and ensure that the right decisions are made in their own interests.

[Torsten Bell]

My overall reflection on the amendments is that in most cases what is being requested is already happening, or risks reducing flexibility for trustees. I will set that out in a bit more detail, but I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions and for the amendments targeting important areas of concern.

Amendments 247 and 261 aim to maintain the buy-out funding threshold for surplus release from DB schemes. Member security is at the heart of our changes, as I have already set out. We are clear that the new surplus flexibilities must both work for employers and maintain a very high level of security for members, as we all agree. Under these proposals, surplus sharing will remain subject to strict safeguards, including the actuarial certification and the prudent funding threshold, which is the same threshold that the TPR under the previous Government had put in place for defined-benefit schemes to aim for more generally. The defined-benefit funding code and underpinning legislation require that trustees aim to maintain a strong funding position more generally, leaving aside the question of surplus release. They do that so that we have very high confidence that members’ future pensions will be paid.

However, the Government are minded to amend the funding threshold at which surplus can be released from the current buy-out threshold to the full funding on a low dependency basis, as I mentioned earlier. That is still a robust and prudent threshold that aligns with the existing rules, as I have just said. The goal here is to give more options to DB scheme trustees. Again, that is true across the Bill: we are aiming to provide trustees with more options about how they proceed.

Many schemes are planning to buy out members’ benefits with an insurer. In many cases that is the right thing for them to do, but other schemes might want to continue to run on their scheme for some time without expecting future contributions to be required from an employer. The low-dependency threshold will give flexibility to trustees to do so. It is right that they have a variety of options to choose from when selecting the endgame for their scheme.

The Government will set out the details of the revised funding threshold in draft regulations, on which we will consult. More broadly, we think it right that that is done via secondary legislation, not primary legislation.