Pension Schemes Bill

Viscount Younger of Leckie Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, people often wonder, speak and write about whether the House of Lords performs a valid function. This group of amendments justifies the House of Lords in one fell swoop. In this group, the Government are proposing 20 amendments to their own Bill, which shows that it had not been thought out properly in the beginning and we are now trying to amend it in your Lordships’ House—and amend it correctly, I add. I am not speaking against the amendments but noting that things are coming to us ill prepared; that there are 20 amendments makes that clear to see.

This group has amendments that raise an important issue of fairness for members of the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme, particularly in relation to pre-1997 service, as well as technical government amendments, to which I just referred. There are amendments probing whether members should, in some circumstances, be allowed to move to a better supported arrangement or receive more meaningful redress where historic indexation has been lacking. On these Benches, our instinct is that member protection must remain the starting point, but protection should not become an unnecessary rigidity. There is a secure and properly funded route to a better outcome for members. The Government should at least be willing to consider this, and I hope that the Minister will say some positive words on it.

On pre-1997 rights in particular, Parliament is entitled to ask whether the proposed remedy is full enough or whether fairness is justified. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, referred to Amendments 155 and 162, which both seek to do a similar thing. As I said, we are going to vote on the amendments with high numbers later; which one we will vote on, or whether we will vote on both, I do not know. However, we on these Benches agree with the principle of both. We shall see later whether we have had some success in persuading the Government to support these amendments.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I start by referring to the reference the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made to “Mastermind”; I am tempted to say that I have started so I will finish. I thank the Government for bringing forward these technical amendments, which seek to protect schemes from unintended consequences arising from the Bill; to ensure that GMP equalisation is properly treated as a narrow legal correction rather than as full indexation; and to provide greater technical clarity and consistency across the relevant legislative framework. These seem very sensible and constructive changes, and I thank the Minister for her clarifications and the detail she gave.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for the points they succinctly raised on their amendments. As we have heard, Amendment 162 would require the Secretary of State to bring into force the currently uncommenced power in the Pensions Act 2004, allowing the PPF to discharge certain compensation liabilities by paying a cash lump sum. Activating this long-dormant paragraph would add a pragmatic fourth option alongside insurance policies, annuity contracts or transfers. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, it would not cost any money to do so.

We therefore support the amendment because it would widen the PPF’s toolkit to act in the best interest of members, giving flexibility to settle appropriate cases efficiently where regulations specify the safeguards and calculation method while retaining parliamentary oversight under the negative procedure and the PPF’s core purpose of protecting members of failed schemes. I therefore say to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the House that, should he wish to seek the opinion of the House on Amendment 162, we will be minded to support him.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords for introducing their amendments. The amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, would commence the regulation-making power in Section 169(2)(d) of the Pensions Act 2004 to allow the PPF board to discharge its liabilities through a lump sum. As we have heard, Amendment 155 would have the additional effect of enabling PPF members to transfer out of the PPF to an arrangement that offers benefits higher than PPF compensation, where an alternative sponsor can be found.

The PPF is designed to discharge its liabilities by making regular payments to its members. That enables investment returns, plus levy payments, to make good the funding of schemes that transfer to the PPF and to build a buffer against future risk. This model has put the PPF in a strong financial position, but allowing transfers out would undermine its operation. Before the PPF board takes responsibility for a scheme, there is an assessment period, the aim of which is to ensure that the scheme does not go into the PPF until it is clear that no linked employer will rescue the scheme. Given that nobody took up the option originally for schemes that have transferred into the PPF, it is hard to see related employers who would do so many years later.

However, Amendment 155 opens up this possibility, including from non-related entities. It could therefore require a fundamental restructuring of the PPF’s funding and investment strategy to reflect transfers out. This is not a minor option which costs nobody any money; in practice, it raises range of complex issues to be addressed. Importantly, these include how to safeguard members by ensuring that their destination is appropriately secure. The complexity could be significant.

Enabling transfers out of the PPF would require a fundamental rethink of how it operates, its compensation structure and how the compensation system more broadly is managed. At this time, if any willing sponsors were identified, there is no framework to assess how adequate their funding would have to be to minimise the risk of returning to the PPF. If the sponsor were to fail subsequently, the scheme could end up transferring back to the PPF, and members could receive benefits at PPF levels even lower than they had been before they were taken out in the first place. The Government cannot agree to commence a regulation-making power which would enable lump sums to be paid in this way. The provisions in Section 169 were meant to be used only in exceptional circumstances, which have not yet come to pass. To open it up more widely would not be wise when the potential costs and risks of the PPF are unclear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for these amendments. We have discussed this issue a number of times during the passage of the Bill, and other noble Lords who have spoken so far have all spoken strongly in support of necessary action.

The facts are established. These people were poorly treated and it is the Government’s policy that they should be better treated. That is established: there is no debate about that. I have heard no one suggesting that it does not really matter that these people do not get any money. We have agreed to give them some extra money by revaluing these pensions from next year onwards. However, because of the structure of who has lost out—the age profile when the losses occurred—these people stand to make very little gain from that proposal, so the Government’s proposal to help these people just does not hack it. Something more needs to be done.

I have argued at previous stages that the shortfall over the number of years since their compensation started should be made good and the pension that has increased in future should start from that higher level. Clearly, that was not going to receive the support of the Government, so the noble Baroness has proposed an alternative: that the money that is in the Pension Protection Fund should be used as a lump sum to compensate those who have lost out. Clearly, when you are in your 70s and 80s, a lump sum is of much greater advantage than future increases. That is the point of these amendments. Therefore, this is a compromise; it is not what those affected have actually called for. As has been said, these people are towards the end of their life and they need help now.

We know what it is going to cost. When the scheme was set up by my noble friend Lord Hain, there was some debate about the benefits. I was advising the TUC at the time. We might have argued against the restrictions, but it was accepted that, to get the show on the road, we would accept these benefits. But we now know what it is going to cost and that the money is there. It is all in the Pension Protection Fund. If it does not go to these people who have lost out, eventually it will end up in the Government’s coffers. The Government will not be entitled to it, but where else is it going to go? We need to act now to help these people, not leave it to a future Government. So I am strongly in support of the proposal.

My noble friend the Minister might make one additional point. There are two groups of pensioners here. There are those who are receiving benefits from the Pension Protection Fund and there is another group receiving benefits from the Financial Assistance Scheme. It is important to understand that the only reason they are in the Financial Assistance Scheme is that the Government failed to accept their responsibilities early enough. They are only in the FAS because the Government failed to comply with their legal requirement to introduce this sort of compensation arrangement on redundancy. Therefore, there is no argument that the FAS people should be treated any differently from the people in the PPF. They are entitled to money to make good the deficiency and to allow them to enjoy some sort of benefit for what remains of their lives.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly. We welcome the intent behind these amendments. We have spoken with campaigners and representatives of affected members and understand the concerns that sit behind them. Those concerns are real and deserve to be taken seriously. I have listened very carefully to the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lords, Lord Hain, Lord Wigley and Lord Davies, with the case studies that they have cited relating to the losses suffered by individuals, and also the emotional consequences.

However, we have reservations about the proposed approach. As drafted, these amendments would, in certain circumstances, compel the payment of lump sums. That does not sit comfortably with the core principle that we have adopted throughout the passage of this Bill: that we should not seek to direct or constrain pension funds in a way that limits their ability to act in the best interests of their members. If the PPF determines that using surplus to provide such payment is appropriate, proportionate and in members’ best interests, of course we would support that. However, that judgment is properly one for the fund itself, not something that should be prescribed. It is for the Government to offer a response to the questions and the points raised by other speakers, and I look forward to the remarks from the Minister.

While we have sympathy with the objective of these amendments, we do not believe that mandating this approach is the right way to achieve it. Therefore, I am afraid that we are unable to support them.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

The Minister may correct me, but I do not believe that the Pension Protection Fund could itself agree to make these lump sum payments; they need to be enabled by legislation. I have not double-checked that, but that was what I was led to believe.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

The noble Baroness asks a fair question. Can the Minister clarify that? We have looked into this in some depth and come to our own conclusion, and I am afraid we will have to stick to that: but I do take the noble Baroness’s point.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for introducing her amendments. I understand her concerns. We did discuss this in Committee at some length.

Amendments 124, 128, 132 and 136 would require the payment of arrears to members of the PPF whose original scheme provided for increases on pensions built up before 6 April 1997. The amendments would also enable members to receive a one-off lump sum payment from the PPF reserve. Amendment 154 would require the Secretary of State to determine how these lump sum payments are to be funded in the financial assistance scheme. I fully understand that many affected PPF and FAS members are having to adjust to a level of income less than they were expecting at retirement, after their employers became insolvent and the pension schemes wound up being underfunded. I understand the distress that has caused to many of them.

Regarding the comments made by my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about Allied Steel and Wire, my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions has met with a range of members, including former Allied Steel and Wire workers whose scheme qualified for the financial assistance scheme, and he has heard their cases.

These amendments go much wider than that. This Government have acted to address this issue through measures in the Bill which address prospective pre-1997 indexation to eligible PPF and FAS members. However, I understand that this does not go as far as some affected members and some Members of the House would have wanted. None the less, these reforms represent a step change that will significantly strengthen the protection offered by the two compensation schemes. We have taken action and now want to implement it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, what can I do but say that I welcome these amendments? They are overdue and I hope they will pass with no dissension.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, in the spirit of consensus, we had some initial concerns with the Government’s approach, which we raised in Committee, specifically whether these provisions might render the Bill hybrid. That would be a serious procedural issue, and one we felt was important to explore fully. Since then, we have engaged constructively with the Government and the Public Bill Office on this question. As the Minister will know, there were a good number of meetings and exchanges. I am grateful to both for their time and careful consideration. We have been reassured that these provisions do not, in fact, make the Bill hybrid and we are content to proceed on that basis. I place on record our thanks for that engagement.

I turn briefly to the substance of the amendments, which set out a comprehensive framework for the transfer of the AWE pension scheme into a new public sector arrangement, while seeking to preserve the accrued rights of members, ensure appropriate handling of assets and liabilities, and provide for the necessary technical matters, including tax treatment, information sharing and parliamentary oversight. I thank the Minister for setting out her approach with such detail. Given the reassurances we have received on the procedural point, we are content with the approach set out in this group.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am thrilled and grateful to both noble Lords for this outbreak of consensus; long may it continue. I have some other lovely amendments coming next, so I encourage them to support those as well. I thank the noble Viscount and to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, very much.

A concern was raised in Committee that these amendments might make the Bill hybrid, so we were very happy not to move them until everybody was happy that they would not. We never thought they were hybrid, but I am really grateful that the noble Viscount has taken the time to satisfy himself of that too. Given that and the lack of opposition, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I will support our Front Bench and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, because it is quite a wise thing to have an inquiry. I wholly reject the argument the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, just made: his maths is suspect and his conclusions are wrong. I have a son who is a special constable—until very recently he was a constable—a daughter-in-law who is a constable and another son who is a primary school teacher. As I said to him then, I say now: tell it to them that their pensions are not part of their remuneration, and I say you will be looking for teachers, policemen and nurses until kingdom come.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by welcoming the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, because it addresses a matter of real and enduring importance: the long-term affordability, intergenerational fairness, fiscal sustainability and accounting treatment of public service pension schemes. We heard a powerful speech from her in Committee and another from my noble friend Lord Moynihan, and they gave two further powerful speeches just now.

Fundamentally, this amendment asks the Government to examine how very large sums of public money are being managed, how liabilities are being accounted for, and what this means for the sustainability of public spending over the long term. These schemes represent a significant and growing commitment, and it is entirely right that Parliament should have a clear and transparent understanding of their implications, both for today’s taxpayers and for future generations.

The figures seem to be stark, as set out by the movers of the amendment, and some strong arguments have been put, backed up by evidence, but I very much noted the remarks from the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and perhaps some further debate and discussion should go on about the veracity of the figures after this debate.

Indeed, when the Government are choosing to place additional burdens on private pension saving through measures such as the national insurance changes and restrictions on salary sacrifice, in part to sustain these very substantial public sector commitments, the question of balance, fairness and sustainability becomes more and more pressing. For these reasons, we strongly support my noble friend’s amendment and we will support her should she seek to divide the House on it when it is called.

The other amendments in this group, including those in our names, seek to address two further fundamental issues: first, the question of pensions adequacy, ensuring that reforms are judged by their real-world impact on the retirement incomes of individuals, and, secondly, the question of why pension funds are not investing more in the United Kingdom. This is a critical issue, which was covered in Committee, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. If the Government wish to see greater domestic investment, the answer surely is not to reach instinctively for the levers of mandation but to understand and to address the underlying barriers, whether regulatory, tax-related or rooted in fiduciary duties. This point was made when we discussed the issue only last week, after which, I am glad to say, we voted to remove this dangerous power from the Bill. The point was repeated today by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

This is essential work that needs to be done. The Government are planning to intervene in the system without first properly understanding why it is behaving as it is. There is a risk that they are seeking to correct the symptoms of a problem that they have not even diagnosed, rather than addressing its causes. We have been clear from the beginning that the Government must not mandate investment, but we have also been clear that we should understand why we are not seeing the investment we need in our country. Our amendment allows the Government to do that work and then take the responsible and necessary steps to start promoting investment in a responsible way.

I close by speaking to Amendment 170A in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his work on this amendment, as well as grateful for the—perhaps unusual—support from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for having a review, which is our wish, on member engagement on rights in pension schemes. Amendment 170A raises a fundamental question of agency: namely, the extent to which members of pension schemes are able to influence the governance and decision-making of the schemes to which they belong. We believe this is an important issue, and it invites the Government to reflect on whether pensions savers truly have a meaningful voice in shaping their financial futures. It is right that we consider not only the existence of engagement mechanisms but whether they operate effectively in practice, particularly in relation to investment decisions and scheme governance. I will therefore listen very carefully to the Minister’s response on these points.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for introducing their varied amendments calling for a series of reviews. I have been trying to keep track and I think we are now up to 23 reviews called for in Committee and up to 14 amendments on Report calling for reviews. I know that the party opposite would like to have fewer civil servants; if noble Lords pursue all the amendments, half the civil servants left will be doing reviews.

I will at least try to work through what we have here. Amendment 157 from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, proposes a review of public service pension schemes. As we discussed in Committee, a major review took place through the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. That happened under the coalition Government and the reformed schemes were introduced from April 2015. I will just remind the House of the changes that were made then to make the schemes more affordable.

The scheme design changed from final salary to career average. Pension ages were increased to state pension age for most schemes and to 60 for the police, firefighters and Armed Forces. Member contribution rates were increased across the scheme, except the non-contributory Armed Forces Pension Scheme, and other aspects of scheme design were modernised: for example, supporting more flexible retirement. At the time, it was estimated that these reforms would save £400 billion over 50 years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the 25-year guarantee. This does not mean of course that pensions cannot be changed in any way until 2040, nor was a guarantee written in to individual members. But the central elements of the reforms introduced in the PSPA 2013 were designed to last for at least 25 years, and a high barrier was set out in that Act for any proposed changes to the key design elements, including a requirement for consultation with scheme members or their representatives, with a view to reaching agreement to help deliver that stability.

I will look at some of the specifics that have been raised. First, those reforms have been fully bedding in only from April 2022, and their full effects will be seen over the coming years. Following reforms introduced by the noble Baroness’s party, schemes now meet the benchmarks set by the Hutton commission and public service pensions continue to form an important part of overall public sector remuneration, which is taken account in pay setting. That was a key point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso: a pension is part of a pay package and is taken account of by the review bodies in making those judgments on pay.

Much of the information that is called for in this review is already published on a regular basis. The OBR publishes a forecast of in-year balancing payments between the Exchequer and the unfunded public service pension schemes—and projections of long-term spending as a share of GDP—in its fiscal risks and sustainability reports. As I indicated in Committee, these projections show spending falling over the long term from around 1.9% to 1.4% of GDP, indicating that the schemes are expected to become more affordable, not less, for future generations. In addition, valuation reports and the whole of government accounts set out the different accounting treatment of scheme liabilities and how to interpret the headline figures.