Torsten Bell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We now come to the contractual override part of the Bill. This group of amendments expands the scope of clause 41 to apply to Northern Ireland pension schemes. Just like in Great Britain, many pension scheme members in Northern Ireland will be in arrangements delivering poor value and outcomes. However, due to a lack of engagement from members, there is often little providers can do to address that. Extending these changes to Northern Ireland will help to solve that. These amendments will create better outcomes for pension scheme members in Northern Ireland, and I therefore ask the Committee to support these amendments. Amendments 143 and 144 add another layer of consumer protection to the already rigorous consumer protections we have included in the Bill. Currently a provider is required to receive certification from an independent person with sufficient expertise that the best interest test has been met. To clarify, that test requires the provider that wishes to use the contract override to carry out an assessment that it is in the interests of scheme members that the override take place. That test then has to be certified by an independent person. This is about strengthening that independent person test. The amendments require the Treasury to make regulations defining “independence” by specifying requirements which must be met by an independent person before they can be appointed, and ensure that the independent person has no conflict of interest. The FCA is then required to include the provisions made by these regulations in its rules. The amendments make an important change to the Bill by ensuring there will be clear rules on who can undertake this important role, and I therefore commend them to the Committee. Clause 41 inserts proposed new part 7A, on what we call the contractual override mechanism—referred to as a unilateral change—into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This will enable providers of FCA-regulated, defined-contribution workplace pension schemes —note we are talking about FCA-regulated, defined-contribution workplace schemes only—to override the terms of a pension scheme without the consent of members and either transfer members to a different pension scheme, make a change that would otherwise require consent, or vary the terms of members’ contracts, but only when certain clear conditions, including most importantly the best interest test, are met. This will establish broad equivalence with the trust based market, where these changes are already available, so trustees already have these powers within the trust-based market. It will also create better outcomes for consumers, deliver on a long-awaited industry ask, and help drive scale and consolidation within the sector, achieving the consolidation we talked about in relation to the previous clause. It is an important enabler of those changes. The clause also amends sections 105, 168 and 429 of FSMA to ensure that the contractual override mechanism can work as intended, and to ensure that the appropriate parliamentary procedures apply to regulations that are made under this part, and that amend or repeal primary legislation. I commend the clause to the Committee. Amendment 140 agreed to. Amendments made: 141, in clause 41, page 48, line 24, leave out from “member”” to end of line 25 and insert “means an active member within the meaning of Part 1 of the Pensions Act 2008 (see section 99 of that Act) or Part 1 of the Pensions (2) Act (Northern Ireland) 2008 (c. 13 (N.I.)) (see section 78 of that Act).” This amendment is consequential on Amendment 140. Amendment 142, in clause 41, page 48, line 33, leave out from “arrangements”” to end of line 34 and insert “means direct payment arrangements within the meaning of section 111A of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 or section 107A of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993.”— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 140.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 161, in clause 43, page 57, line 1, leave out “and willing” and insert “to and agrees”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 174.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Noted. Amendment 117 agreed to. Amendments made: 118, in clause 38, page 45, line 9, at end insert— “(1A) The Secretary of State must make regulations under subsection (1) so that they have effect whenever regulations under section 28C(1) or (2) have effect.” See the explanatory statement for Amendment 117. Amendment 119, in clause 38, page 45, line 14, leave out “the scheme or”. This amendment means the asset allocation requirement can only be suspended where it would cause material financial detriment to the members of a scheme. Amendment 120, in clause 38, page 45, line 15, leave out from “the scheme” to end of line 17. This amendment simplifies the description of what may be done by regulations under new section 28F(1). Amendment 121, in clause 38, page 45, line 17, at end insert— “(aa) may make provision about the basis on which the Authority may or must form such a view, including about the evidence which the Authority may or must take into account;”. This amendment clarifies that the regulations can circumscribe the basis on which the FCA or TPR can reach a view on the material financial detriment test in subsection (2)(a). Amendment 122, in clause 38, page 45, line 23, at end insert— “(c) must provide for the Authority’s determination on an application to be referred to the Upper Tribunal.” This amendment ensures that decisions on an application for the suspension of the asset allocation requirement will be referable to the Upper Tribunal. Amendment 123, in clause 38, page 45, leave out lines 24 to 26. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 121. Amendment 124, in clause 38, page 45, line 28, after “as” insert “material”. This ensures that regulations under subsection (4) can also make provision about what kind of detriment is classed as “material”. Amendment 125, in clause 38, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (5).— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 129.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The direct answer is that, yes, the amendment comes from discussions with regulators, to make sure that the flow of information is sufficient to live up to Parliament’s intent and that meaningful reports on the saver and growth impacts can be provided. Amendment 107 agreed to .

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clause 47 allows for a compliance framework to be developed to ensure that trustees or managers of pension schemes comply with the requirements of chapter 5 of the Bill and take their responsibilities seriously; hon. Members will by now be used to seeing parts of this at the back of sections of pension legislation. It is worth noting up front that amendment 211 replaces the penalty provisions in clause 47 with a new mechanism for introducing enforcement powers via regulations. The regulations could allow for the Pensions Regulator to issue compliance notices, third-party compliance notices and penalty notices. These types of enforcement notice are not unusual, and they appear in other pensions legislation, such as the pensions dashboard regulations and the regulations on climate change governance and reporting. Penalties will be limited to no more than £10,000 in the case of individuals and up to £100,000 in other cases, such as corporate trustees. We have introduced these changes to ensure consistency with other clauses in the Bill, including the provisions related to value for money and small pots consolidation; we discussed the size of those penalties recently. Clause 47 will enable the regulator to remove and replace trustees in the event of non-compliance. Amendment 209 will remove a penalty provision in clause 46 that is made redundant by amendment 211. Clause 48 makes it clear that the measures in this chapter apply to pension schemes run on behalf of the Crown, another standard provision. Clause 49 provides the definitions for terms used in chapter 5 of the Bill, including many of the important ones I have run through today. Amendments 212 and 213 add the definitions of “pension benefit solution” and “qualifying pension benefit solution” to the list of defined terms in clause 49. They do not change the definition of these terms elsewhere in the clauses. Amendment 209 agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 47 Enforcement and compliance Amendment made: 211, in clause 47, page 61, line 4, leave out subsections (1) to (5) and insert— “(1) Regulations may make provision with a view to ensuring the compliance of any person with any provision of or under this Chapter. (2) The regulations may in particular— (a) provide for the Pensions Regulator to issue a notice (a ‘compliance notice’) to a person with a view to ensuring the person's compliance with a provision of or under this Chapter; (b) provide for the Pensions Regulator to issue a notice (a ‘third party compliance notice’) to a person with a view to ensuring another person's compliance with a provision of or under this Chapter; (c) provide for the Pensions Regulator to issue a notice (a ‘penalty notice’) imposing a penalty on a person where the person— (i) has failed to comply with a compliance notice or third party compliance notice, or (ii) has contravened a provision of or under this Chapter; (d) provide for the making of a reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal in respect of the issue of a penalty notice or the amount of a penalty; (e) confer other functions on the Regulator. (3) The regulations may make provision for determining the amount, or the maximum amount, of a penalty in respect of a failure or contravention. (4) But the amount of a penalty imposed under the regulations in respect of a failure or contravention must not exceed— (a) £10,000, in the case of an individual, and (b) £100,000, in any other case. (5) Any penalty payable under the regulations is recoverable by the Regulator. (5A) In England and Wales, any such penalty is, if the county court so orders, recoverable under section 85 of the County Courts Act 1984 or otherwise as if it were payable under an order of that court. (5B) In Scotland, a penalty notice is enforceable as if it were an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff court of any sheriffdom. (5C) The Regulator must pay into the Consolidated Fund any penalty recovered under this section.”— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment replaces the provisions in subsections (1) to (5) of clause 47 about fixed penalty notices with a power to make regulations providing for compliance notices, third party compliance notices and penalty notices. Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 49 Interpretation and general Amendments made: 212, in clause 49, page 62, line 13, at end insert— “‘pension benefit solution’ has the meaning given by section 42(2);”. This amendment adds “pension benefit solution” to the list of defined terms in clause 49. Amendment 213, in clause 49, page 62, line 19, at end insert— “‘qualifying pension benefit solution’ has the meaning given by section 43(6);”.— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment adds “qualifying pension benefit solution” to the list of defined terms in clause 49. Clause 49, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 50 Corresponding provision in relation to FCA-regulated schemes

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I come to the detail of the amendment, I should re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth about the volume of amendments to clause 38 in particular, which is why I asked for the amended clause with track changes to be circulated to the whole Committee. I hope that Members have found that useful. Turning to the amendment, I have a lot of sympathy for what my hon. Friend is trying to achieve. It is important that we monitor progress on the Mansion House commitments and continue to stay focused on the strength of the pipeline. There are parts of the Bill that would already facilitate that, including data collection that is consistent with monitoring the Mansion House progress, and the strength of the pipeline, which was obviously relevant to consideration of the saver’s interest test, and thus left in the Bill. I suggest that, given our sympathy with the idea of this amendment but its interactions with several other existing parts of the Bill, we commit to reviewing it with a view to deciding whether we should come back with something similar on Report, if the hon. Lady is content with that.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 117, in clause 38, page 45, line 4, leave out “may” and insert “must”. This amendment, together with Amendment 118, means that regulations about suspending the requirement for approval under section 28C have to have effect at any time when section 28C has effect as a result of regulations under that section.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These amendments relate to compliance and enforcement. Government amendment 127 allows the Pensions Regulator to issue risk notices to the trustees or managers of a relevant master trust or the provider of a group personal pension scheme if there were an issue in relation to the scheme relating to the quality requirement. This will require the relevant master trust to develop a resolution plan to address the regulator’s concerns. The regulator may then direct the relevant master trust to implement the measures in that plan. Amendment 128 allows regulations to make provision for the imposition of penalties where a relevant master trust or GPP scheme accepts contributions from an employer when it should not. It will allow the regulator to issue penalties of up to £100,000 in relation to each employer from which contributions continue to be accepted. It will also give the provider the right of appeal against the penalty. Amendment 126 enables the FCA to monitor and enforce compliance of any FCA-regulated person in scope of chapter 3 of part 2 of the Bill. It also provides that the Treasury may make regulations to enable the FCA to take action for monitoring and enforcing compliance of any FCA-regulated person with any provision under chapter 3. I commend the amendments to the Committee.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We now move to the substance of clause 43 and the proposed amendments. Clause 43 allows schemes to partner with another for the purpose of delivering a suitable pension solution to their membership—or cohorts of their membership. It allows those transfers to qualifying pension benefit solutions when either providing an in-house solution is not reasonably practicable, or a solution offered by another scheme is deemed to provide a better outcome for members. It requires trustees or managers of the principal scheme to identify qualifying schemes that provide solutions that meet the requirements of their membership. That could, for example, include transferring members to a collective defined-contribution scheme. Power is also taken to limit or prohibit the charging of transfer fees. This clause is vital overall, as it provides the flexibility that I have discussed in the course of debate on the previous group of amendments and allows trustees to deliver the best outcomes for their members. Amendment 154 removes a drafting error and clarifies that all occupational pension schemes that provide defined-contribution benefits are included in the definition of relevant scheme, not just those established under a trust. Whether a pension scheme member is receiving a default solution in-house or being transferred to another scheme to receive a qualifying solution, as I said earlier, the policy intent is that they have a similar experience. Amendments 166 to 169 and 173 ensure that there is a parity of requirements on schemes in those cases. Amendments 170 and 171 are consequential amendments, while amendment 172 corrects a minor inconsistency in language. I commend them and the clause to the Committee. Amendment 167 agreed to. Amendments made: 166, in clause 43, page 57, line 10, after “solution”” insert “, in relation to a qualifying scheme,”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 167. Amendment 168, in clause 43, page 57, line 12, leave out “receiving”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 167. Amendment 169, in clause 43, page 57, line 15, leave out “eligible members of the receiving” and insert “members of the”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 167, and also reflects the fact that a qualifying scheme need not necessarily be a relevant scheme, so the reference to “eligible members” (which is defined by reference to “relevant schemes”) is not right in all cases. Amendment 170, in clause 43, page 57, line 16, leave out “eligible”. This amendment reflects the fact that a qualifying scheme need not necessarily be a relevant scheme, so the reference to “eligible members” (which is defined by reference to “relevant schemes”) is not right in all cases. Amendment 171, in clause 43, page 57, line 17, leave out “eligible”. This amendment reflects the fact that a qualifying scheme need not necessarily be a relevant scheme, so the reference to “eligible members” (which is defined by reference to “relevant schemes”) is not right in all cases. Amendment 172, in clause 43, page 57, line 21, leave out “But”. This amendment makes a minor verbal change in light of other amendments to clause 43. Amendment 173, in clause 43, page 57, line 23, leave out “subsection (5)” and insert “this section”. This amendment reflects the fact that, as a result of other amendments, “qualifying scheme” is used more widely in the section. Amendment 175, in clause 43, page 57, line 35, at end insert— “(9A) Regulations may make provision about the conditions in subsections (2) and (3), including about the basis on which the determinations mentioned in those subsections are to be made.” This amendment allows for regulations to make provision elaborating on the conditions in subsections (2) and (3). Amendment 174, in clause 43, page 57, line 35, at end insert— “(9B) Regulations may require a pension scheme of a prescribed description to agree to receive a transfer in respect of the accrued rights of a transferable member where— (a) the principal scheme has been unable, having used reasonable endeavours, to identify a qualifying scheme that is able and willing to do so, and (b) any other prescribed conditions are met. (9C) A requirement under subsection (9B) may only be imposed on a pension scheme that is one or both of the following— (a) a Master Trust scheme within the meaning of the Pension Schemes Act 2017; (b) a consolidator scheme within the meaning of Chapter 2 of Part 2 (consolidation of small dormant pension pots).” This amendment allows for regulations to require certain schemes to act as schemes of last resort in cases where the principal scheme cannot find a qualifying scheme that is willing to receive a transfer. Amendment 176, in clause 43, page 57, line 40, at beginning insert “Regulations under subsection (5C), (10) or (11) are subject to the negative procedure; and other”.—( Torsten Bell.) This amendment applies negative parliamentary procedure to regulations under subsection (5C), (10) or (11). Clause 43, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 Provision and gathering of information

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  These amendments clarify aspects of the approval criteria for prospective new entrants into the multi-employer DC market after the scale requirements come into force. Amendment 112 requires that a new prospective provider must have no current members—it must actually be new to the market. We want to ensure that the route is used only by those for whom it is intended, rather than as a loophole around the main intent of the Bill. Amendment 113 requires that new entrants have strong potential to grow in order to meet the scale requirements under section 28A, and that the prospective scheme in question has an innovative product design. I think we will come to the question of product shortly, but to skip ahead, the regulations would allow us to talk about innovation in the nature of the service, not just in the product. That is a question for us to take away in the design of those regulations. That is not in the Bill itself, but it is an important clarification. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential on amendment 113. They will offer greater clarity to potential applicants to this pathway, and I commend them to the Committee. I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling new clause 3 and acknowledge his wish that the pathway for new entrants into the DC multi-employer market be as supportive as possible for new providers. We of course agree with that sentiment. We want to see fewer, bigger schemes, but not a lack of competition in the longer run, even though we are a long way from that. From an innovation viewpoint, the new clause is not necessary to achieve that aim. Competition will come from the possibility of innovation, but must also flow into the building of scale, which is the overall intent of the legislation. Given that the spirit of the new clause is achieved by the new entrants pathway, I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it to a vote.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for rightly raising the important question of communication to members. I draw the Committee’s attention to clause 44, which explicitly aims, in quite some detail, to engage with that question. It contains requirements on providers—again, with the detail to come in regulations—about how they set out their general policy, but also how they communicate to particular individuals as they head towards retirement and, potentially, enrolment in a default solution. It is absolutely right to say that this measure is new for providers, for regulators and for the industry in the UK, and we should always have that in mind. We should take some comfort from the success of automatic enrolment in doing something new. Other countries had moved to auto-enrolment solutions ahead of us, and the same is true here to a degree. In Australia, there is a similar pattern: it has got further ahead in terms of the average size of pots, has seen some of the negative outcomes that we can potentially see in the data in the UK, and has then moved to a version of this and is working that through. We will be able to learn from its experience, as well as just working this through ourselves. The hon. Lady asked how the measure will be taken forward. We aim to launch a public consultation in the spring and summer next year. These requirements would come in earlier than some of the wider changes that the Committee has discussed—on small pots, for example, which will come far later, and on value for money. We think it is urgent that we get on with this, because we are approaching a situation in which DC pots will be significant for some members, but I completely appreciate her point that it is a large change for the industry. Clause 44 requires some direct communications with members. I reassure the hon. Lady that there is nothing in the GDPR or other data protection requirements that would prevent providers from communicating in that way. They will not require consent from members to do it, which is important, because otherwise it would not be effective. There are wider questions about direct marketing—communications that are not about setting out the actual situation—in this space, and I am considering those. They are tied up with questions about targeted support and the rest, but it is important for us to continue thinking about this in the pensions space, where there is a history of downsides to direct marketing. We want to make sure that this is not that, but provision of information about the working of a scheme of which someone is a member.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 196, in clause 45, page 59, line 27, leave out “offer” and insert “provide or make available”. This amendment allows for regulations either to require information to be provided directly to members or to require it to be made available to them.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will come back on the question about the word “product” and definitions. I reassure the Committee that I will go away and make sure that is clear if it is not clear enough already. The core Liberal Democrat question is, are we baking innovation in? It is a good question for us all to be asking. I think the answer is yes. To broaden the conversation out slightly, we want to see innovation from existing providers as well. We anticipate that there will still be 15 or so large providers in the 2030s. That is still a highly competitive market. Not just looking at costs but also at customer service and all the rest in the value for money regime should be a spur to that innovation. That is a key part of the set of clauses we were discussing last week. I should explicitly note that the scale tests do not cover the most obvious innovation that is likely to come in the market in the coming years, which is CDC schemes. By their nature, if they are to be successful, they will get to scale anyway, but to make their path easier and to be clear that we do see a role for CDC innovation moving forward, those are not part of these requirements. The innovation pathway exists for exactly this reason, as we have discussed. Several Members have raised a question about consultation. I confirm that there is a requirement for a public consultation, which should certainly learn lessons that go beyond the experience of the pensions industry to the wider financial services sector—lessons of competition entry. We talked about that in the banking sector earlier, but the same thing would apply, for example, to other parts of the insurance sector and others. We will take that away. We are very conscious at the moment, in our wider approach to regulation, of providing earlier authorisation, where that can be done. I suspect we may come back to that in the superfunds discussion later this week. Amendment 112 agreed to. Amendments made: 113, in clause 38, page 44, leave out lines 21 and 22 and insert— “(a) the scheme in question has strong potential to grow so as to meet the scale requirement under section 28A, (aa) the scheme in question has an innovative product design, and”. This amendment ensures that the eligibility conditions for new entrant pathway relief are more precisely articulated. Amendment 114, in clause 38, page 44, line 34, leave out from “of” to “(including” in line 35 and insert “ “strong potential to grow” and “innovative product design” ”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 113. Amendment 115, in clause 38, page 44, line 36, leave out from “has” to end of line 37 and insert “strong potential to grow or an innovative product design”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 113. Amendment 116, in clause 38, page 45, leave out lines 1 and 2.— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 129.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As amended, the clause introduces consequential amendments relating to clause 38 to ensure that the changes needed for the asset allocation and scale measures appropriately wire into existing legislation. The clause does this by making amendments to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Pension Schemes Act 2017. The clause makes an insertion into section 1A and an amendment to section 204A of the 2000 Act. It ensures that the FCA’s statutory functions are extended, which would include its new enforcement functions for clause 38 in relation to scale and asset allocation. The second part of the clause adds new authorisation criteria for master trusts into the 2017 Act. These new criteria will require trustees of a master trust to satisfy the Pensions Regulator that they have a sufficient investment capability and continue to have a main scale default arrangement. Introducing these criteria will enable implementation of the Government’s policy objective, set out in the final report of the pension investment review, to ensure schemes utilise the benefits of scale to deliver better investment outcomes. The clause sets out factors that the Pensions Regulator will be required to consider in deciding that the master trust authorisation criteria are met and enables further detail to be set out in regulations. The effect of these additions to the authorisation regime are essential as they help to drive capability within master trusts. I commend clause 39 to the Committee. Government amendments 134 and 135 ensure that the necessary extension of the FCA’s authorisation functions under FSMA encompass only its new role in overseeing the scale and asset allocation requirements and does not extend to other non-relevant requirements in the Pensions Act 2008. It has a constraining effect. Government amendment 136 makes it clear that the addition to section 5 in part 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 2017 regarding decisions on application is about the scheme meeting the scale requirements under condition 1 of section 20(1)(a) of the Pensions Act 2008. Government amendment 137 gives the Secretary of State the ability to set out the meaning of terms in specific areas. I urge Members to support Government amendments 134 to 137. Clause 40 deals with the application of scale and asset allocation measures to Crown schemes. The substantive provisions in chapter 3 take the form of amendments to the Pensions Act 2008, the Pension Schemes Act 2017 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. These Acts already deal with application to the Crown in their own way, and it is not the intent of the Government to disrupt or confuse these settled positions. Accordingly, after consideration, we seek to delete this clause. To be clear, I do not commend the clause to the Committee. Amendment 134 agreed to. Amendments made: 135, in clause 39, page 46, line 38, after “2008” insert “in relation to the scale requirement in section 28B or the asset allocation requirement in section 28C,” See the explanatory statement for Amendment 134. Amendment 136, in clause 39, page 47, line 10, leave out “quality” and insert “scale” This amendment changes a parenthetical description so that it is clearer. Amendment 137, in clause 39, page 47, line 27, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 32 and insert— “(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations— (a) make provision about the meaning of terms used in subsection (2); (b) specify further factors that the Pensions Regulator must take into account in deciding whether it is satisfied about the matters mentioned in subsection (1). (5) The first regulations that are made under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure. (6) Any other regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.” — (Torsten Bell.) This amendment expands the power currently in the new section 12A(3) of the Pension Schemes Act 2017, created by clause 39(11) of the Bill, so as to allow the Secretary of State to make provision about the meaning of terms in new section 12A(2) of the Pension Schemes Act 2017.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 203, in clause 46, page 60, line 8, leave out “default”. This amendment ensures that clause 46 operates in respect of qualifying pension benefit solutions as well as default pension benefit solutions.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We now turn to clause 50, the last clause in this part of the Bill. The overriding objective of this clause, together with amendment 214, is to make corresponding provision in relation to FCA-regulated schemes. Clause 50 inserts into the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 new section 137FBD, which will deliver default pension benefit solutions to FCA-regulated pension schemes, ensuring that members on both sides of the market benefit from default solutions. Amendment 214 is a technical amendment that refines the requirement on the FCA to deliver those solutions for members of FCA-regulated pension schemes and ensures consistency between FCA and TPR-regulated schemes—a key objective of the Government. It clarifies that the FCA must make rules to ensure that default pension scheme solutions are made available to members of FCA-regulated schemes and, in making those rules, must have regard to provisions made by the rest of chapter 5 of part 2, which we have been discussing and which sets the framework for the TPR to provide those solutions. The FCA must also aim to ensure, as far as possible, that the outcomes achieved by its rules correspond to those achieved under chapter 5, and any regulations made under it regarding TPR-regulated pension schemes. The amendment therefore seeks to ensure that, from a member’s perspective, default pension benefit solutions are provided consistently across the market, whether they are a member of a TPR or an FCA-regulated pension scheme, while giving the FCA the flexibility to deliver that outcome in a way that suits its methods of regulating pension schemes. DWP, the FCA and The Pensions Regulator will work together to develop and deliver default pension benefit solutions, further boosting fairness and consistency across the market. Amendment 214 agreed to. Clause 50, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 156, in clause 43, page 56, line 29, leave out— “a member of the scheme” and insert— “eligible members of the scheme (whether comprising the members of the scheme generally or a subset of those members)”. This amendment clarifies how the exclusion in clause 43(1) operates.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This is a group of minor amendments, mostly aiming at improving the clarity of proposed new section 28F, for example by removing duplication. I draw Members’ attention to the most significant amendments, which are amendments 117 and 118. They make clear that the Government must introduce the savers’ interest exemption mechanism if they are to introduce asset allocation requirements. That is a “must” rather than a “may” because the Government’s intention is that there must always be a savers’ interest exemption.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  This clause is the one most relevant to the Liberal Democrat amendment 279 that we discussed earlier, because it requires trustees or managers of relevant pension schemes to formulate, review and, where appropriate, revise their pension benefits strategy. This is where they will need to show that they have considered the range of options set out in that Lib Dem amendment. The production and review of such a strategy will hold occupational pension schemes to account for how they have identified the requirements of their membership and how they have used that information to design the default pension benefit solution, or solutions, that they have put in place, or to identify an appropriate qualifying pension benefit solution elsewhere. Additionally, schemes will need to set out in their strategy their plans for how they will communicate effectively with their members—another issue that has been at the centre of our discussions today. There is also a requirement for the scheme to review their strategy, and Government have taken a power to specify minimum intervals for review. Regulations may also set out further requirements for evidence of how the scheme has complied with any of the requirements set out in this chapter. The strategy must be published and made available to both the regulator and members of the scheme, which will enable effective monitoring, analysis and evaluation at an aggregate level. Government amendments 203 and 204 will ensure that clause 46 operates in respect of qualifying pension benefit solutions as well as default pension benefit solutions. Amendment 205 adds effective communication to the list of things that must be addressed in the strategy. Amendments 206 and 207 correct an error in the Bill as drafted. Amendment 208 allows regulations to require that the information about compliance with provisions of the chapter be published alongside a benefit strategy. Amendment 210 removes a provision made redundant by other amendments. Amendment 203 agreed to. Amendments made: 204, in clause 46, page 60, line 9, leave out from beginning to “pension” in line 10 and insert “design, or in the case of transferable members identify,”. This amendment ensures that clause 46 operates in respect of qualifying pension benefit solutions as well as default pension benefit solutions. Amendment 205, in clause 46, page 60, line 12, leave out paragraph (c) and insert— “(c) communicate effectively with eligible members of the scheme with regard to pension benefit solutions and comply with any regulations under section 45.” This amendment adds effective communication to the list of things that a pension benefits strategy must address. Amendment 206, in clause 46, page 60, line 25, leave out “and” and insert “or”. This amendment corrects an error. Amendment 207, in clause 46, page 60, line 26, leave out “be authorised to”. This amendment corrects an error. Amendment 208, in clause 46, page 60, line 35, at end insert— “(3A) Regulations may require the trustees or managers of a relevant scheme to publish, alongside a pension benefits strategy (or revised pension benefits strategy), prescribed information or evidence as to whether and how they have complied with the requirements imposed by virtue of this Chapter.” —(Torsten Bell.) This amendment allows regulations to require that information about compliance be published alongside a pension benefits strategy.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 177, in clause 44, page 58, leave out line 2 and insert “Where only one pension benefit solution is available to the members of a relevant scheme,”. This amendment ensures that clause 44 operates in relation to qualifying pension benefit solutions as well as default pension benefit solutions.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is wonderful to have you in the Chair, Ms Butler. Amendments 92 to 96 are minor amendments that clarify that any asset allocation percentage requirements should be calculated as a percentage of default funds, rather than as a percentage of the total assets of a scheme. That is how the Mansion House accord works and how these powers are intended to operate. Amendment 133 simply ensures that the Government can remove redundant provisions from primary legislation should the sunset provisions—which as a result of Government amendment 228 will now appear in clause 101—cause the power we have been discussing to expire. I commend the amendments to the Committee. Amendment 92 agreed to. Amendments made: 93, in clause 38, page 41, line 9, after “in” insert “default”. This amendment confines the application of the asset allocation requirement to default funds of a relevant Master Trust or a group personal pension scheme. Amendment 94, in clause 38, page 41, leave out lines 10 to 14 and insert— “(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may prescribe a percentage by reference to— (a) all of the assets of the scheme that are held in default funds, or (b) a prescribed description of the assets of the scheme that are so held.”. This amendment clarifies that a percentage may be prescribed under section 28C(1) in respect of either all the default funds of a scheme or a particular subset of those default funds. Amendment 95, in clause 38, page 41, line 15, leave out “or (2)”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 94. Amendment 96, in clause 38, page 41, line 18, leave out from “description” to end of line 19.— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 93. Amendment proposed : 275, in clause 38, page 41, line 31, at end insert— “(5A) A description of asset prescribed under subsection (4) may not be securities in any UK water company.”— (Mark Garnier.) This amendment would ensure that the prescribed percentage of asset allocation would not include assets in the water sector and fund trustees will not be compelled to allocate scheme assets to the water sector. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 38, page 43, line 9, at end insert— “28CA Information (1) Regulations may make provision about information that the trustees or managers of a relevant Master Trust or the provider of a group personal pension scheme must give to the Regulatory Authority about the allocation of assets of the relevant Master Trust or group personal pension scheme. (2) The regulations may make provision about— (a) the types of information that must be given; (b) when it must be given; (c) the form and manner in which it must be given.” This new section would allow regulations to require the provision of information about asset allocation to the Secretary of State and the Regulatory Authority. The amendment is supplementary to a provision in the introduced Bill, proposed new section 28C(10)(d), which permits the Government to make regulations about the provision to regulators of information relating to the allocation of assets by the relevant pension providers. The amendment ensures that, in the event that the regulator does not possess crucial information that the Government require in order to design the possible asset allocation framework, or to write the report on saver and growth impacts that they will be legally required to produce, the Government can obtain that information via the regulators.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 38, page 42, line 12, leave out “relevant Master Trusts or” and insert— “the trustees or managers of relevant Master Trusts or the providers of”. This amendment clarifies that legal obligations fall on the trustees or managers of relevant Master Trusts or on the providers of group personal pension schemes (rather than on the schemes themselves).

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 167, in clause 43, page 57, line 10, leave out “In subsection (5)(a)(ii)” and insert “In this Chapter,”. This amendment reflects the fact that “qualifying pension benefit solution” is, as a result of other amendments, now used more widely in the Chapter.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 108, in clause 38, page 43, line 19, at end insert “, and (b) has a credible plan in place for meeting the scale requirement within the meaning of section 28A(2)”. This amendment makes it a condition of approval for transition pathway relief that a Master Trust has a credible plan in place for meeting the scale requirement.