Torsten Bell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 138, in clause 39, page 47, line 32, at end insert— “ 12B Scale requirement (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision about how the Pensions Regulator is to decide whether it is satisfied that a Master Trust scheme that has its main administration in the United Kingdom meets Condition 1 in section 20(1A) (scale requirement) of the Pensions Act 2008. (2) The regulations may, among other things, specify matters which the Pensions Regulator must take into account in making its assessment. (3) The first regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure. (4) Any subsequent regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.” This amendment inserts in the Pension Schemes Act 2017 a power to make regulations about how the Pensions Regulator is to decide whether a Master Trust meets the scale requirement. It is with some relief that I reassure Members this is the last amendment to this section of the Bill. Government amendment 138 amends one of the new authorisation criteria for master trusts that the Bill inserts into the Pension Schemes Act 2017, which provides that a master trust scheme must meet the scale requirement. It grants the Government the power to make regulations about how the pensions regulator should satisfy itself that a master trust scheme has met the scale requirements. I commend the amendment to the Committee. Amendment 138 agreed to. Clause 39, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40 disagreed to. Clause 41 FCA-regulated pension schemes: contractual override

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

  More

  I apologise for my slip of the tongue at the start of my speech. This group of amendments deals with transition pathway relief. Here, in many cases we are talking about existing schemes that may not meet the £25 billion threshold, but which have a plausible path to that scale requirement over the following five years—I think that is a point of consensus across the Committee. That is what we are engaging with here. It is a reasonable approach to avoid a cliff edge, for exactly the reason that the shadow Minister set out.

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

  More

  This group of amendments deals with the transition pathway relief, which we touched on earlier in the context of support for innovation within the pension landscape. First, amendments 108 and 109 amend proposed new section 28D so that, to be approved on the transition pathway, a master trust or group personal pension scheme respectively must produce a credible plan for meeting the scale requirements, before the end of the pathway. I should clarify what I said earlier, sorry—this is the transition pathway; we are not talking about the new entrant pathway. In addition, via amendment 131, we are inserting new subsection (15A) into clause 38, to ensure that the pathway will expire five years after the scale requirements come into force. We accept that in certain circumstances schemes may need more time to reach scale, but we want the end destination—going back to our conversation about scale and certainty that scale will be achieved—to be clear. I commend these minor amendments to the Committee.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Over 90% of Scotch is exported and is therefore not affected by the measures that the hon. Member has just mentioned, but it will be affected by being the biggest beneficiary of the trade deal with India, which is set to reduce tariffs from 150% to 75% initially, and then to 40% over time. This is what a Government getting on with backing the Scotch industry looks like.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Members for Wyre Forest and for Aberdeen North. The main question raised is about the level of the fines. To provide some context, the answer is yes—that would need to be amended by further primary legislation; there is not a power in the Bill to change that. It is an increase on previous levels of fines for individuals and organisations—from £5,000 to £10,000 for individuals, reflecting the high inflation we have seen in recent years. On that basis, it gives us certainty that we have seen a substantial increase, and we would not need to change it in the near future, but I take the point that in the longer term, we always need to keep the levels of fines under review, and we will need to do that in this case. I hope that provides the answers to hon. Members’ questions. Question put and agreed to. Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 31 Enforcement by the FCA Amendment made: 41, in clause 31, page 29, line 38, leave out subsection (4) and insert— “(4) For the purposes of this Chapter a person is ‘FCA-regulated’ if they are an authorised person (within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000) in relation to the operation of a pension scheme.”— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment clarifies that the definition of “FCA-regulated”, in relation to a person, refers to the person being FCA-regulated in respect of the operation of a pension scheme (as opposed to in a capacity unrelated to small pots regulations). Clause 31, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 32 Power to alter definition of “small”

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

  More

  The clause provides the flexibility, as I have just said, to increase or decrease the threshold without requiring new primary legislation, enabling the Government to move quickly and efficiently as developments—whether it be wage growth or changes in contribution patterns—change our pensions landscape. Under the clause, any change to the pot limit must always be approved by Parliament through the affirmative procedure, something that we also discussed last week. The Government are committed to engaging with industry and consumer groups to ensure any adjustments are evidence-based and informed by the relevant data at the time, enabling us to consider wider impacts such as market competition. Under clause 32, the Secretary of State must undertake public consultation, publish details of the proposed amendments and the reasons for making the proposal, and consider any representations made—putting flesh on the bones on the kind of review that would take place, as we have just discussed. New clause 36 seeks to introduce a new provision to the Bill, which would establish a “pot follows member” model for pension consolidation. The new clause proposes that, on changing employment, an individual’s pension pot would automatically transfer into their new workplace’s pension scheme. This proposal is not aligned with the Government’s established policy direction, and it would present significant practical and operational challenges, although I recognise that that approach has been discussed extensively over the last 20 years. The approach taken in the Bill has been shaped through extensive engagement and formal consultation with industry, regulators and consumer groups. As part of that policy development work, largely under the last Government, they and we carefully considered the “pot follows member” approach, including its potential benefits and risks. Our impact assessment shows that the multiple default consolidator solution in the Bill is projected to deliver greater net benefits. The evidence in the impact assessment supports our view that that route offers the best value for savers and for the system as a whole. New clause 36 would require a fundamental overhaul of the current framework that the Bill seeks to introduce. It is not consistent with the rest of the Bill. It would introduce a parallel mechanism that risks duplicating effort, creating confusion and undermining the coherence of the consolidation system. Two of its main downsides are significant administrative barriers for employers, if employees choose to opt out, and the risk that pots are transferred into schemes that offer poor value for money—or, at least, poorer value for money than the ones they are sitting in before they move between employers. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Wyre Forest not to press new clause 36. Clause 33 makes it clear that the small dormant pots consolidation measures in this chapter apply equally to pension schemes run by or on behalf of the Crown and to Crown employees, as we have discussed previously. Clause 34 provides clear definitions for key terms used throughout the small pots legislation to ensure clarity and consistency of interpretation, and clause 35 provides a definition of what constitutes a pension pot. That might be thought to be straightforward, but for the purposes of small pots consolidation we want to provide clarity on the accurate identification and treatment of individual pension pots. To provide an example, if someone is enrolled into the same pension scheme through more than one job and the scheme keeps the accounts separate, each is treated as a separate pension pot so that they can be consolidated together. As Members will be aware, the Pensions Regulator oversees the trust-based schemes and the Financial Conduct Authority oversees contract-based schemes. Clause 36 amends the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to ensure that the FCA has the powers required to support the small pots consolidation framework through the existing financial regulatory system. This is a vital enabling provision to provide the FCA with the necessary statutory powers to regulate contract-based schemes that wish to act as authorised consolidators in the years ahead. It allows the FCA to make rules requiring pension providers to notify them if they intend to act as a consolidator pension scheme, and it allows the FCA to maintain a list of consolidator schemes and to apply appropriate regulatory standards to them. More broadly, clause 36 ensures that members of FCA-regulated pension schemes benefit from the same level of protection, transparency and accountability as those in the trust-based system, while also avoiding regulatory gaps and ensuring that all consolidator schemes, regardless of their structure or legal framework, are subject to robust oversight. Consistent with my arguments on clause 36, clause 37 repeals unused provisions of the Pensions Act 2014 related to automatic transfers, also known as “pot follows member”. This is tidying up the statute book. It was the previous Government who initially legislated for “pot follows member”, but they then decided that that was not the policy they wished to pursue and moved away from it between 2014 and 2024. The amendment recognises that and makes sure we do not have powers on the statute book that confuse the situation. Finally, Government amendment 43 is a minor and technical amendment necessitated by the repeal of schedule 17 to the Pensions Act 2014 by clause 37(1)(b) of the Bill. The amendment is necessary to update the statute book and clarify a reference in section 256 of the Pensions Act 2004, which otherwise would have been unclear and was making hon. Members nervous. The amendment does not alter policy, and I ask the Committee to support it. I commend clauses 32 to 37 to the Committee.

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

  More

  It was self-professed weak patriotism. But the hon. Gentleman is completely right to raise the adequacy issue, which is obviously the role of the Pensions Commission, launched in July, to take forward. He and several others are also right to say that making things easier for savers is a really important objective. That is what the pensions dashboard aims to do in the coming years as well. Let me make a set of reflections directly on the question being raised. To be clear, the policy in 2014 was “pot follows member”. That is also the policy within new clause 36. The policy being more supported here is a lifetime pot, which is a different policy. The “pot follows member” is still that the employer chooses the pension scheme and the pot moves to the new employer’s scheme as the employee goes, so it is still an employer-to-a-single-scheme model. The lifetime provider model, also advocated by many in the industry but never part of Government policy—it was not in the 2014 Act—is that each individual holds a pension pot, and, on joining an employer, provides the details of that scheme to the employer, and the employer then pays to multiple pension schemes whenever it does its PAYE. The comments I made refer to the “pot follows member” approach. There is a consensus across the industry that that is not the right way to go; I totally hear the points made in favour of a lifetime provider model. That is not the approach being taken forward by this Bill, but it needs to be kept under review in the longer term. I give hon. Members the reassurance that I will continue to do that.

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

  More

  Never! No. We should clarify what we mean by “industry”: in a lifetime provider model, employers take on a significantly greater administrative burden, because they have to engage with potentially every pension scheme in the country. Admittedly, we are limiting the number of those in future, but still, that is what employers find burdensome about a lifetime provider model. That was the preferred model of the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) when he was Chancellor, but it was never actioned as Government policy. As I said before, the 2014 Act was about “pot follows member”—for good reason, to try to address the small pots worry. I hope that that at least reassures the hon. Gentleman that my notes were the right way up.

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

  More

  Let me just finish the point about the financial crisis, then I will come to the hon. Member’s question. The lesson from the financial crisis was that banks were too big, and the lesson that we all agree about is that pension schemes are too small. That is the distinction—that is why we are doing this Bill now and why the previous Conservative Government introduced different changes after the financial crisis. We are in a very different situation. That said, we need to prepare for the future and, when there are bigger pension schemes, we want a world where new entrants can come into them. I hear what has been said. I want to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we want to see new entrants offering innovative products. I take the point about services, which we will come back to when we come to amendment 113, but that needs to be a pathway, not a permanent carve-out that risks undermining the scale requirements. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Torbay for tabling the amendment. The Government share his commitment to ensuring that the pot limit remains appropriate. As we have just heard, it is a matter of consensus, and it is good to debate how we best do that. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary at this stage. Clause 32 already enables the Government to undertake a review at any time. That is a deliberately flexible approach that allows us to respond to developments in the market—not least reflecting on the question from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North about inflation—but also to any other material changes, and it empowers the Government to act when needed. The amendment risks creating unintended consequences with a rigid cycle of Government reviews, which might mean that reviews do not happen when there is a good reason for looking at the matter, and that the Secretary of State is forced to carry them out when there is no rationale for doing so. We favour a more flexible approach. I take seriously the request for clarity that there will be regular reviews, and I can give that clarity. That is the intention. A wider question has been raised about the success of the policy and its monitoring, which is separate from the level of the threshold. Changes to the threshold might be one response to success metrics, but others might be about the operation of the consolidation process more generally. I commit to actively monitoring those—not least what is happening to people’s pots as they are moved, how people are responding to that and levels of awareness. That is exactly what we need to be doing, irrespective of what happens on the scale of the threshold over time. There is cross-party consensus on the objective here. We have taken a slightly different view on the flexibility of that review and how often it happens, but I give all hon. Members a commitment that that will happen.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 53, in clause 38, page 35, leave out lines 35 and 36. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 129.

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

  More

  This group amends sections 20 and 26 of the Pensions Act 2008, which deal with the quality requirements that a master trust and a group personal pension scheme must satisfy. The amendments will improve the operability of the new sections. In particular they will allow, via regulations, relevant master trusts and GPP schemes that have previously received transition pathway relief—the relief that allows schemes that do not reach the £25 billion threshold in 2030, but are on course to do so soon—afterwards to be treated as if they had scale approval on a temporary basis once the pathway ends. The amendments will also allow the Pensions Regulator to determine that a relevant master trust may be treated as meeting condition 2 of new section 20(1A) of the 2008 Act without a direct application from the master trust concerned. The effect of that is to allow the regulator to delay the impact of not meeting the scale or asset allocation requirements and to enable steps to be taken to protect members and support employers. A similar requirement for GPPs will be inserted into section 26. Government amendments 130 and 132 amend the provision in the 2008 Act that deals with the parliamentary scrutiny process relevant to regulations made under the Act. These amendments make sure that all significant powers to make regulations as part of the scale and asset allocation measures are subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 47 agreed to. Amendments made: 48, in clause 38, page 35, line 16, leave out from “determine” to “Master Trust is” in line 17 and insert “that a relevant” This amendment means the Regulatory Authority can determine that a relevant Master Trust is to be treated as meeting Condition 1 of subsection (1A) without an application from the Trust. Amendment 49, in clause 38, page 35, line 18, after “1” insert “or Condition 2” This amendment means that regulations can allow the Regulatory Authority to determine that a relevant Master Trust is to be treated for a period as meeting Condition 2 (the asset allocation requirement) as well as Condition 1 (the scale requirement). Amendment 50, in clause 38, page 35, line 20, leave out from “Authority” to end of line 21 This amendment removes some unnecessary wording for consistency with the corresponding amendments to section 26 of the 2008 Act. Amendment 51, in clause 38, page 35, line 28, at end insert— “(c) make provision about the Regulatory Authority requiring the trustees or managers of a relevant Master Trust to give the Regulatory Authority a plan showing how they propose to meet or continue to meet the scale requirement under section 28A or the conditions for approval under section 28C.” This paragraph allows regulations to give the Regulatory Authority a power to require the trustees or managers of a relevant Master Trust to give the Regulatory Authority a plan showing how they propose to meet or continue to meet the scale requirement. Amendment 52, in clause 38, page 35, line 32, leave out “28A(1)” and insert “28A(12)” . — (Torsten Bell.) This amendment updates a cross-reference.

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

  More

  I am glad we are all thoroughly confused. Three broad approaches have been set out to this small pots problem. The first is the one that the Bill takes forward, which is the multiple default consolidation solution—the automatic sweeping up of small pots into consolidated schemes to make everyone’s lives easier. Members would have one large scheme, or several larger schemes, but no really small schemes that they had to consolidate themselves. They could then choose to consolidate those larger schemes as they wished; there is a debate to be had about the size of the threshold in future. That is an automated approach. One thing that is really important, about the point on average returns made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest earlier, is that this is not about average. A scheme can only be a consolidator if it offers good value, so a pot cannot be swept into one that does not. There has been much debate about other approaches over the years, and I have tried to distinguish between two of them. They aim to provide more of what has been debated here, which is slightly more ownership of one pot by the individual. However, “pot follows member” is, in practice, still maintaining the relationship between an employer and a single provider. It is not the individual but the employer who chooses the scheme. That is the approach we are rejecting today. There is then a longer-term discussion about whether there are attractions to a lifetime provider. That is the case in some of the countries that have been mentioned—the “stapled to your lapel” model—where it is the individual who chooses their provider; obviously to some degree individuals can opt out now if their employer is happy. That is not on the table here. It needs to be considered, but it is a much more fundamental change to the relationship between the employers and the pension schemes.

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

  More

  I offer reassurance, as we will shortly come to the end of the amendments for substantive debate. This group of amendments deals with the main scale default arrangement, along with the scale test and penalties. The MSDA is the pool of investments against which scale will be assessed. As I mentioned, the definition of that is obviously central to the effective enforcement of the scale requirements. Key among these amendments are Government amendments 72 and 91, which set out some of the details of the MSDA for master trusts and group personal pensions, including that it can be used for the purposes of one or more pension schemes, and that the assets held within it are those of members who have not chosen how they are invested. Regulations will be made that cover other matters, including the meaning of “common investment strategy”. The details we set out in these amendments reflect the invaluable input we received from pension providers and regulatory bodies. The remaining amendments in the group relating to the MSDA largely clarify how it fits into the wider approval requirements in the new sections 28A and 28B. Moving on to scale, Government amendments 69 and 85 clarify the circumstances in which assets held by connected master trusts and group personal pension schemes, or where the same provider runs a GPP and master trust, can count towards the scale test. This is to ensure that, where appropriate, assets managed under a common investment strategy where there is a family connection between the master trust and GPP scheme, and where they are used for the same purpose, can be added together to achieve the £25 billion requirement. Government amendment 71 ensures that the provisions governing penalties are consistent between the TPR and the FCA. Government amendment 90 ensures that regulations can provide for appeals to the tribunal in respect of penalties under regulations under new section 28C(9)(c). Amendment 63 agreed to.

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

  More

  I just point out that many of the measures in the Bill will support exactly that kind of investment in social housing, including those on scale and the local government pension scheme. On that basis, I think these amendments are unnecessary. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.— (Taiwo Owatemi.)

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

  More

  It’s very exciting!

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 38, page 34, line 27, leave out “‘other than an authorised Master Trust scheme’” and insert “‘that is not a relevant Master Trust and’”. This amendment clarifies a verbal ambiguity in the amendment of section 20(1) of the Pensions Act 2008.

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

  More

  The Committee is being very patient so I shall speak briefly to this group. This group is centred around amendment 129, which sets out the interpretation of a number of terms used throughout the clause and consolidates them in new subsection (14). Key among these is the interpretation of “group personal pension scheme”, which is amended after discussion with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that only schemes where all members select their investment approach are excluded from the application of clause 38, to ensure that the vast majority of workplace schemes are covered by the clause. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential to amendment 129. Amendment 53 agreed to. Amendments made: 54, in clause 38, page 36, leave out line 12 and insert— “(a) has previously been approved under section 28D (transition pathway relief) and is to be treated in accordance with regulations as if it had approval under section 28B,” This amendment allows for group personal pension schemes that have previously received transition pathway relief to be treated as if they had scale approval. Amendment 55, in clause 38, page 36, line 15, leave out “(7C)(a)” and insert “(7A) or (7B)” This amendment ensures that new subsection (7D) applies both to exemptions from the scale requirement and to exemptions from the asset allocation requirement. Amendment 56, in clause 38, page 36, line 20, leave out “authorise” and insert “permit” This amendment ensures consistency with the equivalent language used for Master Trusts. Amendment 57, in clause 38, page 36, line 20, leave out “, on an application by the scheme concerned,” This amendment means the Regulatory Authority can determine that a group personal pension scheme is to be treated as meeting the scale or asset allocation requirement without an application from the scheme. Amendment 58, in clause 38, page 36, line 22, leave out “and sixth conditions” and insert “or sixth condition” This amendment allows for a determination by the Regulatory Authority under subsection (7E) to be made in relation to one or other of the scale and asset allocation requirements (rather than only in relation to both). Amendment 59, in clause 38, page 36, line 31, at end insert— “(c) make provision about the Regulatory Authority requiring the provider of a group personal pension scheme to give the Regulatory Authority a plan showing how they propose to meet or continue to meet the scale requirement under section 28B or the conditions for approval under section 28C.” This paragraph allows regulations to give the Regulatory Authority a power to require the provider of a group personal pension scheme to give the Regulatory Authority a plan showing how they propose to meet or continue to meet the scale requirement. Amendment 60, in clause 38, page 36, line 35, leave out “28A(1)” and insert “28B(12)” This amendment updates a cross-reference. Amendment 61, in clause 38, page 36, leave out lines 36 and 37 This amendment is consequential on Amendment 129. Amendment 62, in clause 38, page 37, line 4, at end insert— “(c) in paragraph (c), at the end insert “, except so far as those requirements relate to Condition 1 or 2 in section 20(1A)”” . — (Torsten Bell.) This amendment ensures that the requirements mentioned in section 28(3)(c) of the Pensions Act 2008, so far as they relate to the new scale and asset requirements, are not a “relevant quality requirement” for the purposes of that section.