The Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) sector has broadly welcomed the UK government’s recent ‘Access and Fairness’ consultation but is calling for a staggered implementation to ease administrative pressures.
Launched in May, the consultation explored proposals to improve equality of access to the LGPS in England and Wales. The measures address survivor benefits, the gender pensions gap, and member opt-outs.
The consultation closed on 7 August and has been well received for tackling issues long championed by the Scheme Advisory Board (SAB), including gender gap reporting and opt-out data collection.
Gender pensions gap
Since last autumn, the SAB has worked with fund officers and actuaries on a common approach to reporting the gender pensions gap. While it supports the government’s idea of requiring reporting for larger employers, the SAB warned that a 100-employee threshold is unworkable for 2025 as funds only hold data on scheme members, not total staff numbers.
It has also recommended that, instead of being reported as part of the Rates and Adjustment (R&A) certificate, the gender pensions gap should appear in a dedicated section of the Actuarial Valuation to give the data greater prominence in member and employer communications.
Pensions UK echoed SAB’s concerns about the 100-employee threshold, suggesting that reporting requirements should instead be based on the number of scheme members employed. It also agreed that mandatory reporting would be a significant step in raising awareness and could serve as a model for other sectors.
Opt outs
Responding to the consultation, Pensions UK policy lead Maria Espadinha said better opt-out data would help identify which members are most likely to leave — and why.
However, she noted challenges in collecting this data, especially for opt-outs within the first three months of enrolment, where funds may not hold the information. She also flagged GDPR concerns if funds retain data on individuals who are no longer members.
Espadinha suggested that, since employers already retain opt-out data for auto-enrolment purposes, it should be readily available for submission to the central government for collation. She called for clear guidance on data sharing and GDPR compliance.
Impact
The Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) also backed the proposals but warned that retrospective changes – such as revising survivor pensions, extending death grants beyond age 75, and recognising cohabiting partner pensions – will require labour-intensive manual checks.
SPP’s deputy chair Tim Domanski emphasised the need to minimise “disruptive administrative impacts,” particularly given ongoing projects like pension dashboards and the McCloud remedy. He also called for careful timing and sequencing of regulatory changes.
Espadinha agreed, warning that simultaneous reforms would place heavy strain on already stretched LGPS administrators. Some changes, she said, would require manual calculations or historical investigations, particularly for backdated amendments to survivor benefits and death grants, making the process “considerable in scope.”
She cautioned that the combined workload could affect service quality, staff wellbeing, and recruitment and retention. Pensions UK is calling for a phased implementation, with clear government guidance on priorities and workload management.
Read the digital edition of IPE’s latest magazine
No comments yet