Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)

My Lords, this group asks for greater transparency around Local Government Pension Scheme valuations by requiring benchmarking against insurer pricing and gilt-based discount rates, with clearer explanations where more prudent assumptions are used. There is value in greater openness and comparability, but there is also a risk in appearing to imply that one benchmark can neatly settle what is, in practice, a complex actuarial judgment. I was taken by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Davies. He really killed off the amendment by saying that it would give more work for actuaries. The tendency is for the actuary then to say, “On the one hand this and on the other hand that”. Very often, the advice is not even that definite anyway, which is why actuaries are there to confuse the issue altogether. We should be honest about two things at once. First, employers and scheme participants need clearer information. If valuation choices materially affect contribution rates, local authority budgets and, ultimately, local services then those choices should be explained in language that non-specialists can understand. Secondly, the Local Government Pension Scheme is not simply an insurer in another form; it is a long-term, open, public sector scheme with characteristics that very much differ from closed private arrangements. Although comparison can illuminate, it must not mislead, as is the danger. A benchmark should be a tool for understanding, not a back-door instruction about how every valuation ought to be done. That is why we on these Benches are cautious. We are sympathetic to calls for clearer publication, accessible material and meaningful consultation. Sadly, we are less persuaded by any suggestion that the right answer can be derived by mechanically comparing one prudence basis with another. The real issue is whether assumptions are evidence-based, proportionate and properly explained. If the Government believe that the present system already secures that then they should show it—I hope the Minister will do that when he responds. If not, there is merit in considering reforms that improve transparency without oversimplifying a technical process. On that basis, we on these Benches do not oppose the spirit of scrutiny here, but we are not convinced that the amendment, as drafted, is the full answer. Therefore, we are not against what the amendment says, but we would not support it if it were moved to a vote.