Member

Where schemes lack the scale or expertise to offer an appropriate solution in house, the Bill envisages that trustees may partner with external providers or facilitate transfers to another scheme offering a qualifying default solution, subject to member consent and further regulatory conditions. It is this reality that brings me to Clause 49, which sits at the very heart of the guided retirement framework and which my clause stand part notice seeks to probe. Clause 49 raises a fundamental question about capacity, workability and market readiness. Is the system as a whole equipped to deliver high-quality default solutions across all schemes? Trustees and providers will need sufficient data, governance capability and technical expertise not only to design these solutions but to monitor and review them on an ongoing basis as member characteristics and market conditions evolve. Smaller schemes may find these new duties particularly challenging and onerous, and there is a real risk that they could face disproportionate cost, complexity or legal exposure as a result. How do the Government intend to ensure that these schemes are supported, rather than forced into defensive or purely compliant behaviour?