Member

In practice, value for money is rarely a single cause or binary question. A scheme may clearly not be delivering for members even if it has not yet failed for a prescribed number of periods or improvement remains theoretically possible. Requiring trustees to wait until all those conditions are met risks delaying necessary action and, in doing so, entrenching poorer outcome for savers. These amendments therefore seek to restore appropriate discretion, not to remove oversight or weaken regulatory powers. The regulator would retain its role, action plans would remain in place and trustees would remain accountable for their decision. What they would do is remove an unnecessary statutory gate that may inhibit timely and proportionate decision-making. If the Government’s ambition is for trustees to take ownership of value-for-money assessments and act early where schemes are falling short, the legislation should empower them to do so, rather than require them to demonstrate compliance with a rigid checklist before they are allowed to call a scheme what it plainly is. I therefore suggest that these amendments better align the Bill with a principles-based trustee-led framework, and I hope the Minister will be able to address this concern in her remarks.