Debate contribution: Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
Debate contribution by Mr Gordon Lyons on .
- MLA
- Mr Gordon Lyons
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 10 June 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution (made as a minister)
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Occupational Pension Schemes (Administration, Investment, Charges and Governance) (Amendment) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2024
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4494847
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I beg to move
The rule is the first of four sets of regulations relating to pensions that we are considering today. The regulations require the Assembly's approval, and, due to its absence, they have been revoked and replaced on several occasions. Otherwise, they would have expired at the end of the six-month period from the date that they came into operation. As the provisions are somewhat technical, I should, at the outset, explain and perhaps warn that some pensions jargon is inevitable. The rule is the current replacement for the original regulations that came into operation on 6 April 2023. It amends a number of sets of existing regulations, including the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997. The rule places administration and governance requirements on trustees of occupational defined contribution pension schemes, in particular to require trustees of certain schemes to disclose their investment returns and demonstrate that they are providing value for their members. It also increases flexibility for defined contribution schemes to make greater use of performance fees payable to fund managers when they deliver healthy returns on their default investment arrangements. Those are funds into which members are automatically placed by the scheme. It makes other changes to the ways in which specific types of pension schemes must comply with the requirements to produce a statement of investment principles. For example, it includes provision to require trustees of relevant schemes to include an explanation of their policy on investing in illiquid assets. The regulations also require trustees of relevant schemes to report annually on the percentage of assets allocated to different investment asset clauses in their default arrangements and to disclose certain specified performance fees incurred in the scheme year. Those measures aim to encourage the consolidation of defined contribution pension schemes so that members are able to benefit from economies of scale and access to a diverse range of asset classes that larger schemes bring. They have been introduced alongside guidance to help trustees of schemes that are in scope to meet the requirements. The regulations also require trustees of qualifying collective money purchase schemes to include an explanation of their policies on investing in illiquid assets in their statement of investment principles. That is to reflect the fact that such schemes do not have default investment funds. They also make consequential amendments to, for example, the information that must be published on a publicly available website. The regulations amend the definition of charges to exclude performance fees when assessing whether a scheme complies with the charge cap. That is the limit on the charges that can be applied to default investment funds. In complying with the requirements to assess the value for members that their scheme provides and to report net investment returns and on costs and charges, trustees and managers are required to have regard to guidance issued by the Department. In summary, the measures in the regulations offer opportunities to improve outcomes for members of defined contribution schemes.
I am grateful to Mr Kingston, the Deputy Chair and the rest of the Committee for their support. I commend the motion to the House.
524 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.01 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.60).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.02 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.01 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.60 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.01 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 1.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
| Sport (including the GAA), the arts and cultural bodies | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:37 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.