Scheme closure

An increasing number of companies have closed their defined benefit (DB) occupational pension scheme to the accrual of future benefits and opened up a new defined contribution (DC) scheme instead for future service benefits.

Closing a scheme to future accrual of benefits is often not straightforward, and sponsoring employers and trustees will need to take into account a number of considerations before proceeding.

Where a closure proposal requires trustee consent, the trustees will need to be convinced that the employer has a good business case for closure before agreeing to the proposal. Employers should be prepared to provide evidence of their business case and to explain the financial and business impact for them if the scheme is not closed. The employer may also need to explain whether it considered any other options for reducing the costs and risks of the scheme falling short of full closure and, if so, why it discounted them.

Trustees may also look to obtain some advantage for members in return for agreeing to closure such as additional funding or security for the scheme.

Employer considerations

The main considerations for a sponsoring employer

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Pensions News

Pension Schemes Bill: Employer surplus-payment provisions pass Grand Committee scrutiny unchanged

At the third day of Grand Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill on 19 January 2026, the House of Lords undertook an extensive examination of Clauses 9 (Power to modify scheme to allow for payment of surplus to employer) and 10 (Restrictions on exercise of power to pay surplus), with debate focused on a series of amendments that tested how far the new surplus release regime should be constrained in primary legislation. In particular, peers tabled amendments seeking to change the terminology from ‘surplus’ to ‘assets’, to require surplus to be shared with members, to mandate benefit enhancements including inflation protection, to strengthen member notification or consultation (including trade union involvement) in the surplus release process, to constrain the Secretary of State’s regulation-making powers, to embed actuarial and endgame requirements in statute, and to alter insolvency priorities where employers had previously extracted surplus. The government response, delivered principally by Baroness Sherlock, consistently resisted the amendments to prescriptive statutory rules governing the use of surplus or the processes surrounding its release, and instead defended the Bill’s reliance on trustee discretion, fiduciary duties, actuarial certification, and regulatory oversight by the Pensions Regulator.  All amendments were either withdrawn or not moved following government opposition, and Clauses 9 and 10 were agreed without amendment.

View Pensions by content type :

Popular documents