Several pension organisations have backed proposals to improve fairness and tackle inequality in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), although concerns around implementation and the administrative burden remain, prompting calls for greater clarity.

The consultation, launched in May, seeks to address historic discrimination and ensure equal access to the LGPS, particularly in relation to survivor pensions and death grants.

The Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) said it "very much welcomed" the proposals, agreeing with the government that they would “fundamentally improve” fairness and access in the LGPS.

In particular, it expressed support for measures to reduce gender pension gaps and the government’s proposed amendment of survivor benefits rules.

Echoing this, a joint response from the Local Government Association (LGA) and the Local Government Pensions Committee (LGPC) described the proposals to remove discrimination based on sexual orientation as “very welcome,” although they said it was “disappointing that they had taken so long.”

While also supportive of proposals to equalise survivor benefits, the LGPC and LGA raised concerns over the government’s intended approach, warning that the administrative impact could be “significant.”

“Any backdating work is complex from an administrative perspective, as pensions software is not designed to recalculate benefits going back a number of years. It is likely that manual intervention will be needed in most cases,” it warned.

As such, it urged the government to provide statutory guidance outlining the steps that administering authorities should take to identify potential beneficiaries and to clarify what calculations should be revisited.

Hymans Robertson, which previously warned that the success of the proposals would depend on a timeline that fits within the LGPS’s existing workload, shared the concerns over the potential administrative impact.

“While generally supporting the proposed measures, we believe there will be a significant impact on administrators - particularly at a time when major projects such as McCloud, pensions dashboards, and, for a number of local authorities, unitarisation are taking place,” it noted.

The firm also highlighted that considerable project time and management resources will be taken up by the pooling changes resulting from the Fit for the Future reform.

“Consequently, we believe the government should prioritise areas where a long-standing, specific, and measurable inequality persists - particularly in survivor benefits, where beneficiaries are likely to be older," it said, adding that the McCloud divorce credits were another area where "urgent legislation" is required.

“Although we support measuring the gender pensions gap and reporting on opt-outs, these proposals are primarily aimed at gathering data to inform future changes. It would therefore be reasonable to treat these as a secondary priority,” Hymans Robertson added.

The SPP echoed concerns about the potential for administrative disruption, particularly given the volume of concurrent projects already affecting the LGPS.

“These impacts could be mitigated through careful timing and sequencing of the necessary regulatory changes,” it suggested.

“The issue of backdating also imposes an additional burden on administering authorities, who are already extremely busy and often under-resourced."

Therefore, the SPP proposed applying a materiality threshold or limitation period to the cases that must be proactively resolved to help minimise the burden.

Meanwhile, the SPP called for greater clarity on proposals related to the gender pensions gap, including clearer definitions of terms such as “typical working life”, and suggested that any analysis of the gap should consider contributing factors such as full-time equivalent (FTE) salary, working hours, and other structural variables.

---