Pension Talks Interview: Jane Beverley, Senior Director, Law Debenture

This month we caught up with Jane Beverley, Senior Director at Law Debenture. She discusses how trustees can strengthen pension scheme governance and accountability, keep member outcomes central amid calls to invest in “productive assets,” support informed use of bridging pensions, and treat cyber resilience as a core fiduciary risk—while preparing for greater consolidation and wider use of AI/technology.

1. If a mandate is introduced, how should ‘savers’ interests’ be evidenced and policed and what guardrails are needed to prevent political risk influencing longterm investment strategy?

Debate around mandating pension schemes to invest in private or “productive” assets has intensified. There is a genuine and understandable desire from Government to see pension capital support long-term productive investment, and some trustees are already moving in this direction – but only where it makes sense for their scheme and its members. If a mandate is introduced, the question is how to ensure it operates in the best interest of savers. Investment strategies should be designed around savers’ outcomes first, with wider policy objectives following, with trustees being required to document how they have considered member interests, and weighed up the benefits and risk of other investment classes against those of productive assets.

2. With the DWP consulting on trustee standards and fiduciary duties, how should trustees strengthen accountability, decisionmaking and governance to meet rising regulatory expectations? 

The DWP’s recent consultation focuses on trustee competence, fiduciary duties and proportional data‑gathering, supported by new draft guidance. The current trustee framework has strong foundations; the priority now is building on these, not replacing them. To meet rising regulatory expectations, all trustee boards should spend time reflecting on their governance practices, including carrying out regular Board effectiveness reviews, proportionate to the size and complexity of the scheme. Trustees should also focus on developing long-term governance journey plans to sit alongside their long-term funding and end-game strategies, to include factors such as succession planning, right-sizing the Board for effective and inclusive decision-making and possibly moving to Professional Corporate Sole Trustee (PCST) at the right time for the scheme.

3. As schemes offer optional bridging pensions, how should trustees ensure members receive appropriate advice or guidance—and how can trustees demonstrate accountability for the longterm impact of these decisions on member outcomes?

Optional bridging pensions are re‑emerging as schemes look for ways to help members smooth their income before reaching State Pension Age. For many DB members, the option to convert some pension to a bridging pension payable until state pension age is attractive, enabling them to smooth total income over their retirement, and potentially retire earlier than otherwise. As with any option, it is important that the member understands the benefits and risks. Communications should explain that the higher initial pension will “step down” at state pension age, and also that, if members live beyond the average, the overall value of their pension may be lower. Trustees may also provide members with paid-for independent financial advice to help them make informed decisions.

4. Should cyber risk now be treated as a core fiduciary responsibility on par with investment and funding risk — and what does good governance look like in this area? 

Cyber risk has become a frontline governance issue. TPR has issued an urgent scam alert to pensions industry professionals warning of a significant increase in impersonation fraud targeting pension savers. TPR's General Code already embeds cyber resilience within effective governance and trustees are now spending significant amounts of time addressing cyber risk. Recent incidents such as the Capita cyber attack and the rise in impersonation fraud (highlighted by TPR) confirm the threat is real and escalating. Good governance means trustees owning cyber risk within their broader risk framework: commissioning independent assessments, stress-testing incident response plans, and holding administrators and other suppliers to minimum standards. Trustees don't need to be technical experts, but they do need to ask the right questions.

5. What does the future of pension scheme governance look like? Any useful tips?

One key theme for the future is scale – over time, we expect that many smaller DB schemes will continue on the journey to buy-out, and many smaller DC schemes and sections will consolidate into master trusts.  Scheme governance will need to evolve to better meet the needs of big ongoing schemes, whether DC master trusts, large DB schemes in run-on or superfunds. Another is technology – AI will become pervasive throughout pension scheme activity, whether that is minute-taking, data cleansing or member engagement and boards will need to develop the skills to evaluate and challenge these new developments.