The government should fully and transparently engage with pension scheme stakeholders on the future role of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) amid increased fund reserves, the Society of Pension Professionals (SPP) has argued.

The association published a paper highlighting that the PPF was operating in a different landscape to the one it was founded in, with most defined benefit (DB) schemes being better funded, fewer employers at risk of insolvency, and the PPF levy being cut to zero.

This has resulted in the PPF’s reserves rising to more than £14bn, which the SPP said raised important strategic and policy questions.

These questions, which the paper sought to address, included what level of reserves the PPF needed for long-term security; whether excess reserves should be retained, redistributed, or repurposed; and how such decisions could balance fairness between scheme members, employers, and taxpayers.

The SPP outlined several potential options, such as enhancing scheme member compensation, including pension increases and removing benefit reductions, as well as returning funds to levy-paying employers and retaining reserves as a long-term financial buffer.

It also suggested supporting a public sector consolidator for DB schemes, establishing a universal collective defined contribution (CDC) scheme open to all employers and members at retirement, and contributing to wider policy initiatives such as retirement adequacy or UK-focused investment.

The SPP noted that most reform options would require government action, and any changes must be approached with caution due to the legal, financial, and intergenerational fairness considerations involved.

“Although the £14bn in PPF reserves represents a significant opportunity, it also carries a responsibility to safeguard the PPF’s core mission,” commented SPP DB Committee chair, Jon Forsyth.

“Striking the right balance between prudence and innovation will be critical as policymakers consider how the PPF can evolve from a ‘lifeboat’ into a broader legacy institution for the UK pensions system.”

---