Government announces phased access and fairness implementation timeline
Author: LAPF Investments | Published: February 4, 2026
The government has announced it’ll be using a phased implementation timeline for the LGPS to implement its Access and Fairness reforms.
The decision forms part of its response to the consultation conducted as part of the policy process, which sought views on several aspects of upcoming policy that will have a significant impact on the LGPS – including around survivor benefits, gender pension gap reporting, and the McCloud remedy.
All in all, 61% of respondents expressed concerns about the administrative impact of the combined proposals – particularly at a time of competing demands from ongoing projects, with nearly half asking for phased implementation.
Implementation will be split into two phases, with the first round of changes being required for the start of the 2026/27 year, and the second phase coming later in 2026.
Phase one, the government explained, will focus on areas where it believes there is existing discrimination, adding that it is its view that “these proposals are overdue” and that “corrections must be made as quickly as possible” to deliver equal access.
Phase one (coming in at the start of the 2026/27 financial year):
- Survivor benefits and death grants
- Gender pension gap (unpaid absences)
- Gender pension gap reporting (reduced version for 2025)
- McCloud remedy
- Lifetime allowance
- Including combined county authorities as scheme employers
Phase two (coming in later in 2026):
- Gender pension gap reporting (fuller version ahead of 2028)
- Opt-out reporting
- Forfeiture
- All other regulation changes
Responding to this approach, the SPP’s public sector committee chair Kirsty McLean said: “The SPP was supportive of the proposed measures to improve access and fairness for the LGPS when we responded to the original consultation last year so we are naturally pleased to see that the government will proceed with them.
“However, we were also very clear that they would have disruptive administrative impacts and that timing and sequencing was therefore vitally important.
“It’s good to see that government has listened, will now be introducing these changes via a phased implementation period and will work with stakeholders such as the SPP to provide accompanying guidance.”
The cost of implementing the proposals was also flagged, with respondents explaining they’d fall heavily on administering authorities and scheme employers, with a disproportionate impact on small employers, while others stressed costs should be proportionate to the outcomes achieved.
Some respondents also highlighted how overall cost will be dependent on the need for additional resources, such as increases in staffing numbers and software.
As for who is responsible for costs, the opinion expressed varied. Few believe it’s appropriate for funds to bear the costs, while others believe the costs should be shared with or covered – either fully or partially – by the government.
In response, the government said it believed the changes were “vital” to improving the access and running of the scheme, and as such consider costs normal costs of administration “unless otherwise specified”.
To review the full consultation’s findings, click here.
