Lords Chamber

Monday 20th April 2026

(began 2 weeks, 6 days ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:36
14:36
14:36
14:37
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:39
14:40
14:41
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:43
14:44
14:44
14:44
14:45
14:46
14:46
14:47
14:47
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:51
14:52
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:58
14:59
14:59
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:04
15:05
15:05
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:20
Baroness Merron Portrait Baroness Merron, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care (Labour)
-
-
considered. >> The question is that the Commons amendments be now considered. As amendments be now considered. As many as I say, content of the contrary, not content. the contents have it motion a Baroness Merron.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 28 A Commons in their amendments. 28 A Commons in their amendments. 28 A 28 b 28 C 29 A 29 b 29 C my Lords, these amendments were tabled by the government in the other place to government in the other place to correct an error arising from amendments made in your Lordships amendments made in your Lordships House at Report stage. Without these amendments, Trading standards officers in Wales would lose the ability to issue certain fixed penalty notices for the existing offence, a proxy purchasing for a short period of time.

The error would also have prevented trading standards in Wales from being able to issue fixed penalty notices for the sale of tobacco to those under the age of 18, before the smoke free generation policy takes effect on the 1st of January 2027. This is in contrast to England, where trading standards will be able to issue fixed penalty notices for these offences. My Lords, this was obviously an unintended error and if left unresolved, this would have created a difference between the enforcement regimes in England and Wales.

I am pleased, therefore, that we've been able to resolve the issue with the six narrow amendments, and I hope that noble Lords will be supportive in their considerations. I beg to move.
15:22
15:24
15:24
15:25
None Portrait Legislation: Chidlren's Wellbeing and Schools Bill - consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons (day two)
-

Malvern. >> My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reasons and amendments be
15:25
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. The question. >> Is that the Commons reasons and amendments be now considered. As many as our opinion will say content to of the contrary, not content. the contents have it motion a Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on that this House do not insist on its amendment. 38 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in their. agree with the Commons in their. And and and do agree with the And and and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 38 J to £0.38 and I will also speak to to £0.38 and I will also speak to motions A1A, two D and D one.

In this group we will be debating amendments relating to restricting social media for under 16 digital literacy in the school curriculum and mobile phones. And turning to speak, first of all, to motion a one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad, which disagrees with amendments 38 J and £0.38 and proposes new amendments. 38 Q and 38 U. I'll also talk to motion A2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Nash. Amendment 38 Q would require social media services to set their own minimum age of access based on their children's risk assessment under the Online Safety Act, amendment 38, R would amend UK GDPR so that the digital age of consent is raised from 13 to 16.

For some social networking services, motion A2 amends government amendment 38, A, B and C, requiring the Secretary of State to restrict under 16 seconds from accessing user to user services or restrict specific features or functionalities when making these regulations. Firstly, my Lords, I want to thank the noble Lords Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, Lord Nash and other noble Lords for their sustained commitment on these vital issues. Let me be clear, it is a commitment that the government shares.

Protecting children online is a priority for this government, as I know it is a priority for noble Lords. The question then is not whether, but how and what action is taken and who is involved in making sure that that action is right. It is to facilitate this, that the government, of course, launched their consultation in March. I'm pleased to see that the noble Lords revised amendment considers the variety of measures that we are seeking views on through that consultation.

It acknowledges that there are numerous approaches to securing the safety and well-being of our children. A blanket ban for under 16 to access social media and restricting specific addictive features or functionalities, risky features and raising the digital age of consent under the UK GDPR. This is what our consultation is focussed on. This shows, I think, that the noble Lord, as I've suggested, is in agreement with the government that it's not only important we take swift action, but also that we take the correct action.

Let me be clear, the government consultation and the legislative means in the government's amendment is the most responsible way to get this right, ensuring effective outcomes that will last. The government's amendment allows for clear, decisive action. Amendment 38 Q, while well intentioned, may give too much discretion to services in setting age restrictions without considering the evidence from the government's consultation, amendment 38 R would change the age of digital consent in the UK. GDPR only for social networking services.

Whereas the government's consultation asks whether this change should also apply to other online services. And in thinking about how we go about this and who is involved, it might be a good opportunity to remind this House that our consultation seeks views from those affected most by the issues we're discussing today. Parents and children themselves, and we've already received over 50,000 responses, with over 30,000 from parents and more than 7000 from children from the organisations that have responded, nearly half educational organisations.

That level of engagement demonstrates that this consultation is above all about putting children first, and is engaging a broad range of people and organisations in getting it right. However, we have listened carefully to the strength of feeling expressed in both houses and have reflected seriously on the concerns raised about the pace, scope and scrutiny. That's why the government has strengthened its approach since coming to this House, and made clear changes to the proposed legislative powers. Firstly, on timing, we are determined to move at pace.

That's why we have tabled legislative powers to ensure we can act quickly grounded on the evidence of the consultation, we have now also placed a firm commitment on the face of the Bill to report to Parliament within six months. This progress report will both set out our intended course of action and a clear implementation timeline. Secondly, we have strengthened the scope and clarity of the power. We have been explicit about the purposes for which it can be used, stipulating that it can only be exercised for protecting children from online harms.

In addition, we recognise that children of different ages experience the online world in different ways, and that's why we have also made an amendment that makes clear that any future regulation must take that into account, ensuring protections are properly targeted and proportionate. And finally, to strengthen scrutiny, we have committed to share any future draft regulations with relevant select committees and opposition spokespeople prior to them being laid before the House. Regarding the part of the noble Lords Amendment on supporting children's understanding of user to User Services.

214C The government's response to the Curriculum and Assessment review sets out how the revised curriculum will take forward recommendations to strengthen media literacy to enable young people to critically engage with the messages they encounter through different media channels, and to ensure that they can identify and challenge mis and disinformation. Media literacy will be embedded in the new primary citizenship curriculum and strengthened across relevant subjects. Recent updates to relationships, sex and health education guidance now also include content on AI and deepfakes.

It explains how social media works and provides guidance on countering sexual health misinformation. The updated guidance will be used in schools from this September 2026. My Lords, we have listened, we have acted and we believe these amendments respond directly to the concerns raised. They strike the right balance between urgency and effectiveness and set out clear. Set out a clear, deliverable route to stronger protections for children online. We have been clear that it is not if we act, but how recent moving to motion D relating to amendment 106 and motion D1 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Baron, which insists on this amendment.

This amendment, we believe, is unnecessary. Our guidance is clear that all schools should be mobile phone free by default. And in making that clear, I acknowledge that we share the same policy intent as the noble Lady, as well as many other peers in the House today, to make sure that schools are mobile, phone free environments. That's why we've published strengthened guidance. We've asked our network of attendance and behaviour hubs to provide support to schools, and from this month, Ofsted will inspect schools mobile phone policies.

Because what we all want to do is to protect children from the disruption and distraction caused by mobile mobile phones throughout the school day and to create calm, focussed school environments that support learning, behaviour and wellbeing. We are all in agreement on this. We've listened carefully to Parliament and we recognise the strong and widespread feeling across the House are on this issue and that is why I can commit to putting forward an amendment in lieu in the other place, which will place this guidance on a statutory footing.

In doing that, we will create a clear legal requirement that the guidance must be followed unless there is a legally justifiable reason for schools not to do so. That amendment in lieu will respond directly to concerns raised by noble Lords, including directly in discussions with me. By placing that guidance on a statutory footing, providing clarity and consistency for schools across the country. In doing that, reduce unnecessary burdens on headteachers and send a strong message to parents giving headteachers clear backing to create and maintain the mobile phone free school environments that our revised guidance are clear should exist.

This reflects, I think, both the intentions of the noble Ladies, the concerns that have been expressed by my the noble Lord Lord Mohammed directly to me and the government's concerns that allow us to support schools in creating the calm, focussed and safe learning environments that we all want to see. And I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion A, B agreed to motion A1 Lord Mohammed agreed to motion A1 Lord Mohammed of Tinsley and my Lords, I must inform the House that if motion A1 is agreed to, I will not be able to is agreed to, I will not be able to call motion A2 by reason of pre-emption.
15:37
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
>> I'd like to personally welcome the noble Baroness Black to her place after a short period of illness, and I personally would illness, and I personally would like to thank you for taking the time out last week to engage with us, to talk to us, to want to better understand where we're coming from, but also give give us the opportunity to understand where you are coming from, and also like to thank the Baroness in terms of Lord Boyd for your engagement as well over the Easter period.

Both engagements have been very helpful for us, my Lords, in terms of tabling my First Amendment, a group of amendments around this issue is. We do have some concerns around the Henry the Eighth powers. That may well be, you know, as the government is seeking. Whilst I note that Lord Nash may not as hold as strong a view as I do in terms of these. Henry 88 powers, I think across this House we do have issues. Whenever a government wants to take on lots of powers, and I do note that he's proposing a sunset clause for me.

I still have concerns around how, you know, the government intends to, once the consultation happens, make changes. And I always have this view that if these are powers that are required for a set period, so be it. But I still still have concerns around what may happen in future if another government comes in or may want to use them. So I am sympathetic to what the Lord Nash has proposed, but I do have my in my amendments. But we were hoping that the government may well take up the opportunity to support them.

Our quest for actually bringing in their own primary legislation. And then we do have this issue around whether we have a ban or do we, as we call it, regulated, addictive, regulating, addictive features. And we've always been clear from the amendments that we proposed previously that we didn't favour an outright ban for under sixteens, but we like we wanted an age rating. So therefore, the duty fell upon the social media providers to be able to deal with those features, whether it's putting in things that, you know, young people get addicted to, like constantly scrolling, etc.

and that's where we stand. And I'm sure many members of your Lordships House, if they were able to vote on our amendment, they may well be there. And I really think that that's where we need to be in terms of rather than outright ban. But I get that in this in your Lordships' House previously, we have voted for Lord Nash amendments in order to make sure that this issue stayed live. And it'll be interesting what happens later on today when no doubt some of those amendments are proposed.

Secondly, we do, as you mentioned, have issues around data collection of data and GDPR, particularly this issue we've had that we want around the age of consent and currently 13. We wanted the issue to be around 16, and I really hope the government does address that. And then additional enforcement enforcement, additional harms whilst empowering Ofcom. The issue of guidance on addictive features is also introduced in specific requirements for platforms that access and mitigate the risks of services being used to create and distribute child sexual abuse materials, including mandating, human moderated and cooperate, cooperating for law enforcement.

And my Lords, in all our efforts, what we've tried to do is to try to do the best for our young people. We've tried to help and assist the government, nudge it in the right directions, and that's what we'll endeavour to do today as well, because I think ultimately, speaking to both Baroness Miller and Baroness and Lord Nash and others in in your Lordship chamber, I think we're not too far away from where we should be. It's just a matter of implementation and the speed and pace.

And I note that the government keeps saying that, you know, after our consultation, you know, we'll it'll all come out. We've been debating this since last year when actually. And I'm going to put it on record again. And I've said it in meetings before when Lord Nash actually, to his credit, was the one that first flagged this. And and to be honest with you, I don't care which political party anyone belongs to. If they're here to safeguard our young people, then credit where credit's due.

And we've tried to work, you know, across party with Lord Nash, with the crossbenchers, to ensure that we get to where we are. Can I just briefly move to smartphones, as I say, smartphones in schools rather than I think what Baroness May said in terms of mobile phones, because we've always been clear, it's the smartphones that we have a problem and our meetings that Baroness Barran and others have been to when we've met with parents and head teachers, that is the issue. They've said it's the smartphones, the issues around social media, the WhatsApp groups and others that have been the issue of concern.

We have noted that some parents have had concerns around being able to access or be get in touch with their young people, their children, particularly in rural areas. And that's why we often talked about being able to have the more old fashioned phones that, you know, many of us had, say, 20 years ago that basically allowed you to make phone calls and nothing much else. So therefore, we've been clear it's the smartphones that are issue for us. I know my noble friend Lord Addington was very clear about supporting, you know, what he often refers to as devices that enable people that need that extra support in school and how we dealt with that.

But clearly that that issue fell in your Lordships' House when we tried to propose it. But clearly, I do take reassurance from your commitment in terms of enhancing those guidance, because I think that's what those headteachers have been looking for. They have been saying, look, look, there's a very small group of parents who, whenever we bring in a policy like this, are very vocal and they are stopping them doing what they are there to do to help and manage those schools and, you know, help support the teaching of young people rather than constantly having to fend off a small but very vocal group of parents.

So in that sense, I think the government is heading in the right direction. It might not quite be there where some of us want it to be, but I just want to thank the Minister for that, and I look forward to hearing other contributions from your Lordships'

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House question. Was that motion a B agreed to? Since when motion A1 has been moved Since when motion A1 has been moved as an amendment to motion A to leave out from disagreement to end and insert the words as printed on and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion A1 be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I to. Welcome the noble Lady, the Minister, back to her place, and I
15:44
Lord Nash Portrait Lord Nash (Conservative)
-
-
Minister, back to her place, and I thank the noble Lord Lord Mohammed for his remarks. I ask to speak to my motion a2 for anyone who studied the verdicts in the two US cases, they are clearly game changers. The evidence from the social media companies themselves are damning. I have a treasure trove of documents of these. If any noble Lord would like them. Immediately following these cases, the Prime Minister made some very strong statements about protecting children from the harm of social media and the Right Honourable Liz Kendall has spoken only yesterday about the importance of highly effective age verification to ensure children can't access the harmful features of social media.

This is exactly what my proposal does. I listened very carefully to what she said yesterday, and if you can get a paper between us, it's a pretty thin one indeed. So I have decided to take the Prime Minister at his word and instead of batting my amendment back again to allay an amendment to the government's amendments to the fact that they must, rather than just may raise the age for access to those harmful social media sites to 16 within 12 months, those sites to be chosen very selectively, and I'm sure will be very few in number.

Definitely not an outright or blanket ban. And to state this on the face of the bill, I have also proposed in the amendment a sunset clause of two years on the Henry the eighth element of the powers that the government is proposing to take. At the heart of my amendment are safety by design principles, with the responsibility resting firmly with the companies themselves. Noble Lords may be interested to know that I and my team have agreed a statement of principles with over 40 charities and other organisations, including the NSPCC, five rights, the Anti-Bullying Alliance, the centre for Protecting Women Online, the Children and Young People's Mental Health Coalition, the National Children's Bureau, quorum, the Internet Watch Foundation, the Mental Health Foundation, Mumsnet Parent Kind, the New Naswa and the centre for Young Lives, and many others.

Central to these principles are safety by design, with responsibility resting firmly on the services themselves. My amendment also contains a disapplication of the online safe harbour of the Online Safety Act, Safe Harbour, which will make enforcement easier for Ofcom. The involvement of Ofcom, the Children's Commissioner and the Royal Medical Colleges as expert advisors. The requirement for digital literacy, provision for children and a transparency provision. My Lords, it. Sorry, my Lords, a few words, if I may, about Australia and whether age verification can work.

Destroy alien Esafety Commissioner said a couple of weeks ago that the reason a number of children still have accounts there is simply because the social media companies are not doing their jobs properly, and they are now moving to enforcement. As the Right Honourable Kendall said yesterday, we would propose in this country highly effective age verification, as is working for pornography as opposed to the Australian weaker, reasonable steps. Many countries are also moving to a similar approach to this, and the social media companies have admitted that this can be done if they put their minds to it.

So this concern is unfounded. My Lords, it is essential that we play catch up with the pace of change online much faster than we are. It would be such a small step for the government to now accept the principles of my amendment, not to have what some have called a blanket ban, but merely to be used highly, selectively, and definitely not to apply to apps for particular vulnerable groups. Then the consultation can be about how to affect this and and learn over the next 12 months from Australia and the many other countries affecting similar measures.

And then the rest of the consultation can be about the equally very urgent matter of AI companions and chat bots, and about VPNs and the other matters it covers. The government has acted swiftly on pornography, nidification, intimate image abuse, cyber flashing content that promotes self-harm and suicide, and the preservation of data after the death of a child and in other areas. But on this, the government have merely said in their amendment that they will make a statement about progress within six months.

This commits them to nothing. My Lords, over a six month period, the LMS that drive products like chat bots like ChatGPT and Claude become twice as powerful, have access to twice as much data, and run at half the cost. We have to play catch up much faster. My Lords. It was clear from the shocking evidence discovered in the American trials that there are people of conscience in the social media companies, but they were suppressed. It would be morally irresponsible of us to allow this to happen in this country, and I urge noble Lords to vote for my motion.
15:50
15:51
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
My Lord. I. >> I think we've all agreed that there are troubling aspects of social media usage amongst young social media usage amongst young people, and I have taken a very seriously. I think it's very appropriate for parents and teachers and policymakers to be concerned and to discuss how best to help children navigate the digital world. And from previous contributions, people will know. I'm not sympathetic to the banning approach. I'm not going to rehearse that, but I wanted to just make a couple of points.

First of all, I am still very concerned about the Government's Henry the Eighth Powers being proposed. I appreciate the noble Lord, Lord Nash's sunset clause, but I tend to go along with the noble Lord Mohammed of Tinsley at the way he's explained it, because I think that we cannot just keep handing over power to the executive and saying, we trust you to get on with it. I'm not convinced that that trust is merited in general. However, I appreciate that the government has been more open about consulting on this very difficult issue, and I hope that continues.

And I'd like to encourage the noble Lady, the Minister and the government in general to consider new evidence as it comes in. I think actually, Australia does not just show the experiment in Australia does not just show things about the about the social media or the big tech companies, but actually about the way children have got around the ban and are now using unregulated sites with some danger to themselves, as I think that if the government is still open, then that is very important because I do think that there are enough experts and and scientists and people who work in this field who really are concerned that the pressure for a drastic policy such as this, with
15:53
15:53
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-
to solution for a wide range of cultural and political challenges, facing young people is something we facing young people is something we need to be careful of, and Oxford psychologist Lucy Fox describes it psychologist Lucy Fox describes it as a neat explanation. She says social media a nice bogeyman. But the claim is not backed up by the data. So I wanted to just ask the data. So I wanted to just ask the Minister in terms of the consultation and in the gathering of information, in order to inform policy, can she clarify whether there's also going to be discussions about weighing up the pros and cons of bans and so on, the unintended consequences for vital democratic freedoms, whether age gating, for example, could lead to a form of digital verification for adults, which would be illiberal, and also the impact of socialising the young.

I know that we've heard that if everyone's banning it, that's OK. I'm not convinced that China banning anything is something I want to be excited about personally, but we have to weigh up whether it's going to be putting a emphasis on statism way outweighs the potential benefits of teaching young people how to negotiate the digital world, rather than just taking them off it. And in terms of the noble Lord Lord Nash, a couple of clarifications that I wasn't sure about in his amendment and the phrase are likely to cause, encourage or facilitate compulsion, addiction or other unhealthy behaviours I think are likely to cause seems to me to be the opposite of evidence based.

And how does that decision get taken on board? Also, in terms of the use of the term addictive or the the allegation that these are addictive apps and so on, is that should we just uncritically accept that? I know that it's being used in the law courts in America, but I do think that accepting the addiction labelling medicalising bad habits and relieves the young of any responsibility for their own behaviour, I mean, is there a danger here of teaching the young that they have no control and are peddling a myth of powerlessness in relation to technology and young people's own desires, just wanting to do things? You can imagine that it's not my fault, it's the algorithm.

What done it? Always blaming someone else. That is a danger and that undermines the lessons young people should learn about self-discipline in order to grow up as independent moral agents. And just finally, on teaching lessons. And maybe I misunderstood this, but in motion A2 there's under the heading Supporting Children's Understanding of User to User Services, which sounds very educational. And obviously we are discussing a schools bill. It did seem to me that there was a danger of an over intervention into the curriculum.

It's one thing teaching business models and implications of online collection of children's data. And I thought the noble Lady, the Minister explained, well, you know, digital literacy is something that needs to be I I'm all for that. That's a positive thing. But adding to primary legislation, such centralised, specific demands is that seem to be that the national curriculum should contain and and quoting explain the reasons under sixteens of being prevented from accessing different regulated users to use of services and so on.

That just felt to me like PR for this bill, and I wasn't entirely sure that that was that helpful. In terms of children, it sounded far too much like politicising the agenda rather than making an open minded and, and, and I'm involved in a school's sixth form debating competition called Debating Matters. And we've got a motion which is for and against the ban on social media for under 16 seconds. There are two sides to this debate. And even if there is some law change, I wouldn't want the curriculum to only teach one side of the debate as though it's the truth and the final word, because that would be manipulative and not right.
15:57
Lord Hacking Portrait Lord Hacking (Labour)
-
-
My Lord Stern. >> When the noble Lord Lord Nash Lord Nash sorry, I do do correct Lord Nash sorry, I do do correct myself moved his amendment at the first stage when we were battling with the House of Commons on the drafting of this bill, that I gave him my support and I voted against the government. I voted against the government not because I was against the government, because I wanted. And I told my noble friend, the Minister, this.

I wanted the government to have another thought about this issue. They have now had another thought about this issue. They produced proposed legislation, which is a considerably stronger than the legislation that we were looking at, and therefore, I welcome the position that Lord Nash has now taken. My Lords, that in professional circumstances. A few years ago, I had the duty to look at some of the pornography that is available. And I have to tell you, Lordships, it's quite vile and I have no reason to think that it's in a better.

Now, I think it probably is more vile now. And the other thing I think that we should take strongly into account is the access that is achieved to getting into into the pornographic viewings which are available on the internet. And it's a much bigger problem in my Lord's than we might perceive. So my present position is that I'm supporting again, Lord Nash. But Lord Nash is more sophisticated approach, accepting the government amendments, but suggesting there could be some improvements.

So I do hope my learned friend, my noble friend the Minister will accept the proposed improvements that Lord Nash is now moving.
15:59
Baroness Kidron Portrait Baroness Kidron (Crossbench)
-
-
Let me just say at the outset that I should be supporting the noble Lady Barron, should she noble Lady Barron, should she choose to test the opinion of the House and the noble Lord Nash House and the noble Lord Nash equally. But I have, as is recorded in Hansard at great length. So I will just say the scope, the timing, the lack of scrutiny, the the consultation itself. And now the idea that the report to Parliament is an effective form of scrutiny.

All of that, I think is very problematic here. And I personally would prefer the language of banning unfit companies access to children rather than banning children. However, even if the amendments in front of us were perfect in all of those ways, they still would not be effective. Last week, I met with the government Minister, with government Ministers, and they freely admitted that neither their plans nor the amendments in front of us address the fundamental problem of enforcement. If we pass any one of the amendments in their current form, we will simply be giving Ofcom more duties but no powers and parents will still have absolutely nowhere to go when their child is in danger.

And over the last six weeks, I've put forward measures on an individual redress mechanism injunctive powers for parents when their child is at immediate risk of harm, individual liability to concentrate the minds of senior executives. A review of Ofcom's wider enforcement powers, including its ability to effectively issue business disruption notice each is essential to to making this regime work at all, and each has been rejected by government. None is included in the amendments, none is included in the consultation and none, I am told in the King's Speech.

My Lords, the Prime Minister said last week this can't go on and I agree. It is staggering that two years into his government, every promise made to parents has been kicked down the road. They are building on top of a regime that they know does not work. And in the best case scenario, we get regulations with more unenforceable, unenforceable duties that have not been scrutinised in 2027, maybe 2028. And indeed, if we don't pass Lord Nash amendment, maybe not at all.

My Lords, I too heard the Secretary of State yesterday, and she announced that she would extend her newly acquired powers over chatbots only only put into the bill last Thursday that she was now going to extend them to child online harms. Having rejected that very possibility that the House put forward on Thursday. My Lords, this is not a serious approach and the government should come back with an amendment that offers proper prospect of immediate and meaningful change, of proper enforcement and really absolutely tackle this so that our children are safe online.

My Lords.
16:03
16:04
Lord Russell of Liverpool Portrait Lord Russell of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
I rise briefly. >> Noble Lady Baroness Harding, who brings. All of the rigour that you would expect from an MBA, from Harvard Business School to the Harvard Business School to the analysis of this problem, because ultimately it is a business issue. These companies are making a vast amount of money from basically monetising the time that these children are using what are designed to be addictive products. My Lords, that that is the simple truth. And until and unless we find a way of disrupting the business models of the companies behind those platforms in such a way that it really, really hurts them, the point at which individual directors and senior executives know that they will be held personally accountable and may well go to jail, as well as the companies being fined vast amounts of money until and unless we reach that stage, there will really not be a tipping point.

This does often feel like like pushing water uphill. My Lords and I would just like to make a point about education technology we are focusing very much on on smartphones and on the the terrible effects that it is having on so many young people. Simultaneously, the government has been promoting quietly but overtly over many years, increased use by technology in schools from primary schools onwards, partly as an understandable result of the the Covid your Lordships' House even managed to embrace technology to a degree many of us would have thought completely unthinkable.

But indeed, schools have been embracing it, and the effects on the young people in those schools that have embraced technology in many cases is not good. And in many countries of the world they have recognised this and they are doing a complete U-turn on their previous eagerness to get children in front of touchscreens and and computer programs. They're really trying to reverse that because they've been doing it for long enough that they have actually now seen the evidence that is being produced of the effect it's having on children, reduced attention span, reduced vocabulary.

In Scandinavia, surprise, surprise, libraries are actually doing the unthinkable. They're actually bringing back books. Having largely decided to no longer invest in them about 5 or 6 years ago. So, my Lords, I do appeal to the government to and particularly to the Department for education to look very, very, very carefully at what is going on in schools. Schools need advice from the government about how to deal with this. The blandishments of these companies, which are large, very sophisticated and very profitable in selling their products to schools.

You know, it has all of the the smoothness of a tobacco or an asbestos salesman. But in those terms and conditions, in many cases, what is actually happening is they are monetising those children and their details, the school's details and what they are producing in terms of educational product in many cases, is substandard. I rise to speak.
16:07
16:08
Lord Clement-Jones Portrait Lord Clement-Jones (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I rise to support my noble friends. Lord Mohammed of Tinsley in his motion A1 my Lords were united across this House and indeed across Parliament in our desire to protect children from the significant harms of the online world. But as we consider these amendments in lieu, we are presented with three rather different legislative strategies. The government's proposal in motion A asked this House to grant sweeping, enduring Henry VII's powers to the Secretary of State, allowing them to amend or repeal primary legislation via secondary regulations.

The government's amendment remains completely silent on the predatory nature of addictive design. By ignoring the psychological triggers engineered to hijack a child's attention, the government is fighting big tech with one arm tied behind its back. Regulations relating, as we've heard today, the user. Rather than fixing the product. Now, my Lords, I have great respect for the noble Lord Nash and his tireless and principled campaigning in this area, and I welcome the fact that his motion A2 attempts to rein in the government's executive overreach by applying a two year sunset clause to these.

Henry the Eighth Powers, and I recognise that his amendment is no longer a blanket ban, but his core proposal remains a blunt instrument. While well-intentioned, this approach is built entirely on exclusion. It potentially risks creating a dangerous cliff edge for young people. Rather than helping children safely develop digital resilience, it suddenly exposes them potentially to the unfiltered internet the moment they turn 16. Motion A1, by contrast, offers a far more precise, workable and future proof alternative. Instead of handing unchecked powers to Ministers or trying to build an impossible wall around the internet, motion A1 places direct statutory duties on tech companies to clean up their platforms.

As we've heard, that is absolutely essential under our amendment 38 Q where any user is identified as being under 16, the platform must apply proportionate measures to limit the supply of addictive design features and prevent access to harmful content. As my my friend Munira Wilson MP in the Commons stated, this must be big tech seat belt moment. Recent US court cases noble Lord Nash has mentioned them have exposed internal documents showing tech executives deliberately designed these platforms to keep children hooked.

Motion a one dismantles this addictive architecture would preserve parliamentary sovereignty and spark a race to the top for safe, enriching online spaces, and I urge the House to support that approach.
16:11
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
Yeah, good to speak. >> Yeah, good to speak. >> My Lords. I rise to speak briefly to my noble friends. Amend briefly to my noble friends. Amend motion A2 and to my motion D1. And my noble friend has once again laid out the arguments in favour of his motion. A2 most eloquently and elegantly, and the noble Baroness. The Minister, in her opening remarks talked about this is not whether we take action, but how and what action we take as a government.

And her right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and both Ministers, in fact, all Ministers sitting on the front bench today have at different times made a commitment to act. But, my Lords, that's not what we have in the government's amendment. The government's amendment is not a commitment to act. My noble friend's amendment is a commitment to act, and I hope the noble Baroness, the Minister's opposite, will forgive me for pointing out that the only charities they ever quote are those who have caution about the approach that my noble friend is advocating.

And there are, as he said, over 40 who have signed the principles document that has been developed with them. And of course, that gives those of us on this side of the House reason for real concern as to why no other charities are ever quoted in interviews by the government. And my noble friend's amendment has several material advantages over the government's current approach. And the first is the simplicity in that the commitment to act is on the face of the bill, and your Lordships are very familiar with the risks posed by putting everything in secondary legislation, particularly secondary legislation, with an enormous.

Henry the Eighth shaped power. So it puts into effect the Prime Minister's commitment. But it also allows the government to use the consultation to shape the. How, including on enforcement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron rightly pointed out, and in relation to breadth and scope, but sets out very clearly at. For a. The little one to. For the principles that would be followed in relation to addictive behaviour, serious harm and exploitation, illegal content and loss of privacy.

Your Lordships I know will have read the amendments. And then thirdly, with great simplicity also sunsets. The Henry the Eighth powers which across the house. I think we can welcome. As my noble friend said, the US court cases have changed the evidence and they've changed the conversation. And there is a simple way forward for the government to resolve this impasse, which is to accept the principles that underpin my noble friend's amendment. They may choose to use different words, but the principles should remain.

And this the Minister, the noble Baroness, the Minister talked about not just swift or but rather appropriate action. But the government amendment still allows for inaction. It still would allow the government to do nothing. At the end of this. My noble friend's amendment does not leave that option. That is not an option that Ministers say they want. So I think they should close that loophole when, as I hope we come back to this at a future point. Turning to my motion D one in relation to smartphones and mobile phones in schools.

And before I talked that I would just like to put on record my agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Russell, in relation to edtech, he will remember the amendments we had at an earlier stage in the bill, and I think that's a serious issue for the House to come back to. Unfortunately, I was unaware until the noble Lady announced it that there was going to be a change in the government's position, which I find at the least curious since the amendment has been in my name throughout.

But obviously that's the government's prerogative, who they choose to speak to and advise. But I did, as she know, write to her office asking for clarification last week by email and have received absolutely no reply. So I find that unfortunate to say the least. But I think the point really is that even with the statutory guidance announcement that the noble Lady just made, the current guidance that the government has published, which it now proposes to put on a statutory footing, still allows schools to have a so-called not seen, not heard policy.

The noble Lady is shaking her head, I can't. I asked for confirmation from the department. Got none. So in that silence I went to a number of school and trust leaders and asked them. And the answer I got was at best confusion and at worst an assumption, including from those schools who currently have not seen, not heard policy that that can continue unchanged and I quote, will continue to be the norm in schools. So if the government agrees with me that that is not what children need and is not what teachers need, then they need to put clearly in their guidance that it is unacceptable.

I appreciate they've taken out the example you of using bags and jackets or whatever it is to put your phone in. They just need to say in words of one syllable so that schools understand that this is not an acceptable policy. There is so much evidence that the presence of a smartphone in one's bag or pocket is a distraction, that the temptation to turn it on when going to the laboratory, when out of sight, when in the playground, is almost irresistible.

Indeed, it happens to adults, too. So given that that is the case, putting flawed guidance on a statutory footing achieves nothing. And as the noble Lord Lord Mohammed of Tinsley said, there is no distinction in the government approach between smartphones and brick phones or dumb phones. And this the government talks in this area about how keen they are to give head teachers discretion, not something they were very keen on in every other amendment in this bill. But it is really important, this distinction, because it has a bearing on when children first get a smartphone.

Parents want to be able to contact their children on the journey to and fro from school, but they don't need a smartphone to do so. And so there needs to be distinction in the guidance as well. The government is obviously very resistant to accepting an opposition amendment, even when head teachers are calling for them to do so. I don't know why head teachers, parents and children would thank them if they saw sense and accepted this amendment. and accepted this amendment.
16:20
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Here, here. Baroness Barran. and A2, the government is. I think I made clear in opening this debate does recognise the concerns that have been raised in this House and the strength of feeling among parents about protecting children online, online and as I and other Ministers have said, we share that commitment. This is a complex issue with a range of views expressed once again today during this debate about how it is best approach.

And I know in relation to some of the points made by noble Lords about enforcement, the development of the online safety regime and other issues that my noble friend Baroness Lloyd and others in DSIT are, are, and will continue to think very carefully about those issues. I will also say to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, who who slightly took us back, I have to say to discussions that we've had earlier on the issue of EdTech. I'm very happy to provide him with further information.

Expanding on the information that I gave during Committee stage about the approach that the government is taking to, particularly to develop the evidence around what is and is not appropriate use of technology in the classroom. And I would be happy to do that. But given the strength of feeling, we have been clear in government that it is not only important that we act quickly, but that we act in the right way. And I would just say in relation to the comments made by noble Lords about the cases in the US.

So of course, those have raised interest, rightly and understandably. And whilst we don't comment on foreign court judgements, we do welcome international efforts to strengthen online safety and will of course want to learn from what is happening around the world. Although I do note that the UK has the most robust online safety framework in the world, with a regulator empowered to issue fines of the same order of magnitude or larger. And it's why the government has announced that we are going to take further action to protect children's well-being online through our consultations.

Others, the noble Lady Baroness Benjamin and others have identified there is a range of action in different countries. I don't agree actually, that it is the same action in different countries. I was very fortunate when before I was confined to my bed before recess, to go to New York to the Commission on the Status of Women, where I attended a very useful session where there was a particular focus on the action taken by different countries to protect children online.

And what I thought was particularly notable was actually the wide range of different approaches being taken in different countries, different ages, different scope, different speed with which that was happening. So I don't think we can simply look abroad to find a consistent approach, which is why whilst watching what other countries are doing very closely, we want to be confident that what we introduce here works and works for all children, including the most vulnerable. And that's why testing options now taking evidence from families themselves and putting the legislative powers in place to act quickly once the consultation closes is the right thing to do.

It means we can move in months, not years. And as has been said on numerous occasions, the government's consultation looks beyond a simple social media ban to a wider range of harms, from addictive design to time spent online, allowing for a more comprehensive and effective response with long lasting outcomes. It considers at least some of the issues raised by the noble Lady, Baroness Fox and in other developments, as I have as I outlined in my opening speech, the government is also taking action through the curriculum and supporting schools to enable children and young people to be much clearer about media literacy, the nature of what they will encounter online at some point, whenever that may be, in their lives, when they have access to it.

And this is a clearly an important development in both the curriculum and the way in which our schools are teaching. We have listened to concerns about pace, which is another important theme of the debate today. The argument I know is that the noble Lord, Lord Nash's amendment, would enable faster movement because we wouldn't need to consult. The government has laid the groundwork to act swiftly on the outcome of its current consultation, without the need for lengthy primary legislation.

It is a short, sharp consultation which we believe is the right thing to do to make sure that we take the right approach. To reiterate, once again, we've been clear it is not a question of if but how we act. And in addition, the government amendment would allow any subsequent regulations to capture a wider range of harmful features and functionalities, and to tailor measures to where the harms are actually occurring. We are committed to working as quickly as possible to deliver additional protections, and we will not wait years, as with the Online Safety Act, but we are also determined to get it right, and we will not compromise on what is best for our children's future.

There is also concern about scope, and I think I've responded to some of that concern in this response and scrutiny, which is why we've tabled legislative powers to act swiftly on the basis of evidence, alongside a clear commitment on the face of the Bill to report to Parliament with within six months. We've also made clear that these powers can only be used for the purposes of protecting children, and I hear the concerns raised by noble Lords Lord Mohammed and noble Lord Lord Clement-Jones about.

Henry the Eighth Powers. Just to be clear on that, the power only permits the Secretary of State to apply existing parts of the Online Safety Act with modification, if needed, to ensure the new regulations are effectively incorporated into the legal framework. The power would not allow this government or any future government to amend the existing online safety duties. We've been clear that the powers must have due regard for the effects on children of different ages and provided, as I outlined in my opening comments, for meaningful scrutiny through engagement with relevant select committees before any regulations are laid.

We've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

been clear throughout. It is not, And I think in doing this, we've demonstrated through these new legislative powers how we will do this both quickly and effectively. Moving on to the issue of mobile Moving on to the issue of mobile phones, we know you know, I think it's important just to reiterate it's important just to reiterate again, that there has, of course, already been progress in the on the in the ways in which schools deal with mobile phones, we know that the majority of schools have policies that prohibit mobile phones in schools, which is why we believe that the Lords Amendment 106 is unnecessary.

I think the noble Lady Baroness Barran slightly understated. Both the changes that we have made to the guidance and the range of other measures that we have put around that guidance in order to support head teachers and to enable it to be implemented more quickly. On the specific issue about whether or not not seen, not heard as an approach is appropriate, she's right. We have now taken that out of the guidance and, you know, would be willing to consider whether or not we should be stronger on that.

But the question that the noble Lady asked was whether or not the use of guidance would make this impossible. She knows that the point of guidance, whether statutory or non-statutory, is to provide. Absolutely. Clarity in the broadest context about how we expect schools to operate in this area, a complex area where different schools and different headteachers might have different ways of achieving the outcome, which we're all clear of, that there shouldn't be access to mobile phones for children at any point in the school day.

But for me to to say it would be impossible, as she well knows, is not possible for me to, to say. However, as I have said, we have moved on this. We recognise the strength of feeling on this issue both in this House and beyond. And that is why. Today, recognising that, notwithstanding the fact that we think the guidance we already have in place provides head teachers and schools with a range of approaches to be able to deliver the objective that we all share.

We are committing to tabling an amendment in lieu, which will place the existing guidance on a statutory footing on the face of the Bill, creating a clear legal requirement for schools. And the noble Lord Lord Hampton knows from his experience in schools that where guidance is statutory, that is a clear statement both to head teachers and to parents and others, that what is included within that guidance will be expected to be happening within schools, but including it within guidance provides the ability for schools, as I've suggested, to be able to deliver that in a way that is most appropriate.

It is a an important message to be able for head teachers if they feel they need that, to be able to say, look, this guidance and what it expects from schools is statutory. And in doing that, we've listened to concerns about how we support headteachers in delivering on this policy, and we've listened to Parliament. This is an approach which is robust, proportionate and effective. It ensures clarity and certainty going forward so that all schools can become mobile free.

And given those assurances and the progress that the government has made in both areas of this group, I hope that noble Lords will feel able, as soon as possible to bring these issues to a conclusion as part of this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

bill, and for now, I beg to move. Lady sits down. Both the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady sits down. Both the noble Lord Mohammed and I raise the issue of smartphones as distinct from mobile phones. The noble Lady said mobile phones. The noble Lady said she would consider. I understood her to say that she would consider improving the guidance to make it clear that not seen, not heard was clear that not seen, not heard was not in line with the spirit of the guidance. Will she also undertake to look at whether there's any refinement that could be considered

**** Possible New Speaker ****

in relation to smartphones? Well, yes. I mean, I will

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Well, yes. I mean, I will undertake to to do that. But but I do think it's interesting that that do think it's interesting that that type of question is exactly the reason why the use of what will reason why the use of what will become statutory guidance is a more appropriate way of dealing with the appropriate way of dealing with the nuances of this issue than the type of face of the bill, legislative ban that some people are arguing for.

But so, so, yes, because of that flexibility, I will undertake to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I thank the noble Lady, the Baroness Cass Minister, for her Baroness Cass Minister, for her comments and in response to to to the points raised and all noble the points raised and all noble Lords in particular, my friend Lord Clement-Jones, setting out clearly alongside myself our position when alongside myself our position when it comes to social media and I welcome the comment around better clarity on the smartphones issue. My Lords, I'm not minded to test opinion in the House on this occasion.

Sir.
16:34
16:35
16:47
None Portrait Motion B Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-

>> My Lords, I beg to move. Motion B that this House do not insist on its amendment. 41 B to which the its amendment. 41 B to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 41 C and I will also speak reasons. 41 C and I will also speak to motions B1, C, and C one in this group we will be debating group we will be debating amendments relating to school uniforms and admissions. Turning to speak to motion B relating to amendment 41, B and motion B1 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Muhammad of Tinsley, which seeks to review the effectiveness of a numeric limit on branded uniform within 12 months alongside consideration of a monetary cap and his subsequent motion, which would require a review of the effectiveness of measures to control branded item costs within 12 months.

I'd like to to thank the noble Lord again for his championing of this issue. I know from our conversations how dear this issue is to him, and how determined he is to make a difference for the children and families in his hometown and up and down the country. And I admire his commitment to thinking about the various ways in which we can achieve that. I want to be clear that we share that aim of bringing down the costs for parents, and particularly those who find it most difficult to afford school uniform.

And so, of course, this government will want to understand the impact that our manifesto commitment has made and that it is meeting our shared objectives as required with legislation. We will be conducting a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the policy, and to consider any modifications that may be recommended. Furthermore, the DfE has engaged with parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, including conducting detailed cost surveys, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.

And for this reason, we think that legislation on this is therefore unnecessary. The priority now is to provide certainty for schools and parents about the government's intent, and we fear that these amendments might risk some uncertainty at a time when schools will be focussed on implementing a numeric limit, which was not only the the government's manifesto commitment, but is also backed by both parents and the British public. A numeric limit is simple, transparent and enforceable, and we have committed to further strengthening existing statutory guidance.

To be clear that high cost compulsory items should be avoided. Turning to motion C relating to amendment 102 and motion C1 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barron, which insists on this amendment, amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number or Pan, following an upheld objection, the government is committed to ensuring that quality and parental choice are central to Pan decisions. Our amendment in lieu, introduced in the Other place, makes this clear by ensuring that regulations require the adjudicator to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference.

When specifying a school's pan. Following an upheld objection, however, the noble Ladies amendment would create a blanket exemption for a significant proportion of schools with no allowance for local circumstances, such as the scale of demographic change, and it would hinder sensible, community focussed decision making. For example, in areas like London where most schools are performing well, significantly falling pupil numbers are impacting even good schools. Local authorities and schools are already taking tough decisions about closures, amalgamations and pan reductions.

But this measure can and should be part of the solution to ensure all pupils continue to have choice of high quality school places close to home. Our amendment in lieu will be reinforced through new statutory principles that we intend to apply through secondary legislation, as set out in our policy paper that we distributed before the recess. These will inform adjudicator decisions and help ensure that reduction of good school places will only ever occur as a last resort. As I emphasise, we are committed to ensuring that school quality and parental choice are central to any decisions on Pan, as set out in the published policy paper and reflected in the amendment passed in the other place, which we are considering today.

And that's why I can confirm that should this House desire, the government will bring forward an amendment in the other place. This will reflect our commitment that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of decisions on Pan by placing on the face of the bill a requirement on adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a pan following an upheld objective. And I can also commit that we would require the adjudicator through a mix of primary and secondary legislation to consult key parties, including the admissions authority, the local authority and the relevant DfE regional Director on their views on alternatives to reducing the Pan before making a determination.

Collectively, this will ensure that reducing places at great schools is only ever a last resort resort and deliver a choice of good local school places for communities. We will continue to engage with stakeholders, including the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including proposed changes to secondary legislation and the School Admissions Code. We will ensure a robust decision making framework is in place to protect high quality education. The CST has welcomed the amendment, made in the Other place to the bill as a step towards achieving that, and I beg to move.
16:54
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley Portrait Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The question is the motion. Mohammed of Tinsley. >> Thank you. Like I said earlier, I'd like to thank the Minister for the time last week to be able to better understand from herself and the government where they're coming from, and also give me the opportunity to highlight why I really think school uniforms and the cost of school uniforms are really important, and hence my amendment. And I think, you know, as you may recall early on, I, I am someone who benefited from a policy that David Blunkett brought in.

So my father lost his job in the same industry in Sheffield. I was on free school meals. We also were able to go to the local education section and get some clothing for school. So hence why that lived experience is the thing that's driving me in terms of trying to do the best for not only young people in Sheffield, but across the country. Now, I absolutely do not doubt that the government is wanting to reduce the cost of school uniforms, and it's measures to reduce the number of items required.

Mine was to ask for a cap on the cost and as noble Lords may have seen from the amendments we have now tabled, I stopped doing saying that, but I am saying to the government is that at some point in 12 months time from implementation, when you have that review, I really hope that you will be willing to at least relook at the possibilities of a cap, but also more importantly for me, going back to that lived experiences that I want to keep pushing the government to say, OK, how are we going to help and support because you're going to limit the cost of school uniforms by potentially limiting the numbers, but there's still a cost involved.

And I really want this government as and when it can. And I really hope once the economy picks up, that it's able to support every child that's on free school meals, to be able to have some support. And I really hope when the Minister gets up to respond, that she may well be able to comment on that. In terms of the other amendments on the Pan, can I just read out information I've got this morning from the Confederation of School Trusts who say we are grateful to the government for the work they have done to bring forward this amendment, which goes some way towards addressing our concerns about the potential impact of this policy on the quality of educational provision in the area.

We think the amendments need to go further. Specifically, we believe that schools adjudicators should be under a legal duty to consider, and this is in bold, my Lords, other ways of achieving effective and efficient provision in the area. If the local authority is seeking to reduce the pan for high performing schools in order to make a good decision, the school adjudicator should therefore be required in law to consult the relevant DfE regional directors. Therefore, we still have concerns around that, given the actually the CST that's been in touch with both ourselves, but also our colleagues down the corridor in terms of they're asking this government to go forward.

And I really hope that when the Minister does get up, that she's able to give us that confidence that the CST want as well.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Sewell yeah. The original question was that motion B be agreed to? Since then, motion B be agreed to? Since then, motion B1 has been moved as an amendment to motion B at the end to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion B1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. My Lords, I rise to also
16:58
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
>> My Lords, I rise to also acknowledge the work of the noble Lord Lord Mohammed in relation to school uniform and the focus that he has brought to this. In the later stages of this Bill, but in particular to speak to my motion C1 and again, I do recognise that the government has moved in relation to prioritising quality and parental preference, and it sounds like is going to move a bit further. If I followed what the noble Lady just said, but we don't believe that the amendment as drafted really resolves the issue at the heart of this.

So of course, on this side of the House, we recognise the pressure on schools and on local authorities from falling roles in certain parts of the country. But our concern is that there is a fundamental conflict of interest for local authorities. The easiest thing for them to do is to cut the published admission numbers of the larger and more popular schools, and in particular, if those schools are an academy, as a way of addressing that problem, the noble Baroness, the Minister, described my amendment as a blanket exemption.

We got an awful lot of blankets in the chamber this afternoon. I'm really don't see how one could interpret it as such. My amendment covers both academies and maintained schools, and its starting point is that in an area, consideration must be given to effective and efficient provision. Why? That is a blanket exemption. I'm not entirely clear, and it requires the school adjudicator to consider the shape of local provision, explicitly considering mergers and closures.

And the presumption is that we must prioritise what's best for children, which often will translate into the most popular schools and will often translate in how well they support children with special educational needs and disabilities, something which I know the government does not want to damage. So I think the principles of prioritising the quality of education and protecting parental choice need more than what the government has set out. Given that conflict of interest, which local authorities face.
17:01
Lord Agnew of Oulton Portrait Lord Agnew of Oulton (Conservative)
-
-
My Lord, could I rise to. >> Support Lady Barron's Motion C1? I just want to try and emphasise to the. >> Lady lady, the Minister, that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lady lady, the Minister, that schools with falling rolls receive an enormous support at the moment through lagged funding, so they are through lagged funding, so they are receiving receiving payment for pupils that they no longer have for at least a year. And on the other side of the coin, for those of us who are trying to improve previously failing schools, the opposite applies. We are we are part of something which is called estimated funding, which is in the current government.

And I respect the difficult financial position you face. But estimated funding is zero funding. And then to add to that, we have this new system that you're proposing with an adjudicator who can make the decision to go to an improving school as as happened to us before this was proposed as legislation to reduce the size of our pan because it was administratively convenient for the local authority to do that because they would have suffered no financial harm themselves. Lady Barron's motion strengthens the protection.

We're still left with the uncertainty of the whole process of how the adjudicator would work, how long it would take, whether we budget for increasing roles or not, pending some decision, which I have no idea how long will take. So, my Lords, I really would urge you to support Lady Band's motion and bring some common sense to this.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise. To support the. Points that have been made.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Points that have been made. By my. Noble friend Baroness Barran and my noble friend Lord Agnew. We're approaching the very Agnew. We're approaching the very end of our consideration of this piece of legislation, and it comes, of course, as we all reflect on the huge gains that have been made by English schools in the course of
17:02
Lord Gove Portrait Lord Gove (Conservative)
-
-
English schools in the course of the last two decades. The improvements in schools in England have not been matched by schools in Scotland or Wales, not because students in Scotland and Wales are less intelligent or teachers less motivated, but because the reforms that were introduced initially under Tony Blair and then sustained during the coalition years and thereafter had two principles at their heart greater autonomy for the front line and supporting good schools to expand so that the practice in good schools could be adopted by those schools that were performing less well and more students could benefit.

The two final elements that we're considering here a government cap on the number of labelled items of school uniform that a school can require of its students is a preposterous piece of micromanagement, driven by the worst sort of virtue signalling, which is designed to convey the fact that the government is on the side of the poor, even even as the measures on planned pupil admission numbers actually restrict the access of poor students to the very best schools.

When it comes to school uniform, we know from the voices of headteachers on the front line the benefits that an effective school uniform policy can have in contributing to ethos, in contributing to discipline, in contributing to a sense of inclusivity at a time when our society is increasingly tribalized and polarised. But rather than listen to the testimony of head teachers, including the country's very best head teacher, Katharine Birbalsingh, who's pointed out the folly of this policy, the government insists that the best way of helping the poor is price capping, and telling headteachers that it knows better.

All the evidence of history flies in the face of the course that the government is setting, and the fact that we have an absurd question about whether or not there should be an overall price cap or a price cap on particular items just shows the folly of going down this micro interventionist line. The second element that we're debating, of course, is pupil admissions numbers, and I'm grateful to the hon. Lady, the Minister, Baroness, the Minister, for acknowledging that there are reasons why we should take account of quality and we should take account of the wishes of pupils and parents.

But the most effective way of doing so is by not capping the growth of good schools, and what this legislation allows the government and its agencies to do is to cap the growth of those good schools in order to keep less good schools open and to provide a less good education in the name of bureaucratic and local government convenience. The purpose of school reform is to give pupils a better education, not to make life easier for bureaucrats or head teachers who are not performing their responsibility.

Once again, I wonder what was the point of the last two decades of education reform if the current government are going to look at those two decades when politicians across parties were united in increasing autonomy at the front line and helping good schools to expand, if this government will now diminish the force of both of those changes, it is not too late for the noble Lady. The Minister, who paid a very distinguished role in the governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, to say to the current Prime Minister and the current Education Secretary that it is time to learn the lesson from those who

**** Possible New Speaker ****

went before, rather than repeating the mistakes of a socialist and interventionist past. Yes, very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Very good. My Lords, several noble Lords have spoken in this small debate.
17:07
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
have spoken in this small debate. Can I particularly welcome the noble Lord Lord Gove to the consideration of this bill? I'm not sure he's contributed in the very many sessions that we've had up until this point, but better late than never and always he has. As always, he has something interesting to say, even if I think he's wrong and disagree with him. Let us focus, as this group does, on motion B and motion B1 relating to Lords Amendment 41, first of all, which seeks to require a review of the effectiveness of the limit on branded items of school uniform, with particular reference to introducing a monetary cap.

As I said in my opening speech, we believe that these amendments are necessary, as we will, of course, and I can give this commitment to the noble Lord. Monitor the impact as we implement the limit that doesn't need to be in legislation, and the amendment does risk creating some uncertainty for schools and parents at a time when schools will be implementing the limit, a limit for the information of noble Lords included in the government's manifesto, widely welcomed by parents and others, focussed on what we believe is the simplest way to deliver this, which is a limit on branded items in school uniforms.

And we've been clear about our concerns with a cost cap, which isn't the proposal here, and don't believe it would be the most effective way to reduce costs for parents. Our proposal for a numeric limit is clearer. Simpler will deliver savings more quickly and is overwhelmingly backed by parents. Moving on to the discussion about admissions, several noble Lords have spoken to motion C relating to amendment 102 and motion C1, which in insists on it, and amendment 102 seeks to limit the circumstances in which the adjudicator can specify a lower published admissions number.

I would just say I think this proposition in this legislation is very much a function of the time in terms of demography that we find ourselves in. Of course, if we were in a position where numbers of children in our schools were growing, all of us, as was the case with the last Labour government, would be very relaxed about allowing schools to expand with no control or very little limitation. But of course, that's not the situation we find ourselves in.

As I suggested in my opening speech, the fall in the numbers of children coming through the system will create difficult decisions to be made in areas. They will make the local authority responsibility to ensure a sufficiency of places more complex, and they will risk a situation where good schools are forced to close because of a failure to be able to consider the impact of falling numbers across a range of schools. That's a context in which we're introducing this measure.

This government supports good schools expanding where this is right for the local area. In fact, this measure may help secure more places in high performing schools in areas where there needed. But the noble Ladies Amendment does not allow sufficient nuance to ensure that local circumstances can be taken into account, especially in this time of changing demographics. Our amendment in lieu will ensure an independent decision can be taken by the adjudicator in the local context, and with school quality and parental preference at its heart, and I would just.

Respond to a few of the of the sort of charges made by noble Lords opposite the the noble Lady Baroness Barran is concerned, understandably, that local authorities might misuse this power to reduce places at academies to. To be clear, and I know the noble Lady knows this. Local authorities will not be able to set an Academy's pan. The schools adjudicator, not the local authority, will be the final decision maker. The adjudicator is independent and impartial and will come to their own independent conclusion on whether to uphold an objection to the Pan.

The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, I'm not sure, given his experience, including his ministerial experience, that he meant. This suggested that we were inventing a new set of in. In his and others words, bureaucrats here. That, of course, is not true. The school adjudicator system has existed and played a role very similar to this throughout the whole period of the last government. Throughout the period of the previous Labour government. This is not something new. And what's more, of course, the statutory school admissions code and new admission and new regulations that we've committed to will set out what the adjudicator must consider, whether they uphold an objection and subsequently set the pan for the school as reflected in our amendment.

School quality and parental choice will be central considerations. I will ensure this power is not used to prop up failing schools. They are independent school adjudicators, as I've said, having existed for some time, are independent. They have significant experience of considering objection cases. They already consider both objections to pan reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their pan downwards. In the light of the major change in circumstances, they possess considerable knowledge, extensive and comprehensive knowledge of the education system.

They include MAT CEO's head teachers, education lawyers and local authority directors. So I think this this characterisation of them as bureaucrats is both factually inaccurate and unfair. Our amendment ensures that the adjudicator, as I've said, the independent expert adjudicator, the system which has existed for very many years throughout several governments, will be required to. In making this decision to have regard to the impact on school quality and parental preference, and enables the government to.

Regulations on other matters which the adjudicator must or must not take of account of. When deciding on a pan and just to reiterate the point that I made in. In. In opening, we do recognise the point made by the Confederation of School Trusts about the requirement for the adjudicator, as well as considering quality and parental preference, to also be able to consider the impact, the effectiveness and efficiency of the provision in area and to consult key parties, including the relevant DfE Regional Director on their views on alternatives to reducing the Pan before making a determination, it is clear that alternatives must have been considered as part of this process and as I reiterated in my opening comments, collectively, this will ensure that reducing places is only ever a last resort and will only be done to deliver a choice of good local school places for communities and in fact, in some cases to protect good schools.

In the light of the demographic challenges that we are currently grappling with and which will only become more severe in the coming years, we will continue to engage with stakeholders on this, but I hope that noble Lords are reassured about our commitment to quality, to parental preference and to safeguarding those at a time of change and challenge. Given the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

demographic position. I thank the noble Baroness, the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Baroness, the Minister, for her response and in particular the issue around the particular the issue around the cost of school uniforms. And partly reassured, as I would say, in terms reassured, as I would say, in terms of your commitment, I wish you and your government well in terms of your government well in terms of trying to help with dealing with the costs of school uniforms. You can be rest assured it's not a topic I'm going to let go of in the next 12 months.

I'll be constantly snapping at your heels to make sure that the commitments you've given from the Dispatch Box are fulfilled. And with that, I beg. I am not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minded to test opinion of the House. Just a pleasure. That amendment B1B withdrawn. Amendment is by leave withdrawn. Question is that motion B be agreed to? As many of motion B be agreed to? As many of that opinion will say, content Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it. Motion C Baroness contents have it. Motion C Baroness Smith of Malvern moved formally.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have already spoken to motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment. 102 to which the Commons have disagreed and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 102C to 102G and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that the motion be agreed to motion C one Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Barran. I should.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Have known better. I think what we have heard this afternoon is we have heard this afternoon is that at the 11th hour, the government is focusing on trying to government is focusing on trying to get an amendment right on on published admission numbers. We haven't seen that work yet. It is the 11th hour, and as a result, I'd like to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Yeah. The original question was that motion C be agreed to since when motion C be agreed to since when motion C1 has been moved as an amendment to motion C to leave out from house to end and insert to insist on its amendment 102 and do disagree with the Commons and their disagree with the Commons and their amendments. 102C to 102G. The question, therefore, is that motion C1 be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content.

Content contrary, not content not. The question will be decided by division. I would advise the House when voting is open.
17:19
None Portrait Division
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is on The question is on motion. The question is on motion. C1 The question is on motion. C1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is on motion. C1 be agreed to. That opinion will say content contrary, not content. The content contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, not content to the left Order. Order. The Order. The question Order. The question is My Lords, there have voted. Contents 259 not contents 180. So the contents have it. Motion D Baroness Smith of Malvern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have already spoken to motion d that this House do not insist on its amendment 106 to insist on its amendment 106 to which the Commons have disagreed, and do agree with the Commons in

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and do agree with the Commons in their amendments. 106 C to 106EI beg to move. Question does the motion d be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to? Motion d one Baroness Barran. I'd like to test the opinion of the House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the House. The original question was that motion be agreed to since when motion D1 has been moved as an amendment to a motion D to leave out from house to end and insert. Do insist on its amendment 106, and do disagree with the Commons in their amendments. 106C to 106E the question, therefore, is that motion d1 be agreed to. As many of that content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The question will be decided by a division I will advise. The a division I will advise. The Heisman voting is open. To clear

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Order, Order, order. The question is the motion D1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion D1 be agreed to as many that opinion will say content contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not content to The The question My Lords, there have voted contents 276 not contents 169. So the contents have it. Repeat of a statement made in the House of Commons today. Security vetting Baroness Smith of Basildon.
17:43
None Portrait Statement: Security Vetting
-

17:43
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I'm repeating the statement the Prime Minister made earlier today. With permission, I'd earlier today. With permission, I'd like to provide the House with information that I now have about the appointment of Peter Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States. But before I go into details, I want to be very clear with the House that while this statement will focus on the process surrounding Peter Maddison's vetting and appointment at the heart of this, there's also a judgement that I made that was wrong.

I should not have appointed Peter Mandelson. I take responsibility for that decision and I apologise again to the victims of the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein, who were clearly failed by my decision. Last Tuesday evening, the 14th of April, I found out for the first time that on the 29th of January 2025, before Peter Manson took up his position as ambassador, the foreign as ambassador, the Foreign Office officials granted him developed vetting clearance against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom security.

Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Not only did the Foreign Office officials who made that decision did not pass this information on to me, to the Foreign Secretary, to her predecessor, to the deputy Prime Minister, or to any other Minister, even the former Cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald. I found this staggering. And therefore, last Tuesday, I immediately instructed officials in Downing Street and the Cabinet Office to urgently establish the facts on my authority. I wanted to know who made the decision on what basis, who knew, and I wanted that information for the precise and explicit purpose of updating the House.

Because this is information I should have had a long time ago. This information the House should have had a long time ago. It is information that I and the House had a right to know. I will now set out a full timeline of the events in the Peter Mandelson process, including from the fact finding exercise I instructed last Tuesday. Before doing so, I want to remind and reassure the House that the government will comply fully with the Humble Address motion the 4th of February.

In December 2024, I was in the process of appointing a new ambassador for Washington. A due diligence exercise was conducted by the Cabinet Office into Peter Manson's suitability, including questions put to him by my staff. In number ten. Peter Madison answered those questions on the 10th of December, and I received final advice on the due diligence process. On the 11th, I made the decision to appoint him. On the 18th of December. The appointment was announced on the 20th, and the security vetting process began the 23rd of December 2024.

I want to make it clear to the House that for a direct ministerial appointment, it was usual for security vetting to happen after the appointment, but before starting in post. That was the process in place at the time. This was confirmed by the former Cabinet secretary, Sir Chris Wormald, at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on the 3rd of November 2025. When he gave evidence, Sir Chris made clear, and I'm quoting him now, when we are making appointments from outside the civil service, the normal thing is for the security clearance to happen after appointment, but before the person signs a contract and takes up post at the same hearing, the same select committee.

The former permanent secretary to the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, said and I quote again, Peter Mandelson did not hold national security vetting when he was appointed. But he went on, as is normally the case with external appointments to my department and the wider civil service, the appointment was made subject to obtaining security clearance. After I sacked Peter Mandelson. I changed that process so that now an appointment can not be announced until after security vetting is passed. The security vetting was carried out by UK Security Vetting, that's UK s v between the 23rd of December 2024 and the 28th of January 2025, UK.

S v conducted vetting in the normal way, collecting relevant information as well as interviewing the applicant in this case on two occasions. Then, on the 28th of January, UK SP recommended to the Foreign Office that developed vetting. Clearance should be denied to Peter Mandelson the following day on the 29th of January, notwithstanding the UK s v recommendation that developed vetting clearance should be denied. Foreign office officials made the decision to grant developed vetting clearance for Peter Mandelson. Now to be clear, for many departments, a decision from UK SP is binding.

But for the Foreign Office, the final decision on developed vetting clearance is made by Foreign Office officials, not UK s v. However, once the decision in this case came to light, the Foreign Office's power to make the final decision on vetting clearance was immediately suspended by my Chief Secretary last week. Now I accept that sensitive personal information provided by an individual being vetted must be protected from disclosure. If that were not the case, the integrity of the whole process be compromised.

What I do not accept is that the appointing Minister cannot be told the recommendation by UK s v. Indeed, given the seriousness of those issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept that Foreign Office officials could not have informed me of Ucsf's recommendation, whilst also maintaining the necessary confidentiality that vetting requires. There is no law that stops civil servants sensibly flagging UK s v recommendations while protecting detailed, sensitive vetting information to allow Ministers to make judgements on appointments or on explaining matters to Parliament.

So let me be very clear. The recommendation of the Peter Mandelson case could and should have been shared with me before he took up his post. Let me make a second point. If I had known before he took up his post that the UK s recommendation was that developed vetting clearance should be denied, I would not have gone ahead with the appointment. Let me now move to September 2025 because events then and subsequently show with even starker clarity the opportunities missed by the Foreign Office officials to make the position clear.

On September the 10th, Bloomberg reported fresh details of Peter Mandelson's history with Epstein, and it was then clear to me that Peter Mandelson's answers to my staff in the due diligence exercise were not truthful, and I sacked him. I also changed the direct ministerial appointments process, so full due diligence is now required as standard. Where risks are identified, an interview must be taken pre appointment to discuss any risks and conflicts of interest, and a summary of this should be provided to the appointed Minister.

I also made clear that public announcements should not now be made until security vetting has been completed. In light of the revelations of September last year, I also agreed with the then Cabinet secretaries, Chris Wormald, that he would carry out a review of the appointment process in the Peter Mandelson case, including vetting. He set out his findings and conclusions in a letter to me on the 16th of September. He advised me in that letter and again I quote the evidence I have reviewed leads me to conclude the appropriate processes were followed in both the appointment and withdrawal of the former.

A Washington. When asked about this last week, the then Cabinet secretary was clear that when he carried out his review, the Foreign Office did not tell him about the UK s v recommendation that developed vetting. Clearance should be denied. Peter Mandelson I find that astonishing. As I set out earlier to you, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the recommendation before Peter Mandelson took up his post. I absolutely do not accept that the then Cabinet Secretary, an official, not a politician when carrying out that review, could not have been told when carrying out his review, that UK recommendation recommended that Peter Mandelson should be denied developed vetting clearance.

It was a vital part of the process that I had asked him to review. Clearly he could have been told and he should have been told on the same day as the then Cabinet secretary wrote to me, that's the 16th of September 2025. The Foreign Secretary, then permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, Olly Robbins, provided a signed statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. The statement says, and again, I quote, the vetting process was undertaken by UK security vetting on behalf of the FCDO and concluded with DV clearance being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up post in February.

It went on to say and again I quote Peter Mandelson, security vetting was conducted to the usual standard set for developed vetting in line with the established Cabinet Office policy. Let me be very clear to the House. This was in response to questions that included whether concerns were raised, what the Foreign Office response was and whether they were dismissed. The foreign the Foreign Secretary was advised on allowed to sign the statement by Foreign Office officials without being told that UK SV had recommended Peter Mandelson be denied develop.

Vetting clearance is absolutely unforgivable. This is a senior Cabinet member given evidence to Parliament on the very issues in question. Furthermore, in the light of further revelations about Peter Mandelson in February this year, I was very concerned about the fact that developed vetting clearance had been granted to him, not knowing that, in fact UK SV had recommended denial of developed vetting clearance and instructed my officials to carry out a review of the national security vetting process. As I have set out, I do not accept that I could not have been told about the UK's denial of security vetting before Peter Mandelson took up his post in January 2025.

I do not accept that the then Cabinet could not have been told in September 2025, when he carried out his review into the process, and nor do I accept that the Foreign Secretary could not have been told when making a statement to the select committee again in 2025. But on top of the fact, the fact that I was not told, even when I ordered a review of the UK SSB process is frankly staggering. I can tell the House that I have now updated the terms of reference for the review into security vetting, to make sure it covers the means by which all decisions are made in relation to national security vetting.

I have appointed Sir Adrian Fulford to lead that review, and separately, I've asked the government security group in the Cabinet Office to look at any security concerns raised during Peter Mandelson's tenure. I know many members across the House will find these facts to be incredible. To that I can only say they are right. It beggars belief that throughout this whole timeline of events, officials in the Foreign Office saw fit to withhold this information from the most senior Ministers in our system of government.

That is not how the vast majority of people in this country expect politics, government or accountability to work. And I do not think it's how most public servants think it should work either. I work with hundreds of civil servants, thousands, even, all of whom act with the utmost integrity, dedication and pride to serve this country, including officials in the Foreign Office who, as we speak. I did a phenomenal job representing our national interests in a dangerous world in Ukraine, in the Middle East, and all around the world.

This is not about them. But yet it is surely beyond doubt that the recommendation from UK CSV that Peter Mandelson should be denied developing developed vetting clearance was information that could and should have been shared with me on repeated occasions and therefore should have been available to this House and ultimately to the British people, and I commend this statement to the House.
17:55
Lord True Portrait Lord True (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, this is a torturous >> My Lords, this is a torturous and frankly, somewhat embarrassing statement. Stable door after stable statement. Stable door after stable door pushed shut long after the obvious national security risk had bolted through them. My Lords, the Prime Minister is still answering questions on the statement. In the other place, it would have surely have been better if it had been repeated here in prime time, at a time when your Lordships had had a chance to digest the Prime Minister's words, the reactions to them, and the response of Sir Olly Robbins tomorrow we made that reasonable request and the government rejected it.

So will the noble Baroness, our leader, give an assurance that, if asked, she will come back to this House tomorrow to answer questions on Sir Olly Robbins response to today's account of events, the noble Baroness must know what everybody knew, apart from, it seems, the Prime Minister that Peter Mandelson was totally unsuitable to be our ambassador to the USA. The statements repeated defence, as we've just heard, is the Prime Minister wouldn't have appointed Mandelson if he had known his vetting had failed.

But, my Lords, you didn't need vetting. To see Mandelson was a proven liar. You didn't need vetting to see. He was twice forced to resign in disgrace from government. You didn't need vetting, dear. He revelled in the company of what he called the filthy rich from whatever dubious nation that might be. You didn't need vetting to know. He was a known associate and defender of the convicted paedophile Epstein. You didn't need vetting or process, my Lords. You needed gumption, judgement and common sense things you cannot contract subcontract those things to a Whitehall committee.

Wasn't there anyone at any stage in this who asked the simple question is this wise? The Prime Minister says that Mandelson lied in the course of his vetting. Should we be surprised? Well, no. My Lords, though it seems the Prime Minister was. That is the crux of the matter. And what is absolutely staggering is the truly spectacular scale of the failure of judgement of the Prime Minister in appointing such a man. It embarrasses the Labour movement, which does not deserve to be embarrassed in such a way.

And no amount of casuistical argument, such as we've just heard, can efface that personal responsibility. One man picked Mandelson, one man pushed him. And the issue, my Lords, is not the who knew what when about Mandelson's vetting, but what everybody knew then about Mandelson before he was appointed, all of which the Prime Minister ignored this. My Lords is a Prime Minister. On his third Cabinet Secretary, three in under two years a legion of advisers has been selected, then shoved out of number ten as scapegoats for some panic or crisis of confidence isn't the truth.

It's always someone else to blame. My Lords, I valued the old conventions that Ministers took responsibility. Civil servants were rarely named in this place and never blamed whatever happened to those conventions. Why was an outstanding ambassador shoved out of Washington to make way for the likes of Mandelson, because the Prime Minister wanted it and wanted it quick? Why was the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office, Sir Olly Robbins, sacked? Because the Prime Minister wanted a scapegoat and wanted it quick? Isn't the fact of the matter this.

The Prime Minister wanted his man Mandelson, come hell or high water, and the Civil Service was seeking to accommodate his instructions. So can the noble Baroness tell the House Did Sir Olly Robbins act against the law, a code or outside proper process in any way in enabling Mandelson to go forward despite vetting advice? If so, will she tell the House his specific offences? If not, can she say on what grounds? Sir Ollie has been fairly dismissed. The Prime Minister has admitted he was aware vetting had not been done on Mandelson when he named him.

We know the then Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord Lord Case, advised him to wait for that to be done. Why did the Prime Minister ignore that advice? Can she say if the Prime Minister or number ten at any stage, asked about the vetting and mandelson's links to China or Russia? Is it true, my Lords, that the National security adviser warned the process was, quote, weirdly rushed? Is it true, as the Deputy Prime Minister said just this weekend, that there were, quote, time pressures to get Mandelson cleared? Is it true, as the Foreign Secretary said at the weekend, that officials were instructed to give, quote, priority clearance to Mandelson? My Lords, it looks as if on the Prime Minister's wishes the process for Mandelson's clearance was put in what was called.

How was it in the Covid era? The VIP lane and we all know what became of that due process was followed by Sir Oli that has not been challenged. All the program, all the problems arose from the undue haste of the Prime Minister to force through his man and gladhand it with him in number ten. My Lords, the statement reveals a world beyond. Yes, Prime Minister, a bureaucracy of bizarre complexity in which you cannot see the wood for the legalese, where people have to seek legal advice before they talk to each other, whether inquiries, into inquiries, into inquiries, whether Prime Minister sits staggered, unbelieving, unknowing at the heart of a system over which he has presided for two years, processing and reprocessing process for all the world.

Like Sir Humphrey Appleby. My Lords, we've not had time to assess in detail the minutiae of this statement. We have not been permitted to hear Sir Ollie's side of the case before being asked to consider it. We will come back to those things. But what must be clear to all is the astonishing lack of judgement by the Prime Minister in making this appointment. The dire consequences of his undue haste, and the rank smell of the blame game, and dumping on senior civil servants things which should have no place in the conduct of good government.
18:02
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Hear, hear. in this statement is the recognition of the victims of the crime of Jeffrey Epstein. We are only able to know what we know about an appointment which should never have been made, because of the patience and the persistence of the victims, and they should be at the forefront of all of our minds. At the start of this, on the 11th of November 2024, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, gave very clear and appointment specific advice to the Prime Minister if he chose to make a political appointment for the ambassador in Washington.

I quote from the advice published in the first release of documents on the March 11th this year. I quote if this is the route that you wish to take, you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint, and we would develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential conflicts of interest or issues of which you should be aware. Before confirming your choice. This advice was specific.

It was not about seeking clearance after the appointment, it was about seeking security clearances before confirming the choice in the House of Commons, editor David asked the Prime Minister why this advice was disregarded and Peter Mandelson's appointment was both confirmed. Approved by the king and announced prior to necessary security clearances being acquired. The Prime Minister replied that the subsequent review of the process had confirmed it was followed. This was a non-answer because the process was the Cabinet Secretary providing advice, which he did, but the Prime Minister chose to disregard it.

In the bundle of papers released in March, there was missing a minute between this advice and an A reference on the 12th of December, a month later to Peter Mandelson being referred to as the lead candidate, can the leader confirm that Parliament has been presented with all of the information between the advice from the Cabinet Secretary in November and the 12th of December, where it was indicated that Peter Mandelson was now the lead candidate, why is there no record of what the Prime Minister did with this advice issued on 11th of November? Just a few days later, on the 18th of December, the Palace was informed of the decision to appoint Mandelson.

Contrary to the advice that necessary security clearances should be acquired. What is all the more concerning, though, is subsequently, we have been told that the Prime Minister regretted making the appointment as a result of Mandelson's lies in the due diligence process. But why an appointment in the first place was made when the Prime Minister had been given the advice on the 11th of December, on due diligence of Peter Mandelson is staggering. I remind the House of what that advice on the due diligence process was, and I remind the House that this was the lead candidate for appointment after Epstein was first, after Epstein was first convicted of procuring an underage girl in 2008, their relationship continued across 2009 1011, beginning when Lord Mandelson was business Minister and continuing after the end of the Labour government.

Mandelson reportedly stayed in Epstein's house while he was in jail in June 2009. In 2014, Mandelson also agreed to be a founding citizen of an ocean conservation group founded by Ghislaine Maxwell and funded by Epstein. This information, surely alone should have been the basis where, prior to any announcement, the Prime Minister should have decided that the reputational risk was too high given the ongoing legal and congressional actions in the US at the time, he did not. The Prime Minister made a decision to set aside advice on acquiring vetting approval prior to making the announcement on the 20th of December, and also to set aside the reputational risk linked with Epstein's crimes.

Can the leader confirm the Foreign Secretary saw the due diligence checklist report also on business conflicts and the Epstein links, when he said in the government press release on the 20th of December, I quote, it is wonderful to welcome Peter back to the team. The statement today now puts all the blame on FCA FCDO officials and none of accountability on Ministers. The Prime Minister stated today, given the seriousness of these issues and the significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept.

FCDO officials could not have informed me of the UK s v recommendations after Mandelson had been announced and his name had gone to the Palace two days before the press release. Given the seriousness and significance of the appointment, I simply do not accept the Prime Minister's rationale for disregarding the advice given to him on the 11th of November that vetting should be acquired before the appointment, not before taking post, but quite astonishing, the Prime Minister says if I had known before he took up his post, the UK s v recommendations was that development vetting should be now be denied.

I would not have gone ahead with the appointment, but the appointment had already been made. Now we must. We must assume that there are questions on the accountability to pass to Parliament. The Prime Minister's statement today refers to the letter that the Foreign Secretary, alongside the permanent Foreign Permanent Secretary, Sir Olly Robbins, provided to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. And it said that it concluded with DB virens being granted by the FCDO in advance of Lord Mandelson taking up the post.

This misled Parliament and the government is saying that those who are accountable for that should not be the Ministers, but should be officials. Dismissed. We will hear from the sacked official. But the Prime Minister's statement alludes to other officials prior to Sir Olly taking up his post and other officials, and we are left with the uncomfortable position of the fact that only people who cannot, cannot answer to Parliament will be blamed and no Ministers who are accountable to Parliament will indeed be held to account.

We await Parliamentary committee's work. The I s work and I suspect we will also await the ministerial adviser report. Also, other Ministers have been held to account for what they've told Parliament. Surely it must be the case that the Prime Minister and Ministers in this government are also.
18:10
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
My Lords. I'll do my best to >> My Lords. I'll do my best to answer the questions in the time available. First, in response to the noble Lord True who complained the noble Lord True who complained about the timing of the statement, he usually asks me to repeat statements made by the Prime Minister as soon as possible. It was my judgement on this. Given the seriousness of the issue, given the seriousness of the issue, that we should do it as soon as possible.

And and he said about it in prime time, I think the house was pretty full. I think the house is pretty full. That's one less full at the moment. It's pretty full to hear the statement. It's and it's right that it is. So, given the seriousness of it. He asked, if I come back tomorrow, I will always repeat Prime Minister's statements in this House and take questions from your Lordships on any issue raised by the Prime Minister in the normal way and take questions in the normal way.

I think the number got slightly confused between vetting and due diligence. The Prime Minister didn't. There's no evidence that Peter Mandelson lied during the vetting process, because we don't know what the vetting process has said. Well, the Prime Minister had said that he feels he was not given accurate answers during the due diligence process, and he said that was the wrong decision to appoint Peter Mandelson, for which he's apologised. And I'm grateful to Lord Purvis for raising the issue of victims because too often we have political debates at the heart of this.

This started when the Epstein files were released, and I don't think had those Epstein files been released, we'd have known the extent of the relationship with Peter Mandelson and Jeffrey Epstein. Certainly the issues around evidence, the information he was sending to him, the depth of the content, the contact they had, was not aware. What we are talking about here, I think, is a failure of government, and it is extraordinary. Yes, it is a failure of good governance and that there should be information made available to Ministers who are taking decisions, and the fact that it was not made available is, as he said, extraordinary.

Chris, what's the Chris Wormald has reviewed the process that was taken, and it was correct, and I would correct him and said that the. And the Lord Purvis Peter Madsen didn't get vetting approval. The whole point is he was given vetting approval. And that's where I think people are quite astounded by this, in that the UK security vetting and the form is on the government website. You can for people to see. But it has two blocks and it looks at the issue there.

This green, amber and red. And it's you know, what is the issues and then what is the recommendation? And the recommendation on that was not to give vetting, but the Foreign Office made the decision that they could pass the vetting. And it is one of these things. It's a recommendation. But the vetting was then granted by the Foreign Office. So he was granted that vetting. And it is a fact that I think for anyone could not imagine that with that information.

When the Prime Minister was being asked, when other Ministers are being asked and they are given the information, they are told that he has had the vetting, that somebody did not flag the concerns raised, and the recommendation was not to grant that vetting. So, my Lords, the Prime Minister apologised for the appointment of Peter Mandelson. But in this case, I think he is quite right to be angry and concerned that he did not. He was not informed of red flags that were raised.

My Lords, the. He asked me about what did Olly Robbins do wrong? I think tomorrow it may be. It may be he lost confidence of Ministers, quite clearly not giving the information, but in terms of the process that was available, I think most of us think there is an issue of judgement in how Ministers and how officials would deal with information they are given, and I was having he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. But I find it hard to believe that anybody in this House who had that information would consider it was appropriate not to provide that information to the Prime Minister and other Ministers who are making the decisions.

So, my Lords, this has been difficult. It is a difficult way for the government forward, but I think the Prime Minister's decisions on changing the process. So we don't have such a process in future, that it should be absolutely clear that due diligence and vetting have been passed before any appointments announced. I think that would be a more sensible way forward and the review that is taken forward. I think we should shine a light on this and look for a better way forward.
18:14
18:15
18:16
18:16
18:17
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
Yeah, I'm grateful to the noble Lord and he's right. I think when Lord and he's right. I think when you see the multiple opportunities there were to inform the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary that the recommendation for the UK SRV was that the process, the vetting would not be granted. It is extraordinary that it wasn't passed on to Ministers. The reason for the statement today is the Prime Minister said he wanted the earliest opportunity as soon as he had more information, to present it to the House, and he has done that.

Solly Robbins has given evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select committee tomorrow, and there'll be information available after that. But I think, you know, I don't want to paraphrase. I like looking in the papers and reading it. I think he thought he was doing the right thing, but I think I do have concerns that his interpretation of the law may not have been right, because it seems to me extraordinary that you could withhold information of this seriousness. And for Ministers, the very reason and the purpose for such a process of vetting is that those that are making the decisions have the information they need on which to make those decisions.

And if they're not given that information, it seems I think most people are just find it extraordinary. There would be, I think, a natural assumption that when you go through this process, those that are making the decisions have access and information provided to them. And if any red flags were flown up by the vetting process, it should be provided to Ministers. But there will be the opportunity. There is a select committee tomorrow and we may hear more about this.
18:19
18:21
18:22
18:22
18:23
18:24
18:25
18:26
18:26
18:27
18:27
18:28
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
process may be very similar, and this is one undertaken by the UK s v and there is a summary that is provided. It's not a pass or fail in the sense, but they'll look at in the sense, but they'll look at concerns whether it's low, moderate or high concerns they have. And then the overall decision, they can then the overall decision, they can approve the clearance, they can approve it with risk management or it can be denied. The difference it can be denied.

The difference here is that the Foreign Office, on getting that recommendation, did not have to follow the recommendation, and the Foreign Office could have did and could override. I think what's the concern is here that if there were doing so, they did not inform Ministers of the outcome of the vetting. And that's, I think, the thing that's caused the most concern with Ministers, that at various opportunities there were to inform Ministers that the vetting was granted. It was against the recommendation of the UK agency.

That means that that information was never passed on, and that's the main area of concern.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Crossbench, crossbench. Crossbench. Lords. Thank you. Is it possible

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lords. Thank you. Is it possible that the reason why the Foreign Office did not inform the Prime Office did not inform the Prime Minister that they had overruled the security advice, which they're perfectly entitled to do, was that perfectly entitled to do, was that they knew very well that the Prime Minister was so wedded to the
18:29
18:30
Baroness Smith of Basildon Portrait Baroness Smith of Basildon, Leader of the House of Lords and Lord Privy Seal (Labour)
-
-
and not let the Prime Minister or other Ministers know they were making that judgement, so they might think they know what's in the Prime Minister's mind, but actually they have to give the Prime Minister the information. It's also a case, I think, that the Prime Minister was clear that had he known this, and I think that goes for other Ministers. They've got a different a different outcome. But it comes to the point if what is the point of such a system, if those that are actually making the decisions on appointment are not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

given the outcome of that process? Conservative conservative. Minister made it clear that he

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Minister made it clear that he would have not made the appointment if he'd had the information from UK if he'd had the information from UK security vetting. So can I ask the Leader of the House? At any point did the Prime Minister or those working for him, ask what the result of the UK security vetting process was? And if not, why not?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My understanding is that the Foreign Office was asked to provide this to number ten, and the Prime this to number ten, and the Prime Minister, and I couldn't tell you who asked who, but that information was requested because it had been was requested because it had been raised, but they were never informed that it had been the recommendation. What they were told recommendation. What they were told is that it had been passed by the Foreign Office. So they were told it had been passed by the Foreign it had been passed by the Foreign Office.

They weren't told it was against the recommendation of UK.
18:31
Baroness Foster of Oxton Portrait Baroness Foster of Oxton (Conservative)
-
-
First, I'd like to echo the comments that have been made by comments that have been made by Lord True with some very searching questions, and I thank the noble Baroness, the leader, for her Baroness, the leader, for her statement today. The point I wanted to raise is a question I've raised twice. There will be long and thorough discussions concerning the vetting process. But what we do know that despite the vetting process taking place, following the decision by the Prime Minister to appoint Lord Mandelson at that time, the Prime Minister knew and knowingly appointed Lord Mandelson as our ambassador to the United States of America, knowing he was already still in it, still friendly with a convicted paedophile.

So these are two separate issues. So when you look at judgement, I'd ask the noble Baroness, the Leader of the House, does she really consider

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that this Prime Minister showed any judgement at all? Yes. I've already.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Been clear to the House. I do trust the Prime Minister's judgement, and I'm absolutely clear that on that one, she's raising two that on that one, she's raising two quite separate things. One, the Prime Minister is clear that when the due diligence process was the due diligence process was undertaken, he was not given accurate information by Peter Mandelson and he said he would have made a different decision. He made a different decision. He regrets that decision. The issue of vetting is a different purpose and the vetting are issues, for example, of national security.

And it is inconceivable that when the recommendation from UK security vetting was that they should not grant clearance in that case, that it was that was not accepted by the Foreign Office, and then that the Prime Minister and other Ministers weren't told. And I come back to the point I made to Lord Pannick if you want to have this process which is intrusive and robust, what is the point if that information is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not given to those who make the decisions? Does the noble Lady aware if the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Does the noble Lady aware if the Foreign Office have been turning down red flag security briefings down red flag security briefings before on ambassadors, how many more times has this been happening? Because if so, what is the point of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Because if so, what is the point of spending money on security services if nobody listens to them? Yes. It's not just ambassadors. It's
18:33
18:34
18:34
18:36
18:37
18:37
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion a that this House do not insist on its amendment one to which the Commons have disagreed for their Commons have disagreed for their reason. 1AI will also speak to motions B, b, one, and c, my Lords, I'm moving. Motion A that the House did not insist on its amendment, one which the commenter disagreed with on the grounds that it introduced, rather than mitigate risks that the provisioning clause two could be used in unintended ways. Amendment one would place an exhibit an explicit prohibition on regulations made under clause two, including any provision requiring investment in particular assets or assets clauses or in particular locations.

My Lords, I acknowledge the concern that lies behind this amendment, and I wish to reiterate the government's position clearly for the benefit of the House. The government has no intention of using the powers in clause two to require all companies to invest in specific assets, asset classes or locations. The bill, as drafted, does not provide a legal basis for the government to tell asset pool companies what investment should be made or where those investments should be located. Indeed, by expressly setting out particular matters, the regulations may not address the amendment risks.

Introducing ambiguity about the scope of the regulatory making power. It could invite. The inference. The matters not explicitly excluded are in fact permissible. Such an approach could therefore weaken the clarity of the legislative framework and increase the risk of misapprehension, misinterpretation or challenge. I would also note that in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that the powers to make LGPS regulations had to be interpreted in line with Parliament's intention, which was that LGPS investment decisions should be made in a way consistent with fund's fiduciary duties.

Whilst the bill provides for asset pool companies to take investment decisions rather than funds, there is nothing in the bill which overrides this broader intention, meaning there is nothing in the bill that allows government to tell asset pool companies to invest in specific assets. Specific asset classes or specific locations. For these reasons, my Lords, the Commons were of the view that one is both unnecessary and potentially counterproductive. The government agrees with that assessment. Turning to motion B, the House does not insist on that.

The House did not insist on its amendment five, because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to impose the publication requirements mentioned in the amendment, and that any additional requirements should be considered after the next report under section 13 of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 has been prepared. I also thank the noble Lord Viscount Younger for his amendment in Lieu Motion B one, the intent of which I believe is already substantively met by the government. Statutory section 13 review of the LGPS valuations and the consultation on regulation 64, which relates to interim valuations that MCHLG has already committed to running later this year, and Lord Dear the 2025 LGPS valuation has recently concluded, and I'm pleased to note that taken across the whole scheme, the average employer contribution rate reported at the 2025 valuations of the LGPS England and Wales has reduced by slightly less than 5% of pensionable pay, relative to the equivalent amount quoted for the 2022 valuations.

This figure has been been confirmed by the by the Gad's analysis of the published valuation reports. There is, of course, variation to this across the country, and I understand the concern with ensuring ensuring that valuations are bouncing stability for the scheme with value money for the tax payer, as I referred to at both committee and Report stage under section 13 of the Public Service Pension Schemes Act, 2013. MCHLG appoints the government actuary to undertake a review of the valuation as part of this review.

I have already committed that the Department will ask the government actuary for a consideration of the issue of prudence, specifically, the government Actuary's Department will look at the levels of prudence inherent in the contribution rates set by funds to ensure a balanced view of liabilities is being taken in the context of an open scheme. This will include any prudence margins used within the discount rates, but will also include other sources of prudence, such as the stability buffers and stabilised mechanisms, stabilisation or other mechanisms used by funds.

Whilst the Government Secretary Department's Actuary's Department do not believe that any of the actual firms would characterise their valuation methods as being guilt based, they recognise that some of the rates used by funds in the 2025 valuation are similar to prevailing gilt yields at the valuation date. Discount rates have therefore been set by reference to the long term investment horizon and characteristics of the actual assets backing liabilities, but then reduced by some funds to gilt rate levels by the inclusion of prudence and stability margins.

My Lords, I can also further commit that the Department will ask the government to consider the methods being adopted by fund actuaries for managing risk and reflecting the long term funding objectives of the scheme. Whether there would be benefit to including additional illustrative valuations in valuation reports and, if so, what they should be based on and whether pension funds and their actuaries are engaging effectively with employers in relation to the setting of contribution rates, including whether the information is being provided in a way that is comprehensible to the lay reader.

The government has already committed to publishing their section 13 report next spring, and acceleration of previous timetables. In addition, the department committed to consulting on interim contribution rates later this year. This consultation will consider how and when it might be appropriate for an employer to use the review. This review mechanism, including significant shifts in financial pressures on local authorities and other employers. It would also consider whether there should be a link to the section 13 review of valuation. My Lords, I trust these points give reassurance that the government takes the your Lordships' House Lordships House's concerns seriously and that the section 13 review will address these.

So I respectfully ask that the noble Lord Viscount Younger does not press his amendment. Finally, turning to motion, see. Amendment six seeks to update the current regulation that allows employers to seek an interim review of contributions within the three yearly cycle of valuations. As I said previously on the question of access to interim reviews of contribution rates, the Department has already committed to consulting on interim contribution rates reviews later this year. This consultation will consider how and when it might be appropriate for an employer to use this review mechanism, including whether there should be a link to section 13, review of valuation and the relative balance of responsibility between the fund actuary and the administering authority.

Any such changes would then be brought forward by the government in regulations. Having followed the proper process and met the statutory requirement to consult, and Noah would also be pleased to hear that departmental officials have already made clear to administrative authorities that that should they receive requests for an interim review of their valuations, that they need to engage with their substance, communicating clearly and transparently the process, and that any review must be in line with the policies set out in the funding strategy statement.

Urge all noble Lords to support motion A, B and C and not to press the amendment in Lieu motion B1. I beg to move.
18:44
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
The question is that motion A, B agreed to? >> My Lords, speaking to motion B1, I want to begin by welcoming the fact that the government have committed to a review of regulation 64 A of the Local Government 64 A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. That is an important and necessary step and further commitments today are most welcome. But, my Lords, if the review is to be meaningful, it must focus on the factors that directly drive employer contribution rates.

In particular, it should examine the effectiveness of consultation between fund actuaries, administering authorities and scheme employers. Secondly, the review must examine outliers in valuations. There is increasing evidence that some funds are applying discount rates that are significantly more prudent than those implied by gilt yields or insurer pricing. Despite the local government pension scheme being an open funded and asset backed scheme. Thirdly, section 51 offices are rightly expected to scrutinise expenditure rigorously, including pension contributions, just as they would any other area of spending.

When budgets are tight and local taxpayers are under strain, those responsible must be able to understand the methodologies being used, weigh the trade offs and, where necessary, challenge the conclusions reached by fund actuaries. So it was with these concerns in mind that amendments were tabled in committee. As the noble Lord will be aware, where such issues arise of the kind that I have already outlined, there is currently little recourse. Employers may be forced to wait up to three years for the next valuation cycle before any action can be taken, and that is a considerable period to carry contribution rates, which may be excessive or difficult to justify.

So the principle in our amendment is simple. The review identifies the problem. The interim review under 64 provides the remedy on these points. I am glad that the government has broadly recognised the concerns that I have raised in my amendment, and I shall be listening to the remainder of the debate. The debate on this group, but I am more assured now reassured that this is a priority for the government and that they are aware of the concerns that we have outlining that have been outlining.

And I want to thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his movement on this. Well done. Well done.
18:47
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, first of all, thank >> My Lords, first of all, thank the Lord, the Minister, for explaining things in great detail from the government's perspective. Local government. First of all, I'd like to speak to be one where the noble Lord councillor says things are already being met. I think was his words. Local government pension schemes already have mechanisms to review and amend employer pension contributions and funding practices. For instance, under section 64 A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013, there is even an existing JD reporting mechanism under the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, which reports on compliance, consistency, solvency and long term cost efficiency.

With such reports have been carried out in 2018, 2019 and 2024. We on these benches, therefore think the government's efforts should be focussed as they are. I think more on implementing the recommendations of those reports rather than the duplicating efforts. And so I don't think we will be I think we will be abstaining probably on B1. We we recognise its importance, but we think it's already been met. Motion C of course, a government motion. So I come really on to motion D local amendments.

13 would extend the period before a pension pot is classified as dormant, increasing the threshold from one year to three years. We supported this increase earlier in this bill as it will provide greater flexibility for savers like mothers and those on sabbatical or mature, mature students. D1, which is an amendment from Baroness Altmann, would.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I just want to D and D one of the amendments on the next group for the Nobel. Has been moved.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Has been moved. Not yet. It's in the second. One on here. It's on the second. It's on the second group.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

second group. Oh I see, so sorry. Yeah, yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. So so so on. I I'm sorry. Yes. So so so on. I forgive me, I was going on to going forgive me, I was going on to going on to the next group. So, so on these this amendment, we will be abstaining rather than being against it really because we think these things already are in process if dealt with properly. Thank you. Thank you.
18:50
Lord Katz Portrait Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
I'm glad for once that our conversations about on the LGPS has been short and sweet. I'd like to. I'd like. Well, first I'd like to I would I'd I'd like to. I'd like to thank both opposition frontbenchers for their for their engagement on this issue, and I'm glad, particularly from the. In the case of Nobel law, Viscount Younger recognised that there has been. There has been movement. I think we There has been movement. I think we kind of. We understand that the importance of the prioritise the.

And the as attached to the nature of the reviews. And I hope that what we've said and has kind of met his. Met his need for that for, for, for us to kind of be demonstrating that we're taking it seriously, which of course, we are in response to the noble Lord Lord Farmer. I just hope, hopefully we'll be in a position where his abstinence will not be needed, because we won't be testing the opinion in the House. But we shall. We shall see. With

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, I beg to move. The question is the motion be agreed to? As many of that opinion agreed to? As many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Motion B Baroness Sherlock. Nearly there. I've spoken. I've already spoken

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've spoken. I've already spoken to the House. Do not insist on amendment five, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 5AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is the motion B be agreed to motion b1. Viscount agreed to motion b1. Viscount Younger of Leckie the question is that motion B be agreed to. As many of that opinion say, content the of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion C Baroness Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motion C that this House do not insist on its amendment. Six to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons. 6AI beg to move. The question is the motion c be agreed to as many of that opinion say, content the contrary, not content. The contents have it motion d Baroness Sherlock.
18:51
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion d that this House do not insist on its amendment 13, to which the its amendment 13, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 13 a I will also speak to motions JJ1K, k one and l well, as I have previously outlined, we cannot accept Lords Amendment 13 on small pots or the revised motion D one amendment 13 B tabled by the noble Baroness Altmann, which would extend the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months or 24 months respectively.

But extending the threshold will materially lengthen the period for which a pot remains dormant. This will be detrimental to both to individual members who would incur multiple sets of charges for longer and to the wider scheme membership, who effectively subsidised these small deferred pots which are uneconomic for schemes to administer. We estimate that extending the dormancy period from 12 to 24 months would generate additional industry costs of around £25 million a year, which would most likely simply be passed on to members.

But Lords, this government didn't invent this scheme. The 12 month time frame formed part of the proposal that was consulted on in 2023, with stakeholders across the pension industry and consumer representative bodies, and it reflects a supportive middle ground. The previous government concluded that a period of 12 months struck the appropriate balance, allowing eligible pots to be identified for consolidation while seeking to avoid certain situations, for example, where individuals who for a range of reasons, may have temporarily ceased pension contributions but remain with the existing employer and are likely to return to pension saving 12 months, was not plucked out of thin air.

It was a judgement underpinned by consultation and evidence, not speculation, and it's supported by a strong set of safeguards, most notably the individual's right to opt out of consolidation. Throughout the development of this policy, my department has engaged with a range of stakeholders, including consumer representative bodies, for example, which were part of our small pots delivery group, and they have welcomed the safeguards they put in place, which they agree are sufficient. Now, I understand from previous debates that noble Lords, including the noble Lady Baroness Altmann, have concerns that 12 months might be too short for certain individuals, particularly those who have career breaks, safe maternity leave or caring responsibilities who are experienced.

Fluctuating earnings from the 12 month dormancy period is only triggered when no contributions at all have been made for a full year, so periods of paid maternity leave, for example, would see contributions continue and a pot would only become dormant after 12 months of unpaid leave. They're currently only pots worth £1,000 or less will be eligible for consolidation. For context, a full time worker on the National Living Wage would typically exceed that threshold. After nine months of saving. That means individuals with longer periods of continuous employment are unlikely to have pots that fall into scope.

It can't be a common occurrence that someone who saved less than £1,000 and then had no contributions for at least 12 months, would then recommence saving with the same employer once it had entered dormancy. Nevertheless, we recognise such circumstances could occur. That's why we've built in strong safeguards into the policy. Most importantly, every member will receive a transfer notice ahead of any consolidation, giving them a clear opportunity to opt out if they judge the consolidation is not in their best interests.

Finally, and crucially, the bill already requires regulations to set a minimum 12 month period for a pot to be classified as dormant. That threshold could be set at a longer period, or it could be extended in future through secondary legislation. If the evidence were to justify such a change. I think we all agree on the need to consolidate small pots to protect those savers and all other members from multiple years of charges on multiple pots, eating away at their savings. I hope the noble Lady Baroness Altmann can see that extending the dormancy period harms the vast majority of members in a known and avoidable way to to add further protection for a very small number of hypothetical cases.

And the best way to protect those cases is through building full and proper safeguards into the policy, which is what this bill does. And after that compelling argument, I hope she will be willing not to press her amendment when we come to that point. Let me turn to amendments. Lords amendment 77, which would require the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to conduct and publish a review of the long term affordability of public service pension schemes because the government cannot accept the amendment as it is unnecessary and also technically defective.

It is unnecessary. As detailed information about the cost of the unfunded public service pension schemes is already publicly available. The OBR undertakes analysis of both the near-term and the long term cost of the schemes, including the Treasury's central measure of affordability, 50 year projections of pension payments as a proportion of GDP. Contrary to suggestions made at Committee stage and indeed at report, the cost of the schemes is forecast to fall under this measure from 1.9% of GDP to 1.4% at the port.

We heard suggestions that savings arising from the Hutton reforms had not materialised and would not materialise, but Lord Dannatt simply incorrect. The coalition government forecasts savings of around £400 billion by 2065, as a result of the substantial reforms made to the schemes in 2014 2015. But implementation of the reforms was effectively set back because the courts found that the way in which the coalition government had introduced the reforms was discriminatory on grounds of age that incurred costs of around 17 billion.

But crucially, it does not impact the savings going forward. And those are the key driver behind the fall in costs over the long term. Every four years, detailed actuarial valuations of each of the schemes are undertaken and published. They set out the cost of providing benefits to current staff and the cost of meeting all accrued liabilities. The valuations test the cost of the schemes against the cost control mechanism introduced by the coalition government as part of the Hutton reforms, and they provide for benefits to be adjusted if those have deviated from target levels.

Pension costs are also set out in the financial accounts for each of the schemes and collectively in the whole of government accounts. This information is produced in accordance with international accounting standards. Some of the amendment isn't necessary because the risks arising from changes to longevity are already managed in the design of the schemes. This was something that came up at report. The retirement age in the schemes, except those for police, firefighters and armed forces, is the state pension age. And in any case, the cost control mechanism will be triggered if costs rose above.

If costs rose due to longevity improvements that were not managed by changes to state pension age. Lord Low suggestion made at report was the fact. The fact that some of the public service pension schemes are operated on a pay as you go basis means they must be unaffordable. But unfunded doesn't mean unaffordable. In general, the government does not pre-fund future liabilities by holding assets in relation, excuse me, assets at all. Indeed, details of the government's policy on whether or not to hold assets in relation to specific liabilities, to set out clearly in managing public money at annexe 416, should anyone want to look it up.

And there's clearly an opportunity cost to holding assets in a fund which are invested with the sole objective of having enough returns to meet future liabilities. Holding funds can create technically allocative inefficiencies across the public sector. The liability can clearly be more efficiently managed in the round, with other unfunded, unfunded liabilities met out of general taxation as they fall due. And finally, the amendment does not work because it requires the Secretary of State for pensions to undertake a review on a matter which does not fall within their responsibilities and for which statutory responsibility sits elsewhere, including within the devolved administrations.

So there's already comprehensive information that's available, published and regularly updated on the cost of public service pensions. There is demonstrably already transparency on all of the points raised by noble Lords during the debates, and the amendment is, in the government's view, therefore unnecessary. We will continue to ensure public service pensions are properly costed, transparently reported and kept under review through existing mechanisms. So I hope the noble Lady will not press her amendment. Let me turn to amendment 78 and 70 and 78 and 86.

These amendments engage Commons financial privilege. The House of Commons has therefore disagreed with the amendment and has not offered any further reason. As noble Lords will know, it is a long standing convention that this House does not insist on amendments which the Other place has rejected on grounds of financial privilege. But I will briefly explain why the government does not agree with the policy intent. Now, these amendments would not do what I suspect the movers hoped it would do, which is to enable the PPF to pay lump sum payments to its members on top of the periodic compensation it provides.

Amendment 78 simply commences section 169 2D of the 2004 Pensions Act, without requiring regulations to be made, outlining the actual circumstances in which the power will be used. If regulations were made, they could not require the payment of retrospective p97 lump sums, because section 169 applies to the discharge of liabilities to provide compensation, and there is no requirement for the PPF to pay compensation in respect of retrospective pre 97 increases. So section 169 can't be used to increase the amount of compensation a PPF member would receive.

My Lords, let me turn now to to amendments 86 B and 86 C that would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the impact of commencing the provisions in section 1692D. The Pensions Act 2004, within three months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. Now I think I understand the noble Lord Noble Viscount Thurso intention behind these amendments, because he has shared his concerns with us at previous stages of the bill, and I know he is particularly concerned about the position of members of certain schemes, especially those members of the Atomic Energy Authority MAT Pension Scheme members who scheme transferred into the PPF and A8 members now receive compensation from the PPF.

We have discussed previously that these complaints have been about. The circumstances of the transfer have been looked at by different bodies and they've been debated in Parliament. But my Lords, I sympathise with affected pension scheme members. No one wants to see an employer become insolvent. The scheme subsequently transferred to the PPF and members having to adjust to benefits lower than those that they would have expected from from their former scheme. But throughout our debates, I know from having heard the noble Viscount Viscount Thurso that he has looked into this matter carefully.

He has looked at the concerns of affected members, and he's been through a scheme, documentation even. And I can say that my colleague, the Minister for pensions will be happy to meet with the noble Viscount Viscount Thurso on a tee to discuss the case, and the Minister for pensions and the noble Lord could then discuss his concerns. So I hope that will will be enough to satisfy him. Just to say, finally, on this point at earlier stages of the bill, noble Lords have also reflected on the impact of the absence of pre 97 increases and the the impact that the absence of pre 97 has had on PPF members over the years.

Now, as I've set out in previous debates, I recognise that prospect. Prospective increases do not go as far as some people would want. But, my Lords, let's not lose sight of the fact that the government's reforms will make a meaningful difference to over a quarter of a million affected members, while balancing the impact on levy payers, taxpayers affordability for government and the ability for the PPF to manage future risk. But Lord's. Given all of that, I hope the noble Viscount Colville feels able not to press his amendment.

Finally, I turn to Lords Amendment 79, which would require the Secretary of State within 18 months of Royal Assent to conduct a review of legislation, regulation and guidance relating to marketing, financial promotions and member communications which might restrict the ability of pension schemes to communicate with their members. Now the government shares the interest of noble Lords in ensuring pension schemes can provide high quality support to their members. But a formal review, as set out in the proposed amendment, would not be an effective or timely approach.

The government is acting to improve the support available for pension members, reducing complexity and strengthening support through a combination of the guided retirement provisions in this bill and the rollout of targeted support. A formal review as proposed by this amendment, is not necessary and would duplicate work done across government on pensions

**** Possible New Speaker ****

communications, so I hope that amendment will not be pressed for move. The question is that motion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion indeed be agreed to? Motion D one Baroness Altmann. My Lords, I thank the noble Lady,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, the Minister, for her introduction and her helpful remarks relating to and her helpful remarks relating to amendment D, which I will speak to
19:04
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
amendment D, which I will speak to mostly in my remarks right now. The government says that allowing small pots to be moved without member consent after just 12 months is essential, because otherwise any longer period would be detrimental to scheme members. My Lords, I don't think that would stand up to market scrutiny. This is about providers not wanting to have to administer small pots on which they find the economics rather challenging. But the idea that if people with small pots move somewhere else or are moved somewhere else, that that will lead to lower fees being charged by the pension providers, rather than simply higher profits being made by them.

It is far more the likely outcome. It will not particularly be detrimental to most members, but to those who, as money is moved without their consent and without potentially their knowledge. I do have concerns that just allowing 12 months and then shipping the money off elsewhere to another scheme that could be worse, could perform worse. It just happens to be an approved scheme under the regulator's supervision. To my mind, strikes me as being a rather dangerous thing to approve after such a short space of time.

Members who've paused their contributions temporarily. And indeed, I would point out to the noble Lady, the Minister members who have decided to opt out of auto enrolment, who will then be re-enrolled after three years, may decide not to opt out, but the money that they previously put into the scheme will have gone somewhere else. This, to me, suggests that the policy needs to be reconsidered. And yes, of course, we do need to look at the economics of auto enrolment, but we have to also balance fairness to members who have paused temporarily, whether it's for unpaid carers leave perhaps a relative who's terminally ill and it's slightly over the one year, but their money may have been moved before they get back to their employer.

With, you know, balance that with the costs to providers of administering smallpox. My Lords, I do not believe 12 months is the right balance. It is too short. And I just ask noble Lords whether they feel we should allow a bank to move somebody's money in their account to a different bank, because they haven't got a lot in there, and the bank can't make any profit on keeping that current account. I don't think we would feel the same that after just 12 months without member consent, their money could be shipped off to another bank.

Now, I agree that we do have to find some way of administering small pots, and I do hope that the noble Lady, when she points out that there is a minimum of 12 months being provided for in this bill and that regulations will set the required time period, that indeed, after further consultation. Perhaps there is a chance that we will have a longer period than the current 12 a longer period than the current 12 months, and on that basis, I hope that the situation for smallpox will turn out to be better after regulations than it currently would seem, and I will not press the amendment tonight in the House.

Just very briefly on amendment K one, for in the name of the noble Lord Viscount Thurso, I too am extremely concerned about the problem of the e t pension scheme members, and I feel that there is an obligation in some way on government to look more carefully and to take careful consideration of the of of the findings of the various inquiries that have happened more recently. And I do hope that when the meeting takes place, those of us who are particularly interested in the e t situation will be able to have a proper discussion with the Ministers on that issue.

My Lords,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The original question. Was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion D1 has been moved as an amendment to motion D at end. Insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion d1 be agreed to. Lord. I rise to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to. Speak to amendment. J one, which reintroduces my proposal for a review of the long term affordability, intergenerational unfairness, fiscal sustainability and accounting, treatment of public service pension schemes. I'm trying to help the government to fill a lacuna in their important work on pensions, so I was taken aback by
19:10
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Conservative)
-
-
the Commons reason for rejecting it, namely that it is not necessary to namely that it is not necessary to duplicate existing information regarding public sector pensions. The fact is that the presentation The fact is that the presentation of the liability represented by public sector pensions is widely seen as inadequate, and the PAC itself has expressed concerns in particular that pension liabilities are not being presented in a way which allows Parliament properly to understand their real cost in the long term.

I would highlight four reasons why a review is needed. First, the cost is huge. As we have heard repeatedly, unfunded pension liabilities represent the second largest government liability after guilt. Currently, we commit future taxpayers every year to new expenditure of about £60 billion in the form of a stream of index linked new expenditure. The long term liability, according to the OBR, is 1.4 trillion, but it may be more as a lot depends on the assumptions made. Second, it's an unfunded pay as you go scheme and the problem with that is that the current generation of older and ex public sector workers are taking money from younger generations of workers, already weighed down by trying to finance housing, young families and in some cases, repaying student loans.

This is unfair, and it's why I put intergenerational unfairness at the heart of the review. Third, the coalition did well to reform some public sector pensions following the Hutton review as the noble Lady, the Minister has acknowledged. But the new arrangements have turned out more costly than expected and sadly, growth, which helps to ease things, has been modest. Moreover, substantial increases in the pay and size of the public sector make things look better in the short term, as employer and employee contributions increase.

However, this is a mirage as it stores up even more trouble for the future as greater payouts on higher salaries will be needed. As those people in the system retire. Retire. Fourth, there are serious accounting issues, as we know from the PLC. The scale of liabilities is not clearly visible from the public accounts. Moreover, as I've learned from my unique experience as a civil servant and a Cabinet Office Minister, the costs of future pensions are not properly taken into account in decision making across the public sector.

For example, on restructuring or adding to the workforce. So in conclusion, there is a real need to establish whether the system is fair and whether it is sustainable and whether anything could be done to improve things. I should emphasise that I am supportive of the work of public sector workers, and that I'm not making any recommendations. That is for the experts who would look at the whole area objectively and for the government to decide what, if anything, needs to be done.
19:13
19:14
19:15
19:17
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Portrait Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, prior to this debate, we had a statement showing what you we had a statement showing what you could do in haste, when you should, when you should, when you stop and think in the appointment of Lord think in the appointment of Lord Mandelson to be an ambassador to the United States of America. And I use that analogy here. It is an analogy because the one year for the moving of pots is a minuscule amount in time, and what the noble Lady Altmann said is that two years would be also short, but it would be more appropriate.

I hear that the noble Lady Baroness Altmann has decided not to move this amendment. If she had moved it, the on these benches would have supported it. Because one year is not enough. Just as a flick of the eye from the Prime Minister wasn't enough to appoint Lord Mandelson to the ambassador United States, we need. We need two years. I understand it's not going to happen here today, but I ask, before this bill is finalised, whether the noble Lady, the Minister and the.

And her colleagues in the House of Commons would just consider tweaking this to make one year, two years, and it would please a lot of people and would be a safeguard for for people with small pots who are the least interested in how their pensions work, until they find that the pensions aren't what they thought it was and they can't find it or whatever it is they can't point about. The pensions dashboard was well made, so I hope I welcome the consultations we've had with the government Ministers.

And I think on this bill, we have worked in many ways together, and we have managed to make some of the points we feel strongly about, and I hope on the pots. The one year could be two years. It doesn't have to be done now. It could be done quietly with with, with no fuss at all. On J1, which is that the the the conservative motion would insist on Lords amendments 7785. And we on these benches supported these amendments at.

Report because we agreed it would be important for government to comment on this issue. However, and I think this just shows what I was saying before. We've been convinced by the arguments made by the government on the content of these amendments, overlapping with existing reporting mechanisms. We therefore are again saying that we are happy that that has happened, and I hope the government Ministers, government Ministers will will take cognisance of the fact that we're not making problems just for the sake of debate in this chamber.

We think the small pots should be one year, not two. We we will be talking later in the next lot of amendments on Mandation, and we hope to convince the government a bit on that and on on the on on the size, on the size of pension funds, the the range. So. We will obviously be voting on, on, on the motion by Baroness Altmann. If, if the conservative benches are going to call the division on J1 and we would probably just quietly abstain.
19:21
Viscount Younger of Leckie Portrait Viscount Younger of Leckie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe for their motions in Neville-Rolfe for their motions in this group, and the noble Viscount Lord Thurlow for his motion. In the interest of brevity, I will focus my remarks only on motion. J1 my noble friend Baroness Neville-Rolfe is fundamentally asking the important question of whether we are being sufficiently clear about the long term sustainability and transparency of the system as it currently stands. The central concern is this unlike funded schemes, these pensions are not backed by accumulated assets.

They are paid out of current taxation, and that means that the cost is not contained within a fund but past forward, year by year to future taxpayers. As the number of public sector employees grows and as people live longer, those obligations grow with them. There is also a question of incentives decisions about expanding the public sector workforce or adjusting pay inevitably carry pension implications that stretch decades into the future. Yet those costs are often diffuse, uncertain and ultimately borne by the exchequer.

So without a clear and accessible understanding of the long term consequences, it is difficult, if not impossible. My Lords, for decision makers to weigh those trade offs properly. So a review would allow us to bring together the evidence, to test the assumptions and to ensure that policy is being made on the basis of a clear and realistic understanding of the facts. And for those reasons, including the four key reasons outlined by my noble friend, I do believe that there is a strong case for the review proposed, and I am very pleased to support this amendment.
19:23
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their questions and comments. Since I spoke at some length at the start, I think I've answered them start, I think I've answered them pre-emptively. I tried to pre-emptively answer most of the questions. I won't dwell on them, but a couple of specifics. Just to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer. When I was the reason I was stressing that the bill simply says a minimum of 12 months is because we do want to be able to respond to any changes.

And so if there is evidence that we need to make it longer, we can make it longer. If there's evidence we need to extend it later, we can extend it later through secondary legislation. It is set up to do that. So I can give her that, can give her that assurance. I think I'm not going to go into America. I think this is I think I think as parallels go, whether or not we have 1 or 2 years opt out and who's the ambassador to the United States, I think probably for me, are slightly separate in terms of category of decisions.

So forgive me if I don't go there. In response to noble Lord Lord Faulks the plan. I mean, the two policies operate independently, but the intention is dashboards will be available before the smallpox consolidation. But just to reassure the noble Lord that with these smallpox Earl Howe scattered around, he will be he will be written to to be given the opportunity to opt out so that they will not be consolidated without his knowledge or against his will. So I hope you will look out for those in due course, and he can then make appropriate decisions.

So I think, I think most of the other questions I oh, one question actually the noble. In response to a point made by the noble Baroness Neville-Rolfe on the question about the presentation of information, the Treasury is exploring options to present pension liabilities in on a constant basis. It's important to be clear, of course, any such presentation would be supplementary. I mean, obviously it wouldn't affect the underlying liability. As the noble Baroness knows well, or the way they're presented in financial statements, but it would help to add an extra level of clarity to those who are reading them.

I think I've made all the arguments around affordability and the nature of them. One final word to the noble Viscount Viscount Younger, who feels there is no way for decision makers to make appropriate judgements about the affordability of pension schemes. Without a review like this, I think he should have more confidence. The previous coalition government, of which his party was the leading member, reformed the entire public service pension, almost all the public service pension schemes and created a new system. And that is what we now have.

So I think I mean, the work, a lot of work has been done. Then a lot of work has been done now. And I think that the measures of affordability that I've described are such that the schemes have that corrective factor in them, and the fact that the information is out there published, I hope, will be enough. But I would urge

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lords, therefore, not to press their amendments. My Lords, I.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I. Thank all noble Lords for you've

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank all noble Lords for you've spoken, and, as I said, I will not move motion D12A division, and I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move motion D12A division, and I beg leave to withdraw the motion. that. A motion d one be withdrawn? The
19:26
19:26
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move motion e that this House do not insist on its amendments. 15 to 24, 27, 30 to its amendments. 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88. And do you agree with the Commons and you agree with the Commons and their amendments? 88 A to 80 8CI will also speak to motions F, F1, G, G one and H Lord's motion E on amendment 15 and those connected with it sought to remove the reserve power on asset allocation from the bill.

Lords. Obviously, the case for removing the reserve power was pressed firmly at both Committee and report by the noble Lady Baroness Bowles and supported by a number of other noble Lords. My Lords, the government has always taken those arguments seriously and I hope our response demonstrates that. But the government continues to believe that the reserve power is necessary. The collective action problem in the defined contribution market, where competitive pressure on costs discourages providers from diversifying even when they recognise it, would benefit their members.

But that is well evidenced and has been acknowledged by the industry itself. The Mansion House Accord represents a welcome voluntary commitment, but the risk is real that individual providers defer action until others move first. The reserve power exists to underpin those commitments, giving each provider confidence that the rest of the market will move to this collective action. Problem is not simply a theoretical concern or a government preoccupation. Last autumn, signatories to the Mansion House Compact, a predecessor agreement on private markets investment, negotiated under the previous government, they published their own progress update.

What was the single biggest barrier to delivering on their commitments? In their words, and I quote, market dynamics continue to focus on minimising cost instead of maximising long term value end quotes and without intervention to shift that culture, too much focus on cost remains the key barrier. That's the collective action problem in a nutshell. Private providers recognise that greater diversification can benefit their members, but competitive dynamics hold them back from acting on it. However, my Lords, I gave undertakings during the passage of the Bill to reflect on the concerns raised by noble Lords, and I have done so.

The amendments in lieu before the House today respond directly to those concerns in two important respects. First, the government has placed a cap on the face of the bill. Regulations may not require more than 10% of default fund assets to be held in qualifying assets overall, or more than 5% to be of a UK specific description. This is a significant step. The government has always been clear that the power is a backstop to the Mansion House Accord, which applies those specific targets to DC providers, main default funds and no more.

But I heard the argument pressed particularly by the noble Viscount Viscount Younger and the noble Baroness Stedman-Scott, in amendments that they tabled and with the support of others, that that commitment should be written into primary legislation rather than resting on ministerial assurance alone. This amendment does exactly that. It gives the industry and savers alike the confidence that no government can use these powers to go beyond the accords percentage commitments. Second, the government has established a principle of neutrality between asset classes.

These amendments remove the ability for regulations should they try to do so, to weight the requirement towards any single category of private asset, and require that qualifying asset descriptions are prescribed across each of the private market categories set out in the bill. So the government could not, for example, concentrate the entire requirement in infrastructure still less directed into a particular sector or company. This responds to a type of concern expressed by noble Lords during the bill's passage about the breadth of the power and the risks that a future government might use it for purposes unrelated to the accord.

The neutrality requirement, taken together with the principles, established principles of public law to which any secondary legislation must conform, provides a robust constraint against such misuse. Among those, those amendments sit alongside the safeguards already in the bill. The time limit, the Saver's interest test, the statutory reporting requirements and the affirmative procedure. Taken together, they ensure this is a carefully bounded power designed for a specific and limited purpose. So I hope the House will accept. The government has listened, reflected and responded with significant changes.

Let me turn to the issue of scale and motion F on Lords amendments 26 and 37. These amendments together would grant powers to the government to make regulations that would allow regulators to exempt a master trust or a group personal pension GPP from meeting the scale requirement where the relevant regulator is satisfied. There is no reasonable evidence consolidation will be in members interests. While I understand the intent of amendment 26 and consequential amendment 37, they are likely to undermine the policy intent for scale, which is a market of fewer, bigger, better run schemes which crucially, can deliver better outcomes for members.

That's because they risk an unstable landscape for members and employers, as well as creating significant difficulties for regulators. The likely effect of amendment 26 will be to allow some small schemes, and potentially any scheme in scope to avoid reaching scale altogether. That would undermine the intended reform, which we broadly agree, I hope, across the House would benefit members. We do not want scale for the sake of it, but to improve the outcomes for those who save into schemes. I should also alert the House to the fact that both regulators have expressed their strong concerns to the Department about this amendment.

Put simply, they think it's inoperable and exposes them to risk working out exactly what the standard is that a regulator is supposed to apply could ultimately be a matter for the courts, adding years to the process and ultimately leading to increased costs for members while not delivering the benefits of scale. Let me turn to amendments in lieu 37 B and 37 C for the noble Viscount Viscount Younger. During earlier debates, we heard concerns being raised about existing smaller schemes, potentially not having the opportunity to get to scale where they otherwise might have expected their business to grow with more time in the market.

So I understand the reasons behind this amendment for the exemptions from the scale requirement. I think the House has broadly agreed that scale really matters. The government has provided and published evidence of the benefits larger schemes can bring, their ability to diversify their assets through a wider range of investment strategies, reduce costs and keep fees lower. This is all to ensure better outcomes for members. The government's firm view is that any exemptions to the scale requirement should be limited to ensuring scheme design and purpose, and we believe there should be tightly drawn to deliver the policy intent.

But amendment 37 B would enable a regulator to exempt any size of scheme for an undefined period of time from the scale requirement, where there is no reasonable prospect of improved outcomes through consolidation or the innovation delivers good outcomes. Now, I recognise this amendment appears to have more focus on members. Unfortunately, the nebulous nature and the number of the tests may mean in practice, it could still open the floodgates to all schemes in scope and allow members better outcomes. The amendment risks delivery of policy intent because it offers what seems to offer wide and ill defined exemptions to any scheme within scope of the scale measures.

Now, during committee, some noble Lords sought reassurance that any exemptions would be narrow, transparent and wouldn't undermine the policy intent. That's the government's position. It's the reason we cannot accept this amendment. It's so wide ranging that it's not clear whether primary concerns lie. I think we do broadly agree on the principles and benefits of scale and the undermining of the evidence base, and impact assessment supports this. It would not be in the interest of members and their retirement outcomes to prevent its delivery now, and the regulators continue to express concerns about the operability of this clause and the fact that it exposes them to risk of legal challenge.

We do not want to end up in a situation where challenges are brought in court and take years to resolve. That's not an abstract risk, and it will benefit no one, least of all members who will be stuck in underperforming schemes. Let me raise a few specific points on the amendment. Looking at the innovation condition, what would robust evidence be that a scheme is delivering good outcomes because of innovation? Would an app for members suffice? Would members using that app to log on and view their benefits be enough? What they need to take action or do something different? To be clear, the government's position is simply offering an app will not deliver the benefits for members that evidence shows will follow from scale.

These are difficult questions, but before we legislate to require regulators to make these major decisions, we need to be clear what we expect innovation to deliver for member outcomes. If a scheme is to be exempt. And that's what matters. Innovation delivering for members. I'm also curious about the apparent difference in the innovation needed for a master trust and a group personal pension plan. Subsection four says trustees would need to demonstrate innovation leads to good outcomes for members, but the managers of a GPP would only have to demonstrate it provides specialist or innovative services.

Why should a GPP not also have to deliver good member outcomes? The government's position is clear all schemes need to deliver good member outcomes and the evidence tells us scale is key to that. It would not be appropriate to hold trust based schemes and contract based schemes to different standards. Let me turn then, to the proposed matters to which regulators must have regard in considering an exemption. These are wide ranging and they don't seem to be relevant to why a scheme should be exempted from being at scale.

They also seem to suggest a scheme could be exempt if it uses the scale of another scheme. Why should an employer choose this smaller scheme? If the benefits of scale all derive from a different scheme, what's the smaller scheme? Adding in terms of member outcomes, it will have no real control over the investment strategy of the pool vehicle. It will not benefit from the economies of scale that come from having a large asset base. Critically, members will not benefit from their scheme paying for the privilege of being a passenger in another, larger scheme strategy.

These are matters of principle. The intent is to deliver a market of schemes that can all deliver better outcomes for members. We all agree there are limited circumstances where the purpose and delivery of a scheme means it should have an exemption, but this amendment offers a wide range of factors that could lead to an exemption with no clear rationale. Let me turn to motions on amendments 35 and 43. Amendment 35 would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations across the scale, measures to have regard to the encouragement of innovation and the benefits of competition.

Amendment 43 would insert a new clause into the default arrangements chapter and require regulations dealing with non scale default arrangements to have regard to innovation and competition. The government supports an innovative and competitive market, but these amendments are not needed to achieve this once the scale measures commence, but are already creating space in the market for innovation through the new entrant pathway and schemes in the market will still need to be competitive to retain and grow their market share, leading to innovation.

I said it report and I say again, we will look at innovation and competition as part of the scale measures and the review of non scale default arrangements, and the outcomes of that review must be taken into account when making regulations about consolidation of non scale default arrangements. Let me turn to motion G1 and the amendment in lieu 35 B for the noble Lady Baroness Noakes. That would require the Secretary of State when making regulations across the scale measures and the review of default arrangements to have regard to the benefit of competition and also the government's focus in bringing forward the measures in the bill on scale and default arrangements, is firmly on improving outcomes for members.

There are a range of factors the government will need to consider when making regulations in relation to measures on scale and default arrangements, in order to ensure we deliver on that aim. And while I agree that maintaining a competitive market is part of that, we must also have regard to the policy intent and the desired outcomes, including improving member outcomes. If we were to accept this amendment, it may have the effect of elevating competition above other, equally important matters in the design of those regulations, and we do not believe that will be desirable.

It would not be appropriate to elevate the needs of the market over those of the members it serves. What we all want is to deliver the best outcomes for members. However, we do not disagree with the principle and we share the noble Ladies desire to maintain a competitive market. I assure the noble Lady that the government will consider the benefits of competition when designing regulations, but we do not believe the amendment is necessary and for this reason I must reject it. So in closing, I would urge you to support motions E, F, and G and not oppress motions e1, f1, and g1.

I beg to move.
19:38
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted Portrait Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Question is that motion e be agreed to motion e1 Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted. >> My Lords. >> I beg to move motion e1 as an amendment to motion E to leave out amendment to motion E to leave out from house to the end and insert the words printed on the Marshalled List. My Lords, the Commons has asked us to accept a clause that reintroduces strict mandation of pension scheme asset allocation, introducing trustee fiduciary duty. There are two problems with the clause the Mandation itself and the discriminatory definition of investment vehicles that excludes listed investment companies.

One of the two vehicles explicitly endorsed by the Productive Finance Working Group, composed of regulators HMT and the wider investment industry. Both defects are fundamental. Until this clause appeared, there was broad political and industrial alignment on the direction of travel, supporting trustees to consider a wider range of assets and ensuring that government plays its part through the enablers set out in the Mansion House accord. Nothing in that shared approach required coercion. Further, the government's own consultation evidence contradicts the justification for mandation.

Ministers say that employers choose schemes based on cost, and that private asset investment is too expensive. But the Dwp's own data, quoted in the consultation document shows investment charges are not in the top three factors for employer decisions. The top factors are convenience, professional advice and employer fees. Most schemes are already priced well below the charge cap, and only 5% of employees ever switched schemes at all. The consultation stated that investment charges are not likely to feature heavily in employer's decision making.

If that is so, the rationale for strict mandation simply does not stand, though I can see how the allegation helps escape competition policy. Concerns about strategy coordination. But don't also forget value for money is meant to solve the focus on cost. Now, there can be perfectly good reasons why a scheme has not invested in a particular asset or asset class. Reasons recognised explicitly in the Mansion House Accord itself. Ministers say this clause is just a backup to the accord, but it doesn't reflect the Accord's own terms, not its dependence on government actions and the critical enablers.

Instead, the clause is a doubling down, not a codification, and the government admits it is intended to be and will be coercive, merely as a reserve power. Ministers have also spoken often about crowding in investment, about using pension capital to give confidence to the wider market. But coercion does the opposite. If investment has to be compelled, the signal to the wider market is not confidence but doubt crowding out not in wider market effects have consistently been overlooked in the drafting of this clause, but it is not something that this House should ignore.

The overriding principle is that government must not undermine fiduciary duty, whether by mandation or coercion, and therefore we should continue to insist on our amendment and disagree with the Commons. And I intend to ask the opinion of the House at the appointed time. I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion E1 has been moved as an motion E1 has been moved as an amendment to motion E leave out from house to the end and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion E1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. It is beyond doubt that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is beyond doubt that Mandation is rightly the most serious and contentious issue in this Bill. We have made our views
19:43
Baroness Stedman-Scott Portrait Baroness Stedman-Scott (Conservative)
-
-
on this very clear, as have many other noble Lords. The state should not be directing the investment of assets held by private funds. The assets held by private funds. The power the government are setting out in the Bill directly undermines out in the Bill directly undermines the principle of fiduciary duty, upon which the entire pensions system relies, and it must by now be plainly obvious to the government and to the noble Baroness Sater Minister that any investment that has to be forced by the government is not in the interest of savers.

We are absolutely opposed to this power in principle and in practice. We have met with many representatives from industry, including signatories to the Mansion House accord, which the Minister claims. This power is designed to be a backstop, and they've been crystal clear that this power crosses a line and it must not proceed. We will support the noble Lady Baroness Bowles if she seeks the opinion of the House on this motion. Turning to my motion, F1, my Lords, the argument for scale exemptions is now well rehearsed, and I will not repeat it today.

Our amendment preserves the policy intent, provides two clear and targeted routes through which a scheme may qualify, both tightly drawn and firmly anchored in member outcomes. It introduces a rigorous evidential threshold and places the responsibility firmly with the regulator, who must be satisfied not only that the conditions are met, but they are, but that any claimed benefits are material and demonstrably in the interest of members. The government committed through the Mansion House Accord to taking a pragmatic approach to scale.

This amendment gives effect to that commitment. I put on notice that I will seek to test the opinion of the House on this motion when it is called. Finally, my Lords, turning to motion G one, this is a welcome amendment in lieu from my noble friend Baroness Noakes, which rightly raises the importance of competition. We are dealing here with private markets where one of the most fundamental principles is the benefit of competition. It is competition that drives choice and sharpens incentives, and that ultimately delivers better outcomes for members at that point, also goes directly to the argument that we have made on these benches on scale, as the government bring forward significant changes to the structure of this market, competition and innovation must be treated as central considerations, not afterthoughts.

The government must not sacrifice these principles in pursuit of scale alone. Competition and innovation translate directly into better performance, better service and better value for those saving for retirement. We will support my noble friend if she seeks to test the opinion of the House and my Lords, I beg to move motion f1 in my name.
19:46
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords. >> I have motion G1 in this group. This bill will consolidate today's pensions market into a small number pensions market into a small number of large firms. It may well bring benefits, but it also carries the risk that the market will ossify risk that the market will ossify around those large firms. Healthy markets need to be open to the challenge of new entrants, which can provide healthy competition to the incumbents. In turn, that has the potential to deliver for pension savers in the long run.

And at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what is good for savers. And I agree with the Minister on that. Now, the other place in rejecting my amendments, 35 and 43, said that it is not necessary to impose further requirements in respect of innovation and competition. My Lords, this bill does not mention innovation competition at all. It talks about restricting new entrants and it mentions innovation only once. My Lords, innovation and competition are absolutely central to markets which work for consumers and my noble friend Lady Stedman-scott moment in lieu 37 B now incorporates innovation and so I have confined my amendment in rule 35 B to the broader concept of competition, and my amendment only requires that regulations have regard to competition amongst providers of pension schemes.

It is no more onerous than that, and it applies to the several regulation making powers of the Secretary of State, which are attached to clause 40 and to the powers of the regulators to make regulations under clauses 42 and 44. Regulations can create barriers to entry, which is why large firms love them. I believe that the Secretary of State and the regulators should use their powers to foster competition, so that barriers to entry are not erected and new entrants are given a proper chance to flourish.

If those making the regulations do not secure this for the benefit of pension savers, no one else will, and my amendment in lieu will help to ensure that the scale provisions in this bill deliver long term benefits for pension savers.
19:49
Lord Vaux of Harrowden Portrait Lord Vaux of Harrowden (Crossbench)
-
-
Yes. >> My Lord, I want to speak to a motion E1 in the name of Baroness Bowles and offer my wholehearted support to it. But and that's what I'll speak to. But I also, in passing, will say that I wholeheartedly support motion G1 in the name of Baroness Bertin. Next, the name of Baroness Bertin. Next, the noble Lady of the Minister has once again explained that the mandated powers are intended to backstop the voluntary Mansion House agreements, and she's tabled an amendment of her own, which simply limits the amount of assets, the allocation of which may be mandated to no more than 10% by value and 5% in the UK, with the UK to be defined later.

The Mansion House agreement is a voluntary agreement. My Lords, if the government has a mandate in power, it's basically saying if you don't do this, we will force you, which would mean that it is not in reality voluntary. The trustees would be forced to act against what they believe is in the best interests of scheme members. Why else would they not want to invest in these apparently fantastic assets under the bill and the noble Lady, the Minister's amendment in lieu does not change this.

The only exemption to that would be if the trustees could prove that the mandated asset allocation would cause, and I quote, material financial detriment to the scheme members, not just not in their best interests, but would cause material financial detriment. My Lords, it can't be right to force trustees to invest in a way that they would feel, that they would feel would cause any financial detriment, let alone material financial detriment, even if limited to just 10% by value.

The noble Lady of the minister's amendment still doesn't put any restrictions around the type of assets or indeed specific assets that can be mandated. And here I very much disagree with what she said earlier. It doesn't limit it to the assets in the Mansion House agreement. And despite proposed some new subclause five A, which requires the regulations to describe the examples which are listed in subclause four. These remain just examples. Subclause five remains very clear that a qualifying asset does not have to be one of the examples.

The noble Lady. The Minister's amendment doesn't change that in any way, and I don't agree at all that the deletion of subclause eight has any such effect. The bill will now just be silent on the allocation of assets within the 10%. There's nothing here that stops mandation in a single asset type or class. There's nothing here to prevent any future government mandating any assets it pleases. And whilst the noble Lady of the Minister might point to the report that the Secretary of State must publish under subclause 12, which, amongst other things, sets out how the financial interests of members would be affected.

It's important to note that applies only to the first set of such regulations under this section. Any further future mandation, perhaps under a different government, is subject to no such safeguard and just the negative process. Such assets could be mandated for any reason they wish to give. As an example, what if Nigel Farage were to find himself in a position of influence? He's a well-known enthusiast for an investor in cryptocurrencies. There is nothing in this bill that would stop him mandating that the relevant funds should have 10% invested in cryptocurrency, but any government could use this power to mandate whatever pet project it wanted.

And again, let's be clear the definition of assets in the girl is sufficiently wide that it could be mandation into specific assets, specific projects, rather than a class, if that's what they wanted to do. And even if it is only to be used as a backstop for the Mansion House agreement, is that such a good thing? Let's have a look at one of the examples set avid reader of the financial pages to know that there are growing concerns as to whether private debt may be the cause of the next big financial crisis.

Many investors are trying to get out, which is why many large funds are now restricting redemptions. Exactly when someone like Jamie Dimon starts talking about cockroaches, we should take notice. My Lords, any sensible pension fund would be treating private credit with huge caution emotion at the moment, but this is specifically one of the assets asset classes the government wants to encourage, wants to mandate. Government Mandation of asset allocation has no place in the regulation of pensions. The fiduciary duty should remain sacrosanct.

And so I urge all noble Lords to to support the Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Bowles and her amendment. Speak. My Lords, I agree with every

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I agree with every word that the noble Lord Faulks has just said, and I do need to declare just said, and I do need to declare my interests as a non-executive director of a pension director of a pension administration company and advisor to a master trust. My Lords, I support all the amendments in this
19:54
Baroness Altmann Portrait Baroness Altmann (Non-affiliated)
-
-
support all the amendments in this group, but I would particularly like to speak to the amendment so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, E1. A fiduciary obligation is one of the highest standards of duty in common law, and yet this bill would seek to override the best judgement of trustees. And although the 5% 10% amendment laid by the government is welcome, it does not deal with the issues such as those outlined by the noble Lady Baroness Bowles and the noble Lord Vaux.

If trustees don't believe that the case, for example, for private assets, is strong enough, they will still have to buy them or they won't be able to participate in auto enrolment. This is not incentivisation incentivising financially, perhaps via tax reliefs, would change the calculation of the potential outcomes. But Mandation does not do that, and the dangers of mistiming are clear. A recent McKinsey study published in February shows that, for example, private equity is under structural strain with constrained liquidity, valuation uncertainty and returns, which have been weaker.

As the noble Lord Vaux outlined. The same applies to private credit, particularly that held in open ended fund structures. Even infrastructure where you've recently seen the returns offered for solar power degraded from, in line with RPI to in line with CPI, has put international investors off some of the infrastructure opportunities in the UK. So if the government persists in its idea that closed ended funds, which are much more appropriate and have their own diversified, expertly managed portfolios of qualifying assets cannot qualify, that simply further reinforces the idea that the government does not know best and it is not safe for this House to authorise the government to mandate these investments.

Not all pension funds have the in-house capability to manage alternative or illiquid assets. Just because they are large does not give them the instant expertise. Australian and Canadian funds have taken decades to build up this kind of ability, so a strict time limit simply does not and cannot fit with the requirements that the government seeks to impose on pension schemes. And I do hope that noble Lords will stand firm in the resolve to send

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this back to the Other place. This is probably. The. Final time. Noble Lords will.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Noble Lords will. Have the dubious. Pleasure of hearing from me, and I assure you that I will be brief. I assure you that I will be brief. I wholeheartedly support amendment E1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and all the other remarks that have been very supportive of that, that that noble supportive of that, that that noble Lords have made to date. And for the reason she has so eloquently expressed, and also would very much support her remarks about the unwarranted discrimination in this
19:57
Lord Remnant Portrait Lord Remnant (Conservative)
-
-
bill against investment companies. Suffice to say that a provision Suffice to say that a provision which is wrong in principle is not rectified or remedied by restricting the width of its application in the government's own amendment. And I would like to venture just one additional observation. As we've heard, the Mansion House Accord is a voluntary Mansion House Accord is a voluntary agreement specifically targeted at UK assets to drive growth and improve returns. It aims to improve financial outcomes for savers while supporting UK economic growth.

One of the government's core objectives. It is necessarily a voluntary initiative and expressly subject to fiduciary duty to consumer duty, and it is dependent on implementation by government and regulators of critical enablers. Yet here's the rub had the industry's best intentions towards investing in private markets not been formalised in this way. There would be nothing for us to discuss here today. There would be nothing for this reserve power to backstop, so it would be redundant, given the government's expressed intention never to use the reserve power, it would hardly be putting forward a primary power to compel institutions to invest monies in ways in which it, the government sees fit.

At the time of the signing of the Mansion House Accord, there was no indication that the agreement would be anything other than voluntary and that the. And that the government was proposing to take the powers of compulsion now proposed. Now, I believe that the signatories have entered into this accord with the best of intentions, and with every expectation of meeting their commitments, and I, for one, believe that they will do so. But there is no certainty that they will not be blown off course, whether through scarcity of available opportunities or otherwise.

Should this happen, this or any future government would undoubtedly consider the use of the reserve power this bill grants them. And there is every reason to believe that the industry's perhaps justifiable reasons for falling short would not find favour with the government, and that the interpretation of the caveats built into a voluntary accord in terms of producer duty, consumer duty, regulatory and governmental enablers would be disputed, and the caveats overridden. All in all, it will be a mess and city institutions would rue the day they had tried to be helpful towards the government in playing their part, in meeting its growth objectives.

And my wider question to the noble Lady, the Minister is this if the government takes this reserve power, how can she expect anybody or any group of people in future to enter into voluntary agreements designed to be supportive of government policy, if subsequently an unexpectedly, the government can unilaterally render such voluntary commitments mandatory, though the angst, uncertainties and disputes this will likely entail.
20:01
20:02
Baroness Sherlock Portrait Baroness Sherlock, The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to all noble Lords for their comments. Having spoken at some length at the start, I at some length at the start, I won't. I won't respond at length. Let me just pick up a few points. The first, briefly the question on fiduciary duty, my Lords, nothing in the bill. This applies trustees existing duties of loyalty, prudence and acting in members best interests. Those continue to imply to apply in full. Were this power ever to be used. And I repeat, the government does not expect to use it.

But were it ever to be used and the asset allocation requirements were in place, the Savers interest test allows the scheme to seek an exemption if it can show that compliance would cause material financial detriment to members and do not. The fiduciary duties. Not only would they be unable to do that, we would expect the fiduciary duty to to require the trustees to make such an application to the regulator. Trustees are not being directed to invest in any specific asset or project.

And if they believe that the requirements are not in the members best interests, again, they should apply for an exemption. The neutrality amendments. Do my Lords provide a meaningful constraint? The government must prescribe qualifying asset descriptions across each of the private market categories in the bill, so it couldn't load an entire requirement into a single asset class, let alone a pet project or a specific investment, and any future government that attempted to define qualifying assets in a way designed to serve its own policies or a pet project, rather than save as interests, would clearly be vulnerable to legal challenge on rationality grounds.

My Lords, I'm not going to debate this at length, since the noble Lords have made clear they intend to test the opinion of the House irrespective of whatever I say, so I won't hold them to it. Just two other brief comments on scale. My Lords, I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-scott, that the government should be pragmatic and I completely agree. My problem with her amendment is that it isn't practical, so I can't be pragmatic in trying to apply and apply an amendment that is really clear in a matter of scale that would that would simply be too difficult to apply, because it is not clear what the nature of the test would be, and would end up getting bogged down in the courts for years, and give the regulator an impossible job that simply doesn't work.

My Lords, I've made the point. We've had a long debate previously about competition. I don't doubt we'll return to it again should the bill not all disappear tonight. But my Lords, in the light of that, I do hope noble Lords feel able to withdraw their amendments.
20:04
20:07
None Portrait Division
-

The The question. The question is that motion E1 be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not That That question That question is That question is that That question is that motion That question is that motion e1 That question is that motion e1 be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And And the And the green.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the green.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And the green. There have voted. Contents 219

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted. Contents 219 not content 144. So the contents not content 144. So the contents have it. Motion f Baroness Sherlock. Move. Formally. The question is that motion be agreed to motion f1 Viscount Younger of Leckie. The original question was that motion f be agreed to? Since when motion F1 has been moved as an amendment to motion F at the end insert the word has printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion f1 be agreed to.

As many as

**** Possible New Speaker ****

of that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. Not content. The question will be determined

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be determined by division. I will inform the by division. I will inform the House when voting is open. Voting The question is that motion F1 be agreed to. As many of that opinion will say, content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion f1 The question is that motion f1 be There There have There have voted There have voted contents 216 not contents 148.

So the contents have it. Motion G Baroness Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To move. The question is that the motion be agreed to motion g1 Baroness be agreed to motion g1 Baroness Noakes. The original question was Noakes. The original question was that motion be agreed to? Since when motion G1 has been moved as an when motion G1 has been moved as an amendment to motion G at the end to insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question Marshalled List. The question therefore, is that motion G1 be agreed to.

As many as that opinion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will say content. Content the contrary, not content. Note content. The question will be decided by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question will be decided by a division. I will advise the House a division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now The The question is that motion G1 be agreed to? As many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents will go to the right by the throne, the not contents to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The question The question is The question is that The question is that motion The question is that motion G1 There There have There have voted contents 211 not contents 150. So the contents have it. Motion H Baroness Sherlock.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I have already spoken to motion H that this House do not insist on its amendment 43 to which insist on its amendment 43 to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason. 40 3AI beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their reason. 40 3AI beg to move. The question. The question is that motion H be agreed to as many that motion H be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. Motion J Baroness Sherlock. My Lords, I've already spoken to motion J that this House do not insist on its amendment 77 and 85 to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for their reason. 80 5AI beg to move. The question is that motion j be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion j be Neville-Rolfe. My Lords, I beg to move motion J

**** Possible New Speaker ****

one. The original question was that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The original question was that motion J be agreed to, since when motion J one has been moved as an amendment to motion J leave out amendment to motion J leave out from house to the end to insert to. I beg your pardon. Leave out from house to the end. Two and insert the words as printed on the Marshalled List. The question, therefore, is that motion J one be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

agreed to. As many as that opinion content. Not content.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Not content. The question will be decided by division. I will advise the House division. I will advise the House when voting is open. Voting is now Sorry. Sorry. The question. The question is that motion J one be agreed to. As many

**** Possible New Speaker ****

as that opinion will say content. content. Not content. The contents will go to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The contents will go to the right by the throne. The not I I say, I say, because. The. And And the. And the. UQs And the. UQs is And the. UQs is the And the. UQs is the other place and the. Wonderful line in the.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

J1B agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

J1B agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have There have voted There have voted contents There have voted contents 162

**** Possible New Speaker ****

There have voted contents 162 not contents. 151 so the contents

**** Possible New Speaker ****

not contents. 151 so the contents have it. Motion k Baroness Sherlock. My Lords, I've already spoken to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I've already spoken to motion K that this House do not insist on its amendment 78 and 86, to which the Commons have disagreed

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that motion K be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion K be agreed to. Motion K one Viscount Thurso. The question is that motion Thurso. The question is that motion K be agreed to. As many as that opinion will say content the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

opinion will say content the contrary, not content. The contents Lords. I've already spoken to motion l

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I've already spoken to motion l that this House do not insist on its amendment 79 and 87, to which the Commons have disagreed for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

their reason. 87 a. I beg to move. The question is that motion l be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that motion l be agreed to as many as that opinion will say content the contrary, not

**** Possible New Speaker ****

content. The contents have it. My Lords, I beg to move the house. Do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page