Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time I have been able to speak on the Bill. I am delighted to follow my noble friend, who I still consider the pension tsar and who is so knowledgeable in this field. I apologise for being absent when Amendments 132 and 133 were reached; unfortunately, with all the business in the House, there are inevitable clashes, and we cannot be in two places at one time.

I thank the ABI and others who have briefed me in advance of the Bill proceedings. I have to say, I agree with their conclusions. I believe that they are right when they say that the Government are right that it is not necessary to mandate asset allocation by pension funds.

This amendment is intended as a probing amendment for debating purposes; I am sure that the debate will represent the broad consideration of views in Committee this afternoon. The aim, really, is to provide reassurance to pension providers by capping the mandatory asset allocation at a total of, say, 10%, which is a figure that my noble friend Lady Coffey and I independently happened upon; I also added 5% for geographical locations, such as the UK, as a proportion either of total assets or of a subset of assets.

It is true to say that the industry is generally opposed to mandating asset allocation at all. This amendment would provide some reassurance, which is what I shall seek from the Minister when she comes to respond to this debate, to pension providers of that by capping the mandatory asset allocation to a total of these two figures—10% and 5%—as a proportion either of total assets or of a subset of assets.

There has been much talk of the Mansion House Accord this afternoon. I would like to chip in also and say that this power would align with the accord, which had widespread support across the industry—as well as from government, as it was supported by the Chancellor. I understand that the accord was led jointly by the ABI, Pensions UK and the City of London Corporation. It followed extensive discussion between the industry and the Pensions Minister and had a 17 signatories, who committed

“to the ambition of allocating at least 10% to private markets across all main DC default funds by 2030; and … within that, at least 5%”—

and I have now lost my briefing, so I am completely at sea.

I hope that I have given a little taste of where we are. I am not saying that these are the definitive figures; I am just throwing into the wash that this afternoon would be a good opportunity to give some reassurance to the pension providers in the way I and my noble friend Lady Coffey have sought to do.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 112, 114 and 117 in the names of my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which aim to set a cap on asset allocation.

In response to our debate on the previous group, the Minister consistently described the mandation power as seeking to achieve a “modest but meaningful” investment in private assets; and said, importantly, that it was designed as a “narrow backstop” to delivering the Mansion House Accord. If that is the case, why is the proportion of assets that can be mandated under this power not capped in line with that accord? Indeed, as I read it, it could be up to 100% of assets. Why is that? The Minister may point to consultation and other measures that will constrain the use of the power but, for something so controversial and which the Government say they do not want to use, I cannot understand why they are not constraining it in primary legislation.

I will touch on timescales in our debate on the next group, but the Minister says that this Government do not want to use this power. However, as things currently stand, it would be open to the next Government to use the power, and the one after that—as well as a couple of Governments in between if we do not go to full Parliaments, as we have not always done in recent years. In those circumstances, it would also be sensible to limit the power to delivering what the Government say they want it to do.

Why do the Government not want a maximum limit in primary legislation? What is their objection to it? The cynic in me wonders whether the power is so widely drawn that, when we remove mandation on Report—I might be getting ahead of myself but that is on the cards—the Government could bring forward a series of concessions at ping-pong to limit the use of the power to what they say they want it to do. I am sure that that is not the case, but it might be better than the position in which the Government think that this power, as it appears in the legislation, has been drawn appropriately. I am really interested in the Minister’s response on this.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will come in at this moment because I wish to speak in favour of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, which I have co-signed, because he is unable to be with us today. These words are both mine and the noble Lord’s, more or less.

I am not in favour of the asset allocation mandation clauses generally. Amendment 119, however, seeks to probe the reasons why the Government have chosen a particular asset class for mandation: private equity. I have no problem with pension schemes choosing to invest in private equity; historically, it has generated good returns, in large part because of the use of debt to leverage those returns. Private equity may be a good investment for pensions schemes, and this amendment would not prevent that.

However, my understanding is that the principal motive of the Government for mandating asset allocation is to drive greater economic growth. I agree that venture capital and private debt—two other asset types listed in the Bill—may indeed create growth, but I do not understand why the Government believe that private equity is a growth driver. I have to assume that this is because the Government have fallen for the story that the private equity industry often tells about how much investment it makes, how many people it employs, what great returns it generates, and so on. What private equity actually does is buy existing companies or assets, allowing the previous owners to cash out.

Very rarely, I believe, does a private equity company provide new equity into a company. Rather, it typically does the opposite: it funds the acquisition with a very high proportion of debt. The leveraged buy-out is the basic model of most private equity activity. That debt is not borrowed by the private equity itself; rather, it is pushed down into the underlying company, and the interest and any debt repayments are made from that company’s profits.

One effect of this is to reduce the taxable profits—in other words, the debt interest is tax deductible—and therefore the tax is payable by the company. The debt itself is often located in offshore low-tax locations, so tax is not paid on the interest by the private equity or the lender, which may well be related. This is a direct loss to the Exchequer. I hope the Minister can reply to that.

The high leverage also has the effect of reducing investment by the company in its products or services. Instead of investing in its future growth, the company now has to use much of its cash flow to pay the interest. What often happens is that the private equity undertakes a cost-rationalising exercise so that the profits are improved in the short term with a view to selling the business again as soon as possible. The leveraged effect of the debt means that private equity can make a substantial gain even if the underlying business grows only in line with inflation.

The cost rationalisation often invokes workforce reductions. Studies indicate that private equity-owned companies typically have lower levels of employment even five years after the original buy-out. This certainly tallies with my experience, although I have not had the benefit of the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, who worked for private equity-owned companies during his career.

In the meantime, if there are any profits left, rather than being invested in growth they are usually paid out as dividends. In fact, it is not uncommon, if a company has managed to reduce its debt ratio, for a PE to recapitalise the company to put in more debt in order to allow the payment of a dividend. Of course there are exceptions, but, as many examples show, such as Thames Water—indeed, much of the water industry—Debenhams, Southern Cross and Silentnight, private equity cannot legitimately claim to be a force for growth. Are there good returns for its investors, and particularly its partners? Yes—but is it a force for growth? It is not really. It is said that £29.4 billion was invested in UK firms by private equity in 2024. Yes, but that investment was almost entirely in buying out existing businesses, which is very different from providing capital for growth.

So the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and I are baffled as to why the Government think that mandating pension funds to invest in private equity will be good for the country. It may be good for someone but not necessarily for the country. I repeat that I have no problem with a pension fund investing in private equity if the trustees believe it is right for the fund and its members, but I see no benefit, and probably a downside, for the country as a whole. If we must mandate allocation, let us at least target it to asset types that generate growth, such as venture capital or infrastructure. If the Government’s primary motive for mandation is to drive UK growth, we should exclude private equity from the list. I hope the Minister and her colleagues will give thought to this, because we are on the same wavelength and we want the same answer, but not in the way that the Bill proposes at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister may be forgiven for thinking that these amendments are intended to probe; they are, with so many questions, but my points are designed to force clarity on the Government’s case. I look forward to the Minister’s response and beg to move.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Younger has asked many of the questions that my Amendments 116A and 130A seek to probe on the rationale for the Government’s timescales in the Bill. They are also intended to shorten those timescales and implement an absolute sunset; I want to be clear to the Minister that I do not think that a deadline by which the maximum asset allocation cannot be raised further is a sunset.

I heard what the Minister said in our debate on the previous group about introducing a maximum allocation cap. I am not sure that I really buy into that argument but, if that is the rationale, are the Government really saying that it might take 10 years to work out what the definite figures agreed under the Mansion House Accord are and that that is why they have their timescales in place? Are the Government really saying to those who signed up to the Mansion House Accord—or, indeed, to those who did not—that the figures that could be mandated under this power could go above 10% and 5%? That would make it an even harder power for people to swallow. Further, this could be over by an unlimited amount—not even a variance of maybe up to 15%, but up to any level.

The Government have used the argument for the mandation power that it creates certainty for those pension funds but, the more we discuss it, the more uncertainty there seems to be. The figures of 10% and 5% do not seem to be the figures of 10% or 5% any more. Under the Government’s approach, we will get a cap, but maybe in 10 years’ time, while the assets required to be invested under that cap can still change in perpetuity. I used the example at Second Reading of one Government wishing to mandate investment in net zero and the other wishing to mandate investment in defence assets; both are conceivable things that we might see happen in the longer term. The point is that, the longer this power is in place, the greater the risk that it is used not for this Government’s intention but for something else.

On the guardrails outside of the primary legislation, which the Minister referred to but rightly did not go into in our debate on the other group, I have a question about one: the requirement to consult. At Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government would be required to consult before using these powers for the first time. I want to check whether this means that they will not be required to consult when amending them subsequently or they will be required to consult each time they bring forward regulations under this power. I had thought that it was the former—consulting each time they used the powers—but, if it is not, and it is only the first time when they are used, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie for introducing this group and setting the scene so eloquently, and to my noble friend Lady Penn for speaking to her amendment. I shall speak to the amendments in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for lending her support to Amendments 129, 153 and 156. They follow on neatly from the other amendments about which we have heard. The Bill requires the Government to publish a report before the introductory regulations are brought into force to bring in the reserve powers, but it covers only how the financial interests of savers will be affected and the effect of the regulations on economic growth.

The purpose of my Amendment 129 is to set out additional items to be covered in the report, to ensure that the Government properly and comprehensively assess the impacts of any future regulations, such as, for example, the functioning of workplace pensions markets and impacts on the market of assets to be mandated and other requirements. What I am proposing in Amendment 129 is to test whether the Government have done enough to justify using such a drastic power. I am also suggesting, taking up the point of my noble friend Lord Younger, that the first report should be in less than five years: the first report should be after two years, because a lot of damage could be done in the first two years and even more damage could be done if there is no report for five years.

Amendment 156 continues on this theme, looking at a different part of Clause 40 for these purposes. Amendment 153 says that there should be a review, as I have mentioned, which should take place within at least two years, in addition to a review within at least five years. While the review in the Bill allows for mandation to be in place for five years before the Secretary of State must review its impact, I believe that that is too long and that it could potentially allow for negative effects to set in under the regulations under the Bill for affected default schemes. Taken together, Amendments 153 and 156 bring forward the review of regulations to take place within two years after those regulations have been in force, as well as after another three years to stop any further damage being done. We set out here what those reviews should look at

“the functioning of the market for Master Trusts … what effects the measures have had on that market … what effects the measures have had on the markets for qualifying assets”,

and so on, as set out in these amendments.

I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, particularly since there is a mood on this side to coalesce around a review within the first two years.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Wednesday 21st January 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Penn]

91: After Clause 27, insert the following new Clause—
“Guidance on the use of screens and communication with parents and carers in early years settings(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, update the early years foundation stage statutory framework for children aged 0 to 5 in early years settings to include guidance on— (a) the appropriate and safe use of screens and digital technology in early years settings, and(b) effective communication with parents and carers about screen use and digital technology.(2) The guidance must draw on advice from education and health professionals, researchers and academics including on the following areas—(a) the benefits, harms or risks of harm associated with the exposure of children of differing ages, including children with special educational needs or disabilities, to screens and other digital devices,(b) the balance between screen-based and non-digital activities for children in early years development and play,(c) age-appropriate limits for screen time for children in early years settings,(d) safeguarding policies for the use of personal devices and other screens in early years settings,(e) the impact of carers’ and parents’ use of personal devices and screens on child wellbeing and development,(f) the importance of screen-free times and environments, such as during meals, bedtimes, and outdoor play, and(g) practical examples and communication strategies for early years practitioners to share with parents and carers to support healthy screen use and promote positive parent–child interaction, including alternatives such as reading together, helping with daily tasks, and engaging with the natural environment.”

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 91, in my name and the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and Amendment 106, also supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

I am conscious that I am the warm-up act for the debate on Amendment 94A, in the name of my noble friend Lord Nash, which is also in this group. However, it is right and appropriate that, before we discuss the issue of teenagers and social media, we think first about the early years. Ofcom data shows that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from 25% in 2022 to 37% in 2024, with one in five of those using it independently of their parents. That data is reported by Ofcom but without any comment or action associated with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response as to whether the high-quality age verification that may accompany Amendment 94A in my noble friend’s name would be welcome in restricting use among our very youngest children also.

It is not just social media. Some 85% of three to five year-olds go online, with one in six owning their own mobile phone, while 98% of two year-olds watch television, videos or other digital content on a screen on a typical day, averaging around two hours each day—double the WHO recommendation—and among the top 20% of two year-olds that figure averaged five hours per day. Such levels of usage go against everything we know about what is needed for good development in the early years, where adult-child interaction is paramount. It goes against everything we know about how much physical and active play our youngest children need, the importance of outdoors activities and the development of healthy eyesight.

The reason this is so important is that we know that the early years are an important time for a child’s development and impact them much later on in life. That is why this Government have rightly placed so much emphasis on their early years strategy. In that context, the Government’s announcement last week that they will produce guidance for parents and carers on the screen time of preschoolers was incredibly welcome, if overdue. However, this will have a positive impact only if the high-quality guidance reaches parents and helps to change their behaviour. Can the Minister provide any more detail on the early years screen time advisory group that the Government are forming to develop this advice? We have the chairs and the terms of reference, but group membership and planned meetings remain to be updated “in due course” on the government website. Given that the guidance is being published in just three months, it would be useful to know more detail on that.

What plans do the Government have to publicise this advice once it is drawn up to reach parents where they get their information and ensure join-up across government, particularly with the Department for Health and Social Care so that it is integrated into the healthy child programme and available through health visitors and GPs, not just through Best Start Family Hubs? Given the importance of joint working in this area, would the Minister be happy to commit to a joint meeting between the two departments and experts to develop this further?

I turn to Amendment 91. The welcome action on guidance for parents makes the lack of any proper guidance and policy within early year settings an even greater outlier. There is policy around the use of technology in schools, but, in nurseries, often the most tech-rich environments as practitioners use tablets to log so much of a day’s activity, there is currently nothing. This is deeply problematic. It is problematic from a child development point of view, as the use of YouTube in early years settings has been described by one expert as “ubiquitous”, not just replacing the all-important adult-child interaction but using content that is too fast paced for children to learn from. This actually stimulates their fight or flight response, capturing their attention but in a way that is associated with hyper-alertness, hyper-wakefulness and later-life affective disorders. It is problematic from a safeguarding point of view, most starkly illustrated by the tragic case of Operation Lanark, where 18 nursery-issued devices were among the almost 70 seized from the home of a nursery worker charged with the most horrendous cases of abuse.

I am incredibly grateful that the Minister and her colleague Liv Bailey, the Early Education Minister, met me to discuss this and the parental guidance issue discussed earlier. I am really pleased that the Government’s intention is to update the voluntary guidance for settings on the help for early years platform, and, as part of their review into the non-statutory curriculum guidance, Development Matters, to not only include information on screen time and digital literacy but to include it in the next update to the statutory early years foundation stage framework. I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat this commitment today and give a clear timeline for when the amendment to the EYFS will be made.

In undertaking this work, will the department consider the impact of screen time and the wider use of technology and devices in early years settings, by children and practitioners, as well as child development and safe- guarding issues? Screen time is important but, based on research published about current levels of screen time use, “less is better” is an important message. The evidence shows that context and content matter too, and I hope the Government can commit to incorporating this in their approach.

I should be absolutely clear that those settings which choose not to use screens or tech should be free to do so. Tech is not needed for good child development in the early years. If it is being used, it should be informed by our understanding of early years development and accompanied by robust safeguarding practices and clear policy within the setting.

It is essential we get this right. I know a host of education, health and research professionals stand ready to support the Government in their work. I thank Katy Potts at the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group, Professors Rachael Bedford, Tim Smith and Sam Wass, Birth to 5 Matters and Health Professionals for Safer Screens. These are among the many dedicated people who have been generous to me with their time and worked so hard in this area.

Finally, I should probably explain why it is so important to get clear reassurances from the Minister on this now. I first tabled amendments on this in May last year, but there was no mention of digital technology or screen time in the Government’s early years strategy published in July. Guidance for parents of preschoolers was announced only in January, with no accompanying detail of a campaign to reach parents. On the incorporation of guidance into the early years statutory framework, the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the previous Early Education Minister over a year ago calling for this to be incorporated into the update to the EYFS that went live last September. That call was rejected, although I have never been able to find out why.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to action now and believe it is genuine, but I need reassurance that, once the spotlight has moved on, work will not stop and delivery will happen at pace, in particular on making a substantive change to the early years foundation stage statutory framework this year; otherwise, a two year-old who started nursery when we first debated this issue will have left for school before any change is made. I beg to move.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in my name, which are both amendments to Amendment 94A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nash. These are necessary if this House is to respond to the online harms that children face in a way that is effective, proportionate and grounded in evidence.

To be clear from the outset, I share the concerns across this House about the real harms that children face online. These range from exposure to age-inappropriate and damaging content to the disturbing prevalence of grooming and exploitation. Parents are right to be worried and Parliament is right to intervene. However, as the NSPCC made clear in its briefing to us, a complex safeguarding problem demands a risk-based response, not a blunt one-age ban.

My Amendment 94B would introduce a mechanism for limited and tightly controlled exemptions to a blanket minimum age requirement. Crucially, such exemptions could exist only where they demonstrably improved child safety, not where they weakened it. Any exemption would be jointly specified by Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner. That joint responsibility is deliberate and important. It would ensure that decisions were made independently of commercial interests and rooted firmly in regulatory expertise and the statutory duty to act in the best interests of children.

The amendment sets out a high evidential bar for platforms. Providers would have to show compliance with Ofcom’s risk-based guidance on minimum age, have full regard for UK GDPR principles and give explicit consideration to children’s rights as recognised by the UN Convention on the Rights of a Child. They would also be required to assess impacts on children’s mental health, examine whether their platform’s design or features encouraged addictive or compulsive use, and scrutinise the role of algorithms in content recommendations and targeted advertising for any products or services, including, for example, gambling content marketing. Importantly, any exemptions would be subject to periodic reviews, with powers for amendment or revocation if Ofcom and the Children’s Commissioner were no longer satisfied that adequate protections were in place. This would place a burden squarely on the platforms to prove safety on an ongoing basis, rather than leaving children exposed to unmanaged risk.

The NSPCC, the 5Rights Foundation, the Molly Rose Foundation and 39 children’s rights and online safety organisations have warned us this week that

“blanket bans on social media would fail to deliver the improvement in children’s safety and wellbeing that they so urgently need”.

We already know that age limits are not meaningfully enforced, and these organisations are well respected up and down this country. The NSPCC estimates that, in the UK, more than 2.5 million children under the age of 13 are currently accessing social media. Raising the minimum age to 16 does not solve that problem. Indeed, it risks pushing children into less regulated and higher-risk spaces, including encrypted platforms, anonymous forums and unsafe gaming environments. Children who bypass age checks are likely to register as adults, placing them in an environment with weaker safeguards and a higher exposure to harm. There is also a real risk of unintended consequences. Safe, age-appropriate use of social media such as family group chats, peer support networks and access to services like Childline could be lost, particularly for vulnerable children. Bans may also deter children from reporting harm for fear of being punished for being online at all.

Briefly, Amendment 94C would ensure that the definition of “regulated user-to-user services” was aligned with the Online Safety Act 2023. This House invested significant effort in establishing a risk-based regulatory framework under the Act, and it is essential that this Bill operates coherently within it.

These amendments would not dilute child protection but strengthen it. They would move us away from a blunt, one-size-fits-all ban towards a proportionate, evidence-based approach that respected children’s rights, held platforms accountable and generally reduced harm. The public out there have sent a clear message that they want us to act. It is now up to us in your Lordships’ House and down the Corridor in the other place to act on this. We need to heed the warnings of these respected organisations that have written to us all and to say, “We hear you that there is a need for a ban, but we think we can look at a much more sophisticated model than just a simple, one age limit ban”.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have shown willingness, desire and, importantly, action in going further on issues relating to children’s online safety, wider well-being and screen time. The Online Safety Act and its enforcement, early years and older children’s screen time guidance, the consultation, national conversation and the VAWG strategy demonstrate this. Rest assured, we will continue to act to keep protecting our children, as noble Lords have asked for today. There is nothing more important and this Government are determined to deliver on that.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. My only plea to noble Lords, as we take this issue forward beyond today’s debate in the Chamber—as I have no doubt that we will—is that we keep the interests of our very youngest children in mind. If we think that companies and the regulator take this seriously, how can it be that the proportion of three to five year-olds using social media has risen from one in four to nearly 40% in just two years, since the Online Safety Act was passed? If the fact that one in five two year-olds is spending five hours a day on average on a screen is not a call to arms then I do not know what is.

On my Amendment 91, I welcome the commitments from the Government. The gap is now small, indeed it narrowed by a further few months during the course of this long debate, and I will hold them to account for delivering on it. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 91.

Amendment 91 withdrawn.

Parental Leave and Pay Review

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the advocacy not only of my noble friend but of her former employer, the TUC. The Government have met with many stakeholders and had many encouragements to act in lots of different directions. My noble friend is absolutely right that the system needs reform. We know that it does not work for everybody at the moment. Having a child is a joyous occasion, but it is a challenge for many parents. We need to get this right. The Government opened a call for evidence, and we had almost 1,500 responses. We need to consider those carefully and find a way forward that provides a proper balance for employers, employees and the Exchequer. We will get this right.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to the call for evidence, which closed in August. I appreciate that there were around 1,300 responses, but it has been five months since then, with not a word of an update from the Government. Could we get an update from the Minister now on progress in that last five months and a clear timetable for what the Government will spend the next 12 months doing?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, we are doing a number of different things. We are engaging in detail with stakeholders. We have already held 12 round tables, and we have engaged with business groups, academics and parent groups, including the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the TUC, The Dad Shift, Mumsnet, and Maternity Action—lots of them. We are working through this with many academics, gathering all the evidence, finding out what we can do and looking at international comparisons. We are simply not doing nothing for the moment. We have already made a significant number of differences. The Government have introduced a range of things, such as neonatal care leave and pay, and we are looking at paternity leave and unpaid parental leave as day one rights, and at new leave for bereaved parents. There are a number of steps happening now, and we will look at whether there are things that can be introduced, and when, but we do have to get this right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government will consult with employers and those who are going to be affected to make sure that the implementation of the decisions Parliament has already made is done appropriately. I make no apologies for that, and the House should welcome it.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the evidence needed. When Quebec introduced five weeks of paid paternity leave 20 years ago, not only did it increase the take-up and length of leave taken by dads, but it increased mothers’ labour-market participation by around 7%. Does the Minister accept that, based on the information available to us today and for the last 20 years, six weeks of paid paternity leave is the single biggest policy the Government could implement to close the motherhood pay penalty? There is a good growth case for introducing it and we do not need another 12-month review to reach those conclusions.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Despite discouragement from behind me, I am going to be gentle about this. The noble Baroness makes the important point that there is a lot out there to be learned. We are looking at the international evidence. In Great Britain we tend to be more generous with leave than, for example, other OECD nations, but we do not match up on pay. As part of the review, we have been looking at international comparisons to see what happens, recognising that there are of course differences in labour markets and tax regimes. We must be aware of the impact on our particular context. Certainly, I am hearing a lot of clear voices calling for fathers to have more paternity leave. One of the things we need to be aware of is that when shared parental leave was previously introduced, take-up was very low indeed. We need to make sure the system works well, rather than just diving into making changes.

Preschool Children: Digital Technology

Baroness Penn Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Penn]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what information they provide to parents and early-years providers about safe and appropriate use of digital technology by pre-school children.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government recognise concerns about the impacts of screen time on young children. We have produced guidance for the Help for Early Years Providers platform, which refers to the World Health Organization’s screen time recommendations. On screen time specifically, we are continuing to assess evidence gaps through ongoing research and will consider what, if any, further research and action is needed.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking time to meet me and the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, last month to discuss this issue. The evidence shows that digital device use among early years children is growing rapidly, and education and health professionals, researchers and academics are deeply concerned about how this is leading to identifiable changes in behaviour, language development, social skills and mental and physical health. More than 40 members of the Digital Standards for Early Years Action Group wrote to the Government more than a year ago to call for action in this area, but there is nothing in the early years strategy, there is nothing in the early years foundation stage statutory framework and there is no public health information for family hubs, health visitors or GPs, so the digital action group wrote again to the Government last week to call for real action in this area. Will the Minister outline what further steps the Government are going to take to address this important issue?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for our useful and informative meeting, from which we have already taken further action. She is right about, and we particularly discussed in that meeting, the concerns of parents for the advice that they receive. I outlined in my initial Answer some of the action that we are taking to provide more clarity for early years providers, but we are also working to provide parents with clear, specific advice on early years screen time and home learning. In advance of specific early years screen time guidance for parents, we have streamlined content on the Best Start in Life website, an issue that she raised with us, to ensure that relevant home learning content appears in search results for screen time. We are exploring options to prioritise search results, ensuring that the most relevant home learning page appears first to further strengthen discoverability. Any new specific guidance for parents on early years and screen time will also be signposted clearly on the website. I look forward to the opportunity, when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill returns to this House for Report in January, to continue this conversation and provide further information about action that the Government are taking.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Penn Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, we have had a wide range of expertise in the speakers today, although I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, might be the only one of us who could not think of a better Christmas present than a pensions Bill. I am also conscious that my remarks stand between the House and the much anticipated maiden speech from the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park, to which I too am looking forward, so I will try to be brief and focused.

I want to touch on three areas but before that, like many others, I welcome many aspects of this Bill, including on consolidation and value for money. However, there are important areas of detail that the Government need to provide for us to understand how they will better work; in particular, around the requirements on scale and value for money, and what they mean for competition and market dynamism, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Noakes have spoken to. There is also the risk that, at some point, scale no longer promotes investment in innovation and scale-ups, as those businesses would no longer be able to meet the minimum investment thresholds for very large funds.

The first area I want to focus on, which may be no surprise, is mandation. I am not convinced about the decision to include a mandation power in the Bill, as others have said. I will not repeat those arguments, but if I was convinced of the case for mandation, I would not be convinced of how it is being legislated for in the Bill as it stands. We are told that it has a sunset clause, but that is not the case. The 2035 deadline is only for increasing the maximum allocations set out by regulation and before this sunset moment, as I read it, there is no maximum limit on what proportion of investments can be mandated. I ask the Minister: why not? If the Government want to use the existence of this power to drive delivery against the Mansion House Accord, why not set a maximum level of mandation in line with those commitments made in the accords? There is also absolutely no clarity on what assets may be mandated for investment, only that they are not listed assets. In doing so, the Government have excluded a potentially important class of productive asset, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and surely to be raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I would also like to hear from the Minister whether the Government intend to change course here.

As to what can be included within mandation, the answer appears to be: absolutely anything else. There are examples, of course, as to what the Government want to do but no legal limits whatever, and the prescribed assets can be altered at any time by regulation, in perpetuity. Normally, the argument for such an approach is to maintain flexibility. But given this is a power that the Government themselves say they do not want to use, surely the case for constraining it to the limits of what the Government intend could not be stronger. If a future Government wanted to go further than this, it would also seem reasonable to put forward further primary legislation to do so, because it is important not to think about the use case one might agree with, but the one that one might disagree with.

I can think of credible cases being put forward for mandating for portions of assets significantly above 5% or 10% for investment in net zero or defence, to name two examples. I make no judgment on the values of these: rather, I ask whether, even if noble Lords might support one of those use cases or scenarios, they would support the other.

In explaining the need for the power that the Government do not expect to use, the Pensions Minister has said that its existence will provide clarity to industry. But, for clarity, we need more detail than is included in the Bill: the definition of a qualifying asset and the percentage required. To provide that clarity, you would need to provide draft regulations. Is that the intention of the Government, will we see them during the course of the Bill and can the noble Baroness set out a timeline for us?

If the Government do not wish to use mandation, perhaps I might ask the Minister what feedback she has had from pension providers on the barriers to investing in the UK economy, and what action the Government are taking to address those, both to increase the pipeline of investment opportunities but also, specifically, regulatory barriers that have been raised by providers. Are the Government committed to looking at those also, and over what timeline? I also ask the Minister what happens if valuations change, over time or in response to a specific shock? There is a lot of detail to be looked at with regard to how the mandation powers will work, as well as the principle of them.

The second area I want to touch on is fiduciary duty. This was something that noble Lords discussed in some detail during the passage of the Financial Services and Markets Act, during which I committed to this House that the Government would consider the work of the Financial Markets Law Committee and host their own round tables to consider whether further action was needed. One of those round tables did take place, but I am afraid further ones did not. The Financial Markets Law Committee reported in 2024, however, and made it clear that, in its view, it is proper for pension fund trustees to consider climate change, along with other factors, when discharging their fiduciary duties. As the Pensions Minister conceded in the Commons, however,

“more clarity about the ability of trustees to take into account such factors would help”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/25; col. 1043.]

The Minister committed to bringing forward legislation that will provide statutory guidance in this area. Could the Minister confirm whether that legislation will be in this Bill and, if so, when we can expect to see those amendments, and also the timescale for the statutory guidance to be produced? Given that there will continue to be different interpretations of the underlying law in this area, I ask the Minister why an amendment in primary legislation would not be preferable to address the issue?

Finally, in the same discussions around fiduciary duty during the Financial Services and Markets Bill, the issue of deforestation-linked finance was discussed, including in relation to pension funds. Could the Minister update the House on the Government’s plans to bring forward regulations under Schedule 17 of the Environment Act 2021 to ban the import of forest-risk commodities and conduct a subsequent review to assess whether the financial regulatory framework is adequate for the purpose of eliminating the financing of illegal deforestation, and to consider what changes to the regulatory framework may be appropriate in this context? The EU’s framework on deforestation-linked finance is coming into force this month, so it would be a timely moment for the Government to set out their plan in this area.

Finally, the Bill does nothing to address pension adequacy, as we have heard. My noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, have highlighted in particular the issue of self-employed people and pension adequacy. I will be focusing in particular on the women’s pension gap, which remains at over 30%. My understanding is that there has been little progress on narrowing that gap over the years, and what progress has been made is as a result of men’s contributions falling, rather than any improvement in contributions from women, and I do not think that is the right way to be narrowing the gap. We are storing up huge inequalities in retirement unless further action is taken. Can the Minister reassure me and this House on the action that the Government are planning in this area, both potentially through the commission but also alongside and in advance of its work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the incredible range of thoughtful and constructive contributions we have heard during today’s debate. I should declare that I am a member of the parliamentary pension scheme; otherwise, I have a private pension.

I am so grateful to have heard the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White. I realise we have quite a bit in common: we are children of migrants, I too have spatial dyspraxia—I have never yet found my way around here—and we both engage with a church. I am afraid that there it ends; no one will ever ask me to chair John Lewis, which may be just as well for anybody who likes shopping there. She may have had an eclectic career but, now that she has joined this House, it will get a lot more eclectic still. It is a joy to have her on board and, if there is more of that to come, I look forward to it.

The range of views around of the House reflects the significance of the Bill for savers, employers and the pensions industry. The level of interest underscores how important pensions are to savers and the UK economy, and we need to help people get the best from their savings. There were some fascinating discussions in the debate today. I could have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and my noble friend Lord Wood for a lot longer, and I shall not be able to do justice to what they said. But I shall go back and read it very carefully and I hope that we can continue to have some really interesting conversations.

There were a lot of questions, and I will not be able to respond to all of them. I shall do my very best, but I have only 20 minutes and it may be that noble Lords have to listen back to this at half-speed, if I am not careful.

I will start with adequacy, as that is where the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, began. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for setting out that this has been very much a cross-party journey that we have been on together, and I hope that we can keep it that way. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not mean to presume that auto-enrolment started with the last Conservative Government, when in fact it was legislated by the previous Labour Government—and there was also the Pensions Commission. I am sure that she did not mean to say that. What we have done is provide some remarkable continuity in the journey, and I hope that we can carry on doing that.

I was delighted by the work done by the last Pensions Commission, on which my noble friend Lady Drake served with such distinction—and I know that she will serve with equal distinction on the next Pensions Commission. That is the place where adequacy will be addressed fully. The Government are committed to that—it is a key priority for us—but it is also important that we get the market into the right shape so that, if savers are saving more, they will get the returns on their money.

I turn to the issue of surplus. I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and my noble friend Lord Davies, and thought, “I can’t make them both happy on this front”. That is generally true, I think, but it is illustrated particularly on the subject of surplus. I shall say two things. First, to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, I say that we are very careful about what surplus extraction will do. Schemes are currently enjoying high levels of funding, with three in four in surplus on a low-dependency basis. They are also more mature, with the vast majority having a hedge to minimise the risk of future volatility with investment strategies: they are protected against interest rate and inflation movements. The DB funding code and underpinning legislation introduced in 2024 require trustees to maintain a strong funding position.

The decisions to release surplus are of course subject to trustee discretion and underpinned by strict safeguards, including the requirement for a prudent funding threshold, actuarial certification and member notification. Of course, as part of any agreement to release surplus funds, trustees are in a good position to negotiate, and it will be down to trustees to negotiate with their employers about the way in which surplus is released.

My noble friend Lady Warwick rightly pressed me on the questions of scale. As outlined in the impact assessment for the Bill, there is a range of evidence showing that scale can help deliver better governance, with economies of scale, investment expertise and access to a wider range of assets all helping to improve outcomes. We may not be heading for the sunlit uplands of Aussie megafunds, described by the noble Baroness, Lady White, but we are pushing in that direction. In response to her question, we will ensure that the governance and regulatory requirements needed for these much bigger pension schemes will be robust. We will develop those with the industry going forward.

On the question of whether the scale measures are going to be tougher on smaller schemes, the problem is that our evidence shows, across a range of studies, that scale is what makes the difference. We are asked why there is a magic number of about £25 billion. The evidence from a number of studies shows that a greater number of benefits can arise from a scale of £25 billion to £50 billion of assets under management, including investment expertise and sophistication and the balance sheet to provide a more diverse portfolio to savers. We have not seen sufficient evidence that other approaches will enable the same benefits for savers and the economy, so we do believe that scale is the best way to realise benefits across the market for savers. However, there will be a transition pathway to enable those schemes that are not there now to have a route to scale where they have a credible plan to achieve it in five years, and we will consult the industry on what a credible plan may look like as part of the development of regulations.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, as well as my noble friend Lord Wood, mentioned the position of new entrants. The potential for future market innovation is really important; we are very conscious that scale requirements could, if not done correctly, prevent this future innovation. So the Government have provided for a new-entrant pathway, designed specifically to provide a route for this future innovation. We will monitor future movement in the market to ensure that the pathway is working as intended. In addition to innovation, these schemes will be required to have the strong potential to grow to scale over time.

I dive in briefly to the reserve power and asset allocation. I am clearly not going to satisfy the House today; we will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss this. But I shall make a few points now about it in general and the interaction with fiduciary duty. Questions were raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stedman-Scott, Lady Penn and Lady Noakes, the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Vaux, my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Lords, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth and Lord Evans—and I am going to stop saying these names now.

There is widespread recognition of the benefits that a diverse investment portfolio can bring for savers. That is exactly why the signatories to the Mansion House Accord are committing to invest in private markets. This reserve power will help to ensure this change happens, but we have built in a number of safeguards. Let me just knock one thing on the head. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, that this asset allocation power does not apply to the LGPS. Following an amendment in the House of Commons, the Bill no longer allows a responsible authority, such as the Secretary of State, to direct asset pool companies to make specific investment decisions. I hope that reassures the noble Lord on that point.

On the wider question, the making of regulations under this power will be subject to a raft of safeguards contained in the Bill. To respond to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, I say that the Government anticipate that we will not have to use this power if all goes well. Were the Government ever to use it, there are a series of safeguards, and we would have to consult and produce a report. We would at that point look at developing how it would be done. Let me briefly touch on the safeguards: first, the power is time limited, and I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, that it will expire if it has not been used. Any percentage headline asset allocation requirements enforced beyond that date will be capped at their current levels. Secondly, and crucially, the Government are required to establish a savers’ interest test in which pension providers will be granted an exemption from the targets where they can show that meeting them would cause material financial detriment to savers. Finally, the regulations will obviously be subject to parliamentary scrutiny but, before that, the Government will need to consult and publish a report on the impact of any new requirements on savers and economic growth both before exercising any power for the first time and within five years of it being exercised.

I am going to have to rush through. I turn to the points raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, about qualifying assets and investment trusts. I can see that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, feels very strongly about this—I listened carefully to the points that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, made. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, in particular that the Government recognise the role that investment trusts play in the UK economy and in supporting the Government’s growth agenda, and we are committed to supporting this important sector. We put that on the record very clearly. However, when it comes to qualifying assets in a reserve power, we have aimed to stick closely to the scope of the Mansion House Accord, which itself is limited to investments made by unlisted funds. That is consistent with our general approach to this part of the Bill, where we deliberately ensure that the powers are suitably targeted and contain guardrails. In other words, they are not intended to be open-ended but should be capable of serving as a backstop to the commitments that pension providers have voluntarily made.

There were a number of points made by my noble friend Lord Davies about consumer protections. I reassure him that consumer protection is a priority for the Government, and ensuring that there are strong consumer safeguards is something we take very seriously. That is why the Bill introduces a number of robust consumer protections, including in the contractual override process, in small pots and in DB surplus. I look forward to discussing these in more detail with him and others in Committee.

My noble friend Lady Warwick raised the question of VFM. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for welcoming that; my noble friend Lord Davies raised it as well. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked about the interaction in different parts of the scheme. The pensions road map, which I am sure he has had the opportunity to read, shows very clearly how the different measures that we are proposing connect and how they are all necessary. They are all key parts of a machine necessary to achieving the Government’s objective of moving the pensions landscape forward. I can tell him that the next step will be a joint consultation by the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, which will be published early next year. This will then inform our draft regulations on value for money, which we intend to consult on during 2026. We expect the VFM framework to be implemented in 2028, with the first set of VFM metrics published in March 2028. The first VFM assessment reports and ratings will then be published in October 2028. On that basis, we would expect to see poor performing schemes starting to exit the market from November 2028.

On the pre-1927 indexation in the Pension Protection Fund and FAS, I listened very carefully to the comments that have been made by my noble friend Lady Warwick, the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth—I thank him for his thoughtful reflection—and many other colleagues. We are laying the groundwork for the first major step forward in this area, and I think that some credit should be given to the Government for doing that. However, I understand that this will not go as far as many had hoped.

We need to recognise that the PPF maintains a substantial financial reserve. It is not a surplus; it is a financial reserve to protect against future risks. The cost of retrospection and arrears is significant and would greatly reduce that reserve. Any change that reduces the PPF’s reserves will, by definition, reduce the vital security the PPF provides to its current and future members. The PPF has very successfully navigated the past 20 years. It is well regarded as a prudent fiduciary acting in the best interests of pension savers, and we need to ensure that it can continue to do so.

I am going to disappoint my noble friend Lord Davies on the matter of pre-1997 indexation in wider DB schemes. I need to tell him clearly that the Government have no plans to change the rules on pre-1997 indexation for DB schemes. These rules ensure consistency across all schemes, and changing them would increase liabilities and costs. Over three-quarters of schemes pay some pre-1997 indexation because of scheme rules or as a discretionary benefit, but reforms in the Bill, as we have mentioned, will enable more trustees of well-funded DB pension schemes to share surplus with employers and deliver better outcomes for members, which may include discretionary indexation.

I turn to the questions on fiduciary duty, raised by many noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman, Lady Bowles and Lady Penn, the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and my noble friend Lady Warwick. It is often said that fiduciary duty is the cornerstone of trust-based pension schemes and that trustees should invest in the best interests of their members. That principle remains fundamental. The Government believe that the current legal framework gives trustees flexibility to adapt and protect savers’ interests. However, at the same time, we acknowledge the calls for more clarity on considering systemic factors, such as climate risk and members’ living standards, when making investment decisions.

My colleague the Minister for Pensions set out in the Commons that we intend to develop guidance for the trust-based private pension sector to provide this clarification. I know that he plans to come forward shortly with more details on what the guidance will look to cover. He has already confirmed how he intends to start engaging with a wide range of stakeholders in producing the guidance, starting with a series of industry round tables early in the new year.

Through guidance, the Government are trying to address a barrier that some trustees say they face when investing in savers’ best interests. Guidance has the potential to support climate and sustainability goals, and our wider goal to improve saver outcomes and unlock pension investment in UK growth. We are still in the early stages of undertaking consultation and exploring options on this, and we will provide further updates in due course.

The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, asked why we do not just change the primary legislation. It is the Government’s view that introducing statutory changes to refine investment duties could risk creating rigid and complex obligations, which would reduce the ability of trustees to respond to changing investment landscapes and circumstances. On the questions of how and when, we are exploring possible options for taking this forward if and when parliamentary time allows.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles and Lady Coffey, raised the position of trustees, and others also alluded to it. Successful implementation of the Bill’s reforms will rely on highly skilled trustees operating independently, applying good governance and focusing on delivering the best outcomes for savers. That is why we launched a consultation on stronger trusteeship and governance earlier this week. It aims to bring all schemes up to the required standard and explore what changes might be needed to raise the bar for all trustees. The industry has welcomed the consultation and there seems to be a consensus that high-quality trusteeship and governance is vital to ensuring good outcomes for pension scheme members. I encourage anyone with an interest in this area to respond to the consultation.

A number of other points were raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talked about the need for a single regulator. I say simply that the Government recognise the importance of clarity and co-ordination in the regulation of workplace pensions. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator work effectively together, including through joint working groups and consultations. They have shared strategies and guidance, and regular joint engagement with stakeholders. The Government keep the regulatory system under review.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, made some interesting points. The Government are committed to appropriate regulation, and to do that we need to engage regularly with stakeholders and industry to make sure that we get it right. There are some genuine questions, which we will go on to debate in Committee, about getting the balance right between primary legislation, secondary legislation, regulation, supervision, governance and guidance. We need space to be able to engage with industry, because any regulations we produce have to work and the details of the scheme will have to be worked through. That will inevitably mean that there will be times when the House will want more detail than we are able to give. One of the challenges is that it should not be possible both to criticise the Government while they are trying to make their mind up on everything at the same time in some areas and to criticise them for not being open to consultation. We will see how it goes and continue to consult extensively with industry and other stakeholders as we move through this.

A few more points were raised. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, asked about the Pensions Ombudsman. It is important to clarify that the measure on the Pensions Ombudsman neither increases nor widens their powers, nor that of the TPO, beyond what was originally intended. This is reinstating the original intent of the ombudsman’s powers in pension overpayment dispute cases, which were debated in Parliament when the ombudsman was established in 1991. There was a High Court ruling; we are amending the existing legislation because that ruling stated that the TPO is not a competent court in pensions overpayment cases. The aim is to reinstate the original policy intent and reaffirm the government view and that of the pensions industry. I hope that reassures the noble Lord. It restores the original policy intent—that is all. It is not designed to try to widen it. I hope that is an encouragement to him.

On the question of small pots, the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, queried the pot limit. We had to choose somewhere. The initial pot limit of £1,000 will address 13 million stock of small pots, which we think strikes the right balance between achieving meaningful levels of pot consolidation and reducing administration costs for pension providers without distorting the market. However, the Secretary of State will keep the threshold under review to ensure that it remains appropriate as the market continues to develop following the reforms made in the Bill.

A number of noble Lords asked about the position on pensions dashboards. The Government have committed to regular updates to the House—we will be doing another one of those—but let me put some headlines on the record for now. The House will be glad to know that good progress has been made with the pensions dashboards. The first pension provider successfully completed connection to the pensions dashboards ecosystem on 17 April this year, forming a crucial step towards making dashboards a reality. More than 700 of the largest pension providers and schemes are now connected to the dashboards ecosystem; over 60 million records are now integrated into dashboards, representing around three-quarters of the records in scope.

Further, state pension data is now accessible, representing tens of millions of additional records. The pensions dashboards programme is confident that pension providers and schemes in scope will connect by the regulatory deadline of 31 October 2026. When we have assurances that the service is safe, secure and thoroughly user tested, the Secretary of State will provide the industry with six months’ notice ahead of the launch of the Money Helper pensions dashboard.

A number of noble Lords mentioned the gender pensions gap, including the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Auto-enrolment has delivered substantial progress in increasing pension participation among women, which has meant, as the noble Baroness said, that workplace pension participation rates between eligible men and women in the private sector have now equalised. However, it is absolutely right that gaps remain in pension participation and wealth, reflecting wider structural inequalities in the labour market. A gender pay gap leads to a gender pensions gap. Women now approaching retirement still have, on average, half the private pension wealth of men. The Pensions Commission will consider further steps to improve pension outcomes for all, especially women and groups identified as being at greater risk of undersaving for retirement.

That is probably about as far as I can go. I am really grateful to be part of a House with so much interest and knowledge in a subject that not everybody—noble Lords will be shocked to hear—finds as interesting as those of us here today do. However, we do, and I look forward to lots of really interesting discussions in Committee. This Bill marks a decisive step in modernising the pensions system, strengthening security for members, driving better value and enabling innovation across the sector. It combines ambition with safeguards, ensuring schemes can deliver improved outcomes while maintaining confidence and trust. I look forward to working with noble Lords—after they have had a very happy Christmas—and to continuing constructive engagement. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

The Minister has made a valiant attempt to answer all questions. Can she commit to writing to the noble Lords in this debate on the questions she did not reach, and to that letter reaching us before we start Committee?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

This is the last sitting day before we finish. I will look at what I can put in writing before we get to Committee. I have never been asked so many questions in such a short period—and I have talked to church youth groups. I will see what we can do on that front.