Health-related Benefits Assessments

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a very important point—and one that I suspect at least maybe half of the House could empathise with in some way. I reassure my noble friend that the Government take menopause support seriously. We have been doing work specifically on this, having appointed a menopause champion, and are looking at women who are experiencing severe menopausal and perimenopausal symptoms and how that impacts their work.

This ties in with our reform of fit notes—we are piloting new ways to make the fit note system work better—and, crucially, the work we are doing with employers. We know that employers want to support their staff to keep them in work. We do not want women falling out of work unnecessarily when they hit the menopause for either lack of preparation or support on their part or from their doctors, or because employers do not understand and cannot make appropriate adjustments. I am really grateful to my noble friend for raising this.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, between July 2024 and July 2025, 1.1 million assessments were carried out remotely. Three-quarters of those were conducted by telephone and just 3% were conducted by video link. Notwithstanding the answers the Minister has given us already, how can a DWP assessor properly judge whether someone has significant difficulty with daily living or mobility as a result of their condition when the assessment is conducted by telephone and the assessor can hear but cannot see the person concerned?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I will not dwell on the point that the challenge we are facing is the challenge the previous Government faced, and we did not invent telephone assessments.

The noble Baroness raises an important point. The truth is that it depends on the case. The job of the health professional is to begin by looking at all the written evidence. As I said previously, sometimes that will mean that a case can be absolutely ruled in, or indeed ruled out, but there may be circumstances in which more information is needed. Video assessments can be effective in that, so can face-to-face assessments, but it depends on the nature of the question. There are questions that can be addressed in a telephone assessment. The same core assessment process is used across the piece to gather evidence and ask the right questions, so the health professional can justify their decision. At any point, if they need a different kind of assessment, then it is their job to request it. We want to make sure we have more face-to-face appointments available, but we want to make sure we get people into the most appropriate assessment, so we can get through assessments as fast as possible, get people who need help the right help, and get people who should not be getting help into work.

Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest, in that I was a member of the Public Services Committee. I loved being on that committee—and you will not hear that about many committees, I can tell you—and found it to be a really stimulating experience, so I applaud the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley.

Along with my noble friend Lady Coffey, I had responsibility for the Child Maintenance Service when I was at the DWP, and we worked well together on that. I was horrified, and at times incandescent with rage, at the lengths to which people went to avoid paying their child maintenance. If I had the time, I would keep noble Lords here with some of the stories; they would make your hair curl.

When we are talking about child maintenance, it is easy to make the discussion about parents: who owes whom what, whether they are paying on time or the correct amount and, often, how the split occurred in the first place and who is to blame. These conversations and questions are important but also largely tangential. The person at the centre of this is the child. Being a child with parents who split up is not easy. Research shows that children with split parents are more likely to face lower academic achievement, more behavioural or emotional difficulties, a higher risk of economic disadvantage and a strain on relationships later in life. Children from these backgrounds often have to grow up fast to act as mediators between adults who do not have a stable or amicable relationship with one another, and they often feel adrift. Other children go back to their house, but these children go back to mum’s house or dad’s house, never to a place that they can call their home. Children with parents who have not split amicably can suffer even more, and they often face this alone. Being a child in this situation, which they did not choose, can be lonely, upsetting and confusing, and all too often these children can feel like extras in a drama being played out between their parents.

Child maintenance is therefore more than just a payment between adults; it is a mechanism designed to go some way towards addressing the disadvantages that children from broken homes face early in their lives, one of which is a reduced household income if living with a single parent. Ensuring that the child maintenance system works well is therefore fundamentally important and must be an absolute priority for all of us in this Room today.

Given the importance of getting this right, the committee’s report makes deeply concerning reading. It tells us, as others have said, that around 4 million out of 14 million children in the UK live in separated families. That is millions of children whose security and stability may depend, at least in part, on the Child Maintenance System working properly. The report also raises serious concerns about the way that payments are calculated. The formula is now more than 20 years old and is based largely on the income of the paying parent. The committee finds that the system lacks transparency, does not properly reflect the variety of modern family circumstances and may leave room for income to be underreported.

As I understand it, tax evasion is unlawful. Child maintenance evasion should be treated exactly the same. The Government’s own recently published research on child maintenance calculations reinforces many of the committee’s concerns. It found that parents on both sides of the system frequently regard existing arrangements as unfair and that compliance is influenced not only by affordability but by conflict between parents and wider family relationships. That should remind us that confidence in the system depends not only on effective enforcement but on transparency, fairness and the ability of parents to understand how decisions are reached.

I also note the Government’s proposal to reduce the income tolerance threshold from 25% to 15%, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, so ably described, so that changes in parents’ earnings are reflected more quickly in maintenance calculations. In principle, that appears to be a sensible attempt to make the system more responsive to real-world income changes. However, it also underlines the broader point made by the committee that the current framework relies heavily on historical data and assumptions that can quickly drift away from a family’s actual circumstances.

It is worth noting that concerns about the calculation framework are not new. Successive reviews have identified questions around fairness, transparency and affordability, and Governments of different political colours have sought to address them. The challenge now is to ensure that this long-running programme of reform is carried forward rather than allowed to drift.

I come to enforcement. My first ever visit as a Minister was to the Child Maintenance Service in Plymouth. It was a massive place with lots of staff, and I talked to them at length about enforcement. The team at the Child Maintenance Service responsible for enforcement in my time was outstanding. Its members deserved all the credit they could get. They never flinched from dealing with situations: it was just that they had too many situations to deal with. If my friend the Minister can do one thing, it should be to get more people into enforcement to get more money for children. If we spent more—here is a Tory talking about spending more—and we calculated the potential return on investment, we could make life better for these young people.

Ultimately, this all comes back to the child. That is why I particularly welcome the committee’s recommendation that the child should be placed at the centre of the calculation formula, with their welfare and future made the paramount consideration. We should remind ourselves that these children did not cause this situation. They did not choose it and did not ask for it, yet they are the ones most profoundly affected by it.

Other recommendations from the report also seem sensible and would allow the system to deliver for children. Improving enforcement, redefining what counts as non-compliance, and giving parents clear and timely updates would all help ensure that more maintenance payments are actually made. It is simply unacceptable that, under the current system, too many parents are able to avoid making payments owed to their children. The evidence shows that this is most often fathers, who on average earn more than mothers, leaving the mothers to carry the financial burden alone.

The committee also pays special attention to vulnerable parents and those who are at risk of financial and domestic abuse, which is most welcome. When someone becomes the receiving parent, they face serious financial costs and are particularly open to the risk of financial abuse. If someone has suffered a difficult separation from a partner, this is heightened even further. Proposals such as allowing direct access to collect and pay for abuse victims are worth consideration by the Government.

There is one further aspect of the committee’s report that deserves particular attention. While child maintenance is often discussed in financial terms, the evidence presented to the committee reminds us that the underlying challenges are frequently relational as much as economic. My noble friend Lord Farmer outlined this eloquently and in a way that we should all be able to understand. That is why I welcome the committee’s emphasis on early intervention and support for separated parents. Helping parents access advice, mediation and practical support at an earlier stage may not only reduce conflict but increase the likelihood of durable arrangements that work in the best interests of children.

Family hubs, which have grown under this Government, have a great impact and effect. Making them the centre, and a place where child maintenance can be discussed and managed, is a no-brainer. I am sure the Minister will take this away and try to make it happen. I hope she does; if not, we will all be on to her.

Ultimately, if we are serious about improving outcomes for children, we must do more than administer payments efficiently; we must also support parents to manage separation in a way that minimises conflict, fulfils parental responsibilities and places the welfare of children above all else. It is important to recognise that many of the issues identified by the committee have been the subject of reform efforts over a number of years. The introduction of the 2012 system under the coalition Government, subsequent work to strengthen enforcement and more recent measures aimed at improving protections for victims of domestic violence or abuse all reflect a recognition that the status quo was and is not good enough. While those reforms have not resolved every problem, they provide a foundation on which further improvements can and should be built.

The report produced by the committee gives the Government some serious food for thought. As a number of noble Lords have observed, lasting reform will require us not only to improve the mechanics of the system but to support families earlier, reduce conflict where possible and help parents make arrangements that put children first. Whether or not children should be properly supported, the fulfilment of parental duties encouraged and vulnerable people recognised are not matters of partisan difference; I know that there is a great deal of sympathy across the House for meaningful change to make sure that these are upheld.

The question for the Government is therefore not whether reform is needed, but whether they will now complete and implement the reforms that have already been identified. Families who depend upon the Child Maintenance Service cannot afford for necessary changes to remain indefinitely under review. I will be listening carefully to the response from the Minister on the concerns that have been raised by everybody who has spoken in this debate and that in the Chamber today.

I thank the committee again for its work—I am sorry that I was not with your Lordships—and for enabling us to have this debate. There is much in the report to command our attention but, my goodness, there is more to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, said, the work is not complete.

Young People and Work

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of Alan Milburn's report Young people and work: interim report, published on 28 May; and what steps they intend to take to address the rising number of young people who are not in education, employment or training.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name in the Order Paper. I understand that there is a debate going on about where I should be sitting. If I have got it wrong, I am really sorry.

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

My Lords, this Government’s priority is to ensure that young people have the best opportunities to get on in life. That is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to identify the underlying drivers of the NEET participation crisis. His interim report shows that this is a systemic challenge across departments and society. We are already taking action across education, health, youth services and welfare, and we will build further on this as we consider full recommendations from Alan Milburn in the autumn.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer, which is encouraging. We on these Benches welcome the Milburn report. It is a serious, research-driven diagnosis of a problem that has accelerated since the pandemic. The NEET problem is complex and cuts across almost every government department—and it is more than welfare policy, as the Minister has already said. It is about interaction with education, skills, health and the labour market, economic growth and young people’s ability to transition from school to the labour market.

We all agree that economic growth matters and business confidence matters, and, most importantly, we need employers who are willing and able to afford to hire young people in the current climate. The latter is something we can address right now. Why will the Government not revoke the damaging policies—such as the increases in national insurance, increasing employment burdens and rising labour costs—that are preventing employers employing young people? That will reinvigorate the number of entry-level jobs, get young people into work and keep them there.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I was with the noble Baroness for the first part of her question. She is right: the Milburn report does identify a wide-ranging problem and a need for systemic and country-wide action. I am afraid that she may not have read it as carefully as she should have in relation to the last part of her question. Alan Milburn is very clear in paragraph 266 that

“it is worth remembering that those under 21 remain exempt from employer NICs and, as the review has already highlighted, the increase in youth inactivity long precedes any recent changes”

to NEETs. Employers do not pay national insurance contributions for under-21s, or for apprentices under 25. If national insurance contributions were really responsible for the rise in NEETs, why did the number increase by 250,000 before the general election and before any changes to employer national insurance were made?

For Women Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, we have consistently recognised that there has been concern among the trans community about the way in which the ruling and the code will be implemented. I hope that recognising, as the ruling does, that the rights of trans people remain unaffected under the Equality Act through that ruling, along with the code itself spelling out the ways in which trans people need to maintain their access to services, and setting out some quite sensible examples of how that should happen, would provide some reassurance.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, this morning the Health Secretary told the “Today” programme that the Supreme Court ruling was clear and that single-sex spaces must be protected, but UNISON has called parts of the new guidance “completely unworkable” and Sir Ed Davey has said that it is “not fit for purpose”. Can the Minister reassure the House that whatever pressure Ministers may be under from unions, MPs or anybody else, they will stand firm on protecting single-sex spaces—yes or no?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This Government have always protected the right of women to have single-sex spaces. They always have; some of us have quite a long history of doing it and we will continue to do that.

Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Grender (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on these regulations. I thank the Minister for explaining and setting out the statutory instrument with clarity and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for tabling an amendment to ensure that we have a detailed debate here in the Chamber on what is a particularly important issue. My thanks also go to the Wildlife and Countryside Link for its briefings on this issue.

These regulations address matters of real significance: the protection of public health, the integrity of our environmental standards and the effectiveness of chemical regulatory systems, on which both businesses and consumers rely. I think we can all agree that it is not a narrow technical adjustment but a set of changes that have wide-ranging implications.

No one in this House would dispute the need to keep such frameworks under review. Science evolves, risks change and regulation must be fit for purpose. The Government argue that these measures will resolve practical issues arising from the EU exit, streamline processes and reduce burdens on business. In particular, the extension of expiry dates for a substantial number of biocidal active substances is intended to avoid disruption and ensure continuity. These are legitimate objectives.

However, the question is whether the balance between efficiency, scrutiny and scientific rigour has been correctly struck. One concern relates to the increased flexibility given to the Health and Safety Executive, as mentioned by others, alongside the removal of certain statutory timeframes. Time limits are not mere administrative detail; they provide discipline, transparency and accountability. If they are to be relaxed, the Government need to explain how timely and robust scientific decision-making will be maintained.

A more fundamental concern is that these regulations appear to fall behind developments in the European Union system. In particular, the failure to incorporate six new hazard classes—covering, for example, endocrine disruptors and persistent, mobile and toxic substances—raises questions about whether this framework represents progress or, in practice, a step backwards in protections.

That concern is closely linked to the broader issue of alignment, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Teverson. The European system remains highly relevant for trade, regulatory coherence and the operation of supply chains. Evidence to consultation on this suggested strong support for continued alignment. Where the UK chooses to diverge, that should be done deliberately, transparently and with clear rationale, not by omission or delay.

The position of Northern Ireland—I note that colleagues are absent; they have really missed out this evening, and we are all very grateful—adds a further layer of complexity. Because these regulations do not apply under the Windsor Framework, divergence is not theoretical but immediate. For example, it is entirely conceivable that a substance such as bisphenol A could be restricted in products such as toys in Belfast under EU rules, while remaining permissible in Great Britain. That kind of divergence risks confusion for consumers and real challenges for businesses operating throughout the United Kingdom.

It is also important to recognise the context in which these changes are being brought forward. The impending June 2026 sunset of powers under the retained EU law framework appears to be a significant driver of the timetable. That, in turn, raises legitimate questions as to whether this is the product of a fully considered, long-term strategy or a more hurried response to an approaching legislative deadline.

As we have heard in this debate, chemical regulation is not abstract; it affects the safety of products, the protection of workers and the quality of our environment. From these Benches, we support close and constructive co-operation with the European Union—it will not come as a shock to anyone to hear that—especially where it promotes trade and stability. But we will always insist on robust environmental protections, high scientific standards and meaningful parliamentary scrutiny. I therefore approach these regulations with caution. I recognise the case for a more workable system but need a bit more convincing that the mechanisms proposed provide sufficient clarity or confidence.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has taken us on quite a useful tour of the statutory instrument. I am not sure she nailed the rationale for a fatal amendment.

In that spirit, I would be grateful if the Minister could address three specific questions. First, why have the Government chosen not to incorporate the six new EU hazard classes at this stage, and what timetable exists for considering their adoption? Secondly, what criteria will be used to determine when Great Britain aligns with or diverges from EU classifications, and how will those decisions be transparently reported to Parliament? Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the real-world impact of divergence between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including specific cases such as bisphenol A, as I mentioned earlier, and how do the Government intend to minimise resulting complexity for businesses and consumers? I am conscious of time. I am conscious that we are in ping-pong. I am very happy to be written to on any of those questions.

The answers to these questions will be central to determining whether these regulations deliver an effective and credible framework. Without that clarity, there is a risk that increased flexibility may come at the expense of certainty, coherence and, ultimately, public confidence.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the Opposition do not oppose this instrument. We broadly welcome the intent behind it. The chemicals regulatory framework is one of the more technically demanding legacies of our departure from the European Union, and the Government are right to bring it up to date to make it work for businesses in Great Britain and to reduce unnecessary burdens on those who must navigate it daily. That is a legitimate and sensible aim.

The amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense, and the changes proposed to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make clarification decisions and streamline the process. Equally, the introduction of a fast-track route for classification proposals drawn from the trusted international systems, such as the EU and comparable UN GHS jurisdictions, is a pragmatic reform. Where international consensus already exists, it makes no sense to duplicate the work at domestic level.

However, welcoming the intent is not the same as passing this instrument without scrutiny. The Government are making changes to a framework that exists ultimately to protect human health and the environment. We have a duty to satisfy ourselves that these simplifications do not come at the cost of safety and that the new structures will function in practice as they are designed to in theory. On that basis, I have several questions for the Minister.

First, on safety, the instrument shifts significant decision-making power to domestic institutions, to the HSE and to the Secretary of State, and removes procedural safeguards that, whatever their origins in EU law, provided a degree of independent check. Can the Minister explain what safety assessment of these changes has been carried out? Has the HSE conducted a formal review of its capacity to absorb the new responsibilities placed on it under the revised Article 37 process? Can she confirm that the removal of the notification database has been assessed not simply as an administrative saving but for any downstream impact on the completeness of information available to regulators?

Secondly, on how this has been tested, any significant change to a regulatory process should be road-tested before it is placed on a statutory footing. Can the Minister tell the House whether the new unified classification procedure, in particular the fast-track route, has been piloted or modelled in any way? Has the HSE trialled processing proposals under the new framework and, if so, with what results? Has industry been consulted, not only on the policy design but on the operational workability of the new system? We would be concerned if this instrument is in effect the first real test of whether these procedures function as intended.

Connected with this, I note that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised concerns that removing the six-month deadline for technical reports could slow down decision-making in practice, particularly if the HSE is considering proposals from multiple international jurisdictions. Can the Minister explain how the Government will ensure that the new system delivers genuine efficiencies rather than simply shifting delay to an earlier stage of the process?

Finally, on the transitional provisions, the saving provision in this instrument preserves the old classification procedures for proposals already in train and opinions already issued by relevant bodies before commencement. That is sensible in principle, but in practice the boundary between the old system and the new one will require careful management. Can the Minister set out how that boundary will be communicated to industry, to applicants and to the HSE itself? What guidance will be published and when? What happens in cases where a proposal is at an intermediate stage and some steps have been taken under the old framework but the process is not yet complete? We would be grateful for clarity on how those edge cases will be handled and whether any guidance has already been shared with stakeholders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, said, if the Minister would find it more helpful to write, we would be happy with that.

We do not seek to obstruct this instrument. The direction of travel is right. A GB-led, streamlined chemicals framework that reduces unnecessary burdens while maintaining robust protections is something we support. But streamlining and safeguarding are not in tension; they should go together. We hope the Minister can give the reassurances we need. We look forward to her response and to any letters she might send.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 27th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, whose sister company Mercer is a pension consultancy, master trust provider and, importantly, a signatory to the Mansion House Accord. Firms that signed the Mansion House Accord last year in good faith, believing that fiduciary duty and trustee oversight would be preserved in order to ensure value for money for the individual pensioners whose funds they are responsible for investing, now face the prospect—or, dare I say, the threat—of mandation. This simply cannot be right, and we certainly do not think so.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I have little to add to the compelling case set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and indeed by us all throughout the passage of the Bill. Our position remains unchanged: mandation has no place in the Bill and, if the Government are serious about securing its passage, they should remove it.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Whether we can pay public service pensions depends on the relationship of those cash figures with the productiveness of the economy as a whole. I very much hope—and perhaps my noble friend the Minister will indicate in reply—that the Government Actuary has a responsibility not just to produce the cash figures referred to in the amendment but to put them into some meaningful context.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, since we have only one group of Motions today, I shall address our three key areas—scale and competition, public sector pensions and mandation—together.

First, on scale and competition, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing forward these amendments in lieu. The government response does two important things. First, it places a clear duty on the Secretary of State, when making regulations under key pension powers, to have regard to a set of core principles: innovation in scheme design and operation, competition between providers, the need to improve outcomes for members, the achievement of appropriate scale and effective governance. Secondly, it applies a similar discipline to the appropriate authority when making regulations under Clauses 42 and 44 requiring regard to innovation, competition, member outcomes and governance. Together, therefore, this amendment establishes a statutory framework that must guide the making of these regulations. It ensures that scale is pursued not at all costs but alongside innovation, competition and, above all, better outcomes for savers.

We also welcome the amendment in lieu from the Government, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a report into the effects of consolidation on innovation in the design and operation of relevant master trusts. These are welcome changes to the Bill following our long-fought Conservative campaign. They reflect in a meaningful way the concerns we have consistently raised about the balance between scale and innovation. On that basis, we are content to accept these amendments, and I thank the Minister for her constructive engagement in bringing this forward. This is the change in emphasis that we wanted to see, and we are glad that the Government have moved on this.

Turning to public sector pensions, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for her sterling work in pressing this important issue. This is a fundamentally important matter. We are talking about vast sums of public money—indeed, one of the largest government liabilities behind gilts. I am pleased that the Government have recognised the important point that my noble friend has been making and have brought forward this amendment in lieu. We shall of course await publication by the Government to ensure that it receives full and proper scrutiny once it is released, but we thank them for their recognition of this point.

Finally, I come to mandation. We have had some small movement from the Government in their amendments in lieu, which is welcome to some extent, but the Government should not have this power at all—a view that we share with both industry and the public.

The Government want greater investment in private markets. The reason why that is not happening as fast as they would want has many causes—which could in turn have many solutions, not limited to increasing consumer visibility, strengthening employer-side incentives, addressing the role of intermediaries and promoting co-ordination through voluntary alignment. Indeed, we already have several in motion, such as the Mansion House Accord, a voluntary, industry-led framework that was agreed less than a year ago and designed to address precisely these issues through alignment, not coercion.

Yet before the approach has even had time to take root, the Government are reaching for the most extreme lever available: the power to direct private investment into assets of their choosing. That was, contrary to some claims, not in the Government’s manifesto. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, is right to oppose this in the strongest possible terms.

Mandation is a profound mistake. It cuts across the fundamental principle of fiduciary duty and the obligation to act in the best interests of savers, not Ministers. It sets the deeply troubling precedent that, where markets do not move quickly enough in the Government’s opinion, the Government will simply override them. The Government are trading partnership for pressure and replacing trust with the threat of intervention. This is not how you build a strong, dynamic investment market; it is precisely how you undermine it.

This power is not just unnecessary: it is dangerous and it should not stand. We entirely support the Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to insist on her amendment and we will support her if she chooses to test the opinion of the House on this question.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I thank them for being very constructive in their engagements—possibly more so offstage than onstage, but I am always grateful for and will take whatever I can find. I thank in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Noakes. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, knows now that I really was listening all the way through Committee and Report, even if there may have been times when—I am sorry—it looked like I was not; I shall work better on my nodding in future. I am really glad that she and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, are happy with where we have got to.

I will try to pick up on a few points. We have gone over them many times in debate, so I will not hold the House back in order to redo them all over again, tempting though that is. I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I think the problem is that we have started in the middle of the argument. The diversification of portfolios is critical to reducing risk. There is clear international evidence that a small investment in productive finance, in the context of a diversified portfolio, brings better returns. That is demonstrable. We have to admit that most mass-market DC schemes have little or no private markets in their default funds, and that is very much in contrast to the position in many other countries. So the starting point is that it is reasonable to assume, as the evidence would suggest, that it is better for savers for that to happen.

However, we do want safeguards around this, and what the noble Lord described is one of the safeguards. If this power were ever to be used—it is a reserve power, so the Government do not expect it to be used—a report would have to be commissioned to look at the impact of doing so on savers as well as the broader economy, to establish what would happen. Then, despite all that, if trustees believed, knowing their savers and membership, that it would not be in their interests because of some reason—for example, even if it might broadly be in their interests but it would not be in their savers’ interests—not only can they make an application for an exemption under the savers’ interest test but we would expect the fiduciary duty to drive them to do so. The test is designed to be capable of being passed, not just failed. I understand the noble Lord’s position, but that is the Government’s position.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, asked about the timing: why should it not stop in this Parliament? We have talked about the power stopping in 2032, but the Mansion House Accord has until 2030 to happen, and this Parliament, I am sorry to say, is due to finish before that. Would that it could continue—no, I will not go in that direction; it will get badly reported. We think, that if the power were ever used, there would have to be enough time to see its impact before bringing it to an end. The sunset date of 2032 seems a reasonable starting point and that, I hope, is something that she can appreciate.

A question was asked about collective action, which we have been around several times. The Government have set out the arguments that the view on collective action failure in the market is not just ours; the industry has made this really clear. When the Mansion House compact—the predecessor to the Mansion House Accord—published its collective assessment of progress two years into its assessment, it identified this dynamic of competitive pressure focusing the market on minimising cost as the single biggest barrier to delivering on its own commitments. We have been here before; it has been tried on a voluntary measure and failed, and industry identified this as the single biggest barrier. That is why we are addressing this and that is the reason for doing it.

I can reassure my noble friend Lord Davies that the OBR will continue to produce long-term forecasts of the economy, which will provide a context for the figures that are being made. I am grateful to him for asking about it.

Finally, to describe the changes the Government have made as small is unreasonable. I remind the House what this now is: this provision, the reserve power, is now capped at the same rate as the accord. It cannot be used to compel investment in a single, hand-picked asset class. The headline percentage can be set only once. The power lapses in 2032 if not used and, if it were ever used, the entire regime is repealed at the end of 2035—every element is taken off the statute book. Those are significant movements. The Government have listened. The Commons has twice sent this back; it wants this in the Bill, so we should give it to the Commons. I urge the House to agree.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 20th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, the Commons has asked us to accept a clause that reintroduces strict mandation of pension scheme asset allocation, traducing 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 industry alignment on the direction of travel, supporting trustees to consider a wider range of assets and ensuring that the Government play their 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 that 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 switch schemes at all. The consultation stated that investment charges are not likely to feature heavily in employers’ decision-making. If that is so, the rationale for strict mandation simply does not stand, although I can see how the allegation helps to escape competition policy concerns about strategy co-ordination. But do not forget that value for money is meant to solve the focus on cost.

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 that this clause is just a back-up to the accord, but it does not reflect the accord’s own terms: its dependence on government actions and the critical enablers. Instead, the clause is a doubling down, not a codification. The Government admit that it is intended to be and will be coercive merely as a reserve power.

Ministers have also spoken often about crowding in investment and 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. Therefore, we should continue to insist on our amendment and disagree with the Commons. I intend to test the opinion of the House at the appropriate time. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, it is beyond doubt that mandation is, rightly, the most serious and contentious issue in the Bill. We have made our views 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 power that the Government are setting out in the Bill directly undermines the principle of fiduciary duty on which the entire pensions system relies. It must by now be plainly obvious to the Government and the 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, to which the Minister claims this power is designed to be a backstop. They have been crystal clear that this power crosses a line and must not proceed. We will support the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, if she seeks the opinion of the House on this Motion.

On Motion F1, the argument for scale exemptions is now well rehearsed and I will not repeat it today. Our amendment would preserve the policy intent and provide two clear and targeted routes through which a scheme may qualify—both tightly drawn and firmly anchored in member outcomes—that 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 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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

7: Clause 137, page 156, line 34, at end insert—
“(g) section 132 comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision for the commencement of clause 132, which was inserted by an amendment in Baroness Stedman-Scott’s name at report stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly acknowledge the collegiate and genuinely cross-party approach that has characterised the passage of the Bill through your Lordships’ House. I know I also speak for my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie in expressing our sincere thanks to colleagues across the House for their constructive engagement. It has been a pleasure to work alongside them, and our collective efforts have ensured that this important Bill has been subject to the careful and thorough scrutiny it deserves.

This is a fundamentally important Bill, and I am pleased that we have agreed several amendments to address some of the concerns that together we have identified. I had one amendment on the Marshalled List today, a technical amendment necessary to commence Amendment 169 passed by your Lordships’ House on Report. The Government accepted this amendment today.

I will not rehearse an exhaustive list, but the Government now have an obligation to return with clear answers to the concerns we have raised, including in particular: the Local Government Pension Scheme and whether it is truly fit for purpose for its members; whether the proposed consolidation timetable is workable in practice for ordinary working people; whether the scale requirements risk undermining innovative and high-performing schemes; and the scope, rationale and implications of the mandation power—there was a resounding view that it should be removed entirely.

Many noble Lords have made valuable contributions to our deliberations on this policy through amendments, speeches and constructive engagement both inside and outside the Chamber. It is not possible to thank everyone, but I place on record my particular gratitude to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Penn, and the noble Lords, Lord Fuller and Lord Lucas. I also extend my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Sharkey, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, with whom it has been a genuine pleasure to work. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for his thoughtful engagement on the Bill.

Finally, I thank the Minister for her work in steering the Bill through the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Katz, for his support. The Minister has responded to a great many questions, often highly technical and searching ones, and has given considerable time both in Committee and on Report to what is, in many respects, a dense and complex piece of legislation. I thank noble Lords for their engagement, particularly in Committee, which has been helpful and much appreciated.

This Bill contains a number of significant flaws and shortcomings. Your Lordships’ House has offered the Government a clear opportunity to make necessary and timely improvements. I very much hope that we will continue to work together with the Minister and her colleagues in the department to take that opportunity.

Youth Unemployment

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Lords Chamber

I am often asked, ‘So when will you do welfare reform?’ Well, I tell the House that this is welfare reform. Putting work and opportunity at the heart of our system is the best reform we can make. Asking not just, ‘What are you entitled to?’ but ‘How can we help you change your life?’ is the change that the system needs. That view lies behind the changes that I am announcing in this package. I commend the Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by making it very clear that we on these Benches believe it is vital that young people are supported into work. We wholeheartedly support the announcement about the new opportunities for young people, and we want to see them succeed. The evidence is clear that periods of unemployment at the start of a working life can have long-lasting and deeply damaging consequences. That makes early intervention not just desirable but essential. It is therefore welcome that the Department for Work and Pensions recognises the importance of this issue, but recognition alone is not enough.

The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics give us all, across this House, cause for concern. Youth unemployment among those aged 18 to 24 has risen to 14.5%, the highest level in nearly a decade. That represents a generation being denied opportunity: young people unable to take their first step on the ladder, to build skills or to contribute to the economy. It is no surprise that Helen Dickinson, chief executive at the British Retail Consortium, has said that

“the UK faces the prospect of a jobless generation ... this vital step on the career ladder is cracking under the high costs of employment”.

To be helpful to the noble Baroness, who I know shares my obsession with getting people, especially young people, into work, I just ask that when we turn to the past 14 years, she will not say that we had 14 years to sort this, because our record was not all that bad. Look at the facts. In 2010, the NEET rate stood at 16%, and by 2019 it had fallen to 10.7%. In turn, youth unemployment fell from around 20% in 2010 to 10.7% in 2022. We acknowledge that Covid created immense challenges and that the rates went up, but it was not all that bad on our watch. We did a lot of good, but we undoubtedly could and should have done more. However, youth unemployment has risen in each year under this Government, now reaching nearly 15% among 16 to 24 year-olds. It is against this deeply troubling backdrop that the Government bring forward this policy, with which we are pleased.

What we see from the Government here is part of a worrying pattern. When the economy fails to deliver the outcomes we all desire, the Government do not seem to pause, reflect or correct the course; instead they reach instinctively for an intervention to compel the private sector to behave as they wish. I have no doubt that the private sector would love to be creating jobs and getting young people into their workforce. This is the return of an interventionist doctrine that places political direction above market judgment. Many believed that this approach had been left behind, but it is now clearly back at the heart of government thinking. We see it in attempts to direct pension fund investment, allocating other people’s savings in line with political priorities rather than saver outcomes. We see it again here. Having failed to create the conditions for a strong labour market, the Government’s answer is not to enable growth but to intervene, to manage and to control.

We on these Benches are not merely supporters of employment, we are the party of work. Before the pandemic, employment reached a record high of 76.5%, while economic inactivity fell to a record low of 20.5%. That was not by chance; it was the result of a deliberate approach, one that trusted enterprise, rewarded effort and created the conditions for businesses to grow and hire. Opportunity should not be manufactured by the state, it should be generated by growth, and that is the approach we would like to see from the Government, but it is one that, sadly, they seem to have rejected.

I have several questions off the back of this Statement which I hope the Minister will address. If there are too many, I am very happy for her to write to me. How will participants be selected for these roles? There is always a tendency to go for those people who are easy to help. How will the Government ensure that those furthest from the labour market and in the most difficulty get help? Have private sector employers been driving the development of this policy, or has it come from Whitehall? How are the Government ensuring that employers are at the heart of this intervention? How will the Government measure the success of this policy, and over what timeframe? Will the performance be communicated to the whole House?

What will happen to young people at the end of the six-month placement? Are employers expected to absorb the full costs thereafter, and if so, on what basis? Do the Government already intend to extend the timeline? Does the Minister genuinely believe that short-term placements, particularly ones concentrated in sectors such as hospitality, will address the deep-rooted productivity and skills challenges in our economy? Crucially, what does the Minister believe is driving the current rise in youth unemployment? Is not the uncomfortable truth that the Government have taxed jobs and discouraged hiring, and are now asking taxpayers to subsidise the very employment opportunities that their policies have undermined? The British Retail Consortium is unequivocal, saying that in 2025 alone, the cost of employing a full-time entry-level worker has risen by 10%.

If the Minister is seeking the root cause of today’s labour market difficulties, I suggest that the Government need look no further than their own political record and policies. Businesses across the country point to the same pressures: burdensome employment regulation such as the Employment Rights Act, a sharp increase in wage and minimum wage costs, higher and inflexible business rates and ever-growing compliance obligations.

This debate comes down to a fundamental choice: do we continue down the path of higher taxes, heavier regulation and greater state intervention, or return to a model that genuinely creates opportunity, backs enterprise, rewards work and enables business to grow? That is the model that we used to deliver high, record employment. I am sure that the Minister and the Government are serious about tackling youth unemployment, but they must move beyond treating the symptoms and begin to address the causes. They must stop trying to control outcomes and instead create the conditions in which those outcomes can be achieved. That means easing the burden on those who create jobs, restoring confidence and recognising that sustainable employment is built not by government decree but by economic growth. Until they confront that reality, these policies will do little more than mask failure, at great cost to the taxpayer and even greater cost to the prospects of the next generation.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister very much—she did not repeat the Statement, but we have read it—and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for raising so many questions the answers to which I look forward to hearing.

We have 739,000 young people aged 16 to 24—nearly 100,000 more than last year—unemployed and sitting on benefits of £338 per month. I make no apologies for repeating this figure, but I give it in numbers and not as a percentage, because percentages are misleading and you cannot really understand what they mean. These unemployed 16 to 24 year-olds are, on average, searching and applying over five months for hundreds of roles, with less than 1% success—so they give up entirely. Yet employers report millions of vacancies remaining unfilled. This is not a shortage of jobs but a failure of matching: the right opportunities for the right candidates remain unsurfaced and undiscovered.

Given that the DWP is already piloting matching technologies at some jobcentres, for which I congratulate it—I know about the one in Leicester—can the Minister set out the department’s timeline for scaling these tools nationally across all jobcentres? Critically, what measurable improvement in time to employment does the department expect from this rollout? Additionally, can the Government explain why they are removing the funding for apprenticeships for management? Will they rethink the impact of the national insurance contribution hike on hospitality, retail and tourism? If we dealt with that, it could substantially help with youth unemployment. This is a big problem and I hope the Minister can answer the few questions I have raised and those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott.