Youth Unemployment

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have looked at information from around the UK and from previous job subsidy schemes to help to design this. Of course, the first six job guarantee areas that I mentioned in the original Answer include one that covers a significant area of Wales. We will also use the experience of that to build the national rollout that will come in the autumn.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, recent analysis shows that in 2025-26 the real cost of hiring an 18 to 20 year-old on the minimum wage has risen by around 13% compared with just over 3% for someone on average earnings, despite under-21s largely being outside employer national insurance contributions. In light of this, what assessment have the Government made of the combined impact of the national insurance contributions and minimum wage policy on youth employment, and how are they ensuring that young people are not priced out of entry-level work or any other part of the labour market?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We made a commitment to equalise the 18 to 20 national minimum wage with the national living wage. We asked, as all recent Governments have done, the independent Low Pay Commission to recommend youth rates to enable us to do that, and we also included within the remit the expectation that it would consider how to do this in a way that avoids increases in unemployment. The April 2026 uplift ensures that the Government are taking cautious steps towards achieving this commitment, and that is the way we will continue to progress.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment has the distinction of being in a grouping all of its own, which obviously shows how important it is. The proposed new clause in it would require the Secretary of State to publish a report within 12 months on

“the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions market”.

It would ensure, I hope, that Parliament and the public have transparency on how consolidation is reshaping the sector. We know that consolidation is accelerating in the pensions market and, although scale can deliver benefits—I hope—it can also raise risks: reduced competition, fewer choices for savers and further barriers for new entrants. A clear evidence base is an essential part of the solution to strike the right balance.

The report referenced in this amendment calls for information on a number of things. The first is market concentration—for instance, trends in the number and size of schemes and the level of provider dominance. The second is effects on competition and innovation: whether consolidation is driving efficiency or stifling creativity and diversity. The third is consumer choice: how member options are being affected. The fourth is barriers to entry: challenges faced by small and medium-sized providers in entering or growing in the market. The last is an assessment of whether current competition and regulatory safeguards are sufficient.

The report would also have a particular focus on exclusivity arrangements, exit charges and pricing structures that may distort the market. Furthermore, the Pensions Regulator and the Competition and Markets Authority would have a role in overseeing these risks. The review would also examine potential policies or regulations to support new entrants and maintain a healthy and competitive pensions market.

To summarise, we know that consolidation must serve savers’ interests, not just the interests of the largest providers. This proposed new clause would ensure that Parliament is properly informed—it should be informed on all things, whether on this or on the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson—that regulators are held to account and that future policy is based on evidence. From a Liberal Democrat perspective, well-functioning markets matter. Competition, diversity of approach and the ability for new entrants to challenge incumbents are essential if savers are to benefit over the long term. Ministers need to explain why a formal review of consolidation is resisted, given the scale of structural change this will accelerate. We are asking just for a review, and we hope the Government will not think this too much to ask for before we enter this new realm. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to close this debate and respond to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, on his Amendment 184. I am grateful to him for raising this issue, because it goes to the heart of how we ensure that pension reform delivers better outcomes for savers rather than simply neater market structures on paper. I think there is reasonably wide backing across the pensions industry for the Government’s broad objective of greater consolidation and efficiency within the defined contribution market. Many stakeholders accept, and indeed support, the proposition that increased scale, when combined with robust governance, strong investment capability and appropriate oversight, has the potential to deliver stronger long-term outcomes for members. Few would argue for fragmentation for its own sake.

However, support for consolidation is not the same as support for consolidation at any cost, or consolidation pursued without sufficient regard to its secondary effects. Well-founded concerns remain that the current design of the scale test risks it being too blunt an instrument. In particular, it does not distinguish adequately between schemes that are genuinely underperforming and those smaller or mid-sized providers that, despite operating below the proposed thresholds, none the less deliver consistently high-quality, well-governed and, in some cases, market-leading outcomes for savers. Indeed, the Government’s own analysis underlines this risk. The chart contained in paragraph 70 of the Government’s 2024 report shows no clear or consistent correlation between assets under management and gross five-year performance across large parts of the master trust and group personal pension market.

The principal scale-related concern identified appears to relate not to well-run schemes operating below the threshold but to the very smallest arrangements, in particular certain single-employer schemes where governance capacity and resilience can be more limited. That matters because consolidation in a pensions market is not a neutral process. This is not a typical consumer market. Savers are largely captive, choice is constrained, switching is rare and inertia is high. In such an environment, reductions in the number of providers can weaken competitive pressure long before anything resembling a monopoly appears. The risk is not always higher charges tomorrow but slower innovation, less responsiveness and poorer outcomes over time.

That is why this amendment is important. It would ensure that consolidation serves savers and that Parliament retains a clear grip on how the market is evolving. Small distortions in competition today—barely visible in the short term—can compound into materially worse outcomes over 30 or 40 years of saving. In a system built on long horizons, early and structured scrutiny is essential.

There is also the question of innovation. Smaller and newer providers have often been the source of advances in member engagement, digital capability, decumulation options and investment design. If consolidation raises barriers to entry through disproportionate compliance costs, restrictive exit charges or exclusivity arrangements, innovation risks being squeezed out, even where headline charges appear to fall. Efficiency gains that come at the expense of progress are a poor bargain for future retirees.

The report required by this amendment would not obstruct sensible consolidation; nor would it second-guess the direction of travel. Rather, it would provide Parliament with the evidence needed to ensure that consolidation is proportionate, targeted and genuinely in the interest of savers. It would help ensure that regulatory and competition safeguards remain fit for purpose as market structures change, and that opportunities for new high-quality entrants are not inadvertently closed off.

For these reasons, I believe that this amendment strikes the right balance. It is supportive of reform, alert to risk and grounded firmly in the long-term interests of those whose retirement security depends on the decisions we take today.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment, which would require the Government to conduct a report on the impact of consolidation in the occupational pensions sector within 12 months of the Act being passed. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for her remarks and her acknowledgement of the benefits of consolidation and the widespread support for it.

The fact is that consolidation is already happening across the pension landscape. The number of DC pension providers has reduced from roughly 3,700 in 2012 to about 950 schemes today. On the DB side, the number of schemes is similarly down from about 6,500 in 2012 to 4,800 in 2026, with a record number of transactions currently estimated in the buyout market. Our aim is to accelerate this trend of consolidation through the DC scale measures and DP superfunds. As I have said before, scale brings numerous benefits directed at improving member outcomes, including better governance, greater efficiency, in-house expertise and access to investment in productive markets.

I am not going to respond in detail to the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, on innovation and other things, because we have given them a decent canter in previous meetings in Committee, but it is absolutely essential that pension schemes remain competitive post-scale. We expect that schemes with scale will innovate and drive competition, especially, for example, in consolidating single-employer trusts. The market will evolve, as will the needs of members, and we expect that the schemes and the industry will be able to align with this.

It is absolutely right that the Bill will lead to major change in the occupational pensions market. Although I do not agree with this particular proposal, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that we must understand and monitor the impact of these reforms, because the impacts of consolidation really matter. That is why a comprehensive impact assessment was produced, analysing the potential impacts of the Bill, with plans to evaluate the impact in further detail. An updated version of the impact assessment was published as the Bill entered this House; crucially, it included further details of our ongoing monitoring and evaluation plans, including critical success factors and collaboration across departments and regulators.

We have provided the market with clarity on our approach so that changes can be put into effect, but we need to allow time to assess and evaluate the impacts following full implementation. We will assess the overall impacts over an appropriate timeframe, given that the full effects of consolidation will be after the Bill has been implemented.

As I have mentioned before, we published a pensions road map, which clearly sets out when we aim for each measure to come into force. The fact is that many of the regulations to be made under the Bill will not have been made or brought into force within a year of the Bill becoming an Act. Any review at that point could be only very partial. However, the Government are committed to strong monitoring and evaluation of this policy, especially of its impact on members. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is absolutely right to point to the crucial role of the Pensions Regulator and the CMA. They are best placed, in the first instance, to monitor the impacts of consolidation as part of their respective statutory functions, including an analysis of emerging trends. The Pensions Regulator, for example, will play a key role in monitoring the impact of consolidation on the trust-based DC pensions market via its value-for-money framework.

I can therefore assure the Committee that we will keep this area under review, consistent with our stated policy aims for the sector and for good member outcomes. We will also continue to monitor our working arrangements with the regulators; this includes their ongoing monitoring of the pensions industry. We will submit a memorandum to the Work and Pensions Select Committee with a preliminary analysis of how the Act has worked three to five years following Royal Assent. The committee may then decide to conduct a fuller inquiry into the Act, consistent with standard practice, as set out in the Cabinet Office’s Guide to Making Legislation.

Given the above, a separate government report risks duplicating work while putting an undue burden on all those involved. If issues are identified by regulators before the Government submit a post-legislative memorandum, and there is a need for government action, then an evidence-based response can be taken. I completely agree with the noble Lord about the importance of this and I thank him for raising this debate. However, I hope that he feels reassured and able to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

Good. I now have it and I want to check that everyone else has it too. That is my first question dealt with.

In speaking to this amendment, the aim is to enable members of pension schemes that have gone into the PPF after their assessment period to be extracted, with regulations laid that will govern the terms on which they can be extracted. This is particularly relevant to the AEAT scheme: I know that we will come to this in later groups, with a requirement for a review of the situation. My amendment is trying to facilitate a practical resolution to the problems faced by the Atomic Energy Authority scheme. There are parallels with the Atomic Weapons Establishment or AWE scheme: employees originally had a scheme similar to and in fact derived from that of the UK AEA.

The AWE staff and their pensions were transferred to the private sector, and in 2022 the Government granted a Crown guarantee to the private company scheme. However, members of the AEA scheme were told that the scheme that they were encouraged to transfer to in 1996 would be as secure as that provided by the Atomic Energy Authority public sector scheme. This was not the case, though, because it was not offered a Treasury guarantee. It would appear that the Government Actuary’s Department failed to carry out a proper risk assessment of the various options offered to those members in 1996. Indeed, they were apparently specifically told not to worry about the security of the scheme to which they transferred all their accrued benefits. Of course, all these accrued benefits are pre-1997.

What happened after that is that they went into a private sector scheme. It was a closed section of that scheme, only for the members who transferred their public sector rights into it. The public sector rights had full inflation protection for pre-1997 and members paid an extra 30% or so contribution into that private sector scheme in order to conserve the inflation protection. However, as part of that, the pension they were saving for, the base pension, was lower than the one for those members in the open scheme who had joined not from the public sector. They were working on the principle that that their scheme was secure and that they would be getting the uplifts of inflation. When it failed—the private sector company went bust in 2012—and they went into the PPF in 2016, they suddenly discovered that they had paid 30% more for inflation protection, which was gone. And because they had paid 30% more for that protection and were accruing a lower pension, a 180th instead of a 160th scheme, their whole compensation was lower than that of everybody else who had not had any assurances from the Government that transferring their previous rights into a private sector scheme would generate these kinds of losses.

This is probably the worst example I have seen of government reassurance and failed recognition of the risks of transferring from a guaranteed public sector scheme into a private sector scheme. This amendment seeks to require the Government to lay regulations that would transfer members out of the PPF, those members of the closed scheme, if they wish to. I am not forcing anyone to do so within this amendment. You have to offer them the option of going or staying if they are satisfied with the PPF. Also, a sum of money may need to be paid to the PPF, which would take away the liability and thereby reduce PPF liabilities, but also sets up an alternative scheme that could be along the lines of the AWE arrangements, for example. That would potentially be another option. On privatisation, the Government received a substantial sum of money from the sale of that company, the private sector takeover of the commercial arm of the Atomic Energy Authority. That delivered less money than was paid to the private sector scheme to take over the liabilities. Therefore, the Government have money to pay with, which they have never really acknowledged.

I hope that this amendment is a potentially direct way to help the AEAT scheme, if the Government are minded to consider it. It builds on a provision that is already in the Pensions Act 2004, which talks about situations whereby there is a discharge of liabilities in respect of the compensation, which this amendment would be doing. It prescribes the way in which subsection (2)(d) of Section 169 of the Pensions Act 2004 could be used to help the AEAT scheme.

I have also been approached by a private sector employer whose scheme failed and went into the PPF. At the time, the employer did not have sufficient resources to buy out more than the Pension Protection Fund benefits for his staff. He now is in a position to do that and would like to do so but, at the moment, he cannot get his scheme extracted. He is willing to pay an extra premium to do that, in pursuance of a moral duty to try to give his past staff better-than-PPF benefits. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve. It is built on the connection between AEAT and AWE, but could also help other private sector schemes if the employer feels—it would normally involve smaller schemes—that there is a moral obligation that they can now meet, financially, to recompense members at a level better than the PPF, once the assessment period is over and the resources have gone in, and to take it back out again.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, this group concerns the proposed transfer of the AWE pension scheme into a new public sector pension arrangement, as set out after Clause 110 in government Amendments 194 to 202, with the associated measures on extent and commencement in government Amendments 223 and 224.

At first glance, these new clauses are presented as technical and perhaps little more than an exercise in administrative tidying up, reflecting the fact that AWE plc is now a wholly government-owned company. However, on closer inspection, several questions come to mind. This represents a material transfer of long-term pension risk and does so in a way that raises serious questions around principle, process and precedent.

On an IAS 19 accounting basis, AWE plc reported a defined benefit pension deficit of £97 million as at 31 March 2025. The company has already made significant one-off contributions: £30 million in March 2024, following an earlier £34.4 million in March 2022. These payments form part of a recovery plan agreed with the trustee and the Ministry of Defence, and the position is subject to ongoing review. This is an active funding challenge, one that should be considered carefully.

The provisions before us establish a bespoke statutory framework for a single named company. They provide for the creation of a new public sector pension scheme, the transfer of assets and liabilities, the protection of accrued rights, specific tax treatment, information-sharing powers, consultation requirements and arrangements for parliamentary scrutiny. All of this is meticulously itemised and carefully drafted.

Yet my concern lies not with the drafting but with the policy and constitutional choice that sit beneath it. We are told repeatedly that members’ rights will be preserved; that phrase carries considerable weight. The question is a simple one: which rights precisely are being preserved? Are we referring solely to rights accrued through past service or does that protection extend to future accrual as well? Does it encompass accrual rates, indexation arrangements, retirement age and survivor benefits or are members’ entitlements merely frozen as a snapshot at the point of transfer? What happens if the rules of the receiving public sector scheme change in future? These questions go to the heart of both member security and parliamentary responsibility. They deserve answers in the Bill, not assurances in principle or reliance on mechanisms that may evolve long after this Committee has given its consent.

There are also practical questions that remain unanswered. How exactly will trustees be formally discharged of their responsibilities? Additionally, does this change relate to DC members? Will each defined contribution pot be automatically converted or will past defined contribution rights be crystallised, with future accrual taking place under a defined benefit structure? For scheme members, these questions go to the very heart of retirement security.

I also question the decision to legislate company by company. This new clause is not objectionable because it concerns pensions; it is objectionable because it concerns one named corporate identity. Primary legislation should set rules of general application.

If the policy rationale here is sound, and if it is right that the pension schemes of wholly owned government companies should be transferred into the public sector on certain terms, that principle should be capable of being expressed generally and should not be hard-coded for AWE alone. Otherwise, we will face an unhappy choice in the future: if AWE’s status changes again, Ministers must either live with an outdated statute on the books or return to Parliament with yet another Bill to amend it. Neither outcome represents good lawmaking.

There are also practical questions that I hope the Minister will address. Will members receive individualised benefits statements, comparing their position before and after the transfer in clear, comprehensible terms? What support will be made available for members who need independent guidance, rather than reassurance from the scheme sponsor itself? Will there be formal consultation with scheme members and recognised unions, and will the responses to that consultation be published?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments. I very much support the aims of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, to ensure there is proper flexibility in the levy paid by companies to the PPF. The PPF can then use its discretion to decide which companies should pay more than others and which companies are more secure than others in terms of their pension schemes. The current requirement is based on circumstances that have fundamentally changed over the past 20 years or so, since the whole system was first thought of.

The PPF is one of our incredible success stories in terms of protecting people’s pensions by successfully investing money that it has taken in. It has worked far better than anyone would have anticipated at the time, and we need to pay tribute to those who have been running the PPF; they have done an extraordinarily good job in the face of sometimes very difficult circumstances. I hope that the Government will think favourably about the possibility of allowing the PPF this kind of flexibility, given that the situation with pension schemes, surpluses and funding levels has changed so fundamentally.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, are thoughtful and proportionate. They raise genuinely important questions about how we can future-proof the operation of the Pension Protection Fund.

Clause 113 amends the provisions requiring the PPF board to collect a levy that enables the board to decide whether a levy should be collected at all. It removes the restriction that prevents the board reducing the levy to zero or a low amount and then raising it again within a reasonable timeframe. We welcome this change. It was discussed when the statutory instrument passed through the House, at which point we asked a number of questions and engaged constructively with the Government.

The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness would go further; once again, the arguments she advances are compelling. Amendment 203A in particular seems to offer a sensible way to shape behaviour without micromanaging it—a lesson on which the Government may wish to reflect more broadly, especially in relation to the mandation policy. If schemes know that the levy will always be raised in one rigid way, behaviour adapts, and not always in a good way. In contrast, with greater flexibility, employers retain incentives to keep schemes well funded, trustees are rewarded for reducing risk and the levy system does not quietly encourage reckless behaviour on the assumption that everyone pays anyway.

This amendment matters because it would ensure that, if the PPF needed to raise additional funds, it could do so in the least damaging and fairest way possible at the relevant time. I fully appreciate that the PPF is a complex area but, as the market has changed and is changing, and as the pensions landscape continues to evolve, the PPF must be involved in that journey. These are precisely the kinds of questions that should be examined now, not after rigidity has caused unintended harm.

I turn briefly to Amendment 203C. We are open to finding ways to prevent the levy framework becoming overly rigid, which is precisely why we supported the statutory instrument when it came before the House. Instead of hardwiring an 80% risk-based levy requirement into law, this amendment would place trust in the Pension Protection Fund to raise money in the fairest and least destabilising way, given the conditions of the year. Flexibility may well be the way forward. I have a simple question for the Minister: have the Government considered these proposals? If the answer is yes, why have they chosen not to proceed? If it is no, will they commit to considering these proposals between now and Report? I believe that that would be a constructive and proportionate next step.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for introducing her amendments and explaining why she wants to advance them. As she said, taken together, they would give the PPF much more flexibility—full flexibility, in fact—in deciding how to set the levy by removing the requirement for at least 80% of the PPF levy to be risk-based. Obviously, in the current legislation, 80% of the levy has to be based on the risk that schemes pose to the PPF; this supports the underlying principle that the schemes that pose the greatest risk should pay the highest levy.

Although the PPF is responsible for setting the pension protection levy, restrictions in the Pensions Act 2004 prevent it significantly reducing the levy or choosing not to collect a levy when it is not needed. As has been noted, the PPF is in a stronger financial position and is less reliant on the levy to maintain its financial sustainability. That is why, through the Bill, we are giving it greater flexibility to adjust the annual pension protection levy by removing the current legislative restrictions.

Clause 113 will enable the PPF to reduce the levy significantly, even to zero, and raise it again within a reasonable timescale if it becomes necessary. To reassure levy payers, Clause 113 provides a safeguard that prevents the board charging a levy that is more than the sum of the previous year’s levy and 25% of the previous year’s levy ceiling. The legislative framework will also enable the PPF to continue to charge a levy to schemes it considers pose a specific risk. In support of this change, the PPF announced a zero levy for 2025-26 for conventional DB schemes and is consulting on setting a zero levy for these schemes in the next financial year. That would unlock millions of pounds in savings for schemes and boost investment potential, and it has been widely welcomed by stakeholders.

On the way forward, as the PPF is not currently collecting any levies from conventional schemes, whether risk based or scheme based, the make-up of the split is less consequential for schemes: a different percentage of a zero charge is still zero. But, while the PPF is strongly funded, it underwrites the whole £1 trillion DB universe, as I said. There is inevitably huge uncertainty about the scenarios that could lead to the possibility of the PPF needing to charge a levy again in the future, but it cannot be entirely discounted. We recognise the concern that, if that were to happen, the proposed legislation does not go far enough to allow the PPF to calculate the appropriate split between risk-based and scheme-based levies, particularly as the number of risk-based levy payers is expected to diminish over time.

Obviously, the amendments tabled here would give the PPF full discretion on how the split of the levy is calculated and set. While that may be welcomed by some, our view is that we need to consider any changes carefully to ensure that any legislation is balanced, is proportionate and gives the right flexibility while maintaining appropriate safeguards. That will take time. We will continue to consider whether further structural change to the PPF levies may be required in the future and, where it is, whether it works for the broad spectrum of eligible DB schemes, the PPF and levy payers.

In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Government’s view is that there is a reason the framework is set in legislation: to give levy payers confidence on future calls. But, as I said, we will consider the way forward. I cannot say to the noble Baroness that we will do that between now and Report—it will take time to reflect on future changes and, if there are to be any, to make sure that they happen—but I am grateful to her for raising the matter and for the debate that it has produced. I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

204: After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
“Pension investment in social bonds: framework, value for money and market enablement(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, prepare and publish an assessment of whether a pension-specific framework should be established to support trustees of occupational pension schemes who wish to invest, where they consider it appropriate, in social bonds and other forms of social infrastructure investment.(2) The assessment must consider the extent to which such a framework could—(a) provide clarity on the application of trustees’ fiduciary duties in relation to social bonds,(b) set out principles for assessing risk, return, liquidity, duration and transparency of such investments, having regard to the long-term nature of pension liabilities,(c) support consistency and comparability in the evaluation of social bonds across schemes, and(d) facilitate trustee confidence and member understanding of such investments.(3) In particular, the Secretary of State must consider whether, and how, the social and economic outcomes associated with social bonds could be reflected within the value for money framework applicable to occupational pension schemes, including—(a) the relevance of long-term economic impacts to member outcomes,(b) the extent to which such investments may mitigate systemic or economy-wide risks material to pension savings, and(c) the presentation of information to members in a clear and proportionate manner.(4) The assessment must also consider how a pension-specific framework could support the development of a credible and investable pipeline of social bond opportunities, including— (a) how public bodies, local authorities, social enterprises or other issuers might bring forward proposals in a form suitable for consideration by pension schemes,(b) the role of standardisation, intermediaries or aggregation vehicles in reducing transaction costs and improving investability, and(c) how such proposals could be assessed on a consistent basis without imposing any obligation on pension schemes to invest.(5) In developing the assessment, the Secretary of State must consider what metrics and evidential standards would be required to ensure that any framework for social bonds is pension-specific, including—(a) metrics relating to long-term risk-adjusted financial performance,(b) alignment with the duration and cash flow characteristics of pension liabilities,(c) the financial materiality of social and economic outcomes to pension savers over time, and(d) the avoidance of reliance on generic or non-financial impact measures not relevant to pension scheme decision-making.(6) Following the assessment, the Secretary of State must—(a) publish the conclusions of the assessment, and(b) where the Secretary of State considers it appropriate, issue statutory guidance or make regulations establishing a pension-specific framework for the prudent assessment, reporting and communication of investments in social bonds.(7) Nothing in this section—(a) requires trustees to invest in social bonds or any other asset class, or(b) alters the requirement that trustees act in the best financial interests of scheme members.”

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 204. I make clear that this amendment does not require trustees to invest in any particular asset class, nor does it seek to redefine or dilute fiduciary duty in any way. Those safeguards are explicit in the amendment. Trustees must always act in the best financial interest of scheme members, and nothing here displaces that principle, consistent with the approach that we have taken throughout our deliberations in Committee. Instead, the amendment asks the Government to step back and consider whether trustees who wish to explore investments such as social bonds or social infrastructure would benefit from clearer pension-specific guidance and a more coherent framework within which to operate.

--- Later in debate ---

In summary, although we very much share the aim of ensuring that pension capital does not contribute to human rights harm, the Government believe that the existing responsible investment framework remains the appropriate way forward, it being effective, flexible and proportionate. I look forward to continued discussions; in the meantime, I hope that the noble Baroness can withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I shall conclude briefly. I hope that it is clear from the discussion this afternoon that there is a shared concern across the Committee to see pension schemes operate responsibly, prudently and in the best long-term interests of their members. Where we differ is on how that objective is best achieved. In my view, the strength of our pensions system lies in its balances: clear legal parameters set by Parliament, coupled with trustee independence, evidence-based judgment and accountability to members.

I thank all noble Lords for their contributions—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, who made a valuable and excellent contribution. He made my heart sing, and I think that our hearts beat in concert in terms of responsible and social investment. I am very keen to learn more from the noble Lord about his experience of responsible investment.

I appreciate the Minister’s response. She has been very clear—message received. I look forward to discussing social impact bonds more with the Minister and anybody else in the Committee who wishes to take part. With the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, but, if it comes back on Report, I will be very happy.

Amendment 204 withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, I will not repeat the long list of government missteps on a global, international stage from those politicians who have interfered with people’s retirements. Safe to say, it represents moral hazard.

There is a mismatch between the long-term investment needs of people who are saving for retirement half a generation ahead—in particular, the youngest members of our workforce—and the short-term political wants of those who might direct. Politics is transient. MPs come and go, but the hangover from bad decisions lasts a long time. The 1997 changes to dividend taxes have cast a long shadow that has deprived millions of a secure retirement. We should have learned that lesson but, no, we have not. Mandation risks repeating that mistake all over again and benighting a new generation of youngsters who are 30 or 40 years away from retirement. There is already generational unfairness in the system. Mandation will perpetuate it again. It should have no place in the Bill, yet here we are discussing it.

I align myself fully with the proposers of these amendments and hope that, even at this late stage, between Committee and Report, the Government will look at this matter once more. Mandation should not be part of the Bill because of that simple moral hazard. MPs and the Treasury love to tell people what to do, but they will not be around to pick up the pieces when, or if, it all goes wrong.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 167, which was tabled and spoken to eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and supported by many noble Lords. This amendment touches on a set of concerns that we raised at Second Reading and to which we will return in considerably more detail in our debate on the next group.

For the sake of brevity, at this stage, I will confine myself to the central point of principle. The issue here is not simply asset allocation but where risk is placed and who should take it when investment decisions are shaped by government direction, rather than trusty judgment. The mandation power introduced by the Bill is targeted narrowly at automatic enrolment default funds—the schemes that are relied on by those who are least likely to have made an active choice and are least able to respond if outcomes are adversely affected. That targeting matters. Mandation does not apply evenly across the pensions landscape. It does not touch defined benefit schemes, self-selected funds, SIPPs or bespoke arrangements but falls with notable precision on default savers—those who depend most heavily on the neutrality and integrity of the system to act on their behalf.

Amendment 167 raises a legitimate question about protection and accountability in that context. If default funds are required to follow mandated investment decisions and if those decisions underperform a simple, low-cost benchmark, should the consequences fall entirely on members who neither chose the strategy nor, in practice, have the capacity to respond to it? Of course, it may be said that members are free to move to another fund, but that response lacks behavioural realism. Automatic enrolment defaults exist precisely because many savers do not actively choose, do not regularly review and do not feel equipped to intervene in complex investment decisions. How can we put them in that position?

For a significant proportion of members, remaining in the default is not an expression of preference but a reflection of constraint, limited time, limited confidence and limited financial literacy. Behavioural realism tells us that these savers will not simply move in response to policy changes, however well signposted. To place the full downside risk of mandated investment decisions on that group is therefore not neutral; it is a deliberate allocation of risk to those least able to manage it. The noble Baroness’s amendment is therefore not an attempt to eliminate risk but to highlight the asymmetry that mandation introduces and the absence of any corresponding safeguard for those most exposed to its effects.

These issues around mandation, choice, fiduciary duty and the position of default savers run through the architecture of the Bill. We will return to them in much greater depth in the following group. For now, I simply underline that the concerns raised by Amendment 167 and all those who have spoken are not isolated. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope that the Government will take note of the concern laid out to them today and do the right thing.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for explaining her amendment, which would in essence introduce a requirement for the Government to establish a framework for compensating savers in the event that they lose out financially because they were invested in assets that they would not have been were it not for the use of these powers. I am sorry to say that because we have just discussed a similar amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, in the previous group, some of my arguments may sound a little familiar, but I hope that the noble Baroness will bear with me.

First, as I have said, the Government would not be proposing these powers if there was not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see in today’s market. That is the Government’s view. I mentioned in the last group that there is a range of evidence out there which goes to this point. I cited one example of it; there are others cited in the DWP paper to which the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, referred. I pointed out that we are an international outlier in this matter, so that is the Government's view.

The reason we are doing this, once again, is that we believe that it is in the interests of savers to have a small, risk-adjusted diversification within the context of a portfolio; we believe that it is the best thing for savers. DC pension providers themselves have recognised that a small allocation to private markets can offer better risk-adjusted returns as part of a diversified portfolio. The noble Baroness has offered one view as to why people are not doing this. In our view, many providers have so far not done it not because it is necessarily in savers’ best interests not to do it but because of competitive pressure to keep fees low or because of a lack of scale, among other reasons.

Secondly, if the Government ever came to consider exercising these powers, they would first have to publish a report considering the impact of the proposed asset allocation requirements on savers. Crucially, that is an opportunity to confirm that bringing forward the requirements is in savers’ interests, based on the circumstances at that time. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, that there is also a report required after the powers are used and within five years. Thirdly, if the Government ever did implement the requirements, the legislation provides for a formal process under which providers could apply for an exemption based on evidence that meeting the requirements would cause savers “material financial detriment”.

Crucially, savers will continue in all circumstances to be protected by the core fiduciary duties of trustees. Specifically, trustees would continue to be subject to a duty to invest in savers’ best interests, in line with the law. This comes down to the fact that the Government are not mandating trustees to invest in any particular assets. Were these powers ever to come about, the trustee duty would apply, as I have said, to the selection of individual investments in a portfolio, to the balance of different asset classes in a portfolio, including the balance between private asset classes, and to any decision to apply for an exemption under the savers’ interest test. If a provider felt that the asset allocation requirement was not appropriate for their particular circumstances, we would expect the existing duties to guide them to submit an application under the savers’ interest tests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Maybe that would be a good thing. I am not convinced that the regulator pushing away from primary legislation to regulation is necessarily the way forward. I am not convinced that what has happened to date has failed. Therefore, I am not sure why we want to change this without adequate proof. The idea that the FCA wants to swallow up everything else is fairly normal in the gladiatorial forum that we have. I would like to see what the FCA and others have to say about this before we make a final decision.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to both Amendments 180A, tabled by my noble friend Lady Coffey, and Amendment 206, which stands in the name of my noble friend Viscount Younger of Leckie and myself. Both amendments address the regulation of pensions and how the regulation is best exercised in the interest of scheme members and future pensioners.

It was the intervention of my noble friend Lady Coffey at Second Reading that first prompted me to reflect more deeply on the role of regulators. As my noble friend argued then, and has argued again today in speaking to Amendment 180A, this Bill misses a significant structural opportunity by retaining two separate pension regulators. I agree with her. There is something inherently odd about the fact that very similar pension products can be treated differently depending on whether they fall within the remit of the Pensions Regulator or the Financial Conduct Authority. That observation is not controversial; it is simply a reflection of how the current system operates.

I recall clearly the passage of the then Pension Schemes Bill in February 2020 and remember responding to amendments from across your Lordships’ House by explaining that personal pension schemes were regulated by the FCA, rather than the Pensions Regulator, and that imposing requirements on personal pension providers through that legislation would risk creating a patchwork of overlapping regulatory oversight. Providers, it was argued, would otherwise be required to respond to two separate regulators in relation to the same activity. That was the Government’s position at the time, and it illustrates that the existence of regulatory fragmentation in this area is not a matter of dispute.

A great deal of work has gone into managing the fragmentation, with strategic documents, dating back to 2018, seeking to grapple with the issue. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator have published joint regulatory strategies explicitly acknowledging the complexity that arises where their remits intersect and the need for close co-ordination. More recently, an independent review of the Pensions Regulator in 2023 again highlighted the challenges inherent in this divided regulatory landscape. Taken together, these developments point to structural issues in the regulatory ecosystem that can, at the very least, create confusion and the risk of inconsistency.

It was on the basis of that experience in government and of careful consideration since then that I sought to identify what might realistically be done in this Bill. I came to the conclusion that Amendment 206 represents a proportionate and pragmatic compromise. It would require the Government to establish a formal published protocol setting out clearly how the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator co-ordinate, how responsibilities are divided between them and how they communicate when regulating the pensions industry. The evidence shows that there is complexity, overlap and, at times, confusion between the two regulators. Stakeholders frequently complain of unclear lines of responsibility and the regulators themselves openly acknowledge that co-ordination is difficult, hence the repeated reliance on joint strategies and informal arrangements.

It was our sense that the problem is one not of outright contradiction but of opacity, complexity and accountability. Amendment 206 is, therefore, carefully targeted at the problem, which is clearly evidenced. It seeks to improve co-ordination and clarity without asserting a level of regulatory failure that has not yet been conclusively demonstrated. That does not place it in opposition to the argument advanced by my noble friend Lady Coffey; indeed, I would be very happy to work with her, as we did so constructively on previous pension legislation, to strengthen this area further.

In my view, a formal co-ordination protocol has three important virtues. First, it can evolve over time as the regulatory landscape changes. Secondly, it can be tightened if problems persist or new risks emerge. Thirdly, it can itself become the evidence base for any future decision to pursue more fundamental consolidation of regulatory functions, should that ultimately be judged necessary. For those reasons, I commend Amendment 206 to the Committee and urge the Government to see it not as an obstacle but as a constructive and proportionate step towards greater clarity, accountability and confidence in the regulation of pensions.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. Things are never dull when she is around. Frankly, that is quite a thing to say for a pensions Bill—I apologise to all the pensions nerds.

I thank noble Lords for introducing their amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, said that her amendment would require the Secretary of State to do a review exploring the viability of moving the FCA’s pension regulation functions, apart from those for SIPPs, to TPR. On Amendment 206, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, wants a statutory joint protocol, formal co-ordination mechanisms, a published framework for oversight and the mandation of regular joint communication.

The Government keep the regulatory system under continuous review. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has given us an absolutely fair challenge. As we have already found here, the reality is that, when you come to discuss this, some people are on team FCA, some are on team TPR and some—such as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—do not like any of them and want to throw everybody else into the mix and have somebody reviewing all of them. So it is fair to say that it will not be easy to achieve consensus on this.

Let us come back to the principle. The Government’s view is that there is still a fundamental difference between trust-based and contractual pension schemes. Contract-based pension schemes are based on an individual contract with the saver. As the pension market continues to evolve, and as we move towards a more consolidated market, we will need to ensure that the system evolves with it and that there is more regulatory alignment where it is really needed. However, TPR, the FCA and other bodies, including the PRA, are on to this. So I suppose the exam question here is: do we need one regulator to take over the other, or is it possible to create a regime for regulatory alignment and joint working? I will try to make the case for the latter; the noble Baroness can tell me at the end whether I have a pass or a fail on the exam paper.

The Government’s view is that TPR and the FCA have distinct roles. Each has its own framework, reflecting the range of pension types and the need for tailored oversight. They operate under distinct statutory frameworks, and existing arrangements already enable effective co-ordination between them. TPR and the FCA have established a joint regulatory strategy that outlines their respective roles; that collaboration is underpinned further by a formal memorandum of understanding and, where necessary, joint protocols on specific issues detailing how the two regulators co-operate, share information and manage areas of overlap. They have published a joint document outlining their respective roles. They run joint working groups and consultations. They publish shared guidance, and they conduct regular joint engagement with stakeholders. These mechanisms are well established and provide the flexibility needed to respond to developments in the pensions market. That close collaboration ensures the same good outcomes for pension savers, regardless of legal structure, and aims to avoid the potential for regulatory arbitrage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, mentioned the independent review of the Pensions Regulator by Mary Starks in 2023. That review recommended that no changes should be made to the framework. The review concluded that it was far from clear what the benefits of shifting to a single regulator would be and whether that would in fact outweigh the costs and the risks of distraction.

Moving on, we do not believe that a statutory requirement for a joint protocol is needed, as proposed in Amendment 206. It risks duplicating existing arrangements and in fact replicating parts of the memorandum of understanding and joint regulation strategy that are already in place. Where specific regulatory risks would benefit from more formally aligned regulatory approaches, the organisations consider the need for a joint protocol. An example would be the 2019 joint approach to guidance for trustees and advisers supporting pension members with decision-making exercises.

We also do not believe that the review proposed by Amendment 180A is necessary at this time. We continue to keep the system under review to make sure that it continues to deliver. Any future changes need to be evidence-led and shaped through engagement with stakeholders. In the light of that, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, will feel that I have passed the exam test and is able to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 182 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. Gosh, superfunds—that has been quite a journey. It must be about six years ago that I apparently received a letter from Andrew Bailey, who I think was running the Prudential Regulation Authority at the time. I never actually received it, but I read it in the FT and on Sky. It told me that it all seemed very unfair compared with the Solvency II reform, which is what insurers had to go by. That is why I am strongly concerned about Clause 65(2)(a) being in this Bill.

I think we are seeing the hand of the ABI again here, trying to basically squeeze out other activity when we should be focused on what is in the best interest of the pension scheme members. We also want to try to make sure that we do not have never-ending firms going into the PPF. The superfunds, which I recognise the Government have embraced through this, are definitely a good option but are different to having an insurer buyout, even with some of the changes that have happened away from Solvency II to whatever version of Solvency UK. There has been more reform with less risk around some of the margins in that regard.

So I encourage the Ministers to think again about whether subsection (2)(a) is really the right approach for the outcomes they seek. Otherwise, why bother? Why bother having a superfund if you can get only the equivalent of what it is to get the insurer buyout?

I could go further, but I am conscious that the dinner business break is bringing exciting business and that the Committee wishes to finish by a certain time. So I will leave superfunds for another time, perhaps in the Bishops’ Bar. But, with that, I support my noble friend in Amendment 182.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I will speak to Amendment 181 tabled by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann, and Amendments 182 and 183, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. I will also address the broader issue of the role of superfunds within our defined benefit pensions landscape.

At the outset, I want to be clear that my understanding is that the Government remain committed to creating a thriving and credible superfund market. That ambition is welcome because superfunds have the potential to support two important public policy objectives. First, they support member outcomes; properly regulated superfunds can improve security for members and, in the case of a run-on superfund model, they offer the additional prospect of enhanced benefits over time through the sharing of surplus and investment upside.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but it does not, in my view, completely address directly the issue that lies at the heart of the anger felt by many WASPI women. I am assured that the maladministration identified by the ombudsman, and the associated question of a financial remedy, arose from decisions taken under a Labour Government that were the responsibility of Labour Ministers. In the years that followed, there was notable and sustained support from Labour Members for the WASPI campaign, including calls for compensation, voiced by individuals who now occupy the most senior positions in government.

Now that Labour is in power, that position appears to have been abandoned. The result is not merely disappointment, but a profound sense of betrayal. It is no wonder that WASPI women are furious. At no point in the Oral Statement, as far as I can see or understand, was this reversal acknowledged. Instead, attention was diverted towards general references to changes in the state pension age, which did nothing to address the specific findings of maladministration or the expectations that were so clearly raised.

There is a strong sense of frustration surrounding this issue, not only among Members of this House but, more importantly, among the WASPI women. Much of that frustration arises not simply from the substance of the decision but from the manner in which it has been handled and communicated by the Government. From welfare reform to the winter fuel payment, and now this, a pattern has emerged of poor communication and delayed decision-making. Too often, it is not the policy itself that causes the greatest anger but the uncertainty, delay and lack of clarity that surround it. Indecision is itself a decision. In this case, it has meant leaving people’s lives and expectations suspended for months.

In recent months, expectations appear to have been raised only to be lowered again. Following the ombudsman’s report, many campaigners believed that a different outcome was genuinely under consideration, only to be told once more that nothing had changed. The Minister will recall suggestions that decisions on this matter were left unresolved until after the general election in 2024. That is not entirely accurate. Statements made before the election set out the Government’s position with some clarity, which makes it legitimate for WASPI women to ask why more recent communications appeared to imply that the issue and situation remained open.

Against that background, can the Minister explain how the Government now intend to communicate their position clearly and directly to WASPI women? Will letters be issued setting out the decision and the reasons for it? If so, when and in what form will that communication take place? Given the strength of feeling among those affected, this must be treated with the gravity it deserves. More broadly, there is a sense that poor managerial experience has characterised the handling of this matter, further undermining trust.

That damage has been compounded by the contrast between earlier rhetoric and the position now being taken. The Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary spoke of a cliff edge facing WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said she was fighting for a fair deal. The Chancellor said she wanted justice. The current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions publicly associated himself with MPs campaigning for a better outcome. Those who once stood beside them now appear, in their eyes, to have turned away.

I know that the Minister referred to pension credit and the importance of take-up, and I completely share that with her. I did my very best when I was in her position to make sure that we did everything we could to ensure that pension credit was taken up and increased. I am not sure if progress has stalled or whether there has been any improvement, so can the Minister clarify the position on take-up of pension credit and whether this can be used to placate some of these genuine WASPI women?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. The Government say the WASPI women should have known about the changes. I am reminded of a quote from the book The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy:

“But the plans were on display … you found the notice, didn’t you? … It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard’”.


Another relevant quote from the same book said:

“All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for 50 … years”.


The issue here is whether these women were communicated with adequately. Some 3.6 million WASPI women have been badly treated. They were given some hope; we have an ombudsman who made a recommendation to provide some justice and pay some compensation. Can the Minister say why this recommendation has been ignored? We have heard apologies but no compensation.

If you were a woman who knew that, at a certain age, you would receive a pension you probably did not give it another thought that the rules had changed. Of course, lots of announcements were made, and lots of letters were sent—sometimes belatedly, as the ombudsman said—but the truth is that the messages were not received or understood. The ombudsman has recommended compensation of £1,000 to £2,950 per person. I ask the Minister, very bluntly, why this recommendation has not been implemented. It is not a question of justice, but a reluctance to spend money on a group of people who cannot fight back.

Can the Minister take back to her colleagues in the department that there is a feeling—I hope—across this House that the WASPI have been maltreated and that the least they should expect is for the recommendation of the independent ombudsman to be put into effect? It is not enough, in my view, but it has come from the ombudsman, and I would like to hear what reasoning the Minister can give for ignoring this. I hope that she will take back to her colleagues in the other House and in the department the feelings of this House that the ombudsman’s decision should be honoured.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. As we know, this group addresses the use of scale, as measured by assets under management or monetary value, as a determinant of scheme quality.

The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, gave the example of the Orkney trust. I ask myself: what is the reason? Is it size? Personally, I think it is the calibre of the single malt whisky. Then we go to the other end of the country, to Guernsey. Is it because trusts are at the extremes of the country that causes the good benefits, or is it something else? You can always look for a reason: it could be size, location or anything else—or, indeed, the quality of the whisky.

We accept that scale can bring efficiencies, but there is a strong question over whether size alone is a reliable proxy for value. Amendments 91 and 95 recognise that some master trusts and group personal pension schemes deliver strong investment performance despite being below prescribed thresholds. Amendment 98 similarly acknowledges that innovation and specialism do not always depend on scale, location or whatever else.

We are also concerned about the rigidity of fixed monetary thresholds in the Bill. Amendments 99, 101, 106 and 108 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, are concerned about the rigidity of fixed monetary thresholds in the Bill. These amendments probe whether the figures chosen are evidence-based and future-proofed, or whether they risk being outdated—that is the point—as the market evolves. It is not cast in stone, and we should not try to see it as such.

Amendments 101, 104 and 108 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and others, raise an additional concern: the risk of mandating common investment strategies. Diversity of approach is a strength of a pension system. Forcing schemes into uniform strategies risks herding behaviour and systemic vulnerability. My question to the Minister is this: is the Government’s objective genuinely better member outcomes—which I believe we all want—or prioritising administrative simplicity at the expense of innovation, competition and resilience? All the amendments in this group tackle this problem, and those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, particularly stress that. I hope we will continue to push these through to the next stage of the debate on this Bill.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, today’s groups build directly on the issues explored in last Thursday’s debate. That discussion was both stimulating and constructive, and the contributions made, particularly on mandation, highlight the value of the scrutiny that this Bill continues to receive in Grand Committee. On this group, in the interests of brevity—I am sure that will please the whole Committee—I shall keep my remarks focused on the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. A number of significant and related issues have been raised by other noble Lords, and we will wish to return to these later today. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to the points made on this group.

Amendment 98 would introduce a clear and proportionate innovation exemption for relevant master trusts under Clause 40, so that schemes delivering genuinely specialist or innovative services are not automatically required to meet the scale threshold simply because of their size. We have been challenged today not to be obsessed with size. We recognise the policy aim of improving outcomes through scale. However, as I said, size is not always a reliable proxy for quality or value: there are master trusts that are smaller by design yet deliver strong member outcomes through innovation, whether in investment approach, governance or engagement with particular workforces. As the Bill is currently drafted, such schemes risk being forced to consolidate or exit, not because they are failing members but because they do not meet a blunt asset size test.

Amendment 98 provides a sensible alternative route, recognising that innovation and specialisation can also deliver high-quality outcomes. This amendment simply ensures that size alone is not determinative. I hope the Minister will see this as a constructive amendment that supports innovation and choice while remaining fully aligned with the Bill’s objective of improving outcomes for savers.

Amendment 102 is, again, a probing amendment. Clause 40 gives the Secretary of State the power to determine by regulations the method for calculating a master trust’s total assets for the purposes of this provision. That is a potentially significant power, because the way that total assets are defined and measured will determine which schemes fall within scope and which may benefit from exemptions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on having a group of nine amendments all on her own. We normally share groups rather than have them all on our own. This group considers how scale requirements interact with default pension arrangements where most savers remain invested. I have listened to the debate and, having spent a large part of my career in accountancy and advising clients, I know that the trouble is that the majority of clients are not expert enough to know what they should do with their pension. They seek advice from various organisations on what they should do. We should make sure that the quality of the advice they get suits their position in life. As other noble Lords have said, we are concerned about the overly rigid scale test, which could unintentionally narrow choice within defaults and push schemes towards one-size-fits-all designs.

Amendment 97 highlights the importance of allowing defaults that reflect members’ differing ages, health conditions, retirement plans and risk profiles. Amendments 97A to 101B probe—this is the point—whether the authority can take account of the combined value of assets across multiple default arrangements, rather than assessing each in isolation. Without this flexibility, schemes that offer well-designed cohort-based defaults could be penalised simply for tailoring provision.

Amendments 168A and 170A reinforce this point, seeking to ensure that schemes are not excluded from the market for moving beyond crude uniform defaults. Our concern is that defaults should be designed around member needs, not regulatory convenience. I hope the Minister will explain how the Bill avoids pushing schemes towards uniformity at the expense of suitability and long-term outcomes.

I hope the Minister does not regard the series of amendments in this group as combative. They are meant to try to help pensioners or future pensioners. It is wrong if the Government look for a simple process but do not look at the benefit for the people concerned. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, who talked about what happens in gilts and the like. I come from a period in the chartered accountant profession when you always went into gilts in what you thought were the last few years of your working life. Now, things have changed. We have to look at what you do and when you do it, and those things depend on the people involved.

I hope the Minister will see that these amendments are trying to say that things should not be too prescriptive. They are not against what the Government are trying to do, which is look after people. But are doing it on a one-size-fits-all basis, which does not work in the real world that we are in. I hope the Government go back and think about this a little more so that, when we come to Report, we can be a little more innovative.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I wish to speak briefly in support of this group of amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Altmann. She has once again demonstrated her expertise and the value that she brings to our scrutiny of these important issues. Most importantly, she explained the spirit in which these amendments were tabled.

Throughout our proceedings on this Bill, a consistent theme across the Committee has been the need for proportionality in the steps we are taking on scale and value for money, and for definitions that are sufficiently comprehensive to reflect how the market actually operates in practice. I do not intend to repeat the points already made by the noble Baroness or ask the questions she has posed, but we will listen carefully to the Minister’s response on these issues.

Clause 40, as drafted, risks applying the scale test in an overly narrow and mechanical way by requiring the regulator to assess each default arrangement in isolation without regard to the wider context in which it is offered. That approach is not necessarily proportionate; nor does it reflect the economic reality of how master trust providers operate. This amendment would allow the regulator to take into account the combined assets of several non-scale default arrangements offered by the same provider. In doing so, it would not dilute the principle of scale; rather, it would ensure that scale is assessed in a comprehensive and realistic way, focusing on the resilience, governance and efficiency of the provider as a whole.

That matters because, without this flexibility, we risk forcing consolidation for its own sake and potentially requiring well-run, well-performing defaults to be wound up simply because they fall on the wrong side of an arbitrary threshold—even where the provider clearly operates at scale overall. This amendment therefore speaks directly to the principles that we have already raised in Committee: that regulations should be outcome-focused rather than box-ticking, and that they should avoid unintended consequences that could undermine member confidence rather than enhancing it. For those reasons, I believe this is a sensible and proportionate refinement of Clause 40, and I hope the Minister will give it serious consideration.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the clarity of the exposition of her amendments, and I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will try to explain what the Government are trying to do here and then pick up the specific points that the noble Baroness raised.

To maintain the policy on scale and secure its benefits for pension scheme members, there will need to be centralised decision-making over a large pool of assets. The Bill sets out that this will be delivered by the main scale default arrangement, which is subject to a common investment strategy. I recognise that the noble Baroness has raised concerns about the common investment strategy being able to accommodate different factors, but I will tell the Committee why it is there. A key purpose of the policy is to minimise fragmentation in schemes and to have a single default arrangement at the centre of schemes’ proposition. Fragmentation is an issue, not because it is a piece of government dogmatism but because it is in the interests of members that those who run their schemes have a big wallet at the centre to give the scheme the buying power and expertise they need, because that enables them to deliver on the benefits of scale.

When we consulted, the responses told us that there were schemes with hundreds of default arrangements that have been created over a long period of time and that this is a problem. Members in these arrangements get lower returns and pay higher charges, which some consultation responses also told us. It is important that we deal with that fragmentation and that we improve member outcomes.

However, the Government also recognise that there are circumstances where a different default arrangement is needed to serve specific member needs only—for example, for religious or ethical regions. These will be possible through Chapter 4 but they will not count towards the main scale default arrangement. If the scale measure encompassed multiple default arrangements or combined assets, as these amendments would allow, it would not drive the desired changes or support member outcomes derived from the benefits of scale. Following consultation, there was clear consensus that scale should be set at the arrangement level as that is where key decisions about investments are made. Simply put, centralised scale is the best way to realise benefits across the market for savers.

The pensions industry has told us there are too many default arrangements in some schemes, and that fragmentation—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly under the auspices of Amendments 146 and 147 when we resume some of the discussions the Minister promised last week to continue, notably on mandation and statutory guidance. In our debate last week, I tried to establish the evidence base for the Minister’s assertion that

“the Government would not be proposing these powers”—

mandation—

“if there were not strong evidence that savers’ interests lie in greater investment diversification than we see today in the market”.—[Official Report, 22/1/26; col. GC 218.]

The key words here are “strong” and “evidence”. There are certainly those whose opinions would align with the Minister’s assertion, but opinion is not the same as evidence and not nearly the same as strong evidence.

As I said last week, the DWP recently commissioned the Government Actuary’s Department to model four variations of pension scheme strategies. I will not list them again, but the study concluded that across a range of economic scenarios the model portfolios deliver very similar projected pension pot sizes. But it also showed that if the current underperformance of the UK versus global equities persists, UK-heavy allocations will underperform the baseline. The Government Actuary’s Department said in a post on GOV.UK on 15 November 2024:

“Our analysis showed that a greater level of exposure to private markets may deliver slightly improved outcomes to members. However, there is considerable uncertainty, particularly with the assumptions for projected future investment returns”.


That does not sound like strong evidence for anything.

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries makes the same point. It says that, based on the Government’s own impact assessment, “We do not think there is strong, clear evidence that in most foreseeable scenarios savers’ interests lie in greater investment in private markets and infrastructure”. It believes that there exists a very uncertain central estimate of an extra two percentage points over 30 years, equivalent to 0.066% a year compounded. It goes on to say: “Given the inherent uncertainty in such estimates, this is almost negligible and could easily turn out to be negative over the next 30 years or indeed much higher”. The IFoA goes on to say: “The point is that it is far from clear that there would be a material benefit”. That does not sound like strong evidence commendation either, yet this is the basis on which the Government seek to mandate investment, which raises as a consequence significant concerns about the operation of fiduciary duty.

The proposals in this Bill, for there is a power to mandate investment, cause uncertainty about trustees’ duties to their members. That uncertainty is understandable, especially because the case for mandation is weakly evidenced, if evidenced at all. The uncertainty is also unnecessary in many ways because of the existence of the Mansion House Accord for which, as others have said, 17 leading pension providers have already signed up. How will the anticipated statutory guidance, for example, contribute to the model of co-operation embedded in the Mansion House Accord? Is it no more than a useful threat? What role will the statutory guidance play in modifying the application of fiduciary duty? In fact, can the Minister confirm that the promised statutory guidance will have something to say about the possible clashes between mandated action and fiduciary duty, if only to confirm the primacy of fiduciary duty?

Minister Bell responded on 22 January to a Written Question from my honourable friend the Member for Stratford-upon-Avon about the scope of the coverage of the upcoming guidance on fiduciary duties. His reply did not refer to the mandation powers at all. Will the Minister confirm that the guidance will be non-binding and have the same have force as many other “have regards” that exist in the financial services sector? If the guidance has, or could plausibly be read as having, detectable, real-world influence, it should come before Parliament for scrutiny, and it should come before us when we can recommend changes.

Minister Bell’s Written Answer, as I mentioned a moment ago, says of the guidance that:

“Work will commence shortly beginning with an industry roundtable to gather views and technical expertise to ensure the guidance meets the identified need”.


I suppress my astonishment at this rather late start for thinking about statutory guidance. I notice that, in the reply, there was no mention of Parliament and the role it might play or of timescale in all this, except we now know that it has either just started or is about to start. In other words, as things stand, the likelihood of effective parliamentary scrutiny of anything to do with statutory guidance is unlikely. This is entirely unsatisfactory for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, has argued so forcefully.

There is no compelling evidence that mandation will work. If the Mansion House Accord is to be taken seriously and the Government play their part, mandation will be unnecessary. Mandation would interfere with or complicate the principal of fiduciary duty. It is also opposed by major stakeholders including, as I mentioned previously, the Governor of the Bank of England.

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries ends its latest assessment of the situation by saying that trustees should not be leaned on to invest in ways that conflict with their own best judgment. Instead, those investments and markets that the Government wish to promote should continue to be made more attractive through initiatives such as LTAFs and so on. The pension schemes will freely choose to follow in a way that is right for them and their members. We agree with that and will continue to try to convince the Government that the reserve power is not necessary or desirable—activated or not—and that there is no sound basis for using it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly on the other amendments in this group before turning to Amendment 145 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. As noble Lords have already set out, Clause 40 represents a significant extension of regulatory influence over asset allocation in defined contribution default arrangements. Given the scale of that change, it is both reasonable and necessary that we consider carefully how risk, responsibility and accountability are apportioned within the framework the Bill creates.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted and Lady Altmann, seek to introduce greater certainty and procedural fairness into the operation of the savers’ interest test. Removing an automatic time limit on exemptions, ensuring that schemes are not compelled to alter asset allocations while determinations or appeals are ongoing and requiring the authority to give reasons for its decisions are all, in my submission, entirely sensible propositions. They make the framework that the Bill creates more robust, transparent and defensible.

In a similar vein, allowing schemes to apply for the savers’ interest test over a limited number of consecutive years, while demonstrating a credible pathway to compliance, reflects a realistic understanding of how long-term investment strategies are developed and implemented. It recognises that good outcomes for savers are not always delivered by abrupt or mechanically imposed changes.

Several of the amendments in this group speak directly to the core point of fiduciary responsibility, which, as was powerfully reinforced during our debate on the final group last Thursday, is an absolutely central point to the approach being adopted by noble Lords across the Committee. The amendments reinforcing fiduciary duty and proposing a safe harbour for trustees acting in good faith on professional advice and in accordance with their duties are an attempt to clarify that nothing in this Bill should place trustees in an impossible position, caught between regulatory direction on the one hand and their fundamental obligation to act in the best financial interests of members on the other.

Related to this, the probing amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Vaux of Harrowden and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, asks an important and unresolved question: where investment decisions are mandated by the state, in effect, where does liability sit if those investments underperform? Even if the Government do not accept the mechanism proposed, the question itself cannot simply be wished away; I hope that the Minister will address it directly.

I also wish to touch on the amendments that deal with systemic risk, structural neutrality and herding behaviour. Requiring trustees to have regard to long-term systemic risks, including economic resilience and climate change, is entirely consistent with existing best practice and does not mandate investment in any particular asset or vehicle. Ensuring that listed investment funds are not structurally disadvantaged helps preserve choice and diversification. The amendment on regulatory herding speaks to a well-understood risk: overly prescriptive frameworks can drive homogeneity of behaviour, amplifying systemic risk rather than mitigating it.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will engage seriously with the questions these amendments ask around process, liability, fiduciary duty and risk. Even where the Government may not be minded to accept the amendments, as drafted, they highlight issues that, given the provisions in the Bill, deserve clear and careful answers.

As has been our consistent approach throughout these days in Committee, my own amendment seeks to probe the Government on a key question: why have they provided for a maximum civil penalty of £100,000 for failure to comply with the mandation requirements set out in this chapter? Given the nature of those requirements and the breadth of discretion that they confer on the authority, it is not at all clear in the Bill how the Government have arrived at that figure or why it is considered proportionate. We are dealing here with decisions around long-term asset allocation in pension default arrangements—areas where reasonable, professional judgment may legitimately differ and where the consequences of regulatory direction may not be apparent for many years. In that context, a six-figure penalty is not a trivial matter.

This amendment is designed to invite the Government to explain the rationale for the level of the penalty; how it is expected to be applied in practice; and whether sufficient regard has been had to scheme size, intent and the nature of any alleged breach. I hope that the Minister can set out clearly why £100,000 is the appropriate ceiling; how proportionality will be ensured; and what safeguards will exist to prevent penalties being applied in a blunt or mechanistic way.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

We have to have a hard stop at 8 pm, I am afraid, so I move that the Committee do now adjourn.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as has been expressed, this group establishes the foundation of the value-for-money framework. We welcome the ambition to improve outcomes for savers. However, the effectiveness of value for money will depend on how it is defined, measured and implemented, and I welcome the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, which elaborated on these points.

I shall concentrate on Amendments 49 and 54 and I hope I can persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that they are of value. These amendments will extend the scope of the Bill’s value-for-money provisions. They ensure that they apply not only to defined contribution schemes but defined benefit occupational pension schemes as well.

The arrangements make it clear that regulations can make different provision for different types of scheme. Critically, however, all schemes must be covered by the value-for-money assessment, with a proper value-for-money rating. Members of DB schemes deserve the same transparency and assurance about value for money as members of DC schemes. DB schemes still represent a significant part of the pensions landscape. Excluding them risks creating an uneven playing field and less scrutiny where it is still needed.

A single, consistent framework across occupational pensions improves comparability, avoids regulatory gaps and ensures that all savers benefit from the same standards of accountability. The two amendments in my name would ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise of value for money across all pension schemes. The measure is simple: every saver in every scheme, whatever its type, deserves value for money. Other noble Lords have expressed this in detail.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke about pensions jargon. We are here in a very rarefied atmosphere, where people have some knowledge—I have less than many in the Room—of what pensions are about and what phrases such as “default pensions” mean. We need to make it clear to people who have no interest in pensions other than receiving a cheque at the end of the month at a certain age what it all means. Some people need to be clear about the choices they make, and we need to do as much as we can. These amendments, both those that have been spoken to already and the two in my name, seek to protect people’s interests.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we come again to a varied group. I shall focus my remarks on the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie. I welcome the contributions from other noble Lords and I look forward to the Minister’s response. We have a few amendments in this group: Amendments 50, 51, 52, 53, 57 and 74, and the Clause 13 do not stand part proposition.

Before I turn to the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, I will say a few words about the value-for-money framework that sits at the heart of the Bill. The introduction of a value-for-money framework has the potential to be genuinely transformative for workplace pensions if it is designed and implemented well. We support the principle of value for money. However, much of what this legislation seeks to achieve will stand or fall on how the framework is designed, applied and enforced.

As drafted, the provisions are relatively skeletal, despite the pivotal role that value for money is expected to play. If value for money is to drive real improvement rather than box ticking, it must be transparent in its methodology, robust in its metrics and genuinely comparable across schemes. Cost alone cannot be the determining factor. A scheme that is cheap but delivers persistently weak net returns does not represent good value for money for savers. Comparability will be key. Without clear, standardised metrics, there is a risk that value for money simply reinforces price-chasing behaviour rather than improving outcomes. My amendments are therefore intended not to oppose the concept of value for money but to strengthen it, to ensure that it is implemented in a way that improves saver outcomes, respects fiduciary duty and avoids unintended consequences.

I turn to the amendments in more detail. Amendments 50 to 53 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted in the case of Amendment 53, are probing amendments that go to the heart of whether the value-for-money framework established by Clause 11 will operate as a genuinely effective tool for improving saver outcomes.

Clause 11 creates a very broad enabling power. It allows for the creation of a value-for-money framework, but is largely silent on what value for money should actually consist of. Given the centrality of value for money to the Bill as a whole, it is important to test the Government’s intentions on the minimum elements that will underpin the framework.

Amendment 50 would require value-for-money regulations to include publication of a fees-to-returns ratio. The purpose here is straightforward: cost on its own is not value. As I have said, a scheme that is cheap but delivers persistently weak net returns cannot sensibly be said to offer good value to members. If value for money is to be outcome-focused, it must show what savers are receiving relative to what they are paying, rather than allowing headline charges to dominate decision-making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

These are obviously probing amendments. They are all to do with the jargon: if we are arguing about the jargon, how much more confused will the normal punter be in trying to understand the jargon. This group focuses on how value for money is expressed, enforced and communicated.

We support the principle that members should be able to understand whether their scheme is performing well. However, value-for-money ratings also carry significant power. They will influence trustee behaviour, in particular, as well as employer decisions and market structure. That makes proportionality and precision essential.

I am particularly concerned about overreliance on short-term performance metrics. Saving for a pension is, or certainly should be, inherently long-term. Schemes should not be penalised for temporary underperformance driven by market cycles or responsible long-term investment strategies.

We also question whether compliance mechanisms become blunt instruments. Labelling schemes “poor value” without clear context may drive consolidation for the wrong reasons, reducing competition without improving outcomes. Clear language matters—I use the word “jargon” once again—but so does nuance. Members need information they can trust, not simplified labels about market complexity.

I have some questions for the Minister. How will this regime distinguish between persistent structural failure and short-term variation? How will it use this intermediate rating? How will it encourage genuine improvement rather than defensive behaviour by trustees? Trustees are meant to be very careful; they will be cognisant of the intermediate position. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, again, this is a substantial group. I will not detain the Committee for too long but, before I turn to my amendments, I briefly welcome those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. As she set out so clearly, her amendments seek to simplify the language used in value-for-money assessments so that they are more readily and intuitively understood by scheme members. This goes to a point that has arisen repeatedly during our discussions in Committee: many of the concepts in this Bill, as well as the language used to describe them, are dense, technical and difficult to grasp. A considerable level of prior knowledge is often required simply to understand what is being proposed, let alone its practical effect. I am reminded of a remark attributed to Joseph Pulitzer. He said that information should be put before people,

“briefly so that they will read it, clearly so that they will understand it … picturesquely so that they will remember it, and, above all, accurately”.

Surely that is the standard to which we should aspire, in not only this Bill but more broadly in our legislative work. Clarity, intelligibility and accessibility should be central objectives. The language we choose and the way in which we define key terms in legislation are fundamental, yet they are too often treated as secondary concerns.

I therefore warmly welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, precisely because they address this issue head-on. Jargon is easy to reach for, but it is also, in a sense, lazy. When we are constructing a value-for-money framework whose purpose is to communicate value for money, we must be vigilant about terminology that obscures rather than illuminates and about euphemisms and phrases that sound authoritative but fail to convey real meaning. Many noble Lords will be familiar with Eric Blair’s essay, Politics and the English Language, and the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness serve as a timely reminder of some of the lessons it contains.

The first amendments in this group to which I have added my name—Amendments 60 and 61—would remove sub-paragraph (ii) from Clause 15(1)(b) as well as subsection (2). These amendments speak to a simple point: where responsible trustees or managers have determined that a scheme is not delivering value for money, that judgment should be sufficient to justify a rating of “not delivering” without the need to satisfy additional statutory conditions that risk being overly prescriptive.

Trustees already sit at the centre of this framework. They are charged with assessing investment performance, costs, charges, service quality and long-term member outcomes. They are subject to fiduciary duties and regulatory oversight. It is therefore entirely reasonable to trust their professional judgment when they conclude that a scheme is failing to deliver value for money. As the Bill is currently drafted, that judgment must be supplemented by one of a series of defined conditions, whether persistent intermediate ratings, a lack of realistic prospect of improvement or regulatory non-compliance. While well-intentioned, those conditions risk turning what should be a principles-based regime into a mechanistic one, encouraging trustees to focus on meeting thresholds rather than acting decisively in members’ best interests.

Youth Unemployment

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. As I said in my Answer, it is one of the reasons why young people find it difficult to get into either further training or the workplace. We will certainly ensure, as we are doing through additional support for employers in apprenticeships, that where a young person has a disability, that support will be available to them and to the employer offering them the opportunity to work.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the work that the Government are doing to improve the situation for young people, but businesses are clear that the Employment Rights Act, the Government’s minimum wage rules and spiralling business rates are the direct causes of young people being kept out of the labour market. We can solve this problem only by enabling business to create jobs. How are His Majesty’s Government going to get employers to employ people when the risk environment that has been created is just so high, and what are they going to do to change this problem?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is obviously the case that we need to support employers to take on young people who have been unemployed for a long period, which is why we will fully fund the job opportunities for young people who have been on universal credit for 18 months. But if it were the case that only the actions of this Government had been responsible for youth unemployment then we would not have seen the figures rising since May 2022 and we would not be seeing the same problem around the world. What is important is that this Government are taking action, including providing the financial support, to ensure that young people get back into work. I am glad that the noble Baroness supports those efforts.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Code of Practice

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government have been clear that the judgment provides clarity around the definition of sex within the Equality Act. We have been clear that therefore all providers should be following that, taking specialist legal advice where necessary, and ensuring that, with respect for everybody’s rights and dignity, we can make progress on this in a way that respects the law but also ensures that everybody is able to have the rights and protections that the Equality Act so importantly laid down in 2010.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, in the wake of the Sandie Peggie v Fife Health Board and the Darlington nurses v County Durham and Darlington NHS Trust decisions—the participants are in the Gallery—does the Minister accept that there is also an urgent need for all NHS trusts to update their policies in the light of the Supreme Court ruling? Have the Government sought this? As my noble friend Lady Cash set out so well, what timetable have the Government set up for compliance? How much longer do we have to wait? With all respect to the House, if my grandmother was saying this, she would say that Nelson will get his eye back before this happens.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have already been clear today and previously when responding to this, it is important that all bodies, public and private, consider the clarity of the For Women Scotland Supreme Court judgment and review their policies in line with that. That goes for the NHS, and it goes for other organisations as well. I just emphasise that the fact that some people have found it necessary to revert to legal cases to get their rights is precisely why we need to make sure that the interpretation of the most recent judgment is clear and not going to mean people having to take their rights through the courts to have them realised in future. It is in order to ensure that that is more likely to be the case that the Government are taking the time necessary to get this right.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for putting these amendments down and speaking in detail about them. We also heard good words from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. I almost thought, “Is there any point in getting up and speaking?” but I am a politician.

This group goes to first principles. What is a defined benefits pension surplus and what is it for? For us, DB surplus is not a windfall or an accident, as I think others have said. It is a result of long-term assumptions, member contributions, employer funding decisions and investment outcomes—all those—but above all, it exists within a framework of promises made to members in return for deferred pay. We are therefore concerned about renaming—we keep on coming back to this—“surplus” as simply “assets” available for redistribution.

Language matters here because it shapes both legal interpretation and member confidence. Treating surpluses as inherently extractable risks weakening the fundamental bargain that underpins DB provision. Our position is not that surplus should never be accessed, but that it should be considered only after members’ reasonable expectations have been fully protected. That includes confidence in benefits security, protection against inflation erosion, and trust and accrued rights not being retrospectively interpreted. I have always thought that with DB pensions you need prudence. How far do prudence and good governance go?

Finally, the question for Ministers is whether the Bill maintains the principle that DB schemes exist first and foremost to deliver promised benefits or whether it marks a shift towards viewing schemes as financial reservoirs once minimum funding tests are met. In that case, one has to think, “What is the minimum for the funding tests?” We shall come on to that in an amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, has put down later in the Bill on where companies fail. It is a question of when those surpluses are available, if they are ever available.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, when I entered the department in July 2019, defined benefit pension schemes did, on occasion, report surpluses. However, those surpluses were neither of the scale nor the character that we are now observing. If one looks back over the past quarter of a century and beyond, it is evident that both the funding position of defined benefit schemes and the methodologies used to assess that funding have changed materially.

The surpluses reported today are not simply large in absolute terms but different in nature. They are measured against significantly more prudent assumptions, particularly in relation to discount rates, longevity and asset valuation, than would have been applied historically. It is therefore right that these emerging surpluses are examined with care and transparency. Bringing them into the open is necessary, and I say at the outset that the Government are right to have raised this issue explicitly in the Bill.

That said, we consider that the Bill does not yet fully reflect a number of the practical and operational issues faced by both trustees and sponsoring employers when seeking to make effective use of those provisions. In that respect, our position is not materially distant from that of the Government. Our concerns are not ones of principle but of application and implementation. We recognise that issues relating to potential deadlock between trustees and sponsors are important, but we are content for those matters to be considered at a later stage in the Committee’s proceedings. Our immediate focus is on understanding how the proposals are intended to operate in practice, how decisions are expected to be taken within existing scheme governance arrangements and how these new powers interact with established trustee fiduciary duties and employer covenant considerations.

This is a busy group, and noble Lords have done a sterling job in setting out their reasoning and rationale. I shall, therefore, not detain the Committee further by relitigating those points but will speak to my Amendment 25 in this group. Like a number of our amendments in this part of the Bill, it is a probing amendment intended to seek clarity. Clause 9 inserts new Section 36B into the Pensions Act 1995. The new section gives trustees of defined benefit trustee schemes the ability by resolution to modify the schemes’ rules so as to confirm a power to pay surplus to the employer or to remove or relax existing restrictions on the exercise of such a power.

The clause contains one explicit limitation on that power. New Section 36B(4) provides that the section does not apply to a scheme that is being wound up. In other words, wind-up is the only circumstance singled out in the Bill in which the new surplus release modification power cannot be used. Amendment 25 would remove that specific exclusion, and I want to be clear that the purpose of doing so is not to argue that surplus should be released during winding-up; rather, it is to test the Government’s reasoning in identifying wind-up as the sole circumstance meriting an explicit prohibition in primary legislation.

By proposing to remove subsection (4), the amendment invites the Minister to explain whether the Government consider wind-up to be genuinely the only situation in which surplus release would be inappropriate or whether there are other circumstances where the use of this power would also be unsuitable. If those other safeguards are already captured elsewhere, it would be helpful for the Committee to have that clearly set out on the record. Equally, if wind-up is used here as a proxy for a broader set of concerns, the Committee would benefit from understanding why those concerns are not addressed more directly.

Surplus release is a sensitive issue. The way in which the boundaries of this new power are framed therefore matters. Where the Bill chooses to draw a line in the legislation, it invites scrutiny as to why that line has been drawn there and only there. This amendment is intended to facilitate that discussion and to elicit reassurance from the Minister about how the Government envisage this power operating in practice and what protections they consider necessary beyond the single case of wind-up. On that basis, I look forward to the Minister’s response and any clarification she can provide to the Committee.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for explaining their amendments, and to all noble Lords, who have spoken so concisely—we positively cantered through that group; may that continue throughout the day.

It is worth saying a word about the Government’s policy intent, but let me start by saying that the DB landscape has changed dramatically, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. Schemes are currently enjoying high levels of funding. Three in four schemes are running a surplus and there is around £160 billion of surplus funds in the DB universe. Schemes are also now more mature. The vast majority minimise the risk of future volatility with investment strategies that protect against interest rate and inflation movements. In addition, the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation require trustees to aim to maintain a strong funding position so that they can pay members’ future pensions. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that is the primary purpose of DB funding schemes: above all, they must be able to pay members’ pensions. That is what is set out quite clearly in the DB funding code and the underpinning legislation. That is overseen by the Pensions Regulator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I will try to make this quick. Proposed new clause in Amendment 45 requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes. It focuses on the clawback provisions, particularly in the Midland Bank staff pension scheme and associated legacy arrangements.

Why is this review needed? State deduction provisions can reduce members’ pension entitlements, sometimes in ways that are complex or unclear. There are concerns about fairness and transparency and a disproportionate impact, particularly on lower paid staff and women. It ensures members, regulators and Parliament have clarity about the origin, rationale and effects of these provisions.

The review will examine the history and rationale for state deduction in a Midland Bank staff pension scheme and assess clarity. It will be conducted by a person or body independent of HSBC and associated schemes. We will also try to ensure that it must consult affected scheme members, employee representatives, pension experts and stakeholder organisations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we are broadly supportive of the purpose behind this amendment. It raises an important set of questions about whether members of defined benefit schemes have been given clear, timely and accessible information about state deduction or clawback provisions, and whether the rationale for those provisions has been properly explained to them over time.

Of course, individuals must take responsibility for managing their own finances and retirement planning. But that responsibility can only be exercised meaningfully if people are properly informed in advance about what will happen to their pension, when it will happen and why. When changes or reductions are triggered at state pension age, members need adequate notice so that they can make sensible and informed financial decisions. In that context, a review of the adequacy of member communications, the transparency of the original rationale and the accessibility of this information is welcome. While we may not necessarily agree with some of the more precise parameters and timetables set out in the amendment, as a way of posing the question and prompting scrutiny, it is a reasonable approach.

That said, we have spoken to someone who has intimate, working knowledge of the Midland Bank pension scheme and has experience of the workings of the scheme. They confirmed to us that they were fully aware of this provision, because it was in all the literature they were sent when they were enrolled. Given this, can the noble Lord give some more insight into why he thinks some members of this scheme were aware, and others not, and how could this be addressed?

I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she has any initial views on the issues this amendment raises. In particular, how accessible is this information to members in practice today, and what steps, if any, would the Government or Department for Work and Pensions take if it became clear that these arrangements are not well understood?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, for introducing his amendment and drawing attention to this issue, which is of real importance to some members in integrated schemes. After a lifetime of work, people rightly expect their pension to provide security and stability in retirement. For many, their occupational pension forms a key part of that.

Integrated schemes can feel confusing or unexpected to those affected, particularly when their occupational pension changes at the point when their state pension is paid. These schemes are designed so that the occupational pension is higher before state pension age and then adjusted downwards once the state pension is paid, because the schemes take account of some or all of a state pension when calculating the pension due. However, if it is not clearly explained, the change could come as a surprise. I acknowledge that and the worries some members have expressed. It is important to be clear that members are not losing money at state pension age. The structure of these schemes aims to provide a smoother level of income across retirement by blending occupational and state pension over time.

Concerns have been raised that deductions applied within integrated schemes may represent a higher proportion of income for lower-paid members, many of whom are women. This reflects wider patterns of lower earnings during their working lives, rather than any discriminatory mechanism within the schemes themselves, but I appreciate why this feels unfair to those affected. The rules governing these deductions are set out in scheme rules. Employers and trustees can decide on their scheme’s benefit structure within the legislative framework that all pension schemes must meet. The Government do not intervene in individual benefit structures but do set and enforce the minimum standards that all schemes must comply with.

Although this type of scheme is permitted under legislation, it is essential that members understand how their scheme operates. Therefore, it is extremely important that people have good, clear information about their occupational pension scheme so that they can make informed decisions about their retirement. What matters just as much as the rules is that people understand them. Good, clear information is essential so that members are not taken by surprise when they reach state pension age.

If a member believes that the information they received was unclear or incomplete, they are not without redress. They can make a complaint through their scheme’s internal dispute process or, if needed, escalate their case to the Pensions Ombudsman for an independent determination.

The Government absolutely share the desire for people to have confidence in the pensions they rely on, but, given the protections already in place and the long-established nature of schemes, we do not believe that a review is necessary. For those reasons, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have enormous sympathy with the thoughts behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. However, I share the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, in that it is not clear how that would work, because this would then need to be a contingent payment or some kind of conditional payment which can be recouped, and that would impact creditors or debt holders of the company as well. Does the noble Lord feel that if, as a consequence of the surplus payment, members also got enhanced benefits, that would in some ways compensate for the future eventuality of what he is concerned about?

Finally, in the days before we had a Pension Protection Fund, I was very much in favour of increasing the status of the unsecured creditor position of a pension scheme. But in the current environment, where there is a Pension Protection Fund, and where the Bill will be improving the protections provided by it, it is much less important to increase the status on insolvency of the pension scheme itself than it would have been in past times. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, that if there were to be any such provision, it should be a lot less than 10 years.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for tabling this amendment, which is clearly motivated by a desire to protect scheme members and guard against the risk that pension surpluses are extracted prematurely, only for employers to fail some years later. I suspect that there is broad sympathy with this objective across the Committee. However, I have a number of questions about how this proposal would operate in practice and whether it strikes the right balance between member protection, regulatory oversight and the wider framework of insolvency law. My noble friend Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, have all raised points connected to this amendment. I hope I am not duplicating their questions, but I will ask mine.

First, can the noble Lord say more about how this amendment would interact with the existing hierarchy of creditors under the Insolvency Act 1986? As drafted, it appears to require pension schemes to be paid ahead of all other creditors, including secured creditors and those with statutory preferential status? Does the noble Lord envisage this as a complete reordering of creditor priorities in these cases? If so, what thought has he given to the potential consequences for lending decisions, access to capital or the cost of borrowing for employers that sponsor defined benefit schemes?

Secondly, I would be grateful for further clarity on the choice of a 10-year clawback period, which other noble Lords have raised. As has been said, 10 years is a very long time in corporate and economic terms, and insolvency occurring at that point may bear little or no causal connection to a surplus payment made many years earlier, perhaps in very different market conditions. What is the rationale for that specific timeframe, and how does the noble Lord respond to concerns that this could introduce long-tail uncertainty for employers and their directors when making decisions in good faith?

Thirdly, how does the amendment sit alongside the existing powers of the Pensions Regulator? At present, trustees must be satisfied that member benefits are secure before any surplus is paid, and the regulator already has moral hazard powers to intervene where it believes scheme funding or employer behaviour to be inappropriate. Does the noble Lord consider those tools insufficient and, if so, can he point to evidence of systemic failure that would justify addressing this issue through restructuring insolvency priorities rather than through pension regulations?

I am also interested in the practical operation of this provision. Proposed new subsection (2) would allow amendments to both the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Enterprise Act 2002 to achieve the intended outcome. That is a very broad power, even acknowledging the use of the affirmative procedure. Has any thought been given to how this would operate in complex insolvencies; for example, where surplus has been paid to a parent company, where assets are held across a corporate group or where insolvency proceedings involve cross-border elements?

Finally, although I understand the protective instinct behind this amendment, I wonder whether there is a risk of unintended consequences. Might the creation of a potential super-priority for pension schemes discourage legitimate surplus extraction, even where schemes are demonstrably well funded, trustees are content and regulatory requirements have been met? If that were to occur, could it inadvertently weaken employer covenant strength over time rather than strengthen it?

None of these questions is intended to diminish the importance of member protection or suggest that concerns about surplus extraction are misplaced. Rather, they are offered in the spirit of probing whether this amendment is the most proportionate and effective way of addressing those concerns, or whether there may be alternative approaches, perhaps within the existing regulatory framework, that could achieve similar objectives with fewer systemic risks. I look forward to hearing the noble Lord’s response and the Minister’s comments.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Sikka for introducing Amendment 45A. For clarity, I will speak to the amendment as if intended to address the power to pay surplus under Section 37, as Section 36B contains the modification power.

I fully recognise the concern that members’ benefits must remain protected when surplus is paid and that trustees take a long-term view of scheme funding and employer covenant. This is why there are strong safeguards, which I have described, as set out in Clause 10. Before the release of any surplus, trustees will need to make sure that the scheme is prudently funded and seek advice and sign-off from the scheme actuary, and other advisors, about the viability of any release and the impact that may have on the long-term health of the scheme.

While trustees perform an essential role in safeguarding members’ benefits, prioritising them above all other creditors in these circumstances risks distorting the already established insolvency regime. It creates uncertainty for businesses, ultimately harming the very members we all seek to protect.

On the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, it is our concern that placing trustees ahead of other unsecured creditors could create significant uncertainty, increased borrowing costs and restricted access in future to finance, especially for smaller businesses. In the long term, this could potentially weaken employer support for pension schemes and threaten their sustainability, rather than strengthen it.

It is important to recognise that the current system already provides significant security for pension scheme members. Pension funds in UK occupational schemes are held in trust and are legally ring-fenced from the employer, so they cannot be accessed by creditors in an insolvency. The PPF exists precisely to offer a safety net to members who would otherwise risk losing their pensions when their employer fails.

Following the Chancellor’s announcement at the Budget, this Bill will also introduce annual increases on compensation payments from the PPF and FAS on pensions built up before 6 April 1997.

The insolvency regime is designed to operate alongside the compensation system. The structure of the pension protection levy already reflects the risk of employer failure and spreads that risk fairly across eligible schemes. The PPF assumes the creditor rights of the pension scheme trustees in the event of insolvency of the sponsoring employer and seeks to maximise recoveries from the insolvent employer’s estate.

Pension schemes, backed by a strengthened PPF, are already in a stronger position than many unsecured creditors. Giving trustees priority would leave small suppliers, contractors and even some employees with significantly reduced recoveries, despite having far fewer protections. We should not create a system where small businesses and individual workers bear disproportionate losses because a pension scheme deficit overrides all other obligations. There is also the risk of moral hazard, where trustees could be less prudent when deciding to release surplus, knowing that, under employer insolvency, they would have guaranteed priority above other priorities.

The amendment could affect the employer’s business plans as creditors may be less likely to lend money to the employer. Equally, banks may place conditions on borrowing to prevent surplus release if trustees were given priority. That dynamic could push companies towards insolvency earlier, not later, having a knock-on effect on members.

The only other thing I will add is that there are other tools open to trustees that are concerned about the strength of the employer covenant and the security of benefits. It is open to trustees during funding discussions or other negotiations to seek a fixed or floating charge over the employer’s assets, which would, in effect, elevate the scheme’s position in the insolvency priority order, providing additional protection should the employer become insolvent.

I want to be clear that trustees will have the final decision on whether to release the surplus. Before they can do so, the Bill stipulates statutory safeguards before a surplus can be released. I thank the noble Lord for his concern but for the reasons I have outlined, I ask that he withdraw his amendment.

Youth Guarantee Scheme: Evaluation

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course we do not want to displace the unemployment, but, as I suggested in responding to my noble friend, there is something particularly challenging and important about young people who do not even get the opportunity to get into the workforce and to have the chance of a successful future. That is why, although there will always need to be an age cut-off for a scheme, the youth guarantee, with its additional investment from the Budget and its focus on support from school onwards, will be effective in getting young people into the workplace, and keeping them there when they get to the age of 25 or 26 as well.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the policies of the Government in relation to the Employment Rights Act and the implications of the tax increases are directly undermining opportunities for young people. In all seriousness, will the Minister urge colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade to reconsider these choices? If the Minister is going to go to the Treasury, I have no doubt that there are people in this Chamber who would be very happy to go with her to try to make the case.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, even when partly incapacitated, is always forthright in her questions—I wish her good luck with her recovery.

If it were the activities of this Government that were responsible for youth unemployment and the numbers of young people not earning and learning, we would not have inherited the frankly disgraceful levels of young people not earning and learning at the point at which we came into government. The difference is that, in our case, we have been to the Treasury; we have got from the Chancellor an investment of £1.5 billion into the youth guarantee, to help young people back into work, and to ensure that we can provide 50,000 more apprenticeships for young people. That is the effective way to ensure that young people get the opportunity to start their working lives in the way that we would all want them to.