Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[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 ---

[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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[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—

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Committee stage
Monday 19th January 2026 Grand Committee

[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 ---

[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 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.

Carer’s Allowance: Overpayments

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, if I could give the noble Lord a precise date on which all the computer systems and all the systems will have changed, I would be glad to do it. Let me put this in context: we estimate that about 15% of people who get a carer’s allowance payment are also in paid work and 90% of people who reported earnings did so without difficulty, so we are talking about a very important but specific subset of people, most of whom had fluctuating earnings, which this is designed to address. The biggest challenge in the short term is to make sure that we have clear guidance, we communicate with people, they know what to tell us and we are able to manage that. There is a big prize at the end as we modernise all DWP systems to get this right. A lot of the improvements will be made by really old-fashioned analogue systems—by making sure that we have the right information, communicate well with carers and make it as easy as possible to get the information. Those recommendations may not be exciting, but they actually make a lot of difference.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, given that some 185,000 unpaid carers will now have their carer’s allowance overpayments reviewed following the independent report, will the Minister set out how these carers will be notified of the reassessment process and what steps the Government will take to ensure that communications are clear, timely and accessible?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her important question. Our data suggests that there are around 212,000 overpayment cases in the relevant period, between 2015 and September 2025. We will set out the details in the new year, but we plan to review every case to understand where mistakes were made. Cases that were affected specifically by our unclear guidance will have their overpayment reassessed. If the review confirms that the money was not due, we will make an appropriate refund or reduction. I should say that if it were to result in a higher overpayment, we will not ask anyone for additional money—I just want to reassure anyone who is listening. If the review confirms that the person still owes money, we will give the usual support to make sure that it can be repaid appropriately, because it is not to do with this question.

I want to reassure those who are listening that nobody needs to get in touch with DWP at the moment. Our intention is to work through the cases. We have data for most of these cases and we will contact people proactively. We will set out in the new year how that process will work and what we will do in any remaining cases, but no one needs to get in touch. Please do not phone us at the moment.

Jobs Market

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 13th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am delighted to welcome that. It was a really exciting announcement, and the Government are committed to investing in new high-quality, highly skilled jobs. We want to be a country that brings inward investment in, trains people up, gets them into good jobs and keeps them there. That is a good example.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we are losing around 5,000 people a day from the labour market on to benefits. What is the department’s latest projection for the number of people expected to flow on to out-of-work and health-related benefits over the next 12 to 24 months? What are the main drivers behind that projection? Will the Government publish the underlying assumptions of the quarterly progress data so that your Lordships can track whether the interventions that the noble Baroness refers to are working?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, we have made clear what our ambitions are with Get Britain Working and that we will have metrics and publish regular data on them. One thing I want to take the opportunity to say at the Dispatch Box is that I have seen headlines this week suggesting that large numbers of people are flowing on to universal credit, as though this was a reason they were flowing out of work. I know the noble Baroness knows this and she is far too smart to raise it at the Dispatch Box, but I remind the House that the key reason for that is that the previous Government decided to close the legacy benefits and move anyone on to universal credit. For example, 800,000 people have left old benefits and made a claim to universal credit. I would encourage noble Lords, if they see those kinds of headlines, to think twice.

Youth Unemployment

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 11th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I have just talked about what happens with young people who are hidden NEETs, as he describes. Let me turn to those who are NEET who we do know about—for example, those on sickness or disability benefits. The Government are determined to transform that. The noble Lord will have seen our Pathways to Work Green Paper, in which we describe wanting to create a new transition phase for young people from 18 to 21, such that, if they are looking to go on to sickness or disability benefits, we will treat them in a special way. We will support them from the beginning and give them the kind of help that they need. A lot of help is already out there; there is help for people with mental health and physical health issues. The bottom line is that almost everybody should be able to get a job. A small minority will not, but most will. Our job is to help them.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, KPMG and the Recruitment and Employment Confederation have launched their August 2025 jobs report. Permanent placements fell for the 17th consecutive month. The number of candidates looking for work has increased, fuelled by redundancies, fewer job openings and economic business threats. Merck has pulled the plug on a £1 billion research site, and the prospect of the Employment Rights Bill and its impact is sending economic shivers down the spines of business. At the end of the list, as the Minister has said, are young people who are struggling to enter the labour market for the first time. I am grateful for the explanation about the programmes that the Government are undertaking, but can the Minister tell us what work they are doing with employers—the only ones that can create jobs—to incentivise them to help young people and integrate them into their workforce?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness commented on vacancies. She is very aware, as I am, of the facts of the economy and will know that vacancies have been declining steadily since spring 2022, when they reached a historic high. The decline in vacancies is a continuation of longer-term trends, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right: our job is to make sure that we give young people the chance to do this. She will know, for example, that employers who take on a young person under 21 or an apprentice under 25 are given complete relief on basic national insurance class 1 contributions until they hit £50,000. That makes a real difference. Above all, what will make a difference, if we want employers to take on young people, is to make them worth having. We have to skill them up, and give them the confidence to get out there and the ability to work in the workplace. That is what we are investing in now.

Child Poverty Strategy

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, if I can persuade the Cross Benches and the Bishops to raise it, I will have a full house. I completely understand the wider point that my noble friend makes. There is an issue in this country for larger families who are facing poverty. However, perhaps I can reassure him by pointing out the impact of some of the things we are doing: for example, expanding free school meals to all children in households. Those meals go to each of the children in that household. We have tripled investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million, which is worth another £450 to parents. The Healthy Start scheme supports over 356,000 children. We are extending the household support fund, bringing in a new crisis and resilience fund. All these things help families, and bigger families most of all. I hope that reassures him.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am not going to mention the two-child benefit cap. Can I say how pleased I am to see the Minister in her place? As always, I look forward to working with her. Can she reassure the House that the child poverty strategy will avoid a narrow focus on short-term income measures and instead promote long-term opportunity, resilience and self-reliance for families?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words. I am very grateful and I agree with her very much indeed on that—I am very glad to be here as well.

She makes a really important point. One of the reasons we have taken our time and been thoughtful about the child poverty strategy is that it cannot ever be just about income transfers. The strategy will be looking across four key themes. Increasing incomes is one of them, but so is reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience for families and looking at better local support, especially in the early years. We must take action across all those if we are to find a way to tackle the scourge of child poverty in this country in a way that builds in structural improvements for the future. She makes an important point.

Sickness Benefits: In-person Interviews

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right: there is no doubt that there has been a growth in people claiming support and not being in work as a result of mental health conditions, but also because of other conditions as well. There are other clear patterns, such as musculoskeletal conditions and a range of other things. That is partly about changes in our population and about trends in society.

Our job is to invest in trying to tackle those early enough. One thing that the Government have done is invest money in putting mental health support into schools. In the case of young people, let us tackle those questions early. We consulted in the Green Paper about what we will do in future, but we have announced that we are going to have a youth guarantee. We have a Question tomorrow on youth unemployment. For those who are aged 18 to 21 and are perhaps heading for sickness and disability benefits, let us find a transition phase for them where we find out what the challenges are, figure out how we can support them and then, hopefully, get them on to a path. Sadly, some people will never be able to work, but, for many people, the evidence is that good work is good for their physical and mental health—we just need to help them get into it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister set out how increasing in-person assessments, which we on these Benches fully support, will help reduce fraud and error, thus protecting taxpayers’ money, while ensuring another thing that we on these Benches support—that those who can work, do, and those who cannot, get the support they need? Will the Minister encourage her colleagues and the Secretary of State at the DWP to take up the serious and mature offer made by the leader of the Opposition to work with the Government in order to help them cut and reduce benefits?

Autism Employment Review

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really good point. There are a number of different forms of support available to people with a range of disabilities or other conditions, if they come forward. Our job coaches have extensive training in a wide range of conditions to work with people who come in who need help, but there are also all kinds of schemes available. We can refer people to different kinds of help, to programmes where they can get voluntary support and work with whatever their particular needs are. We are trying to make our service out there increasingly tailored. There is not a generic range of barriers to employment. People often need quite specific understanding of what is getting in their way and help to overcome it. I hope that, in time, if the noble Baroness’s son ever comes to a jobcentre, he will find the help he needs, if, indeed, he needs it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I declare I have a great-nephew, Ollie, who is autistic and in a special school, and we love him to bits. Every grandparent, every parent, every great-aunt, worries about how their relative is going to get a job. I recently visited Project SEARCH run by the DFN Foundation, and I can tell the House that it has a 70% success rate of getting autistic young people into work, and 60% of them are in a full-time job. Are His Majesty’s Government going to set ambitious targets such as that, so that we get as many people into work as possible and they can lead productive lives? If the Minister would like a day out of the office, I will take her to Project SEARCH myself to see it in action.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Well, that is an offer I cannot refuse. When I used to work with families with children, there was a saying that every child deserves to have at least one adult unreasonably committed to their flourishing. In this House, I think those adults are particularly ever-present, and I can imagine that Ollie is not only being loved to bits but supported.

I completely agree with the noble Baroness. One of the challenges for us in supporting people who have disability barriers to work is that we have to have confidence that people can be supported and helped to get work, because if we do not believe they can, why should anyone else? If we do not believe it is possible, why should employers take a chance on people and why should individuals have confidence in themselves? We have seen great results with supported employment. Start where somebody is, look at the barriers, think about what they might be able to do and support them into it. Some people will be happy with supported employment. Either someone is at risk of falling out of a job or we can get them into it and, once they are in, can we help them to stay there? I would be delighted to go with the noble Baroness to visit that project but let us talk about this some more.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that carers provide vital services and support to those who desperately need them. The speculation, leaks and briefings have spread fear, anxiety and distress among the most vulnerable about cuts to benefits, particularly for carers. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that clear, effective and timely communication gets to those who will lose benefits and those who will not? What help and assistance will be provided to those who have had the cruellest of times as a result of this rushed decision?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the one thing we can definitely agree on is that we support carers. We are grateful for the work they do. Society has reason to be grateful for the work they do. This Government have supported them. We have shown that by, for example, boosting the carer’s allowance earnings threshold by £45 a week to the highest level it has ever been since the benefit was created in the 1970s, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by 2029-30. The Government are making necessary changes to stem the rising costs and reform the focus of our sickness and disability benefits system. Those changes will affect some people on carer’s allowance.

The noble Baroness need not worry about reading leaks. All the details are set out in the Green Paper, which I commend to her as a good read for this evening, perhaps before she goes to bed. We are deliberately setting out to consult on how we can support those affected by any of the measures in it. I assure her that nothing will happen overnight. No one is going to lose their benefits overnight. Even when the new changes come in, nobody will lose their benefits until there has been a full and individual assessment of their personal circumstances.

UK Poverty 2025

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question; I will certainly look into that and see what else the Government can do. There are a number of programmes, which are not always well known. For example, the holiday activities and food programme, which the noble Baroness will know about, provides in its broadest sense healthy meals, enriching activities and free childcare places for children from low-income families. Bringing together those schemes helps their health, well-being and learning. Also, the Government are committed to developing free school meals. The noble Baroness will know that from this April, free breakfast clubs will be rolled out. We have already picked the first 750 early adopters, which means that more than 180,000 children will begin to benefit—time together in schools learning, and also eating and being ready for the next day.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the personal independence payment is a benefit for disabled people as well as for those with long-term illnesses, including those who are in work, and it helps with extra living costs. Have the Government formally assessed the impact of any planned changes to PIP on in-work disability poverty? Can the Minister confirm whether freezing PIP will increase poverty levels among this group?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has been around the game long enough to know that no matter how she tempts me to comment on speculation out there in the papers, if I did that I would at the very least be sacked, if not actually transported. So I hope she will bear with me when I say that the Government will always be aware of and consider the impact of their actions on people across society.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I have stood where the Minister is standing on many occasions to bring forward SIs on this subject. I have always been horrified by the impact and the effects on people’s lives, and by early deaths that have come so quickly after diagnosis.

However, quite recently, a letter dropped into my letterbox at home from a legal firm in the north of England, advising me that the lady I had employed as my first PA, 43 years ago, had contracted mesothelioma. That made it a little more personal to me. I was then asked whether I could remember the names of other people I employed at that time, whether I knew where they were and whether I could give a rundown of the buildings that we worked in, in those early days. I did my best to do that, and that put me in touch with this lady, who ended up as the deputy director of HR at the John Radcliffe Hospital—a very able person. She is now coming to terms with what will happen in her life. That has made me more committed to understanding and supporting efforts to help them.

I thank the Minister for her clear outline of the purpose of these two statutory instruments. These regulations seek to increase the value of the one-off lump sum payments made under the two compensation schemes—the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—by 1.7%, in line with the inflation rate. Although we acknowledge that these increases are a positive step forward, particularly for those living with life-threatening conditions due to past exposure to hazardous substances, we must consider whether these adjustments are truly sufficient in the light of the immediate and long-term needs of the affected individuals.

The compensation schemes in question provide vital support to individuals who have suffered as a result of working in hazardous environments, particularly from asbestos exposure. Under the 1979 Act, lump sum payments are made to those affected by dust-related issues, while the 2008 Act compensates individuals diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma, including those who may not be eligible under the 1979 Act. These instruments propose to increase the sum by 1.7%. Although this increase offers some relief to those affected by asbestos-related diseases, it is important to ask whether this adjustment adequately meets the ongoing and growing needs of individuals whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by these conditions.

The previous Conservative Government consistently supported, and made increases to, these lump sum payments during their last Administration. Can the Minister commit to further increases in the payments in the future? I am sure she will.

His Majesty’s Opposition agree with these measures, but one concern that arises is the long-term sustainability of the compensation schemes. The draft regulations predict a gradual decline in long-term cost, as fatalities due to asbestos exposure stabilise. However, it is important to recognise that asbestos-related diseases continue to have a significant impact on individuals and families, and the effects of exposure can endure for generations.

I ask the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that the funds required to support these individuals will remain available as we see a decline in the number of claims over time. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national insurance and compensation systems can continue to meet the needs of those who continue to suffer from asbestos-related diseases?

Furthermore, the Government propose that the increase will apply only to claims where the individual first fulfilled the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2025. This raises an important point for consideration. By setting this deadline, there is a risk that individuals currently in the middle of their claim process may miss out on the increase, potentially placing an added burden on those who are already in vulnerable situations. I ask the Minister how this decision was made, and whether there is any flexibility built into the process to accommodate those who may be affected in the interim.

The uprating of the compensation scheme is a necessary and welcome action, but we must recognise that these increases may not be sufficient to address the full extent of the challenges faced by those affected by asbestos-related diseases. I hope that the Government will ensure that the long-term sustainability of these schemes is maintained, and that they will remain attentive to the needs of those who continue to suffer as a result of past industrial practices. We on these Benches absolutely support the uplift.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and their support for these regulations. I always find that this is one of the most moving debates we have in any year, and it gives us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives. My noble friend Lady Donaghy described her sister-in-law and her trade union colleague. There are also new cases: I was so sorry to hear about the employee of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. One of the reasons why we come back here year after year is in order to honour those who have died because of things that were no fault of their own—in most cases simply going to work or caring for others whom they loved.

I loved to hear my noble friend Lord Jones, whom I thank for his inordinately kind words about me. It is a real privilege every year to hear him. I commend him for his faithfulness: he comes here every year to bear witness to what happened to the slate men, the quarrymen and the miners of his homeland of Wales, and to what they suffered. I love the fact that he reminds us every time that the only reason why these things were attacked in the workplace was that trade unions organised and defended people there, and made sure that we had proper legislation, so that people were not being sent into dangerous places and expected just to put up with it. I thank him once again for reminding us what happened at Hebden Bridge and Blaenau Ffestiniog, and so on. We must never forget that history; otherwise, we will be condemned to repeat it.

I will try to work though some of the questions that were asked. I commend my noble friend Lady Donaghy on chairing the mesothelioma oversight committee. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has not heard of it. It is typical of my noble friend Lady Donaghy that she does incredibly important work in the background, and always points away from herself, never towards herself. This is another example, and I thank her for the work that she does. In this, as in so much else, I am grateful to her.

I will try to go through as many of the cases as I can. My noble friend Lord Jones asked how many cases of mesothelioma there are a year, and for a breakdown. We publish data on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain, and I will send him a link so that he can see the breakdown of that. Unfortunately, mesothelioma is usually rapidly fatal following the onset of symptoms, but that means that annual deaths give a pretty clear indication of what is happening with the disease. Breakdowns are available by age, by last occupation and by geographical area—that is, where the person was living when they died. The statistics also include analysis of the relative frequency of different occupations recorded on mesothelioma death certificates, which is probably more useful as an indication of what happened in the past rather than of where we are going in the future—or, indeed, of numbers for particular occupations. It is a pattern.

State Pension: Age Increase

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, of all the weeks when I am not going to start making up national insurance policy on the hoof, this is most definitely one of them. However, I hear what my noble friend says, and I will pass that along.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on employment, particularly for older people, of increasing NI contributions for employers, bearing in mind that the winter fuel payment has been withdrawn?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, to separate those two out, the Treasury has published documentation on GOV.UK relating to the Budget and an impact assessment of different aspects of the Budget. On the question of the winter fuel payment, the noble Baroness will know that the vast majority of people who will be entitled to it are being encouraged, if necessary, to apply for pension credit or other benefits. For most of the rest, many of them will not be in employment and will not intend to be in employment. The winter fuel payment is aimed at people of pension age, so I do not see the connection between the winter fuel payment and national insurance, but if the noble Baroness wants to speak to me about it afterwards, I am happy to talk to her.

Pension Credit

Debate between Baroness Stedman-Scott and Baroness Sherlock

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure every pensioner who is eligible for Pension Credit receives it.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government want all eligible pensioners to apply for pension credit. The Government have written to pensioners providing advice about claiming pension credit following the change to the winter fuel payment, alongside a range of other creative media campaigns. We are engaging directly with pensioners as well as with stakeholders, including devolved Governments, councils and charities, in a joint effort to raise awareness through our combined networks and channels.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord: feel free. Having run a pension credit campaign, I can understand what the Minister is undertaking. Do the Government intend to guarantee that the DWP has the capacity to deal with what could well be a rapid uptake of applications for pension credit—with all the extra administration needed to process the claims —after this Government’s shameful decision to deprive pensioners who need it most of their winter fuel payment?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, on that final point, which, obviously, I cannot let go, the poorest pensioners are protected because those on pension credit will still have access to the winter fuel payment.

On the bulk of the noble Baroness’s question, we continue to operate good service levels. Around 500 additional staff have now been brought in to support processing during the recent surge in pension credit claims. Processing times may increase; we have advised customers who apply that it could take nine weeks to process their claims. However, anyone who applies before the deadline of 21 December can have their application backdated, which means not only that they will get winter fuel payments but that they may well get pension credit on top of that.