Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady White of Tufnell Park. I declare an interest as an employee of Marsh, the sister organisation to Mercer, a pension and investment advisory and management company.

I welcome many parts of the Bill. The Government’s ambition to reduce fragmentation, lower costs and secure better outcomes for savers is clear, and I am sure that Members across the House share the desire for a system that functions more effectively. Some measures in the Bill will undoubtedly support that aim.

However, from my discussions with those in the industry, it is clear there are substantial concerns about elements of the Bill. The central purpose of the Bill, as I see it, is to create scale that unlocks access to a broader range of asset classes, including private markets and UK-based investments. Scale is not an end in itself; it is a mechanism to strengthen negotiating power, secure better pricing and deliver improved outcomes for savers. Equally important, it is the potential for operational efficiencies that reduces costs and complexity across the system.

It is crucial, however, that the Bill does not become entangled in prescribing or favouring any particular business model. The pensions market is dynamic and diverse, with multiple viable routes to achieving the Government’s objectives. Flexibility is essential if innovation and competition are to flourish, allowing the best solutions to emerge in a live market environment.

I welcome the amendments made at Third Reading in the other place, which removed from the Bill detailed structures concerning the relationships between product lines and their contribution to the main scale default arrangement. That is a positive step. These issues are complex and better addressed through secondary legislation, where they can be explored with the nuance they require, and which is difficult to capture fully in primary legislation. However, these future regulations will have a profound impact on the efficiency, pace of change and cost across the pension system. It is therefore essential that the Government commit to a full and transparent consultation. I invite the Minister to assure the House that examples included in the Bill will not become exclusionary, and that the regulatory framework will be developed in a way that supports, rather than hinders, the delivery of the policy’s core objectives.

The policy in the evolving legislation must engage constructively with market realities and good industry practice. If that engagement does not occur, the result could be inefficiencies and additional costs that bring no tangible benefit to savers. We must avoid creating a system that is overly rigid or prescriptive and risks stifling innovation, increasing administrative burdens and potentially causing some large funds to lose auto-enrolment eligibility through no fault of their own.

In practice, many pension providers operate multiple product lines, such as group personal pensions and master trusts, while making investment decisions and negotiating prices at an overarching level across these products. That is not fragmentation; it is a sensible and efficient approach that leverages scale and expertise to the benefit of savers. The regulatory framework must recognise and support this reality.

For that reason, I urge the Minister to confirm that the approach to regulation will be principles based. The MSDA and common investment strategy tests must avoid creating unnecessary fails or imposing constraints that do not deliver real value for savers. A principles-based approach would provide the flexibility needed to accommodate different business models and market practices while ensuring that the policy’s objectives were met.

I turn to the Local Government Pension Scheme. I note with concern the significant reserve powers delegated to the responsible authority. While these powers are intended to provide flexibility, there is a risk that political motivations could influence the management of LGPS assets. What protections will be in place to ensure that these reserve powers cannot be used, or threatened, to pursue political objectives regarding LGPS investment decisions?

Alongside the introduction of governance reforms, it is paradoxical that the draft secondary legislation and guidance appear to control and limit external scrutiny and challenge of the enlarged pools. Independent external challenge is a vital component of robust governance, ensuring transparency and accountability.

Another area of concern is the balance between rules-based and principle-based legislation. While clarity is important, again, the current draft secondary legislation appears overly prescriptive and directive.

Almost all noble Lords have hit on the point about mandation. Many in the industry, including Mercer, signed the Mansion House Accord, but the Government should be aware that voluntary support for that accord does not equate to support for mandation, which I know the industry strongly believes poses a conflict with fiduciary duty. I hope that the Minister understands that and will consider it as the Bill moves forward.

In closing, it is vital that secondary legislation governing group personal pensions, the LGPS and the wider Bill remains flexible and not overly prescriptive. Multiple models and approaches can effectively achieve the policy aims. I hope that the Government recognise these market realities and will ensure that regulations support innovation, efficiency and practical implementation while delivering the intended outcomes. Striking this balance is essential to avoid unnecessary burdens and secure the best possible results for savers across all pension schemes.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Ashcombe Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak briefly in support of Amendment 448A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to which I have added my name. I must declare an interest in that I have been a member of teaching unions, but somewhere along the line, I let that slip. I confess that as this Bill goes through, I am learning a lot about education. I did not realise that as a non-union member, I was not naturally entitled to legal representation if a complaint was made against me. That does not sound entirely legal to me. I believe that unions do a good job and are a necessary part of teaching for many people, but being part of a union should not determine whether a teacher feels safe and supported.

Amendment 448A promises important improvements to working conditions within the teaching profession. Referrals to the Teaching Regulation Agency have more than doubled over the past three years. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is about to point out, one in four teachers is subject to an allegation from a student or parent at some point in their career, and, as a result, many are subject to disciplinary investigations and hearings. This puts pressure on teachers in what is already a highly pressurised job. The process of investigation can severely impact a teacher’s mental health or their ability to fulfil their job. This issue demands careful attention to prevent a worsening of the recruitment and retention crisis. Teachers need to be able to raise their own concerns, grievances or requests for flexible working arrangements. Many schools already allow trained companions, but that is exactly the problem: it depends on the good will of individual heads. Without legal clarity, the practice is inconsistent. Exercising equal working rights should not be dependent on union membership.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to speak in support of Amendment 448A, which I believe represents a significant step forward in promoting fairness within the teaching profession. Just as there are many reasons why an individual may choose not to join a political party, there are likewise numerous legitimate reasons why a teacher may opt not to join a union. Although I fully support the right of teachers to join trade unions, it is deeply concerning that many feel they must do so merely to secure access to appropriate representation when facing formal proceedings. No individual should feel compelled to join a union solely for the legal protection it affords, yet evidence from representative surveys indicates that many teachers do precisely that, joining primarily for legal support in the face of allegations.

At its core, this amendment is about one fundamental principle: teachers’ access to support in formal disciplinary or grievance proceedings should not be contingent on their politic beliefs or union membership status. At this juncture, I should declare an interest, in that my wife, who is the chair of a board of governors for a foundation school, is currently in the process of a disciplinary procedure.

The issue before us is the basic right to be accompanied. At present, this right is extended only to union members or those who can identify a suitable colleague. But what of the many teachers—an increasing number—who, for entirely valid reasons, can access neither? These are not theoretical concerns. There are teachers who prefer independent forms of support; teachers who are uncomfortable sharing sensitive or personal information with colleagues; and teachers who, as is their right, choose not to participate in collective structures. Tens of thousands of such professionals exist in our education system. They are not exempt from the formal process, yet they are expected to face them alone. This is a question of fairness.

We already recognise this principle in other sectors. Under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework, doctors and dentists are entitled to be accompanied by representatives from defence organisations such as the MDU or the MPS. This has not undermined the role of unions in healthcare; rather, it has ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at crucial moments. It is only right that teachers, who work to and conduct similar levels of public and institutional scrutiny, should be afforded the same basic protection.

We debated a similar issue during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, and I anticipate that the same concern may be raised again today—namely, that widening accompaniment rights risk “lawyering up” disciplinary procedures. With respect, that is a mischaracterisation of both the amendment and the current legal framework. The law already imposes clear limitations on the role of a companion in such hearings, and this amendment would not alter those parameters. It would not introduce legal representation into the room.

Indeed, it is worth noting that, under the current law, a teacher who is a union member may be accompanied by a lawyer, provided that individual holds union officer status, without the need for employer approval. Yet a teacher outside a union has no statutory right even to a trained non-legal companion. That is the imbalance this amendment seeks to address.

As unions themselves often emphasise, far from escalating matters, the presence of a trained companion often helps to prevent conflict, reduce procedural errors and resolve issues before they spiral. This is about fairness, not formality; it is also about extending protection, not creating confrontation. It is not about undermining unions; it is about extending a basic protection to all teachers regardless of their affiliations.

This is a modest and reasonable proposal that would not diminish the role of unions. Rather, it acknowledges that freedom of association includes freedom not to associate. No teacher should be disadvantaged for choosing an alternative form of professional support. If we believe in individual liberty and procedural fairness, we should not turn a blind eye to a group of professionals facing complex, often career-defining moments, unsupported.

This amendment would impose no additional financial burden on schools. On the contrary, it is likely to result in savings in both time and resources that would otherwise be spent on facilitating teachers to bring colleagues to hearings.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 448A in my name. I do so as a former membership secretary of the NUT and a former member of the National Association of Head Teachers. I could not have said it any better than the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Ashcombe. This is not an anti-union amendment, far from it. It is an equal opportunities issue, where the teacher has the right to choose who they want to accompany them if they have to face a disciplinary hearing.