Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Davies of Brixton Excerpts

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

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I note that my noble friend the Minister went out of her way to mention pre-1997 increases, even though they do not come up in any of these amendments. The House will welcome future increases being paid, but the failure to do anything about lost increases is still a big topic that is not going away.

I share many of the concerns about small pots expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on Motion D1. However, I was reassured by the comments that my noble friend the Minister made in introducing this group about the flexibility inherent in the proposals in the Bill. I hope she will reassure us that the issue will be kept under review and that, if the problems that some of us worry about arise, the necessary action can be taken without the need for primary legislation.

I also support the concerns of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso. I am glad to hear that the issue is being taken forward—more power to his elbow.

I could speak at great length on the issue of Motion J1, picking up the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her speech introducing it. However, I very much welcome what my noble friend said in introducing this group. I fully agree with all the arguments she made, so I will leave it there.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, prior to this debate we had a Statement showing what can be done in haste, when you should stop and think, in the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States of America. I use that analogy here, because one year to move pots is a miniscule amount of time.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said that two years would also be short but would be more appropriate. I hear that she has decided not to press this Motion. If she had, we on these Benches would have supported it because one year is not enough, just as a flick of the Prime Minister’s eye was not enough to appoint Lord Mandelson as the ambassador to the United States. We need two years. I understand that it is not going to happen here today but, before the Bill is finalised, I ask the Minister and her colleagues in the House of Commons to consider tweaking it to make one year two years. It would please a lot of people and would be a safeguard for people with small pots, who are the least interested in how their pensions work until they find that they are not what they thought they were, they cannot find them or whatever it is. The point about the pensions dashboard was well made.

I welcome the consultations that we have had with Government Ministers. In many ways, we have worked together on this Bill, and we have managed to make some of the points about which we feel strongly. On the pots, I hope that one year could be two years. It does not have to be done now; it could be done quietly, with no fuss at all.

Motion J1, the Conservative Motion, would insist on Amendments 77 and 85. We on these Benches supported these amendments on Report, because we agreed that it would be important for the Government to comment on this issue. However—and I think this shows what I was saying before—we have been convinced by the arguments made by the Government on the content of these amendments overlapping with existing reporting mechanisms. We are happy that that has happened.

I hope that the Government Ministers will take cognisance of the fact that we are not making problems just for the sake of debate in this Chamber. We think that, for small pots, it should be one year, not two. We will be talking in the next lot of amendments on mandation and we hope to convince the Government on that and on the size and range of pension funds.

We will not be voting on the Motion by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. If the Conservative Benches call a Division on Motion J1, we will probably quietly abstain.