Pension Access Rules: Impact on Terminally Ill

Lord Forbes of Newcastle Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

There is a great deal in what my noble friend says. Obviously, I cannot prejudge the outcome of the review, but the principles that he sets out for what the definition should look like sound very sensible and important. We will now review the situation because, clearly, the definition currently is out of step and does not align with wider legislation, including the DWP’s standard definition. I cannot prejudge it, but I agree that it would be ideal if there was now one standard definition.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister share my concerns about the levels of stress and anxiety that this issue causes people who not only face huge practical and emotional challenges as a result of their terminal diagnosis but also find themselves having to navigate a complex and inconsistent pension system, largely at the discretion of private providers? Can he, in the review and when discussing this with colleagues, give further consideration to the additional practical support many in these circumstances may need at such a difficult time in their lives?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right that the current rules are obviously intended to provide flexibility, but the downside is that the permissive nature of those rules means that individuals may experience varying hurdles to access, depending on their scheme. That does not feel right, so that is exactly why the Government will now examine the access options across these schemes and will consider what changes may be needed to ensure people have the appropriate access. My noble friend is absolutely right about the stress and anxiety that must be experienced trying to navigate those different schemes with the different rules applying, so I absolutely agree wholeheartedly with what my noble friend says.