Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 5th February 2026 Grand Committee

I thank the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group in advance for their contributions, and the Minister for her response. I beg to move.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 218C; I express my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for supporting it. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make regulations to ensure that pension schemes invest their funds in a manner that is

“consistent with those provisions of human rights and international law which have been ratified by the UK”.

It would require scheme managers to take appropriate steps to identify, prevent and mitigate the risks that investments may contribute to adverse human rights impacts. These obligations would apply to investments globally.

As the Prime Minister of Canada pointed out in his powerful speech at Davos, it seems

“that the rules-based order is fading, that the strong can do what they can and that the weak must suffer what they must”.

At such a time, we are under an obligation to do whatever we can to uphold the rule of law. The rule of law includes, of course, the duty on nation states to honour and put into effect the obligations that they have explicitly undertaken to observe by ratification of the relevant treaties.

The great jurist Lord Tom Bingham made state compliance with international obligations his eighth principle of the rule of law in his seminal book of the same name. He said:

“The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law”.


Consistent with that, the current Ministerial Code, binding on British Ministers, requires them as an overarching duty to comply with the law, including international law and treaty obligations laws.

This point was reinforced by my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General in the House when he said of compliance with international law:

“We should all be immensely proud of it, and this Government will seek at every turn to comply with our obligations”.—[Official Report, 26/11/24; col. 680.]


He developed that point in a lecture to the Royal United Services Institute on 29 May 2025, in which he gave this rejection:

“The claim that international law is fine as far as it goes, but can be put aside when conditions change ... The international rules-based order soon breaks down when States claim that they can breach international law because it is in their national interests … The argument … that the United Kingdom can breach its international obligations when it is in the national interest to do so is a radical departure from the UK’s constitutional traditional, which has long been that ministers are under a duty to comply with international law”.


Today, 81 years after the end of the Second World War, in which tens of millions of people gave their lives, the global edifice of international law, erected specifically to prevent the repetition of such horrific events, is in tatters. No matter how justified the perpetrators believe it to be, the fact is that Russia is conducting war on Ukraine; the Israeli state has attacked Gaza and permitted attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank; and the United States has attacked Venezuela and abducted its president, and threatens military and economic attack on Greenland, Iran, Cuba and other states. Iran is waging war on its own people. There are many other conflicts around the world where the United Nations conventions are flouted, humanitarian law is breached and war crimes are committed. As legislators, we have a duty to do what we can to sustain international law and restore its impeccable norms throughout the world.

Amendment 218C is intended to play its part. The pension schemes to which the amendment would apply include the Local Government Pension Scheme, which is one of the largest public sector pension schemes in the UK, with more than 6 million members and managed assets of some £392 billion. It is made up of 86 pension funds, most of which are, as I understand it, administered by elected councillors sitting on a pensions committee. There are other public sector pension schemes, too—they are, like the LGPS, equally emanations of the state—but the amendment would also apply to private sector schemes. It is the UK’s duty to ensure that the entities it regulates and over which it has power do not place it in a situation in which it is non-compliant with its international obligations—in other words, obligations that it has voluntarily ratified and by which it continues to be bound.

The provisions of this Bill evidence the regulatory power that the UK state exercises, and can exercise, over pension schemes within its jurisdiction. The Government have the power to ensure that the pension schemes regulated by the Bill do not put the United Kingdom in breach of its international obligations. The UK must adhere to its fundamental international law obligations in all circumstances—obligations such as the prohibition of genocide, the prohibition of war crimes, the upholding of the Geneva conventions, the elimination of racial discrimination and apartheid, and respect for the right to self-determination. That goes without saying. However, the UK must also refrain from rendering aid or assistance to another state’s serious breaches of these peremptory norms. It must co-operate with other states to take all reasonably available measures to bring to an end any such violations of those peremptory norms.

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce guidance to administering authorities to give effect to the duties, by requiring an end to investments in companies that aid or assist in the commission of grave violations of international law. It would also issue directions to administering authorities in the event of non-compliance. Local administering authorities must ensure that their investment strategies give effect to the prevention and non-assistance duties. They must refrain from making new investments in companies involved in serious breaches of international law and take reasonable steps towards divesting from such companies.

--- Later in debate ---

I echo the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson—it is a pleasure to hear him participating for the first time in the Committee, and I am sure we look forward to many more constructive contributions from him—about the issues relating to Amendment 218C and the realities of pension fund investing, where the vast majority is in passive investments. I also caution about the uncertainties involved in making judgments about what international law does and does not say, and about temporary or more serious findings. There is often an indicative finding, which is undone later. It seems to me that expecting the Government or trustees to be able to assess what international law says when there is so much uncertainty could be the thin end of the wedge in terms of putting extra duties on trustees—they already have so many—and may cause significant difficulties or extra costs. That is not to say that I disrespect or have concerns about responsible investing per se. I think there is a role, and it will be up to trustees to make their own decisions in this arena, rather than for those to be mandated. I look forward to hearing other noble Lords speaking and to the response from the Minister.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but I emphasise that this amendment is to propose regulations that will be drafted by the Secretary of State. One would expect the Secretary of State to determine whatever issues there are about international law. By the way, international law itself is quite clear. It is about whether the factual situation on the ground meets the particular requirements of international law, but I think that could all be dealt with in regulation.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I am just not convinced that one would want to put this type of responsibility on the Government. Of course, judgments in international law change from time to time, and trustees are investing for the very long term. I recall the example of Myanmar given by the noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson. There are difficult issues that I understand the Government might regulate for. How pension trustees then build that into their asset allocation is another layer of complexity that I have concerns about, but I certainly have every sympathy with the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke. It is a difficult one. I just caution that getting to that level of prescription could be the thin end of the wedge for pension trustees, who already have so many responsibilities upon their shoulders.

Universal Credit Bill

Lord Hendy Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. The retirement of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, is a loss to the House and a loss to me personally. On behalf of her adopted home in Scotland, she has made a significant contribution to devolution and constitutional affairs more generally, in spite of the fact that she is really a cockney sparrow. She has many friends here and I shall particularly miss her friendship and solidarity. I join with other Peers to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and I look forward to her maiden speech, which will follow in a few minutes.

The Bill was introduced, of course, to cut government spending on welfare; that was the justification originally. That was and is not necessary. In the sixth-richest country in the world, there are many more ways of balancing the Government’s books than by cutting payments to the disabled. My noble friend the Minister says that these changes will encourage those who will lose benefit into work, and that work is the way out of poverty. I understand the sentiment, of course, but two factors must be borne in mind. First, there are not 750,000 vacant jobs waiting for disabled or partially disabled people to fill. Secondly, the jobs that may be available will not necessarily lift them out of poverty. The fact is that 31% of those on universal credit are in work, so low are the wages at the bottom end of the labour market. The proposed changes, as has been mentioned, cut the health element of universal credit for those claiming after April 2026 from £97 a week to £50 a week. That cut does not reflect diminished need but is irrespective of need. It is solely to save the Government money. That, I find unacceptable.

The proposed changes also appear to conflict with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is supervised by a committee with that name, and it has said this:

“In its general comment No. 5 … on persons with disabilities, the Committee emphasized the importance of providing adequate income support to persons with disabilities who, owing to disability or disability-related factors, have temporarily lost, or received a reduction in, their income, have been denied employment opportunities or have a permanent disability … Benefits, whether in cash or in kind, must be adequate in amount and duration in order that everyone may realize his or her rights to family protection and assistance, an adequate standard of living and adequate access to health care, as contained in articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Covenant”.


Under the United Nations declaration, Article 28 provides:

“States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability”.


I will not read further for reasons of time. It seems to me that there is a significant risk here that the United Kingdom is or will become in breach of its international obligations.

In addition, eight out of nine new claimants who would currently qualify for full limited capability for work and work-related activity payments will not receive them because of the new fourfold, severe conditions criteria. I will leave others to develop the injustices of those. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation estimate that the effect of the Bill will be to put 50,000 more people into poverty, and those are people who are disabled and their families.

The removal of benefits from those who would otherwise be entitled to it is something that I cannot support. I know that my noble friend the Minister is not responsible for the proposal, but I hope that the Timms review will cause the Government to think again.

UK Poverty 2025

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hendy]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report UK Poverty 2025 published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on 30 January, particularly with regard to in-work poverty.

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

My Lords, the Government value the insights provided by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and its recommendations will be taken into account in the ongoing work to develop a child poverty strategy. Supporting people into good work will always be the foundation of this Government’s approach to tackling poverty. Our proposals and plan to make work pay—including increases to the national living wage and the Get Britain Working White Paper—will increase the number of people in work, help them to progress, improve job security and raise living standards.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her Answer. Some 68% of working-age adults in poverty and 50% of children in poverty live in a household with at least one wage earner; 38% of those on universal credit are in work; and half the working population of 32 million earn less than the UK median wage of £616 a week. It is plain that the problem is that wages in the United Kingdom are too low. Does the Minister agree that, in the absence of the mythical trickle-down effect, the only realistic way of increasing wages is near universal coverage of collective bargaining?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My noble friend knows more about collective bargaining than anyone in this House, I suspect, and I thank him for that question. He is absolutely right to highlight the scandal of in-work poverty. We should not be in a position where somebody goes to work full-time and cannot support their family. The Government are absolutely determined to do something about this. Our strategy is about trying to get people into good jobs and keep them there, and that they develop in them. For that to work, we have to make sure that all the parties are involved.

We are very committed: do we want an era of partnership that sees employers, unions and government working together in co-operation and through negotiation? For example, we are going to start by establishing a new fair pay agreement in the adult social care sector, consulting on how it will work, learning from economies where it has worked effectively, and then assessing to what extent those kinds of agreements could benefit other sectors and tackle labour market challenges. We all have to do this together. Work should be the way out of poverty, but it will take action to make sure that it is.

European Social Charter

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hendy]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to ratify the Additional Protocol to the European Social Charter to establish a system of collective complaints; and what plans they have to ratify the Revised European Social Charter 1996.

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

My Lords, the Prime Minister made our commitment to the Council of Europe clear at the Blenheim summit in July. The UK ratified the European Social Charter in 1962 and signed the revised Social Charter in 1997. It is important that the UK is compliant with any new obligations before ratifying a treaty. It is therefore right to consider whether domestic law and practice, including government reforms, are compatible with the revised charter and additional protocol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for her Answer. The fact that the 1996 charter was signed in 1997 by the United Kingdom does not resolve the issue that the United Kingdom has not ratified the 1996 charter. Since 2014, the Council of Europe has been trying to reinvigorate the European Social Charter process through the Council of Ministers meeting that she mentioned and the high-level conference on the European Social Charter in July. I wonder whether she will agree that it is vital that the United Kingdom not only supports, but is seen to support and lead, efforts to reinvigorate the European Social Charter.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, in signing a charter, the UK is indicating that it agrees with the contents as negotiated, but we can ratify it only when we know that we will be compliant with it, because to ratify a charter is to agree to be bound by its provisions. As I have indicated before, that would mean that the UK would need to make an assessment to be sure that it would in fact be compliant with the terms of the treaty before doing it. My noble friend will know that we have plans, including the employment rights Bill, which will change our position on some provisions in the revised charter, so we will certainly consider whether we can ratify the revised charter in the light of the Government’s reforms. On the collective complaints system, the UK has for some time held that it is among the majority of member states party to the European Social Charter who have not accepted that because we believe that the existing supervisory mechanisms are adequate.

Workers (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Thursday 8th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, on securing this debate and on his speech, and the Economic Affairs Committee on its report. A number of factors were identified for the remarkable and increasing exodus from work. One was long-term sickness. Among other things, the report cited an ONS survey that found that 10% of those who were economically inactive gave as a reason mental ill-health and stress, about which my noble friend Lord Layard has spoken. A trade union general secretary pointed to the “intensification of work demands”. The report cites a survey that found that only 58% of UK workers aged 50 to 64 liked their job, compared with 74% in the USA and 73% in Germany.

I suggest that one critical factor in the “Great British mystery” cited by the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and amplified in his question, “Where have all the good jobs gone?”, is that pay, terms and conditions in the United Kingdom have become so bad that those who can are opting out or being invalided out. Taking pay alone, according to the ONS, median pay in November 2023 was £2,299 per calendar month, or £27,588 per annum. By definition, half the UK’s workforce earns even less. True, half the workforce earns more—the pay of FTSE 100 CEOs is about 116 times that of the median worker, up from 11 times in 1980—but the well paid are few in number. The fact is that only 25% of our wage earners earn more than £42,300 a year, and one-quarter of the workforce earns less than £16,068 per annum. The real value of average weekly earnings, including bonus, was the same in November last year as it was in March 2007.

Consider, as an example, the food sector. The workers who grew or caught our food, processed it, sold it in shops and supermarkets, and transported and delivered it were hailed as heroes during the pandemic, but that praise did not enhance their living standards. The Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union recently published a report, Foodworkers on the Breadline, which showed that over 60% of its members did not have wages high enough to cover their basic needs, 88% had reduced their heating, and 60% had reduced their food consumption to cope. The other side of that equation is captured by the UN Trade and Development Report at the end of last year, which stated:

“The last few years of commodity price volatility have coincided with a period of record profit growth by global energy and food traders. In the area of food trading, the four companies that conservatively account for about 70 per cent of the global food market share registered a dramatic rise in profits during 2021-2022”.


Nearly half the population of the United Kingdom are workers: 32 million out of 67 million. In its report UK Poverty 2024 from a couple of weeks ago, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation tells us that 14.4 million people were living in poverty in 2021-22, and that nearly 3.8 million people experienced destitution—a 148% increase in just over five years. That included 1 million children—nearly three times as many as in 2017. Low pay is a principal contributor. Two-thirds of working-age adults in poverty lived in a household where someone was in work. More people in work are reliant on benefits than those who are not in work.

The consequences of inequality are well documented, in terms of misery, hopelessness, mental and physical ill-health, homelessness, diminished life expectancy, increased perinatal mortality, damage to children’s education, increase in crime, and anti-social behaviour—see the brilliant work of Professor Sir Michael Marmot and that of Professors Wilkinson and Pickett.

I suggest that the major factor behind this state of affairs is the collapse of collective bargaining in the United Kingdom. From the Second World War until the 1980s, the terms and conditions of around 85% of British workers were negotiated between unions and employers. Since then, collective bargaining coverage has been driven down to less than 25% today, so three-quarters of our workers—some 24 million of them—have no collective say over their terms and conditions, and next to none are in a position to negotiate individually. This lack of voice leads to both low pay and alienation.

International law, including the International Labour Organization, mandates the promotion of collective bargaining. The OECD annually recommends it in its employment outlook. Even the EU has now finally recognised the importance of collective bargaining. Its directive on national adequate wages requires member states to have an action plan to ensure that at least 80% of workers are covered by a collective agreement. I commend the course adopted by Sir Winston Churchill, who, as President of the Board of Trade in 1909, introduced a legislative scheme of compulsory sectoral collective bargaining to combat low pay, which became wages councils. The Labour Party is committed to a similar model in the form of fair pay agreements. Will the Minister say whether the present Government will fulfil their duty to promote collective bargaining and low pay?

Engineered Stone and Silicosis

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

It is certainly not mine.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the problems with silicosis is that it is not necessarily diagnosed by doctors and recorded on death certificates. That is because it is not a well-recognised condition apart from among experts. This means that deaths as a consequence of chronic obstructive pul—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

Noble Lords know what word I mean: COPD. Deaths that are consequent on COPD do not necessarily record silicosis. Do His Majesty’s Government support the recommendations of the APPG on respiratory diseases, particularly the need for an industry awareness campaign on silicosis?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes, the noble Lord makes some very good points. I reassure him that the current HSE silica intervention continues to raise awareness of the requirement to adequately control exposure to RCS, for those in the construction sector and those providing materials for construction, such as brick manufacturers and stone fabricators. These campaigns will continue through 2024.

Covid-19: Work-related Cases

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Monday 5th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

RIDDOR provides an important source of intelligence about occupational exposure to coronavirus in the workplace but is not the only source of intelligence that the HSE relies on. In addition to RIDDOR in the reporting of occupational cases of Covid-19, Public Health England is the lead government body for monitoring infection rates and the scale and spread of infections more widely, both in the community and in workplace settings. The HSE has worked and will continue to work closely with Public Health England throughout the pandemic.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that underreporting may be a consequence of HSE advice? Regulation 9 requires a case of Covid in the workforce to be reported if

“attributed to an occupational exposure”.

The HSE advice is that employers

“do not need to conduct extensive enquiries in seeking to determine whether a COVID-19 infection is work-related. The judgement should be made on the basis of the information available.”

That advice surely misleads. The regulation requires some investigation, at least into whether the worker, her colleagues or the safety rep attributes Covid to work.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

The Health and Safety Executive guidance, with advice from the Government Legal Department, does not exclude the reporting of cases of workers whose job involves dealing with the public. RIDDOR places a duty to report on the employer, and they must make a judgment based on the information they have. The Health and Safety Executive has never publicly stated that Regulation 9(b) or its supporting guidance has been misapplied.

Extreme Poverty

Lord Hendy Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

Tackling poverty, as I said, is an absolute commitment and a priority for this Government. The noble Baroness raises the issue of the £20 uplift, and I can only confirm that the £20 uplift is in place until April 2021. Discussions between our department, the Treasury and others are ongoing, and a decision will be made in due course.

[Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, before the impact of lockdown, in 2018, the United Nations special rapporteur on extreme poverty found that 14 million people in the United Kingdom were below the poverty line, 9 million of them in households where at least one person worked. Wages need to be increased to reduce poverty. To this end, and to increase demand, the OECD and the ILO advocate the promotion of collective bargaining. Does the Minister agree with them? If so, what steps to restore collective bargaining in the United Kingdom will the Government take to enable the voice of workers to be heard in the determination of wages?