Pension Access Rules: Impact on Terminally Ill

Debate between Lord Pitt-Watson and Lord Livermore

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her ongoing championing of financial education. I know it is something that she feels passionately about and we have discussed it before. As she knows, financial education now forms part of the school curriculum in all UK nations. In England, financial education forms a compulsory part of the curriculum in mathematics at key stages 1 to 4 and in citizenship at key stages 3 and 4. Together, these cover personal budgeting, saving for the future, financial risk, managing credit and debt, and calculating interest. In terms of the adult population that she refers to, and small and medium-sized enterprises in particular, the DBT is considering this as part of its small businesses work, and I will certainly look into it further in light of her question.

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I also thank my noble friend the Minister for carrying out this review. In doing so, I wonder if it will be possible to address the problem of inconsistencies in regulation. For example, the definition of “terminal illness” is different in pensions regulation and for the DWP. Can we come up with just one definition which is clear, consistent and also kind, given the circumstances under which it is going to be turned to?

[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.