Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and Baroness Hayman

Report stage
Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, when I came into the Chamber today, a Cross-Bench colleague congratulated me on the way in which my amendment has been handled; it is an absolutely perfect example of how the House of Lords should operate. We are all very aware, I think, that sometimes we are not operating at our best at the moment. In this case, an amendment was put forward on a cross-party basis and negotiations went on with the Minister; we managed to thrash out an amendment—and we did not get everything that we wanted, but we certainly got the legislative basis on which guidance could be issued. That guidance has been asked for by trustees and the industry and considered by working groups. I first got involved with the issue and knew that there was a request for clarity some five or six years ago, when we had another Pension Schemes Bill.

I am seriously disappointed that what I thought was a consensus that this was a good way forward has not been accepted across the House. I am particularly distressed that, as I understand, the Liberal Democrat Benches will not be supporting the government amendment today. My understanding up to this morning was that the concerns that existed there related to the fact that my amendment had in some way been watered down and was less tough, putting less into statute and giving more reassurance to those who were concerned about overinvolvement. The Minister set out very clearly that this was not a case of overinvolvement; it is certainly not a case of mandation. I was once told that a Secretary of State in a previous Government said that he did not worry at all about “have regard” amendments, because they could be ignored if there was a basis for so doing.

So I am, as I say, very upset. I will not go through all the arguments as to why this would be valuable—I did it at Second Reading and in Committee and the Minister has done it for me today. I am no expert, and I accept that there are experts in the Chamber, but pension investments are the ultimate long-term investments—the ultimate investments in which long-term, systemic risks should be taken into account. The anxiety that some pension fund trustees had about taking those into account was holding those funds back from acting in the best interests of their pensioners. That, quite simply, was what we were trying to put right in this amendment. The Minister has made a compelling case for this amendment, which she and her officials have taken infinite care over, and I still hope, even at this late stage, that those who are thinking of not supporting it will reconsider and support it strongly, as I do.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I shall make a few brief remarks in support of the Government. I declare an interest as chairman of the Financial Markets Law Committee, which issued a paper about two years ago now to try to explain the very complicated problems. This would be an easy matter to solve if lawyers were not paid at the extortionate rates at which they are paid, because each bunch of trustees could take their own legal advice, but unfortunately we live in a world where lawyers are grossly over-remunerated, and it is not practicable for trustees of pension schemes to take legal advice. It is therefore necessary to provide some guidance in relation to fiduciary duties.

These are complicated, partly because they have a very ancient history, albeit one that has worked well, and partly because the Law Commission issued a paper some years ago which was not entirely clear. The paper that the Financial Markets Law Committee issued, although it was agreed unanimously by the committee, is not entirely easy to follow. Therefore, what was needed was something that ordinary trustees could look at and be guided by in the exercise of their fiduciary duties. As the Minister has explained, and as my understanding is, the guidance is going to be prepared by an independent group. Having had to see some of those who have been involved, “independent” is a correct description of them. Pension lawyers are tough people and I have no doubt whatever that they will produce independent advice and will not be cowed by any Minister into providing something that does not accord with the law—what they will be doing is giving guidance on the law.

There is one point upon which I disagree with the Minister. She says that the guidance will be authoritative. Yes, in one sense, but not authoritative in the sense in which it is popularly understood. They cannot give advice that changes the law in any way whatever, because that would be ultra vires what they are intending to do, and if they did, one could go to the court and say, “The Secretary of State’s guidance does not represent the law”. Therefore, the argument that this is in some sense changing the law is totally misconceived, maybe because some have not read the amendment very closely. This is simply guidance.

When we look at fiduciary duties and at the 2005 pension regulations, as amended in 2018, there are phrases that are not easy to understand. Therefore, what the Secretary of State is going to do seems to me entirely sensible. She is going to get a group of independent people—and jolly independent they are too—presided over by Sir Robin Knowles, who is fiercely independent, and all they will be doing is trying to explain the law to people, without the people concerned having to pay the fees of lawyers.

I cannot understand how anyone could possibly oppose this. If there is something in the wording that is not quite right, it would be wonderful if someone could say what it is; no doubt it could be corrected in time for Third Reading. To deprive pension trustees of advice and force them into the hands of lawyers is quite wrong. Who pays the fees of the lawyers? The pension funds. This is a good piece of legislation, and we ought to support His Majesty’s Government.