Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lady Altmann’s amendments. Whether she chooses Amendment 49 or Amendment 50 on which to divide, I will support her by voting with her.

The important point here is that people’s lives are unpredictable. One reason why we are extending this even now is that the pensions dashboard is so late in helping to get people informed. Those are the sorts of issues that we are still dealing with. The sooner that people can be better informed, the more agile they will be able to be in consideration of contributions that might need to be made in the future. So, this is an important amendment.

I gently say to my noble friend Lord Fuller—how can I put it?—Caxton House is not as glamorous as the Treasury pitch that he sets out. I know that officials have been working carefully on aspects of this, but it is the wrong move. It was the decision of Ministers rather than civil servants to make this recommendation. That is why I am sure that we will all be in the same Lobby.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, in a less confrontational way than the noble Lord Fuller, from these Benches, I confirm that we support Amendment 49. The Government should not fail to support this. It is in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and it would increase the time before a pot was considered dormant in order to provide greater flexibility for savers such as mothers, those on sabbatical or mature students, who may not add to their pots for one to three years. We have no hesitation on these Benches in supporting amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, but not in quite such confrontational terms as the noble Lord, Lord Fuller.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, whose sister company Mercer is a pension consultancy, master trust provider and signature to the Mansion House Accord. I speak in strong support of this group, beginning with Amendment 52, which would remove the power to mandate asset allocation while preserving the requirement on scale. This is a targeted, proportionate change. It keeps the legitimate objective of ensuring sufficient scale in the market without stripping trustees of the fundamental responsibility to make investment decisions.

I have never supported—and it has become abundantly clear in recent weeks that the bulk of industry does not support—the Government’s proposed power to mandate asset allocation. I have listened carefully over the past weeks to Ministers in both Houses, who say that these clauses are simply a reserve power intended to ensure that the Mansion House Accord operates. Even accepting that characterisation, the House should not lose sight of two important points. First, the schemes that signed up to the accord did so in good faith and with trustee agreement. Secondly, those signatories did so on the basis of explicit caveats—caveats that recognised trustees’ fiduciary duties, the necessity of a reliable pipeline of assets and the imperative that the market shifts from a narrow focus on cost to a broader assessment of value across the whole investment chain, including by clients.

It is therefore deeply disappointing to see the Government invoke the Mansion House Accord agreement as though it represents blanket industry support for intervention in private finance and trustee decision-making. It does not. Conflating a voluntary conditional industry commitment with a license to centralise investment allocation decisions risks doing grave damage to good governance and to member outcomes. For these reasons, I urge noble Lords to support these amendments, remove the dangerous power to mandate asset allocation, keep the focus on scale and let trustees, acting with their fiduciary and statutory duties, continue to determine the investment strategies that best serve their members. These amendments achieve that balance.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I signed Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, because—let us be candid about this—this is not the Government’s money. There seems to be an attitude that, because the Government use tax relief in other ways to encourage people to invest in private pensions, all of a sudden they are somehow going to tell people what to do with their cash—instead of putting government taxpayers’ money into those projects—just because that cash is not being invested in projects the Government want.

Even auto-enrolment, which has been a force for good, is not mandatory; people can opt out. There has always been a recognition that it is somebody’s salary, and so it is their choice what they do with their take-home pay. The approach in the Bill goes completely against that because—I will not use unparliamentary language—the Government are almost blind to the fact that it is not their money.

My particular concern is that there never was a human rights impact assessment. I have written to the Attorney-General to understand that, because I think this could well be covered, in effect, as personal property under Article 1, Protocol 1 of the ECHR. Yet the Government seem quite happy to say that this meets the human rights test. We have never seen that backed up, so I would be grateful if the Minister could publish any assessment they have done before we get to Third Reading.

To be straightforward, this is the wrong approach. The voluntary accord is the right approach, which is why I will support the amendment if it is tested.