Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not going to say any more than I have now. The noble Baroness has made a series of complaints about cartels, secrecy and lack of integrity—all kinds of things—none of which are merited. I simply felt that I needed to put something on the record to counter that, and I do not have anything to add. We have made it clear that these were iterative discussions with the industry, looking at what was going to happen specifically in relation to the accord, and I have made the Government’s view on that clear.

On enforcement, Amendment 145, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, has added her name, probes whether the maximum penalty of £100,000 per employer in new Section 28I is proportionate. We have worked closely with the regulators and benchmarked against comparable penalty regimes. The intention is to set a maximum that is meaningful as a deterrent to wilful or repeated non-compliance but is not routinely applied. I assure the noble Baroness that it is a cap, not a fixed sum, so the regulators will take account of the facts in each case; in practice, the potential loss of qualifying scheme status for auto-enrolment is likely to be a far more significant consequence than any fine.

We are keen to work with schemes, trustees and providers to ensure that any future use of the reserve asset allocation powers, were that to come to pass, is carefully targeted, evidence-based and consistent with trustees’ duties. We believe that the Bill provides the right framework, including the savers’ interest test, the requirement for a prior report and a proportionate enforcement regime. In the light of all that, I hope that noble Lords can withdraw or not press their amendments.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for summing up, albeit that there has been a delay of some two working days. I thank everyone who has spoken. I offer a particular thank you to the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, for lending their support to Amendments 140 and 141.

I note that, in summing up, the Minister said—it was in relation to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I think—that statutory guidance will be issued. I make a plea: could that be made available before Report, or certainly before the Bill receives Royal Assent, to enable trustees to have sufficient time to prepare in this regard? I do not know whether we have a date for that.

In relation to Amendments 140 and 141, I could not have put it better than my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott did in summing up when she said:

“They make the framework that the Bill creates more robust, transparent and defensible”.—[Official Report, 26/1/26; col. GC 287.]


Therefore, I am grateful for this opportunity to debate these two amendments, as well as this group of amendments per se, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 140 withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 26th January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, this is the first time I have been able to speak on the Bill. I am delighted to follow my noble friend, who I still consider the pension tsar and who is so knowledgeable in this field. I apologise for being absent when Amendments 132 and 133 were reached; unfortunately, with all the business in the House, there are inevitable clashes, and we cannot be in two places at one time.

I thank the ABI and others who have briefed me in advance of the Bill proceedings. I have to say, I agree with their conclusions. I believe that they are right when they say that the Government are right that it is not necessary to mandate asset allocation by pension funds.

This amendment is intended as a probing amendment for debating purposes; I am sure that the debate will represent the broad consideration of views in Committee this afternoon. The aim, really, is to provide reassurance to pension providers by capping the mandatory asset allocation at a total of, say, 10%, which is a figure that my noble friend Lady Coffey and I independently happened upon; I also added 5% for geographical locations, such as the UK, as a proportion either of total assets or of a subset of assets.

It is true to say that the industry is generally opposed to mandating asset allocation at all. This amendment would provide some reassurance, which is what I shall seek from the Minister when she comes to respond to this debate, to pension providers of that by capping the mandatory asset allocation to a total of these two figures—10% and 5%—as a proportion either of total assets or of a subset of assets.

There has been much talk of the Mansion House Accord this afternoon. I would like to chip in also and say that this power would align with the accord, which had widespread support across the industry—as well as from government, as it was supported by the Chancellor. I understand that the accord was led jointly by the ABI, Pensions UK and the City of London Corporation. It followed extensive discussion between the industry and the Pensions Minister and had a 17 signatories, who committed

“to the ambition of allocating at least 10% to private markets across all main DC default funds by 2030; and … within that, at least 5%”—

and I have now lost my briefing, so I am completely at sea.

I hope that I have given a little taste of where we are. I am not saying that these are the definitive figures; I am just throwing into the wash that this afternoon would be a good opportunity to give some reassurance to the pension providers in the way I and my noble friend Lady Coffey have sought to do.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 112, 114 and 117 in the names of my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which aim to set a cap on asset allocation.

In response to our debate on the previous group, the Minister consistently described the mandation power as seeking to achieve a “modest but meaningful” investment in private assets; and said, importantly, that it was designed as a “narrow backstop” to delivering the Mansion House Accord. If that is the case, why is the proportion of assets that can be mandated under this power not capped in line with that accord? Indeed, as I read it, it could be up to 100% of assets. Why is that? The Minister may point to consultation and other measures that will constrain the use of the power but, for something so controversial and which the Government say they do not want to use, I cannot understand why they are not constraining it in primary legislation.

I will touch on timescales in our debate on the next group, but the Minister says that this Government do not want to use this power. However, as things currently stand, it would be open to the next Government to use the power, and the one after that—as well as a couple of Governments in between if we do not go to full Parliaments, as we have not always done in recent years. In those circumstances, it would also be sensible to limit the power to delivering what the Government say they want it to do.

Why do the Government not want a maximum limit in primary legislation? What is their objection to it? The cynic in me wonders whether the power is so widely drawn that, when we remove mandation on Report—I might be getting ahead of myself but that is on the cards—the Government could bring forward a series of concessions at ping-pong to limit the use of the power to what they say they want it to do. I am sure that that is not the case, but it might be better than the position in which the Government think that this power, as it appears in the legislation, has been drawn appropriately. I am really interested in the Minister’s response on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Younger has asked many of the questions that my Amendments 116A and 130A seek to probe on the rationale for the Government’s timescales in the Bill. They are also intended to shorten those timescales and implement an absolute sunset; I want to be clear to the Minister that I do not think that a deadline by which the maximum asset allocation cannot be raised further is a sunset.

I heard what the Minister said in our debate on the previous group about introducing a maximum allocation cap. I am not sure that I really buy into that argument but, if that is the rationale, are the Government really saying that it might take 10 years to work out what the definite figures agreed under the Mansion House Accord are and that that is why they have their timescales in place? Are the Government really saying to those who signed up to the Mansion House Accord—or, indeed, to those who did not—that the figures that could be mandated under this power could go above 10% and 5%? That would make it an even harder power for people to swallow. Further, this could be over by an unlimited amount—not even a variance of maybe up to 15%, but up to any level.

The Government have used the argument for the mandation power that it creates certainty for those pension funds but, the more we discuss it, the more uncertainty there seems to be. The figures of 10% and 5% do not seem to be the figures of 10% or 5% any more. Under the Government’s approach, we will get a cap, but maybe in 10 years’ time, while the assets required to be invested under that cap can still change in perpetuity. I used the example at Second Reading of one Government wishing to mandate investment in net zero and the other wishing to mandate investment in defence assets; both are conceivable things that we might see happen in the longer term. The point is that, the longer this power is in place, the greater the risk that it is used not for this Government’s intention but for something else.

On the guardrails outside of the primary legislation, which the Minister referred to but rightly did not go into in our debate on the other group, I have a question about one: the requirement to consult. At Second Reading, the Minister said that the Government would be required to consult before using these powers for the first time. I want to check whether this means that they will not be required to consult when amending them subsequently or they will be required to consult each time they bring forward regulations under this power. I had thought that it was the former—consulting each time they used the powers—but, if it is not, and it is only the first time when they are used, I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that point.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie for introducing this group and setting the scene so eloquently, and to my noble friend Lady Penn for speaking to her amendment. I shall speak to the amendments in my name and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for lending her support to Amendments 129, 153 and 156. They follow on neatly from the other amendments about which we have heard. The Bill requires the Government to publish a report before the introductory regulations are brought into force to bring in the reserve powers, but it covers only how the financial interests of savers will be affected and the effect of the regulations on economic growth.

The purpose of my Amendment 129 is to set out additional items to be covered in the report, to ensure that the Government properly and comprehensively assess the impacts of any future regulations, such as, for example, the functioning of workplace pensions markets and impacts on the market of assets to be mandated and other requirements. What I am proposing in Amendment 129 is to test whether the Government have done enough to justify using such a drastic power. I am also suggesting, taking up the point of my noble friend Lord Younger, that the first report should be in less than five years: the first report should be after two years, because a lot of damage could be done in the first two years and even more damage could be done if there is no report for five years.

Amendment 156 continues on this theme, looking at a different part of Clause 40 for these purposes. Amendment 153 says that there should be a review, as I have mentioned, which should take place within at least two years, in addition to a review within at least five years. While the review in the Bill allows for mandation to be in place for five years before the Secretary of State must review its impact, I believe that that is too long and that it could potentially allow for negative effects to set in under the regulations under the Bill for affected default schemes. Taken together, Amendments 153 and 156 bring forward the review of regulations to take place within two years after those regulations have been in force, as well as after another three years to stop any further damage being done. We set out here what those reviews should look at

“the functioning of the market for Master Trusts … what effects the measures have had on that market … what effects the measures have had on the markets for qualifying assets”,

and so on, as set out in these amendments.

I hope the Minister will look favourably on these amendments, particularly since there is a mood on this side to coalesce around a review within the first two years.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, all the amendments in this group raise important issues. I hope that none of them will be necessary, because I hope that we will have got rid of the power from the Bill, so these will become irrelevant details. I have Amendment 130 in this group, which would modify the mandation power by removing new Section 28C(15). This subsection “overrides any provision” of a trustee or scheme rules that conflicts with the mandation power. Thus, if the scheme had been set up with investment parameters that, for example, ruled out investing in private equity, and the Government then specified private equity, the wishes of the employer expressed in the scheme’s governing documents would be completely overwritten. Since there is no requirement in the Bill, as I understand it, for the Government to specify more than one asset class, it is quite possible that the Government could specify a required asset class that conflicted with things that had been deliberately set up when the scheme was set up.

I can understand, of course, why the Government want to encourage pension schemes to consider investing in alternative asset classes. I do not think you will find much resistance to the concept of investing in alternative asset classes. But I simply cannot understand why the Government think they should have a power to force schemes to invest in a particular way, if a conscious decision has already been made not to invest in that asset class. The Government might not agree with that decision, but I hope we do not live in a world where the Government can simply ignore the clearly expressed wishes of those they govern. I hope that we still live in a free society. Subsection (15) seems to me to extend the powers of the state too far, and we ought not to go along with it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering]

140: Clause 40, page 50, line 32, leave out “, for a period specified by the Authority,”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to remove the time limit for savers’ interest exemptions to the asset allocation requirements that would be set by the Authority.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that this little group is fairly self-explanatory.

In Amendment 141, I am again seeking to provide more certainty in relation to the savers’ interest test for exemptions to the asset allocation requirements and ensure that providers are not required to alter their asset allocation until the authority has made its determination or they have received the outcome of the referral to the Upper Tribunal. This is a probing amendment for debating purposes. I hope that we will get further light from the Minister when she replies.

My noble friend Lady Noakes has just reminded me that I would also like to speak to Amendment 140, the “starter for 10” in this group. Here I am seeking to remove the time limit for savers’ interest exemptions to the asset allocation requirements that would be set by the authority. I thank the Committee for its forbearance in allowing me to speak to Amendment 141 as well.

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 146 to 150. This group of amendments is all about trustees. Although I submit that nothing in this Bill should unsettle the basic foundation of our trustee law, there remains extensive debate in the courts and academic literature, and among trustees, on how far wider policy objectives and emerging risks can be taken into account. I am trying to address some of those.

Amendment 146 would simply reinforce the obvious: fiduciary duty remains the overriding principle of pension governance and trustees must act in the best financial interests of members. That is the cornerstone of trust law. The courts have been clear for decades that trustees must prioritise members’ financial interests above all else. Yet the combination of the Mansion House rhetoric, promotional language in the Bill and the possibility of future regulations has created real anxiety among trustees about whether they are expected to prioritise government preferences over member outcomes. This amendment aims to remove that ambiguity. It would restate the law, reassuring trustees that their primary duty has not changed.

Amendment 147 follows on from that in seeking to introduce a safe harbour. Trustees are increasingly worried about being second-guessed, not for misconduct but for failing to meet expectations that are not clearly defined. Many are lay trustees. They act in good faith, take professional advice and follow their fiduciary duties. They should not face penalties or adverse consequences because they did not meet a quota or chose a different route to the same underlying assets. A safe harbour is a standard legal mechanism used in other regulatory regimes. It protects trustees who do the right thing, prevents retrospective reinterpretation of policy signals and ensures that trustees can make decisions based on evidence, not fear.

Amendment 148, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, addresses systemic risk. Trustees already consider systemic risks: climate change, economic resilience, supply chain fragility and other long-term factors that materially affect pension outcomes. The Pensions Regulator already expects trustees to consider these issues, but the statutory framework is uneven and expectations are not always clear, so this amendment would codify best practice. It would ensure that trustees consider systemic risks as part of their fiduciary duties, while making it explicit that this does not mandate investment in any particular vehicle. It is about risk management, not direction of capital. Trustees are careful and sensible people and will observe the policy direction, including on private assets. As I said last week, before we had the devil’s clause, there was broad agreement that it would be far better to trust the trustees.

Amendment 149, again from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, addresses structural discrimination. I have already dealt extensively with how the Bill risks creating unequal treatment between different collective investment structures. Trustees should be free to choose the most appropriate structure for their scheme, whether listed or unlisted, based on liquidity, valuation, discipline, governance or member outcomes. The amendment would simply ensure a level playing field. It would prevent distortions, protect competition and ensure that trustees are not nudged away from structures that have served savers well for over a century.

Finally, Amendment 150 deals with herding risk. Regulatory herding is a known danger, which we have seen most recently and dramatically with LDI, where regulation, guidance or professional advice pushes everyone in the same direction at the same time and systemic risk increases, not decreases. The Mansion House agenda, if interpreted too narrowly, risks creating precisely that kind of clustering. This amendment would require the Secretary of State to avoid mandating or promoting investment in a way that induces herding and ensure that any guidance emphasises diversification and risk management. It is a simple “Do no harm” provision which learns from recent history. It is also embedded in the terms of the Mansion House Accord, as spoken to last Thursday by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. Trustees must not be forced to purchase assets that do not exist, do not exist safely or do not exist at a fair price.

None of these amendments would obstruct the Government’s objective. None would prevent investment in productive finance. None would limit trustee discretion. What they would do is ensure that trustees remain protected, that their duties remain clear and that the Bill does not inadvertently distort markets, undermine competition or create new systemic risks. These amendments are modest, sensible and protective. They would strengthen the Bill, support trustees and safeguard the long-term interests of pension savers. It is what we should all be thinking about.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, this is only the second intervention I have made in this very important Bill. I draw the attention of the Minister, the department and, indeed, the House to the plight and funding of rural schools.

One of the first actions that the incoming Government undertook was to end the rural services delivery grant, which had greatly benefited rural areas and allowed many outlying villages and farms to access the schools for their children. This has had an immense impact on counties such as the very rural and isolated North Yorkshire. When I was in the other place, a group of about 100 MPs felt that they represented deprived areas of local education funding, for the simple reasons that we lost what was initially an element of the funding for rural and sparsely populated areas and that the grants seem to change every single year. In addition to the loss of the rural services delivery grant, the Government took away the grant that was dedicated to rural schools’ transport funding, so there was a sort of double whammy, a double effect, from this first action from the Government.

In the year up to the end of the financial year 2023-24, I understand that the rural services grant totalled over £100 million, and the Government saw fit to redirect that money from what are called “more deprived areas”. On my Amendment 455, I want to point out the lack of understanding of how changes to this funding really impact individual rural schools—which face the risk of closure—and the parents and their children, who are trying to access what I believe are very good schools. I understand that the thinking of the Government is to transfer resources from rural to urban areas, so in this amendment I ask them to review within six months of the passing of the Bill their rural school admissions policies, to include an assessment of whether admissions policies in those areas have been affected by the availability of home-to-school transport.

Pension Review: Phase 2

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I think I can agree with the last statement firmly. I will try to avoid being facile and empty of content; I cannot make permanent promises, but I will do my best. I understand the point my noble friend is making, but I can perhaps offer him some reassurance. The pensions review is going to be conducted in two phases, and it matters that they are structured in the right way. The first phase, which was launched by the Chancellor in July, is aiming to boost investment, so it offers a win-win. It will boost investment for the country and provide better saver outcomes, alongside economic growth.

Phase 1 launched two significant consultations: one about DC schemes and the other about the Local Government Pension Scheme. It is right that we focus on delivering the first phase before moving on to phase 2. But the second phase, my noble friend will be glad to know, will focus on pensions adequacy and further measures to improve outcomes for pensioners. I take his point about the need to be clear about what adequacy means, and I will take that back. The scope of the second phase will be announced in due course, but I will take that comment back to my colleagues as that is being developed.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the pensions review will cover the ombudsman’s recommendations for WASPI women, on which subject I declare an interest?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I fully accept that the noble Baroness may not be alone in this place in that declaration of interest. The ombudsman’s review is something to which the Government have already made their response. It was published yesterday, and I repeated a Statement in the House that was made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Government looked very carefully at the evidence that was provided to and by the ombudsman, and we concluded that while we accept the specific case of maladministration by allowing a 28-month delay in sending out personalised letters to women born in the 1950s, the Government could not accept that that created the impact the ombudsman had described and therefore could not accept the recommendation on injustice and remedy. I am also very aware of the widespread concern among many women who had hoped to retire at 60 and found that they could not, which is a mixture of the decision back in 1995 to equalise the state pension age and the decision of the coalition Government in 2011 to accelerate those changes. That was not a subject of the ombudsman’s review, and nor is it the subject of the pensions review.

Food Banks

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for raising this extremely important issue. I join her in paying tribute to the Trussell Trust and to the many community and faith groups that run food banks. I have seen them in churches, mosques and community centres, and it is wonderful that people volunteer. However, like her, I am concerned that they have gone from something at the margins to help someone when they run into trouble, to mass dependence and an integrated part of the system. Something has gone wrong in recent years that we now see 2.3 million people living in households where a food bank was used in the last 12 months. We are committed to ending mass dependence on emergency food banks.

My noble friend talked about families with children. The Secretary of State made this one of her early priorities. She gathered around her a food poverty round table with experts and charities. She has a child poverty strategy, which will be produced in the spring. In the meantime, as a down payment, the Budget yesterday announced additional help for those struggling with debt and for carers. We will offer free breakfast clubs in primary schools. We are getting in and doing things at the start, but above all we need to make sure the system works for families, and we will.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister not share my concern that the need for food banks might actually grow in the coming months? There has been a bad harvest and we produce only 16% of our own fruit and vegetables. Food prices are going up and the Budget yesterday will impact negatively on farmers. What does she propose to do to reduce the dependence on food banks, rather than increase it?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, what we are going to do is to support families. People should be able to support their own families, but research has found that if you look at households where somebody had used a food bank in the previous 12 months, 40% of those people are in jobs. Working people should be able to go to work and bring home enough money to feed themselves and their families so, for a start, the Government have just made a significant announcement about an increase to the national living wage. We have a plan to make sure that work pays so that people get into decent jobs and keep them, bringing home enough money to support their families. In the short term, we will make a real difference: free breakfast clubs in every primary school mean that children will not be hungry there. That helps the children and takes a big pressure off their families.

Pensions Regulator Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice 2024

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Grand Committee

Finally, what desire do they and the regulator have for flexibility and diversity of investment strategy within open schemes? If they all invest similarly, surely there is a dangerous concentration of risk. We saw some of that in 2022 when low-volatility matching assets turned out to be more volatile than the highest-volatility asset type that one might have thought of. The schemes and, perhaps, the economy suffered huge losses. Do the Government think there is merit in encouraging the code to have a broader opportunity set of risk-taking among different schemes, especially for those that are open or cannot realistically head to buyout in the nearer term, so that there is a different approach to the long-term strategy?

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak because this is way out of my comfort zone, but I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, on securing this debate. I spent a year in opposition as a shadow Minister trying to encourage women in particular to enter into a pension scheme. This is a classic example of how fiendishly complicated UK pensions are.

I have a number of questions for the Minister, who is quite an expert in this field having shadowed it for a number of years. I welcome her to her place in this Administration. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee says in its second report that it remains concerned about the cumulative burden of so much regulation on the schemes. While the Explanatory Memorandum states that there were two waves of consultation, it is still not entirely clear how much support for and understanding of the scheme there is.

However, my main concerns relate to paragraphs 9.3 and 9.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which cover the impact assessment and the schemes’ mind-boggling costs. Paragraph 9.3 states:

“Initial implementation costs, including familiarisation, could total around £36.8 million in the first year”


alone; I am not surprised, given how complicated it is. It goes on to say:

“Schemes may then face ongoing administration costs of £5.4 million per annum”.


However, paragraph 9.4 states that there will be

“an estimated increase of around £7.1 billion to around 1200 schemes over the 10-year period”.

Will there be any sort of watch to see whether those figures are final—or, indeed, whether there may be some liquidity in them? They might not represent the final cost going forward but they are eye-watering. It is right to update the code but, in view of the figures, have the Government reached a verdict on what the cumulative burden on the schemes will actually be?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies. Indeed, I thank all the speakers for the expertise gathered in this Room on what is an unlikely subject for many people.

On the DB funding code, first, with all the expertise that has been expressed—and for those reading Hansard who have no expertise—perhaps I ought to say something basic. For the record, what is a defined benefit pension? It is a type of workplace pension that guarantees you a specific income for life throughout retirement. The amount that it pays out depends on things such as your final salary, your average salary and how long you have been a member of your employer’s scheme. I know that everyone in the Room knows that, but people outside it may not.

The DB code has been many years in the making, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said. It sets out in detail how defined benefit pension schemes will have to approach funding in future, including things such as how quickly they must deal with any deficit that may arise. The code was arguably written in an era of deficits, whereas the majority of DB schemes are now in surplus, but I agree that you still need a set of rules for those schemes that are short of funds.

Despite all the worthy speeches, most of the code is uncontroversial, in my view, and has my general support. The response from the industry has been broadly positive; it appears to give trustees and scheme sponsors flexibility while ensuring that they carry out proper risk management as it relates to their pension products. Numerous articles have been written on it; given the length of this debate, I will not go into them in any great detail, but I highlight an article entitled “PwC Comments on The Pensions Regulator’s New Defined Benefit Funding Code of Practice” and an article in Pensions Age Magazine headed “Industry expresses ‘relief’ as TPR confirms final DB Funding Code”. So the industry and commentators have been complimentary in general terms.

However, I wish to raise some issues on which I would appreciate the Minister’s views. First, how far does the code truly accommodate the needs of remaining open DB schemes? This was a big topic of debate in the Lords during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act 2021. Does it allow them to take an appropriate level of investment risk for the long term, rather than having to go for lower-risk assets prematurely? This simply means that they cost more to run, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said in another way.

Secondly, how far does the code recognise the particular position of charities and other not-for-profit sponsors of pension schemes? Is there a risk of charities being forced to close deficits too quickly and, therefore, having to divert a loss of revenue income into the pension scheme? There would then be a risk of it appearing to donors to those charities that their money is not being used for front-line charitable purposes, thereby weakening the charities’ futures. I would appreciate the Minister’s comments on that.

Finally, I am sure the Minister has read the blog by David Fairs, who worked at the Pensions Regulator. It was headed: “At long last, new regulations fire the starting gun for the new funding regime”. He stresses the challenges and opportunities missed. He queries—and he is an expert—whether the new funding code will make a significant difference. I ask the Minister the same question.

Reducing Parental Conflict

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I think I have already alluded to a number of points of help because, first of all, the reducing parental conflict programme sits within my department. We have the Supporting Families programme, which is moving into the DfE quite shortly, and we have the family hubs. On the noble and learned Baroness’s question, we are working across government on family-focused policies, and it is very important that we continue to do that to provide cohesive answers to these very challenging matters.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend pay tribute to the work of volunteers who man child contact centres, which permit access to warring parents often in a very tense situation? They do a fantastic job. Will he ensure, through the MoJ, that they are properly funded, whether they are in the public or the private sector?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

Yes. My noble friend makes a very good point about those who are outside the main programmes but set aside their own time to help, often with some extremely challenging matters. That is often within families themselves. The role of grandparents was mentioned. If there are some issues regarding the parents, the grandparents often have a most important role to step in and help in linking in with those who are skilled and trained in these matters.

Food Price Rises: Impact on Low-Income Families

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

There were a number of questions there from the noble Baroness. We know that it is tough for households and businesses across the UK at the moment and are doing whatever we can to support them with the cost of living. The noble Baroness will know that £94 billion is earmarked for giving out. On her question about supporting families who cannot afford the rising cost of infant formula, she will know that in cases of difficulty all local authorities should have an emergency formula provision pathway in place. Families can access this by talking to their health visitor or midwife, who can signpost them to local support. For women who cannot or choose not to breastfeed, Healthy Start provides support towards the cost of first-stage infant formula.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on organising the Farm to Fork summit but echo the sentiments of the noble Baroness who asked the Question. Does my noble friend share my concern that farmers are not receiving these increasing costs, which they are covering, of energy prices and food production, added to the shortage of staff? Will the Government use every opportunity to investigate the rising profits that the supermarkets are recording?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

I take note of my noble friend’s point on the Farm to Fork food summit, which allowed the sector to get together, discuss the future, provide further innovative methods on food supply and discuss the current situation. Supermarkets’ profit margins are actually surprisingly low; I have some figures that I can pass on.

Automatic Enrolment (Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band) Order 2021

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Thursday 25th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and thank him for his part in introducing auto-enrolment. I join others in welcoming the order and congratulate the Minister on bringing this forward. With her, I also celebrate what we have achieved so far with the auto-enrolment scheme. I have a couple of questions.

My first concern relates to the impact on small businesses of the increase set out in paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which states:

“Due to the changes, private-sector employers will pay an estimated £5 million more in employer pension contributions in 2021/22 than they would have done had the thresholds been uprated in line with earnings.”

Can my noble friend say what the impact of the crisis will be on SMEs? How have the Government borne in mind the impact of Covid-19 on the performance of many companies, particularly small and medium-sized companies, during the ongoing pandemic?

I would also like to raise the plight of women workers, particularly exacerbated in the circumstances of Covid, and their ability to save for pensions. Women are now required to work until 66 years of age, yet the pandemic has removed many of these women from employment opportunities and placed them at greater risk of vulnerability, catching infection and being seriously ill from it due to age. Many may be shielding older or younger relatives and have caring responsibilities. That is one issue facing older women who are not yet of retirement age or who are unable to afford to retire and continue to work, but the job opportunities are not there.

Within this category of women I would like to look at women of all ages, and actually all workers, who may have more than one job. We are told that each job is treated separately for the purposes of auto-enrolment pensions. Some jobs will sign a person up to pay into a pension automatically; others will not. We are told an individual can pay into more than one pension, but charges will apply. It may be that you pay two sets of charges if you have contributions to two separate pensions. Have my noble friend and her department had the opportunity to look at this category of women who are caught out in this regard? It would be ideal if people were in full-time positions, but many do not have the opportunity and have to work part-time in more than one or two positions just to make ends meet. Many in this category, women and men, may be reliant on temporary and zero-hour contracts.

It is notable that the Office for National Statistics confirmed there has been an 11% increase in unemployment in women over the age of 65 who have not chosen to take a pension or perhaps do not have one. I would be delighted if, in response to my remarks and questions, my noble friend could write to me if she is unable to answer them today. I will be supporting the order, but I have these concerns.

Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2021

Baroness McIntosh of Pickering Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on all that her department has achieved, particularly the new uptake of universal credit claimants, for which she is responsible. This has been a mega-task and it has passed smoothly, so congratulations are in order. An extra £2.3 billion on increasing benefit and pension rates is commendable.

I thank my noble friend for bringing these two orders before the Committee. I am anxious for her to respond to matters that were raised at the end of January, when there was a situation relating to a small but defined cohort of women whose state pension records had not been manually updated. These were women born before 6 April 1953 who were not automatically paid their state pension benefit uplift, which was based on their husband’s national insurance contributions. This has caused a lot of concern to the pension sector and I know that the department will seek to resolve it as quickly as possible.

Like other noble Lords, I would like to comment on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, that only those on pension credit can claim the free television licence. It is a matter of record that the Government made specific provision with the BBC for the continuation of free television licences for all pensioners over the age of 75, irrespective of whether they were in receipt of pension credit. It behoves the department to go back to the BBC and ask what that money, which was allocated for this purpose, is being used for. If it has gone into the general pot and is being used for productions, that is not a good use of the money; it is not what it was specifically allocated for. I hope that my noble friend will use her good offices to look into that matter. Otherwise, I congratulate her on bringing forward these two orders, which I support.