Pension Schemes Bill

Lord Sharkey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharkey]

3: Clause 1, page 3, line 7, at end insert—
“(7A) Scheme regulations made under this section are subject to the super-affirmative procedure, as defined by section (Super-affirmative procedure).”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to clarify the Government’s willingness to subject regulations made under this section to the super-affirmative procedure, as defined in another amendment in the name of Lord Sharkey to after clause 120. It is connected to other amendments to clause 120 in Lord Sharkey’s name.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 3, I will speak also to Amendments 221 and 222. These amendments would enable meaningful scrutiny of any of the Bill’s nearly 130 delegated parts when it seemed appropriate to Parliament.

The Bill before us is a skeleton Bill. The DPRRC says that the test for a skeleton Bill is whether it is

“legislation containing so many significant delegated powers that the real operation of the legislation depends entirely or in very large part on regulations made under it”.

This Bill, with nearly 130 delegated powers, clearly passes that test; in fact, it is an obvious and extreme example of a skeleton Bill. This means that parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill is severely restricted. That is because, as things stand, statutory instruments cannot be amended and, by convention, are not rejected. As a result, the Government are taking powers to make policy before they have decided what that policy should be or before critical policy details are in place.

The Constitution Committee was clear in its 2018 report The Legislative Process that:

“Without a genuine risk of defeat, and no amendment possible, Parliament is doing little more than rubber-stamping the Government’s secondary legislation. This is constitutionally unacceptable”.


The DPRRC, in its recent report on the Bill, is equally critical and alarming. It says, among other things:

“We take the view that this Bill is in large part a licence for Ministers to make subordinate legislation … We would have found helpful an explicit declaration from the Department that the bill is a skeleton bill, accompanied by a full justification for adopting that approach, including why no other approach was reasonable to adopt and how the scope of the skeleton provision is constrained”.


The committee’s report, one of the most damning and disturbing that I have read, goes on to say:

“We would also have welcomed an opportunity to examine indicative regulations for at least some of the more important delegated powers given the large part played by delegated powers in this Bill”.


Can the Minister say whether and when the Government will comply with the committee’s suggestion on indicative regulations? We have seen no such indicative draft regulations. I understand that such drafts were circulating among government and industry after the summer. Is that the case? If it is, why has Parliament not been included in the circulation? It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Parliament is being deliberately bypassed.

The affirmative procedure proposed in my Amendments 3, 221 and 222 is designed to deliver a measure of real scrutiny. Together, they would deliver a form of super-affirmative statutory instrument. Paragraph 31.14 of Part 4 of Erskine May characterises the super-affirmative procedure like this:

“The super-affirmative procedure provides both Houses with opportunities to comment on proposals for secondary legislation and to recommend amendments before orders for affirmative approval are brought forward in their final form. (It should be noted that the power to amend the proposed instrument remains with the Minister: the two Houses and their committees can only recommend changes, not make them”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Penn, who is not in her place at the moment, when a Minister gave this House a helpful summary of how the procedure would work in practice, once the House had decided that the procedure should be followed in a particular case. She said that

“that procedure would require an initial draft of the regulations to be laid before Parliament alongside an explanatory statement and that a committee must be convened to report on those draft regulations within 30 days of publication. Only after a minimum of 30 days following the publication of the initial draft regulations may the Secretary of State lay regulations, accompanied by a further published statement on any changes to the regulations. They must then be debated as normal in both Houses and approved by resolution”.—[Official Report, 19/10/20; col. GC 376.]

According to the Library, the last time I asked, the last recorded insertion into a Bill of a super-affirmative procedure was by the Government in October 2017 into what became the Financial Guidance and Claims Act. When they are not doing it themselves, they have traditionally opposed its use on any or all of three grounds. The first is that it is unnecessary because the affirmative procedure provides sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. The second is that it takes too long and the third is that it is cumbersome. We may hear any or all of these objections from the Minister today.

The first objection, that the affirmative procedure provides sufficient scrutiny, is plainly and simply wrong—unless the Government regard no effective scrutiny as sufficient. The second objection, that it takes too long, is to misread its purpose; the super-affirmative procedure takes longer, but that is because it contains provisions for real scrutiny, which necessarily takes time. This is not a negative—it is the merit of the procedure and the point of it. The third traditional objection, that the super-affirmative could turn out to be cumbersome and a disproportionate use of parliamentary time, has no force in the proposed use of the super-affirmative procedure set out in my three amendments. The procedure would be used only if either House decided that an issue was important enough to require the extra scrutiny that the procedure provides.

The House has debated the use of super-affirmatives before. In 2021, we addressed the matter in Committee and on Report on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill and other notorious skeleton Bills. There was very broad support for using super-affirmatives from around the Chamber, including from the late and much-lamented Lord Judge, who said:

“The wider use of the super-affirmative process would ensure better parliamentary scrutiny and control of the Executive, which for too long have simply ignored the constant urgings of the parliamentary committees in this House”.—[Official Report, 12/1/21; col. 654.]


When the proposal on that Bill was put to a vote, the result was: Content 320, Not-Content 236. Many distinguished Members voted for the use of super-affirmatives, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I beg to move Amendment 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I was going to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord, but I am not sure that I am, really. I am sure he has not missed the fact that the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, do not apply simply to the LGPS provisions in the Bill. They would have widespread application throughout the Bill and implications beyond it. I say that they would have all these implications and I am talking about trustees because they would have a significant impact on the way that all those actors in the pension space would be able to engage in future.

In the past, I have heard people around the House criticise Governments for making decisions at the centre without engaging with those in industry and business who have to deliver them. I know that, if the Government had given huge amounts of certainty and left nothing out there, the criticism would simply be the reverse of what we have heard today. We have to find a balance. The Government believe we have found the right balance. Some Members of the Committee will disagree. I have looked carefully into this, and I am defending the balance that the Government have come to, but I accept that if noble Lords disagree, we will have to come back to this in due course.

We think the existing framework already strikes the right balance between scrutiny and practicality, enabling Parliament to oversee policy development while allowing essential regulations to be made in a timely and orderly way. In the light of my comments, particularly about the proportionality of this, its comparability with previous pensions legislation and the degree to which it is in continuity with the way pensions legislation has traditionally been made by successive Governments, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this brief debate. The complexity described by the Minister is obviously real and clearly important, but one of the ways of dealing with complexity is to have the instruments to simplify it and discuss it. My response to the scenario painted by the Minister would be to say: let us have super-affirmative procedures and accept that they will take up a bit more time and involve a bit more work, but, as I pointed out, that is their entire point.

Skeleton Bills always limit parliamentary scrutiny, and the Pension Schemes Bill is not an exception to that; in some ways, it is a confirmation of it. I understood the Minister’s case, but the Government’s desire to limit parliamentary scrutiny is a mistake. The SIs generated by this Bill will have real consequences for the real economy. We cannot usefully discuss these consequences until we have the detail. It seems to me as simple as that. Of course, having the detail helps only if we can do something about it, and the super-affirmative procedure provides that opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I am still mystified as to why Amendment 220 is not included in this group. It is left bereft, right at the end of the Marshalled List. Is there a reason?

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

If the noble Lord is asking why it is there, I am afraid I will have to plead the Public Bill Office.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am advised that Amendment 220 had been withdrawn, not just not debated. We will look into that, and the noble Lord will need to clarify it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 3.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.