Pensions Commission

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Yes. The single best guarantee of a happy retirement is a happy working life where people have the opportunity to earn enough money and to save enough money. We absolutely are doing huge amounts—I will not recite it all here as I have done many times before—and investing in all kinds of programmes to get people into work and to get them to progress in work and to be able to move up the income ladder to be able to save. However, one thing we know is that too many people are not working long enough to save or saving enough when they are in work and, in many cases, even if they put the right amount of saving in, the decisions they make at the point they come to retire—decumulation—can be crucial to how much they get to live on. We have to attack it on all fronts; no one of those alone will do it.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Will the Minister rule out the state pension age ever being 70, despite what the commission and others might say, recognising that the pace of the increase in life expectancy has slowed considerably?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the law is clear at the moment. The state pension age is now gradually rising from 66 to 67. That began in April 2026, and it will finish in March 2028. What I can say about the state pension age is that, as legislated by the previous Government, there is a requirement periodically to review it. The third government review of the state pension age was launched on 21 July last year. It has to be completed by the end of March 2029. Clearly, I cannot pre-empt what will come out there. Its job is to consider a wide range of evidence, including evidence on life expectancy, findings from the Government Actuary on the proportion of adult life spent in retirement and the independent report by Dr Suzy Morrissey that I mentioned earlier, as well as other evidence; for example, from the Pensions Commission. The Secretary of State will look at all that evidence and make a decision. For reasons the noble Baroness will know very well as a former Secretary of State having been in that kind of position, he will wait until he has all that evidence and make a decision.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Grand Committee

According to the ECITB, the UK faces an estimated requirement for an additional 40,000 engineering construction workers, and agreeing this order will play a critical role in supporting major infrastructure projects across Great Britain. In addition to industry support, the proposals before the House today have received the full support of the devolved Governments of Scotland and Wales. They recognise, as do we, that maintaining the ECITB’s ability to raise and invest levy income is vital to ensuring that employers across all three nations can access the engineering construction skills they need. I commend this order to the Committee.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I do not seek to oppose this order today, but I have a number of questions. I again start by praising the Government, and I strongly support the move to the DWP and the CITB, as well as, more broadly, the changes that the Government have made to the apprenticeship approach. I fully support the merger of the two bodies, which is under consultation, and I hope that that consultation review will be concluded quickly.

One thing that the Minister mentioned was that 85% of the levy payers, who contribute 98% of the levy, are supportive. I was interested in paragraph 33 of the impact assessment, which said that the independent

“customer satisfaction survey in 2024 … found that 65% of employers agreed or strongly agreed that without the levy and grant system the training would not take place”.

As it says elsewhere in the impact assessment, we have a situation where, in order to generate more income, the ECITB has started increasing its training of overseas learners. I do not really understand where this is going.

I am sure the Minister has been diligent more broadly in thinking about what is happening with the amount of people going on to training who do not complete the training or do not continue into work. That is very worrying, given the amounts of money being invested and what is happening with the follow-up. The Government are using powers, as this is an executive non-departmental public body, so is there an element here of thinking about how this could get a bit more refocused, working independently but also in partnership with the department, given that 47% of young people are dropping out? The figures of people who just do the course and, within so many years, drop out of this industry entirely are even higher.

I know that there is work on how to help employers onboard people into apprenticeships, traineeships and the like, but I suggest that some more focus could perhaps help with that. I suggest thinking about how the objectives and key performance indicators for this board could perhaps be published more regularly. On that, 9 July 2025 is when we last saw the annual report and accounts for 2024, so when does the Minister expect the report and accounts to be laid for 2025? As I say, there is a lot of value in this body and its sister body.

I do not expect the Minister to have an answer to this today, but this body is also a charity, and I am unclear about why that is still needed. Is that limiting what can happen in trying to make this more effective? As I say, a good number—65%—of businesses interviewed said that all this training stuff probably would not happen without this board. But, again, on some of the link-up with the other organisations involved in this, including the Government and particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, I think this is a better home for it than where it was, the DfE.

I would be interested in getting some further understanding on the need for this to be a charity. According to the Charity Commission accounts, it is not eligible for gift aid. There is a lot of complexity in why someone is a trustee, when actually they are all appointed by the Secretary of State. The Minister may not have the answer today, but I would be grateful for a follow-up more broadly.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for producing this order and giving us such welcome information. It is a key job of any Government to grow the economy, and productivity is central to that. This levy is a proven way to fund skills in the construction sector, because the market alone has not invested enough in training. The 2023 review confirmed that this problem still exists, so the case for keeping the levy is strong. Turning to the detail, the order keeps the current rates in place: 0.35% on directors’ pay and 1.25% on payments to subcontractors. These rates have not changed since the pandemic-era reductions ended.

I welcome the extra help for small firms. The exemption threshold is rising from £135,000 to £150,000, which means that 69% of employers will now pay nothing at all. There is also a 50% reduction for firms with wage bills of between £150,000 and £500,000, helping around 10,000 small businesses, I believe. This strikes a reasonable balance: it protects small firms while larger employers continue to pay their fair share, with no cap on their contributions. The Minister has given lots of statistics. There are so many statistics going around, some of which are contradictory.

As Liberal Democrats, we believe in partnership between employers and educators, and that is exactly how this proposal was developed. As we have been told, the CITB ran a formal consultation last year, called “Consensus”, and over 67% of levy payers backed the plans. Those firms represent almost 72% of the total levy value. This is a genuine mandate from the industry itself, not something imposed from above, and it is the right way to build support for a levy like this.

The sums involved are substantial. I believe the levy is expected to raise around £243 million a year between 2026 and 2028. Last year, the CITB raised £228.1 million and used it to fund £129.8 million in grants and £53.4 million in other schemes. This supported around 30,000 apprentices and, I believe, nearly 20,000 people in gaining a qualification. This is a serious investment in skills, and it costs the taxpayer nothing, since the CITB receives no grant from the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned charities. I should say that charities are exempt from the levy, but I would welcome hearing anything that the Minister can say in answer to the questions raised about them.

I have one question for the Minister: how will the Government check that this money is working? We need to see real gains in skills and productivity, especially given the scale of the construction skills gap across England, Scotland and Wales. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. As a nation—or, as the Minister said, nations—we need to up our game in providing training and reduce our reliance on imports to address skills shortages.

On the whole, we on these Benches support this order. It keeps a levy system that the industry itself backs, protects small businesses through a fairer approach and funds real training for a skilled workforce.

Child Poverty

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. It is very timely in recognising the ongoing challenges that families in this country face, including issues around inflation, the reduction in the number of jobs available and the increase in unemployment, as well as the need to tackle the strategic challenges around NEETs. While we are talking about children today, the increase in youth employment really worries me about the future of our country.

I agree with the noble Baroness on one issue, and that is childcare. I lost this argument with other Ministers when I was in government, but we need to look very carefully to try to increase significantly the number of child carers—not necessarily nurseries—to help people get into and stay in work, and to expand the number of hours they have. It is all well and good having 38 weeks a year when the schools are sitting, but that does not help when someone still has that job in the summer or over Christmas. They are the sort of strategic challenges that we need to face.

I am very proud of my three years at the DWP. Working with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, we did a lot of good to try to help people get out of poverty. One of the battles I had was about the definition of poverty. The British Social Attitudes survey is very clear that people do not agree that getting 60% of the median income automatically means that someone is poor—as the noble Baroness said, they prefer the concept of deeper poverty. Lots of our big organisations will continue to try to use relative poverty as the only way to consider the definition. I was slightly bemused that, during Covid, relative poverty fell—it did so because it is a statistic—but it did not reflect how people felt.

As we learned in the message that today’s DWP Secretary of State exchanged with Lord Mandelson—I think that is still what he is called—too many MPs are asking what taxes can be put up to pay for more benefits for others. He said that they are asking the wrong questions, and he was right to do so. That is why I was somewhat concerned about the child poverty strategy, as it seemed to continue to focus on how more cash benefits or other benefits would address the statistical change but not the strategic change.

I think that 60% of the median income last year was £22,370. It is no surprise that a lot more single-parent homes are in relative poverty. We had a debate the other week about child maintenance; I do not want to rehearse all that, but I will continue to make one plea. For those parents—mainly men—who are not contributing to their children’s income, because they are either on benefits or just not paying anything, we need to make sure that they are a top priority in their local job centre when it comes to getting a job. I really need to stress that. In the latest British Social Attitudes survey, only 29% of the population was happy to increase taxes in order to do that, yet that is exactly what has happened with removing the two-child benefit cap.

I am conscious that, for many Peers, this has been a long-term campaign, and I accept that they disagreed with what we did. But we did that with a purpose of reflecting that the welfare system is intended to be a hand-up and to support people desperately in need. Yet, we are now in a situation where, due to other factors, everybody on universal credit who has children gets free school meals. That is difficult when there are 220,000 households with children on universal credit are actually getting over £40,000 in household income. It is difficult when the warm home discount has been expanded to every recipient of universal credit. It actually means that the smaller cohort that used to get the money, using more energy and more with children, now get less discount in cash terms as a consequence.

There are all these little changes start to happen, and all these extra things mean that, as used to happen with tax credits, you would be almost insane to work a minute more than 16 hours per week, unless you work full-time, because you would lose money. Now, families are, very carefully and perfectly rationally, adjusting their hours and not moving to full-time work, because they will lose out. These are strategic problems that we need to face as a country.

Finally, debt is a real challenge. I give credit to John Glen in the last Government, who introduced the breathing space approach. It was a good initiative, and I hope that it gets extended even further. One thing that happened in the child poverty strategy is that debt advice will be included in neighbourhood health as an approach to helping people. In the recently published framework, there is no mention of debt advice services to be commissioned. I hope that the Minister can go back to health and think about that.

I think that this House is united that we desperately want fewer children in poverty—ideally, we want no child in poverty but, given those statistics, there almost certainly will be. But let us do our best to make sure that every child has the best opportunity going forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all the organisations that provided briefings on this crucial subject. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister on securing this debate and pay tribute to her for the considerable and tireless work she has done in this area over, frankly, years. The impacts of child and family poverty are many. Tackling it is the morally and politically right thing to do for children and their families now and in the future, as well as for our public services and the wider economy. Why is that? Poverty not only blights the lives of children; it can determine their future in a wholly negative way. They do less well at school, they are likely to have much poorer health—as we have heard in detail—and, of course, they often die at a younger age than their better-off peers. Frankly, that is a disgrace in what is, after all, still a rich country.

On education, we know that the figure of 4.5 million children is the equivalent of something like eight to 10 in every class of 30, although child poverty is not equally in evidence in all schools or, indeed, in all areas nationally. Shamefully, as I think we have already heard, seven in 10 children who live in poverty come from a family where at least one person is working—I am sure we will hear more of that later. We know that, even in their early years, children who live in poverty are over 4.5 months behind their better-off peers, and this grows to approaching two years by the time they reach GCSEs, as recorded by the Sutton Trust and Teach First. It is no surprise, then, that four in five teachers report seeing children who are too fatigued and hungry to learn. Four in five teachers have bought food for hungry pupils, paying for this out of their own pockets.

Of course, breakfast clubs are very welcome. The rollout of free school meals to families on universal credit from September 2026 is also very welcome, although I believe that universal free school meals would do even more for us as a society. Particularly welcome is the raising of the two-child limit from April this year. However, even if these elements are in place, over 4 million children will still be living in poverty, even according to government figures.

So the challenge remains enormous. The Government are right to be ambitious about facing and rising to this challenge. Some steps that the Government could and should take include creating a child poverty unit to hold everyone across government to legally binding poverty reduction targets, and—as others have referenced—removing the benefit cap, which the National Education Union calculates would lift 300,000 children out of deep poverty, with minimal effects on work incentives.

In this country we pride ourselves on the fact that state school education is free. However, there is a cost for every child at school. Even with the changes in relation to the cost of school uniforms in England, families still face bills of over £300 a year for a primary school child’s uniform and over £400 a year for a secondary school pupil’s uniform. With other school-related costs—trips; curriculum resources in some subjects often leading to exclusion of the less well-off child; instrumental tuition, again, not being available to poorer children; and materials needed for home study and homework—families can find themselves paying over £1,000 a year per primary school child and approximately £2,300 for a secondary school pupil.

This has been ongoing for a very long time. I know that when I was at the National Union of Teachers, we worked with the Child Poverty Action Group on exactly this. Education is not free. These are not insignificant costs. While schools will seek to adopt a human rights- and poverty-sensitive approach, we all know that there is no spare cash in school budgets to provide any actual help. Many of us applaud the ambition to reduce child poverty—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

The noble Baroness is making an interesting point, but of course the pupil premium is a source of funding. I wonder whether, based on what she has just been saying, that schools should think more about taking an element of the pupil premium, so that those young children are not excluded.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for the intervention. I am sure that the pupil premium is being used as best as it possibly can be in every school. Often schools are having to top up their pupil premium because, frankly, there is not enough money in it, but I welcome the intervention.

Many of us applaud the ambition to reduce child poverty and clearly will do as much as we possibly can to monitor what I hope will be the Government’s success in this.

Reforming the Child Maintenance Service (Public Services Committee Report)

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it was a pleasure to be on the committee formulating this report. We were led ably by our chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and it was a pleasure to work with the other members of the committee. I should pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. She was on the committee but had to come off it because of her Front-Bench role. She had initially encouraged the committee to look into this, and I am glad that we did.

I will not pretend otherwise; I used to be Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I was there for three years. Aspects of the Child Maintenance Service were a key part, for me, of how we reduce poverty. I think in that I am united, not only with the committee but the Government, in seeing this as a way to try to reduce child poverty.

However, I am concerned that, in the response to very well-thought through recommendations and challenges to the Government, there were a series of missed opportunities. There are missed opportunities by the Government to do exactly what they say they want to do. It is “Mañana, mañana”, when we have not got some of the legislation we need. For example, I understand that, with an administrative liability order, there is probably still a problem with Scotland. But why do the Government not just get on and deal with the appropriate legislation for England and Wales while they tackle the issue in Scotland? There is no difficulty or constraint on trying to do one set of regulations tackling England and Wales and one for Scotland.

The issue about domestic abuse continues, with the commencement of another piece of legislation. I say to noble Lords that I have learned from that in a different way. For every Private Member’s Bill that I have been involved in or advised others on, I have always advised them to put an automatic commencement date in, because these Acts of Parliament were not put into effect. Again, I am concerned by the Government’s response. I recognise the work they are trying to do in tackling violence against women and girls, and the strategy there. But it feels as though they are saying, “This is too difficult” or “No, we can’t really do this”, despite it coming from a government Bill handed to a Back-Bencher in the previous Parliament.

Elsewhere in the responses we have seen that DWP civil servants are actively trained on domestic abuse and therefore can address it in a particular way, or, as I will come to shortly, removing every claim to collect and pay will solve this problem. We have not seen any legislation for that yet. I do not know whether the Government intend to bring that forward in this parliamentary Session. It certainly was not in the King’s Speech, but we know that it can happen regardless. It is worth tackling now, as indeed are some of the other measures, where the opportunity is there to act rather than wait, with—dare I say—the perfect being the enemy of the good, particularly when it comes to the children to whom my noble friends referred.

Going back to some of the issues that we have, one thing surprised me. When I was Secretary of State, I asked for a focus on people who are not working and to make them a priority for targeting by work coaches—to help these young people get into work. The reason that matters is that if you are on benefits, in essence, you will either pay nothing or you will pay £7 per week, deducted from your benefits. That is all. With collect and pay, 38% of the people on it end up with a deduction from benefits. You would like to think we would even get £7 per week through that, yet we know that the number of children catered for through direct pay is about 60%. About 40% are through collect and pay. Yet 220,000 children get zilch—not a single penny—through the collect and pay approach. That is based on the figures for the end of 2024, because that is what was available when we were formulating the report. I have not been able to do the same analysis to that extent. I appreciate that when I tabled a Question to the Government, it was considered too much to do that bit of analysis. I accept that some of these things will come out in statistics in due course.

Still, let us think about that: 220,000 children did not get a single penny. I am just reinforcing what my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley was saying—I call her “my noble friend”, because we were friends on the committee, being cross-party in that regard—that that is what we are dealing with. I suggest to the Minister that she should reflect on that and go back and look at prioritising employment support. We know that unemployment is going up. If this is a way of helping young children to get on in life, it is imperative that we help those who are not working at the moment to get into work, if for nothing else than for their children.

There was another missed opportunity with the research that the Government were due to publish last Monday. They were going to release the information that they had and then it came out on Friday. I have only had a chance to skim-read the 117-page document, but I was surprised by the questions that were asked. There is nothing surprising about the tensions between two parents. It was no surprise to me or, I expect, to members of the committee or indeed other noble Lords that the wealthiest people are the ones who seem to resent handing over quite a lot of their money. Meanwhile, those on the lowest incomes would have been quite happy to see more but did not necessarily expect people to be able to pay more because they knew the circumstances of the father—it is usually the father, I think 86% of the time—or mother of their child.

I was surprised that we did not get into other bits of research about changing the formula or the calculation. Indeed, I was disappointed by the rejection of the court approach of trying to work out a formula. The key thing about our recommendation about the court approach was that everything is put on the table. The big arguments that happen between parents are about the other person lying: “They’re hiding stuff”, “They’re hiding money”, “I know he’s got these things”, or even, “I know he’s increased his pension contributions deliberately to reduce his income so he doesn’t have to hand over money”. It is normally about the argument between the parents, while the child is the one who suffers.

I thought that the beauty of the court approach was that basically people have to put their assets on the table. You would like to think that there could be much more use of, as my noble friend referred to, a lot more of the HMRC data that we have today. Indeed, I hope that we will start to be able to use some of the powers that are there to try to understand where people are simply doing whatever they can because their—let us put it this way—loathing of the other parent is causing detriment. In that regard, my understanding is that the Government are not going to change the formula at all, although they may well move the variation where, if your income changes by more than 25%, the calculation is redone and will reduce that to 15%. Okay, that is fine, but it is another missed opportunity for comprehensive research and to look afresh at some of the key issues that cause division.

That brings me to the whole policy that the Government are continuing to press on with. We have not seen the legislation but it is about switching off direct pay. This is where the Government basically help with the calculation of what should be exchanged between two parents, as opposed to collect and pay, where money comes into DWP and then gets handed out with a difference in charge. I am sure that the Minister has looked at the recent survey of separated parents, which shows that a pretty high proportion of parents had arrangements—probably higher than shown in the statistics or in other assessments that the Government have done, particularly in the analysis of what the benefit would be from reducing the number of children in poverty as a consequence of these changes, which, frankly, is very low, given the big hurrah that has accompanied this.

It is worth looking at that in more detail, recognising that there are higher figures for what gets paid over than the Government may think from some of their other surveys. We should also recognise, in other research that the Government have published very recently, how the majority of parents believe that having this formula, or the approach of being able to use the Child Maintenance Service, is important to get some kind of enforcement without the need for all the other things that we are referring to, whether that is removing passports or going to prison, both of which happen exceptionally rarely.

One of the reasons given by the Government for moving away from direct pay is that it was a failure of direct pay that the numbers on direct pay have gone up, and the whole point of direct pay was that at some point people would come off the need for it. That does not seem very logical to me. In the results at the end of December 2019, there were about half a million families in this arrangement overall, both CP and DP, and there are about 780,000 in the latest statistics. It shows there is a clear appetite for wanting to use this process in order to try to make sure there is a clear way to get money to a child. I found it odd that, while the Government accept the recommendation that we should advertise this more, the very fact that parents use it was seen as a policy failure, because they were on direct pay and had not decided on a different sort of arrangement that did not involve the Child Maintenance Service.

I feel strongly about this, and I know the Minister knows that, because it comes down to money—it comes down to how much money is going to the child. We continue to see in the amount of debt that is left over that a considerably higher percentage of what was due to be collected is happening through the collect and pay service. We are seeing the compliance rates much higher on direct pay, even on the survey that was done a few years ago, where 60% was full compliance—full compliance, not over 90% of the 46%, but full compliance—through direct pay. I remember my argument with the officials at the time, and my noble friends were in the room. I am pointing to my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, who was a non-executive director of DWP at the time, and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott. My argument was, where we had something like 300,000 children who are getting all the money that they are supposed to have, why would you kill off that process just to get them into a system where somebody has to hand over money to the Government to then pass it back?

I come to my final point, because I appreciate that the Minister and I will not necessarily agree on that, but I hope that she looks at this again genuinely for the sake of the children. In terms of some of the other recommendations, I think that it would be useful to see more on the family hubs. It was good to see from the MoJ that the use of the £500 mediation voucher has significantly increased. That is encouraging because, ultimately, we want to try to reduce conflict. In terms of thinking through some of the digital communication, I was slightly surprised that there did not seem to be a simple way to have a more proactive IT system. I am conscious that changing IT is always challenging. I was thinking in particular of paragraph 32 in the list of recommendations and conclusions.

Ahead of any legislation, I hope that the Government will accept the recommendation to publish an evaluation of the impact of moving all cases on to collect and pay. I am afraid that I just do not accept the comment that it will not cost any more money. It is physically impossible to see how that could be the case, or illogical, from my perspective. As I say, there will be missed opportunities for many children in this country. I know that that is not the outcome that the Government are seeking, but I hope that the Minister looks again at some of the recommendations from our committee and really makes a difference to the opportunities for children who, quite frankly, are some of the most deprived in our country.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Report stage
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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 23rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Griffin of Princethorpe (Lab)]

First, I welcome the Bill wholeheartedly. In this group of amendments, we have cross-party political working, which I am very proud of. Every child in the world deserves to breathe clean air.

I speak first to Amendment 212,

“fossil fuels and climate change risk”.

This new clause would require government and the FCA to make rules and regulations on climate risk grounds, restricting exposure of some occupational and workplace personal schemes to thermal coal investments, and to review whether the restrictions should be extended to other fossil fuel investments. I will not repeat what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has said, but as noble Lords will recognise, this amendment does something that we have heard rather a lot about recently—taking powers to direct the investment of pension schemes—but in a narrowly defined way, with parliamentary and industry scrutiny, and with safeguards to prevent the power being misused.

In reality, the Government and Parliament, as noble Lords have said, have been directing pension scheme investments for decades. When the Brown Government established the automatic enrolment scheme, Nest, they set a policy of 0.3% annual charge, which forced even a very large scheme such as Nest to choose investments which fitted within that tightly constrained charging envelope. When the coalition introduced a charge cap on all schemes used for automatic enrolment, the 0.75% ceiling drove the smallest schemes to exit, moved smaller schemes into overwhelmingly passive investments and limited asset and private market allocations for all but the largest schemes. Theresa May’s Government legislated for trustees to publicly report their investment policies in relation to environmental, social and governance considerations—quite rightly so.

Each of these policies has been explained on the basis that they are in consumers’ and the wider public’s interest, as in Amendment 212 of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, to which I proudly added my name. The amendment is in the consumer’s interest, because the immediate power of direction in this amendment would be limited to thermal coal. Pension schemes do not routinely publish sector-level investment data, but early analysis suggests that schemes still invest somewhere around £30 billion in companies with thermal coal interests. While noble Lords have been talking about the long-term investment profile of social housing or infrastructure and its appropriateness for pension funds, this coal, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, so clearly said, is an ultimate short-term investment. Even the International Energy Agency’s most pessimistic scenario shows that coal demand is peaking. These investments will fail in due course but, in the meantime, they do harm to the returns of other investments in their portfolios, as well as everybody else’s portfolios, by contributing to local air pollution and global climate change.

That is why ending these investments is in the wider public interest. The £30 billion UK pension fund investment in thermal coal supports the equivalent of about 10 gigawatts of thermal coal-fired power overseas. This, with some basic arithmetic, means that UK pension schemes’ thermal coal investment emits more greenhouse gases than the whole of the UK power network.

In this way, UK pension schemes have been undermining the progress made by successive UK Governments in phasing out coal, by contributing to fund the expansion of coal overseas. I do not intend that to be a criticism of the funds. Governments have not nudged them away from coal specifically, but they have been willing to nudge and direct in other areas, including in this Bill, and they should be willing to do so here in respect of thermal coal. I kindly request that my noble friend the Minister agrees to accept this gentle nudge.

I was pleased to add my name in support of Amendment 218A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. As she said, in response to a similar amendment on Report in the House of Commons, the Pensions Minister indicated that

“guidance will encapsulate those wider factors set out in his new clause … including what we mean by systemic risks and standards of living. There is good support in the industry for providing that clarity”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/12/25; col. 1043.]

It is really positive that the Government have accepted the principle that bringing further clarity to fiduciary duties is needed to tackle confusion and uncertainty among trustees around how they should best carry out their responsibilities to deliver for members.

I am delighted that my union, UNISON—the largest in the UK with a membership of over 1.3 million—has written in support of this amendment. The amendment recognises that there are wide-ranging benefits in giving legal backing to pension managers who wish to act in their members’ best interests by considering long-term systemic considerations such as sustainability. Moving in the direction of refining investor duties to allow these types of systemic-level risks to be properly quantified and acted on will help future-proof the pension system in the long-term interest of savers. For those of us not yet at pensionable age in the UK, that is quite attractive.

However, issuing guidance is unlikely to provide the level of assurance required by trustees. That is because, as my noble friend knows, pension funds need only have regard to guidance, which does not represent a stable enough foundation for interpreting duties; nor does it insulate pension funds should they find themselves defending decisions in the courts. Without clear timeframes, trustees will be left unsure as to whether guidance could be changed in the future and how they should prepare for it. Leaving these matters solely to guidance risks perpetuating the current status quo, where trustees feel they do not have permission to act in response to system-level risks for savers. Accepting this amendment would, I hope, bridge the gap between the Government’s commitment to date and their objective of removing obstacles for pension managers. I hope that my noble friend will accept it.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 218E, which is about recognising biodiversity risk. In the previous Pension Schemes Act, we introduced additions to the 1995 Act to allow regulations to come forward regarding climate change. The significant difference between that and Amendment 212 is that it in no way mandated an approach to investment but recognised the risk that would be there. We have brought together a well-established architecture, with the TCFD, the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, and now the TNFD, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. I pay tribute to David Craig for the immense work that he has done throughout all this. I think I am right in saying that well over 700 investors around the world, with approximately £22 trillion-worth of assets, are committed to start using the TNFD once we have the proper hierarchy agreed. Being positive about it is not unique to this country; we are seeing that around the world.

One of the reasons why I decided to table this amendment now is because, while I appreciate that it has taken time to get to where we are, I do not know when next there will be a pension schemes Bill. Let us hope that there will not be one for a while, because we know that the industry needs stability.

These are serious risks, as was highlighted in the Chamber today when the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, answered my noble friend’s question about the TNFD and the UK’s nature security assessment. It is not just about environmental risk—it has been made very clear by the Government that we need to think about that in the long term—it is also about a balance between food security and geopolitical security. I accept that not all of those are issues that we should use our pension assets and schemes around the world to try to manage. That is not their role, but it is their role to think about the return on investment and what instability might do to pensioners’ projected payments in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Our concern with the amendment specifically is that it risks duplication, fragmentation and legal uncertainty. Climate and biodiversity are clearly tightly interlinked.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I have been listening carefully to the Minister. She will be aware that this is a replication of what happened in a previous Bill. The two issues that she raises are not identical, although there may be some interlinking in certain ways. I am slightly concerned at the suggestion earlier that more primary legislation is not needed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

218D: After Clause 117, insert the following new Clause—
“Pensions dashboards(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Financial Conduct Authority must make rules to enable private sector pension dashboards to receive data and operate.(2) In the Pensions Dashboards Regulations 2022 (S.I. 2022/1220), in Regulation 4, omit paragraph (3).”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to require the Financial Conduct Authority to open up data to private sector-run pension dashboards within six months. It also repeals the requirement for the Secretary of State to give notice specifying the “Dashboards Available Point” at least six months in advance of that point.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to the Committee about pensions dashboards.

I am conscious that this has been quite a long journey in terms of trying to get the pensions dashboard in the Pension Schemes Act 2021 initiated. I am aware that, at the time, the House of Lords was keen that there should not be a private dashboard, but the House of Commons gave its strong view. As a consequence, the Bill went through without specifying that DWP and MaPS had to produce a public sector pension dashboard first because we were concerned—I am still concerned—that the longer people do not know what is going on with their pensions, the shorter the time they may have to make informed choices or, at least, to consider and understand what their pension and retirement will look like in future. That is why I have tabled this amendment.

Two things come out of that. One is that, in essence, what is required is for the Financial Conduct Authority to sort out all the different bits in order to allow private sector pension dashboards to get the necessary data and to be allowed to start operating. Indeed, Pensions Dashboards Regulations that were passed a couple of years ago were amended to remove the dashboard’s available point.

Let me go on a slight journey; I do not intend to delay the Committee for very long, but I am really concerned about progress. I am aware of the reset that happened and the issues around what triggered it, which I do not think are public, but we are nevertheless in a situation where we should be making more progress than we are. It is notable that, in a Written Ministerial Statement in October 2024, the then Pensions Minister, Emma Reynolds, changed the Government’s policy from what had been the case; in effect, it had been neutral on what was happening around trying to get these dashboards going. She put in place a policy, which is still live in government today, saying that we must make sure that the DWP/MaPs dashboard comes out first and is well tested, and then we will start. We are still committed to doing the private sector-run dashboards but not to any particular date.

I am grateful to the Minister for putting on a recent briefing and to the chief executive of MaPS and the team coming to do that, but I have to say that I was somewhat alarmed that it still feels as if we are a long way off. I appreciate the connection deadline has not changed. It was great in a recent parliamentary Answer to see the progress of data provided, but it started to get me concerned about exactly the issues I considered several years ago: that once we get into MaPS and DWP starting to decide what are the best ways to do some of this communication and what user testing works well, they end up missing out on the opportunity of what the private sector does every day in terms of clear communication. That does not mean to say we are looking for a cowboy scheme—far from it as there is still the Financial Conduct Authority—but that we make more rapid progress than is happening now.

I know some of the pensions schemes people are happy to no longer have the six months. I know from the latest update from the programme board as part of the advisory group in December 2025 that despite acknowledging that the Government were clear that there would not be a private sector dashboard allowed anywhere near to the launch date of the public sector dashboard its number one issue was trying to make sure that that was available as quickly as possible.

I am conscious of things that seem to go awry. There had been amber ratings for a while, then, all of a sudden, there was a red rating on the pensions dashboard. Nevertheless, we are still making slow progress, and I feel that we should open this opportunity to make sure we have pension dashboards available as quickly as possible. With the best will in the world, MaPS is not moving quickly enough. I do not believe we will have a MaPS/DWP dashboard until some time in 2027.

The original intention when MaPS took this over— in 2023 I think—was that the connections would be completed by then. I fully understand the history on that. This is the opportunity to get on with this. We have spent a lot of time in this Bill saying we want to make sure people have better returns and better understanding of what is happening with their money in different ways. For me, the dashboards are a key part of that, and at the moment, it feels that while the Government have not deliberately decided to go slowly, we are going slowly as a consequence of their policy choices. It is vital that members of pension schemes know their situation so they can make the necessary choices.

I am sure the Government recognise that they did not communicate all the way back in 2005 and then were found to have caused maladministration in terms of the WASPI women as a consequence. We are not getting into a debate on compensation or something like that, but it is important we let people know as soon as possible, and that is why I have tabled this amendment today. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)]

I urge the Minister in her reply to stress the need for caution in this area. I am afraid I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is saying: we do seem to have been waiting a long time for the dashboard. However, I have always had questions about the private sector dashboard, and I think they can be answered only as and when the MaPS dashboard is up and running. The problem at heart—and it may be a caricature—is about the point of a private sector dashboard. It could all too easily be a way of getting hold of data. It is the old saying that you are not the customer, you are the product. That is the fear with the private sector dashboard, which is why we have to get the public sector dashboard up and working. We know what the issues are. It may be necessary to have private sector dashboards, but I am still not totally convinced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, for introducing her Amendment 218D and drawing attention to pensions dashboards. The Government recognise the important role pensions dashboards will play in increasing people’s engagement with their pensions, and we note the purpose behind the amendment. Obviously in practice it would require the FCA to make rules within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent to enable private sector pension dashboards to receive data and operate. It would also repeal the requirement for the Secretary of State to give notice specifying the dashboards’ available point at least six months in advance of that point.

I know that many noble Lords here are supporters of pensions dashboards and are keen that they are launched as soon as possible, so it has been good to be able to update noble Lords on the progress that has been made. I know some noble Lords were able to come to the presentation, but for those who were not, I just say that over 700 of the largest pension providers and schemes are now connected to the dashboards ecosystem, and over 60 million records are now integrated into dashboards. That represents around three-quarters of the records in scope. The state pension has now connected, adding tens of millions of state pension records.

My noble friend Lord Davies is right to say that we need to get this right. It is important that pension dashboards are launched only when they are safe, are secure and have been properly user tested. When noble Lords attended the demonstration, they could see that pensions dashboards provide a great opportunity for consumers. In order to realise that opportunity fully, we need to make sure that the service offers them a positive experience and meets their needs. Consumers need to be able to understand the information a pensions dashboard is showing them and the limitations of that information. They need to be supported by broader pensions guidance to help them with any potential actions after viewing their information. User testing is key to getting this right.

I am pleased to be able to advise the Committee that user testing of the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard is under way. Low-volume testing began last year and will ramp up during the course of this year. Only once we have confidence from this testing that the service is ready for widespread public use will the Secretary of State give six months’ notice for launch. The Government have previously confirmed that the delivery of the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard will be prioritised, to be followed at a later date by the launch of private sector dashboards. That will allow the launch of private sector dashboards to be informed by learning from the launch of the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard—for example, on volumes of users.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, is more or less saying, “Why is it taking so long and what has happened?” She is right that there was a reset between March 2023 and March 2024 and the programme is currently rated amber, but the fact is that delivering pensions dashboards is a very complex task. The digital architecture will facilitate the search of millions of pension records held by thousands of pension schemes and providers, each with a different IT system and different ways of calculating values. It is important we get it right. Dashboards have to be safe and secure and must meet the need of consumers before they are launched. While the scale of the task of making dashboards a reality is huge, the fact is that delivery partners are making good progress. The pensions dashboard programme is confident that schemes and providers in scope will be able to connect by the regulatory deadline on 31 October 2026.

In terms of private sector dashboards, I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that the Government are fully committed to delivering private sector dashboards and that MaPS is working closely with potential dashboard providers, the DWP and regulators on a pathway for their development and implementation. The FCA has already consulted on and finalised the rules that will apply to dashboard providers after they are authorised and connected to the live environment. MaPS is also engaging actively with the industry and launched a call for input in January this year seeking feedback on how best to support the delivery of private sector dashboards. While the Government recognise the innovation that private sector dashboards will bring to the industry, the date for the dashboards’ available point cannot be specified at this stage. The decision to launch private sector dashboards must be subject to many factors, including securing a sufficient level of coverage, being assured of the safety, security and reliability of the service and testing the user experience.

The noble Viscount asked whether we can confirm a date. It is too early to confirm a launch date because it is vital that the foundation on which dashboards are built, the whole ecosystem, is safe and secure and works for both the pensions industry and individuals.

Once the service is secure, operationally reliable and thoroughly user tested, the Secretary of State will provide six months’ notice ahead of the launch of the MoneyHelper Pensions Dashboard for public use. The requirement to provide six months’ notice in each case through the dashboards available point is intended to provide the pensions industry with notice to provide for the launch of private sector dashboards, which will help support a positive user experience.

I understand that noble Lords want to get this done quickly, but I would say two things. Pursuing speed at the expense of security and user experience would be a mistake, one that Governments have learned over the years. We need to get this right. Secondly, the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, wants something out there as soon as possible—so do I. Prioritising the public sector dashboard is the fastest way to get something out there. We are pursuing that. We all want this to be done as soon as possible, but we can do it only when we are confident it can be secure and meet users’ needs. I hope that is enough reassurance for her to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

Of course I will withdraw the amendment, but I do not want to give the Minister any suggestion that I have any assurance from what I saw at that briefing, in terms of user testing. I do not want to go into detail, because that is not relevant for this Committee, and I am more than happy to meet to discuss.

What I will say is that it is clearly making certain amounts of progress, technically. But I am concerned about aspects of the user testing, which were laid out to us, because that is what is taking very long. This is something that the Government and MaPS are not very good at. I have plenty of experience of that from my time running DWP, in terms of aspects of its communications, particularly on something technical such as this. That is why I am concerned, and why I brought this to the attention of the Committee today. That said, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 218D withdrawn.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I have three very simple questions. First, why in some areas is the delegated legislation by negative resolution and in some cases by affirmative resolution? In Clause 49, regulations under subsections (1)(b) and (6)(a) are by negative resolution, as are some in Clause 50. I would just like to understand why.

Secondly, I am very aware that people will differ, as has been said. Some will want to take their money earlier than others, perhaps because they are using their pension as some sort of early day fund, or perhaps because they have a serious illness and do not expect to last long. Is that variation provided for? I would like that assurance.

Thirdly, if somebody has two pensions—perhaps one saved under auto-enrolment, which is what we are talking about, and another, perhaps because they worked in the public sector, a defined benefit scheme—how is the pension provider covered by these clauses going to allow for that difference of need?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 49 is quite interesting. Clearly, we have been on a journey for some time. Going back 35 years, Maxwell raided his pension fund, completely screwing over his employees at the time, which led to the 1995 Act as a consequence. There were other items in there as well, but that brought in a much more controlling approach to aspects of pensions.

One of the liberations that happened in the previous pensions Acts a decade ago was that people did not have to do a particular thing with their money. I know this is money that was topped up by aspects of tax relief and the like but, ultimately, instead of being forced in a particular direction with an annuity in a different way, people had a choice. I am conscious that various scams happened when people were transferred from one to another. I hope those people will find a special place in hell; they have deprived people of the money that they had rightly gathered over the years and scammed them out of it. But ultimately this did give a choice to people, with all that money, about how they wanted to spend their retirement—instead of somebody else telling them what to do.

I am concerned that this clause, in effect, requires a guaranteed solution. I appreciate that my noble friend Lady Noakes has talked particularly about removing the need for there to be a regular income as part of this solution, but if benefit solutions are going to be required by this legislation, there should not just be a choice of a minimum of one. There should be at least two, so that people can still have that choice. That is why in Clause 49(1)(a), I think that “one or more” should be “a minimum of two”, if that is going to be the way that we go.

The other thing that is not clear to me—perhaps I just have not spent enough time reading this—is what happens if people do not want the default pension. What choice do they have? It does not feel as though they have any choice at all. I am trying to understand something: what is the real problem that Ministers and the Government are trying to address here? Do not get me wrong—we want to make pensions as simple as possible for people. I know that my former employer used to set up a particular approach, saying that it was easy and that you could buy into it, but it was your choice what you did. That is why I am concerned about Clause 49 in particular. I hope that, by the time we get to Report, the Minister will have reconsidered whether ripping away freedoms is the right way for the people whom the Bill is intended to support.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for introducing this debate, and to all noble Lords.

Let me briefly outline the problems that the chapter on guided retirement is seeking to address. The landscape is changing. I will not get into the detail of how we have gotten to where we are with my noble friend Lord Davies, but the reality is that we are now in a position where fewer than a million people in the private sector are saving into a DB pension, whereas more than 15 million are saving into DC schemes. Of course, unlike in DB schemes, DC members carry the risk themselves; what you get out depends entirely on what you put in and how it performs. The result is that DC savers face risks: the risk of savings not lasting through later life; the risk of market fluctuations; and the risk of inflation eroding purchasing power. They also face decision‑making risks, as retirement choices can be complex and poor decisions can have lasting effects. Clause 49 enables the Government to respond to those risks, putting savers first. Our objective is the vast majority of DC savers no longer having to make complex decisions about how to secure a sustainable income in later life, although—I say this in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—the freedom to choose absolutely will remain.

Let me explain how we envisage this happening. When DC members approach their scheme to access their savings, they will be presented with the default pension solution; in acknowledgement of my noble friend Lord Davies, let us call them “default plans” from this point onwards. At this point, the member will have the option to say yes to the default plan or say, “No, I want to choose a different way to use my assets”; that could be an alternative in their own scheme or elsewhere. We will explore this, including how schemes can give appropriate support, in our consultation. The interaction should not be a surprise to members at this point because we will ensure that, through appropriate communications, members hear about the concept of a default plan from very early on in their pension journey.

Clause 49 will require pension schemes to design and develop pension plans based on the generality of their membership, by which we mean gaining insight of what the vast majority of their members want from their pension assets. The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, wanted to know how they are meant to do this. We know that many schemes already have member panels; we expect these, as well as other channels to obtain member insight, to continue. The Government will not specify unless necessary but the regulator will work with schemes, through guidance, on how to identify the needs of their members. The Government will also consult on whether there should be minimum standards for gathering information so that the solutions reflect the generality of the scheme membership.

We anticipate that the evidence from scheme members will indicate that there is no one common set of aspirations, so we are giving the scheme the ability to introduce more than one default plan. Where there is more than one default plan, there will be a simple triage to determine which one the member is offered. Again, the benefit of this approach is that no member will have to make a complex decision on how to take their pension payments, except to request that they want to start receiving payment. As has been mentioned, the default plans must provide a regular income during retirement. We will consult on the detail, but it will be for trustees to determine exactly how they achieve this; there is scope for product innovation.

The clause also makes provision, as has been noted, for exemption where that would not be appropriate. I will turn to Amendment 178, which relates to this, in just a moment but, crucially, savers will retain the choice to access their pension another way. We know that retirement is not a linear experience and that circumstances change both at and after retirement. Life events such as deciding to work part-time, health conditions and bereavement can all factor in and have an impact on household incomes. That means that gathering insights and engagement with members will be important, alongside well-designed and flexible plans.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Coffey]

180A: After Clause 57, insert the following new Clause—
“Review: transfer of the Financial Conduct Authority’s pension regulation functions to the Pensions Regulator(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a review to assess the viability of transferring the Financial Conduct Authority’s pension regulation functions to the Pensions Regulator.(2) The review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of whether the Pensions Regulator should take on responsibility for the regulation of defined contribution pensions, except for self-invested personal pensions, in place of the Financial Conduct Authority.(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment explores moving to one regulator, the Pension Regulator, for all pensions (both defined contribution and defined benefit) that are not self-invested private pensions (which would stay with the Financial Conduct Authority).

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, noble Lords may want to consider Amendment 180A an amuse-bouche before we get back into the real meat and honey, as it were. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for having also signed this amendment. We have already made it clear that the Pensions Act 2008 set out the requirements for auto-enrolment into pension schemes, which was commenced and brought into effect in 2012. As such, all employers are now required to provide a workplace pension scheme and to make contributions.

The question I pose in this amendment is not whether pensions should be well regulated—that is a given—but whether the current regulatory architecture best supports effective supervision, good member outcomes and long-term system stability in this emerging ecosystem of pensions. I contend that it would do so only if occupational pensions, though not self-invested pensions, were regulated solely by the Pensions Regulator without the overlapping or parallel oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority. This is fundamentally an issue of regulatory design.

The Pensions Regulator was established with a clear statutory mandate: to protect members’ benefits; to reduce the risk of calls on the Pension Protection Fund; and to promote the good administration of work-based pension schemes. Its regulatory approach is deliberately scheme-centric, focusing on governance, funding, the employer covenant, trustee capability and long-term risk management. By contrast, the Financial Conduct Authority’s framework is product and transaction centric. It is designed around the regulation of firms that either make, distribute or advise on financial products, with a particular emphasis on conduct at the point of sale, disclosure and consumer choice.

The FCA’s tools, culture and regulatory philosophy—whether that is speed, competition, disclosure or transactional fairness—are shaped, in effect, by retail finance. That approach is fine, but I suggest to the Committee that it is not so well suited to not only the current pensions world but the evolving world of pensions that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating. Let us be clear: the FCA’s consumer duty is to the individual. That is not what we see with workplace pensions more broadly, where we have the trust-based approach.

The ongoing involvement of the FCA in pensions risks creating, if it has not done so already, regulatory overlap without regulatory coherence. I am aware that there are statements of co-operation but, particularly with the evolution of the pensions world for employees through the Bill, this should lead us to consider a change in the regulatory approach. The contract-based approach is evolving and, as we have already debated, will now be able to be overridden. For that reason, I come back to the question of whether we should think about the Pensions Regulator being the sole regulator, apart from for self-invested personal pensions; I can see that the consumer duty element under those individual schemes is well suited to the FCA.

The danger of dual regulation is real, costly and can be confusing. The uncertainty is evident. In having two different ways, there are some conflicts over how certain assets or schemes can be treated. There is the risk of misclassifying pensions as short-term financial products, rather than what could be really long-term social contracts. We know that people often remain disengaged from their pensions. Their outcomes therefore depend far more on scheme design, trustee competence and the long-term investment strategy.

I think that the Pensions Regulator understands this reality much better. It recognises that good outcomes come from strong governance, clear fiduciary duties and long-term risk management in not only defined benefit schemes but defined contribution schemes. As I have already mentioned, I am conscious that, although there is collaboration, the risk of regulatory drift is still real. This would be solved by moving, in essence, to having one regulator for all occupational pension schemes.

The Pensions Regulator has already shown that it can evolve. It has strengthened its focus on value for money, professional trustee standards, consolidation and other elements on which it is doing well. A single regulator would deliver clarity, coherence and confidence, which is why I have tabled this amendment seeking a review. More specifically, in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, I suggest

“a review to assess the viability”.

I say “viability” deliberately but then, in subsection (2), I offer a little leeway on that review, including whether the Pensions Regulator should take it on. This may feel to many like dancing on the head of the pin but, actually, we are seeing these two regimes in parallel. In effect, we are starting to see almost the removal of the contract-based approach. As a consequence, we should grab the challenge and make this change.

I am conscious that the Minister may ask, “Why did you not do this when you were in power?”, which is a fair question. But as my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott will know from the time we were doing the 2021 pension scheme, when we were bringing in certain measures, including dashboards, once the Treasury gets hold of something it does not want to let go. Let us not pretend otherwise.

We are coming on to a debate shortly about superfunds. I am not going to reveal every battle that we had then; nevertheless, it was certainly a challenge. That is no disrespect to my other noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, because she was a great Treasury Minister. But it is a case of making sure that this Bill, in particular, is accelerating what is happening. It is going back, in effect, almost to a paternalistic or maternalistic approach, so it makes sense to at least review this change now. I hope the Minister will give it careful consideration. I beg to move.

[Lord Fuller (Con)]

My Lords, the advantage of Committee is that we can bat around some batty ideas without troubling the scorers too much. I am not going to violently disagree with either of my noble friends or the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, in this respect, but it oversimplifies the pensions landscape. I totally endorse the idea that we need to have a fresh look at the regulatory environment within which pensions operate, because things have not gone right.

There has been a regulatory groupthink. The example of the LDI, the liability-driven investments disaster, is a case in point, because the LDIs anchor schemes that are in deficit and can never climb out of that. That is sort of how they work. The regulator has bamboozled and misdirected trustees over many years not to focus on maximising the returns, so that there is sufficient money in a scheme to pay the pensions as they fall due over its lifetime—that would be a good long-term objective. No, the regulator has forced them to look, three years at a time, at how they can focus on the deficit, not on the term. There has been a failure of regulation and that needs to be remedied.

The amendments in the names of my noble friends and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focus on the Pensions Regulator, which we have heard is much more corporate-focused, and the FCA, which is much more individually aligned, but they fail to see the wider landscape. Any review, in my opinion, should consider the Bank of England because, ultimately, it directed the whole industry and the other regulators to go down the LDI route. That finished and grievously damaged so many private schemes on that false altar of deficit focus rather than asset maximisation.

Then there is a triumvirate. There is the Government Actuary’s Department, which I accept is not occupational; it is for public schemes, but it sets the tone. Then there is His Majesty’s Treasury, which has just been mentioned, and the Pension Protection Fund. I agree with the thrust of the amendments that have been tabled, and we are only in Committee, but I would widen the scope of the report to include those other actors—the Bank of England, the Government Actuary’s Department, the Pension Protection Fund and His Majesty’s Treasury—so that we can see regulation in the round, because unless we do so, we will not cover up those regulatory cracks that some schemes have fallen down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, what worries me is that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, says we should grab the challenge. I am not sure that I am ready to grab the challenge and not convinced that we should abandon, in any way, the Financial Conduct Authority. I wonder what representations have been made by the FCA on this. I would like to hear how the FCA feels about the Pensions Regulator taking over and what has happened in the past.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I can assure the noble Lord that the FCA will not give anything up. In fact, it would probably rather swallow the Pensions Regulator.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Maybe that would be a good thing. I am not convinced that the regulator pushing away from primary legislation to regulation is necessarily the way forward. I am not convinced that what has happened to date has failed. Therefore, I am not sure why we want to change this without adequate proof. The idea that the FCA wants to swallow up everything else is fairly normal in the gladiatorial forum that we have. I would like to see what the FCA and others have to say about this before we make a final decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, for clarifying his view and apologise if I misrepresented it. I will not respond at any length but will simply say that there is already considerable join-up between the actors in this space. I do not feel it is necessary to have a single review just to work that out.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate. Certainly, in speaking to pension providers that are regulated by both TPR and the FCA, this brings additional complexity, which is another reason for this to come in. I appreciate that my noble friend Lord Fuller suggested this could be a batty idea. It is not a new idea. The 2013 report by the Work and Pensions Select Committee chaired by Dame Anne Begg—its Labour chair—called for it then. It was linked to the fact that we were starting auto-enrolment. The whole landscape for people, particularly those new to pension contributions and the like—and indeed for existing people—was shifting to workplace occupation-based pensions, which are all regulated by TPR. So I think it was going for simplicity in that regard.

My noble friend is particularly cross about an aspect of the Pensions Act 2004. I would have invited him to perhaps table an amendment to the Bill with his objections to the statutory funding objective, which is the element that particularly irks him. It replaced the minimum funding requirement, but that is a debate for another day, rather than trying to resolve it all now. I thought the Minister did well, particularly in reading out her brief and keeping the Treasury happy. That is no bad thing for any Minister in a Government but, of course, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 180A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)]

My Lords, everyone—apart from insurers, perhaps, who prefer buyout and the regulatory cash bonus it brings them—is in favour of superfunds. They should improve member benefit security. They can enhance members’ benefits, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, just said. They can return cash to employers when appropriate, supporting UK businesses. They can also invest more in productive finance than a buyout or a DB scheme can.

However, numerous barriers make it difficult for superfunds and my Amendments 182 and 183 seek to address two of them. Amendment 182 seeks to remove gateway test 1, which is the test that prevents a scheme that can afford a buyout entering a superfund. The policy of pushing everything to buyout is intended to address risk, but it is not always in the members’ best interests; that could be considered more. Discretionary benefits, which can often include things on which expectations are based, may be lost. For example, spouses’ entitlements and increases in pensions are often discretionary; I know that that is the case in parliamentary schemes.

In a buyout, discretionary benefits are likely not to be paid, but a superfund could pay them. There seems to be some underlying assumption that superfunds do not serve risk reduction, but that does not reflect the extremely secure funding position that superfunds are held to by the regulations. Additionally, the test is unstable because funding levels vary. A scheme can start the process unable to afford buyout, and therefore be deemed able to go into a superfund, but if later on it could afford buyout part-way through, it would be required to reverse out and would be forced into a buyout. That can mean a lot of wastage of cost and time, as well as worse-off pensioners. Removing the test would give schemes more flexibility in the course they pursue, and may be better for the economy. If they chose a superfund, it would mean that more schemes could keep money invested in pensions and pay out more generously, rather than that extra money being lost in the insurance companies.

Amendment 183 is about the wind-up trigger and the protected liabilities threshold. This in, in essence, the point at which a superfund’s funding drops to such a level that it must close and enter the PPF. The recent PPF indexation means that the protected liabilities threshold is now above the low-risk trigger—that is, the technical provisions threshold—which is upside-down from the policy design, where the low-risk trigger is intended to be a less critical warning scenario than the wind-up trigger and is the point at which the scheme funds must be boosted by investor money.

This upside-down formulation will make it harder for superfunds to attract investor capital and will probably push pricing up closer to buyout levels, narrowing the slice of the market that superfunds can operate in. That is good if you are shareholders in insurance companies but, again, not for pensioners, who lose benefits. The amendment proposes a “lower of” formulation for the definition of the protected liabilities, which would set it at lower and more reasonable levels.

There could be other ways to fix this or remove the protected liabilities threshold entirely and rely on trustee powers in distressed situations, which is normal practice for regular DB schemes. But staying in the upside-down formulation does not seem right and risks stifling the nascent superfund model. I appreciate that this is a recent development because of the indexation and possibly one that the Government did not originally foresee, but it none the less needs tackling.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 182 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted. Gosh, superfunds—that has been quite a journey. It must be about six years ago that I apparently received a letter from Andrew Bailey, who I think was running the Prudential Regulation Authority at the time. I never actually received it, but I read it in the FT and on Sky. It told me that it all seemed very unfair compared with the Solvency II reform, which is what insurers had to go by. That is why I am strongly concerned about Clause 65(2)(a) being in this Bill.

I think we are seeing the hand of the ABI again here, trying to basically squeeze out other activity when we should be focused on what is in the best interest of the pension scheme members. We also want to try to make sure that we do not have never-ending firms going into the PPF. The superfunds, which I recognise the Government have embraced through this, are definitely a good option but are different to having an insurer buyout, even with some of the changes that have happened away from Solvency II to whatever version of Solvency UK. There has been more reform with less risk around some of the margins in that regard.

So I encourage the Ministers to think again about whether subsection (2)(a) is really the right approach for the outcomes they seek. Otherwise, why bother? Why bother having a superfund if you can get only the equivalent of what it is to get the insurer buyout?

I could go further, but I am conscious that the dinner business break is bringing exciting business and that the Committee wishes to finish by a certain time. So I will leave superfunds for another time, perhaps in the Bishops’ Bar. But, with that, I support my noble friend in Amendment 182.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

I will speak to Amendment 181 tabled by my noble friends Lady Noakes and Lady Altmann, and Amendments 182 and 183, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, and my noble friend Lady Altmann. I will also address the broader issue of the role of superfunds within our defined benefit pensions landscape.

At the outset, I want to be clear that my understanding is that the Government remain committed to creating a thriving and credible superfund market. That ambition is welcome because superfunds have the potential to support two important public policy objectives. First, they support member outcomes; properly regulated superfunds can improve security for members and, in the case of a run-on superfund model, they offer the additional prospect of enhanced benefits over time through the sharing of surplus and investment upside.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 22nd January 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, I will be exceedingly brief. I may participate on an occasional basis on this Bill, despite the fact that it is very important. However, we have many people with exceptional expertise in the Room, for which I am extraordinarily grateful.

I have Amendment 167 in a later group on its own, which has relevance to one of the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Bowles in Amendment 46A, in which she introduces the concept that value-for-money regulations must take account of certain factors. Proposed new paragraph (c) particularly interests me, on

“the characteristics of the members of the scheme”.

In all the discussions that I have heard in the Mansion House compact and in the Bill, very little attention is paid to the characteristics of the members of the schemes, because they differ widely. I am particularly concerned that people on low salaries, whose primary savings for pensions and then investment is through auto-enrolment and default funds, have a very different risk profile from those of many people who otherwise engage in pension savings.

This is a group for whom the downside has far more serious consequences than for other groups. Many of us can afford to take a chance with parts of our pensions: if we lose some money, we are still going to be in relative comfort. That is essentially not true for this group. The upside benefit of taking risk and doing well from that risk is nice, but the consequences of taking risk and losing because of that risk are far more serious. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to that issue. As I said, I will pick it up again in Amendment 167, because to me it has been overlooked.

It is key that, when we devise pension arrangements, we recognise the very different risk profiles of members, so that what they are required to do—auto-enrolment and default schemes are in effect a requirement—matches their risk profile. I hope that we will begin to start to shift some of our thinking. There are amendments, in this group and in others, that could help very much with that issue.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

This group of amendments is quite interesting in starting to sketch out what is important in the value-for-money approach that is being adopted through the Bill. I did not know when the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, would speak to Amendment 49 and I will be interested to hear what he has to say on this, because the only other form of occupational pension is, in effect, the defined benefit, where you know what you are getting. I was a bit surprised that he felt that that would need to go further, because that is a direct relationship between somebody and their employer. Nevertheless, I am sure he will explain further.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has tabled Amendments 55 and 56 to Clause 12, which are sensible, but one thing that concerns me at the start of that clause is the word “may”. We should be beyond that at this stage, which is why I also support my noble friends on the Front Bench in opposing Clause 13 standing part of the Bill. There are just too many ifs, buts and maybes, but when it comes to Clause 13 there is nothing at all. It is just a blank cheque for the future. I am conscious that things can vary over time, but we should be in a position where we are getting some clarity on what will be in these value-for-money assessments so that people can make choices. We should be getting that clarity now. If necessary, we can put down regulations for affirmative procedures but, candidly, I do not think it is good enough that we have this sort of approach to defining what is there for the future.

I say to the Minister that I appreciate that this is a real step forward and I welcome that. People put their money in, they are not exactly sure what return they are getting and they might look every now and again at where it is coming out. I appreciate that there is a whole journey to go on in pensions education, as well as for the trustees, in terms of what is really happening with their advisers who continue to do low-risk, low-reward. I encourage the Minister, however, to come back on Report with a much stronger sketching out of what will be in these assessments, as required by Clause 13. For example, instead of just having the word “may”, have some “must” in there and then open up the power later to adjust as necessary. It is also valuable to be able to repeal.

Amendment 74 concerns the “Duty to formalise the Value for Money framework”; I know that my Front Bench will speak to that shortly. It is a useful exercise to check whether it is working. There are other amendments which basically make comparisons with other pension providers. That gets trickier if it is done at such a detailed level because, again, people might want some basic information on what is happening with their money. To pick at random, they might want their money with Standard Life instead of Scottish Life; if there is some variation, they might want to make a change. It is those sorts of things that I encourage the Minister to have more detail on by the time we reach Report.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, as has been expressed, this group establishes the foundation of the value-for-money framework. We welcome the ambition to improve outcomes for savers. However, the effectiveness of value for money will depend on how it is defined, measured and implemented, and I welcome the comments from the noble Baronesses, Lady Bowles, Lady Altmann and Lady Kramer, which elaborated on these points.

I shall concentrate on Amendments 49 and 54 and I hope I can persuade the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, that they are of value. These amendments will extend the scope of the Bill’s value-for-money provisions. They ensure that they apply not only to defined contribution schemes but defined benefit occupational pension schemes as well.

The arrangements make it clear that regulations can make different provision for different types of scheme. Critically, however, all schemes must be covered by the value-for-money assessment, with a proper value-for-money rating. Members of DB schemes deserve the same transparency and assurance about value for money as members of DC schemes. DB schemes still represent a significant part of the pensions landscape. Excluding them risks creating an uneven playing field and less scrutiny where it is still needed.

A single, consistent framework across occupational pensions improves comparability, avoids regulatory gaps and ensures that all savers benefit from the same standards of accountability. The two amendments in my name would ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise of value for money across all pension schemes. The measure is simple: every saver in every scheme, whatever its type, deserves value for money. Other noble Lords have expressed this in detail.

The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, spoke about pensions jargon. We are here in a very rarefied atmosphere, where people have some knowledge—I have less than many in the Room—of what pensions are about and what phrases such as “default pensions” mean. We need to make it clear to people who have no interest in pensions other than receiving a cheque at the end of the month at a certain age what it all means. Some people need to be clear about the choices they make, and we need to do as much as we can. These amendments, both those that have been spoken to already and the two in my name, seek to protect people’s interests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 58. My remarks will apply to all the other amendments in this group, apart from Amendments 64 and 65, to which I will speak shortly, and Amendment 69 in the name of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, which I also support.

My views on this group of amendments follow on from the comments I made earlier about jargon and trying to make pensions more member-friendly—more intelligible to the ordinary person. I believe that this is an extremely important area, having met so many members who simply do not understand what they are being told. The remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, encapsulate some of that: if we cannot understand what we are being told in the communications, neither can members.

It was interesting to see that the original consultation suggestions of red, amber and green, which people would have at least a good chance of understanding, have instead been put into the Bill as “fully delivering”, “intermediate” and “not delivering”. Delivering what? We are talking about value; this is not Ocado or Amazon. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, in her remarks on the first group used the terms “good value” and “poor value” as if they were in the Bill—but they are not. My proposals in these amendments—to change the term “fully delivering” to “good value”, and “not delivering” to “poor value”—simply respond to what most people would expect this clause to tell them. I hope that the Minister understands that. Obviously, this is a probing amendment, so she may prefer other ways to express what we are trying to achieve here, but I hope that the intention behind these amendments will, in some way, feed into both the Bill and how the value-for-money framework will be considered when we develop it. It is a very sketchy framework at the moment.

I take the point about the consultation, but I have a related question. The critical players in moving away from the idea of cost to value, when assessing the merits of any particular scheme being used for the workforce in auto-enrolment, will be the employee benefit consultants. They advise the employers that they currently simply use cost as their major recommendation metric. They are not, in any way, properly scrutinised or regulated. Having done all this work to develop a value-for-money framework, will any attention be given to ensure that the people advising the employers on whether a scheme should be used will properly use the value-for-money framework that we will devise?

Amendments 64 and 65, which are also probing amendments, specifically address the “intermediate” rating, which is designed to have many levels or gradations. However, it seems that all of them could lead to scheme closure. They will all certainly lead to significant costs for a scheme rated “intermediate” due to the extensive reports and explanations that need to be given. My amendments simply seek to avoid significant extra costs, or the risk of scheme disclosure, for schemes that receive an “intermediate” rating on a shorter-term basis. It seems that it is almost possible that a “not delivering” rating will have a similar outcome to an “intermediate” rating because of how the Bill is phrased.

My suggestion is—and it is, as I said, probing and open for discussion and change—that you have to have an intermediate rating every year for, say, four years before the extensive requirements of this section kick in, so that in cases of up to five years you would need to notify the employer if you have changed from a good value to intermediate and the scheme would need to explain why this rating has been given and what plans it has for improvements. That would not be an extensive report, but it would obviously be helpful and would focus the minds of the scheme without the draconian implications that seem implied by the consequences of the intermediate rating as specified in the Bill. That brings me briefly to my support for Amendment 69, tabled by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, which probes what the penalties are, how they have been assessed and whether they are appropriate. I beg to move Amendment 58.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting group of amendments. My noble friend has explained the importance of clarity in who decides whether something is fully delivering. I want to ask about the different assessments being made at this point. We are now, effectively, on Clause 15 onwards. We have the ratings coming through. My noble friends on the Front Bench will explain why they do not agree with certain elements. There is merit, however, in trying to work out whether something is taking a nosedive and whether it is it fixable, but we need to be more specific about a reasonable period, and then a prescribed number of VFM periods needs to be put in the Bill, which it is not at the moment.

Thinking through what has been suggested, I am trying to understand how this will work. Clause 13, which we have discussed briefly, has a certain amount of potential calculations. We then have the trustees doing their own assessment, and then we jump forward to Clause 18 and the Pensions Regulator may check. This is all feeling quite random. Normally when we do ratings, the CQC or Ofsted make that judgment, so I am trying to understand how this will work in practice. Are the guidelines going to be fixed—for example, the average or the benchmark across all pension schemes is this, or the FTSE 100 index has changed this much, or the costs are this percentage? It would be helpful to start to get a proper pitch. I appreciate that the consultation may have gone out, but there must be thinking in the Government’s mind, not just the regulator’s, on what “good” looks like. There are risks, as identified by my noble friends, that we may be overburdening to the point that the minutiae become an industry in their own right. I am surprised to see the penalties put in primary legislation, which is unusual nowadays, although I agree that we need a better sense of how that compliance element, as set out in Clause 18, will work alongside the other amendments. My noble friend is right to say that we need to keep this straightforward and simple for people to be able to understand.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

These are obviously probing amendments. They are all to do with the jargon: if we are arguing about the jargon, how much more confused will the normal punter be in trying to understand the jargon. This group focuses on how value for money is expressed, enforced and communicated.

We support the principle that members should be able to understand whether their scheme is performing well. However, value-for-money ratings also carry significant power. They will influence trustee behaviour, in particular, as well as employer decisions and market structure. That makes proportionality and precision essential.

I am particularly concerned about overreliance on short-term performance metrics. Saving for a pension is, or certainly should be, inherently long-term. Schemes should not be penalised for temporary underperformance driven by market cycles or responsible long-term investment strategies.

We also question whether compliance mechanisms become blunt instruments. Labelling schemes “poor value” without clear context may drive consolidation for the wrong reasons, reducing competition without improving outcomes. Clear language matters—I use the word “jargon” once again—but so does nuance. Members need information they can trust, not simplified labels about market complexity.

I have some questions for the Minister. How will this regime distinguish between persistent structural failure and short-term variation? How will it use this intermediate rating? How will it encourage genuine improvement rather than defensive behaviour by trustees? Trustees are meant to be very careful; they will be cognisant of the intermediate position. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s views on that.

--- Later in debate ---

In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their constructive interest in these amendments and the development of the VFM framework. It is the Government’s view that the current provisions, including the detail in the consultation and that which I have set out, strike the right balance between flexibility and accountability and allow for sufficient consultation on the technical detail. These provisions are essential for delivering value for money and maintaining public confidence in our pension schemes. I therefore ask the Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I am keen to get a sense of what the Government think the current spread is between the different ratings. For example, what proportion might be red? Is there any sense of this at all?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I am absolutely not going to answer that. If there is answer which is known to me, then I will be happy to share it with her, but it certainly not known to me.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that the Minister will accept that the power should have some constraints on it in order to avoid the possibility that it could be used for what I will loosely call “improper purposes” at a later stage.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this is an interesting part. It recognises a lot of our labour market, where people are working with multiple employers over a variety of time periods. Even those young people who were on the Kickstart scheme will have got contributions to a pension scheme, which they may completely forget about once they go to their next, perhaps longer-term, job.

I remember a few years ago the lovely people over in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They have a “good purposes” fund where they go after dormant assets all over the place and take them away, with a general promise that the money will come back if somebody tries to get it. I seem to recall telling them to jog on when it came to pension funds, although some negotiation might have been arranged.

I am just trying to understand how all of this is going to fit together. That is why I think Amendment 83 is particularly helpful; basically, it says that the pensions dashboard must be in place. This is about making an informed choice. One of the things I am trying to understand is whether Clause 22(3)(b), which my noble friends on the Front Bench have suggested should be removed, is passive and non-engaged. Will the trustees running the scheme be required to make some effort to try to contact that person so that it does not just slide away without people even realising?

In terms of the other aspect, I assume, under Amendments 80 and 81, it is right to try to get into some more detail about prescribing, which could perhaps be further enhanced by just getting to understand in Clause 25 what the Minister is thinking at this point, especially when it suggests that the trustees or managers of a scheme can determine whether it is the best interests for this to transfer or not. Are we talking about, say, people who are in prison, people who have gone abroad or people who are on a career break? It would be helpful to have a sense of what Ministers are thinking in terms of having this variety of powers, first, to be able to do it, but then to say, “Actually, we’ll leave it to the managers or trustees of the scheme to determine whether it is that person’s best interests”. I would be grateful for some understanding, again, of how this might work in practice, but the solution will definitely be Amendment 83 and I hope that the Minister will give that consideration for Report.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, this is an appropriate time to stand, because Amendment 83 is signed by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and by me. In the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, today, and having discussed the matter with him, I speak on my behalf and his to Amendment 83. As has been stated, it is intended to deal with the risk that consolidating small pots might worsen the problem of lost or forgotten pensions.

We are all aware of the problem of people losing track of small pension pots: a problem that has increased in recent years as people tend to move between jobs more frequently, and may therefore end up with several small pensions, perhaps from many years ago. Chapter 2 of the Bill allows the Government to make regulations to consolidate small, dormant pension pots. I, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, support this as we believe that providing additional scale to small, dormant pots should enable greater efficiencies and a reduction in costs.

However, a possible unintended consequence could be to make it more difficult for a person to trace a forgotten pot if it is moved to a consolidator without their knowledge: for example, if any notice is sent to an old address. The introduction of a pension dashboard, as enabled by the Pension Schemes Act 2021, was intended to make it easier for people to identify pensions that they have lost track of or even forgotten. This has been somewhat delayed, but progress does, at last, seem to be happening. The connection deadline is October 2026, so hopefully people may start to be able to access the dashboard in the not-too-distant future.

In order to avoid making the problem of lost pensions worse, Amendment 83, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and myself, simply says that the regulations that would mandate the consolidation of a dormant, small pot could not be made until the dashboard had been available for at least three months. The three months is designed to give a bit of time to ensure that it is actually working and that any teething issues have been resolved. I think it prudent to ensure that we do not cause unintended consequences from what is otherwise a good policy, I hope the Minister will be sympathetic to the intention of the course outlined in Amendment 83.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 83, which has received wide support. I think it is really important, as is the idea of lengthening the 12-month period for so-called dormant pots, and Amendment 81 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, where, for example, a woman may take time off to care for children or other loved ones and intends to return, but her pension will have been moved before she gets back. Those are distinct possibilities under this scheme. We are talking about moving somebody’s savings—or investments; I am doing it myself—from one place to another, just because they have not done anything with their pension for a while. The pension fund is not meant to have anything done with it when you are younger; it is meant to just sit there and stay there.

Of course, the big problem that needs to be solved here is the costs to providers of administering all these very small pots. But the aim of the dashboard itself is meant to be to help people move their pots from one place to another. It seems to me that this particular section of the legislation is trying to deal with something that is meant to be dealt with by a different policy area. The consolidators, of course, will be attractive to providers to establish, and the money saving from not administering these small pots will also be attractive to the providers. But have the Government given any consideration to the idea of making, for example, NEST the consolidator? That is a Government-sponsored scheme. It has obviously had to have reasonable charges. Any transfers do not incur an upfront fee. That would run less of a risk of having consolidators that end up perhaps not performing well.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about NEST. It is a brilliant organisation. But my recollection is that it does charge 2% on the transfer of assets into it. That is not something we should be particularly encouraging.

[Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)]

No. I was just saying, if you transfer assets in, that 2% charge does not apply and will not apply. Otherwise, obviously, it would be uneconomic. But I understand that the idea of NEST is that the transfer in of a pension from another provider does not incur the upfront charge of, I think, 1.8%. So that would not be an issue. It is just a 0.3% flat fee. I hope the Minister will be able to respond on that element. There is a residual risk to government in moving somebody’s long-term assets from one provider to another if the other provider eventually proves not to deliver good value.

Pension Schemes Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 18th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, there is a lot in this Bill. Some of it is to be welcomed—there are quite a few crackers in it. However, there are also large elements of it that feel—dare I say it at this time of Christmas?—like a little bit of a turkey. It is such a skeleton Bill that it is more appropriate for Halloween than the time in which we find ourselves.

I am not the only person here who believes that. I must say that the report from the DPRRC is one of the most damning that I have seen on a piece of primary legislation coming to your Lordships’ House. Indeed, the committee says that

“we have found it exceedingly difficult to provide meaningful comment on the Bill precisely because it is so skeletal”.

This extent of delegated powers—there are nearly more delegated powers than there are clauses—does not feel like the right place to be. Of course, I know that trying to work with the pension industry and see the scope of what it is trying to achieve means that a bit of flexibility may be needed, but it is important that we do not just, candidly, hand things over to almost a ministerial diktat, which I am afraid that parts of this Bill do.

I was Secretary of State when the previous Pension Schemes Act was passed in Parliament, and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott took it through this House; in fact, it started in this House. It built on—and this Bill continues to build on—the idea that where consensus comes together, we can get a very good product. Indeed, that continuity of thought is important, not just for the pensions industry but for the current and future pensioners that we seek to serve.

It has been useful to see the variety of consultations there has been, going back even to 2015, including about local government funds, and the actions taken when consolidation started to happen. There was a consultation in 2022 about other aspects of small pot consolidation. The clause I probably welcome the most is about value for money. It is really important that we make sure that we address these issues. In particular, the power to effectively shut down underperforming funds is good because, regardless of how little or how much people put in, many people are putting into their pensions all the time but do not necessarily realise quite how little will come out at the end of it. We will see more communication with the pensions dashboard, but the value-for-money framework will be a critical part of that.

There has been quite a lot of talk about trustees, and I know that a number of bodies have been trying to see if we can move to having solely professional trustees. That would be a mistake. I appreciate that is not what the Bill is calling for, but one of the challenges is that trustees, driven by a certain type of asset adviser, have been attracted to low-cost and low-risk pension schemes, but too often that has led to low return. So many of the gradual changes we have seen and that will start to come through in response to some of this legislation will be able to address that. That is vital and I will support measures to achieve it.

However, there is an underlying issue here about the mandation clause. From my experience in government, I remember a meeting in Downing Street with a bunch of pension providers, which was mainly driven by insurers. People had been told that they could not raise the issue of Solvency II being a problem. One or two were brave and did so, and were later chastised by Treasury officials. Nevertheless, it was important that they did. I understand the frustration of Government Ministers at the very top of government. People saying “We need investment” is all well and good, but why do they not put some of their money into it? I include the Local Government Pension Scheme in that. Ultimately, our traditional approach is one of state pensions not being particularly generous and trying to incentivise people to put into the private pension market, as well as what has happened historically with the defined benefit industry. That is why we have the system that we do, which has grown to the extent that it has so far—so much so that, as has been recognised, trillions of pounds in assets could be deployed to greater use, but it still must be for the benefit of current, future and, indeed, deferred pensioners.

Further, there is a missed opportunity in this Bill. Having two different regulators for pensions is a wasted opportunity. I know that the two bodies, the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, have been working on joint strategies, but fundamentally we still have significantly different rules on what can or cannot happen with pension funds, depending on how they are regulated. That just does not make sense.

This is the moment to try to change that. Frankly, the FCA has enough to do. Under their different rules, TPR allows a particular investment but the FCA does not, although it may seem to be a very similar product. We should not leave that element of complexity to be solved via delegated powers but take the opportunity to fix it in this Bill. That will need primary legislation and I hope that, although she may not welcome it—and, as I am trying to get it all out of the Treasury and the FCA, they certainly will not welcome it—the Minister will try to get it into one regulator to make a difference for the prosperity of our pensioners.

I am conscious that this is a missed opportunity in how pensions can help our planet. I strongly promoted the concept of planet, prosperity and people. These are mutually beneficial and there is no doubt that investment by the industry can play a part. That is why we put in place world-leading, pioneering regulations making the link to the TCFD and net zero. However, crucially, they did not mandate how investments were to be made or the drawing from a variety of assets but, basically, put a much greater duty of transparency on what was happening in the long term. The same needs to happen with nature and the TNFD. I will explore that in Committee.

In terms of what we want to achieve from this, I think your Lordships will share with the Government the outcome of having a good, robust and fully functioning pensions industry that generates prosperity, but let us not go down this tricky route of mandation. In particular, the DPRRC singles out that Ministers keep saying, “We don’t intend to use it”. In that case, let us not legislate for it. Let us make sure that we keep that blunt instrument away and continue to have a productive pensions industry. Nest, which was originally provided for in legislation prior to 2010 and came into effect within the last decade or so, has been a fantastic source to drive and make sure that we have private asset allocations. Let us celebrate that, work out why it worked so well and, as I have already suggested, make sure that we get rid of the stuff that is massively underperforming when prospective pensioners do not realise it.

It is going to be an interesting time in Grand Committee. I am afraid there will be a lot of amendments—this is not the only Bill I will be tabling amendments to—but I hope the Government will think again on the themes we will get into. If a lot of this is just about getting investment in Britain, the Government will need to answer why they scrapped the British ISA, which was a ready-made model. It is almost because it was not invented here. Fortunately, on the pensions journey, there is normally good cross-party consensus, but I fear that mandation has blown that out of the water. Nevertheless, let us see if we can try to fix it.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 18th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I am standing up to make a speech absolutely on the fly now. I have taken some legal advice and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, says there would be no adverse impact from this. So I add my support to Amendments 469, 470 and 502F. As a teacher, I think the history of education in this country is that it has gradually dawned on us that children have rights. If I may give a bit of hope to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I think we do listen to children much more now.

The noble Lord, Lord Banner, touched on the idea that we are very good at setting up conventions—we are extremely diligent signatories and very good penholders—but we are not usually very good at following our own advice. The Children’s Charity Coalition has said that the Bill currently lacks explicit measures to ensure that children’s rights are systematically considered in law and policy-making. That is a lot of children’s charities that think that. We have heard from Team Cross Bench, which I thought put some extraordinary power behind these amendments, but perhaps I may quote my legal adviser, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on this one: these are appropriate and overdue.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate. I have not particularly participated in this Bill, but I am always interested when noble Lords seek to incorporate various treaties we have signed into domestic law. The reason I say that is because of my experience in a variety of ways of having been a Minister. Paragraph 1.6 of the Ministerial Code, which is not a new obligation on Ministers, states that Ministers have to comply with the international agreements into which Governments and previous Governments have entered and which have usually been ratified by Parliament. The need to think about these sorts of issues, particularly around children, is already embedded into how policy framework strategies are deployed.

“From the mouths of children”


is in the Psalms and in the Gospels. That element of truth comes through: it is absolutely vital that children’s voices are heard. This is why things such as the Children Act 1989 was really important, about aspects of that.

However, I am really concerned, and I share the concerns that my noble friend Lady Spielman expressed, about whether these need to be incorporated as a whole into domestic law. Only a handful of other countries have done this: Iceland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and, to some extent, or to the full extent of its devolved powers, the Scottish Parliament has decided to do the same—although noble Lords may be aware of the rulings after there was a referral to the Supreme Court which removed certain aspects of that legislation, partly because it counteracted the primacy of this Parliament in legislation and other matters.

However, as regards thinking through, I fully respect the long connection with education of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. Both my parents are teachers. I do not have children, so I do not have the same experiences there, but I am aware, from when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, of absolutely how much, just from the DNA, in effect, of being normal human beings, we would consider aspects of impacts on children.

The noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, said the difficulty about the conversations is that they get legalistic. Well, that is the whole point. We are talking about the law. If I think of Amendment 502G, perhaps there would have been a different ruling with the Michaela academy recently on whether somebody could pray at school or not. I think also of keeping schools open. I know there is an element of it being discussed in Amendment 502M. I encourage the people who have been distinguished general secretaries of unions to think of parents perhaps starting to sue schools for not staying open when there is some snow. The snow may not be stopping the children getting to school, but it might be stopping a couple of the teachers, so the decision is then to close down education for a whole day or more, not on behalf of the children but because they cannot get some teachers there. I referred to “legalistic” because that is where you start getting into disputes, going to court, trying to settle outside—all these other issues.

That is why I completely understand why ratifying that treaty was so important. That becomes guidance, a framework and an actual way of doing things, but it does not then become necessarily—I believe we have incorporated certain parts of the convention into domestic law—a straitjacket in effect on how we kind of evolve in terms of policy. There are risks, and I know that there has been another Supreme Court ruling trying to discourage judges and indeed people from bringing judicial reviews trying to change policy. But that is exactly where we get into issues that we can see in other legal cases that are often in the courts.

Obviously, I respect the distinguished legal experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, but I would have thought that the public sector equality duty, which recognises religion and belief, would already capture perhaps some of what he is trying to incorporate in his amendment.

I do not want to delay the Committee too much longer, but I think this is a case of “Be careful what you wish for”. What has happened for children that now makes it necessary to do this? The children were ignored when they were being groomed and when they went to the police. Children have been ignored in other situations. That grooming is still ongoing; I hope the police and the CPS are more alert as well. But going back to the substance, I hope that the way that the UNCRC has been effectively incorporated into how we go about our affairs as Ministers, as Parliament and as public servants should be sufficient. However, I will continue to try to understand the deficiency that we are trying to address by this wholesale incorporation of this into our domestic law when I genuinely do not believe it is needed.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I will just swiftly respond to the noble Baroness. During the 14 years that her party was in office—I witnessed this first hand, because I am a retread, as I got re-elected back in in 2014—there was a series of Bills, some of which I mentioned I have been involved with, where children are directly involved and affected. Repeatedly, those Bills arrive here after—as per usual—minimal scrutiny down the Corridor, by design. It is manifestly clear that the detailed needs, requirements and rights of children have not systematically been thought through and embedded in the legislation, which is why we have had to go through lengthy debates to try to tease that out. I am proud to say that, in the majority of cases, faced with strong cross-party arguments in favour, the Front Bench of the noble Baroness’s party, repeatedly in different Bills, acceded to the strength of those arguments and amended the legislation to put children’s rights in there. Whatever the Ministerial Code may say, unfortunately that was not filtering its way down into the way that Bills were being drafted. Your Lordships’ House did its work very well, but what some of us are hoping and asking for is a situation where that requirement becomes less frequent and is abnormal rather than, I am afraid, substantively normal.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

I would say in return— I was trying to keep my speech brief—that I hear what the noble Lord said. He talked about being unsuccessful in keeping it brief. That is because we have had a lot of stuff about legalism. I am giving direct experience of government—I appreciate what the noble Lord said. I can give more examples. One reason why children get the flu vaccine every year is primarily to protect adults—the teachers and school workers—to stop the spread of flu. It is not really to help the kid. All sorts of things happen today that are actively encouraged to be done to the child in a way that should not be harmful.

I come back to the legislation and the point that is relevant. The Secretary of State for Education has the leading responsibility in government to have that horizon-scanning of every bit of legislation that affects children. If there have been deficiencies, I recognise them. I am not convinced that the incorporation of more law into domestic law is going to be the way to achieve that. I encourage the Minister in her reply to give confidence. Even if the noble Lord feels that the last Administration were deficient, I am sure that the current Administration will say that they are very much on top of it.

Frankly, it is a bit like when I was at DWP. I had primary responsibility for disabilities, so it was my job, working with my officials, to keep scanning legislation for how it would impact people with disabilities. That was not always very popular with other departments, which kept telling us to keep our noses out, but that is what we did. I am sure that that is what the Department for Education is intending to do. That said, I know that my noble friend Lady Barran was assiduous in her support of children, and I am sure that the Minister for this Government has continued to be so as well.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

I quickly respond to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made. The wording in my amendment is not my wording; it is already in the convention. I am not trying to incorporate it into our law, because it is already incorporated. That ship has sailed, really. All I am doing is pointing out its relevance to a Bill that I perceive as seeking to restrict parental choice in various ways. To pick up on one point that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, made, I entirely respect what he said about the importance of being aware that parents may make wrong choices. The assumption built into this provision of the convention is that they are entitled to make what they consider to be good choices. Otherwise, you would take away all rights of parents altogether, if you make the assumption that they are not. On children’s rights in respect of schools, it is their parents who have chosen to send them there. That was the parental choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I want to come back on two points. First, I suggest that the analogy with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act is not a good one, because the Human Rights Act imposes duties of outcome. It requires adherence to the convention. The amendments before the Committee require “regard to”, which is a world apart from duties of outcome. Secondly, on administrative burdens, I pose this question: if it is too burdensome even to have regard to the convention, what is the point of us being a member of it?

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I inferred from what the noble Baroness said that she thinks I do not believe children should have vaccines. I do. In fact, there is an active element in me that considers that we should prosecute parents who do not give their children the MMR vaccine because of the potential outcomes. I am not saying that is a policy I would adopt overnight, but it is worrying that so many children do not have the MMR. But on a broader point, I hear what the noble Baroness said, and of course that is what will be written in the HSA and in PHE, but I can assure her that I am aware that this is a primary element of trying to reduce the transmission of flu. I have no doubt that, if children get flu, it can be serious. It can be serious for any individual. That was one of the driving forces and why it is aimed in particular at children in primary schools. It is widely available and is significantly designed to reduce the transmission to adults.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

This has been an important debate on these amendments. I want to start by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is not able to be present. Her husband is not at all well. She added her name to Amendments 469 and 470. I am going to keep my comments brief. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, is right: I can almost see Baroness Massey on my shoulders. When I first arrived here, although she was of a different party, she immediately collared me, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and gave me a briefing on children’s rights. That was the first time I met Doreen Massey. At some stage, when we come to our senses on this, her importance on this issue will come to mind.

I also wanted to mention the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about the importance of the child being heard. For far too long, we had the old adage that children should be seen and not heard. Sadly, that filters through the whole of society in all sorts of ways. It is not just parents and public bodies. I remember my wife being heartbroken when a black boy in her secondary school was fostered by white parents. At the time it was quite rightly thought to be the case that culturally it is better if foster parents have the same heritage as the child. The boy, who was 12 or 13, was adamant that he wanted to stay with his white foster parents. Nobody listened to that boy. Nobody in the local authority, in the school or in social services listened to that boy. If we say we want to hear the voice of the child, it is a nice phrase to use, but we have to make it work in practice and it has to filter through the whole of what we do.

On the convention on human rights, I just do not understand this, and I would like a detailed letter from the Minister. It is 12 years since my noble friend Lady Walmsley and Baroness Massey talked to me about this. Why can we not follow Wales and Scotland? Let us do an impact assessment. Do we just not want to do it? Well, then let us have the honesty to say that. Or, if we do want to do it, what are the reasons why we cannot? I would like to know. Perhaps the Minister, when she replies, could tell us.

I do not have anything else to add to what has been a wide-ranging discussion. This issue is crucial, of course. The clue is in the Bill’s title, is it not? If we are talking about the children’s well-being Bill, everything that we and the Government do in legislation should look at the impact on children. That is an eminently sensible move. So, I hope Government will support Amendments 469 and 470, either now or if they are brought back on Report.

I was tempted to, as we sometimes say, respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. I am afraid I just do not agree with her comments, but perhaps now is not the time to do that. Perhaps we can have a private conversation on some of the things that, to be honest, got me quite angsty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, the issue of apprenticeships is really relevant to improving the life opportunities of young people. I respect what the noble Lord, Lord Layard, has done in tabling this amendment, which is supported by many distinguished people. Noble Lords should recognise that the introduction of T-levels was intended to provide education in a more controlled atmosphere, as opposed to young people —children—going out to work, legally of course.

T-levels—which, by the way, required a ministerial direction issued by my right honourable friend Damian Hinds because they were against the advice of civil servants—are a good way of trying to make sure that young people get that opportunity without necessarily having to be forced into the world of work. I may be overinterpreting the noble Lord’s amendment.

The other issue employers face is the balance between how you treat children in your workforce and how you treat adults. In my experience at the Department for Work and Pensions, that was a key difficulty in considering how to encourage young people into work. I note that the amendment is very specific, referring to the ages of between 16 and 18.

On my noble friend Lord Lucas’s amendment, which would promote provision of places up to level 7, thought is being given to how young people can then qualify as solicitors and the like by embarking on this path. However, I somewhat agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey: schemes were developed that effectively skewed away from the entry roles that we still need young people to get into. Regrettably, due to the Employment Rights Bill, we are seeing fewer and fewer such opportunities for young people. It is a real worry that, despite the Government’s best intentions, we will see NEETs going up rather than down.

I support the sentiment of the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Layard. I fear it will be difficult fully to put into practice exactly what he wants, but I encourage the Government to continue to do whatever they can to make it as straightforward as possible for young people to get apprenticeships and, more importantly, for employers to take young people on as apprentices.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak as a design technology teacher, a veteran of the IfATE Act, an officer of the APPG on apprenticeships and a member of the House of Lords Social Mobility Policy Committee.

I think we all agree that apprenticeships are vital to this country. It is rather sad that this subject seems to have led to a general exit from the Chamber, but I think that is more because it is lunchtime. I welcome the defence industrial strategy and its new apprenticeship and graduate clearing system, which I know BAE Systems was heavily behind. We have seen Skills England start, and we hope upon hope that it is the answer. This is an incredibly important and nuanced subject, and I am afraid I do not think these amendments are the answer.