Preparing for an Ageing Society (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Friday 4th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, one of the challenges of speaking so late in the debate is that many brilliant points that you thought you might cover have already been made, and the noble Lord, Lord Best, just made one of them. It is one of my biggest concerns about the increasing costs and one reason I kept trying to encourage the Government to abandon their ideology about not being able to buy your own home from housing associations or councils. We are reaching the tipping point, where costs are going to rise significantly as we see less home ownership.

I appointed my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to do the previous report looking into pension age. We have to reach some kind of consensus on what is an acceptable proportion of pension income compared to earnings to reach a proper settled way that we can take forward.

It was the 2007 Act, brought in by the then Labour Government and enacted by the coalition Government in 2011, that reinstated the link to earnings. We have a variety of views on what the ideal pinch point should be. That is the sort of thing that I hope the Pensions Commission will settle.

Sometimes, the triple lock gets blamed for a lot of things. To some extent, I would prefer some kind of double lock. At the time, the 2.5% probably seemed right to achieve the policy outcome of getting pensions as a proportion of earnings up more quickly. It has achieved that, by and large. As a consequence, however, it has been used about four times—though only twice in an artificially high way—compared to some of the other changes on earnings and inflation.

Indeed, I was the Cabinet Minister at the time, and we took the proactive decision on two occasions: one was when the earnings link legislation would have frozen the state pension. We changed that for a year. We also changed the earnings link, removing it for a year. That, just in one year, saved £4.5 billion, and about £30 billion over the next five years. It shows that some quite modest changes can have significant benefits to the public finance.

The other element of this very interesting report that I thought was useful was thinking about working. The best employers are a lot more flexible. I want to encourage the Government to think again, as they bring forward their regulations and guidance, about what they are doing. We removed the default retirement age. Again, this was designed to make life more flexible for people.

The other key element—I saw it with my late mother—is that Covid had a massive impact on old people, as they just did not get moving. I saw her muscles atrophy. We need a proactive occupational health service, and I would welcome health visitors for pensioners, not just for children.

Government Record on Education, Employment and Welfare

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this debate so well. I am conscious that a lot of statistics have been thrown around. I was genuinely surprised to hear the figures given by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Knight, and I am curious as to where they got them from, because they are not what the ONS says. The ONS says that in 2001, seasonally adjusted, which is the preferred figure being used, there were 833,000 NEETs. By March 2010, that figure was 1.128 million. In June, it was 1.074 million. When the Conservatives left office in May 2024, it was 935,000, and by that June it was 921,000. We have seen a disaster in what is going on, a lot of which is due to the policy, sadly, put in place by this Government, thinking that it would do more to help jobs, which has in fact killed off growth and jobs.

Let us give them some credit: there are more people working now than before. That is true, and I am not surprised, given the rise in population. I support most of the changes that have been made to the apprenticeship schemes and the apprenticeship levy. I welcome the fact that a lot has been moved out of education, which showed no interest in young people and what they would do in the future once they had left school, and is now with the DWP. That has been a good move. But let us not shy away from this: unemployment is up and NEETs are up.

We need drive. I was very proud of my record at the DWP during Covid. Working with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, we got the unemployment rate down to a record low since 1974. We had the lowest figures on NEETs and youth unemployment. That was not done by accident; it was done by drive and making sure that different parts of government worked together and were working in the areas. That is why we tried to enhance our working with not only mayors but also councils through our Jobcentre Plus network.

Universal credit was designed to make it so that you would be better off in work than not working. It was always estimated by Sir Iain Duncan Smith that it would cost taxpayers more, because it wrapped six benefits into one. But the underlying principle was that you are better off working than not, and that was still true until recently. What has happened recently is that, thankfully, we got rid of tax credits. I understand the incentive there. The thinking was that we would subsidise low pay through tax credits. I do not think that was the right approach, but I understand why it happened. But the way that was designed meant that, if you worked a minute over 16 hours, you would be worse off. So, big employers redesigned their work systems so that people basically had 16-hour contracts, and it has been difficult to shift that.

UC allowed the opportunity to do so, but the reason why it is now more of a challenge is that we have a quarter of a million families with a household income of over £40,000 who will now get free school meals. There are a number of incentives not to come off benefits and a huge number of incentives not to go full-time. There are definitely still challenges, which I appreciate the Government will continue to try to tackle, in the availability of childcare all year round, not just when schools are sitting.

We will debate PIP next week, so I will not devote much time to that. All I will say is that, with the cost of living challenges, a lot more people started applying for benefits who did not do so before.

To go back to the beginning and education, we can see the difference that happened in the United Kingdom. When the Conservatives came in, working in partnership in the coalition, there was a big drive by my noble friend Lord Gove and Nick Gibb on phonics—getting into the foundations and the basics. When I first visited schools, I was astonished to find that the poorest-performing school in my constituency offered 50 GCSEs, and it wondered why it was struggling. Let us get back to the core of what will give a young person the opportunity to grow and contribute to our great country.

Nature’s Rights Bill [HL]

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 3rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on introducing the Bill. It is a comprehensive Bill, given the number of clauses in it, and I completely understand the sentiment with which the noble Baroness is bringing it forward. She is right to point out that the Environment Act was important legislation but still only an element along the way to aspects being commenced and the like. I also understand the noble Baroness’s huge concern in recognising that this Government are rowing back on a lot of the measures that were put in that Act deliberately to try to improve the standing of nature.

The Natural History Museum’s index states that the UK stands 189th out of 240 countries when it comes to considering the completeness of a country’s original nature, with the UK having only 53%. The phrase often used is that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted places in the world, but that does not recognise the amount of change that has happened, with the growth in population, industrialisation and the like.

It is fair to say that it was recognised that we needed to get nature back into balance, which is what brought about the Environment Act. In 2024, in the Environmental Performance Index, run by Yale and Columbia Universities, the UK was the fifth-best in the world at trying to improve the environment. The only countries ahead of it were Estonia, Luxembourg, Germany and Finland. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is particularly interested in ecosystem vitality, and on that the UK was the 11th-best in the world. That is because there has been a real focus on trying to restore habitats, and it is why I am worried about other aspects of the consultations that are already under way and changes that were made to the Planning and Infrastructure Act that seem to put habitat aside if a building could be placed there instead.

I am conscious that there has to be an ongoing balance between nature and the development of humanity and the development of housing, but I understand the noble Baroness’s sentiments as to why she thinks the Bill may be necessary. But I feel that the existing legislation already has a lot of what the noble Baroness wants, and that some of the extra points may well be superfluous.

This is an ambitious Bill. It is UK-wide, with only a duty to consult the devolved Administrations. The Government already have statutory advisers: Natural England is the principal statutory adviser on nature, and there is the OEP for aspects of legislation. In the Bill, “nature” is not defined. Will it cover all flora and fauna? Is it about landscapes? Is it about ecosystems? Is it about cryosystems? That is not defined in the Bill. If it is to include fauna, will the definition exclude kept and farmed animals? Is it supposed to be only what is in the natural environment? We will need to probe this further in Committee.

On trust, as I have already started to set out, I agree somewhat with the noble Baroness’s concerns. This is why I will continue to press on other aspects of legislation that are already coming through. I encourage the Defra family to think a bit more carefully about the development of trust. We have seen it elsewhere, with the climate, where people think that the world is going to end tomorrow and ask why we are to be the ones who save it. People start to become rather sceptical. When they hear about the actions we are undertaking but then hear that nothing is happening in other parts of the world, things becomes difficult. Let me give a recent example. In March, there was huge publicity around the coastal path being fully open around the country, but the Parliamentary Answer given by the Minister showed that that was not the case. This sort of deception, in the sense of publicity, is not helpful.

I do not know the 2024 Motion to which the noble Baroness referred—I was not in office then. However, I was proud to be leading the delegation to the second meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Montreal. We listened to the EU’s concerns about our ambitions but put them aside, reopened negotiations and made it completely comprehensive. Of course we need to keep going to ensure that it is a reality, but that reflects the ambition of the Conservative Government. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Gove was the leading force in driving the Environment Act.

I turn to the scrutiny of the legislation. Clause 45 largely sets these out to be negative resolutions—which surprised me—apart from the establishing of the bodies in Clauses 15, 17 and 28. For criminal offences, that makes sense, but I am nervous about the huge Henry VIII powers that are set out in Clause 46 and Clause 45(f). I gently say that Clause 45(3) is one of the few places where affirmative resolutions are referred to, but it refers to “section 43(6)”, which is not actually in the Bill. Maybe something got deleted by accident. It would be interesting to hear what further parts of the Bill that was intended to apply to.

How do the noble Baroness and the Minister think this will work with the EU reset? An important part of this will be recognising that, if we are in an EU reset, very soon this Parliament will have no say. It will have no vote on any regulation that will then be applied in this country when it comes to a lot of the factors affecting this area, about which the noble Baroness is rightly concerned. I am interested to see what the new Prime Minister will have to say on some of the powers that have already been put in place which are depleting nature, some of which started yesterday. We will see if we have a Manchester reset on that aspect.

I am minded to table an amendment relating to Section 23 of the Environment Act. This concerns when a Minister makes a declaration in each House at Second Reading only. I asked the Procedures and Privileges Committee how the accuracy of those comments could be challenged. The answer was that we can ask a Parliamentary Question or ask the Minister. The Minister kindly said that Ministers were bound by the Ministerial Code. However, due to a legal action undertaken by Wild Justice, it was determined that these are parliamentary proceedings. It has got nothing to do with the Ministerial Code or any other aspect of law, but so far the Government will not release the legal opinion presented by First Treasury Counsel or Speaker’s Counsel provisions. It may be that I table some amendments on that point.

With that, while I wish the Baroness well generally, I am afraid that I will not be supporting her Bill through its full passage.

Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I agree with her that there is a little bit of chutzpah in being lectured at by colleagues opposite.

With regard to the changes that are being undertaken, obviously we have asked specialists in the field to make their recommendations to us. Noble Lords who operate in the security field will be aware that there is always an ongoing review of how vetting is undertaken to make sure that it complies with the world as the world shifts and changes and as our threat levels change. I look forward to seeing Sir Adrian Fulford’s recommendations for next steps. My noble friend is absolutely right that we are not standing still. We have reminded all government departments of their responsibilities. We are looking at the existing guidance for private offices to make sure that ministerial guidance is in place. One of the things that I am looking at is the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, about how we can ensure that Ministers have the right support in place, as well as the right training and mentoring, both in this space and more broadly.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Ministers have brilliant private offices that help them with record-keeping, so the Minister is right to suggest that using WhatsApp is perfectly acceptable. I want to understand further, though. It is unfortunate that the chief of staff’s mobile phone was stolen. Has the Cabinet Office investigated asking network carriers, and indeed the WhatsApp organisation, for the metadata? That records whatever calls were made, whatever texts were sent and which messages were deleted. It would be useful, in this level of candour, to make those requests and to inform Parliament if the network carriers, and indeed WhatsApp, refuse to provide them.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I have to agree with the noble Baroness about brilliant private offices; mine is fabulous. Obviously, it has a really easy job of making sure that I operate well. On the specifics about the metadata, I will have to write to the noble Baroness. This was a process led by Cabinet Office officials. I am not sure of the detail in that space on what additional information they sought.

Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address Motion

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Noble Lords can listen to me or not, but the concept that our appointing a Minister to review the standards landscape in the whole is an obfuscation is disappointing to say the least. In terms of the Prime Minister’s responsibilities, he has apologised for appointing Peter Mandelson. He believed Peter Mandelson’s lies in response to the questions put to him. As soon as the Prime Minister became aware of this in September, Peter Mandelson was dismissed promptly.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, we are, hopefully, discussing the concept of rebuilding trust in politics and how we talk to each other. I will answer questions from either the noble Lord or the noble Baroness, but it is for them to decide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Noble Lords will appreciate that there is ongoing material, which will be published. All of that will be a matter of public record in due course.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, this feels a bit “Hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil” in the casual way that the Prime Minister followed process in appointing the US ambassador, the then Lord Mandelson. There is a concern that, when the humble Address was passed, former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney still worked for the Government and did not resign until a few days later. Yet Darren Jones, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, has said that everything the Government have has been published. I am concerned that all the documents have not yet been released by the Government. What has happened to the communications between Morgan McSweeney and anybody else involved in this while he was still working for the Prime Minister?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, I believe I have said on numerous occasions that this is the first tranche of material that has been published, as did the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. More material will be published in due course. I have answered several questions on that. I look forward to discussing it again with noble Lords when that is done.

UK-EU Relations

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

The Government are committed, as set out in our manifesto, to supporting our creative industries and our creative artists in touring and performing around Europe. I am happy to meet the noble Earl, and I will ensure that my DCMS office gets in touch with him. I am not going to give a description of where we are regarding ongoing discussions or a commentary on negotiations. We are clear, as I know the noble Earl is, that this could help deliver real benefits not just to artists in this country but to artists and venues from across the EU.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Brussels has already set out its case that it wants to renegotiate the fishing arrangements. The Government will find that agriculture, fish and food is often the last hurdle in securing a trade deal. I am pleased that the Government are continuing to defend the decision to protect sand eels in order to protect puffins and kittiwakes, but the Government should be seeking to try and open up the export of foods, because the French Government are refusing to put in the necessary facilities in France and that is blocking the export of foods into that country.

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

On fisheries, the UK and EU share a commitment to protecting the marine environment through various international agreements. We do believe that, by working together on this and other food export issues, we can effectively deliver on our commitments in a way that supports the long-term sustainability and resilience of our fishing fleets, and that protects our food exports and imports in a way that benefits the UK in the trade position we will have going forward.