Pension Schemes Bill [HL] — House of Lords, 2020-06-30
Topic: Environment
John Kevin Sharkey (Liberal Democrats, Centre to centre-left): My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 72 and 74 in this group. Neither amendment in any way alters any of the important climate change amendments in the group, except in one respect: they require the Government to make something happen What the amendments would do is very straightforward: they would simply impose a binding legal obligation on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed description with a view to securing effective governance of the scheme with respect to the effects of climate change. They would also impose an obligation to include, in particular, the risks arising from steps taken because of climate change, whether by the Government or otherwise, and opportunities relating to climate change All those things are word for word in the Bill except that they are all governed by the word "may". Our amendments would replace the two references to "may" with "must". As the Bill stands, the Government are not actually obliged to do any of those things, or indeed anything at all, in this clause. The word "may" in subsections (1) and (2) is permissive, not directive—a point made by my noble friend Lady Bowles and me in Committee The Minister kindly wrote to us all in response on 5 March. She confirmed that the Government intend to take action and were wholly committed to legislating for effective governance of occupational pension schemes with respect to climate change. She concluded by saying: "Changing the legislation to ‘must’ would therefore make no practical difference, because as a Government we are committed to making regulations under new sections 41A, 41B and 41C introduced by the Government’s amendment." This argument works both ways, of course. What can be the basis of the Government’s objection to "must" if they are committed to doing it anyway? What possible reservations, hesitations or changes of mind are being contemplated here? What can be wrong with having legal certainty that what has been promised will actually happen There is a parallel in this Bill to our discussions on the MaPS pensions dashboard. The Committee asked why the provision for MaPS to provide a public dashboard was only a "may", not a "must". In reply, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, confirmed that the Government were absolutely committed to MaPS providing a qualifying dashboard service. Several Members, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, noted that the Government being committed to MaPS producing a dashboard is not the same thing as saying that they will ensure that there is a MaPS dashboard. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made the point that a little amendment—"may" to "must"—would capture the Government’s assurances "so that the next Secretary of State does not change their mind."—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 186.] This argument clearly convinced the Government. They have now introduced their own amendments to make a MaPS dashboard a "must" rather than a "may". I know that we are all very pleased about that Can the Government accept the same logic here? If it was right to change "may" to "must" for a pensions dashboard, why is it not right to do the same thing for climate change? I look forward to the Minister’s eager acceptance of the precedent and these amendments.