5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Official Secrets Act and Espionage

   Although I have huge respect for the Security Minister and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy Committee—I sat on that Committee for five years—is it not the case that this statement actually raises more questions? It is not case closed, as there are questions that are still outstanding. That is because the weakness here is that the Joint Committee does not have access to classified material; only the Intelligence and Security Committee does. Having sat on both Committees, I know there is a stark contrast between the types of witnesses who can be called and what the witnesses can actually say. Given the earlier question, will the Minister now commit to review the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the right questions can be asked of the right Committee at the right time, so that we can have some definitive conclusions on this whole saga?

   Hansard source
2. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Mark Pritchard

   Venezuela: US Military

   I will continue with what has been a bit of a history lesson today. President Reagan had his famous wobble over the Falkland Islands but eventually he came to the right decision, supporting the UK at that time. This issue is about how we liaise with the United States as its closest ally—certainly, in our eyes we are its closest ally; whether it is the same the other way around, let us wait and see. It could be Venezuela today but Cuba tomorrow, and then Haiti and so on and so forth. We need to be candid with the United States, to uphold international law and to encourage our cousins across the water to show restraint, while recognising the need for them to counter the very bad drugs trade going into the United States, which affects crime on the streets in many cities there. Among the potential impacts of this action are the growing malign influence of both China and Russia in the region and how that might affect proximate Commonwealth countries such as Trinidad and Tobago or Guyana. There are unintended consequences from something that the United States might feel is completely legitimate. Finally, there is the issue of whether this legitimises Putin’s actions in Ukraine.

   Hansard source
3. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Lewis Cocking

   Engagements

   Q12. The best form of welfare in this country should be a well-paid job, but with unemployment up and this Labour Government choosing to raise taxes to spend even more on a bloated welfare and benefits system, is the Prime Minister happy with the message that sends to my hard-working constituents in Broxbourne and constituents right across the United Kingdom?

   Hansard source
4. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Glen

   OBR: Resignation of Chair

   Richard Hughes was a first-rate public servant, but he did the right thing on the narrow matter of the premature upload of the file last week. OBR representatives told us a number of things yesterday in the Treasury Committee. They told us that there was a £16 billion downgrade and £4.2 billion of headroom on 31 October, because there were also improved tax revenues. I do not think £4.2 billion can be characterised as a black hole, but it was a challenging circumstance—that is the truth. Will the Minister consider, in all future Budgets, that such a letter should be made available, at the same time that Budget publications and OBR publications are made available, setting out what was said to the Chancellor at what point? We could then verify whether the press conference on 4 November was very wide of the mark and gave a materially misleading view of what was actually happening.

   Hansard source
5. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   Local Media

   I started and ended my journalism career at the Stranraer and Wigtownshire Free Press, which has had a name-check, and I am delighted to report that people still queue up on a Thursday morning to buy it. It is thriving, but the BBC is a key issue, because the BBC’s website is killing local papers—it is as simple as that. People can access the local news for free, although obviously we pay the licence fee. Is there an opportunity through the new charter to address the damage the BBC is doing to local papers?

   Hansard source
6. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   Visitor Levy: Wales

   7. Whether she has had discussions with the Welsh Government on the potential impact of the proposed visitor levy on the Welsh economy.

   Hansard source
7. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   Visitor Levy: Wales

   Hospitality in Wales and across the United Kingdom is dying on its feet. It needs a shot in the arm; instead, last week’s bin-fire Budget gave it a shot in the head. This is more money coming out of businesses, is it not?

   Hansard source
8. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·John Cooper

   Official Secrets Act and Espionage

   The Minister and I have clashed over Sun Tzu in the past, but at the risk of riling him again, I want to tell him that Sun Tzu said that sometimes a strategic advantage is to be had by feigning weakness. Every day we fail to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, that is not us feigning weakness; it is weakness. Is that not the case?

   Hansard source
9. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

   Local Media

   It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) on bringing forward this very important debate and on giving a characteristically heartfelt and amusing speech. It is a particular pleasure for me to be speaking in this debate, coming from the Isle of Wight, which is probably a rare example of a very vibrant local area for independent local press, including the Isle of Wight Observer, Isle of Wight County Press, Island Echo, OnTheWight, Isle of Wight Radio and Vectis Radio. We are very far from being a local news desert, as sadly too many places in this country are. Quality journalism is a cornerstone of any democratic system. In order to exercise the right to vote, the public needs to understand what decisions have been taken in their name and what those seeking power propose to do with that power. It is the media that helps people hold decision makers to account. It was Tip O’Neill, former Speaker of the House of Representatives, who once said, “All politics is local.” It must therefore follow that local media plays a central role in the functioning of our democracy. Indeed, the Opposition say that it does. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill put it, “It is the place you go for the things that matter.” The UK news media sector serves audiences on more platforms than ever, with 96% of UK adults saying they consume news in some form. However, hundreds of local newspaper titles have closed in the past two decades, a trend accelerated by the covid pandemic, and those that have survived now often operate with reduced resources and fewer journalists. Local journalism is under unprecedented pressure from corporate consolidation—as we have heard—big-tech dominance and declining revenue models. Audiences have migrated from print and broadcast to online platforms, advertising revenues have fallen, and global tech intermediaries such as Google and Meta now capture the vast majority of digital advertising income. At the same time, competition for audience attention has intensified, driven by clickbait metrics, and a growing proportion of people are disengaging from news. However, the migration to online should not be seen entirely as incompatible with vibrant local media. Indeed, the Island Echo on the Isle of Wight was established in 2012 and is entirely online. It is a successful and highly relied upon source of local news for residents on the Isle of Wight, making full use of digital opportunities, including updates via phone and tying in with some of those big social media giants such as Facebook.

   Hansard source
10. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Local Media

    The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Some of those local independent media are some of the best innovators. OnTheWight is an independent news outlet run by Simon and Sally Perry in my constituency. It started as a town-based Ventnor blog, and by using online opportunities, is now a trusted source for Isle of Wight news. The growing consolidation of local media ownership and the dominance of major companies such as Newsquest, Reach and even the BBC—whose role I will touch on later—is reshaping the local media landscape and presenting challenges. It leads to reduced local editorial staff, more standardised content produced from remote hubs and, in some cases, the disappearance of physical distribution. However, the intervention of large companies is not always problematic for local news. The Isle of Wight County Press is owned by one of those big corporates, but it is still dominated by local news that is produced by local journalists, with a local editor. Indeed, it is the biggest selling weekly local newspaper in the UK. In my constituency, there is also a newsprint-based outlet called the Isle of Wight Observer, which was launched in 2018. Its success is largely based on the weekly hardcopy paper that people pick up from the local newsagent on a Friday, showing that such outlets are thriving in many parts of the UK. It has done well by reporting on local issues and holding those in authority to account. There is nothing quite so concerning as when I get a call from the editor of the Isle of Wight Observer; I can assure Members that it causes much more anxiety, when I know that my local newspaper editors have spotted something and need clarification, than a phone call from an editor of a national media outlet, such as The Sun or The Mirror. I am sure we are all better Members for the role of local media such as the Isle of Wight Observer. Without the journalists, photographers, editors and designers who dedicate their careers to serving the communities that they know and love, who will be the first to raise concerns when something goes wrong? It is worth remarking on the fact that some of the national household names—the journalists we know today who report on current affairs, politics or sport—started their careers in local media, in local titles. Local media is a breeding ground for many of those big, successful journalists, and it is one that national outlets rely on. Local authority advertising has already been referred to by Members, including public notices and planning applications. Historically, it has provided an essential revenue stream that supports true local journalism. As councils move more notices online—indeed, the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill aims to remove the requirement to publish public notices in local newspapers—it presents a challenge in not only lost revenue but the transparency of councils’ decision making, which are of course held to account by local people understanding what is going on. Statutory notices play an important role not only online but in print, because many people, especially older people, still consume much of their local news in a hardcopy print format. The role of the BBC has also been discussed. It plays a vital role in our public service media environment, and it is also a competitor at local level. The charter review presents an opportunity for the Government to look at that relationship again. The local democracy reporting service has been successful in using the licence fee to support local news output, although the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) rightly commented on some of the challenges with, and caused by, that service. It has reached the major milestone of locally producing over 500,000 pieces of independent journalism, covering some of the information that would not ordinarily be reported on, and which may not, in basic terms, have commercial value, but again casts a light on local decision making, particularly that of local councils. The service was launched almost eight years ago. In conclusion, politics is the better for local media. It is where decision makers are held to account, and it is the medium through which people can better understand the world around them. Like anything, local media needs to adapt, but it also needs the support to do so in a rapidly changing world.

    Hansard source
11. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Engagements

    Q9. My constituent Claire runs Claire Howard Jewellery in Fakenham, and she is one of many small business owners who contacted me after the Budget last week. She was absolutely incensed by the style of the Chancellor, who seemed to give the impression that she was reducing taxes on small businesses when the exact opposite is the case. The tax on Claire’s shop is going up, not coming down. Could the Prime Minister do Claire and many other shop owners the common courtesy of just admitting that their taxes are going up and not down?

    Hansard source
12. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Official Secrets Act and Espionage

    The report says that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, apparently had very “limited” engagement about the case. In contrast, one of his predecessors, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, with whom I worked in the Ministry of Defence, said he “would have expected to be involved intimately in the provision of the Government evidence”. Why was Jonathan Powell—and Lord Hermer, for that matter, who is described in the report as being “not proactive”—so passive on a matter of national security and alleged spying on Members of this House?

    Hansard source
13. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·James Wild

    Pension Schemes Bill

    Before speaking to new clauses 24 and 25 and amendments 14, 15 and 16, I shall begin by reiterating the position adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury—he is not here today, as the Minister acknowledged—which is that we support many of the planned changes in the Bill because, fundamentally, we all want a pensions system that is more accessible to the average person and gives all our constituents dignity in retirement. We want to see a Bill that helps make the system work better, and some of its measures will undoubtedly do that. Equally, the higher-tax Budget, of which the Minister was a controlling mind, is relevant. We know from media reports that he feels passionately about the Budget—he used industrial language that is perhaps more expected from industry than from a think-tanker, and it is certainly not for the Chamber. We also know that, because of the briefings that appeared in the press, hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions prematurely, damaging their savings income as a result. The Budget also increases taxes on pension contributions. Taxing people’s incomes, savings and pensions more is the wrong political choice. There is much in the Bill that we agree with, but some fundamental issues remain. Arguably the most pressing issue is the fact that the Bill does not address pensions adequacy. Research from Pensions UK shows that over 50% of savers will fail to meet the retirement incomes set by the Pensions Commission. The simple, uncomfortable truth is that this will affect millions of people, and that is despite the introduction of auto-enrolment and the triple lock introduced under the last Conservative Government. The Bill was an opportunity to do more, but it does not currently do so. We are therefore giving the Government another chance through new clause 25, which would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review within five years and to recommend further measures. We recognise that the second phase of the pension review is ongoing, and we have faith in Baroness Drake to lead that review, but we have concerns that it will not report until 2027. We maintain that this part of the pensions review should be fast-tracked, so could the Minister at least clarify in which quarter of 2027 we can expect that report to be published? Amendment 14 would change the wording on the eligibility conditions for new entrant pathway relief back to the form it was in when the Bill was first introduced. This means that schemes would qualify for relief if they simply demonstrated strong growth potential and an ability to innovate. All of us on these Benches understand the economies of scale and agree on the need for them, but we have concerns about the changes to the eligibility requirements. The benefit of the existing market is that its diversity provides choice, creates competition and incentivises innovation. As it stands, though, the Bill will disadvantage niche or boutique funds. Specifically, if the amendment made in Committee is enacted, existing companies that previously qualified for the pathway will now be excluded. An example is Penfold, whose workplace pension was launched in 2022 and has grown quickly to over £1 billion of assets under management, tripling the rate since the start of 2024. Even with this trajectory, the timing of the scale test gives insufficient time to reach the £10 billion threshold for the transition pathway. We therefore agree with the chief executive officer of Penfold when he said: “The original drafting created the scale that everyone agrees is vital, while still leaving room for challengers to innovate without the threat of a hard scale deadline that deters private investment”. He is right. These are exactly the type of businesses that the Government should be supporting. I shall turn now to the issue of indexation to pre-1997 pensionable service. We all want pensioners to have dignity in retirement, but when people have done the right thing by putting money in their pension and it is not followed through, that does not give pensioners the dignity they deserve. The issue around the pre-1997 indexation is also time-sensitive, like the infected blood scandal, and the longer the can is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, sadly. We therefore broadly welcome the Minister’s commitment to taking primary powers through Government new clauses 31, 32 and 33. Our new clause 24 was seeking to achieve a similar outcome. We pay tribute to the lobbying from groups including the Pensions Action Group and the Deprived Pensioners Association. Also, my hon. Friend the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury wanted to acknowledge our right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for his continued representations on this issue. The Minister has already been pressed by a number of Members about the concerns of organisations, such as the Esso Pensioners Working Group, that want to understand further how the Government will ensure that these groups are not forgotten. Finally, I want to turn to the part of the Bill with which we have our most fundamental disagreement: namely, the part that deals with mandation. Amendment 15 would prevent the use of the reserve mandation powers until the Government produced a report on the reasons why the powers were needed and the effects of the use of such powers, and resolved any issues raised in that report. It simply asks the Government to undertake an analysis of the barriers that pension funds are facing, rather than rushing to use mandation as perfectly reasonable. Amendment 16 would remove the power altogether.

    Hansard source
14. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Helen Whately

    Pension Schemes Bill

    As this Bill nears the end of its journey through our House, I take a moment to acknowledge some of the people who have played their part, whether that is former Pensions Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), the former hon. Member for Hexham, my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who cannot be with us today, or my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who also cannot be here today. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) did such a brilliant job speaking earlier this afternoon. I also thank the hard-working members of the Bill Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). Many civil servants will have worked on this Bill and pensions experts will have contributed, and I thank them all for their hard work and expertise. May I also finally offer congratulations to the current Pensions Minister, the lucky one who gets to be here to see this Bill off to the other place? We on the Conservative Benches do not agree with all of the Bill, but there is a lot in it that we do welcome, particularly the parts that the Minister inherited from us, including the consolidation of fragmented pension pots, the introduction of the value for money framework and the pensions dashboard. Those will help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns. We also welcome the Government’s amendment of the Bill, reflecting our new clause, to index pre-1997 pensions, for which there was significant consensus across the House. That will provide some dignity for pensioners who have seen their pensions eroded over the years, and we hope that the Government continue to work with campaign groups to see that through. I also thank my right hon. Friends the Members for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) for their representations on that. The Bill also has some serious flaws. Nestled within the sensible reforms that the Government inherited is a power that no Government should wield: the power to mandate how pension funds invest. Today, the job of a pension fund manager is to make the best possible decisions for their fund members about where to invest. Their sole objective is the interests of those members. That is their legal duty, and mandation would change that, because mandation means the Government will be able to tell pension funds how to invest their assets. We should not for a minute underestimate the significance of that. Ministers have insisted it is merely a backstop and a tool they hope never to use, but a threat made just in case is still a threat, and pension trustees know it. I say to the Pensions Minister that a Minister should always consider the worst thing that someone else might do in their position—in essence, “I am not a bad man, but what might a bad man do?” He might be confident that he would not abuse the power, but what if someone else had it? Those in the pensions sector do not support this plan. Earlier in the year the Minister told them to “chillax”. He may be intensely relaxed, but I must say to him that he is also intensely wrong. Trustees are the custodians of people’s life savings. They are not there to carry out manifesto pledges or pet projects, and the Minister should not put himself or any future pensions Minister in a position to tell them to do so. Instead of forcing pension funds to invest in the UK, Ministers should ask why they have not been investing and then do something about that. Our amendment 15 gave them the opportunity to diagnose these problems and resolve them, but, as we have just seen, they voted it down. In any event, they should stop making Britain a worse place in which to do business, ramping up taxes on employment, slapping on red tape, and briefing out bad Budget news for months in advance to kill confidence in every sector of the economy. As my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) said earlier, our other concern with the Bill is the relationship between scale and innovation. We agree with the need for scale, but the Government should avoid blocking the emergence of new entrants and the scaling up of existing smaller players. Finally, there is the question of pension adequacy. While the Bill should help people to manage their pension savings and boost their returns, it falls short when it comes to tackling the serious problem of people under-saving for later life. Millions of people simply are not saving enough for old age. The Government should be acting now in this regard, rather than delaying the next phase of the pensions review and attacking pension savings at every turn. First they came for pensioners’ winter fuel payments, then they came for self-invested personal pensions, and last week they came for salary sacrifice—and that was not a small tweak. The cap on salary sacrifice will net the Treasury nearly £5 billion of extra tax revenue in 2029-30—money that would otherwise have gone into people’s pensions. We have made our points, argued our position and put amendments to a vote, so we will not be voting against the Bill on Third Reading. However, I urge the Government to listen to the wise and the many expert words that will be spoken when it is debated in the other place, and to use that opportunity to fix it.

    Hansard source
15. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Local Media

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for mentioning the Farnham Herald. The Tindle group also includes the Haslemere Herald, the Liphook Herald and the Bordon Herald. Does he agree that local papers keep politicians honest, weigh behind the key issues that matter to our local communities and deliver real journalism, whether that be sport or news. Week after week, quality journalists, who live and breathe their own towns and know their areas, are working for the people in those areas.

    Hansard source
16. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·George Freeman

    Engagements

    I was recently the target of an AI deepfake video announcing my defection to Reform. As colleagues across the House will know, that is about as likely as Reform moving from pub populism to a coherent programme for government. I am delighted to reassure my Chief Whip and the House that I am and always have been a faithful—[Laughter]—a faithful Conservative. Does the Prime Minister agree that while satire has always been an important part of our politics, the rise of AI deepfake disruption is a serious threat to our democracy? Will he work with me and cross-party MPs to frame some appropriate reforms, as proposed by the recent Speaker’s Conference, to protect our democratic integrity?

    Hansard source
17. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Local Media

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this vital debate. In my constituency, we are fortunate to have excellent local media, such as the Epping Forest Guardian newspaper and Everything Epping Forest online, which provides invaluable coverage across our district. As he alluded to, many constituents rely on local media for timely and local news. Does he agree that sustaining the local media sector is vital and that the Government should do all they can to protect that community service?

    Hansard source
18. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support

    The old adage we often hear is that there are two certainties in life—taxes and death. We spend a lot of time in this House talking about the former and very little time speaking about the latter, even though we know it will affect us; I have argued that both as a doctor and in this House since I was elected. I take my hat off to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this debate. It is so important and it will affect all of us. We are informed by the work of our constituents, so I also put on record my thanks to Mike for his incredible story and for the memory of Sarah that he has brought to this place, at the highest level, so that we can have this debate about how we can improve the condition of those in their time of greatest need. In the few minutes I have, I will distil this debate into three areas: first, the location of mental health care, secondly, the workforce and, thirdly, the plan. On the first point—I have raised this with the Minister before—hospices often provide a lot of mental health support, but they are struggling. Many are closing beds and many are in deficit. Together for Short Lives estimates that the national insurance contributions increase costs an average hospice at least £130,000. After a previous debate on hospices, I asked the Government in a letter of 10 November, to which I have not yet had a response, whether they will consider an impact assessment on the state of hospices. The National Audit Office’s report into hospices states: “DHSC and NHS England do not know what proportion of the total amount of palliative and end-of-life care provided in England is delivered by the independent adult hospice sector, and therefore how reliant they are on the sector.” That is an important point in understanding the fabric and make-up of provision, as well as the postcode lottery in provision, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) pointed out. If we want to improve provision, we need to understand what is there in the first place. To do so, we need to provide a workforce, as I also said in the letter. A letter I received from the Government on the topic of hospices stated: “This summer, we will publish a refreshed NHS long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service we will build over the next decade so that patients can be treated on time again.” I raised this issue in the November debate. We are now into December, and winter, and we still do not know when the NHS workforce plan will come forward. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that point. It is especially important given that, in the last Budget, the Government cut the proportion of spending on mental health care. At the time, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists said: “It is illogical that the share of NHS funding for mental health services is being reduced at a time of soaring need and significant staff shortages.” The previous Government brought in the mental health investment standard, but it is not clear whether this Government are adhering to it or keeping it in place. It will be important in ensuring that we have the investment to provide both the places and the workforce. I welcome the bringing forward of the palliative care framework, which Opposition Members and many others on both sides of the House have asked for. I am pleased that the Government have set that out, because it will be the framework that provides the care we need across the country. It is also timely, given that the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is going through Parliament. An amendment to the Bill, which was nodded through with support from both sides of the House, will ensure that there is a financial plan for what palliative care should look like. It will be imperative that considerations about mental health care for the terminally ill are involved in that framework. In his November debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue of a 24/7 palliative care helpline, which many across the House and many charities have asked for. In the debate—before we had heard about the framework—I asked whether that would be looked at as part of the framework, because that 24/7 point of contact could form part of the mental health support that families get when they are struggling and in their time of need. I would be grateful if the Government would consider that. I appreciate that this is not in the Minister’s brief, but I would also be grateful if he could set out how the palliative care framework will be put together. Who are the stakeholders? How can people like Mike and interested Members contribute to ensuring that we get it right? We want this House to do it only once; we want to get the framework right for England, and hopefully across the home nations as well, so it will be incredibly important that all stakeholders are involved. We in this House need to ensure that others can hold what those who are struggling find too heavy to hold. That is the essence of what we are trying to do, whichever side of the House we are on or whether, like Mike, we are outside this House. We are trying to make sure that when someone is in their time of need, and when they feel the burden is too heavy, they can hand it on to someone else, who will help to carry that load.

    Hansard source
19. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Terminal Illness: Mental Health Support

    The Minister is indeed right to say that there was an injection of cash, but the proportion of funding being spent on mental health was actually cut. The written ministerial statement is very clear that that proportion went from 8.78% to 8.71%, which the royal college said was about £300 million of investment. Can he confirm from the Dispatch Box—if he cannot, he can write to me later—whether the Government are still committed to the mental health investment standard, or is that commitment going to change? Currently, it is unclear whether they are still committed.

    Hansard source
20. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Venezuela: US Military

    On data sharing with our allies, does the Minister agree that signals intelligence and human intelligence are not a pick and mix when it comes to the Five Eyes community? Will he assure the House that we will continue to provide the information that the US needs in order to deal with Venezuelan cocaine, most of which lands up in Europe? I need not remind the Minister that cocaine deaths in this country were up by a third in 2022-23. Will he ensure that we do not apply an overly lawyerly approach in our dealings with an ally doing its best to tackle the scourge of drugs in the US and the rest of Europe, and in particular on the streets of Britain?

    Hansard source
21. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    OBR: Resignation of Chair

    I welcome the fact that the Minister has just confirmed a leak inquiry is under way at the Treasury, and I will be paying close attention to that inquiry. Richard Hughes was an outstanding public servant, and he was truly independent. Will the Minister confirm that the person the Chancellor nominates to this position has to be endorsed by the Treasury Committee? Will he commit to someone of equal independence and stature being nominated to this position?

    Hansard source
22. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Charlie Dewhirst

    Local Media

    Does the Minister agree that excellent local titles such as the Bridlington Echo, the Driffield & Wolds Weekly and The Holderness & Hornsey Gazette need support? We need to ensure that the income stream from local authority statutory notices continues, so that such thriving local titles continue into the future.

    Hansard source
23. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    OBR: Resignation of Chair

    Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to suggest that the Chancellor in any way misled anyone.

    Hansard source
24. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Official Secrets Act and Espionage

    Order. The Minister will know that he should have restricted himself to three minutes for his response. That appears to have been four and a quarter minutes.

    Hansard source
25. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Official Secrets Act and Espionage

    Order. Before I call the Minister, may I make the point to those on both Front Benches that the Minister responding to an urgent question has three minutes? The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), should have taken two minutes, and I should advise the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she has one minute. I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for managing to stay well within his two minutes. I call the Minister.

    Hansard source
26. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Caroline Nokes

    Pension Schemes Bill

    With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 31—Indexation of periodic compensation for pre-1997 service: Great Britain. Government new clause 32—Indexation of periodic compensation for pre-1997 service: Northern Ireland. Government new clause 33—Financial Assistance Scheme: indexation of payments for pre-1997 service. Government new clause 34—Exemption from public procurement rules. Government new clause 35—Funding of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund. New clause 1—Independent review into pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology who— (a) transferred their accrued pension benefits out of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) public service scheme to AEA Technology (AEAT) on privatisation in 1996, and (b) suffered financial losses when AEA Technology went into administration in 2012 and the pension scheme entered the Pension Protection Fund (PPF). (2) The review must examine— (a) the extent and causes of pension losses incurred by affected individuals, (b) the role of Government policy and representations in the transfer of pensions during the privatisation of AEA Technology, (c) the findings of the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Select Committee, (d) the adequacy of safeguards provided at the time of privatisation, (e) potential mechanisms for redress or compensation, and (f) the estimated financial cost of any such mechanisms. (3) The review must be— (a) conducted by an independent panel appointed by the Secretary of State, with relevant expertise in pensions, public policy, and administrative justice, and (b) transparent and consultative, including engagement with affected pensioners and their representatives. (4) The panel must report its findings and recommendations to the Secretary of State and lay a copy of its final report before Parliament within 12 months of its establishment. (5) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the publication of the report under subsection (4), lay before both Houses of Parliament a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that outcome.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the pension losses incurred by former employees of AEA Technology. New clause 2—Transfer of British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme investment reserve to members— “(1) Within 3 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the transfer of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme investment reserve to members of the scheme. (2) Those regulations must include— (a) a timetable for transferring the total of the investment reserve to members of the scheme, and (b) plans for commissioning an independent review into how future surplus will be shared. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to set out in regulations a timetable for transferring the whole of the BCSSS investment reserve to members and committing to review how future surplus will be shared. New clause 3—Terminal illness: means of demonstrating eligibility— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about how a person may demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes relating to compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or Financial Assistance Scheme. (2) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must seek to minimise the administrative burden placed upon the person with a terminal illness. (3) Regulations under this section must provide that, where the Department of Work and Pensions (“the Department”) holds a valid SR1 form in respect of a person seeking to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes relating to compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or Financial Assistance Scheme, the Department must share that form with the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme. (4) Regulations under this section must require the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to make the appropriate payment or payments within a specified time of receipt of a valid application.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide, by regulations, for the use of a valid SR1 form to make it easier for a person to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes related to compensation from the PPF or FAS. New clause 4—Review into investment in defence companies— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review into investment in defence companies within Local Government Pension Schemes. (2) The review must consider how the investment in defence companies— (a) impacts on, and (b) aligns with, the UK Government’s international obligations. (3) The Secretary of State must prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct a review into investment in defence companies within Local Government Pension Schemes and how that impacts and aligns with Government international obligations. New clause 5—Review into defined benefit schemes’ social impact— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, carry out a review into the social impact of defined benefit schemes. (2) The review must include an assessment of— (a) the efficacy of investment strategies in delivering social good, and (b) the potential impact of increasing investment in— (i) social housing, and (ii) green technology. (3) For the purposes of this section— “social good” means something which benefits society as a whole, and “green technology” means the use of technology and science to create environmentally-friendly products and services. (4) The Secretary of State must prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the efficacy of investment in terms of delivering social good and the benefits of directing more investment towards social housing and green technology. New clause 6—Indexation of pre-1997 service— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for indexation on compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights for members of the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme. (2) Those regulations must specify that— (a) pension payments from the PPF and FAS are increased each year in line with Consumer Prices Index (CPI) inflation for pensionable service before and after 6 April 1997, (b) where a PPF or FAS member has pensionable service prior to 6 April 1997 which has not increased each year in line with CPI inflation, but which their scheme provided for, the scheme manager must— (i) determine the annual increase attributable to that service for each year since the date on which the annual payment was first payable, and (ii) reimburse the member for the amount determined under paragraph (b)(i), and (c) increased payments must also apply to transferee members, to ill health payments and to payments to surviving dependants. (3) Regulations under this section— (a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and (b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide, through regulations, for indexation on PPF and FAS compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights. New clause 7—Report on indexation of pre-1997 Pension Protection Fund and Financial Assistance Scheme benefits— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on options for providing indexation to pension rights relating to pre-1997 service in the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS). (2) The report must consider— (a) the current absence of indexation on pre-1997 accrued rights and the financial impact on affected pensioners; (b) the number of pensioners affected and the mortality rates since the establishment of FAS and PPF, including evidence from the Pensions Action Group; (c) the feasibility of introducing indexation, in full or in part, for pre-1997 rights; (d) the potential use of scheme reserves, including residual funds from failed schemes transferred into the FAS, and the implications for taxpayers; (e) the urgency of reform given the age profile of affected members and the social impact of frozen incomes; (f) alternative funding mechanisms that could deliver indexation without undermining the sustainability of the PPF; and (g) comparative approaches to legacy benefit indexation in other jurisdictions. (3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult— (a) the Pensions Regulator, (b) the Pension Protection Fund, (c) representatives of Financial Assistance Scheme members, (d) the Pensions Action Group, and (e) such other stakeholders as the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report examining options for addressing the lack of indexation on pre-1997 pensionable service in the PPF and FAS, with particular regard to evidence provided by the Pensions Action Group, mortality data, scheme reserves, and the urgency of the issue. New clause 8—Universal Pension Advice Entitlement— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a system to ensure that every individual has a right to receive free, impartial pension advice at prescribed times. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide for individuals to be offered advice— (a) at or around the age of 40; and (b) at a prescribed age, not more than six years before the individual's expected retirement age. (3) The regulations must make provision about— (a) the content and scope of the free, impartial pension advice, which may include, but is not limited to, guidance on— (i) pension types (including both defined contribution and defined benefit schemes), (ii) investment strategies, (iii) charges, (iv) consolidation of pension pots, and (v) retirement income options; (b) the qualifications, independence, and impartiality requirements for any person or body providing advice; (c) the means by which individuals are notified of their entitlement to receive the advice and how they may access it; (d) the roles and responsibilities of pension scheme trustees, managers, and providers in facilitating access to advice; (e) the sharing member information with prescribed persons or bodies subject to appropriate data protection safeguards. (4) Regulations under this section may— (a) make different provision for different descriptions of pension schemes or different descriptions of individuals; (b) confer functions in connection with the provision or oversight of the advice on— (i) the Pensions Regulator, (ii) the Financial Conduct Authority, (iii) the Money and Pensions Service, or (iv) other prescribed bodies; (c) require the provision of funding for the advice service from prescribed sources. (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause makes provision by regulations for everyone to receive free, impartial pension advice at age 40 and again around five years before their expected retirement. New clause 10—Independent review of forfeiture of survivor pensions in police pension schemes— “(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review into the impact and fairness of provisions within police pension schemes that result in the forfeiture, reduction, or suspension of survivor pensions on the grounds of— (a) remarriage or entry into a civil partnership by the surviving partner of a deceased scheme member; or (b) cohabitation with another person as if married or in a civil partnership. (2) The review must examine— (a) the legal and policy basis for such provisions; (b) the financial, social, and emotional impact on affected individuals and families; (c) consistency with other public sector pension schemes, including schemes for— (i) the Armed Forces, (ii) the NHS, and (iii) the civil service; (d) potential options for reform, including retrospective reinstatement of pensions; (e) any other matters the Secretary of State considers relevant. (3) The Secretary of State must— (a) appoint an independent person or panel with relevant legal, pensions, and public policy expertise to conduct the review; and (b) publish the terms of reference no later than three months after this Act is passed. (4) The person or panel appointed under subsection (3) must— (a) consult with relevant stakeholders, including— (i) the National Association of Retired Police Officers (NARPO), (ii) survivor pension recipients, (iii) police staff associations, and (iv) pensions experts; (b) consider written and oral evidence submitted by affected individuals; and (c) publish a report of its findings and recommendations within 12 months of appointment.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the impact and fairness of provisions within police pension schemes that result in the forfeiture, reduction, or suspension of survivor pensions. New clause 11—Independent review into state deduction in defined benefit pension schemes— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the application and impact of state deduction mechanisms in occupational defined benefit pension schemes. (2) The review must consider— (a) the origin, rationale and implementation of state deduction in the Midland Bank Staff Pension Scheme, (b) the clarity and adequacy of member communications regarding state deduction from inception to present, (c) the differential impact of state deduction on pensioners with varying salary histories, including an assessment of any disproportionate effects on— (i) lower-paid staff, and (ii) women, (d) comparisons with other occupational pension schemes in the banking and public sectors, and (e) the legal, administrative, and financial feasibility of modifying or removing state deduction provisions, including potential mechanisms for redress. (3) The Secretary of State must ensure that the person or body appointed to conduct the review— (a) is independent of HSBC Bank plc and its associated pension schemes; (b) possesses relevant expertise in pensions law, occupational pension scheme administration, and equality and fairness in retirement income; and (c) undertakes appropriate consultation with— (i) affected scheme members, (ii) employee representatives, (iii) pension experts, and (iv) stakeholder organisations. (4) The person or body conducting the review must— (a) submit a report on its findings to the Secretary of State within 12 months of the date the review is commissioned; and (b) the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and publish the report in full. (5) Within three months of laying the report before Parliament, the Secretary of State must publish a written response setting out the Government’s proposed actions, if any, in response to the report’s findings and recommendations. (6) For the purposes of this section— “state deduction” means any provision within a defined benefit occupational pension scheme that reduces pension entitlements by reference to the member reaching state pension age or by reference to any state pension entitlement; “defined benefit pension scheme” has the meaning given in section 181 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993; “Midland Bank Staff Pension Scheme” includes all associated legacy arrangements and any successor schemes administered by HSBC Bank Pension Trust (UK) Ltd.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into clawback provisions in occupational defined benefit pension schemes, in particular, the Midland Bank staff pension scheme. New clause 12—Section 40 commencement— “(1) The provisions in section 40 shall not come into force except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. (2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require that the provisions in clause 40 could only be enacted once agreed through secondary legislation. New clause 13—Targeted Advice Access for Under-Saving Cohorts— “(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to provide enhanced access to pension advice or guidance for cohorts identified as under-saving for retirement. (2) Regulations may make provision for— (a) identifying under-saving groups, including but not limited to— (i) women, (ii) ethnic minority groups, and (iii) others affected by long-term pay or pension gaps; (b) mechanisms to fund and deliver targeted support; (c) reporting and evaluation requirements to assess take-up and effectiveness. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause allows for the creation of targeted pension advice or guidance interventions for groups at risk of under-saving for retirement. New clause 14—Cap on cost of advice for pension holders— “(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations introduce a cap on the cost recoverable for providing pension advice per pension holder under any scheme operating free or subsidised advice. (2) The cap may vary depending on— (a) the value of the pension pot; (b) the type of pension scheme; (c) the complexity of advice required. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause enables the introduction of a cost ceiling for advice provision to members of pension schemes. New clause 15—Independent review into the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, commission an independent review into the treatment of members of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme (BCSSS). (2) The review must consider— (a) the origin and operation of the Government’s surplus-sharing arrangements with the BCSSS since 1994, (b) the adequacy of communication to scheme members regarding the use of surpluses, (c) the impact of the Government’s retention of scheme reserves on members’ retirement income, (d) representations made by the Trustees of the BCSSS calling for reserves to be released to members, and (e) options for reforming how any future surpluses in the BCSSS are shared between the Government and scheme members. (3) The person or body appointed to conduct the review must— (a) be independent of the Government and the BCSSS Trustees, (b) possess relevant expertise in pensions law and scheme administration, and (c) consult with affected members, Trustees, pension experts, and stakeholder organisations. (4) The review must report to the Secretary of State within 12 months of being commissioned, and the Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament and publish it in full. (5) Within three months of publication, the Secretary of State must publish the Government’s response to the review’s findings.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review into the treatment of members of the British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme, including the handling of scheme reserves and future surplus-sharing arrangements. New clause 16—Report on Pension Scheme Eligibility and Access— “(1) The Secretary of State shall, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report into the operation of occupational pension schemes where certain categories of employees have been excluded on the basis of job classification or employment start date. (2) The report must examine the case of employees and former employees of Fife Joinery Manufacturing (a subsidiary of Velux), including— (a) whether affected workers were provided with opportunity to join existing pension schemes, (b) the adequacy of record-keeping and employer accountability, and (c) potential remedies to ensure equal access to workplace pensions.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the Velux Pensions case. New clause 17—Clarification of pension scheme investment duties— “(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows. (2) In section 36 (Choosing investments), after subsection (9), insert— “(10) Regulations under subsection (1) must provide— (a) that when interpreting the best interest or sole interests of members and beneficiaries for the purposes of this section and the regulations, the trustees of a trust scheme may (amongst other matters) take the following into account— (i) system-level considerations, (ii) the reasonably foreseeable impacts over the appropriate time horizon of the assets or organisations in which the trust scheme invests upon prescribed matters, including upon members’ and beneficiaries’ standards of living, and (iii) the views of members and beneficiaries; (b) that investment powers or discretions must be exercised in a manner that considers and manages the matters specified in subsection (10)(a)(i) and (ii) where they are financially material; and (c) a prescribed definition of the term “appropriate time horizon” for these purposes. (11) For the purposes of this section, “system-level considerations” means, over the appropriate time horizon, risks and opportunities relevant to the scheme that— (a) cannot be fully managed through diversification alone, and (b) arise from circumstances at the level of one or more economic sectors, financial markets or economies, including but not limited to those relating to environmental or social matters. (12) Regulations under subsection (1) must come into force no more than one year after the passing of the Pension Schemes Act 2025. (13) In complying with requirements imposed by this section and regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by the Secretary of State.” (3) The Financial Conduct Authority must make general rules with effects corresponding to the provisions of subsection (1) for providers of pension schemes to which Part 7A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (inserted by section 48 of this Act) applies. (4) The Secretary of State must make regulations with effects corresponding to the provisions of subsection (1) for scheme managers of the Local Government Pension Scheme. (5) The rules and regulations under subsections (3) and (4) must come into force no later than the date on which regulations pursuant to section 36(10) of the Pensions Act 1995 (as amended by this Act) come into force.” This new clause gives the Secretary of State a duty to make regulations clarifying investment duties of occupational pension schemes, including system-level considerations and other matters including impacts of investee firms, beneficiaries’ standards of living and views. It also imposes duties on the FCA and the Secretary of State to make corresponding rules and regulations for workplace personal pension schemes and the Local Government Pension Scheme respectively. New clause 18—Report on indexation of pre-1997 benefits— “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on whether the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme should provide indexation on compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights, where pension schemes provided for that. (2) The report must consider— (a) the potential benefits for affected pensioners; (b) approaches of occupational pension schemes to indexation of pre-1997 benefits; (c) the impact on compensation schemes’ surpluses and on public finances; (d) international approaches to indexation of legacy pension benefits. (3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on whether the PPF and FAS should provide indexation on compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights, where scheme rules provided for that. New clause 19—Fossil fuels and climate change risk— “(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows. (2) In section 41A (Climate change risk), after subsection (6) insert— “(6A) Regulations under subsection (1) must, within 1 year of the Pension Schemes Act 2025 receiving Royal Assent, prohibit the trustees or managers of schemes of a prescribed description from holding relevant assets. (6B) The relevant assets in subsection (6A) are issuance by issuers which, in relation to thermal coal— (a) derive 10% or more of annual revenue from its production, transport or combustion, (b) produce annually 10 million tonnes or more, or (c) have 5GW or more of power generation capacity. (6C) Within 2 years of the Pensions Act 2025 receiving Royal Assent, and every 3 years thereafter, the Secretary of State must carry out and publish a review on whether the definition of relevant assets should be extended to include— (a) issuance by issuers which, in relation to thermal coal, derive a smaller proportion of revenue, produce a smaller amount or have a smaller amount of power generation capacity than the proportion and amounts specified in (6B), (b) some or all new issuance by issuers of a prescribed description deriving a prescribed proportion or amount of their revenue from the extraction, transport, trading or combustion of prescribed fossil fuels, or (c) some or all new or existing issuance by issuers of a prescribed description investing a prescribed proportion or amount in exploring for, or expanding the extraction of, prescribed fossil fuels. (6D) Regulations under subsection (1) may implement the conclusions of the review referred to in (6C).” (3) In subsection (8), at end insert— ““thermal coal” means coal and lignite used in the generation of electricity and in providing heat for industrial or residential purposes; “issuance” means all investable assets, including equity and debt.” (4) The Financial Conduct Authority must make general rules with effects corresponding to the provisions of subsection (1) for providers of pension schemes to which Part 7A of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (inserted by section 48 of this Act) applies. (5) The Secretary of State must make regulations with effects corresponding to the provisions of subsection (1) for scheme managers of the Local Government Pension Scheme. (6) The rules and regulations under subsections (4) and (5) must come into force no later than the date on which regulations pursuant to section 41A(6A) of the Pensions Act 1995 (as amended by this Act) come into force.” This new clause would require Government and the FCA to make regulations and rules restricting exposure of some occupational and workplace personal schemes to thermal coal investments and to regularly review whether the restrictions should be extended to other fossil fuel investments. New clause 20—Pensions and savings advice allowance— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a tax-free pensions and savings advice allowance which individuals between the ages of 30 and 50 can withdraw from their pensions to access financial advice. (2) Regulations must specify— (a) the maximum amount for the pensions and savings advice allowance, (b) the content and scope of the pensions and savings advice, (c) the qualifications and independence requirements of any person or body providing pensions and savings advice, (d) the means by which individuals are notified of their entitlement to the pensions and savings advice allowance and how they may access— (i) the allowance, and (ii) advisers who meet the requirements under subsection (2)(c), (e) the roles and responsibilities of pension scheme trustees, managers, and providers in facilitating access to the pensions and savings advice allowance, and (f) whether the pensions and savings advice allowance counts towards the Individual Lump Sum Allowance. (3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to introduce, by regulations, a pensions and savings advice allowance which individuals between the ages of 30 and 50 can withdraw from their pension savings tax-free to access appropriate financial advice. New clause 21—Significant life event lump sum— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a significant life event lump sum of up to £5,000 which a person is entitled to before they attain normal pension age. (2) The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which, and conditions subject to which, a person may become entitled to a significant life event lump sum, including— (a) purchasing a first home; (b) getting married; (c) unexpected loss of employment. (3) The regulations must specify that the significant life event lump sum counts towards the Individual Lump Sum allowance. (4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce, by regulations, a significant life event lump sum of up to £5,000 tax-free which individuals can take from their lump sum allowance prior to reaching pension age. New clause 22—Indexation of pre-1997 pensions— “(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows. (2) In Section 51 (Annual increase in rate of pension), omit subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c)(ii). (3) In subsection (2), leave out from “pensionable service,” to “or”. (4) In subsection (2), leave out from “commencement day]” to “—". (5) In subsection (2)(b), leave out from “pensionable service” to “, so much of”. (6) In subsection (4ZE), leave out from “pensionable service” to “in subsections (3) to (4ZD)”. (7) In subsection (5)(a), leave out “6 April 1997 or”. (8) In subsection (8)(a) and (b), leave out “at any time on or after 6 April 1997”.” This new clause would remove references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of the Pensions Act 1995 in order to require that annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI apply to pensionable service both before and after 6 April 1997. New clause 23—Indexation of pre-1997 service— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the use of Pension Protection Fund surplus/reserve funds for the indexation on compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights for members of the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme. (2) Those regulations must specify that— (a) pension payments from the PPF and FAS are increased each year in line with Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation for pensionable service before and after 6 April 1997, (b) the cap on the annual increase is raised to 7%, (c) where a PPF or FAS member has pensionable service prior to 6 April 1997 which has not increased each year in line with RPI inflation, the scheme manager must— (i) determine the annual increase attributable to that service for each year since the date on which the annual payment was first payable, and (ii) reimburse the member for the amount determined under paragraph (c)(i), and (d) payments made to reimburse members under paragraph (c)(ii) must be made from Pension Protection Fund surplus funds and future funds. (3) Regulations under this section— (a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and (b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide, through regulations, for indexation on PPF and FAS compensation in respect of pre-1997 rights, for indexation to follow RPI inflation with a cap of 7%, and for retrospective payments to be funded from PFI surplus and/or reserve funds. New clause 24—Indexation of pre-1997 pensions— “(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows. (2) In Section 51 (Annual increase in rate of pension), omit subsections (1)(b) and (1)(c)(ii). (3) In subsection (2), after “52” insert “52A”. (4) In subsection (2), leave out from “pensionable service,” to “or,”. (5) In subsection (2), leave out from “commencement day]” to “—”. (6) In subsection (2)(b), leave out from “pensionable service” to “, so much of”. (7) In subsection (4ZE), leave out from “pensionable service” to “in subsections (3) to (4ZD)”. (8) In subsection (5)(a), leave out “6 April 1997 or”. (9) In subsection (8)(a) and (b), leave out “at any time on or after 6 April 1997”. (10) After Section 52 (Restriction on increase where member is under 55) insert— “52A Restriction on increase where a pension scheme is not in surplus No increase under section 51 in the annual rate of a pension shall not be paid or shall not be paid in full unless the pension scheme is in surplus.”” This new clause would remove references to 6 April 1997 from section 51 of the Pensions Act 1995 to require that annual increases to pension payments in line with CPI and RPI apply to pensionable service both before and after 6 April 1997, with the restriction that annual increases would only be paid if the pension scheme is in surplus. New clause 25—Review of impact of this Act— “(1) Within five years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes. (2) The review must consider— (a) the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes, and (b) whether further measures are needed to ensure that pension scheme members receive an adequate income in retirement. (3) The Secretary of State must prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.” This new clause would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of this Act on retirement incomes and whether additional measures are needed to ensure the adequacy of retirement incomes. New clause 26—Establishment of targeted investment vehicles for pension funds— “(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for the establishment or facilitation of one or more investment vehicles through which pension schemes may invest for targeted social or economic benefit. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify the descriptions of targeted social or economic benefit to which the investment vehicles are to contribute, which may include, but are not limited to, investment in— (a) projects that revitalise high street areas; (b) initiatives demonstrating social benefit; (c) affordable or social housing development; (d) capital projects that meet essential public needs, such as care homes; (e) clean, renewable energy projects. (3) The regulations must make provision for— (a) the types of pension schemes eligible to participate in such investment vehicles; (b) the governance, oversight, and reporting requirements for the investment vehicles and participating pension schemes; (c) the means by which the contribution of such investments to targeted social or economic benefit is measured and reported; (d) the roles and responsibilities of statutory bodies, including the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority, in authorising, regulating, or supervising such investment vehicles and the participation of pension schemes within them. (4) The regulations may— (a) make different provision for different descriptions of pension schemes, investment vehicles, or targeted social or economic benefits; (b) provide for the pooling of assets from multiple pension schemes within such vehicles; (c) require pension scheme trustees or managers to have regard to the availability and suitability of investment vehicles when formulating investment strategies, where consistent with— (i) their fiduciary duties, and (ii) the long-term value for money for members. (5) In this Chapter, "pension scheme" has the same meaning as in section 1(5) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993.” This new clause would allow the Secretary of State to establish investment funds to encourage investment in areas such as high streets, social housing, care homes, clean renewable energy, and other investments with clear social benefits. New clause 27—Review of proposed mandated investment powers and their impacts— “(1) The Secretary of State must, before making any regulations under this Act relating to mandated investment requirements for pension schemes, lay before Parliament a report reviewing the potential impacts of such powers. (2) The report under subsection (1) must include an assessment of— (a) the extent to which any mandated investment requirements may conflict with the fiduciary duties of trustees and managers of occupational and personal pension schemes; (b) the potential effects of such requirements on the long-term financial returns of scheme members, including— (i) risks relating to illiquid or politically directed assets, (ii) risks to diversification, and (iii) any expected increase in costs borne by savers; (c) the risk that mandated investment requirements could lead to politicisation of pension scheme decisions or undermine public confidence in the private pension system; (d) the adequacy of parliamentary oversight and scrutiny of the exercise of powers to mandate investment allocations, including whether additional safeguards are required; (e) the question of accountability in circumstances where mandated investments perform below expectations, including whether liability would rest with trustees, fund managers, or the Government; (f) the potential for market distortion arising from requirements that schemes invest in specific UK-based assets, including the risk of asset inflation or the creation of investment bubbles; and (g) alternative policy measures that could encourage pension scheme investment in the United Kingdom without the use of mandatory requirements, including the removal of regulatory barriers and the creation of suitable investment opportunities. (3) The report must include a summary of views received from— (a) industry bodies representing pension schemes, trustees, and fund managers; (b) relevant financial regulators; and (c) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate. (4) The Secretary of State must publish a response addressing the findings and any recommendations contained in the report. (5) No regulations requiring pension schemes to meet mandated investment allocations may be made under this Act until the report under subsection (1) has been laid before Parliament and the response under subsection (4) has been published.” This new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the potential effects of mandated investment powers including on risks to returns, fiduciary duties, market distortion, and accountability before any powers can be exercised. New clause 28—Pension Protection Fund: members who have not attained normal pension age at assessment date— “(1) Schedule 7 of the Pensions Act 2004 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (7). (2) In sub-paragraph 3(3), for “the appropriate percentage” substitute “100%”. (3) Omit sub-paragraph 3(4). (4) In sub-paragraph 11(3), for “90%” substitute “100%”. (5) In sub-paragraph 14(3), for “90%” substitute “100%”. (6) In sub-paragraph 15(3), for “90%” substitute “100%”. (7) In sub-paragraph 19(3), for “90%” substitute “100%”. (8) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the retrospective payment of compensation to PPF members, as if the amendments made by this section to Schedule 7 of the Pensions Act 2004 had had effect on the day on which that Schedule came into force.” This new clause would provide that pension scheme members who have not reached Normal Pension Age by the Pension Protection Fund assessment date receive compensation at a rate of 100% instead of 90%, and provides for retrospective application. New clause 29—Pension Protection Fund: estimate of cost of increasing compensation for surviving spouses or partners of members— “(1) The Pension Protection Fund (PPF) must prepare and publish an annual estimate of the cost of increasing the value of compensation paid to surviving spouses or partners of PPF members to a sum equivalent to the value of any payments to which they would have been entitled had the scheme not entered the PPF. (2) The first assessment under this section must be published before the end of the 2025/26 financial year.” This new clause would require the Pension Protection fund (PPF) to publish annually an assessment of the costs of increasing compensation to the spouses or partners of PPF members to equal the amount they would have received if the pension scheme had not entered the PPF. New clause 36—Local Government Pension Scheme: expenses and duties of administering authorities— “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for— (a) a cap on the management expenses that can be claimed by administering authorities, such that they do not exceed ten basis points of the asset base of the pension fund, (b) a cap on the investment management expenses that can be claimed by administering authorities, such that they do not exceed five basis points of the asset base of the pension fund, (c) a cap on the general administrative expenses that can be claimed by administering authorities, such that they do not exceed five basis points of the asset base of the pension fund. (2) Regulations under this section must also require administering bodies to provide to the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board— (a) evidence that they have considered and acted on any guidance issued by the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board, and (b) evidence of the steps that they have taken to comply with their fiduciary duties in respect of pension scheme members and Scheme employers. (3) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the Local Government Pension Scheme Advisory Board. (4) In this section— “administering authorities” has the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013, and “Scheme employer” has the meaning given by Schedule 1 to the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013.” Amendment 1, in clause 1, page 3, line 7, at end insert “, or (b) secure employee representation on the company’s board.” This amendment would add employee representation on boards as a requirement on asset pool companies for Local Government Pension Schemes within the scheme regulations under clause 1. Government amendments 20 and 21. Amendment 2, in clause 2, page 4, line 7, at end insert— “(ba) the funds or other assets for which a scheme manager is responsible (other than money needed for making payments under the scheme from the pension fund maintained by that scheme manager) should be invested in a way that is compliant with the UK’s duty not to aid or assist serious breaches of international law, including genocide and other atrocity crimes, and illegal military occupation.” This amendment would require that investments of the local government pension scheme should be compliant with the UK’s duty not to aid or assist serious breaches of international law. Amendment 3, page 4, line 7, at end insert— “(ba) the funds or other assets for which a scheme manager is responsible (other than money needed for making payments under the scheme from the pension fund maintained by that scheme manager) must be divested from any oil and gas companies within 5 years of the passing of this Act.” This amendment would require that local government pension schemes divest from oil and gas companies within 5 years. Government amendments 22 and 23. Amendment 17, in clause 9, page 9, line 25, leave out from “does” to the end of line 25 and insert “apply to a scheme that is being wound up unless the trustees determine by resolution that it shall not apply.” This amendment would ensure that the principles for surplus extraction shall also apply to surplus release after further wind-up, so that employers are not incentivised to wind-up funds rather than release surplus to pensioners. Amendment 18, in clause 10, page 10, line 21, after “notified” insert “and consulted” This amendment would ensure that members of pension funds have to be consulted on surplus extraction. Amendment 4, page 10, line 36, at end insert— “(e) about the proportion of any surplus that may be allocated, or the manner in which it may be determined, for the purpose of contributing to the provision of free, impartial pension advice and guidance services for scheme members.” This amendment enables a proportion of surplus funds to be used to fund free pension advice. Amendment 19, page 10, line 36, at end insert— “(e) that the trustees are satisfied that it is in the interests of the members that the power to pay surplus is exercised in the manner proposed; (f) that the trustees have taken full account of— (i) the extent to which members’ pensions have kept up with the cost of living and inflation (as defined in the relevant rules and deeds), and (ii) any previously rejected requests for discretionary pension increases.” This amendment would reinstate the current requirement that ensures trustees consent to the paying of surplus as proposed, and creates an obligation on trustees to take account of any erosion in members’ standards of living. Amendment 5, in clause 11, page 11, line 38, at end insert— “(aa) make, publish and keep under review the consistency of— (i) regulated VFM schemes, or (ii) regulated VFM arrangements, with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy;” This amendment would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement. Amendment 6, page 11, line 38, at end insert— “(aa) make, publish and keep under review the compliance of— (i) regulated VFM schemes, or (ii) regulated VFM arrangements, with statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges by water and sewerage undertakers,” This amendment would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the compliance of water and sewerage companies they invest in with targets for reducing sewage discharges. Amendment 7, page 12, line 10, at end insert— “(d) publish or share with prescribed persons, for the purpose of enabling VFM assessments to be made, prescribed categories of information (referred to as “climate alignment metric data”) regarding the scheme’s exposure to climate-related financial risks and the alignment of its investments with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy.” This amendment, with Amendment 5 would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement. Amendment 8, page 12, line 10, at end insert— “(d) publish or share with prescribed persons, for the purpose of enabling VFM assessments to be made, prescribed categories of information (referred to as “sewage discharge compliance data”) regarding the scheme’s exposure to, and investment in, companies holding permits to discharge sewage, including those companies’ performance against statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges.” This amendment, with Amendment 6, would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the compliance of water and sewerage companies they invest in with targets for reducing sewage discharges. Amendment 9, page 12, line 41, leave out “that provides money purchase benefits” This amendment, together with Amendment 10, would ensure that the value for money provisions introduced by this Bill apply to all occupational pension schemes. Amendment 10, page 13, line 5, at end insert— “(14) Value for money regulations may make different provision for different descriptions of relevant pension schemes and must make provision for the application of the value for money assessment with a VFM rating to defined benefit occupational pension schemes.” This amendment, together with Amendment 9, would ensure that the value for money provisions introduced by this Bill apply to all occupational pension schemes. Amendment 11, in clause 13, page 14, line 13, at end insert— “(iv) the consistency of the investment portfolio with the goals of the Paris Agreement on climate change and clean energy, including metrics for assessing climate-related financial risks and opportunities;” This amendment would require pension funds and managers to show whether their portfolio investments are consistent with the Paris Agreement. Amendment 12, page 14, line 13, at end insert— “(iv) the compliance of the investment portfolio with statutory and regulatory targets for reducing sewage discharges by water and sewerage undertakers, including metrics for assessing related environmental and financial risks and opportunities;” This amendment would require pension funds and managers to monitor and report on the performance of water and sewerage companies they invest in against targets for reducing sewage discharges. Government amendments 24 to 49. Amendment 16, in clause 40, page 43, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 46. This amendment would remove the ability of the Government to set mandatory asset allocation targets for certain pension schemes, specifically requiring investments in UK productive assets such as private equity, private debt, and real estate. Amendment 15, page 46, line 9, leave out from “Before” to the end of the subsection and insert “implementing the first set of regulations under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must— (a) prepare and publish a report regarding— (i) what barriers pension funds, based in the United Kingdom, are facing that are preventing them from investing back into the United Kingdom due to— (A) legislation introduced after The Pensions Act 1995; (B) regulations introduced by the Financial Conduct Authority, Prudential Regulation Authority, HM Treasury, or Bank of England; (C) cultural and market behaviours; (ii) how financial interests of members of relevant Master Trusts and group personal pension schemes would be affected by the proposed regulations; (iii) what effects the proposed measures could be expected to have on economic growth in the United Kingdom; (iv) any other matters the Secretary of State considers appropriate; and (b) respond to any recommendations or issues raised in the report.” This amendment prevents use of the reserved mandation powers in this Bill until the Government produces a report on the reasons why the powers are needed and the effects of the use of the powers and resolves any issues raised in the report. Amendment 14, page 48, line 15, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert— “(a) The scheme in question demonstrates strong potential for growth and an ability to innovate, and” This amendment would revert the text of section 28F(2) on the eligibility conditions for new entrant pathway relief to its form in the Bill as introduced. Government amendments 50 to 85. Amendment 13, in clause 117, page 120, line 19, leave out “2035” and insert “this Parliament” This amendment provides that if section 40 is not commenced before the end of the current Parliament in respect of the insertion of certain provisions, then the insertion of those provisions would be automatically repealed at that time. Government amendments 86 to 89.

    Hansard source
27. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this important debate. Many today may claim the same, but my constituency sits right at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. We are home to Cranfield University, world renowned for cutting-edge research and technology and some of the most innovative companies in Britain, growing our economy and delivering high-value jobs for our communities. Subject to planning approval—I do not seek to influence the Minister’s decision in any way—we will soon be home to the Universal UK theme park. Universal will welcome more than 8 million visitors to our part of Bedfordshire every year, bringing in £50 billion to the UK economy. Mid Bedfordshire is a constituency full of potential. That includes potential to contribute to the Government’s growth agenda, and potential to connect the growth corridor through East West Rail, which will run along the Marston Vale line and the midland main line, providing easy connectivity to the soon-to-be-expanded Luton airport, to London and right across the region. Our local economy already benefits from easy access to the M1, with major multinationals such as Amazon calling Mid Bedfordshire home. The Millbrook Proving Ground in my constituency is one of the largest vehicle testing centres in Europe, and we are a hotspot for defence technology, with the Lockheed Martin site at Ampthill delivering the next generation of equipment to keep Britain secure. To fulfil our potential, we need the Government to support Mid Bedfordshire’s role in the growth corridor. Junction 13 of the M1 desperately needs to be upgraded. It is a key point of access for Cranfield University, Millbrook Proving Ground, Amazon, the future Marston Valley development and so many other local employment centres, but without an upgrade, we risk the only sustained growth in Mid Bedfordshire unfortunately being the time stuck in traffic jams. To ensure that our rural lanes are not overwhelmed by traffic as our areas grow, we need Government assistance to unlock the long-promised M1 to A6 link road. That project will alleviate the growing problem of HGVs using rural lanes as a cut-through, and support the delivery of central Bedfordshire’s local plan. At this point, I declare an interest as a councillor on Central Bedfordshire council. My communities are desperate for new infrastructure to ensure that housing growth does not mean growing waiting lists for local services. That particularly includes a GP surgery for the new town of Wixams, for which I have campaigned since I was elected to Parliament.

    Hansard source
28. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Blake Stephenson

    Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

    That was a very helpful intervention. Local councillors in our area are crying out for Government support to deliver the growth that the Government want in our area. It would be very useful if the Minister could respond to that. To take the most advantage from Universal, our county needs to join the majority of others in establishing a local visitor economy partnership. Without an LVEP, we risk missing out on the level of local expertise needed to direct growth and reap the rewards that the significant new tourism will attract. It cannot be right for one of the largest tourist attractions in Europe to be opened in one of the only places without a tourism strategy. We also have the opportunity to deliver another fantastic local tourist attraction—the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park—but we need Government investment to unlock it. I know that Members representing Milton Keynes and Bedford might comment on that. Finally, my communities need to be assured that rail infrastructure on East West Rail and the midlands main line is fit for the needs of a growing economy—the heart of our growth corridor. That means delivering step-free access at Flitwick and Harlington stations and on the Marston Vale East West Rail line in time for Universal to open. I would welcome an opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss how we can work together on a cohesive plan that delivers for my constituents and the Government.

    Hansard source
29. 3 Dec 2025·Parliament·Alex Burghart

    Official Secrets Act and Espionage

    I thank the Joint Committee for its work. Its report is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of the China spy case. The investigation not only found “serious systemic failures and deficiencies”, but calls the Government’s handling of the matter “shambolic”, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) just said. It also found—surprise, surprise—that there was enough evidence to prosecute the alleged spies. The Committee writes that “China posed a range of threats to the United Kingdom’s national security. In our view, it is plain that, taken together, these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security.” The Labour party tried to blame the last Government for the collapse of the case, but this investigation has exposed the fact that that is plainly untrue. I was surprised to hear the Security Minister refer to the deficiencies of the 1911 Act. I draw his attention to paragraph 40 of the report; I think he probably should have read it before he came to the House. It was this Government’s incompetence that ultimately led to these two men not standing trial, and, most worryingly, the report reminds us that there may be many more such cases. Indeed, why should there not be, if foreign spies believe that they can act against this House with impunity and effective immunity? It is obvious that this Government are not prepared to stand firm. Over the past few days we have heard from the press—not from reports to the House—that the Prime Minister is about to sign off the Chinese mega-embassy in London, despite major security concerns, and that he is preparing to travel to Beijing. Will he, I wonder, have the backbone to stand up for our interests while he is there? I will ask the Security Minister three very simple and straightforward questions. First, did the Government provide the Joint Committee with the minutes of the 1 September meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser, and if not, why not? Secondly, during the many debates that we have had in the House on this matter, a number of Ministers appear to have made inaccurate and misleading statements on at least six occasions. Will the Minister ensure that corrections are made to Hansard, so that the record is straight? Thirdly, the Joint Committee has concluded, from the evidence it received, that China is a general threat to the United Kingdom’s national security; do the Government agree, and if they do, how can they justify supporting the mega-embassy?

    Hansard source
30. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ukraine

    We all want to see Ukraine, a country that has made huge sacrifices to defend its freedom, secure a peace on its own terms, but to put pressure on Putin and weaken his ability to wage war, we must go harder after the money that is fuelling his war machine. We have seen reports that Lakshmi Mittal’s company has been buying oil from Russia. When were the Government first made aware of that, and does the Foreign Secretary believe that there may be grounds for sanctions?

    Hansard source
31. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Ukraine

    I am sorry, but it is simply not good enough for the Foreign Secretary to dismiss questions by saying that sanctions are not discussed on the Floor of the House. This is a man who has profited, and a business that has profited, by buying Russian oil, thus fuelling Putin’s illegal war—a war that has caused death and destruction in Ukraine. He may have reportedly fled Britain, but will the Foreign Secretary ensure that all his business interests are thoroughly investigated, and that wider investigations are carried out to determine whether this practice is more widespread?

    Hansard source
32. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Wendy Morton

    Gaza: Humanitarian Situation

    We have heard Ministers in this House and elsewhere make claims about Israel and aid. Does the Foreign Secretary recognise the Co-ordination of Government Activities in the Territories and the Civil-Military Co-ordination Centre figures, which show that 4,200 trucks of aid are entering Gaza a week, meeting the targets agreed, as the 20-point plan is being implemented? Will she thank the COGAT team for their work in getting aid in, including those officers attacked by Hamas terrorists on 7 October who remain committed to improving the humanitarian situation in Gaza? Does she agree that the best way to ensure that more aid gets into Gaza is for the UK to work with partners to implement the international stabilisation force and to secure the elimination of Hamas?

    Hansard source
33. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Budget Resolutions

    This Government are trying to tell the public that this Budget was all about taking tough decisions to deliver change, about raising taxes to support the NHS and about pursuing growth and backing business. Those are commendable aims, but it is simply not the reality of what was delivered in the autumn Budget. This was a Budget for benefits paid for by hard-working people. Last year, taxes were hiked by £40 billion, borrowing went up, inflation went up, unemployment went up and living standards fell, but at least we were promised by the Chancellor that this was a one-off. She categorically said that she would not be coming back for more. But like the promises made during the general election, that was just not true. Then, as Halloween approached, we had briefing after briefing, that infamous press conference, markets affected and consumer spending depressed, particularly in the hospitality sector, all leading to one Cabinet Minister reportedly saying that “The handling of this budget has been a disaster from start to finish.” I wonder who that could have been. Now we have another £26 billion in tax rises to fund more welfare, because the Prime Minister lacks the backbone to stand up to Labour MPs and make the real hard choices. At the previous Budget and spending review, big promises were made to the public about how the Labour Government would solve the challenges in the NHS through a financial settlement that they said would improve patient care, including by bringing waiting times back to the 18-week standard within five years. We warned at the time that that money would be swallowed up, in large part by decisions of the Government’s own making. The then chief financial officer of NHS England said that it would go almost entirely on pay awards, national insurance contributions and drug price increases. What does Labour actually have to show for that? Elective care waiting lists have fallen by less than 2% since October last year. Meanwhile, waiting lists for community health services and diagnostic scans are rising. Waits to start cancer treatment are increasing. Trauma and orthopaedic waits are up; ophthalmology—up; neurosurgery—up; gynaecology—up. Winter pressures are growing, and long waits in A&E have hit record highs. The truth is that the Labour Government do not have a plan for the NHS; they have fallen into the classic Labour trap of thinking that issuing a press release about cutting waiting lists will magically make it so, just because they are in charge. I am afraid that is not how government works. What has the Secretary of State been focused on? A top-down reorganisation of the NHS—which not only did he not tell anyone about before the election but he explicitly said he would not do. As Conservatives, we support the principle of cutting duplication, reducing bureaucracy and saving on administration costs. The House will remember that a recent Conservative Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), reduced in a single year the number of civil servants in the Department for Health and Social Care by around one in six. Let us be clear: this is yet another announcement made by the Government without any plan for delivery. For months, not one Minister has been able to answer any of our questions about how much NHS restructuring will cost or who will be expected to cover redundancy packages. For months, integrated care boards have been warning that frontline patient services were at risk because they simply do not have the money to do what is asked of them. For months, staff were left in limbo, not knowing whether their job would still exist or for how much longer. We welcome the fact that the Budget finally provided some clarity, but shifting money between years means significant risk. The NHS is already behind on its efficiency targets. If this reorganisation falls short of its goals—no small risk given the Government’s performance—there is an even more significant shortfall to make up in future years, which will hit patient care. There are other elements of the Budget that we welcome for the health service. Focusing on improving productivity is the right thing to do, but whether the extra investment will make any difference in the grand scheme of things remains to be seen. Neighbourhood health centres can be cautiously welcomed. They build on the great success of the Conservatives’ efforts to bring care closer to where people live through the community diagnostics centre programme. However, has Labour truly learned the lessons of all the private financial initiative deals that it botched back in the 2000s, which NHS trusts are still paying for decades later? Will the Government simply move resources around or will there be genuinely innovative new ways or working, joining up services and improving the patient care experience? I hope that it is the latter, because shuffling the deck chairs into new buildings will not deliver the benefits that patients deserve. Despite those few bright spots, it simply is not right for the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and others to justify this latest tax grab by saying that it is to protect the NHS. As the NHS Confederation noted, this year’s Budget did not have a health focus. That means that we are left with a lot of unanswered questions. The Office for Budget Responsibility specifically raised two risks to health spending. The first was the doctors’ strikes, which the Health Secretary has failed to resolve, despite making that sound very easy to do when he was in opposition. I will give him credit, because he did briefly end them, for a few short months, but only by caving in to the demands of the British Medical Association, in return for no productivity or modernisation reforms. We warned him that giving in to the trade unions would only see them come back for more—and indeed, here we are, with patients and taxpayers paying the price, and no end in sight. The OBR confirmed that strikes have already cost £500 million, and warned about further strikes. Now it has been confirmed, just before Christmas—the worst time of year for it—that the doctors are out again.

    Hansard source
34. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Budget Resolutions

    Well, we did not spend tens of billions of pounds in pay rises just for the same old problem to come back. There should have been proper reform, and conditions for those pay rises, but the Government did not make that happen, and here we are again. The NHS Confederation has also warned that local services cannot continue to absorb the costs of ongoing strikes by the BMA without consequences for patient care. I pay tribute to frontline staff, who have been trying to keep everything going. I remind the Secretary of State that we have the answer: ban doctors from striking, like the Army and the police, and introduce minimum service levels, using the legislation that our Government passed. That would protect patients and taxpayers, so why won’t he do it? Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will make things much worse, because it reduces the vote threshold for calling a strike, and there will be no minimal service levels. In addition, the Government have shown that they cannot stand up to the unions. By pushing up inflation, the Budget will make it harder to reach pay settlements across the rest of the NHS workforce. Even an additional rise in NHS pay of just 1% of what the Secretary of State included in his pay review body evidence would create another £1.5 billion hole in his budget. Is he confident that he can head off wider industrial action with a 2.5% offer, especially given that benefits are rising much faster under this Government? The OBR has also raised the unknown risk of increasing drug prices. My understanding is that the spending review assumed that spending on branded medicines would rise by 25%—or £3.3 billion—between 2025-26 and 2028-29. In winding up, will the Minister clarify what happens when the negotiated price costs more than what was assumed in the spending review? The rest of the money is surely intended to be used to deliver more care and to cut waiting lists, so are frontline services at risk?

    Hansard source
35. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Budget Resolutions

    We will see what happens. It would be interesting to know exactly where the money will come from. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State just said that if the prices go up, there will be no cuts to the NHS budget, but where will the money come from? Which other part of the national health service and social care will the money come from? We will have to wait and see. The Budget last week made no mention of social care. After all, Labour’s only plan is to delay coming up with a plan for a few more years, despite the urgency and the scale of the challenge. Many of us entered the cross-party talks in really good faith, and they were encouraging, but we have only met once. Surely we should be getting on with it. The message was loud and clear that we want to work together, but we want to get on with it. Please can we have another meeting, so that we can get on with tackling this really important issue? It is not quite true to say that social care is unaffected by what was announced. The increase in the national living wage will be welcomed by those on the lowest incomes, but the Nuffield Trust estimates that it will cost the social care sector £1.2 billion. The sector is already struggling with last year’s national insurance contributions hike, so who will pay for this? Will there be funding cuts to other parts of the health budget? Will self-funders have to fork out yet more again, or will it be passed on to local authorities, inevitably leading to council tax rises? What impact will this national living wage increase have on wider pay in the sector?

    Hansard source
36. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Budget Resolutions

    I am asking the question of who is going to pay for it. There is no detail in anything this Government do. They are full of plans and no delivery. The sectors I have been meeting are asking those questions—where is the money coming from?

    Hansard source
37. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Budget Resolutions

    My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let me tell the House, from 16 years of working in the hospice movement, primarily as the head of fundraising, that if you are suddenly asked to find nearly £100,000 overnight, it is almost impossible. It is therefore not surprising that hospices up and down this country are cutting the number of beds that are available. In some instances, up to 40% of beds are being cut, and those people will end up having to be in hospital beds, putting more pressure on our hospitals as we go into winter.

    Hansard source
38. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Stuart Andrew

    Budget Resolutions

    I understood from the Secretary of State’s 10-year plan that he wants more involvement from the private sector. Perhaps the hon. Member needs to have a conversation with the Secretary of State and see how that goes. In fact, if he wants, he can invite me along, because I would be quite happy to observe that conversation. Finally, the Budget did not mention any of the issues that matter to many of our constituents, such as mental health, the hospice and palliative care sector—although I do welcome the announcement of the framework and look forward to seeing it—dentistry and general practice. What about the Government’s upcoming plans and strategies? The workforce plan is delayed. The cancer plan is delayed. The independent review of maternity and neonatal services is delayed. Nothing new was announced, suggesting that any resources to deliver those plans will have to come from existing budgets. What are this Government actually doing for the NHS—not just press releases and reviews, but actual action? It is more money without a plan for reform and no strategy to end the strikes or help patients and staff this winter. They cannot deliver the reforms to social care the country needs because the Prime Minister came into office without a plan and does not have the backbone to make the tough decisions. They are still too distracted with working out how to abolish NHS England to cut waiting lists. The Secretary of State claims Labour is investing in the NHS, but that suggests we get some kind of return on our money. It is clear that Labour does not have a plan to achieve its targets. This is a Budget where taxpayers are being asked to pay for benefits, not the NHS, and the Government need to own that. Of course, we wish them well. We want them to cut waiting lists, we want care to improve, and we want patients to get better quicker, but their actions do not match their rhetoric, and their plan is little more than an objective, with no method for getting there. For the sake of all our constituents, I hope the Health Secretary can put his leadership ambitions to one side and focus on the job he has, not the next one he wants, because if he fails to deliver, this will be his last.

    Hansard source
39. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Oliver Dowden

    Topical Questions

    Today is UAE National Day, marking 54 years since its full independence. In that time, it has become one of our nation’s staunchest allies and a key investor, benefiting constituencies up and down the country. Will the Minister join me, as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group, in congratulating the UAE and recommitting to this key strategic relationship?

    Hansard source
40. 2 Dec 2025·Parliament·Sir Julian Lewis

    Angiolini Inquiry

    The House is rightly united in horror at what happened to Sarah Everard and in sympathy for her family. Returning to an earlier exchange about vetting, which I understand will be coming up in the next stage of the Angiolini process, can the Minister tell us whether it will examine the effect of extreme pornography online and of toxic masculinity influencers online, and whether there is any prospect that a vetting process would enable people to be, at the time of recruitment, spotted as having watched this stuff and commented favourably on it, even on the dark web?

    Hansard source