5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Sir Bernard Jenkin

   UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

   May I just point out that it was as plain as day, after the exchanges between the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, that Lord Mandelson could not possibly carry on in his role? Why did the Prime Minister delay—or did he have to wait to be told what to do by Morgan McSweeney? Who is going to be the new ambassador, and how quickly will the new ambassador be appointed at this absolutely critical time, when Russia is testing the defences of NATO countries and we are showing such a weak response?

   Hansard source
2. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

   I have a query off the back of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. We heard in the evidence sessions that there is a danger that overdoing the requirements for marketing will get in the way of providing guidance. That came up directly in the response to some of our questions, I think specifically from Legal and General and Aviva. Companies are already in a position where, if they are not careful, offering guidance is considered marketing. Therefore, they do have their hands tied by existing legislation. I am slightly intrigued why this new clause has been tabled, given that Liberal Democrat colleagues will have also heard that evidence. More work is needed on this issue than just adding a new clause to the Bill; I heard from the hon. Member for Hendon that there is a consultation. Although I understand the point about protecting vulnerable customers from scamming, I feel the evidence we heard demonstrates that more work is needed, work that is not included in the Bill, to make sure that pension companies are able to advertise in such a way that they can play their part in the guidance process that we have debated at length, and in how people get that financial education. I understand the premise of the new clause, but we have many more questions to answer on this. If anything, I think we need to be making it easier for pension companies, the legitimate people in the room, to be able to communicate. There could be unintended consequential issues; we are trying to deal with scammers, but we might inadvertently stop people accessing information that we are trying to help them to receive.

   Hansard source
3. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Rebecca Smith

   Transport: Economic Growth

   Previous Conservative Governments were committed to repairing the railway line at Dawlish, which is vital to Devon and Cornwall’s economic growth, yet this Labour Government have said that they will complete the rail resilience programme only if and when survey work shows that it is needed. Given the likelihood that the Treasury’s emergency fund will have been spent on public sector pay increases, can the Secretary of State guarantee that funding will be found for resilience works, if they have not been planned and committed to as part of a fiscal event, should an unexpected incident or landslip take out the line at Dawlish?

   Hansard source
4. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

   I associate myself with the Minister’s words about 9/11 and the untimely and tragic death of Charlie Kirk. Yesterday, it was reported that in 2008 Lord Mandelson emailed Epstein and said that his conviction in the United States “could not happen in Britain”, and encouraged him to go for early release. The whole House can see that the Prime Minister has an issue when it comes to judgment, acting only when he is pushed to by events in this House. Will there be an investigation of Lord Mandelson’s meetings while he was ambassador, to see if there was any conflict with his current business interests? Will the Government remove the Whip from him in the House of Lords, yes or no? And will Lord Mandelson be entitled to severance pay after this sacking?

   Hansard source
5. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

   On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This relates to the issue we have been discussing, but is about the House procedures. What I took from the Minister’s answer was that Lord Mandelson, a Member of the House of Lords, had not given a full account of his past actions while going through vetting processes. What disciplinary mechanisms can be used by the Lords to make him accountable for that, if true?

   Hansard source
6. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

   (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if she will make a statement on the process for the appointment of the United Kingdom’s ambassador to the United States.

   Hansard source
7. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

   Mr Speaker, I thank you for granting this urgent question, and I agree with the words of the Minister about 11 September and Charlie Kirk. This is yet another extraordinary error of judgment by this weak Prime Minister. I pay tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for yesterday securing justice for the victims of Epstein. This raises massive questions. It is not just that Peter Mandelson was Epstein’s “best pal” and said that he loved him, or that he brokered a deal for him while he was Business Secretary, but that, as we now know, he was working for Epstein’s early release after Epstein was convicted. The simple question is this: is the Minister now saying that the Prime Minister did not know about any of that at the point when Lord Mandelson was appointed? The Minister should not say that the boxes were ticked and the process followed—what did the Prime Minister know at the point of Lord Mandelson’s appointment? The Minister said this morning that his understanding was that all the information was present—is that correct? Did the Prime Minister know? Will the Government now publish all the documents relating to Peter Mandelson’s vetting? If the Minister says that the Prime Minister did not know at the time, when did he become aware of the revelations? Peter Mandelson quietly stayed at Epstein’s house while Epstein was in prison. Mandelson now says that he was wrong to think that Epstein was innocent. That is his defence—but Epstein had pleaded guilty. There are huge questions here. Did the US State Department give any warnings to our Government ahead of this appointment? Did the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Sue Gray, give any warning? Have any employees of Global Counsel visited our Washington embassy since Peter Mandelson’s appointment? Next week will be the state visit. This is huge turmoil ahead of that, and I cannot believe that the Government have put our monarch in this terrible position. I am glad that Peter Mandelson has now gone. The Foreign Secretary has said that protecting women, girls and victims is her priority; how on earth does that square with the behaviour of the Government over recent days, squirming and twisting to try to protect Peter Mandelson, rather than the victims? To be clear, this is a Government in which we had a corruption Minister having to resign over links to corruption; a former police officer having to resign over having not been clear with the police; a housing Minister having to resign over not paying tax on a house; and now we have our ambassador to Washington in the middle of the biggest scandal in Washington. This is a weak Prime Minister, with error after error of judgment.

   Hansard source
8. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Neil O'Brien

   UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

   On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister says that the only reason why Peter Mandelson had to resign was the additional information that he had campaigned for the early release of Epstein. The Government are not saying exactly what they did or did not know at the point of appointment. The only way for this House to know exactly what they knew is for the Government to publish the documents relating to his vetting. If the Government will not publish those documents, as the Minister says they will not, would it be possible for this House to attain those documents using the Humble Address mechanism?

   Hansard source
9. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

   Suicide Prevention

   As colleagues can see, over 10 Members are hoping to speak. We need to begin winding up by 4.30 pm, to let the Front Benchers contribute, so unfortunately I will have to set a time limit of four minutes to ensure that everyone can get in. I call Liz Twist, who chairs the all-party parliamentary group on suicide and self-harm prevention.

   Hansard source
10. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Suicide Prevention

    We now come to the Front Benchers, and I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Dr Danny Chambers. We have three doctors on the Front Benches.

    Hansard source
11. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Suicide Prevention

    I believe we have a new Minister, Dr Zubir Ahmed—congratulations on the promotion and welcome to the Dispatch Box. Just in case you need to know, we have been touched by young male suicide in my constituency of Sussex Weald, so I will be listening closely to your response.

    Hansard source
12. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Transport: Economic Growth

    Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker. I also thank the Secretary of State for her welcome last night, and welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Selby (Keir Mather) to his new role. I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) regarding the assassination of Charlie Kirk yesterday. He was a champion of freedom of speech and open debate, and I know hon. Friends and Members from across the House all want to see politicians disagreeing well. On the subject of disagreeing well, I will come to my questions. Fundamental to economic growth is a functioning transport system, but faced with tax hikes and inflation-busting fare rises people will find the Secretary of State’s comments difficult to believe—ASLEF strikes on CrossCountry, our capital city hammered with tube strikes and bus drivers striking tomorrow. Next weekend, Manchester will see the biggest strikes in years, followed closely by strikes in Luton, Milton Keynes, Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Preston and even, Mr Speaker, Chorley. Sir Sadiq Khan says that strikes in London are nothing to do with him. The Department for Transport, Downing Street and the whole Labour Government say that they are nothing to do with them, despite many of the unions on strike being Labour’s multimillion pound funders. So I ask the Transport Secretary, will anyone, anywhere in the Labour Government stand up for passengers facing an autumn of discontent?

    Hansard source
13. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Transport: Economic Growth

    I have obviously followed the Secretary of State’s lead; I believe she had a constituency once upon a time in south London, but now represents Swindon. It is great to have that leadership there. Growth requires investment, which Labour is cutting as it gives billions in no-strings-attached pay rises to train drivers. We have already seen a 50% increase in the bus fare cap, and just last week we saw the draft road programme published, with investment down 13% in real terms on the past five years. Labour is delaying schemes and cancelling vital upgrades like the A303 entirely, with hundreds of millions of pounds wasted. As ever, 90% of journeys take place on roads. Can the Secretary of State name one thing this Government have done for the millions of motorists who drive petrol or diesel cars?

    Hansard source
14. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Richard Holden

    Topical Questions

    When we next have transport questions, the Budget will be just days away, so can the Transport Secretary rule out any of the following—increased duty on fuel or flights, VAT on private hire, increasing the insurance premium tax or raising rail fares above inflation? If she will not, has she at least spoken against any of these measures in Cabinet or to the Chancellor since she took up her role?

    Hansard source
15. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

    UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

    While the whole House welcomes the withdrawal of Lord Mandelson as head of mission, can the Minister confirm whether he is still being paid as a civil servant?

    Hansard source
16. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Topical Questions

    If my constituents pay £2 for a bus ticket one day, then £3 for a bus ticket the next, their fare has increased by 50%, not gone down, has it not?

    Hansard source
17. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Seventh sitting)

    The Opposition support the clauses and welcome the action to legislate formally for defined-benefit superfunds. Securing this in a legislative framework will give trustees and sponsors greater confidence when considering this new consolidation option for defined-benefit schemes. The measures build on the consultation conducted under the previous Government, as well as the intention that the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), laid out in his 2023 Mansion House speech. Superfunds are capital-backed consolidators that allow defined-benefit schemes to shift liabilities away from the sponsoring employer, thereby enhancing the security of members’ benefits. By transferring pension obligations to a superfund, companies can reduce long-term liabilities and refocus on core operations, while maintaining strong protection for retirees. Superfunds offer a new endgame strategy for DB schemes unable to secure an insurance buy-out, helping to safeguard member benefits in underfunded or marginal schemes. These measures all seem reasonable, and as I said, this work started under the previous Government, so we wholeheartedly support it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 51 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 52 to 56 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 57 Prohibition of unapproved superfund transfers Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
18. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I will be incredibly brief. We have heard a number of details from the Minister. Clauses 93 to 96 contain what we believe are sensible and welcome amendments that reflect current market and scheme conditions. In particular, the changes related to the Pension Protection Fund are positive. With a strong funding position in many defined benefit schemes recently and the PPF’s healthy reserves exceeding £14 billion, these legislative changes are timely. The industry strongly supports the option for a zero levy, which reduces financial pressure on well-funded schemes. The Opposition wholeheartedly support these clauses.

    Hansard source
19. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Seventh sitting)

    I am keen to speak to these Liberal Democrat new clauses, because we have a fundamental problem. Research by Pensions UK shows that more than 50% of savers will fail to reach their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, and closing the gap between what people are saving and what they will need must be a pressing concern of any Government. So, we need the second part of the pensions review to be fast-tracked, with a laser-like focus on pensions adequacy. This takes me back to when I first became a Member of Parliament some 14 or 15 years ago. The big issue at the time in the independent financial advisers market was the retail distribution review. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) and I held our first Backbench Business debate on the retail distribution review, and it is recorded in Hansard that we predicted this would be a problem as a result—fewer independent financial advisers being available to give advice. There were three key elements of the retail distribution review. They were very well-intended, and let us not beat about the bush: there were reasons why they were brought about. One of them was intended to raise the professional standards of independent financial advisers, and I think we would all agree that that has to be a good thing. The advisers complained at the time because they did not want to take exams. If they had been in the business for 40 years, why would they feel that they needed to take an exam? But why should they not improve their standards? There were issues to do with lifetime liability—advisers’ taking responsibility beyond seven years for advice that they had given, which was very contentious. Also there was clarity on the models of advice being given. However, the key element that caused the problems was where independent financial advisers, prior to that moment, were being paid a commission on the product that was being sold, which potentially led to product bias. If a commission was being paid at 2.5% on one product and 1% on another, the independent financial adviser would have a material interest in selling that higher-commission product, even if it was a worse product. That could have been dealt with by having a maximum commission rate on all the products; it could have been set at 100 or 150 basis points, which would have dealt with that problem. We saw this issue in the London stock exchange until 1986, when there were fixed rates of commission, so nobody could undercut another broker by providing cheaper dealing measures. We therefore knew it could work. The direct result of all this was that when the retail distribution review was brought in by the FCA in January 2013, we saw a massive drop in the 35,000 independent financial advisers. That has since recovered, and we now have around 36,000 advisers. The important point is that a financial adviser who goes out to persuade somebody to take advice on their pension now needs to charge a fee. Before that, to the person receiving the advice, the financial adviser would appear to be doing it for nothing. There would be an agreement, so it would be transparent and they would know exactly what was going on. However, the point is that now, if I am being asked to put money into a pension fund and I know I am paying the 1.5%, the fact that the commission is coming out of the money going in feels much less restrictive than being sent a bill for £1,500 or £2,000. That is much more difficult to meet, even though it comes to the same point in the end. The result of this is that, whereas about 50% of people used to put money into pensions and receive financial advice, the number is now 9%. There are an awful lot of newly elected Members of Parliament here. After 10 or 15 years, they will find themselves in a Bill Committee making these points and saying, “We told you this would be a problem. We told you so, yet here we are trying to resolve a problem that we knew was going to happen, and we allowed it to.” I am very cynical about Parliament sometimes, as all Members will be eventually. The important point is that the Liberal Democrat new clauses are an attempt to deal with the problems that we knew would come about. Auto-enrolment is brilliant—we really like auto-enrolment—but there are various things coming in under this Bill. We have to be careful that the things we bring in with the best intentions do not end up creating bigger problems due to unforeseen circumstances. If the Liberal Democrats pressed new clause 1, we would happily support it, as it is a good amendment. It will be interesting to see if that comes through, but this is something we have to get right. People need to get advice because far too many people are going to go barrelling into their 67th birthday, or whatever it is, and suddenly discover that they have run out of money, and that is not a good place to be.

    Hansard source
20. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    The Minister raises an interesting point. We have talked about a lot of different bits and pieces with complexity and all the rest of it. We have not spoken about when we educate people about money. In the olden days, when I was a newly elected MP, I was one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for financial education for young people. That was about getting financial education into the curriculum. It is probably now more important than ever that we teach people of school age about the importance of financial planning, including pensions. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will take up with his colleagues in the Department for Education the changes that could be made to bring this type of education into the curriculum for kids, who are all going to be adults soon?

    Hansard source
21. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I want to follow on from the two powerful speeches by the Liberal Democrat and SNP spokespeople, the hon. Members for Torbay and for Aberdeen North, in highlighting the fact that this problem is—dare I say it—disappearing over time. This feels slightly similar to the ongoing contaminated blood debate, and it is a similar type of thing. The people who would be compensated for the contaminated blood are, for tragic reasons, disappearing. Indeed, I think there are now 86,000 pensioners who were caught up in this particular problem, and the longer this is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, for obvious reasons. The principle behind this is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that we as a country, society and community look after all these people. Where people have done the right thing and put money into their pension, but it has not followed through, that is a big problem. One thing does bother me: I do not want to be too political, but the Government have dug themselves a freshly made £30 billion black hole in the last year. Although the SNP spokesperson is absolutely right that the £12 billion in the PPF is available to spend only on pensions, the problem is that because it appears on the country’s balance sheet, if the money to pay the price for this—I think it is £1.8 billion—came out of that, there would be a £1.8 billion increase on the country’s collective balance sheet. The argument would go that it would then reduce it. At some level, fiscal prudence has to come in to make sure we are not creating a deeper black hole. Because of the change of accounting at the back end of last year, this could turn the Government’s £30 billion fiscal black hole into a £32 billion one, even though that money is earmarked only for pensions. I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will resolve that. I would like him to make an undertaking that we will hear something about it on 26 November, and that there will be something in the Budget to resolve this fiscal conundrum. We need to know where the money will come from, and that the Government have set it aside. This is a perfect opportunity to deal with a problem that has been going on since 1997, and that becomes more profound every time the Office for National Statistics announces the rate of inflation. If the Minister gave us that assurance, I would trust him—being an honourable and decent man—that he could make his current boss get something done about this on 26 November.

    Hansard source
22. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

    Hansard source
23. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    When we look at the thrust of the Bill, the mandation measure is all about trying to get pension funds to help to create greater productivity within the UK economy. A couple of days ago, in a very helpful intervention on a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Hendon made the point that, while we are standing against mandation, we must ask: what are we standing in favour of? How are we trying to get behind the grain of the Bill? These three new clauses respond to that question of what we are doing to ensure that the Bill actually can use pension fund money to promote economic growth, invest into the UK and get better returns for the pensioners. One of the problems facing defined-benefit pension schemes is that, in response to the outrage over Maxwell and Mirror Group Newspapers pinching money from pension schemes back in the 1980s and 1990s, rules were introduced that were basically designed to ensure that it would not happen again. They were introduced in such a way to ensure that, if a defined-benefit pension scheme were to go into deficit, the deficit would be reflected on the balance sheet of the host company. We still see that today in some larger companies; I think the British Telecom pension scheme currently has a deficit of £7 billion, and that appears on British Telecom’s balance sheet. That does two fundamental things. First, if a company has a deficit on its balance sheet, that restricts its ability to raise equity or debt to invest into its business, so the host business cannot expand because it has a defined-benefit pension scheme with a deficit attached to it. A second problem then comes as a result of the Maxwell rules: the trustees of a defined-benefit scheme with a host company will be reluctant to invest that into high-volatility assets. We know that, over a long period of time, the equity market will perform far better than the bond market. The problem is that we can have volatile markets in the short term, which could introduce a deficit in the defined-benefit pension scheme that translates to a deficit on the balance sheet. For example, if we look at stock market performances from the 1980s to now, we will see a very steady rise in the stock markets over time, which have done particularly well. However, if we go back to 1987 or various other times, such as 2000-01, we will see big stock market crashes that will have appeared on the balance sheets of those defined-benefit pension scheme host companies. As a result, these pension schemes are missing out on the long-term growth to push away the short-term volatility that hits the host company. With these three new clauses, we are trying to get that out of the way so that defined-benefit pension schemes feel more comfortable about investing in higher-growth and therefore higher-volatility assets.

    Hansard source
24. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I am partially reassured by the Minister’s comments, but it really comes down to the kindness of my heart—I would not want the hon. Member for Hendon to be pulled off the Committee and put in an awkward situation. It would be unfortunate to force him to fall out with the Whips so early in his parliamentary career, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 37 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.”—(Mark Garnier.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the impact of this Act within 5 years of its passing. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
25. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Under new clause 37, the review of the impact of the Act would focus on pensions adequacy. The current Government plan to delay the comprehensive consideration of pensions adequacy to future phases of the pensions review. Any resulting reforms from those future evaluations are projected to take several years to develop and implement, and there is widespread concern that without a mandated regular review process, inadequate pension outcomes will persist. Millions of people in the UK therefore risk having insufficient retirement income, particularly lower earners, ethnic minorities, the self-employed and those with interrupted careers. Automatic enrolment has expanded workplace pension participation and now covers over 88% of eligible employees, but significant savings shortfalls remain. Recent forecasts and analysis warn of a retirement crisis, with many future pensioners expected to have less income than today’s retirees unless action is taken. The Government’s renewed Pensions Commission is due to report in 2027, focusing on the adequacy, fairness and sustainability of the retirement framework, but that report will only come in 2027. The new clause would create a statutory obligation for the Secretary of State to conduct a full review within five years of the Bill’s passage, focusing on its impact on actual and projected retirement incomes. It would require an assessment of whether current policies and contribution levels are sufficient to ensure adequate retirement incomes. The Secretary of State would have to report the findings to Parliament, increasing accountability and transparency. That would formalise an ongoing review cycle to monitor pension adequacy regularly, preventing the consideration of the issue being indefinitely postponed. As we all know, pension adequacy is vital to preventing poverty in later life and to ensuring quality of life for retirees. Despite expanded coverage through auto-enrolment, however, many people are still on track to fail to meet retirement income targets. Financial resilience frameworks show disparities in adequacy among lower earners, women and other vulnerable groups, and current retirement income depends on a number of variables, including contribution, sufficiency, investment returns, longevity and state pension level. The new clause would ensure that the Government take responsibility to monitor and report regularly on pension adequacy outcomes. It would mandate a formal review mechanism, enhancing policy responsiveness and parliamentary oversight. Ultimately, it aims to safeguard millions of future retirees from inadequate incomes, and support a sustainable and fair retirement system.

    Hansard source
26. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    We tabled new clause 37 partly to try to get some reassurance from the Minister. Two years is still quite a long time, as is five, but it is incredibly important that we are on top of what is going on in the pension industry, not least because we do not want any of our constituents to end up with miserable retirements. However, I am marginally reassured by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 38 Guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a joint protocol outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator regarding their regulatory responsibility of the pension industry. (2) A protocol established under subsection (1) must include— (a) an overview of the coordination mechanisms between the two bodies; (b) a published framework for oversight of hybrid or work-based personal pension schemes; (c) a requirement for regular joint communications from both bodies to clarify regulatory boundaries for industry stakeholders.”—(Mark Garnier.) Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
27. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This will be the last new clause I will be talking to. It looks at the guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator. In preparing for this Bill, we spent a lot of time engaging with the industry just a mile and a half up the road. Among the industry there is persistent confusion regarding the division of regulatory responsibility between the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator. The FCA regulates contract-based pension schemes—personal pensions, group personal pensions and stakeholder pensions—focusing on firm authorisation, conduct and consumer financial advice. TPR regulates trust-based occupational schemes, including defined-benefit and defined-contribution trust schemes, and it targets schemes, governance and employer duties. Overlapping interests exist in hybrid or workplace pension schemes, but unclear boundaries and differing enforcement powers can create regulatory gaps and inconsistencies. That ambiguity causes compliance difficulties for employers, trustees and industry stakeholders, and may ultimately affect pension savers. The new clause would require the Government to establish a statutory joint protocol between the FCA and TPR, clearly defining and publishing their respective roles and responsibilities. The protocol must outline formal co-ordination mechanisms between the FCA and TPR, include a published framework specifically addressing oversight of hybrid and workplace personal schemes where regulatory remit overlaps, and include a requirement for regular joint communications from both regulators to guide industry and clarify regulatory boundaries. That matters because collaboration between the FCA and TPR ensures comprehensive consumer protection across all pension products. With pension system complexity increasing—with mega schemes, master trusts and hybrid arrangements—co-ordinated regulation is critical. That will enable both regulators to leverage their strengths—the FCA in consumer conduct and financial advice, and TPR in governance and compliance enforcement. That will help trustees, employers, firms and savers to better understand which regulator to engage to resolve issues and access support. Industry feedback consistently calls for more precise demarcation to avoid confusion and compliance risks. The Government’s wider reforms and digitisation initiatives, such as pension dashboards, further heighten the need for co-ordination. The new clause would promote regulatory clarity and efficiency through mandated guidance, protecting pension consumers and enabling robust governance across the sector. Clear regulatory pathways will better support pension savers by ensuring consistent standards and enforcement across all types of pension schemes.

    Hansard source
28. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I am highly reassured by the Minister’s words. The important point is to ensure that if the bodies are to work together and do this, we need to keep them held to account on it. The Financial Conduct Authority was set up as an independent regulator and reports back to such things as the Treasury Committee. Presumably, TPR reports back to the Work and Pensions Committee. Already we can see a potential problem there, because separate Select Committees are doing the investigation. That is an important point, but I am confident that the Minister and his civil servants are aware of the problem and will be resolutely super sharp-focused on this issue to ensure that we have regulatory clarity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 39 Section 38: commencement “(1) The provisions in section 38 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.”—(John Milne.) This new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38 could only be enacted once agreed through secondary legislation. Brought up, and read the First time.

    Hansard source
29. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 101, page 98, line 22, leave out “Chapters 1 and 2” and insert “Chapter 1”.

    Hansard source
30. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    Amendments 255 and 256 relate to the value-for-money framework timeline that we discussed when we considered clause 41 on Tuesday and are related to Conservative amendment 257, which was withdrawn. When we considered amendment 278, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Tamworth, the Minister committed to consider the matter on Report, so I will not press those amendments today. This is, however, because I think it is the last time that I will speak in this Committee—or I hope it will be—a good opportunity to thank everyone. I say a huge thank you to everyone who has worked incredibly hard: the Clerks; you, Ms Lewell, and your fellow Chairs; and all the DWP officials who have supported the Minister who, frankly, with his not inconsiderable inexperience and youth, has done a magnificent job of working in his first Bill Committee. I think we can all agree that he has a terrific future in front of him as an individual who can get stuck into really quite dry, anodyne Bills. Of course, I also thank the members of my office staff, who have worked extraordinarily hard. I had not quite realised how difficult it is to be in opposition and up against the might of the Government, but my office staff have done very well, so I thank them all very much indeed.

    Hansard source
31. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 225, in clause 101, page 98, line 24, leave out “after 31 December 2029”. This amendment, together with Amendment 227, means that relevant Master Trusts and group personal pensions will not have to comply with the scale requirement until after 2030, but that Chapter 3 of Part 2 (including provision relating to the scale requirement, such as the application can otherwise be brought into force at any time in accordance with regulations. Amendment 226, in clause 101, page 98, line 25, at end insert— “(ba) Chapter 3A comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State and the Treasury jointly may by regulations appoint;”. This amendment provides for commencement by regulations of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15. Amendment 227, in clause 101, page 98, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert— “(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may not provide for the following to come into force before 1 January 2030— (a) section 38(4), in respect of the insertion of Condition 1 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (Master Trusts to be subject to scale requirement); (b) section 38(8), in respect of the insertion of section 26(7A) of that Act (group personal pension schemes to be subject to scale requirement) (but nothing in this subsection prevents section 38 from being brought into force before that date in respect of the insertion in that Act of other provision related to that mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)).” This amendment ensures that schemes will not be legally subject to the scale requirement before 1 January 2030. It allows, however, for provision relating to that requirement (e.g., provision around applications for approval) to be commenced before that date in anticipation of the requirement itself taking effect. Amendment 228, in clause 101, page 98, line 34, at end insert— “(5A) If section 38 has not been brought into force before the end of 2035 in respect of the insertion of— (a) Condition 2 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: Master Trusts), and (b) subsection (7B) in section 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: group personal pension schemes), section 38 is repealed at the end of that year in respect of the insertion of those provisions.” This amendment transposes and clarifies the provision currently in clause 38(16). It provides for the key provisions imposing the asset allocation requirement to fall away if they are not brought into force before the end of 2035. Amendment 242, in clause 101, page 98, line 37, at beginning insert— “( ) Chapter 1 of Part 4 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. ( ) Chapter 2 of”. This amendment provides for the commencement of the new Chapter relating to the consequences of the Virgin Media case . Amendment 243, in clause 101, page 99, line 5, after “section 96” insert “and (Information to be given to pension schemes by employers)”.—(Torsten Bell.) This amendment provides for the commencement of NC20. Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
32. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Life Sciences Investment

    (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if she will make a statement on the cancellation of life sciences investment.

    Hansard source
33. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Life Sciences Investment

    I hope you will give me the same flexibility if I go a little over my time, Mr Speaker.

    Hansard source
34. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Julia Lopez

    Life Sciences Investment

    Last night, US pharmaceutical giant Merck cancelled the construction of a £1 billion drug research centre in the Prime Minister’s constituency. Eight hundred jobs that were going to be provided have now evaporated; 125 scientists were to be employed—no longer. The message from Merck executives was unsparing: simply put, the UK is not internationally competitive. The Government must wake up now. If AstraZeneca’s announcement on investment was the canary in the mine for UK life sciences, last night’s announcement should be a klaxon sounding across Whitehall. Will the Minister assure us that he is arranging urgent meetings with Health, Business and Treasury Ministers today? The facility was going to specialise in diseases like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis. It was going to feed into the work of a cluster of life sciences bodies, such as the Francis Crick Institute. Did the Government engage with Merck before its decision? What damage will this cause to research and medicine access for our constituents who are affected by those conditions? The Government told UK taxpayers that their devastating national insurance hike would boost the NHS, but NHS leaders admit that the money has gone on national insurance, wage deals and drug price inflation, not better services, and there is no money left for negotiations with life sciences companies. In fact, life sciences have faced a £1.6 billion tax bill and a real-terms cut to research and development. What are Ministers in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology doing to push the Health Secretary for progress on health data, advanced therapies, price negotiations and regulatory reform of the kind that will improve our life sciences offer? For the last year, Labour has dined out on deals secured by the last Conservative Government. We were promised that a US-UK trade deal would open doors for business. Instead, American firms are cancelling projects, and our ambassador, who should have been batting for Britain, was battling for survival. Now that Lord Mandelson has slinked away—again—who is speaking to the Americans about this collapsed deal? What will the Prime Minister be doing ahead of President Trump’s state visit to help UK life sciences? I welcome the Minister to his place, but where is the Secretary of State? In her very first week, she has overseen a £1 billion investment collapse. If she does not understand that this is the most important thing in her brief right now, and if the Government do not change course, it will not be the last deal to collapse.

    Hansard source
35. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    Passenger Rail Performance

    Last week, London North Eastern Railway announced huge cuts to rail services from Berwick-upon-Tweed station, which serves not only the town of Berwick but my constituents in the Scottish Borders and North Northumberland. The Government promised more trains, but this is the opposite. LNER is now owned by the Government, so will the Secretary of State meet me and local residents, so that we can explain the impact that the cuts will have on local communities?

    Hansard source
36. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Lamont

    UK Ambassador to the US: Appointment Process

    The Minister claims that new information has come to light, which has resulted in the ambassador being sacked. Can he confirm that this is the only new information, and that all the other information was in the Prime Minister’s knowledge?

    Hansard source
37. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Transport: Economic Growth

    On Friday, I had the privilege of meeting Lawrence Bowman, the new chief executive of South Western Railway, who brings with him over 20 years of experience in the industry. We travelled from Salisbury to Tisbury. He says that he has to write a five-year plan. I am keen to ensure that that has the maximum impact and deals with the Tisbury loop. Salisbury is on the gateway to the south-west. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State delegated an official or a Minister to meet me so that, as the five-year plan is constructed, there are no unreasonable constraints or misunderstandings over what is necessary to ensure that the railway is at the centre of economic growth in the south-west.

    Hansard source
38. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Life Sciences Investment

    At Porton Down in my constituency, there is a hub of life science businesses. I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and I recognise the difficult dilemmas that all Governments have in where to focus investment. However, the Minister must surely recognise that the additional cost of employing people, with the additional rights and burdens that that puts on employers—particularly small employers—plus 11 weeks of speculation about further tax increases will not make any sector feel more comfortable about where to invest in this country.

    Hansard source
39. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·John Glen

    Business of the House

    I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his new role. May I echo the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) in drawing his attention to the reply that his predecessor gave to me on 27 February concerning the Government’s response to the report on valproate? It really is necessary that we get a response. Janet Williams and Emma Murphy from the Independent Foetal Anti-Convulsant Trust came to see me this week. They are grateful for the opportunity to meet a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, but they really need a formal response to the commissioner’s report of 19 months ago.

    Hansard source
40. 11 Sep 2025·Parliament·Joe Robertson

    Integrated Public Transport Strategy: Ferries

    6. What steps she is taking to include ferry services in the integrated public transport strategy.

    Hansard source