House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
Well, the Whip is looking at me. He wants me to sit down. My hon. Friend has made the point brilliantly, and I shall now sit down.
5,779 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In December, I asked the Leader of the House for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to adequately dredge Somerset’s rivers and maintain our drainage network. The EA has now announced that it will withdraw entirely from main river maintenance in Somerset. My constituents are concerned that without proper maintenance we may see a repeat of the devastating 2013-14 floods. May I repeat my request to her to find Government time for a debate on the Environment Agency’s failure to fulfil its duties?
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
The Minister will be aware that the reason hereditaries still sit in the House of Lords was the deal done in 1999. The promise made by the then Labour Government was that hereditaries would remain until the House of Lords was properly reformed. The Minister is aware that he is removing the hereditaries but giving no assurance about when full reform of the House of Lords will take place. What assurance can he give this Chamber about when the Government will make proper proposals to reform the upper Chamber?
- Hansard source
Dorset Coast: Pollution
We in North Dorset would love to be talking about ministerial visits from the DEFRA team, but, despite an invitation to the Farming Minister, none have crossed the border to visit. North Dorset farmers and landowners wish to play their active and fullest part to ensure that, through nitrate neutrality and other farming mechanisms, they are improving water quality to help the rivers that flow to the coast of Bournemouth, Christchurch, Poole and so on. Will the Secretary of State ensure that bodies such as the Environment Agency and others that advise our farmers provide consistent advice in a timely fashion in order to maximise their enthusiasm?
- Hansard source
Privilege
I beg to move, That— (1) There be laid before this House the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration proposed to be laid under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 concerning the steps taken by the Charity Commission to implement recommendations contained in two reports issued by the Commissioner in respect of “Miss A” and “Mr U”; (2) The matter of the actions of the Charity Commission in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of a report before this House be referred to the Committee of Privileges. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for granting this request. The House will be delighted to know that on the first week back after a longish summer recess, the five hours allocated for this debate will not be taken up—I will only take four hours and 50 minutes. [Laughter.] No, do not worry. I know the House wants to get on to the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. The motion before the House is, I hope, clear. I believe it will command support across all parties in the House, but I think it is important to put on the record why it has been tabled. We have too often allowed the privileges of this House and our parliamentary process to be slightly nibbled and chipped away at, and sometimes we have been reluctant to defend robustly those privileges, which are important for Parliament to function as our constituents expect. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), who chairs both the Committee on Standards and the Committee of Privileges, is alongside me this afternoon. The House of Commons’ role used to be described as the “grand inquest of the nation”. It meant that one of our great functions was to consider and debate everything that we thought mattered. In a famous case, one of the Law Lords recognised the key importance of “the need to ensure that the legislature can exercise its powers freely on behalf of its electors, with access to all relevant information”. This is a case about the ability of the House to receive information, which the House has always taken very seriously. “Erskine May” has an entire section on obstructing witnesses and others. It states boldly: “Any conduct calculated to deter prospective witnesses from giving evidence before either House or a committee is a contempt.” The circumstances here are slightly different, because this is about a prospective case against the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. I have tabled the motion for two reasons, which I shall set out briefly, but they are explained in the motion itself. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, also known as the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, is technically an officer of the House—a Crown appointment appointed by resolution of the House. They have a duty to respond to complaints from all our constituents, where there is validity in doing so, in coming to reports, making observations and suggestions, and submitting those reports to Parliament. As referenced in the motion, there is the case of “Miss A” and “Mr U”. I have no idea who Miss A and Mr U are, and I have no idea what complaints about the Charity Commission were set out before the commissioner, but the Charity Commission has clearly taken umbrage or offence at what the PHSO has been seeking to do. The Charity Commission is bringing legal proceedings deliberately to prevent the laying of two reports before this House. That completely undermines the linkage between the ombudsman and this place, and, as I said at the start, it undermines our opportunity and decisions to look at any information that we deem to be of importance, or that matters to us, in order to allow us to advance policy. The motion is a very simple one. If approved, it will compel the commissioner to lay before the House the reports that they have undertaken with regard to the complaints of Miss A and Mr U. I have tabled the motion as Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which is responsible for the PHSO. We will look at those reports and advise accordingly, if necessary. I make no prior judgment of whether the PHSO or the Charity Commission has got it right in this instance, because we have not seen the reports. However, it fundamentally undermines the rights and privileges of this place, and all of us as Members, when we are prevented from seeing reports that have been produced following due diligence and proper investigation and inquiry by a statutory body and the ombudsman, who is a servant of the House. Because there is concern, which I share, that the Charity Commission has acted perversely in bringing legal proceedings that would prevent the laying of the reports, the second part of the motion seeks to refer that action to the Committee of Privileges so that it can take a look. In the general scheme of things, this may seem a very small element of parliamentary life, but the courts have hitherto always taken the standpoint that Parliament can and should see what it wants and needs to see, and that the courts should take no role in interfering with or obstructing that channel of communication. We are all familiar with Mr Speaker giving advice from the Chair about the sub judice rule, for example, but it does not mean that we cannot talk about things. We do so knowing full well that privilege entails both rights and responsibilities. I hope the House is with us on this matter, which is important. It is time for us to robustly reassert our rights under the idea of privilege and having access to information. I remain to be convinced that the Charity Commission has acted advisedly in bringing the action. Even yesterday, the commission tried to put pressure on me to withdraw the motion, believing still that it is in the right. I decided not to do so, and I think it is an abuse of the commission to ask us to do that. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee will undertake an inquiry on arm’s length bodies, of which the commission is part, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members from across the House have privately raised with me concerns about decisions that the commission is taking. It is appearing to do so in a slightly abstract or perverse way, without any degree of accountability. That matter is separate from this motion, but it is important for all our arm’s length bodies, and particularly the Charity Commission, to understand that this House will not be bullied by arm’s length bodies seeking recourse to the courts to stop us doing our job properly, efficiently and professionally on behalf of all our constituents.
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned the very long period of time that his party has been anxious for and agitating about reform of the House of Lords. Is the creation of a future Select Committee really the sum of all that anger and agitation? As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has said, we could have seen a full picture of a modernised, reformed and accountable House of Lords that works to deliver bicameral scrutiny, but we do not have that. The Minister is asking us to vest hope in the creation of a Select Committee, with no timeframe attached to when it would report and no promise of future legislation. Surely, he must be as disappointed and unhappy with that situation as I am.
- Hansard source
Early Education and Childcare
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and it is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box for the very first time as shadow Education Minister. Education is the greatest enabler of success and opportunity in this country. All Members of the House regularly visit our local schools, colleges and universities, and we see at first hand the power of a good education. Britain has some exceptionally talented young people. I look forward to working constructively with the Minister to help drive up educational standards across the country, so that those young people can get the very best start in life. Of course, when we were in government, we were ranked fourth in the world for reading, and top in the western world for maths. It is fantastic news that, from this week, parents will benefit from 30 hours of funded childcare a week for children aged from nine months to four years. I am proud that this Conservative plan—our policy—is having its final roll-out to provide childcare for working parents, which is what they need and deserve. This Conservative policy will save parents £7,500 a year per child. I also welcome the extension of the holiday activities and food programme, after its long-term future has remained unclear for many months. It is fantastic to see how enthusiastic the Education Minister is about the plan. I remind the House that only two years ago when we announced our childcare policies—the policies that are having their final roll-out announced now—the Secretary of State for Education herself labelled our childcare plans “broken” and a “total mess”. Only one year ago, she refused to commit to rolling out our childcare plan altogether, so I am grateful for the change of heart and that she has put party politics aside to deliver the support that working parents need. Our children should always come first. We welcome the expansion of childcare, but the announcements mean little when the industry itself is crumbling as a result of the actions taken by this Labour Government, most notably the damaging jobs tax. Earlier this week, 27 leading organisations representing children, parents and childcare providers wrote to the Education Secretary calling for urgent action following the hike in national insurance contributions. Without such action, the sector has warned that it will not be able to provide the final roll-out of childcare, with one in 10 childcare providers saying that they will face closure within the next two years without help, leaving the sector at risk of collapse. The Early Education and Childcare Coalition stated that the hike in national insurance has created a “perfect storm”, leaving many providers in a position where offering childcare is simply unviable. Instead of listening to the experts and organisations tasked with looking after our children, the Department’s shameful response was to label the claims as lies and “utter nonsense”. How disrespectful to parents, children and the childcare sector. What is utter nonsense is the fact that the Minister expects childcare providers to absorb the national insurance increases without the financial support needed, while keeping fees the same. We need to be clear: it is not just the sector that will be punished because of the Minister’s lack of coherent planning; hard-working parents and their children across the country will suffer too. Will the Minister outline what engagement he has had with the sector to ensure that providers are not forced to shut their doors or reduce the hours they provide? Will he finally admit how damaging the jobs tax has been to the childcare sector, and what the impact and costs will be? Will he update the House on the impact of the jobs tax on childcare provision, and how he will continue to monitor its impact? On the detail of the Minister’s announcement, will he clarify how the Department is identifying the most disadvantaged areas, and how he plans to make the biggest impact? Will he put parents up and down the country at ease and confirm that the Chancellor will not fill her £50 billion black hole with the education budget? While we welcome the expansion of childcare, the reality is that Labour’s decisions are making childcare less accessible and more expensive. The Education Secretary says she is standing up for hard-working parents, but they are the ones who will suffer as a result of this Labour Government—our children will suffer, too. It is time for her to stop making broken promises and to ensure that early years provision is her No. 1 priority.
- Hansard source
Moorland Protection
The thanks of Conservative Members go out to all the emergency services, our mighty farmers and gamekeepers who have been consistently fighting the horrendous blaze on the North York moors. The Secretary of State is currently pushing a dangerous proposal to ban a vital conservation and land management measure through eliminating the use of controlled burning of heather on moorlands, which manages fuel load and helps to prevent out-of-control fires. Does the Minister now recognise that if the Government’s burning ban and deep peat changes go ahead, they will be responsible for more uncontrollable and far more damaging wildfires that negatively impact wildlife, our precious peatland and rural businesses?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Starting a family is a huge milestone for any couple but, crucially, it comes with a huge financial hit, as parents must scale back their working lives in order to care for their newborn. Ben Barnes in Keighley, the winner of best butcher across the whole of Yorkshire, has seen at first hand how, despite working extra hours, one of his employees is still worse off, because his partner is on maternity pay. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the merits of extending marriage allowance so that claimants can transfer a greater proportion of their personal allowance, in order to help young people take that crucial step of starting a family?
- Hansard source
Climate Change: Food Security
I recently visited the Dinsdale family farm to talk to the group of hard-working dairy farmers who provide milk to the Wensleydale Creamery to make their famous Yorkshire cheese. I know the Minister will join me in commending their contribution to British food security and the Dinsdale family for their innovative installation of an anaerobic digestion unit, which turns slurry into energy. Could he look at what more can be done to encourage small-scale on-farm AD units, which not only significantly cut methane emissions but significantly cut costs and increase income for our hard-working family farmers?
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
I want to build on what the hon. Member for Torbay asked. As a former local councillor myself—I am not part of the pension scheme, I hasten to add, so I do not have an interest to declare—the bit from the evidence session that came out for me, thinking through this bit of the Bill, relates to the equivalent in treasury management. As a council, we often borrowed from the Public Works Loan Board to invest in, for example, a shopping centre to get the income from rent, business rates and so on. What safeguards or requirements will be put in place to ensure that any money spent from a pension fund goes on capital rather than revenue? I appreciate that council tax revenue increases could be used for that, but are there any safeguards to ensure that the money is not just spent and then does not exist anymore?
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)
In line with what has been said already, my thought is that plenty of financial education is a good thing; to say that some is worth pursuing and some is not seems a bit at odds with what we have been debating. I echo what colleagues have said about workers who come from a DC scheme into a DB scheme and need that education. I am sure there are many new Members who are in that position—I cannot be the only person who is—and, while I am fortunate enough to have taken pension advice throughout my career, I know many people have not. For me, this is not something that is mandated, but a suggestion for something that could be done. Providing another alternative and another opportunity for people to receive financial education—particularly people in their 20s, 30s and 40s who have not had it at school, because it was not part of the curriculum at that point—is something we should welcome and not restrict. The amendment seems to me perfectly sensible. I appreciate why some people might think it does not go far enough, or that the matter will be addressed later in the reporting back that the Government will do on pensions in general, but the emphasis on people around the age of 40 is particularly important, because they still have a good 20 years—or 30 years, potentially; who knows what will come forward from the Government?—to work and to ensure that they maximise returns to achieve adequacy. Having an additional vehicle to do that seems to me a sensible thing, and I put on record my support in the same way that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire has.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech with a very good historical analysis of what has happened over the last 30 or 40 years. It is worth reflecting on the risk point, particularly for the wide age range of people who hold pensions. This came up during the evidence session: if we end up avoiding risk, the people who are just starting out in their careers and might only be in their early 20s or 30s could end up with a pension that does not deliver anywhere near what it could have delivered, if we apply those same factors. A thought that came to me in the evidence session was how we can ensure that our system allows for risk at the bottom end, but with a tapering out of risk as people get older. The Minister is the expert in this area, and I am interested to know what might be possible in the future. Ultimately, we want to ensure that value for money is based on the right level of risk for the right stage in people’s careers and the right stage in their pensions journey.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)
How will members know that they have that opt-out? Will that be clear enough, given all the comments we have been making on financial education? People have got to be pretty engaged, and we know from the history that they are not always that engaged in their future.
- Hansard source
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests. First, I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this incredibly important debate about support for some of the most vulnerable children in this country. The adoption and special guardianship support fund, set up under the Conservative Government in 2015, has, for many years, provided much needed therapeutic support to adopted and special guardianship children who were previously in care. I pay tribute to all the adoptive parents, foster carers and kinship carers out there who step up and welcome a child into their home: you are amazing, and I am humbled by the sacrifices you make and the love you give every day. I know it is not always easy. Some of these children, who have often suffered neglect, abuse and violence, have complex needs and can be challenging to care for. There will be days when it feels difficult and never-ending, when you feel alone and unsupported. But you keep going, and are continually there for your child, loving, protecting and supporting them. Given all that you do, in extremely difficult circumstances, the least that can be expected is a reasonable level of support from this Government for you and the child in your care. The adoption and special guardianship support fund is an important part of that and, frankly, the way that cuts to the fund have been handled beggars belief. It is unacceptable to leave families for months on end without certainty about the funding they rely on and then, at the very last minute, to confirm a 40% cut to the therapy fund from £5,000 to £3,000, the removal of the entire amount for specialist assessment and the cessation of match funding for the most complex cases.
- Hansard source
Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund
My right hon. Friend is spot on. In a written statement, the Government said that “we are in a challenging fiscal climate and are having to make tough but fair decisions across the public sector”.—[Official Report, 22 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 31WS.] Minister, how is this fair? Of all the things that this Government could cut, they chose to cut funding to the most vulnerable of children. If they want to be fair, might I suggest that they look elsewhere for efficiencies? If they are looking for suggestions, they might want to cancel their plans to give away the Chagos islands while paying Mauritius £35 billion for the pleasure. Might that not be a more acceptable way to make savings? No one wants to see a Government balancing the books off the backs of the most vulnerable children in our communities. This decision really is one of the most disappointing things I have seen from this Government. The fund is actually quite small in the scheme of things. These cuts do not move the dial on this country’s financial position in any meaningful way, so I am at a loss as to why the Government have proceeded in this manner. They could have protected it or even boosted it, but they have chosen to spread it more thinly. Labour always talks a good game on supporting the most vulnerable, but actions speak louder than words. If the Government continue on this path, they need to take responsibility for this short-sighted decision and the impact that it will have. More children with special needs will not get what they need to flourish. That will put even more pressure on adoptive parents and kinship carers, who are already at breaking point. Ultimately, fewer people will put themselves forward to look after these children. That is an absolute tragedy, and one that will end up costing this country more in both human and financial terms, as my right hon. Friend has highlighted. Mark my words: we will see more of these children going back into care because of this Government’s cuts to the fund. In a letter to the Education Secretary dated 22 July 2025, stakeholders including Adoption UK, Family Rights Group and Barnardo’s said: “We have heard from families who are in complete crisis because of the abrupt changes that have taken place…including families who have…been torn apart.” They continued: “The thousands of adopted children and eligible children cared for under special guardianship or child arrangements orders, including kinship care, affected by delays and cuts to the Fund have faced unimaginable barriers in their first years of life. They are almost all care experienced and share a childhood characterised by trauma, loss and disruption. These are children who need more from their government, not less.” In 2024-25, of the nearly 20,000 approved allocations of funding for therapeutic support, 9,000—or 46%—were for an amount of more than £3,000, which suggests that at least 9,000 children will be worse off following these cuts. I, too, have heard from many residents in my constituency, from across Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and our villages, who will be impacted by the cuts to this fund. One story that really hit home is that of a couple who took out a special guardianship order on twins, both of whom had additional needs, significant trauma and attachment issues. When they were looked-after children, they were entitled to all the support they needed, so before taking out the SGO the couple rightly and responsibly sought reassurance that the SGO would not reduce the essential support that the twins were receiving. In typical fashion, they were putting the children first. They were promised that the funding would be there, so they went ahead, but that funding has now been reduced—a promise broken, a placement now at risk. How many SGOs or adoptions will now not go ahead because the support just will not be there afterwards? I know that the Minister cares deeply about these children and this issue, and that it is likely that the Treasury has driven this decision. But I ask her, as part of this Labour Government and as someone who bears collective responsibility, to fight for these children, reconsider the decision to cut per-child funding, and reinstate both the £5,000 fair access limit and the £2,500 allowance for specialist assessment and match funding. I was going to ask the Minister to provide the certainty needed by families about funding beyond March 2026 so that families can plan for future changes, but I am pleased to welcome her statement today on this matter. However, I ask her to provide more information on the planned public engagement process in the new year with respect to delivery of this fund, as it again creates unwelcome uncertainty. Just as families breathe a sigh of relief about securing next year’s funding, they have to hold their breath again about March 2027. Finally, I again thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex for securing this debate. I hope that the Minister will reconsider the Government’s approach and ensure that our most vulnerable children get more from Government, not less. If a change in direction is not forthcoming, I fear that more children will remain in the care system, locked into poorer life outcomes, rather than being welcomed into warm, loving homes where they can flourish and thrive. There is still time for this Government to do the right thing for these children. We all implore them to do it.
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
I guarantee to the Minister that, as a council estate boy from Lewisham, I am not someone who ever thought that my bloodline would get into the House of Lords—[Interruption.] One day! I want to challenge the Minister about the points he has made about future reform. His party has a majority of 170, and we know that it won the general election. Why is he claiming that we are trying to block reform, which is completely untrue, while the Government are so lacking in ambition and do not have the courage or political will to bring a full package of reform to the House, which the Opposition might well support? What we are asking is why he is tinkering at the edges and then attacking us for not being in favour of reform, when he has refused to bring reform in the first place.
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
I thank the Minister genuinely for giving way again; he is courteous and gentlemanly in doing so. I promise that this will be my last intervention. Could I just ask him about the difference between the problems he is discussing and what the Bill will enact, where a hereditary peer is not given membership of the House of Lords, but is still given the title and privilege of being a peer of the realm?
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
On that point, I think of peers such as Patrick Courtown, the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip, who has served in the other House since 1975 in a number of ministerial capacities. That is because of where he was born, but there is a risk in seeing Members laugh about rich and privileged hereditary peers. This is not “Downton Abbey” any more, and many of these people have given their life to this Parliament. Does my hon. Friend agree that should the Government get their way this afternoon, there needs to be an urgent conversation about support for those hereditary peers who may suffer after losing their positions in the other House? The Minister raises his eyebrows, but many peers in that House are not stately home owners but people who have given their life and position to this Parliament, and they will need support going forward.
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
The hon. Gentleman says that the Leader of the Opposition could give those peerages, but he will be aware that that is organised through the usual channels, in conjunction with the Prime Minister and members of the governing party. We would be a lot more comfortable talking about the replacement of hereditary peers if the Minister had come with any clarity on the conditions that may be set going forward, but we have had none of that. I challenge the Minister to say that hereditary peers can be put in as life peers. We would like some more information on what we are getting.
- Hansard source
House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill
The Minister may remember that at the beginning of the debate, I asked him to bear in mind the circumstances of some of the people who have given their life to this place over the last 25 or 30 years and are not in the best financial health. We are not in “Downton Abbey”—the film had its premiere last night. If he makes the decision to get rid of hereditary peers immediately, what support will be put in place by the House authorities, which I know he would want to work with, and the Government to ensure that those people are looked after? May I push him to consider the more practical proposal of waiting until the end of the Session, rather than immediately getting rid of the hereditary peers?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
More than 80 colleagues are bobbing. Unless Members are short in their contributions, they are denying others the opportunity to get in.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
Order. May I urge colleagues to keep their questions short, and the Leader of the House to keep her answers just as short?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
No, I will not be joining you. Obviously you mean the Leader of the House.
- Hansard source
Early Education and Childcare
Order. Mr Sewards, do you have an actual question? If so, go for it!
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes. I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
At present, the Bill arguably lacks a clear definition of how the priorities of the asset pools must follow, particularly on what qualifies as local investments. Our amendment seeks to address that gap by simplifying this. Put simply, we believe that local should mean local. These asset pools should prioritise investment in large-scale projects, actively promote local growth or make tangible improvements in local infrastructure—improvements that directly benefit the people in that local area. Where no such opportunities exist, other investment options should be considered, but we cannot allow a situation where, for example, an LGPS fund raised in the midlands is continuously redirected elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, the Bill appears to suggest that the other areas included in the consolidated LGPS schemes could benefit disproportionately. My constituents may ask me, “Why aren’t these funds being used locally by investing in local opportunities, rather than being gifted to councils in other areas of the country, assisting in the same way?” I believe the amendment will add clarity on that to the Bill, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
I rise to speak to amendment 260. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for outlining our rationale for the amendments. My comments regard informing members. I support the right to pay surplus to employers—I think that is the right thing to do, so long as the correct safeguards are in place—but it is right to inform members of that decision. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will improve member engagement in the whole pensions process. I made a point in Tuesday’s evidence session on the importance of financial education, and a number of witnesses supported that position. By more actively engaging with members, we will ensure that they take part in their own pension provision and ensure that the right decisions are made in their own interests.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting)
I want to reiterate a lot of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Financial education is key to unlocking many of the challenges that we face in adulthood, whether budgeting, debt management, saving or planning for retirement. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Financial Education Bill, earlier this year; I know we already have an element of it in secondary schools, but we need to go further as a country and ensure that everyone, from the very young upwards, has that education to inform the key decisions in our lives. I take the hon. Member’s point on DB schemes funding those seeking advice for DC schemes, but it is often the case that members have pensions in both DB and DC schemes: people move quite fluidly from a job in the public sector to one in the private sector, and will inevitably have membership in both DB and DC schemes. The Bill would benefit from the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I also take the hon. Member’s point on the need for better engagement by employers. I know some large companies offer employees mid-life MOTs on financial education and management. Certainly, FTSE 100 companies that I have worked for offer employees that kind of support as they approach retirement. I am sympathetic to new clause 1, which amendment 3 is connected to, because it is essential that as we get older and plan for retirement, we are fully informed on those decisions. I will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.
- Hansard source
Business of the House
I will be short, as I already am. Can we have a debate about delays in obtaining driving tests? There is a growing problem with unscrupulous operators using bots to sweep up months’ worth of tests then selling them back to very frustrated parents and students at a profit. The Driving and Vehicle Standards Agency seems to be in denial about this issue. Can we have a debate in Parliament and try to fix this problem?
- Hansard source
Grooming Gangs
2. What steps the Crown Prosecution Service is taking to prosecute people for grooming gang offences.
- Hansard source
Grooming Gangs
From my time as Lancashire’s police commissioner, I have seen the fruits when the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts worked together to prioritise the listing of cases involving rape and serious sexual assault, as we know that victims and witnesses are less likely to continue with a prosecution the longer it continues. Can the Solicitor General update us on the work being done to ensure that those agencies work together to support the victims and prioritise those case listings?
- Hansard source
Business of the House
In December 2021, part of the roof of Kirkham baths was blown off during storm conditions, leaving Kirkham and all the surrounding rural areas without access to public baths. Since the operator was unable to fund the repairs, Fylde council has recently stepped in to purchase the baths for £1 and is embarking on a project to refurbish them. I am very grateful that the Leader of the House has agreed to come to Fylde to have an ice cream and look at projects in the St Annes area. I know I would be testing her generosity too far if I invited her to Fylde for a swim together, so could we instead have a debate in Government time on how the £400 million of grassroots funding that the Government have announced can be used to support swimming baths in rural areas?
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
It is great to be starting what I hope will be quite a quick canter through today’s work, Sir Christopher. The Opposition welcome the broad grain of this entire Bill; it seeks to do a lot of very useful things in the pension industry across the UK. We have some contentious points, but those will not come up today. Regarding clause 1, we welcome the creation of asset pool companies. These are sensible and pragmatic steps towards modernising the local government pension scheme, and much of the work had already been done under the previous Government. Consolidating funds represents a responsible approach that should deliver more effective management and investment of pension assets. The LGPS, as we have heard, is among the largest pension schemes in the UK, with 6.7 million members and £391 billion of capital. Before pooling, of course, it was 86 separate local authorities, which caused huge inefficiency, inequality of opportunities and, in some cases, poorer outcomes for pension beneficiaries. I should mention at this point, Sir Christopher, that I am a member of the LGPS and also that, as a councillor on Forest of Dean district council, I was responsible for looking after some of this activity in terms of pension management. It was not an efficient way of doing things, so pooling is an incredibly good idea. We welcome the Government’s continuing our work to make these pension funds work more efficiently and deliver better returns for members, and ultimately we all want to see improved returns and lower employer contributions. Small funds, whether in local government or elsewhere, are rarely fit for purpose in the global investment environment. We have some concerns. The broad framing of the powers contained in chapter 1, clause 1 could allow for the mandation of certain investments by Government. Pools should be investing in line with the investment approach set out by their underlying asset owners in order to deliver against the fiduciary duties of LGPS funds. Governments should not take powers that would erode fiduciary duty. There are concerns about the costs of the Government’s decision to reduce the number of asset pools from eight to six. This is an administrative cost. We have heard from one council, Wiltshire, which is one of 21 LGPS funds in England now looking for a new pooling partner. Jennifer Devine, head of the Wiltshire pension fund, has said that the cost of closing its asset pool could come to as much as £100 million. There will be some costs incurred, but, none the less, the general thrust of the whole process is one that we support and we certainly would not stand in the way of these amendments.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
In the interest of speed, I will not speak to these amendments, other than to say that we have no objection to them.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
I have just one question for the Minister. How are the shareholdings to be decided? Will they be determined based on the size of the investment, and how will the Government decide between councils having shareholders or contracting with asset pool companies? That is my only comment.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert— “(4A) Scheme managers must publish a report annually on the local investments within their asset pool company. (4B) A report published under section (4A) must include— (a) the extent, and (b) financial performance, of these investments.” This amendment provides for scheme managers to report back on the financial performance of any local investments that they might make. Clause 2 places important requirements on pension scheme managers regarding how they manage pension funds for local government workers, requiring formulation, publication and review of investment strategies. The Bill encourages investment through asset pool companies and emphasises local investments. However, the Opposition’s key concern is that the primary purpose must remain the delivery of strong financial returns for pension funds. Those returns ultimately belong to the pension fund members, but council tax payers also have a responsibility, as they support these schemes. Investment decisions must prioritise financial performance that ensures sustainable pensions while safeguarding public funds. Although we acknowledge that local investments can bring benefits to local communities and local economies, they should only be a secondary focus and should not compromise returns. Local investment should be considered as an additional benefit, but the overriding duty of scheme managers is to act prudently and in the best financial interests of the scheme members and taxpayers. We caution against overweighing local investment priorities if that risks undermining the long-term financial health of these pension funds. In short, financial returns must come first; local investments can follow, but must not take precedence. Pensions UK has questioned the need for these new powers and believes that they are too far-reaching. LGPS reform is already progressing at pace, and pools and funds are collaborating in line with the direction set by the Government. Pensions UK would like to understand what specific risks the Government are seeking to manage through the introduction of these powers, and it is seeking amendments to the Bill to ensure that if these powers remain in the Bill, they will only be exercised after other avenues have been exhausted, to guard against adverse outcomes for the pools, funds and scheme members. The Pensions Management Institute has highlighted that the administering authorities will be required to take their principal advice on their investment strategies from the pool. Given that an administering authority is required to invest all of its assets via the pool, this is a major conflict of interest and puts a significant burden on the administering authority or scheme manager to ensure that the pool is performing effectively, with no independent checks and balances. The Bill makes it clear that co-operation with strategic authorities, such as regional combined authorities, on appropriate investments will be required. However, there is a risk of investment decisions being influenced by political and local interests. The fiduciary duty should always prevail when local investments are considered. We do not oppose the clause, but we call on scheme managers to maintain discipline in prioritising sustainable returns, with local investments as a welcome but secondary consideration. We are considering three amendments with this clause. There is uncertainty about what qualifies as a local investment for LGPS funds, how such investments are defined and what assets or projects will meet the requirements under the new rules. In addition, we do not want to shift the focus away from the fiduciary duty of trustees to local investments that might not deliver the best-value returns on schemes. Amendment 246 provides for scheme managers to report back clearly on the financial performance of any local investments that they might make. Scheme managers at local councils should charge the asset pool companies with finding the best value. Although we are not opposed to local investment, the focus of trustees must clearly remain on achieving best value, and the better performance of a pension fund means that local councils can already use their powers under regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. Consequently, we can argue that LGPS megafunds with a focus on best returns can lead to more a fully funded council and therefore to employer contribution holidays. Sir Christopher, would it be helpful for me to speak to the other amendments?
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
That is fine. It has been a few months since I last participated in a Bill Committee, Sir Christopher, so thank you for your advice. We are not proposing to press this amendment to a vote, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond to my points and undertake to take them away and consider how advice can be given to these pool managers to ensure that the issues I have mentioned are taken into account.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
I am reassured by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting)
I beg to move amendment 245, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out from first “in” to end of line 39. This amendment changes the definition of local investment to remove the reference to the benefit of persons living or working. This amendment runs closely with amendment 246. Amendment 245 changes the definition of local investment to remove ambiguous reference to the benefit of persons living or working in the area. It is a small, technical amendment, but it is about giving more focus on the key need to members of the fund.