Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   My right hon. Friend is concerned about the cost of the deal, but does she also share my concern about the way in which the deal was negotiated? The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said that only the Prime Ministers of our respective countries were in the room; officials were asked to leave the room, so there are no records of what was discussed. Is that how a responsible, democratic Government should show transparency when negotiating on the international stage?

   Hansard source
2. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. During an intervention on the Minister for Defence Procurement, I said that he was acting in a “duplicitous” way. I have already been rebuked by Mr Speaker, so you do not have to step in, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would like to say that I misspoke when I said that the Minister was not being genuine. I apologise to him—I never play the man; I always play the ball. It is a shame that he is not present to hear that apology. However, I welcome the Minister for Defence Procurement—he is a good friend of mine, and I look forward to him serving in that position—but I will say that that career has not started well. The first moment that he appears before the House in charge of defence procurement in this country, he single-handedly starts by advocating disposing of a vital piece of defence infrastructure, which is not only relevant but essential to the national security of the country. He stood here to try to defend the indefensible. I suggest to the Whips Office that they might want to look at some of his decisions in future, if he is in charge of procuring defence equipment on behalf of this country, because so far he has only been successful at getting rid of vital infrastructure. I hope that he does better. The first job and the first duty of any Government that serve the great people of this great country is to keep their people and themselves safe. I never thought that I would come to this House on a day like today to see a Government, this Government, creating the biggest act of self-sabotage that I think we have seen in generations of elected Houses in the history of our nation. The Government are harming not only our security, but the strategic interests of our people and the security of this country.

   Hansard source
3. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   If the hon. Gentleman had bothered to show up for the entire debate—I think that he has only just arrived in the Chamber—then he would have heard the answer to those questions in excellent speeches given by hon. Members from across the House. In response to his question, why is the deal also backed by so many counties that have malign influences towards the interests of the United Kingdom, such as Russia, China and Iran? If he stays for the rest of the debate, he might hear some answers to those questions too. It is easy for Labour Members to stand in the Chamber and read a Labour party briefing, thinking that if they say things time and again, they must be true, and that people outside the Chamber will expect what they say will be true. I was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton when he was Foreign Secretary. He said to Foreign Office officials at that time that the negotiations that had started and were being explored went past his red line. My right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who was Foreign Secretary when some of the negotiations happened, said to his Foreign Office officials, “As the democratically elected Foreign Secretary, these recommendations go beyond my red lines.” Those negotiations were then stopped by Lord Cameron—I remember him instructing Foreign Office officials to stop those negotiations—so I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), that just because negotiations and conversations have started, we do not have to accept a conclusion that we do not want.

   Hansard source
4. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   I will tell the hon. Gentleman what one of those red lines was: not paying £35 billion to another country. In case he wants to read his Labour party briefing again, I remind the hon. Gentleman that another red line for the last Foreign Secretary was that he clearly did not accept unilaterally that the sovereignty of the Chagos islands fell with Mauritius. That is a key difference between the last Government and this Government. This is a bad deal for Britain: it will cost £35 billion, while the Government tax and spend and make people in this country poorer, and in an ever-changing international security situation, this country is unilaterally giving up a strategically important defence base, in an area of the world where we are seeing more geopolitical uncertainty. I cannot put into words how bad this Bill is, except to say that it is an act of self-sabotage that we have not seen in this House by a democratically elected Government for generations. To reiterate, not only is this a bad deal, but it is backed by every nation that is malign to our national interest, including China, Russia and Iran. Last week, at an international summit, those countries were actively advocating some of the malign influences about which this Government and the last Government spoke about, and they are actively backing this deal. I challenge Labour Members to look Opposition Members or any of their constituents in the eye and say that a deal that is successful for this country should be backed by Iran, China and Russia. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am trying to work within the confines of parliamentary etiquette, but I have to say that there is something deeply concerning about the way that this Government have chosen to negotiate the terms of the agreement. We have to look at the close links between the key people who negotiated this deal with the Mauritian Government and the links—private links—to the Prime Minister and Ministers in this Government. The Prime Minister of Mauritius has said in the Mauritian Parliament that officials were asked to leave the room while private negotiations were going ahead. I have never known a responsible Government who are trying to hand over sovereignty of a British overseas territory to ask officials, who are there to protect the integrity and the transparency of the of decisions that Ministers take, to leave the room so that a negotiation can go on. Why have the Government hidden the cost of the deal? Why have they refused to give this House a solid and sustainable way to scrutinise the decisions of the Government? They have avoided scrutiny at every turn.

   Hansard source
5. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   I agree with my right hon. Friend. I found it quite concerning earlier that the Chairman of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), relied on the fact that American counterparts in an Administration that he does not scrutinise backed the deal, so there was no need for the Defence Committee to interrogate Ministers of the Government it is supposed to scrutinise. There have been two offers this afternoon, one by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and the other by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, in his expert speech. There is a scrutiny structure in this House called the Intelligence and Security Committee to which the Minister could refer this decision, and he can rest assured in the knowledge that there are expert Members across the whole House who could offer their expert opinion on the deal. The Government have chosen not to do that. That is an indictment of the transparency and the drive the Government have shown in getting the deal very quickly.

   Hansard source
6. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   I can tell the hon. Gentleman. Let me say it very clearly and very slowly, because I know that hon. Members have written their speeches before the debate started: zero. Zero is less than the deal the Minister is choosing. Let me repeat it very slowly for the hon. Gentleman and for Members across the House: the deal was ended. There was no deal. The negotiations stopped. There were no negotiations.

   Hansard source
7. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   I will in a second. I just want to emphasise the point so we do not hear it again. There were no negotiations. There was no deal. [Interruption.] The negotiations were stopped. There was no deal on offer, and no money was being offered. I hope that Members will scratch that bit out of their speeches as they go forward.

   Hansard source
8. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   Yes, I absolutely can. I am not a lawyer, but I would say it is crystal clear in the sentence the hon. Gentleman has just read: “mutually beneficial”. What the democratically elected Government of the day decided, through Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton, who I said—if the hon. Gentleman was in the debate earlier, he would have heard it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says he has other things to do, Madam Deputy Speaker. I suggest that if he thinks this is very important, he should have been here for the whole debate and not just intervene on a debate that I think is about national security. I repeat the point to him: the Foreign Secretary at the time ended the negotiations because, as the then Prime Minister said, “mutually beneficial” was deemed not to have been the case. I want to touch briefly on the arguments put forward by the Government about hiding behind international law. I cannot do it justice like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, but it is clear that the Government keep hiding behind judgments that they have to follow. I remind the Minister again that it is not a binding judgment. If the Government had chosen to challenge that non-binding judgment, he would have had the support of those of us on the Opposition Benches. The Government decided not to do that and have accepted a non-binding judgment and fast-tracked the capitulation and surrender of a British overseas territory for the first time in a long time. The Minister could have challenged that decision, because it was non-binding. I shall let the record stand with the speech by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam, who went through the numerous international structures that this Government have signed up to and set out how we did not have to follow that. Lastly, clause 2 is absolutely disastrous. The hon. Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) spoke of the historical context here. I congratulate and commend the hon. Gentleman for his speech; he is an incredibly brave and principled man who stands up for his constituents. Under clause 2, this Government have decided unilaterally to recognise that Mauritius has sovereignty over the Chagos islands. I remind the House and the Government that Mauritius has never in the historical context of the Chagos islands had sovereignty, and that this Government have chosen to give sovereignty over the islands to a country that has never had it.

   Hansard source
9. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

   Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

   I will in a second. Some, including the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), have said that we want to “return” the islands. I say that is impossible, because it is not possible to return sovereignty to a country that never had sovereignty in the first place. This is a decision and a negotiation undertaken by this Government, and they should hang their heads in shame over the way they have done it.

   Hansard source
10. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, because it was clear in the negotiations that took place in the ’60s, when the United Kingdom paid Mauritius, that Mauritius actively accepted that it had no sovereignty claim over the islands, and that stands in international agreements from times gone by. This Bill is a bad deal. It is a bad deal for the United Kingdom and for our constituents; and it is a bad deal because of the money that this Government have decided to spend, and because of their decision to tax people while spending £35 billion overseas. The Government have abandoned the usual norms of the traditional Governments of this country of standing up in a transparent way for the way we act internationally; they have decided to abdicate their responsibility in doing that. This is a bad deal for this country. It has been welcomed by malign international partners, it has undermined our defence, and it will cost us billions. Above all, with this Bill, the Government have abandoned and avoided every scrutiny mechanism within the House of Commons that would enable hon. Members to challenge them and get the answers that this House quite rightly deserves—[Interruption.] Government Members say that we have the chance today, but I remind them that many, many Members have asked questions of Ministers about the legal position on refusing this, and Ministers have been unable and unwilling to provide answers in the context of the international law that we have spoken about to do that. This is the day that the Labour Government showed the British people out there, as well as the Chagossians in the Public Gallery today, that they do not stand up for the people of this country. They did not stand up when we saw that international law might go against us. They chose to abandon their responsibilities to protect the people of this country and the military assets that this country has in the overseas territories. I predict that, in the four years ahead, this £35 billion surrender treaty will come to haunt this Labour Government. I remind Government Members that after they have gone through the Lobby and voted for the Bill tonight—after they have read out their Labour party briefing saying that it is the right thing to do—they will have to knock on doors and explain how they gave £35 billion of taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a country that never had sovereignty over this British overseas territory. They should hang their heads in shame, and I think they will do so.

    Hansard source
11. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Paul Holmes

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) has omitted some of the quote, because he was proven wrong before. He has failed to say that the former Prime Minister said “mutually beneficial”. Some of the gain that came out of that discussion was the fact that it was not mutually beneficial for this country, and we stopped the negotiations.

    Hansard source
12. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Let us succeed.

    Hansard source
13. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. You were so close to succeeding. Let us try to get the language right.

    Hansard source
14. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Order. I now call Lewis Cocking for the final Back-Bench contribution. Colleagues who have contributed to the debate should be making their way back to the Chamber.

    Hansard source
15. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    I call the shadow Minister.

    Hansard source
16. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Business without Debate

    With the leave of the House, we will take motions 3 and 4 together. Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)), Financial Services and Markets That the draft Markets in Financial Instruments (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 3 July, be approved. That the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Capital Buffers and Macro-prudential Measures) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 9 June, be approved.—(Gen Kitchen.) Question agreed to.

    Hansard source
17. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

    I call Mr Jim Shannon to speak on the accessibility of railway stations in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency.

    Hansard source
18. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Ms Nusrat Ghani

    Accessibility of Railway Stations: Dulwich and West Norwood

    This is a very important debate. Minister, you may wish to take this opportunity to reflect on the accessibility funding application of Wadhurst station in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

    Hansard source
19. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As a proud Englishman, it is not often that I admit the Australians are better than us at something. I am talking not about cricket, but about the immensely important issue of pensions adequacy. The Australians do it better, and what underpins their success is the super stapling model, a system that fundamentally changes how savers interact with their pensions. That is why our new clause 36 seeks to follow in Australian footsteps by establishing a model that would automatically amalgamate pension pots through an individual’s working life. Although I recognise and commend the Government’s work on small pot consolidation, I believe that real engagement and adequacy benefit lies in moving towards a lifetime pension pot model. It is a bolder, more engaging and more adequate model that would benefit pension funds and savers alike.

    Hansard source
20. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Outrageous!

    Hansard source
21. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having worked in the water sector before being elected to Parliament. I will be speaking predominantly to amendment 248. The Committee heard evidence from industry experts who expressed concerns about the Bill’s mandation power. They were consistent and clear in raising concerns about the reserve powers in the Bill. I would like to reiterate some of those concerns raised by the industry, which I believe hon. Members should support today. At the heart of clause 38 is its impact on the fiduciary duty of trustees—not just a mere technicality, but a duty that has been at the heart of trust-based governance for centuries. Trustees have a legal duty to act solely in the best interests of their members. However, the Government believe it is acceptable to tear up that duty through a ministerial power grab. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Ministers will have the power to override the judgment of trustees, which I do not believe is appropriate. That is not to guide or support, but to mandate them—to potentially force them to act against what are arguably the best interests and returns for their members. That leads me to the potential impact on pensions adequacy in the UK. We are facing a pensions adequacy crisis, as I and other members of this Committee have said before. The majority of people are not saving anywhere near enough for retirement, and the cost to the state pension will only continue to rise, yet we have seen that the Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees.

    Hansard source
22. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I will come on to some of those points later, so I will address them then.

    Hansard source
23. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I hope to address some of those points. The Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees to force investments into projects that may be politically convenient for them, but may potentially lead to financial loss for members. They are directing investment on the backs of ordinary UK savers. When people save into a pension scheme, they are entrusting their future security to a system that is working supposedly for them and not for political gain. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, rather than coercing trustees to follow conditions set by Ministers, would it not be better to create the right economic conditions to make trustees want to invest in the UK? The last Conservative Government, through their Mansion House reforms and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, brought in active commitment from the pension fund trustees who want to invest. We did not need to mandate that, and the Government should learn from that approach. Amendment 248 will preserve the fiduciary duty, but continue the trajectory to increase pension fund investment in the UK.

    Hansard source
24. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Peter Bedford

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I trust the pensions industry to make those judgments because they are the experts in this area, not Government Ministers, who often have short-term views. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends raised the example of HS2 and how Government priorities and policies can change over time. Would the hon. Member be happy for his constituents to have their money invested in a Government project or a large infrastructure scheme that is then scrapped, and to see huge losses to their pension scheme? I have huge concerns about the mandation point. Clause 38, in its current form, undermines the trust that I mentioned earlier. I therefore urge hon. Members to back our amendment to ensure that the fiduciary duty remains and that we protect the security of millions of savers.

    Hansard source
25. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    Is it the case—my right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General—that the ITU treaty to which we and others are a party states specifically that the ITU has no authority over the allocation of military spectrum, or military communications? It is clear that the ITU has no leverage legally at all over Diego Garcia.

    Hansard source
26. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Mark Francois

    Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

    This is fundamental to the whole argument. We have pressed the Government for months to tell us what the legal threat to the islands was. In his opening speech the Minister said that it was UNCLOS. That was the justification they have given us. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we have a general opt-out and two specific opt-outs under article 298(1)(b) of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which includes “disputes concerning military activities”? We have an opt-out from UNCLOS. The Government’s whole case is spurious—£35 billion worth of spurious.

    Hansard source
27. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Louie French

    Free-to-air Broadcasting: Cricket Participation

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as always, Ms McVey—fantastic umpiring, and hopefully no need for DRS. I start with a declaration of interest: over the summer I, alongside a number of colleagues, attended a cricket match with Sky. It was below the registrable threshold, but I am making sure that it is transparently disclosed. I thank the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for securing this important debate. After another great summer for English cricket and sport, and ahead of the Ashes series and the women’s one-day international world cup, it is timely that we are having this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their fantastic contributions so far. As many of us will remember, between 1999 and 2005, test matches were shown on Channel 4. That culminated in the historic 2005 home Ashes series, shown on Channel 4. There was an average of between 2 million and 3 million viewers per day for an average test match, before that soared to upwards of 7 million viewers for the 2005 tests and peaked at 8.5 million on the deciding and dramatic final day of the series. The impact of that fantastic series was clear, with the ECB reporting a massive increase in junior club memberships after the 2005 series, and waiting lists at many clubs across the country. Sport England data showed that junior participation rose in 2006 by roughly 7%, bucking wider trends across the sector. However, there has been a decline, which has been referenced, in participation rates following the switch from free-to-air cricket to subscription-based broadcasting, and there is of course a discussion to be had, as always, about coincidence versus causation, which is why we are here today. For example, Sport England’s Active People survey showed a fall from 428,000 adults playing cricket weekly in 2007-08 to 278,000 in 2014-15. That represents a drop of about 35%, and over the same period participation halved among 16 to 24-year-olds. More recently, we have begun to see a welcome revival in participation rates as more matches are shown on free-to-air television and England’s Bazball style has attracted new admirers. Most famously, that includes the 2019 cricket world cup final, sub-licensed by Sky and shown on Channel 4 as live international cricket returned to free-to-air television for the first time in 14 years. That thrilling final, which I also had the joy of watching, saw a peak of 4.8 million viewers for Channel 4 and 3.5 million for Sky—a total of 8.3 million. It was a huge audience for a huge moment for British sport. Data from the ECB has shown that more than 1 million under-16s watched that final, and I am sure each and every one of them took inspiration from what they saw. Of course, all sporting bodies face a tension between ensuring that their sports are accessible to the widest possible audience and the need for financial stability and support as provided by subscription-based broadcasters. The broadcast contracts with Sky have been the financial engine of English cricket for some time now, and the most recent deal is worth more than £200 million per year. Those revenues have funded professional central contracts for men and women. That includes increasing the number of professional women cricketers from 17 to more than 100. It has also helped to sustain the England team at the top of the world game and finance grassroots programmes that have reached millions of children across the country. Without that support, the professional and grassroots structures of cricket would simply not be sustainable. As a fan of cricket, I applaud Sky’s innovative coverage—I had the privilege of seeing behind the scenes first hand over the summer. Recent years suggest that a balance can be struck—and has been struck. The 2019 world cup final was shared by Sky and Channel 4, and reached millions of people. The Hundred has brought live cricket back to the BBC, with sizeable audiences for both the men’s and women’s games, and a clear impact on youth and girls’ participation, alongside vital grassroots community work. I am pleased that women and girls’ cricket is growing fast across the country, including in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency. It is fantastic that local clubs, such as Bexley cricket club, Bexleyheath cricket club—they are separate clubs—and Sidcup are growing the girls’ game in my local community. Last year saw a 21% growth in girls’ teams, a 25% growth in women’s teams, and 1,000 new women’s and/or girls’ teams across the country. Moreover, initiatives such at Metro Bank’s girls in cricket fund have added to that momentum, delivering over 1,000 hours of dedicated coaching support and helping to grow the number of girls’ teams by more than a fifth in the past year alone. That contributed towards a record 192,000 recreational games being played across the country in 2024, more than 12,500 higher than the previous record. Those moments and the data that follows show that when cricket is visible, it can capture the imagination of the public, regardless of background. That is why the previous Conservative Government were proud to invest £34.7 million to maximise the opportunity of the women’s T20 world cup in 2026, cricket’s inclusion in the Olympics in 2028, and a men’s T20 cricket world cup in 2030 to build a network of state school cricket programmes and facilities. While the recent announcement regarding cricket dome funding from the Government over the summer is very welcome, this Government have so far only allocated £1.5 million to fund those two new cricket domes. The money was there, but the Government have instead taken the political choice to reallocate what remains of the capital fund. Will the Minister say whether clubs across the country, which will be listening to this debate, should expect more funding to come their way in terms of grassroots support in the years ahead? The challenge remains trying to find a balance between reach and growth in participation via the exposure that free-to-air broadcasting brings, and with the financial resources provided from subscription funding. We can all agree across the House that too much of one without the other undermines the long-term health of the sport. That is an outcome that none of us wants. I thank all hon. Members again for this important debate, as well as the hon. Member for Cheltenham for supporting it.

    Hansard source
28. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mr Andrew Snowden

    Infrastructure Strategy: Economic Growth

    If the Chancellor is looking for some quick-win infrastructure projects that will unlock economic growth, I recommend taking a look at a passing loop on the South Fylde line, which would better connect trains to employment and education sites through more reliable services. It would also act as a boost for the tourism industry on the Fylde coast; people across Lancashire—maybe from other great towns such as Chorley—like to visit Lytham St Annes and the Fylde coast, and would be able to do so on half-hourly rail services. Will the Chancellor take a look at that fantastic opportunity to boost economic growth in Lancashire and the Fylde?

    Hansard source
29. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Neurodivergent People: Employment

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and very good to see the Minister in his place after last week, when there were lots of changes. I thank the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), who gave a brilliant opening speech in this important debate. All Members, across the Chamber, have contributed very strongly. It is always a pleasure for me to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, even though this afternoon I have missed the all-party parliamentary group on dyslexia event to which I had an invitation. I absolutely agree about the breadth of impact of neurodivergence and the difference between it and learning disability. It was really important to set that out at the start. We are talking about different people with different needs. Like many of us, I have constituents who as parents find that funding issues are difficult, especially in rural areas, so I am very like-minded on better support for SEND. Education is what shapes us. Of course the impact, particularly in my part of the world, of the Government measure affecting small private schools and of choice being taken away from some parents has been very problematic. Many of us will have seen that in our constituency surgeries. As Conservatives, we believe that no matter what someone’s background and talents are, their full potential should be realised, and neurodiversity as explained today is an amazing way in which difference can truly be harnessed. There have been brilliant speeches showing what real contributions people can make. Neurodivergence should be no barrier to someone’s future, yet unfortunately we have heard about challenges from too many Members today. I thank those who have related their personal stories today. My yellow notes here remind people about my mild dyslexia—and the amount of cartridges that I go through in my constituency office. I think I have probably saved DWP a lot of money by leaving that Department, where I used a lot of yellow cartridges. But my brother has very severe dyslexia, and we go about things very differently, as people would expect. During the five years that I spent as a DWP Minister in the Conservative Government, it was my absolute privilege to work in that Department of wonderful people, as it was known when I was there—I hope it still is—helping to unlock potential and support people. As we heard today, with the right support and assistance, people can progress and thrive. In fact, this Minister is a great example of progression by being completely persistent and eventually getting his ministerial opportunity. It is great to see him there. All of us this afternoon have spoken especially about young people, whom we want to see progress and who may face unseen and unrecognised barriers. I am thinking particularly of the covid generation—the young people who are coming through now. Under the Conservatives, people saw a transformation in disability employment, with 2.6 million more disabled people entering work since 2013—a target met five years early. There was the Back to Work plan, with a £2.5 billion price tag on it, to support that next stage; the £64 million for the WorkWell pilot; and the £53 million for universal support. I am very mindful that those are not just numbers: they represent lives changed, independence gained and dignity restored. I am very mindful, as I am sure we all are, that behind every single statistic is a person, a need and a community. We should have their backs and help them. The Buckland review has been mentioned, of course. I had the pleasure of seeing its launch and the amazing work with the Autistica charity. The review offered 19 practical recommendations to help autistic people to start, stay and succeed in work, and to tackle the fact that around 30% of working-age autistic people are not in work. That is wrong. The supported internships mentioned today are absolutely vital, and the disability action plan—which I had the pleasure of helping to push forward—aims to ensure that the UK is the most accessible country in the world in the realm of work, tackling some of the inequalities faced in employment. That key partnership between employers and Government, which we have heard about, helps to turn the aspirations and good practice of employers—things that look nice on websites or mindsets that people have—into the ability to support people in the workplace and make it truly inclusive. The DWP itself, and the health model offices, are about looking at it from the point of view of claimants and those who need support—to see it their way. I remember going to one office where the walls and the pillars in the room were painted differently, because neurodivergent people needed to access the room differently. That is the way that our Jobcentre Plus offices should be set up. I am pleased to be supporting a Disability Confident breakfast in my patch to discuss and engage with the programme of understanding assistive technology and meaningful workplace changes, as we have heard today. It is vital that processes work for changed applications, and that access in technology means people are screened in rather than screened out. Under Labour, I am afraid the welfare system is growing, and it is vital that those on universal credit, or whose lives are being wasted and potential squandered, are understood and helped. In fact, the Sussex chamber of commerce has been doing some great work in my own backyard with Little Gate Supported Employment, Genius Within and other great local employers such as PVL, Time 24, Thriiver and many others. Removing barriers is hard for employers in all sectors and of all sizes, so partnership and best practice are vital. As the official Opposition, I offer to work collaboratively with the Minister and employers to help people to get in and stay in work. We in the Opposition will continue to focus on social mobility and life chances. I hope the changes at DWP make the impact that is needed, and I welcome the skills brief being brought into DWP. That is something I worked on and would have loved to have seen it realised. We have heard about the challenges around Access to Work and the flexible support fund, but with technology and the right attitude, employers can make small changes that make a huge difference. Access to Work needs to be updated, and we recognise that DWP has certain needs in this. With employer adjustments—better training, HR and mindset—all this means that if someone is not the finished article, they can get through the door and become one. Finally, Ms McVey—I can see you are rightly looking at me—welfare reform and living within our means are vital, because if we are to get back to being productive, to grow and to ensure there is support for those in the welfare system, we need people to be paying in. Sadly, Labour’s unemployment Bill is a concern, smothering employers with more red tape, making it more difficult for our constituents to generate revenue and offer jobs, and making it harder for young people—the ones particularly impacted by the pandemic—to get the start they need. Labour rightly promised change—we have all seen the change in the last few weeks—and I hope this new opportunity is taken. Our mission in government, which the current Government should share, was to focus on delivery and on the vital outcome of making the UK the best and most accessible place in the world, where the employment needs of people with neurodiversity or other learning need, are met. That way, people can live, work and thrive in this economy.

    Hansard source
30. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Neurodivergent People: Employment

    As well as the expert panel and the updates from the Buckland review, will the Minister undertake to use his good offices in the DWP and across government, including the NHS and other public sector employers, to ensure that the learning is used? As we have heard, it is tough in the wider labour market. Support is already given to care leavers across Government and by the Minister’s own Department; will he lead the way in the DWP?

    Hansard source
31. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mims Davies

    Neurodivergent People: Employment

    The Minister is being very generous in giving way. That commissioning model will be music to most constituency MPs’ ears. How will DWP monitor the local output and changes for people on the ground?

    Hansard source
32. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Matt Vickers

    Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the Minister on her new role in what I am sure will be the first of many encounters. In what can be a divisive Department, I am pleased to begin with an issue on which we can agree. The Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, put forward by the previous Government during the last Parliament, sought to enable joint processing between qualifying competent authorities and intelligence services under part 4 of the Data Protection Act 2018. As the Minister summarised, it was rightly recognised that there was an increasing expectation that law enforcement and the intelligence services would work jointly in operational partnerships, particularly in response to lessons learned from the tragic terrorist incidents at the Manchester Arena and Fishmongers’ Hall. Under the existing regime, it is understandable that sharing data across Data Protection Act regimes proves cumbersome, making the necessary decision making in our national security infrastructure more challenging. Removing those obstacles and allowing partnerships to process data under a single regime is a step to be welcomed. Any measure that enables more effective and efficient use of data to enhance our national security is to the benefit of us all. Indeed, it is essential that we learn from the events of the past. We owe it to the victims of these abhorrent acts of terrorism. As such, we should welcome the change in the Government’s Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and the regulations debated today. Regarding joint processing, it has been noted previously that the controls and safeguards under part 4 of the 2018 Act will apply. Although I am aware that each body has expertise to manage the use of data, the creation of a single regime can pose specific challenges. Therefore, considering that some of the data used in such cases may be particularly sensitive, have Ministers engaged sufficiently with the relevant agencies and competent authorities to ensure that they are prepared to use the new rules effectively and without incident? In addition, although the use of designation notices by the Home Secretary is an integral part of the new regime, I must ask Ministers whether they are satisfied that the process for providing notices for joint controllership of specific processing will be effective. Although I appreciate that, for security reasons, the Minister will not be able to provide details as to why one competent authority has been included, it will be useful to receive assurances that robust systems are in place to ensure that such processes include appropriate safeguards and that the data being used is in line with the notice. These safeguards are critical, as we all recognise the public’s desire for their data to be protected while ensuring that national security is maintained. I therefore welcome the draft regulations and hope they are implemented effectively.

    Hansard source
33. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    This is a very uncontentious and highly technical part of the Bill. We have no objections to any of these provisions and so will be supporting them.

    Hansard source
34. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Again, this is all very technical and rather dry.

    Hansard source
35. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Perhaps it is exciting for those who enjoy dry reading. We in the Opposition have no objections. Amendment 36 agreed to. Amendments made: 37, in clause 29, page 27, line 30, leave out— “a relevant person, other than the FCA,” and insert— “the small pots data platform operator or the trustees or managers of a relevant pension scheme”. This amendment ensures that the FCA cannot be required to pay compensation under small pots regulations. Amendment 38, in clause 29, page 27, line 39, leave out “Subject to subsection (4),”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39. Amendment 39, in clause 29, page 28, line 3, leave out subsection (4). This amendment removes provision that is no longer needed because of the general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, which was inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and came into force on 20 August 2025. Amendment 40, in clause 29, page 28, leave out lines 8 and 9.—(Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 39. Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 30 Enforcement by the Pensions Regulator Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

    Hansard source
36. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    Again, I have no real comments, apart from to ask the Minister, perhaps when winding up, if he could explain how the Government came to the penalty levels of £10,000 for individuals and £100,000 for others. It would be useful to understand what the thinking was behind that.

    Hansard source
37. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I will speak to our new clause 36. I am grateful to the Minister for his comments; I will come to those in a minute. The Government dropped plans for the lifetime provider or “pot for life” model, which would have allowed individuals to direct all workplace pension contributions into a single, personally chosen pension pot throughout their career. That was first proposed by the Conservative Government. Although we appreciate that the initial lifetime pot model has not had support from the current Government or, to be fair, from the industry, we believe there is much merit in exploring a model that would allow for pensions to follow individuals between jobs. The new clause would ensure that fragmented small pots are not left as workers move between jobs. By changing our current proposals from a lifetime pot to a magnetic pot proposal where the pot follows the individual, we hope we can bring down some of the administrative costs of the initial lifetime pot proposal. Our new clause 36 will provide for a pension pot that would follow members from job to job, consolidating with each new workplace scheme rather than relying on a single lifetime provider. This approach could reduce fragmentation while retaining the advantages of employer oversight and collective governance. This would have similarities with the Australian system, where a person can staple to their first chosen pension provider so that it follows them from job to job. That helps to reduce the administrative burden on individuals and the number of small pots, and that can reduce costs for consumers and help the overall consolidation of the market. These changes have been backed by some in the industry, including Hargreaves Lansdown, which has said that having a single pot would simplify someone’s pension investment, bringing transparency and clarity. It has said that for those who move jobs frequently, a single pension pot would be invaluable. The Minister made a couple of points. The first was about the substantial overhaul of the system to be able to deliver reform. Although I appreciate that this may be outside the scope of the Bill, we should not worry about substantial overhauls to make things better for people who are saving for their retirement. It is incredibly important that we get this right. Just because it is a lot of work does not necessarily mean it is a bad thing to do, so I urge him to think about it. The Minister made a very important point: somebody could move from one job to another and find that their pension moves from a fund that offers good value for money and is performing well to a fund that is performing worse. But exactly the opposite is also the case. If somebody frequently changes jobs, the law of averages and statistics means that over their lifetime they will get the average rate, which means they do not get stuck in one or the other. One would cancel the other out—it is a maths problem. The Minister has made his points. This is not something we want to press, but we feel very strongly that the Treasury and Treasury Ministers should think very carefully about it, because, as I say, hard work is not a reason not to do the right thing. There is much more support from the industry for the magnetic pot rather than the lifetime pot, which stays with one provider.

    Hansard source
38. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I think the Minister has got this the wrong way round. It was the lifetime pot, which was being paid into as people went around, that the industry did not like, because that was administratively quite difficult. The stapled pot—stapled to the lapel, or whatever, to be dragged around like the Australian one—is what we are proposing this time round, which is the new version that the industry does agree with. I think the Minister might have got his notes upside down.

    Hansard source
39. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    I would like to speak to the wider clause before coming to our amendments. It is important to get on the record that this is a very bad clause. The Minister mentioned asset allocation, and this measure, which is known as mandation, has gone down incredibly badly with the pensions industry. Mandation risks undermining the core obligation of trustees, which is to act in the best interests of savers. Pension savings reflect decades of work and are not an abstract figure on a balance sheet—they are the hope of a secure future for millions of people. Trustees and fund managers bear a legal responsibility to protect and grow these savings, investing wisely where the best opportunities may be found. Their role is not to follow political direction but to uphold the trust placed in them and the fiduciary duty they owe, which is the foundation of confidence in the pension system. As has been said in multiple responses to the Bill, clause 38 as currently written undermines the UK’s reputation as a predictable and rules-based investment environment. When trustees select investments, they must find the safest and strongest options for beneficiaries. Can we even be confident that the Government will be able to provide a pipeline of investment opportunities? Pension funds could end up being forced to fight against each other for a selection of low-performing assets. If these powers are used, it changes accountability. If mandated investments fail, is it the trustees or the Government who should answer for those losses? Savers deserve clarity about who ultimately protects their hard-earned pension pots. It has been said that this merely provides the powers to do mandation and does not necessarily force firms to do this, but I will come to that later. Our amendment 275 highlights the fact that there is a political party, whose Members are not in attendance here, which has already said that if it gets into government—and, let’s face it, it has a fighting chance—it will mandate pension funds to invest in the UK water industry in order to support the Government renationalising the UK water industry. I would like to highlight some of the issues that have been raised. The Pensions Management Institute has said: “this provision sets a dangerous precedence for Government interference in the fiduciary duty of trustees to act in members’ best financial interests.” Pensions UK has said: “this ambition is subject to fiduciary duties and is dependent on supporting actions by Government, namely that there will need to be a strong pipeline of investable UK assets. Without this, schemes will be competing against each other for the same assets, which risks asset bubbles and poor value for money.” The Investment Association has said: “It comes with significant risks for members in the form of capital being poorly allocated if political preferences take priority over member needs. Any resulting poor investment outcomes will be borne by the member. By creating the risk of political interference in capital allocation, the power undermines the UK’s global reputation as a predictable and rules-based investment environment”. Which? has said that this measure “may result in schemes making worse or riskier investment decisions that may not be in the best long-term financial interests of savers.” Aviva has said: “as currently drafted in Section 28C, the power in the Bill goes far beyond this policy intent and the scope of the Accord, with very limited constraints on how, and under what circumstances, the requirements could be introduced.” The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries has said: “We are concerned about the introduction of investment mandation powers, and potential interference of those powers—or their threatened use—with trustees’ fiduciary duties.” Unison has said: “We have significant concerns about these clauses. Fiduciaries are best placed to set the correct balance between asset classes, and equities have liquidity, governance, transparency of pricing, equality of treatment between investors, and other advantages for pension funds.” Finally, the Association of British Insurers said: “A mandation reserve power would undermine trust in the pension system and create a risk of political interference in capital allocation, which would undermine the UK’s reputation as a predictable and rules-based investment environment.” I understand that this is a reserve power of mandation, but it sets a very bad precedent, so we will oppose the clause.

    Hansard source
40. 9 Sep 2025·Parliament·Mark Garnier

    Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)

    We have no objection to the technical amendments, but we will oppose the whole clause.

    Hansard source