Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 250, in clause 38, page 37, line 12, at end insert “or (c) the relevant Master Trust meets the innovation exemption requirement.”
Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
The Bill sets a minimum asset threshold of £25 billion for workplace pension schemes to operate as megafunds by 2030. This is not, in itself, particularly controversial, and we are all fully aware of the arguments about scale being effective when running pension funds. The requirement is intended to drive consolidation, improve economies of scale and boost investment in UK assets, but there is concern that such a high threshold could disadvantage boutique or niche funds or new entrants into the market that provide specialist services to cater for financially literate members who prefer a more tailored approach to their pension management. For example, Hargreaves Lansdown has highlighted that its £5 billion fund serves members who value investment autonomy and expertise. The risk is that the policy could reduce competition, limit consumer choice and stifle innovation by making it harder for smaller, specialist providers to operate or enter the market Clause 38 provides little detail of the meaning of the “ability to innovate” and how “strong potential for growth” will be measured, but it is essential that the Bill provides a credible route to support innovation. If we tie the pensions market up by restricting it to a handful of large providers focused on back-book integration and building scale, there will be less space for innovation aimed at pension member engagement. The benefit of the existing market is that its diversity provides choice and creates competition, and competition is an important part of this. Smaller schemes are chosen by employers for specific reasons. If we lose that diversity and essentially create a handful of the same scheme propositions, employers and members will lose out on this benefit. Realistically, it will be extremely challenging for new entrants to the market to have a chance of building the required scale. Our amendments create an innovation exemption for pension funds that provide specialist or innovative services as part of the new entrants clause. This will allow boutique or niche providers to continue operating if they demonstrate diversity in the market or serve a specific member need, even if they do not meet the £25 billion threshold.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
I am not entirely happy with the Minister’s comments. I am slightly surprised, and I thought he might have listened a bit more carefully. We absolutely understand the economies of scale. A large, £25 billion pension fund can do amazing things. We are 100% behind that. We have not disagreed with that at all. However, I somehow feel myself listening to the Minister and hearing the reverse of the arguments we were making as we tried to allow new-entrant banks into the market after the financial crisis. Those of a certain age—and the Minister turned 43 the other day, so he will remember the financial crisis—know that the problem was that a few very big banks were spreading the contagion. I remember being on the Treasury Committee and the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards after the financial crisis, when we were trying to sort out Labour’s previous mess, and not a single ab initio banking licence had been issued for 100 years. The only way that companies could get into the banking market—as Virgin and Metro were doing—was by buying dormant banking licences. I remember having long conversations—successfully, as it turned out—in order to try to allow companies such as Starling into the market. I think that Starling received the first ab initio banking licence for 100 years. Having learned over the past 10 or 15 years about the effects of having large scale only, we are now having an argument about potentially stifling the pensions equivalent of companies such as Starling, Metro, Revolut and other innovators coming into the pensions market. I was hoping that from debating the amendments I could be convinced that the Minister would take away the thinking behind what we have come up with: that innovation should be good, and that there should permanently be new, fresh blood coming through. However, I do not think that he has got it. I was not going to push the amendments to a vote, but I now feel motivated to do so.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
On a point of order, Ms McVey. Might it be easier, for brevity, if we vote on amendments 251 to 253 together?
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 248, in clause 38, page 41, line 4, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 43. This amendment would remove the ability of the Government to set mandatory asset allocation targets for certain pension schemes, specifically requiring investments in UK productive assets such as private equity, private debt, and real estate.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
Amendments 248 and 249 talk about removing mandation—something I spoke about when we debated clause 38, so I will not cover those amendments other than to say that it is something we feel strongly about. Amendment 275 concerns mandation with regard to the water industry. It comes as a result of an announcement from the leader of Reform about potentially using pension fund money to invest in Thames Water, and part of Reform’s manifesto talked about nationalising the water industry, but using pension fund money to own 50% of those holdings. To a certain extent, that is performative because we are talking about a specific sector. This amendment specifically talks about the water companies, but it could be carried forward to any other potentially nationalised sector.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting)
This is rather strange, because I wanted to intervene on the intervention, but I hope that my hon. Friend will come on to the various other things that we have proposed. For example, we have proposed looking at the Maxwell rules, which are driving the incentive of pension fund trustees to invest in gilts because of the implications of volatile markets for balance sheets. We are trying to look at the wider regulation that is driving certain behaviour, and I hope that my hon. Friend will raise that in due course. We are 100% behind the Bill—not every single part of it, although the thrust is very good—but, as my hon. Friend will mention, there are areas that could be changed to achieve its aims.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting)
I rise to speak to new clause 32, which looks at the effects of some of the changes on the UK gilt market. Defined-benefit pension schemes are major holders of UK Government bonds, with pension funds holding around 28% of the gilt market —the UK Government bond market—as of early 2022. Those investments provide stable, long-term funding for the UK Government and are essential to the functioning of the debt market. Significant shift by DB schemes away from gilts and into equities—which, in itself, is not a bad thing, as long as it does not happen in a disorganised way, which could be prompted by policy changes—may reduce the demand for gilts, potentially increasing yields and destabilising the market. At the end of the day, if 28% of the ownership of the gilt market is taken away, somebody else needs to be found to buy it. Otherwise, there will be a falling market. We all know what a gilt crisis looks like for pension funds. The 2022 gilt crisis highlighted the market’s vulnerability to large and sudden sales by pension funds, which triggered a fire-sale spiral and required Bank of England intervention to stabilise prices. It was not a good day. The Debt Management Office and market experts have noted that the gilt market is highly reliant on pension fund investment, and any structural reduction in demand could impact Government borrowing costs and market stability. The Office for Budget Responsibility has highlighted concern about the impact of a low gilt allocation scenario, which is likely if the Bill achieves the outcomes that the Government want. A low gilt allocation scenario would mean that pension sector allocation of gilt holdings would drop to 10% of GDP by around 2040, down from around 30% today. That in itself, all other things being equal, would result in an extra £22 billion of debt interest payments on the current gilt market. We are highly concerned that a wholesale move from the gilt market by the pension industry places even more burden on the Treasury to manage debt payment. As the deficit continues to grow, the Government must have laser focus on the impact on the gilt market in relation to how they fund Government debt. The new clause introduces a requirement for an impact assessment before any regulatory or policy changes that could materially alter DB schemes’ asset allocations away from gilt. It should mandate consultation with the Debt Management Office and industry stakeholders to monitor and mitigate risk to market stability. We are not trying to stop the Government persuading pension funds into equities or other alternative investments, but we need a proper conversation with the Debt Management Office about what that means for the cost of Government borrowing, which could potentially be significant.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting)
I thank the Minister for talking through the amendments. We understand the intention behind them, but we are worried that, as can often be the case, there may be an unintended consequence: the creation of a closed shop for master trusts. We do not want suddenly to find that, in trying to make a transition pathway, we end up making things more difficult because it has been interpreted in the wrong way. We are minded to oppose the amendments, but perhaps the Minister could instead give us his thoughts on how we can ensure that they do not get used the wrong way and that we do not end up with a closed shop of master trusts.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting)
I completely understand that. The question is, what is plausible? One man’s plausible might be another man’s impossible. That is the bit that we are worried about: how to ensure that someone is not squeezed out who otherwise could be in it.
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting)
I beg to move amendment 257, in clause 41, page 53, line 7, at end insert— “117GA FCA guidance (1) The FCA must issue guidance on contractual overrides. (2) Guidance on contractual overrides must include— (a) when and how overrides can be used; (b) how to demonstrate transfers are always in members’ best interests; and (c) how contractual overrides are independently certified.” Amendments 255, 256 and 257 ensure that contractual override powers are operational in advance of the first value for money assessments. The amendment is very similar to amendment 278, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Tamworth. The industry has highlighted to us a concern that the Government’s proposed sequencing will not provide enough time between contractual overrides becoming permissible and VFM assessments being conducted, which will totally undermine the effectiveness of consolidation and value improvement. Pensions UK has encouraged the Government to accelerate that and to bring forward the implementation to allow schemes to make progress on consolidation sooner, so that the override is in place well in advance of the VFM framework. We drafted amendment 257 with the idea that if transfers took place before the VFM framework was implemented, further guidance from the FCA would be required on how and when overrides could be used. However, we welcome the compromise set out in amendment 278, which would ensure that external transfers do not take place until VFM assessments are available. Frankly, that amendment is better-crafted than ours. If we had done them the other way around, I would have deferred to the advice of the hon. Member for Tamworth on whether she wanted to move the amendment. She was right to withdraw her amendment, and we will withdraw ours, but I urge the Minister to write to us both on the outcome of this matter before Report. It would be useful to have his comments beforehand so that we can challenge him on Report, and possibly move the amendment again—who knows?
- Hansard source
Pension Schemes Bill (Sixth sitting)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 143, in clause 41, page 53, line 8, leave out “Powers to make” and insert “Treasury”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 144. Amendment 144, in clause 41, page 53, line 25, at end insert— “(1A) The Treasury must by regulations require the FCA to include provision of a description specified in the regulations in general rules made in compliance with section 117E(4)(a) (how to determine whether a person is independent), alongside any other provision included in such general rules. (1B) Regulations under subsection (1A) must in particular require the FCA to include in such general rules provision designed to ensure that the independent person does not have a conflict of interest.” This amendment requires the Treasury to make regulations about the requirements that need to be met by an independent person appointed under section 117E. Amendment 145, in clause 41, page 53, line 38, leave out from “benefits”” to end of line 39 and insert “means money purchase benefits within the meaning of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 181(1) of that Act) or the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (see section 176(1) of that Act);”. This amendment is consequential on Amendment 140. Amendment 146, in clause 41, page 54, line 3, leave out from “scheme”” to end of line 4 and insert “means a personal pension scheme within the meaning of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 1(1) of that Act) or the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (see section 1(1) of that Act);”.—(Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 140. Clause 41, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 Default pension benefit solutions
- Hansard source
Financial Services Reform
I also congratulate the hon. Member on her elevation to Economic Secretary to the Treasury; I am sure she will do very well. The UK banking sector provides a valuable service to our economy, keeping money in circulation, funding business and mortgages and all the rest of it. The financial services sector is the UK’s biggest export sector. According to UK Finance, UK banks generate around £45 billion in tax every year, but because of things like the bank levy, UK banks now pay an effective rate of around 46%, which is higher than competitors in New York, Frankfurt, Dublin and Singapore. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has managed to dig her own £30 billion black hole in the economy, but can the Minister reassure the City of London and this House that there are no plans to increase taxes on our banking and wider financial services sector in the upcoming Budget in November?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on the negotiations. He is making great play of the fact that the previous Government started the negotiations and that there were 11 rounds of them. Is he not aware that, in 1965, the United Nations passed a resolution saying that we should enter into conversations with Argentina over the Falkland Islands. Those negotiations went on for 17 years and ended in 1981. In 1982, we all know what happened. So it is not where we start; it is where we finish.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
If the Minister is such a big fan of the social time discounting method that has been applied, will he tell the House where the social time discounting method has been used in other parts of Government to generate net present value?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
I do not know whether the hon. Member listened to the outstanding, forensic dismantling of the Government’s case by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), but on the basis that every constituency in this country will kiss away the opportunity to have £52 million as a result of this deal—that is what it is going to cost in total—would he like to tell the people of Dunfermline and Dollar why he would rather give away that amount of money to a foreign Government on a spurious legal basis than invest it in his own constituency?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
I am grateful to the hon. and gallant Member for giving way. On the pricing, he said that Government Front Benchers are putting it out that this is a good deal. Would it still be a good deal if it was £35 billion or something like that?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
There are no two ways about it: this is a surrender Bill with no benefits to my Broxbourne constituents. Ministers have shamefully attempted to hide the shocking cost of this deal from the British people and the public at large. When the new Labour Government took office, they kept telling us in this Chamber about the pretend £22 billion black hole in the public finances. If the black hole of £22 billion that we are continually told about by the Government did exist, I could solve it overnight—don’t do this deal. This deal is £35 billion to the Mauritian Government. The Labour Government go after British family farms with the family farm tax. They go after our pensioners and take their winter fuel allowance away, and they increase national insurance contributions for businesses, to make it more expensive for them to employ people, but they could just not do this deal. They talk in fiction, and this is an absolute disgrace. How will Mauritius spend this money? By cutting taxes for its own citizens and paying their debts. Is the Minister proud that the only income tax cuts that this Labour Government will deliver are 6,000 miles away at the expense of the British taxpayer? The last time I checked, this was the British Parliament and we are supposed to stand up for British interests, not the interests of foreign countries or foreign citizens. We should be cutting taxes here and turbocharging the economy, not giving stuff away that we already own. We already have a base, and now we are going to lease it back, as we have heard from a number of colleagues.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
No, I will not give way. There have been lots of interventions, and I am fed up with the same interventions coming from the same Labour Members. Quite frankly it does not help the debate—just because they say something several times does not make it true. The Bill is costing us financially, but it also has security risks. China supports the deal and is welcoming Mauritius into its sphere of influence with open arms. Mauritius is strengthening relations with Iran and Russia. As a Policy Exchange report notes, it is impossible to assert with certainty how much influence China will have over Mauritius in the next five or 10 years, let alone for the 99-year duration of this lease. We already have British sovereign territory with a base, so I cannot understand why we have done that negotiation, and why we are hurting the British people with tax rises. As I said, we are being cruel to older people by taking away their winter fuel allowance, going after farmers with the family farm tax, and going after British businesses with the increase to national insurance contributions, yet we can find money out of nowhere—£35 billion—to give to Mauritius. In summary, I gently say to the Government that people out there know that. When we knock on doors, as I am sure we all do across our constituencies, people will say to us, “Hang on a minute. How come we are being punished? How come we have to pay more taxes, but you soon find money when it suits you?” That is why the British public have fallen out of love with this Government already. Hopefully the Government will wake up and start representing the people who they were elected to represent in this Chamber: the British public, not foreign Governments such as that of Mauritius.
- Hansard source
Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025
It is a pleasure to see your wisdom in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. Although I understand the impetus behind the change, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about it. She and I have traded blows over this agenda in the past. She was my shadow for two years, so I congratulate her on her new position. I am sure she will do a fantastic job. In considering this change, we have to ask ourselves why sharing was made so difficult in the first place. We have to trust that those who came before us, who put this legislation in place, considered that issue. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, said that subsequent events have illustrated the need for agencies to work together more closely on the analysis of data for the prevention of the sorts of incidents he mentioned. Despite that, I think we have to come with a bit of scepticism about what the result of these regulations might be, and what liberties we might be trampling over. My questions are framed in that regard. I was slightly alarmed by what the Minister said and the contents of the explanatory memorandum, and I was thinking about raising a point of order about the fact that the Government cannot really tell us why the competent authorities have been included in the list. It raises the question of why we are all here. We might as well have had a list that said, “Whoever we decide. Don’t ask questions.” It does seem a bit odd that we are passing regulations, but we are hampered in our scrutiny in asking questions about particular organisations. Nevertheless, I will ask the questions that I have about them and see what the Minister has to say. First, I wanted to ask about the provosts. The list includes the provost marshals of the Royal Navy Police, of the Royal Military Police and of the Royal Air Force Police, and “The Provost Marshal for serious crime.” I had never heard of that person before, so perhaps the Minister could start by telling us who the provost marshal for serious crime is. I understand that all the other organisations—certainly the police and chief constables—have very strong and automated controls on the data that they use, not least to the extent, for example, that every access that any individual makes to the police computing system is logged and maintained, and people are very often convicted for irregularly accessing material. However, given that these individuals are military and that we are living with the consequences of a major military data breach that has cost us many billions of pounds and put quite a lot of lives at risk, can the Minister reassure us that the processing of data between civil and military organisations will be done to the same standard, and that it therefore will be safe from leakage? Regulation 2(o) states that, “a body established in accordance with a collaboration agreement under section 22A of the Police Act 1996(9)” can be classed as a qualifying competent authority. What type of body might that be? If we were to have an example of such an organisation, we might be able to form a view on whether it is appropriate for it to be on the list. I have a question about the inclusion of Revenue and Customs. As the Minister may know, in the old days when Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were two separate organisations, they had very different cultures. The culture at Customs and Excise was of kicking the door down. They were kind of “Moonfleet”, Daphne du Maurier-type anti-smuggling hard men and women, whereas at the Inland Revenue they were a little more intellectual and professional. In one, they wore suits; in the other, they wore flak jackets. When Gordon Brown amalgamated the two, unfortunately the muscular culture at Customs and Excise was translated and taken over at the Revenue, to the extent that they now both have more kick-in-the-door characters. So I am concerned about the amount of sensitive personal data that Revenue and Customs control at the moment; about the culture of that organisation and its increasing aggression over the last 20 years or so; and what implication that is going to have for the rest of us. I understand that the Minister cannot tell us why this is being introduced, but is she able to tell us whether Customs and Excise will, as a result, be asked to routinely scan millions and millions of datapoints and people’s personal financial data to look for patterns of movement and transactions, for example? Or is this for use in relation to specific investigations? My general view is that, as with most things, the British people will accept a specific investigatory sharing regime, but may not accept a general fishing regime. The same is true of the Land Registry, which is on the list. I understand that in the search for illicit funds or activity, specific inquiries and the processing of data is required, but on general scanning, particularly as the Land Registry becomes more and more digital and automated, I am nervous about us moving to a kind of American-style National Security Agency approach, where billions if not trillions of datapoints are collected on a regular basis and analysed by computers—artificial intelligence or whatever it might be—to look for patterns of behaviour. That may well be the way that we are going, but if we are going there, we should be transparent with the public about what we are doing, notwithstanding that the Minister cannot tell us why or what today. I have two further questions. On supervision, what will the supervision over this necessarily covert process be? Does the ICO, which I presume will be the supervisory body, have the right security clearance at the right level that will allow it to access this operation of data sharing to the extent that it can satisfy itself that the statement that the Minister has made—that we are in compliance with all our human rights obligations and in compliance with the law—will be looked at? Within the Department, similarly, what will supervision of the effect of this data sharing be? Thirdly, given that this will be new, is it likely to be brought to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review of its operation? That would be at least three layers of supervision over what is quite a large step up in capability—it is not unwelcome, but it is a large step up—by the Security Services and others. Finally, I want to ask about risk assessment. The sharing of data between organisations could present a greater risk of leakage, or alternatively it could mean, if only one of them is maintaining the data to which the other has access, that there is less likelihood of leakage. We have talked about efficacy. The Minister did not say anything about the risks and benefits from a data security point of view. As we have learned to our cost recently with the military, the transfer of data between organisations, whether sharing or otherwise, does run the risk of it falling into hands that it should not. Will these organisations therefore have to subscribe to a tighter data control regime than they would have done, to make sure that the possibility of that leakage is minimised?
- Hansard source
Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025
The Minister said that these notices will be published; will these bodies be general powers or specific powers? Will the Government say, “We’re going to grant a notice on this for six months for a specific purpose,” or will it be just, “We’re going to let the Army share it with whoever, in perpetuity”? So, are the powers time limited? Secondly, while I understand that the Minister cannot explain to us why, who or what regarding these organisations, as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot said, all of these organisations will be processing that data on third-party software, much of which will be owned by private corporations, many from overseas. Does this power extend to them, by proxy, because they are contractors to the primary organisation—which is, necessarily, by its nature, public sector—or will there be firewalls and controls therein as well?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
My right hon. Friend made an excellent point earlier about the underlying socialism in this agreement. The initial agreement—[Laughter.] No, let me just clarify: the initial agreement from May very clearly says it is about apologising for the colonisation of Mauritius and that it is about the regrettable legacy. Everything is laid out: it is about apologising for our British history and heritage. It is not about being proud of protecting our sovereignty, protecting the realm and protecting our security. We should not be saying that we will apologise and pay out because we feel bad about everything that we have done. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Labour party, and that is why we are taking such objection to this Bill.
- Hansard source
Financial Services Reform
I warmly welcome the new Economic Secretary to her role. Over the summer I looked at issues around liquidity in the London Stock Exchange and the deterioration that has happened. Given that only 15% of share trades attract stamp duty and much more trading is conducted in a dark environment, will the new Economic Secretary meet with me to hear my concerns and the concerns of those in the City so that we can move forward in a positive direction?
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farming
6. If she will meet with representatives of the farming industry to discuss the potential impact of changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on that sector.
- Hansard source
Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farming
The Chancellor elicited much public sympathy with her recent tearful appearance on these Benches, but over the summer I have had Dumfries and Galloway farmers in tears at the loss of the next generation of farming. A new Centre for the Analysis of Taxation report says that HMRC’s own figures indicate that these changes to taxes are unfair and unbalanced. Will the Minister please think again?
- Hansard source
Planning Reform: Economic Growth
The Government want to drive growth through house building, but even before the departure of the Deputy Prime Minister, they were predicted to miss the 1.5 million new homes target by half a million. How does the Chancellor and her team of tax raisers think a 3,000% hike in the builders tax, adding £28,000 to the cost of building a new home, will help to deliver the new homes that young people need? Rather than consult on it, why will she not rule out this damaging tax rise?
- Hansard source
Infrastructure Strategy: Economic Growth
The Chancellor once claimed that she had a plan for fixing the foundations with infrastructure at the very heart. Now, through a consultation that the Government hoped nobody would notice, she has found a way to tax the foundations. By looking to impose a new levy on quarries, Labour could add billions of pounds more to the costs of infrastructure projects across the country. That cannot be right. Can the Chancellor please provide the construction industry—the very people who will grow our economy—with an assurance that this proposed builders tax will not go ahead?
- Hansard source
Neurodivergent People: Employment
Order. May I remind hon. Members that interventions are just that? They are interventions, not short speeches.
- Hansard source
Neurodivergent People: Employment
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
- Hansard source
Neurodivergent People: Employment
We have quite a lot of Members in the room wishing to speak, so can we keep speeches to a maximum of four minutes?
- Hansard source
Housing: North Staffordshire
I will call Dr Allison Gardner to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they can make a speech only with prior permission from both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Will the Minister give way on that point?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
The Minister has made it absolutely apparent that this is about the long-term security of the base, so could he explain why, under article 13, if after 99 years the Mauritians decide not to negotiate, the base will just stop. We will get first refusal, but we can easily see that the Chinese would outbid us because we in this country decide that that is not affordable. We are a hostage to fortune, and that base will crumble. He has not secured the base, he has just deferred the issue by four generations, and this House will then have to decide what to do.
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
rose—
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
Can the Minister point to any other country in the world that has used NPV to give away sovereignty? As far as I am aware, there is none, so why are we pioneering that way forward?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
The Minister challenged the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor about our position on net present value, but the reason is that the use of NPV is unprecedented. It is used for commercial deals that the Government make and is standardised for that alone, not for international agreements on sovereignty. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we will not change on net present value, which has its place in commercial deals but not in giving away sovereignty?
- Hansard source
Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill
On the conservation point, is it not that the case has already been tested in UNCLOS between 2010 and 2015, when it was said that we could not go ahead with a marine protection area for this British territory because we had not consulted properly with Mauritius? At that point, it was also determined that UNCLOS could not rule on sovereignty as that was not its basis. So we found out not only about the sovereignty side, but that we cannot protect the islands on the environmental part. What guarantees does my right hon. Friend see in the treaty that we will have ecological protections in the area, given those findings?