Callum Anderson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The urgent need for, and the strategic imperative of, economic growth matters nowhere more than in Buckingham and Bletchley. My constituency lies at the heart—the engine room—of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. If we get economic growth right, it will enable us to support high-growth businesses across my constituency and beyond, strengthening the local economies of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keyes and enabling the UK to develop a strategically important economic region. It will build a globally competitive, modern British economy, with higher wages and more opportunities for the families and communities I represent in Parliament. In addition to the measures that the Government introduced in the first parliamentary session, I established the Bletchley investment taskforce, bringing together local leaders, employers and investors, as a vehicle to attract the businesses, investment, jobs and apprenticeships that communities in my constituency need. In the coming weeks we will publish our first investment prospectus for Bletchley, and I am grateful to colleagues from across Government who have been supporting our work. In Bletchley, firms such as Pulsar Fusion and Carnot Engines are developing innovative technologies that are global leaders. On the other side of my constituency, the advanced engineering cluster surrounding Silverstone is home to a number of world-leading Formula 1 teams, again showing that when Britain invests in its people we can be global leaders. There are also parts of my constituency that are home to a number of rural enterprises, family farms and small independent businesses, which are all contributing to local growth and prosperity. Those businesses are asking not for special favours but for the right conditions to grow: access to capital and talent, fair regulations, and lower barriers to trade. That is why I welcome a number of the measures in the King’s Speech. The regulating for growth Bill is particularly welcome because over the last 25 years Britain has become a country, as Members across the House have mentioned, where the regulation system is too slow, too fragmented, and poorly suited to confront the pace of modern technological change. Other Members have also mentioned the enhancing financial services Bill and the wider Leeds reforms that will come with it. I congratulate the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), for all the work she did to lay the foundations of that Bill. Financial services are one of Britain’s great strengths, providing the investment that drives growth across all sectors of our economy. That is particularly relevant to Milton Keynes, as it is home to a growing suite of financial and professional services firms such as Santander and Allica Bank, both of which employ people in my constituency. A globally competitive financial services sector is imperative in enabling high-growth companies in my constituency to access the capital that they need to innovate and create jobs. However, we also need to mobilise more British capital towards British assets, particularly high-growth companies. As many Members debated in the last parliamentary session, it is now important that the Government focus on implementing the Pension Schemes Act 2026. I also welcome the small business protections Bill. Late payments and non-payments continue to damage firms of all types and sizes across the country, including in Buckingham and Bletchley, particularly those operating within tight margins. The stronger protections in the Bill for smaller companies will help local firms across my constituency. I will not be as effusive about the European partnership Bill as some other Members who have spoken, but I believe it is in the national interest to take the required measures to reduce unnecessary friction for exporters and businesses trading with our European neighbours, regardless of whether they are farmers or other high-growth companies. The success of the King’s Speech in the coming months will depend on whether we match it with the ambition of local companies, such as the ones in my constituency. I look forward to playing my part in ensuring that those measures are implemented as soon as possible.

• 25 Nov 2025 · Pension Investment in UK Equities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and to keep the Minister company on the Government side. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this debate and on a highly compelling speech and argument. The question of whether we can create the right incentive framework for domestic pension funds to invest more in the UK is a strong one—not only in UK equities but across all asset classes, including gilts and infrastructure. It goes to the heart of the Government’s growth mission. It is imperative for strengthening our national economy and for unlocking the regional potential of our economies, including in my own constituency of Buckingham and Bletchley, which lies in the engine room of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Backing British businesses of all types and sizes across the UK with British capital is fundamental to jobs, greater levels of innovation and, in the long run, higher household incomes. However, it is also important for our economic sovereignty. As hon. Members have explained, if we are unwilling to invest in our own economy, we risk increasing our reliance on international capital, which may not necessarily prioritise the UK’s long-term national interest. I welcome the work that the Minister has advanced through the Pension Schemes Bill. It is a good Bill. Creating larger pension funds that are able to invest at scale will deliver stronger returns for millions of savers, including those in my constituency. The scale of the challenge with regard to domestic pension investment in our economy is stark. The right hon. Member for Salisbury was clear in setting out the data from the new financial think-tank. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) explained the steady decline of domestic pension investment over the last two, three or four decades. Data that I would cite for international comparisons lies in the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce, of which I know the London Stock Exchange Group is a leading member, and which I cited on Second Reading of the Pension Schemes Bill, but it is worth repeating now. Canadian pension funds are hugely overweight in their own domestic economy relative to their share of the global markets by about two and a half times. The figure for France is a factor of nine; Italy 10; Australia 27; and South Korea is an astonishing 30 times overweight. By contrast, in the United Kingdom we are underweight by about 40%. That was the data from about a year ago. This is not a marginal trend; it identifies a structural weakness in our global competitiveness, our industrial capability and our long-term national economic resilience. As has been said, it is not just about our pension funds. Since the pandemic, UK households have accumulated greater levels of cash savings—depending on the financial institution, that is £600 billion, £700 billion and so on. It is positive that UK households have bigger cash buffers, but having excess cash not only potentially damages the ability to grow long-term wealth and secure financial security in the long run, but it deprives the many innovative scale-ups that we have in the UK from the investment that they need to grow, create jobs and deliver tax receipts for the Exchequer. If we want a stronger, more secure economy, we have to mobilise all sources of domestic capital—that includes pension funds, retail savings and also our public institutions like the British Business Bank—to meet what I think are three principal goals. The first is to strengthen the integrity and vitality of UK public equity markets—I do have an interest, having worked for the London Stock Exchange Group before I entered Parliament—which was rightly cited as a priority in the Government’s financial services growth and competitiveness strategy earlier this year. Listed companies are already employing 4 million people across the UK. When domestic capital supports the domestic economy, firms can raise further growth capital, which we saw to its benefit during the pandemic. It can also create further jobs. A vibrant public market can also attract, in turn, a wider pool of investors, domestic or international, and create a virtuous cycle of demand, valuation and innovation. Secondly, I have already referred to national economic resilience. When domestic firms depend primarily on foreign investors, as we have seen in the case of Arm—I was at LSEG at the time—they are more likely to list overseas and more likely to relocate there. Their leadership teams shift supply chains and take their tax receipts and intellectual property with it. We need to mobilise our own domestic capital, which secures our long-term economic sovereignty. Thirdly, lastly, and perhaps most importantly, it is about ensuring that our exciting innovators, of which there are many in my own constituency, are able to thrive and reach their full potential here. They all require patient capital, which was outlined in the industrial strategy. If Britain wants to lead in those industries, we must mobilise all our pension savings to give our unicorns the opportunity to compete globally. I will stop there because I am very aware of my six minutes.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Regional Economic Growth: Pension Funds · Hansard source

  More

  The establishment of the Sterling 20 sends a strong signal that this country is serious about mobilising more of its own domestic capital into productive domestic assets. As the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor’s anchor, my Buckingham and Bletchley constituency is primed to offer high-quality investment opportunities. Can the Minister set out more detail about how he is working with local authorities, such as the Labour-run Milton Keynes city council, to ensure that we provide that pipeline, and will he meet me to discuss how we can take it further?

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a short question about scale tests. Both organisations have reflected a concern that the drive to consolidating may be undermining smaller schemes. How can we ensure that there are sufficient reassurances in the Bill that support better transition pathway rules? Zoe Alexander: I am pleased to talk on this point. We are supportive of consolidation and we absolutely see the benefits of scale, but we are concerned that there are a very small number of very high value schemes in the market that are already adversely affected by the presence of the scale provisions in the Bill. EBCs are not sending business their way because they are under £25 billion or cannot necessarily show those that they are on a path to that number. It is really critical that the transition pathway is in place as early as it possibly can be, and also that EBCs are encouraged to understand the way that the market dynamics will work here. What we do not want is for really high-value schemes that are delivering great investment returns, that are really innovative and that may be investing very heavily in the UK to fail simply because of the scale test. We want those schemes to provide and to grow, in the interests of members. Rob Yuille: I agree with that, but I would like to make a wider, related point about the route to 2030 and the importance of getting the sequencing right for—

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In all aspects of our financial system and our financial markets, and when it comes to either public activities or private markets, transparency is very much the best way to derive the most effective outcomes for those who benefit from pension schemes. Initiatives such as the Mansion House accord, which has been referred to a number of times in this debate, have been welcome steps. When it comes to asset allocation, private sector leadership should always be preferable where possible, but we need to be candid about the fact that the challenge we face in the UK is stark and immediate. I now consider it necessary for the Government to signal to the markets that they will not ignore the reality that allocations by UK institutions to UK assets have fallen sharply over my lifetime, and certainly over the last 40 or 50 years, and that they are prepared to exercise a degree of agency, if required. Ideally, any reserve power will not be required. If the Government succeed with their broader economic strategy, there will be a wealth of investable opportunities that will attract capital without the need for compulsion. Although the Government will need to exercise any reserve power in the most judicious and careful way, and in close consultation with the industry, we simply cannot stand by and allow our domestic markets to be hollowed out. I understand that not everyone is in favour of the state intervening in markets, and I am sure that the Minister, who worked at the Treasury, will remember that not everyone in the City wanted the Government to step in and rescue Lloyds Banking Group or the Royal Bank of Scotland, but sometimes the Government have to act decisively in the country’s long-term economic interests. The Bill is a welcome and necessary step towards answering the question of how we inject greater confidence into our companies, our markets and our economy, while also providing people with a safe and secure retirement. That is why I am pleased to support it tonight.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, I think that larger funds can manage risk better and deliver better outcomes for savers, which means that they can take greater ownership of how they spend their retirement years. I also think that the £25 billion threshold for megafunds in the defined-contribution market is the right level to deliver the objective. Other jurisdictions, especially Australia, Canada, and the Netherlands, have demonstrated that scale drives better governance, lower fees and stronger returns. I welcome consolidation and the path towards the professionalisation of the local government pension scheme. I disclose that before I entered this place, I chaired a local authority pension fund, so I know at first hand the potential of pooling, and share many experiences of pension fund meetings with the shadow Minister. I fully acknowledge that there will be resistance to pooling in some quarters.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Stakeholders and firms that I have spoken to—in the local government pension sector, the private sector and the City of London—are unanimous that scale is very much an economic imperative. Have the Government considered what role fiscal incentives can play in helping to accelerate the consolidation of private DC funds, and whether there is scope to reduce the number of LGPS pools in the year ahead? I particularly welcome the Bill’s proposal for a comprehensive value-for-money framework to guide DC consolidation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) mentioned. This correctly tackles head-on the trustee cost mindset, which too often prioritises the cheapest over the most appropriate asset allocation. That approach has frequently been tried and tested, and it delivers poorer returns for savers and missed opportunities for the wider economy, so I very much hope that DC consolidation can be implemented as soon as possible. Finally, I want to address the issue of mandation, which, to be honest, probably warrants a debate all by itself. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House, and by people in the investment industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) referred to the parliamentary fund, and I note non-facetiously that the parliamentary fund, of which we are all ultimately beneficiaries, allocates barely 1% of its assets to UK companies.