Helen Whately MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Nationally Significant Energy Infrastructure Projects · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about considering the community benefit, what counts as a community is really important. In some circumstances—this has come up in my local area—a large geographical area is considered as a community, even though the number of households that are very substantially affected is very small. It is what they want that should really matter. Yes, of course I care about what the wider community wants, but we need to think about the small number of households in which there has been a real impact on people’s day-to-day lives.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Local Government Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a really important point about local identity and about how important it is that Ministers listen. We have a Minister here today listening. I want to talk about the local government reorganisation in Kent, an area that has an incredibly strong historic identity. It is actually England’s oldest county, with a history going back more than 2,000 years—it was the Kingdom of Kent—yet under this local government reorganisation, Kent is due to be broken up, and it is not even getting a mayor. It will be fragmented into multiple parts. The population between Kent and Medway is over 2 million. At the moment, Kent has an identity and a voice. It is set to lose both through this local government reorganisation, and the case for substantial savings simply is not there. The local government reorganisation needs to be looked at again, and I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that, at the moment, the proposals are a shambles.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, may I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening this evening’s debate, and for setting out the latest Government amendments, in place of the Pensions Minister? These ping-pong sessions with the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell) have become a regular in my diary, and I will miss him this evening. When this Bill was introduced last summer, we said that much of it was a sensible step forward that built on the work of the previous Conservative Government. We stand by that view, but supporting the broad direction of a Bill does not mean unqualified support for its every provision. Throughout its passage, we have challenged the Government on the local government pension scheme, on member communications and on the scale requirements in the Bill, but you will be pleased to know that those debates are behind us, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today, there is just one issue left: mandation, or, as the Government prefer to call it, the reserve power—a power that sat in clause 40 until the noble Lords once again removed it from the Bill last Wednesday. The Government’s case for this power is straightforward: they want more pension investment in private markets and, by extension, more pension investment in the UK. That was the ambition behind the Mansion House accord, and it is an ambition that we share. We want to see the accord succeed, we want more productive investment, and we want pension capital to work harder for savers, but although the ambition is right, this policy is not. Mandation is the wrong lever to achieve those aims. As the House has heard from me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) at each stage of this Bill, mandation is flawed both in principle and in practice. The Government may call it a reserve power, but everyone knows what it is: a threat hanging over pension schemes if they do not fall into line. The Mansion House accord was a voluntary agreement built on trust, with mutual commitments between industry and the Government. Mandation replaces trust with a threat in law. Why would the pension sector, or in fact any sector, ever try to come together and agree a voluntary pact with the Government again if it is hammered into law a few months later? Mandation puts in statute a power that, though more limited in its current manifestation, could be put to all manner of uses. It cuts across the fundamental duty of trustees to act in the best interests of savers; instead, that duty is trumped by Government requirements in law. It means that pension savings, or a share of them, will be put to work to serve the interests of the Government, not the interests of the saver who wants their pension to provide them with a decent income in later life. Perhaps most seriously of all, mandation risks undermining public trust in the pension system. That is why the power is not just unnecessary; it is dangerous and has no place in this Bill. I will now turn to the Government’s latest amendments on mandation that are before us today, which apply to the so-called savers’ interest test. At the moment, if a pension scheme believes that complying with the Government’s mandation power would not be in the members’ interests, it may apply for an exemption, but to secure one, it must show that compliance would cause “material financial detriment” for members. That is an extraordinarily high bar. The Government have heard the concerns raised in this House and the other place, particularly by Lady Bowles, and have now brought forward further amendments. The Minister told us that the amendments will strengthen the exemption process. Well, they do make it slightly easier for schemes to argue that a mandated investment allocation may damage returns. Instead of having to prove that mandation “would” cause material financial detriment, schemes will now need to show that such detriment is just “likely”—we have gone from “would” to “likely”. Frankly, if the Minister thinks that this one-word change offers a truly robust safeguard, I urge him to think again. The need for these amendments tells its own story: the Government accept that mandation risks conflicting with the duties that trustees and pension providers owe to savers. If no such conflict existed, there would be no need at all for an exemption process. The right to appeal, enhanced through today’s amendments, demonstrates that Ministers accept that mandation may force schemes away from doing what is in their members’ best interests. Under the amended Bill, schemes must still prove likely financial harm before they are allowed to do what is best for savers. That misunderstands the principle at the heart of fiduciary duty. Trustees should not need state approval to act in the best interests of their members. These amendments just tinker at the margins; they do not fix the flaw in the policy. I have been talking in somewhat technical terms, but I want to remind the House of the consequences of what we are talking about. If the Government push pension schemes into the wrong investments, those investments underperform and savers end up with weaker returns, who carries the can? Not the Minister, who has stepped in valiantly today, and not the Government, who legislated for this power. It will be pensioners, who will retire with less. Let us remember whose pensions we are talking about here. Who is most likely to suffer if the Government turn out to be a poor asset manager? The millions of workers who contribute via auto-enrolment—people who have never chosen an investment strategy, but who trust pension providers to do the right thing on their behalf. Those people are not poring over fund fact sheets; they are getting on with work and supporting themselves and their families, hoping that one day they will be able to retire with financial security. This policy asks those savers to place their trust not in pension managers, but in Government Ministers. In doing so, it risks undermining the very trust on which auto-enrolment depends. We can debate whether the level of auto-enrolment is right, but no one challenges whether it is a good thing overall. Yet the Government are putting at risk this success story, around which there has been great political consensus, and the consequences do not stop with pension savers. What signal does this send to the wider investment community? We hear that major City reforms are to come in the King’s Speech, but will the market really greet those reforms with confidence if this Bill becomes law with mandation in it? Confidence would be created if investors could see that the Government are committed to making the UK a good place to invest in. Mandation sends the opposite message. It tells people that we have a Government who are prepared to go where the UK state does not usually go: to get involved in the allocation of private capital. It tells people that the Government will take a shortcut to getting investment in the UK by forcing pension schemes to do so, rather than fixing the underlying problems. I do not think that the Minister’s colleagues have really thought this through. The easy answer is rarely the right answer. Where does that leave us? It leaves us at an impasse, with agreement on the diagnosis but profound disagreement on the prescription. We all want more pension investment in the UK, and the Conservatives support moving from a focus on cost to a focus on value. We support removing barriers to the Mansion House accord, but there is no consensus for state compulsion. Pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Ministers. I have yet to find anyone who wants to trust a politician with their hard-earned pension savings, but that is exactly what the Government are trying to force on the country’s savers through this Bill. Today the Minister finds himself tasked with defending the indefensible, and one provision is preventing an otherwise good Bill from passing. The Government amendments make mandation less bad, but if something is wrong in principle, it does not become right in smaller doses. I leave the Government with one simple message: remove mandation, and the job is done—this Bill will pass.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What a difference a week makes. When the hon. Gentleman rose to conclude our debate last Wednesday, he delivered from the Dispatch Box what I can only describe as a tirade. Serious and considered concerns—not just from me and my hon. Friends, but from noble Lords and many respected people across the industry—were met with accusations. We were told that those concerns were “nonsense on stilts”. He said that I had been “infected” by my party. If by that he meant that I have strong opinions—that I believe in a smaller state because Governments do not have all the answers and often need to get out of the way—then I must break the news to him that I have held those views for many years. I came to Parliament after a career in business. I knew my views then, and I still know them now. Last week I thought that the Minister could and should do better, and I am glad that since then he has. His tone has shifted, and I am grateful for the discussions he has had with me and my team. His engagement has been constructive, and we have indeed made progress. Turning to the amendments tabled since our last debate, I first welcome the Government’s commitment on the local government pension scheme. A faster and wider review of the triennial valuation by the Government Actuary’s Department is sensible and significant. If the review is to be meaningful, it must focus on what actually drives employer contribution rates, and we welcome that the Government have now recognised that. Secondly, the Government have committed, in their amendment in lieu of Baroness Neville-Rolfe’s amendment 77, to examine the costs and sustainability of public sector pensions. That too is welcome. That review should consider questions of intergenerational fairness, long-term sustainability and how best to protect the benefits already promised to people, particularly at a time when demands on the state are rising and taxpayers are being asked to contribute more than ever.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  If I could take the hon. Lady back a bit, she might remember when we came into office in 2010, and we had to bring down the deficit year after year to get the country’s finances under control. Giving children the best start in life is not as simple as handing out more money. It is about giving parents the community support they need as they encounter the challenges of bringing up a child, which is why we launched the family hubs. It is about education, but school teachers around the country are being let go. It is about growing up in a household with someone in work, but across the country people are being made redundant because of the Chancellor’s jobs tax. I know that I will not win over everyone here with my argument. For instance, I do not expect to convince the four remaining Reform MPs, because their leader has said that he would remove the two-child limit—the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) believes that is the right thing to do and said that he is not finished yet on benefit giveaways. But asking the taxpayer for ever more in taxes to pay for their neighbour’s benefits is not the right thing to do. The country, taxpayers and future generations cannot afford this. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor and Cabinet Ministers have been unable to rule out more tax rises this autumn. Businesses, working people, pensioners, savers, homeowners—whose pocket will be picked next? Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that the UK’s finances are in a very “vulnerable position”. Now more than ever we need the Government to take the tough decisions—but will they? I know Labour Back Benchers are itching to vote to scrap the limit, but where are the Government on this? Will they take the position of the Prime Minister in 2020, in 2024 or now, or will they have to abstain because the Government just do not know? Soon we will see. Only the Conservatives understand the importance of personal responsibility, fairness and living within our means. Labour, the Lib Dems, the SNP, the Greens and Reform all voted last week for more welfare spending. Will they do the same today, or will they vote with us to back the people getting up every morning, going out to work, doing the hard yards, making the hard choices and working hard to build our country?