John Glen MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jan 2026 · Food Inflation · Hansard source

  More

  May I say what a pleasure it is to serve not only under your chairship, Dame Siobhain, but on the Treasury Committee with you and the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West)? I first became engaged in this subject during my first Parliament, when I joined the all-party parliamentary group on hunger and food poverty with the late Frank Field. He taught me a great deal, and we worked together on a cross-party basis to produce a report on hunger and food poverty. I was drawn to this topic by the fact that the Trussell Trust was founded in Salisbury by Paddy and Carol Henderson, who were taking food into Bulgaria at the time. In 2000, the first food bank was opened in Salisbury, and we now see food banks across the country. While I will address what the hon. Lady spoke about, it is also important that we reflect on some of the deeper challenges that exist with food inflation, which is running at a much higher rate than the prevailing level of inflation. In preparing for this debate, I examined the facts carefully and read briefings from UKHospitality, the Food and Drink Federation, the National Farmers Union and the Trussell Trust, all of which provide helpful analysis. Over the five-year period up to August 2025, food inflation was about 10% higher than the prevailing general level of inflation. As the hon. Lady set out, that has had a massive impact on the poorest in our communities, who in different ways spend a higher proportion of their income on food. We in this Chamber can all attribute different weightings to different aspects of this issue, including international global agricultural prices and the clearly significant disruption to the supply chain after the invasion of Ukraine. The Bank of England would assert that domestic labour costs and high pay growth is a key factor, particularly in sectors such as horticulture, where there is a degree of mechanisation. However, we are never going to remove the reliance—I speak as the son of a horticulturalist—on the hard work of people being paid to do a manual job. In a written answer published just last week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury spoke about the Government’s intention to set out the food inflation gateway to examine all the different drivers of inflation. I acknowledge the work the Government are doing, and I am sure the Minister will follow up on that to reset somewhat the relationship with the EU. Business rates are also a factor, but if we look across milk, sugar, cheese and flour—some of the most basic staple foodstuffs—we see significant increases over the last five years, which range from 19% for flour up to 56% for sugar and 46% for milk. We have to be honest about all the different regulations and obligations that we put on those who supply our food and prepare it for us in restaurants. The input-cost pressures need to be carefully weighed against one another. I mentioned the significant increases in labour costs, and the agricultural sector’s reliance on labour, but it is also about energy costs. Our energy costs are 45% higher at this point in time than those in France and Germany. That is a cost that many of the food processing industries just cannot avoid. The Government will assert that they are on a transformational journey, but until that we reach the destination, the costs are incredibly high and difficult to bear. Animal welfare is an important issue for many in the Chamber and across the House. If we look at how farming works, we see that there is actually a lower density of poultry and beef, which leads to different costs for producing some of those things. We want to have it all, including the extended producer responsibility—a whole life-cycle responsibility for packaging. When we take all these things together, simultaneously, in a five-year period of global disruption, the outcome is very worrying. It would be remiss not to mention the impact of climate change on crops such as coffee, cocoa and palm oil. The net effect is that food is too expensive for the most vulnerable and the poorest in our communities. That has really difficult consequences. It is a massive part of our economy. UKHospitality covers, I think, 123,000 venues, and 10% of all UK jobs. The sector generates £54 billion in tax receipts, so the changes that we make to its input costs will have enormous consequences. We have to be honest about which changes we are prepared to prioritise and which changes we cannot afford at this point in time, because they will have an impact. I want to make a few observations about food poverty. Just last week I visited Maria Stevenson, who manages the Salisbury food bank, which used to be a Trussell Trust food bank and is now independent. She does an amazing job of analysing those who use the food bank—those who go occasionally or on a recurring basis—to try to give them additional support and make interventions, such as supporting them to secure the right benefits or helping them with other things in their lives. We have to grasp that. None of us want to see food banks grow. We should have pride in what Paddy and Carol Henderson did all those years ago, but not in seeing food banks grow as they have over the last 25 years. We have to be honest about the situations people are in. Next Monday, we will have a financial wellbeing workshop in our guildhall in Salisbury, where the Money and Pensions Service is inviting people to open up and talk about cost of living pressures, so that we can find solutions. I do not expect the Minister to be able to go through all the input costs today and give an analysis of how they are going to be reduced—although I recognise that there were some hopeful signs at the end of last year on both food inflation and general inflation, albeit from a higher base than I would have liked to have seen. We must also look into people’s wider financial wellbeing and the circumstances they find themselves in. Inflation is insidious. It removes the buying power of our constituents. One of the wealthiest countries in the world has people who do not have enough food to eat. We must all redouble our efforts to tackle that, so that we can be proud of what we have achieved by the end of our time in Parliament. My experience is that, given their complicated circumstances, those experiencing food poverty need more than just a handout.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Duncan Grocock, a frequent commuter from Salisbury to London, came to see me about the short-forming of South Western Railway trains along the line through Andover and Basingstoke. Passengers can be compensated when trains are late, but not when they must stand for commutes of an hour and a half. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement from one of his Department for Transport colleagues on whether compensation can be paid to commuters on that line who have to stand on three-carriage trains into London?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Town of Culture and City of Culture Competitions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State on getting the town of culture competition to happen. I was briefly Arts Minister nine years ago, and Sir Phil Redmond did an amazing job then of setting out the distinction between city of culture and town of culture. I seek the Secretary of State’s advice about Salisbury. As it is really a town with a cathedral, should it bid for town of culture or the city of culture competition, as it celebrates its 800th year since its charter?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Just before Christmas, Mr Rahman, a leaseholder in a Taylor Wimpey property, came to see me. There are 100 years remaining on his lease and a modest ground rent, but he cannot secure a sale because Taylor Wimpey will not agree to a reasonable deed of variation in relation to the ground rent provisions. He has incurred costs of upwards of £5,000 and is basically stuck in his property, so I would be very grateful if the Minister could look at this case—I have written to him—and see whether his plans will address this poor individual’s circumstances.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Ukraine and Wider Operational Update · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his update. He is a serious and experienced politician, and I have no doubt that he always acts in the national interest. What concerns me is the gap between the coherence of NATO and its approach—the approach that he has set out that we will take if a peace agreement can be found in Ukraine—and the determination that we are seen to have to meet the new level of threat from Russia and elsewhere in the world with respect to our commitment on defence spending. I respect that he asserts that the Government are committed to 3% between 2029 and 2034, but with the greatest respect, there is a great difference in the timeframe between the start and end of that five-year window. In previous generations this country has had to make sacrifices to defend itself. I think that he needs to think about whether we should be making that case now, so that we can be ready for what may be ahead of us.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the partial U-turn. When I met a number of farmers on Boxing day, all 400 of them were very concerned that the next phase of this Government’s relationship with rural Britain would be a consultation on banning trail hunting. On the basis of this experience, I think that the Minister could go back to the Treasury and ask his officials to put together a team to work very closely with their counterparts in DEFRA to absolutely ensure that the farmers’ obligation, and indeed their true intent—to produce food and be good stewards of the environment— can be combined, and to ensure that never again in the course of this Parliament will such measures be undertaken as they were last year.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  On Sunday, George Starling told me of his work as a volunteer for the Prison Fellowship with the Sycamore Tree project, which is a restorative justice scheme that has been going on for over 50 years. The scheme has been shut down, and its appeal has not been granted. It is a victim awareness and restorative justice programme involving six weeks of work in prisons up and down the country. Could we have a statement from a Minister or a debate on the role of Christian charities in delivering restorative justice? It seems very unreasonable that all the volunteers, who have done such amazing work over 25 years, are going to be prevented from continuing to do so.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the publication of the strategy, and acknowledge the Minister’s commitment over many years to get to this point—this must be a great moment for her. A few weeks ago, I visited Salisbury Soroptimists, who published “Fresh Thoughts”, a document taken from Dorset and customised for Wiltshire to give information and support for women fleeing domestic abuse, through close working with Wiltshire police, Wiltshire council and the end violence against women and girls campaign in Wiltshire. After I go back and tell them about this strategy, how best can they engage with it to build on the work that the Minister has set out?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  10. What discussions he has had with service chiefs on the proposed level of spending in the forthcoming defence investment plan.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I am a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and I have seen reports that service chiefs are drafting letters to the Secretary of State warning of their concerns about whether enough money is going into defence. When the delayed defence investment plan is produced, will it give clarity on when the Government will reach the critical 3% threshold? To be credible, the plan needs to distinguish between the start of the next Parliament, which will be in 2029, and the end of it, which will be in 2034. If the plan does not do that, no one will take the aspiration seriously.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May we have a debate on capital expenditure in the NHS? All our constituents will see the tax announcements and then think that that means extra investment. In south Wiltshire, we are still waiting for the elective day surgery announcement to take place. We have been told that it is on hold and that work is trying to be done for less money, while the wards have buckets collecting water. It is pretty important that people understand the process of allocation to actually see the effect on the ground, and that would be valuable for all of us.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Seasonal Work · Hansard source

  More

  Governments have to make choices—we all understand that—but the choice that this Government made was not to cut spending on welfare, which has limited their choices elsewhere. There is a real choice. If the Conservatives had been in power, we would not have made those choices over the summer, and the hospitality sector would have been in a very different place in the Budget.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Support for Entrepreneurs · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the changes to the listings review, but will the Minister look at what is happening with research and development tax credits and the efficiency of the delivery of those tax credits, because when the system does not work well enough, businesses are struggling before they get to listing?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Dawn Sturgess Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Security Minister for early sight of his statement, and I thank him most warmly for the way in which he has presented the Government’s response this afternoon. As someone who spent a previous life in Salisbury and south Wiltshire, he has served the people of my constituency very well. I am also very pleased with the remarks of the shadow Home Secretary. Today’s report was written as a consequence of the need to bring clarity and to understand unequivocally who was responsible for what happened in 2018, but it is important to remember the huge impact it had on Salisbury, and the tragedy that befell Dawn Sturgess, Charlie Rowley, Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey, and Yulia and Sergei Skripal. The report is very clear about where culpability lies: it lies with President Putin. Russia was responsible, and Putin as an individual was responsible. He personally ordered what happened in Salisbury, and we should never forget it. Putin is a ruthless dictator, not someone with whom deals can be done. Contrary to one of the candidates in the general election last year in Salisbury who said that he admired him as a political operator, I do not. I never will. I welcome what the Minister said on additional sanctions, and I encourage him and his successors always to pursue energetically, and with continued vigilance, further such measures as required. I welcome what he said about more sophisticated threats emerging on cyber, and I urge him to extend that to look at what happens with our cloud infrastructure. I have just one question. Paragraph 6.25 of the report refers to the issue of regular written assessments, which were lacking in terms of the ongoing care of Sergei Skripal. I think that is the only element that needs serious review for individuals like him in future, but I thank the Minister again for the way he has spoken today, which will give huge comfort to my constituents in Salisbury and to the families of those so tragically affected.

• 3 Dec 2025 · OBR: Resignation of Chair · Hansard source

  More

  Richard Hughes was a first-rate public servant, but he did the right thing on the narrow matter of the premature upload of the file last week. OBR representatives told us a number of things yesterday in the Treasury Committee. They told us that there was a £16 billion downgrade and £4.2 billion of headroom on 31 October, because there were also improved tax revenues. I do not think £4.2 billion can be characterised as a black hole, but it was a challenging circumstance—that is the truth. Will the Minister consider, in all future Budgets, that such a letter should be made available, at the same time that Budget publications and OBR publications are made available, setting out what was said to the Chancellor at what point? We could then verify whether the press conference on 4 November was very wide of the mark and gave a materially misleading view of what was actually happening.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  On the process failure of the premature publication of the document, I think there is consensus across the House that it is damaging to the reputations of the UK, the OBR and the Treasury. I welcome the fact that the report says there are issues for the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the OBR in respect of how documents are hosted. However, on the substantive issue of what the OBR had told the Treasury and the net overall effect of that, there can be no doubt. There may be a dispute about whether £4.2 billion was sufficient or not, but we know for certain that the OBR did not say there was a significant black hole that required a 2p increase in income tax, which was the consequence of the Chancellor’s press conference. Does the Chief Secretary agree that the material distinction between those two issues must not be lost, and that he must face up to the reality of the overall net effect and the impression that was left?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), who I know holds his views with great sincerity, although I do not agree with many of them. Before I get into the substance of the Budget measures, I want to address the process leading up to the Budget. People might say that this is a subject of fascination just for those in the Westminster bubble, but in the run-up to this Budget, it went way beyond that. In the weeks—and, indeed, months—before the Budget, virtually every conceivable tax rise was floated as a possibility. Last week, we heard from the Office for Budget Responsibility, and what it said was summed up very well by Ben Zaranko from the Institute for Fiscal Studies: “At no point in the process did the OBR have the government missing its fiscal rules by a large margin. Leaves me baffled by the months of speculation and briefing. Was the plan to lead everyone to expect a big income tax rise, then surprise them on the day by not doing it?” Next Wednesday, the Chancellor will come before the Treasury Committee, of which I am privileged to be a member, and we will no doubt ask her about what was happening in those weeks. I do not want to pre-empt the scrutiny of that Committee, but I think everyone across the House must acknowledge what was happening. We all read the papers. We could all see how decisions about where to invest, whether to invest in the UK, whether to employ any more people and whether to have confidence in the future of the country’s economy rested on the way the Budget was prepared for. I regret very much the error that was made by the OBR. It was clearly a profound error, and Richard Hughes has taken responsibility for it this afternoon. He has done the right thing—the honourable thing—but this will be conflated with the much more serious breach of protocol over several months leading up to the Budget, and we in this House need to come to terms with the implications that this has for our reputation. There are some things in the Budget that I welcome, but there are some that I do not, including the enormous tax increase. We all fought an election where Labour plainly said that only £7 billion of tax rises were implied. We had £40 billion last year and a further £26 billion this year. This will mean 780,000 of the lowest-paid people coming into tax by the extension of the threshold freeze, as well as a tax on electric vehicles, more tax on property rents, a tourism tax and increases in tax on dividends, savings and unearned income. Employee ownership trusts relief will be halved and salary sacrifice contributions will be limited. It is obviously the prerogative of every Government to raise tax as they see fit, but what concerns me is the lack of understanding of what it takes to drive growth in an economy. When I look at the implications for the hospitality sector, which is a significant one in Salisbury, I see people who are already bemused by the unexpected increase in employer national insurance, the increase in the national living wage and the implications of changes in employment legislation—and that is before we even heard the measures in last week’s Budget. People are worried about the risks and costs associated with investing in plant, machinery and people.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I did not support Brexit. Brexit happened. We made a decision as a country, and I do not want to relitigate that. I commend the hon. Member for what he does to promote the discussion about measures to drive forward productivity. I think the Government could learn from some of his observations this afternoon, because until we get to a point where those who create wealth and jobs feel that it is in their interest to do so, we will be dancing on the head of the pin in terms of feeling secure about that trajectory of sustained growth. The burdens that come from this Budget will be significant, and will change the way that people think about investing in this economy. A dynamic economy does not come from ever-higher tax and higher spending on welfare. The OBR has downgraded growth in every year. I recognise that, since the global financial crisis, many economies face similar challenges—let us be honest about that—but we cannot go on spending money on welfare unless we address the drivers of sustainable growth in our economy. I fear that the measures in the Budget last week, many of which purported to give long-term benefit, will not provide what those who create wealth need in the short term.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests that £6 billion of costs associated with special educational needs and disabilities provision has not been catered for in the Budget. Given that, it suggests that there will be an effective 4.9% cut in mainstream school spending per pupil. That is a massive concern for colleagues across the House. As SEND is such a tough issue to resolve, will the Leader of the House consider time for a debate on this matter so that we can resolve what has happened in the Budget?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Cities and Towns of Culture · Hansard source

  More

  Maybe five seconds?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Cities and Towns of Culture · Hansard source

  More

  I warmly welcome the innovation around the UK town of culture. My 10 seconds of fame as the Under Secretary of State for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was in December 2017, when I went to Hull, the train broke down and I announced on “The One Show” that Coventry would be the UK city of culture. On behalf of Salisbury, which celebrates its 800th anniversary in 2027, may I ask if guidance can be given? Salisbury is a market town with a cathedral and we would love to apply, but given all our world-leading cultural assets we will need guidance about whether we qualify for the city or the town of culture.

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

  More

  Perhaps unsurprisingly, my right hon. Friend anticipates an argument that I am going to move on to about the wider culture of awareness of where investments are happening in our pensions, how important that is, and how we need to be cognisant of the gap that exists.

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

  More

  I was not paid during that time.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered pension investment in UK equities. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I think all hon. Members would agree that UK pension funds are hugely important, primarily to the millions of future pensioners, but also to the many scale-up businesses that are seeking additional investment and need extra capital for growth. They are also an important part of the UK’s capital markets more broadly. The UK has the second largest pool of pension capital in the world, but only 4% of it is allocated to UK assets. UK defined contribution pension scheme assets are set to grow from around £500 billion in 2021 to £1 trillion by 2030, an increase of 100% over nine years, and that growth will accelerate faster beyond that date. The key issue I wish to focus on is how we are to regulate, manage and enable the future form of that pool of capital, and the appropriate oversight of regulators or Government—if any—of the way it is managed. As I think all Members want, the Government have stressed the growth imperative and its prioritisation, but under-investment in the UK economy will be a significant dampener on growth. Over the past 25 years, allocation to UK equities by UK pension funds has fallen from more than 50% to 4.4%. Since the global financial crisis, the UK has under-invested, both in absolute terms and compared with our G7 peers. Our investment-to-GDP ratio is around 17% to 18%, compared with our peers’ 20% to 25%. That investment gap accounts for around £100 billion. The Government have introduced meaningful reforms. The closure of defined benefit schemes has resulted in large amounts of capital being moved from equities to bonds. Although that was a rational response to match the profile of obligations of those schemes, it is questionable whether it is optimal for the wider economy. That eagerness to match payouts to known obligations of a defined population has perhaps encouraged a lack of ambition in investment in the wider economy. What has happened progressively with DC scheme regulation is passive tracking rather than active investment. We have prioritised the minimisation of costs over returns. That has incentivised more and more funds to invest in cheap asset classes, almost alternating their investments, with fixed income, property and indexed funds being used. That is very frustrating, because over the past decade we reached consensus on auto-enrolment, and there was an emphasis on saying, “Oh, we mustn’t have any fat-cat fund managers taking too-big fees”. There was an anxiety about that, which drove an oversimplification of automated fund management. It allowed everyone to say, “The fees are very low”, but we did not have the right focus on performance and whether we were investing in the right things in the economy. It is obviously cheapest for a fund to go to passive, as it does not require active management and the skills that come with it. There have been previous fundamental reforms, such as the removal of dividend tax credits. Before 1997, when a UK company paid a dividend, it was accompanied by a tax credit, and pension funds could reclaim that credit in cash from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That meant that pension funds effectively received dividends gross of tax, boosting their investment returns. That reduced the effective yield on UK equities held by pension funds by around 20%, which was then the tax credit rate. There have been changes, with ISAs introduced in 1999 and self-invested personal pensions being widened in 2006, but this has removed the focus on UK investment.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. In a moment, I will speak about what needs to change and where we need to get to. Returning to my argument, the Pension Schemes Bill, which will have its Report stage next week, has made some welcome progress—I have to acknowledge that to the Minister. It has received significant cross-party support in many areas. The consolidation of DC schemes to provide greater scale and move away from a fragmented system has long been a journey that most people would see as desirable, but we must think about the scale of capital that our growing companies need. I am concerned about how quickly some of those changes will take place. Having been in intense dialogue with the Prudential Regulation Authority and the Financial Conduct Authority when I was in the Treasury, I know that these things do not happen quickly enough. I urge the Minister—though I know he does not need much urging—to be robust in ensuring accountability on the delivery of some of these things. To advance our understanding of the shift away from equities and towards bonds, let me note that in 1997, UK pension funds held 73% of their portfolios in equities and 15% in bonds. Those figures now stand at 34% and 43% respectively. I have talked about the particular aversion to UK equities, with UK pension funds investing 4.4% of their funds in domestic equities, compared with an international average of 10.1%. However, at the same time, the UK provides pension tax advantages worth more than £48 billion. That is £48 billion of taxpayers’ money that is essentially there to enrich our contributions and lay down a marker for the future. At the moment, though, there is no expectation that any of that is invested in the UK—this relates to mandation, which I will discuss now. Around half of DC funds are in global allocations. My concern is that outflows from UK equities will continue as that global allocation continues and relative growth is seen in other markets, such as the US. As other economies grow, the UK part of the pie will automatically shrink, which means less money going into UK firms from these sorts of investment funds. As that passive fund practice becomes more prevalent, businesses such as the ones in Northern Ireland mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) are simply off the radar. They do not receive any analysis, and mid-cap and small-cap firms lose out, with pools of capital never being available to them. As such, that 4% investment in equities is likely to continue to fall. The big point I want to make is about what people think of their pension schemes. New Financial, a well-known and respected think-tank connected with the City, did a survey of 1,000 working adults in the UK with a pension. That survey graphically highlighted what a “low level” of understanding people have of their pensions and the “disconnect between their expectations and the industry.” It said: “On average, people thought 41% of their pension was invested in UK companies or the UK stock market (out by a factor of five to 10 times)”, and, staggeringly, that “two-thirds of people said pensions should invest more in UK equities even if the returns might be lower than investing in other markets.” There is clearly a gap in knowledge and understanding. I advocated against the Department for Education’s backstop; I did not make much progress when I was in Government, but I am glad that this Government have made progress on financial education in the Department for Education and that it has now become part of the curriculum. This is a key chapter that is needed in that textbook. I am anxious that the answer should not be for the City and pension fund managers to say, “We know best, we have a fiduciary duty—don’t worry about it.” Auto-enrolment has helped provide them with enormous funds to invest, but the disconnect between public expectation and what they are doing with those funds must and should be addressed. The vast majority of consumers investing in DC schemes do not change from their default allocation, although they are of course able to do so. Those defaults require approval, so alongside a campaign to get people to understand what is happening with their pensions and where their money is being put, it is worth asking people to verify what proportion of their pension savings are being invested where. They have that discretion; if they do not exercise it, that investment will default to whatever the scheme is going to do, and the scheme will likely continue in a similar way. The London Stock Exchange Group tells me that by 2030, overall investment in UK equities by DC pensions would increase by around £76 billion—potentially as much as £95 billion—if this option were used. That is not mandation; I think that would be overreach, but I am sympathetic to the disconnect that exists. We must find a way to open up a proper discussion and increase awareness of the gaps where money is currently not being invested. I recognise that the Government have maintained a reserve power to mandate, although I doubt they will ever use it. However, I believe that individuals should be more empowered to take decisions, and I think they would be more empowered as active members of a DC fund. At the moment, they are not exercising that right. Consumers do and must have a choice about how their pensions are invested, and proposals to amend how default funds are allocated do not, and should not, prevent people from choosing exactly how they want to invest their pension pots. There are so many opportunities in this country, such as in life sciences—my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) has a great understanding of that sector. When we are looking for that scale-up capital, the lack of funds in the UK to provide options for series B and sometimes series C funding is manifest. I just feel that we are missing an opportunity. I will understand if we do not go for mandation—I am sympathetic to that decision—but we should do something in between. I know we are on the eve of the Budget, and as the Minister said to me as we entered the Chamber, there is little opportunity for him to adjust anything. I do not know what changes will be made tomorrow to pensions. There is obviously a lot of speculation about a reduction in ISAs, but let us get that in perspective as well. Only about 7% of those who have ISAs use the £20,000 limit. I do not believe that if there is any sort of mandation of the use of equities, people will go out and invest in them overnight, because the vast majority of people who have an ISA are at a later stage of life, and their ISA is in cash, so they will not do that anyway. Let us get it in perspective. Last year, around £750 billion was invested in ISAs: £461 billion in stocks; £289 billion in cash. Last year, the Pensions Policy Institute estimated that there is a total of £3 trillion in UK pension assets across annuities, DC funds and DB funds. That is where the pools of capital can be opened up for investment in the UK economy. We need a greater focus on the public markets, and a vibrant, active, engaged and informed investor base to change the way that we move forward. I have a couple more points to make. It is salutary to reflect on what happened with Arm Holdings: a British success story founded and built in Cambridge. As we know, it is a producer of semiconductors and software originally listed in London. The company was taken private because it felt that the public markets in this country could not support it; there was not enough liquidity in the markets. Arm was subsequently re-listed in New York, and since being taken off the London Stock Exchange, its valuation has grown by £112 billion. Of that growth, only £825 million has gone to UK investors. Had it stayed listed in the UK, that number would have been £43 billion. That would have meant higher pension valuations for a lot of people in this country, and more revenue for the Treasury from capital gains. It exemplifies the problem that we have: the lack of active, open markets where investors take risk and adopt a profile similar to those seen in the US. The FCA is disempowered and discouraged from trying to offer consumer redress. Through better financial education, we could get people to engage with the significant obligation that they have to save for the future, to take decisions that are in the interests of the UK economy and to pump more money into UK companies. In conclusion, I welcome many provisions in the Pension Schemes Bill. Poorly performing pensions need to be challenged. I welcome the consolidation and scale-up of the pots, which will take too long and should be encouraged to move forward swiftly. But I have an anxiety that in a legitimate effort to hold back from mandation, there is a gap in thinking about how we open up the public’s understanding and imagination regarding where they can invest. I urge the Minister to move forward with some tougher rules around how people verify the choices that they are making so that the powerful voices who run the pensions industry do not default to saying, “We know best; we have fiduciary duty, and we will do it better than you could dream of doing.” The evidence is that that is not what people want. A golden thread of careful and delicate interventions is needed so that we can transform public behaviour and outcomes for our pensions industry.