Mark Garnier MP: speeches

269 published records · newest first.

Speeches

2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Yes, that is kind of helpful. Patrick, could I turn to you? We met and had a very interesting chat. One thing we discussed was the scale of the funds. There is a requirement in the Bill that funds such as yours will need to be valued at £25 billion by 2035. One thing we discussed at the time was whether that creates a barrier to entry for new asset managers, and a lack of competition among asset managers in order to provide the best value for those funds. Would you share some of your thoughts about the £25 billion minimum size? Patrick Heath-Lay: Yes, of course. We have conducted research. Toby Nangle did some research for us in 2025, and WPI Economics has also looked at the issue of whether scale drives better economies. Generally, aside from all the international comparisons from Canada and Australia, it is proven that scale will drive better economies. You can leverage scale to drive a more efficient administration. If you are asset owners like these two organisations, we get to choose where we invest the money, which managers we use, who will come with the best solutions and who has the best routes and access to market to allow us to invest in a way that benefits and shares the benefit of that investment with the end saver, which for us as an organisation is the sole focus. I believe that scale, utilised in the right way, does deliver those efficiencies, but this is where the package in the Bill, and particularly a key element like value for money, is critical to establishing that as this market evolves. You want to be reassured that the investment activity at that scale is delivering increasing value for members, which is really the sole purpose of driving that scale. From our own experience and the research that we have done, it is a proven model, but that scale needs to be harnessed in the right way.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q It has been suggested to me that the mere fact that this reserve power is in existence may subconsciously encourage funds to invest in the UK, and that therefore they can naturally find 5% investment into the UK and infrastructure, or maybe even more. Do you think that is a valid point? Sophia Singleton: What I would say is that we are already moving in that direction. If you look back a few years ago, it was very difficult operationally for defined contribution schemes to invest in those types of assets. If you look at things now, both on the supply side and the demand side we see factors that are really supporting investment in those assets. On the demand side, the new value for money framework really incentivised investment into private market assets because of the risk-adjusted metrics included within the framework, and the work that the industry and regulators have done to take away the operational barriers that existed. On the supply side, the Government have committed to help to create that pipeline of investments. Publishing the pipeline that is coming up is very helpful, because people can plan how to employ their capital, and having the British Growth Fund and so on to invest in alongside the private sector is also helpful. We are already seeing it happen: we are seeing funds recruiting investment experts to help to manage those assets, so they are already gearing up and skilling up to do this, and we are seeing fund managers releasing private market funds suitable for DC schemes on a regular basis. We do due diligence on those funds, and there are more and more that we have to look at. So it is happening.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q It is difficult. You raised the point about geographical location and that a mayoral authority could have three different funds within it. More important, Cornwall county council, for example, may suddenly discover it is having to invest into Northumbria because that is where somebody decides it needs to invest, and may feel very embittered or cross about that. Councillor Phillips: We go back to the importance of fiduciary duty. You are there to invest for the benefit of your pensioners and to make sure that you do that in a sensible and reliable way. As has been proved to date, the most popular element is probably affordable housing. Cornwall, which you mentioned, has invested very wisely in affordable housing. Together with its relationship with local government as the owners of much land, there is huge potential there, but it only comes right when the return is there. If the return is not there, you are not going to enter into it.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Would you support that? Robert McInroy: I support looking at the range of options, which includes reducing employer contributions and flexing investment strategy, including for some of the areas that we have talked about and will be talking about, that could be available to the LGPS in terms of investments.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q That is very helpful. Robert, would you like to add anything? Robert McInroy: Yes, on the last point about surpluses. I am a fund actuary. We are working through the 2025 valuations, and it is pleasing to see improvements in funding levels across the LGPS. We think that that, in turn, can mean lower contribution rates, particularly for councils—something in the region of 3% to 6% of pay, so that is positive. It is important to realise that the success of the current scheme has perhaps not been picked up in some of the language and assumptions built into the reforms that have been put forward.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Thank you very much.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q When you talk about the wider public finance implications, I completely get it; we understand that there is a lot of debt and all the rest of it. The bit I am struggling with is that this is a fund that is set aside for exactly this type of thing. It worries me—and I hope it worries other colleagues on the Committee—that a fund that had been earmarked for specifically this type of thing is now being earmarked for something else. Torsten Bell: To be clear, that is just wrong—it is not. The 2004 Act is very clear about the purposes for which the board’s assets can be used, and there is no question about that. The Office for National Statistics does not get to countermand Acts of Parliament on the use of resources—the 2004 Act is very clear on that. It is nothing to do with that. If you look at the public sector finances in the round, there are all kinds of different forms of funds that are classified in different ways. The classification within the public finances is not determining the use to which funds can be put. The same applies to whether things are classified as taxes or not. They do their job, and obviously those classifications exist for an important reason, which is that we need to have clarity about the public finances. We use those for discipline in terms of making sure that Government objectives in fiscal policy have metrics that they can be tied to. It is totally reasonable for different parties to take different positions on what those metrics should be. There have been different choices made on that by lots of different parties in recent years, but I think everybody in this room probably accepts that you need to have those metrics. When you accept that, you will be in a situation where classifications by the Office for National Statistics impact on those.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q On surplus extraction—because there are various different ways you could do it, one of which is a payment holiday or a contribution holiday for local authorities—do you worry that there could be surplus extraction by one form or another, that could reduce the surplus on these funds, thereby increasing risk of liabilities? Rachel Elwell: History does not necessarily repeat itself, but it is important that we learn from that. The LGPS, and pensions more generally in the UK, have had many, many decades—including through the ’90s, having to manage the fact that there were contribution holidays taken that were using surpluses very quickly. Actuaries have the ability to work with all employers, including those in the LGPS, to smooth out that experience. Where you have a surplus, some of that could absolutely be used to help manage the costs over the long term, and when you have a deficit, you do not try to pay that all off very quickly, so I think there is an opportunity. I am not worried about it because I can see that the LGPS is a very well run, well governed scheme. It has good advice from its actuaries and is well used to making sure that both surpluses and deficits are smoothed over time.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Thank you very much, and thank you for coming in this afternoon. I do not know how much of this you have listened to, but there are a lot of worries about mandation coming in on pension funds. Of course, this does not include the local government pension scheme, because this is about defined contribution pension funds. However, there are measures in the Bill that enable the Secretary of State to have the powers to issue directions and guidance to local government pension scheme pools. Do you worry that these could be mandation by another method? Rachel Elwell: The LGPS is already investing significantly in the UK, as you have probably already heard. We invest more than 25% of the assets we look after on behalf of pension funds in the UK, and there is a very good reason for that, which I can explore a bit further if you would find it helpful. To answer the specific question, I am not concerned that the power will instruct the LGPS to invest in specific things. I think there is a real intent; it would be helpful if the Bill were clear that it would not be against fiduciary duty and would not interfere with the FCA regulations that we are also subject to. I am very thoughtful about how we carefully manage the weight of capital that might come into the market if there is mandation for the wider industry to move quickly into investing in the UK. Work will need to be done on the supply side as well as the capital side, to ensure that the UK can invest well the capital that should be being invested into the UK. So it is important that any use of mandation is very carefully considered, and that the laws of unintended consequences are really thought through.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I have one final question. Various clauses look at the asset manager and the trustees effectively marking their own homework on this. There are consequences of an intermediate rating, consequences of a “not delivering” rating and various other issues. Is that the best way of doing it? To a certain extent, the managers and the trustees have a vested interest in doing well. Tim Fassam: We are certainly concerned about the intermediate rating and the risk that that could cause a cliff edge if it means that, to get an intermediate rating, you are effectively closed for new business and potentially existing new joiners for a new firm. We think an intermediate rating that aligns with delivering value, but with a warning light that gives the firm a couple of years to get back into high value for money, will stop the perverse consequences. What I mean by perverse consequences is that if the cost of underperformance is significantly higher than the benefit of outperformance, you will see everyone herding in the middle. That will mean that you may well get a better outcome than today, but you will not get the competitive pressure to be the best of the best, which I think will see the better outcome in the longer term.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q There has been a lot of talk about mandation, which you will be well aware of. Over the time that I have been researching it, over the last few months, we have had pretty much exclusively commentary that it is not a very good thing. Tell me that that is wrong. Why is it possibly a good thing? Helen Forrest Hall: I would love to say that. I start by saying that the PMI supports the principle that larger pension funds are likely to lead to better outcomes for members. A great and growing weight of evidence, and obviously an awful lot of international experience, shows that they provide greater economies of scale and greater opportunities to invest in a broader range of assets. Unfortunately, we believe that the reserve power sets a dangerous precedent of political interference with a trustee’s fiduciary duty. The considerations of each individual pension scheme are a matter for the trustees, taking into account their members’ experience and what will drive the best outcomes for those members. Obviously, significant progress has already been made in terms of pension schemes demonstrating their desire to meet the Government’s eagerness for them to invest in a broader range of assets, and the consolidation elements of the Bill should help with that. But I think that the reserve power provision runs a serious risk of cutting across that well-founded fiduciary duty, as well as creating all sorts of disruption to long-term investment planning—another thing that pension schemes are well set up to do—and creating market distortion. Sophia Singleton: We are very much aligned with the Government’s objective around investing in these assets. We believe that they can deliver and, as Helen has said, the industry has already made quite a strong move towards investing in them. We are going to get there, and it is really about not forcing that to happen too quickly. Schemes need to deploy capital when the opportunities arise and when the right time is, otherwise we risk distorting the market. That is a real concern, because it could deliver poor outcomes for savers. I am sorry we cannot give you a different answer, but we have three concerns about the mandation. Who is legally accountable if there is underperformance? Underperformance is possible. Is it the Government? Is it trustees? How will it affect the markets? How will it affect public trust? At a time when people need to save more into their pensions, they will worry that their pension scheme is no longer investing for returns as a priority.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Well, there is one, which I would like to test both your opinions on. The Government point out that the reserves are on the public sector balance sheet, and therefore are treated as an asset of the Government, which is obviously offset against Government debt. Do you think that is a justifiable reason not to— Roger Sainsbury: Well, if— Terry Monk: Can I have a go? Alan, who is sitting behind me, and all of us say that we did the right thing at the right time to secure our futures. There was no risk—we were guaranteed there was no risk. The minimum funding requirement was seriously flawed post-Maxwell. That changed it. We were told our pensions were safe. They were no longer safe—I found out to my cost, and many others did, that our pensions were not safe. If I try to use the argument to our members that are still alive, “We can’t give you these increases because of the national accounts,” they will say, “Hang on, I did the right thing. I was told my pension was safe. I did the right thing all the way along in my life, and I saved for my future—for my comfortable retirement. I did not want to depend upon the state. I wanted to do it for myself. That is what I was proud to do.” To use the argument that the national accounts do not allow these people to get their benefits? I could not use that argument, whatever the reasons might be behind it. Roger Sainsbury: May I try to answer your question more specifically? I think that indexation would have an impact upon Government finances. The impact would be that cash would flow into the Treasury, because if indexation is permitted and starts to be paid, there will be income tax paid on that money. The money will be going out from the private funds of the PPF, but the income tax and subsequently the VAT on expenditures will be coming into the Treasury coffers. I have yet to meet anybody, other than people in government, who can comprehend how it can be that when the PPF, from its private funds, meets an obligation, which has the incidental effect of bringing cash into the Government coffers, that can at the same time lead to a failure to meet the fiscal rules. The fiscal rules, incidentally, are set up for a period of four years, when the unravelling of the indexation obligation will take many decades. We have been told in ministerial letters that it has been set up this way with a view to improving transparency. Well, I am sure you have all heard of the fog of war, but I think we are now up against the fog of transparency. I do not think it is real money that the Government are talking about. Even in their own letters, they say it is a statistical way of handling the figures. The recent Government line on this is that it is the fault—I do not want to put blame on anybody—or the responsibility of the Office for National Statistics, because it was the Office for National Statistics that decreed that the assets and liabilities of the Pension Protection Fund should be counted as part of the public sector national financial liabilities, rather than as part of the public sector net debt, but that decision was made in 2019. We are therefore more inclined to hold responsible the present Chancellor, who, in her Budget of last October, made the decision that, for the Government financial rules, the metric should no longer be the public sector net debt, but the public sector net financial liabilities. It was that that brought the PPF, as it were, on to this part of the playing field.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q One of the original ideas of the last Government was to have a lifetime pot, whereby an employee would pay into a fund, but it was deemed by the industry to be quite difficult to administer, because as an employer you would have to be dipping bits into different pots. What was put up as an alternative was a magnetic pot, whereby an individual would be able to move their money from one pot to the other. Each time they changed jobs, that pot would be picked up from employer A and moved to employer B’s pot. Do you think that is a sensible alternative? Ian Cornelius: Customers—members—can already do that if they choose to.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I want to ask about the value for money framework. There seem to be a lot of fans of the value for money framework. Are Phoenix as enthusiastic about it as everyone else seems to be, if that is not too loaded a question? Tim Fassam: The short answer is yes, we are big fans of the value for money framework, but it is worth thinking about why that is. When we are looking at why we have not had the investment that we would necessarily expect, and that we see in other similar countries—so, exposure to private markets and exposure to productive assets—we think there are roughly three groups of reasons. Some are cultural and have been helped by things such as the accord and the compact. Some are regulatory, and that will be a major topic of conversation in this Committee. But some are market, and the market challenges are really around who is the buyer of automatic enrolment pensions. That is usually the employer. Historically, we have seen most employers focus on the charge, and the charge alone. That means we are now seeing charges well below the price charge cap for automatic enrolment, which is a good thing for consumers, but it is at such a low level that it is very hard to offer more enhanced investment solutions, so that means they tend to be invested in more passive investments and trackers. The value for money framework is important because it should have an impact on those purchasers, making it easier for them to see a more holistic view of the value that they are getting from the pension that is being offered to them, in terms of investment, service and a wider range of metrics. We are not sure it is perfect, as currently developed, but it is certainly in the right direction.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Michelle, you run the compensation scheme. Do you see any risk in surplus extraction? I know that by definition, it is surplus and therefore you should be able to take it out, but at the moment, a lot of funds are in surplus. We went through a period of low interest rates, where it was a bit tricky, but now interest rates have gone up, and suddenly those funds are in a lot of surplus. We are probably not going to see interest rates come down to super-low levels anytime soon—well, who knows? If the economy does particularly badly, they may well do. My first question is, do you see any increased risk as a result of this? You are presumably looking at the risk of having to pay out. Secondly, should the benchmark be slightly higher for surplus distribution? Michelle Osterma n n: Obviously, just as you describe, because we backstop the entire industry, what we are watching most closely is the fundedness of schemes, combined with the credit quality or the covenant, and the financial stability of the organisation itself. Those two combined are what help us to assess industry-wide risk and determine how much reserve we need to set aside for future claims on the PPF. There is a spectrum of schemes out there, clearly—some that are very well funded, which you have been speaking of, and several that are not as well funded. On that spectrum, our focus is on the left side tail—the ones that are most underfunded, or nearing the potential to be underfunded. Given the measures that are being discussed for the release of surplus, we at the PPF feel comfortable with it not imposing a material amount of risk to us, as it is currently defined. It seems to find a nice prudent balance between allowing some flexibility for sponsors to use that money in hopefully a productive way, combined with the test to make sure they do not fall below a certain level, which would bring risk upon the industry and the PPF. We have been a constant participant in that conversation, and we would like to suggest that we will continue to play that role as a surveyor of the net residual impact to the industry.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
That is very helpful; thank you very much.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Ian, can I start with you? One of the problems with auto-enrolment is where individuals move from one job to the next, not with a small pot under £1,000 but with a slightly bigger pot that is none the less still administratively tricky. Do you think that the Bill sufficiently tackles that problem? Ian Cornelius: I do not think that the Bill particularly focuses on that problem, but the question is whether it is a problem. The pensions dashboard will help to provide more visibility of where people’s money is and help them to manage that more effectively. I think it is right to focus on small pots, because they are inefficient. It is much harder for consumers to track lots of small pots, and it is driving costs in the industry, so I think that that is the right initial focus.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
That is very helpful; thank you.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I have one very last question, if I may, going back to the mandation piece and the evidence that we heard from Helen Forrest Hall. The mandation piece is a reserved power, with a sunset clause in, I think, 2035. I have discussed with another member of this Committee how that reserved power will encourage pension funds to take action and potentially invest more into the UK, which is a good thing—we all agree with that. However, interestingly, Helen Forrest Hall made the point that because there are potentially 10 years in which this could happen, it may cause a reluctance to do the right thing. Actually, the right thing could be to invest in other countries. If we are having a fundamental problem here and there is growth in the economies of, say, the Asia-Pacific rim, the right thing might be to invest there. Investing there might support British businesses, by the way, although it would not necessarily benefit the UK economy. There could be perverse outcomes in investment management behaviour because that reserve power is something in reserve, even if it is never used. Have you thought that through? Torsten Bell: I understand the point you are making. I think you have to step back to the big picture, which is a consensus right across the industry that savers’ interests would be better served by change. It does not make sense that the UK industry is a complete outlier compared with other pensions systems around the world when it comes to exposure to wider ranges of assets. What comes with that exposure to a wider range of assets? The nature of assets, where you are likely to see a larger home bias in that more of them would be in the UK. There is a wider point: is there a good reason why the UK DC pension landscape has a particularly large exposure to equities rather than to a wider range of assets that we see around the rest of the world? No. That is why you have seen the Mansion House accord coming forward—because it is in savers’ interests to change how we are operating. The scale and value-for-money measures, and a lot of the other approaches that we are taking, will facilitate that, but the industry is saying that that is in savers’ interests, and it is right to do so. Ultimately, we have to step back and say that we are not in the business of just making individual random decisions about the pensions system. The question is: what is there a consensus on about the world we need to move to that has a better equilibrium? One of the strong elements of that, along with larger scale, is investing in a wider range of assets because that is in savers’ interests. That is why there is a voluntary Mansion House accord, setting that out as the objective, with relatively low levels of target, particularly on domestic investment, compared with what we see in other countries. That is what is going on. What we are saying is that when you speak to the industry, particularly in private, it is very clear that there is a risk of a collective action problem. Under previous Conservative Chancellors, it signed up to commitments that it has not been delivering. Why has it not been delivering? Because of the collective action problem—the risk of being undercut by somebody else who is not making that change because of the nature of a market that is too focused on cost and not focused enough on returns. I make only one vaguely political point. It is easy to join people in being anxious, but we have to ask ourselves something. There is a reason why the first Mansion House compact was not delivered. Do we want to be here in 15 years saying, “Actually, we all signed up to it and said it needed to happen, but it hasn’t”? No—I am not prepared to do that. Change is going to come. Everybody says that change needs to come because it is in members’ interests. All the reserve power does is to say that it is going to happen.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q I have one final question, if I may. You run a pool of 11 funds. This is taking 87 into six. Everybody seems to think that is a good idea. Are you included in the “everybody”? Rachel Elwell: I do think there is a fantastic opportunity for us to harness the benefits of scale that come from being one of the top 10 globally by size, but it is important, as we do that, that we maintain the link to local people who are the members of this.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q Thank you very much for the work you are doing on behalf of pensioners—it is important. Mr Sainsbury, the PPF has some £14 billion in reserves. Could you share with us the main arguments for and against using that to benefit PPF and FAS scheme members? Roger Sainsbury: In the light of Terry’s extended life history, I will just add that I am a fellow of the Royal Academy of Engineering and a former president of the Institution of Civil Engineers. Before I come to your important question, I would like to feel sure that everybody in this room really understands the huge seriousness of the issue we are considering. This business of removing indexation from people who had pensionable service prior to 1997 has been going on for 20 years. Many of the people involved have seen the value of their payments eroded by maybe even more than 50% in that time. It is really very serious. The second thing I would like to mention is that the scale of the problem is actually greater than the Post Office managers scandal. Of course, I am not suggesting for a moment that any of our claimants is suffering in the appalling way the postmasters did, but the numbers of our people are so huge compared with the postmasters that the actual amount of money at stake is greater. We have 140,000 PPF members who are affected by this bizarre clause of limiting the indexation, 60,000 of whom are 80 and have zero indexation, so it is a truly serious thing. I would also like to mention one other dimension, which is timing. In our written submission to the Committee, we did not even bother to press the basic argument for why indexation should be awarded; we just focused on timing, because time is absolutely not on our side at all. Our claimants are dying, on average, at the rate of 15 a week—it is probably three while we have been holding this meeting this afternoon—or 5,500 a year. We have been told by the Department that the necessary amendment to the Pensions Act 2004 cannot be made by statutory instrument. There would have to be a new Bill and a new Act, and goodness knows how many years that might take or how many more thousands of people would have died. That is why we are pressing to get an amendment to this Bill to give a more timely answer. Now I come to your question: what are the main arguments for and against using the reserves to benefit the members? Well, the first argument is simple, but really rather powerful: it is the only purpose that, legally, the PPF is allowed to spend its money on. The Act is very clear: unless some legal judgment was made against them, which is not on the horizon at all at the moment, the only way they are allowed to spend money is either on their own overheads or on giving benefits to members, such as the indexation that we are now talking about. That is reason No. 1; reason No. 2, in my mind, is that expectations have not been met and promises have not been fulfilled. I go back to the Secretary of State who introduced the Second Reading debate on the 2004 Bill. He pledged that pension promises made, by the original schemes that people were in, must be met—that is, met by the PPF, which is the reason why the PPF was to be, by that Act, created. Yet that has not happened because, somehow, into schedule 7 to the Act came these dreadful words that have had the effect of not permitting the PPF to pay any indexation at all to people for time worked prior to 1997. The third reason—ultimately, this is the important reason—is that the 140,000 people need this money. They desperately do, some of them. I mean, obviously not everybody’s condition is the same, but a lot of people will be suffering real misery and hardship. They need this money. I ask myself: “Were this Government elected on promises of governing with humanity and compassion? Are this Government going to meet that need? Or are they going to walk by on the other side?” I do not myself believe that they are; I believe that they will come up to the mark and find a way through the perceived difficulties that they have. I think those are probably sufficient reasons to be going on with; as to the reasons against granting this, frankly, I cannot see any.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q So while we were all running around like headless chickens trying to figure out what was going on, you were saying, “We told you so. We knew that was going to happen.” Michelle Osterma n n: It is definitely something that was on our radar. When we build the investment strategy for an open DB scheme, such as those I described, it is quite different and less susceptible to that type of risk.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q It is happening; that is very good, and it is good to hear that there is a pipeline being developed. It is certainly something that has been talked about for a number of years. When I was the investment Minister back in 2017-18, we were very keen to get foreign direct investment coming in to the UK, so there was the Office for Investment in No. 10 doing all that stuff. That begs the question that, as the Government at any time is trying to attract foreign direct investment into the UK, not least to try to sort out the current account deficit, you as pension fund managers will find yourselves in competition with, hopefully, foreign investors coming into the UK. What is the hierarchy of offer? Do you think UK pension funds should be offered exciting investment opportunities before foreign direct investors? Sophia Singleton: I do not think we should be interfering with the market; I think it needs to be a free market and, as trustees of pension schemes, we need to be exercising fiduciary duty to choose the right investments for our members and to give the returns.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q 64 Thank you for coming to this afternoon’s session. Councillor Phillips, I will start with you on the big argument about mandation. Obviously, these are reserved powers, which will not necessarily be used. Local government pension schemes will not be forced to go into things that they do not want to, but in the last two or three weeks the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has spoken about potentially using local government pension fund money to bail out 50% of Thames Water. That would be £9 billion or £9.5 billion going into something that is not a productive asset. Does that type of talk from senior politicians make you worry about the potential misuse of mandation? Councillor Phillips: I think there is general concern within the sector when language like that is used, because we are talking about a considerable sum of money that belongs to 6.7 million pensioners. You therefore have to treat that with utter respect. You have a fiduciary duty to look after that money and ensure that the investment is wisely made. The fiduciary duty of the funds and pools is there—the funds own the pools—so there will be concern if somebody wants to politicise it. That is a very dangerous road to go down. When it comes to UK investment, the LGPS is already investing in the UK in a very big way. This is not a case where you use a stick and say, “You’ve got to invest in the United Kingdom.” It is about identifying risk, return and sometimes conflicts of interest. Certainly we should be investing where it is sensible to do so for the benefit of our pensioners and for the least obligation to our employers as well. That should be clearly understood by everyone.
2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source
More
Q So you could run into the same problems that we saw recently where the Financial Ombudsman Service was publishing who has been under investigation, which caused problems. That has now been changed, but we could be entering into that same problem. Tim Fassam: If you see very strong market or regulatory consequences for hitting an intermediate rating, the focus will be on not being intermediate rather than on being the best that you can be. We would like to see a focus on delivering the best value for money that you can.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →