Mark Garnier MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The current system does not satisfy people in any way, shape or form. Also, there is an inequality of risk, which I will come to in my speech. Although large firms working on major commercial and civil engineering projects have embraced health and safety legislation, a blitz of small refurbishment sites by Health and Safety Executive inspectors in 2016 found that a stunning 49% of sites fell below the standards set for compliance with health and safety requirements. More alarmingly, that cavalier attitude to health and safety reveals the potential problem of cowboy builders leaving dangerous sites. When someone has an extension built, might they be risking life and limb when they climb those stairs? Poor-quality building results in not just shoddy work, but dangerous and potentially fatal work. Rogue builders have an effect beyond their own unhappy activities. By undercutting reputable, high-standard builders that make up the majority of the market, they force them to cut their margins. Price competition is fine, but not when a worthwhile and reputable SME builder is competing against someone with no care for safety, honesty or customer satisfaction. Given that the RMI market is dominated by occasional customers—we are not doing this very often—it is quite likely that the key element of choice is price. Unhealthy price competition drives down standards, even if reputable firms are unhappy being forced to cut standards to compete. In an extreme example of the problem—this is an important point—I recently met Andrew Bennett, who had engaged a local firm in Liverpool to refurbish a six-bedroom property that he owned—a job that was to be worth around £100,000. He checked out the firm and was happy with references and testimonials. He engaged the firm, but it turned out that the work was dangerously below standard. When he started to seek redress, he discovered that the company in question was not what he had been led to believe. It was a rogue builder passing off as a well-known, reputable company. Moreover, this dubious company had nine county court judgments against it and therefore had no money to pay the award to Mr Bennett when he won his case. That company was passing off as another. It was seeking to take money off an individual customer by deliberately misleading him, and it failed to deliver the work contracted by that customer under the cover of misleading him—fraud, by any other name, or by the actual name. Mr Bennett went to the police, who told him that it was a civil matter. He tried all the avenues available to him to get this individual bang to rights, but to absolutely no avail. The company continues to rip off people, in full knowledge of the local law enforcers, trading standards, the local council and planning department, and multiple victims of its activities.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Not only that, but if we think about the consequences, those 97 emails could have been sent for any one of the 100,000 constituents that we each have. We should not be doing this, and there should be a mechanism to sort it out. The important reality of all this is that there is no disincentive at all for the cowboy builder to present fictitious bills and do bad work. While the consumer must engage in a risky legal process, the rogue builder can game the system with no jeopardy whatever. As we learned from Mr Bennett's story in Merseyside and the many other people who contacted me, the police will not investigate a case with regard to fraud and rogue builders, as they deem it a civil matter. So what is the solution? How do we protect honest builders, subcontractors, merchants and, importantly, our constituents and consumers? How do we redress the balance of risk so that it does not favour the rogue builder but gives equal weight to both consumer and builder? The builder is not always in the wrong, so the solution must be balanced. Builders may occasionally need to be protected from rogue customers. The answer must lie in a scheme of regulation and licensing. In essence, what I am seeking to do—I have had a couple of presentation Bills on this topic—is get the Government to come up with a scheme of compulsory licensing for SME building firms working in the renovation and domestic improvement space. We do not know what it will be, but we need a system in which there is an equivalence of risk on both sides. There must be something that the builder as an individual can lose if he or she is found not to be doing their job properly. My experience in this area has been with financial services and regulatory reform. Although I am not proposing anything remotely as complex as the FCA or the PRA to regulate builders, there is more than one important carry-across from financial services regulation. The first is that we do not want regulation to be a burden on the taxpayer. A licensing scheme must be self-financed through licensing fees: the building firms must pay for it. Rules for having a licence must be straightforward. Importantly, no firm or individual should be allowed to offer services directly to customers without a licence. That in itself would result in the wider building industry policing the market. If a builder knows that somebody else is a dodgy builder, it is in their interest to report them. Mortgage lenders would require evidence that money will be spent on a licensed firm. Architects and surveyors acting as project managers would need to see licences to engage a building firm in the first place, so consumer would know what they are getting. Consumers would be able to check the builder on the regulator’s website, in the same way that they can check their pension adviser on the FCA register. The regulator could be TrustMark, which already offers voluntary regulation. There should a code of conduct covering honesty, safety and quality of work. Failure to comply should have a series of sanctions, with the ultimate sanction of the loss of licence. An option could be a compensation scheme. The Financial Services Compensation Scheme is an example of how consumers who have lost out as a result of poor practice can be compensated for their loss from a scheme financed by levies placed on licence holders in the relevant sector. The double effect is that the consumer gets their losses covered while the industry as a whole is incentivised to keep an eye on each other. An ombudsman would be able to assess consumer loss without the need to engage expensive and lengthy legal and professional experts to defend against bogus builds or to challenge poor work. These proposals aim to end the decades-long history of consumers who have been ripped off in one way or another by shoddy rogue builders. I am conscious of time, Ms Furniss, but I want to acknowledge that the Government have started to resolve some of these issues. A New Homes Quality Board has been set up to ensure that new homes are built to a certain standard. That is a welcome development. The fact that it has an ombudsman demonstrates that the Government and I are probably thinking along the same lines in a broad sense, but the New Homes Quality Board is targeted specifically at the new homes market. Given the Government’s target of 1.5 million new homes, it will have its work cut out. Importantly, it is not designed for the RM&I sector, which remains wholly unregulated and unsupervised. That is what the Minister must concentrate on. Many people agree that this problem in the RM&I sector is beyond redemption. The Federation of Master Builders report on this subject in 2018 said that even construction firms themselves agree that a compulsory licensing scheme is necessary. The industry wants it too: 77% of SME builders and 78% of consumers agree with the FMB’s proposed licensing scheme. Enough is enough. I have a few more words about my engagement so far. Unfortunately, the Housing Minister is on his feet in the main Chamber talking about the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. I was looking forward to beating him up a bit, because he has been less than brilliantly helpful. None the less, it is very good to see the Minister from the Department for Business and Trade in her place. I look forward to hearing her helpful words about how the Government will introduce legislation to ensure our constituents are not ripped off endlessly by these wretched builders.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  I will talk about that in my speech. The fundamental problem is that, at the moment, the only course of redress is through the court system, and it is not good enough. The FMB does a lot of work in this area, and it is worth looking at some of its statistics. Thirty-seven per cent of customers report unreliability, and many of them cite apparently unqualified operators. Nearly a quarter—that is 25%—of all customers have lost money to rogues, with losses averaging £1,760, but in many cases the amount is far higher. The national loss is horrific. The FMB estimates that, over five years, homeowners have lost an astonishing £14.3 billion to unreliable builders, putting an astonishing burden on the housing market and households. It turns out that young adults are more at risk, with 33% scammed by rogue traders found via social media. The consumer is not the only victim of rogue or cowboy builders. Within the industry, many find themselves a victim of the same problem. Subcontractors find they are not paid, and it is the same for merchants. Plant hire companies are frequently the victims of theft and abuse of equipment. Alarmingly, health and safety is a low priority among many small and medium-sized building firms operating in the RMI market.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman has probably read my speech, as that is the core of it. The legal problem is bigger than just failing to support victims through the court system. Rogue builders know the legal system works in their favour. There are builders who create fictitious bills or charge fictitious costs for work not carried out—I have seen that as a victim myself. I contracted a builder to renovate a much-loved family home, and they failed to do the work in time, which was a breach of contract. They rattled on for far too long, they did not do the whole work and, at the end, they put in a massive, fictitious bill. Our quantity surveyor reckoned there was an outstanding balance to pay of perhaps £6,000, but they put in a bill for £100,000. In the end, everybody said, “You have to negotiate.” We negotiated a final settlement, which was multiple times in excess. This is a fundamental problem. We do not get redress, and we have to negotiate even if we know the negotiation is bogus.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Rogue Builders · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of protecting consumers from rogue builders. I am conscious that we may have to go off for multiple votes before half-past 4, so I will crack on with what was going to be 45 minutes of the most magnificent speech—I will abridge it to just 42. I am missing out the bit where I was going to be nice about builders—I am afraid I will concentrate on the nastiness of builders. I start by defining the area that I am keen to concentrate on, which is the smaller end of the market. Known as the repair, maintenance and improvement sector, or RMI, this is the area where we see many appalling stories of people’s lives being ruined by unwittingly taking on so-called dodgy builders. There are countless stories in the press, and there are TV shows specialising in these types of problems. I could turn to any number of articles in the national and regional press that talk about cowboy builders. A relatively simple search for stories of rogue and cowboy builders reveals 1,500 such stories in the last five years alone, and that is just the stories that made the press. This is a very insidious problem. Chat to almost anybody who has had any building work done to their home, and they will roll their eyes and admit that they have had trouble of one sort or another. But we do not have to rely on hearsay and the media to understand the problems and the implications. The Federation of Master Builders conducts surveys to see what the effect is on the RMI market, and a recent poll of homeowners discovered that one in three were put off having work done on their home because of the fear of being ripped off. That equates to a possible £10 billion of lost economic activity.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The OBR?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Even the Lib Dems agreed with the OBR. Danny Alexander agreed with the OBR. I will stop chuntering now.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  More!

• 11 Nov 2025 · Planning applications in Stourport-on-Severn · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition on behalf of over 600 of my constituents in Stourport-on-Severn in Wyre Forest whose lives and services are being adversely affected by unwelcome development in the neighbouring Malvern Hills district council. Because Malvern Hills district council has no local plan, the Planning Inspectorate is allowing otherwise refused planning applications to go ahead within the wider reach of Stourport. The petitioners “request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings…and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments.” Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of Stourport-on-Severn, Declares that the community of Stourport-on-Severn has been severely impacted by excessive building applications on agricultural land; and further declares that the first site which crossed district boundaries was refused by both Wyre Forest and Malvern Hills District Councils but was overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, resulting in speculative building applications causing stress to our community and placing severe pressures on our medical, educational and highway resources. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Malvern Hills District Council to prioritise the protection of agricultural land in its Local Plan, to reject multi-dwelling planning applications within one mile of Areley Kings, Stourport-on-Severn, and to secure a full highway impact assessment for the historic Stourport Bridge crossing for any future developments. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003122]

• 11 Nov 2025 · Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As he rightly says, this is an important, albeit technical, statement, and we in the Opposition certainly accept the contents and the spirit in which it is given. It is about a legal process, and we respect that. This relates to a matter of keen interest to many of our constituents: those women who have been affected by the changes in retirement age. Known as WASPI, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign have probably met with all of us here in one way or another, and they will be looking at the point made by the Secretary of State late in his statement: “retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.” The WASPI women are rightly angry with this Government. In opposition, shadow Ministers and Labour MPs stood alongside these women, as the Secretary of State did, campaigning for “a better deal for WASPI women.” However, when the Labour party won the general election, they quickly apparently U-turned on that position, blaming the fiscal situation they were left with. Indeed, in December last year, the Government made a statement confirming their about-turn on supporting WASPI women. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who said in response to that statement: “But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances… Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.” —[ Official Report , 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.] She is absolutely right: the Government had the choice then to stand behind the women who they said have faced a great injustice, but they chose not to. Instead, the Labour party is now fighting them in a judicial review in the High Court. Whether it be the multiple U-turns on pensioners’ winter fuel payments or the imminent rumoured freezing of tax thresholds in the Budget, forcing many pensioners into paying income tax, it is clear that this Government are not on the side of our pensioners. That brings me to some questions for the Secretary of State. First, the Minister for Pensions said in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic on 15 January: “we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.” —[ Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 156WH.] However, to my knowledge, nothing has been released to that effect. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on when we can expect the plan and what will be in it? Secondly, in a follow-up to written parliamentary questions from the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the Government said that they have “no plans” to meet representatives of the WASPI campaign. Indeed, the last time a Minister did meet them was on 5 September 2024. Why have this Government decided not to directly engage with the group they once stood shoulder to shoulder with, especially given that there is new evidence to consider? Thirdly, during the 14 years we were in Government, we chose to help pensioners by increasing the personal allowance income tax threshold. However, independent research suggests that 1.6 million more pensioners are doomed to be filling in self-assessment tax returns within the next four years, thanks to the Government’s choices that may be made in the upcoming Budget. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Chancellor about the serious impact this retirement tax would have on a group that have consistently targeted by this Government? Finally, why are this Government determined to blame everyone else for the decisions they have made? All this statement shows is that the Government want to keep kicking the can down the road and not be held accountable for their actions, but we should look at the record: unemployment is at 5%, the highest level since the pandemic, up from 4.2% in June last year; inflation is now sitting at 3.8%, up from 2% in June last year; economic growth has flatlined, despite having improved by 0.5% in the three months before this Government took office; borrowing costs have increased to their highest level since 1998, with 30-year gilt yields reaching 5.2%, compared with 4.7% when the Government took office; debt is now 96.4% of GDP, the highest since the 1960s; and winter fuel payments were cut for millions of pensioners, only for the Government U-turn on that after feeling the pressure of our strong campaign. The Government are set to break their manifesto pledge and increase the tax burden to a historic high. Is it not true that this Government have been trying to dodge taking any form of responsibility for their actions? What is their problem with pensioners?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Banking Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  In this month of blaming everyone else for every woe that befalls the Government and using it as an excuse to bust manifesto pledges left, right and centre, it seems that the Government are claiming credit for more banking hubs, but we all know that the rolling out of banking hubs is a purely commercial decision by the banks. It is the banks that are choosing to do this, to serve their customers. Is it now the Government’s policy to blame everyone else for their own incompetences, and to claim credit for everyone else’s good ideas?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Access to Work Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Back in May last year, while in opposition, the Labour party was outraged to learn that the average processing time for applications to the Access to Work programme was running at 43.9 days. In fact, so outraged were Labour Members that they made it a manifesto pledge to tackle that problem. After more than 15 months in government, Labour is far from having slashed waiting times; applicants now have to wait an average of 93.6 days. That is more than twice the waiting time under the previous Government. After a year in government, the Labour party has doubled the misery and uncertainty suffered by disabled people—why?

• 27 Oct 2025 · Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Mutual Recognition Agreement) (Switzerland) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I will not keep the Committee for too long. I thank the Minister for her kind words about the work of the previous Government in this area. As she rightly said, the regulations originate from the Berne financial services agreement, signed back in 2023, so it is something we have worked on. As somebody who worked in financial services for 27 years before coming to Parliament—I worked for two Swiss banks, had clients in Switzerland and did this kind of cross-border business—I can attest that this is a fantastic opportunity for our financial services sector. Anything that formalises the arrangement and makes transactions less sticky and easier to do can only be a good thing, so we will certainly be supporting the proposal 100% this evening. I thank the Minister for her excellent speech and her kind words about the work of the previous Government—I think she forgot to add “Strong and stable for 14 years”, but still. Question put and agreed to.

• 22 Oct 2025 · Draft Financial Services (Overseas Recognition Regime Designations) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  We welcome the general thrust of the regulations, which are all about the internationalisation of our financial services market, continuing our moving on from a post-Brexit Britain. I was not a fan of Brexit, but we are where we are. It is incredibly important that our financial services centre remains internationally competitive, and the regulations support that. I will not detain the Committee any longer—I can see smiles on Government Members’ faces. [ Laughter. ] Let us hope the Liberal Democrats continue in that spirit. Question put and agreed to .

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Turner. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon) on securing this important debate, in which there seems to have been an outbreak of unanimity around the Chamber. As I start my remarks, I am conscious of the expression “everything that needs to have been said has been said but not everybody has said it.” My apologies if I repeat some of the points that have been made. As colleagues all know, this was all started in Toad Lane, Rochdale in 1844 by a group of 27—or was it 28?—men known as the Rochdale pioneers. The pioneers would not have been constituents of the hon. Gentleman, but it is important to recognise that the roots of the movement can be found not just in Rochdale, but in surrounding areas, including his constituency. At a time when living conditions were particularly tough, these men decided to do something for their community by balancing the profitability of their shop and its members with the social impact on the community and the wider membership. That meant that essential, good-quality ingredients—flour, butter and others—became affordable for the community. The co-operative movement that was founded in Rochdale in 1844 continues to thrive today. It has grown to become an international movement; co-operatives operate in 109 countries. In the UK alone, we have 7,400 co-operatives, but if we incorporate organisations that operate in the co-operative spirit, such as employee-owned businesses, building societies, friendly societies, credit unions and mutually owned banks, the number comes to over 10,000. That represents around 0.2% of businesses in the UK. According to a recent report by Co-operatives UK, there are 66 million members across the sector, with around 16.6 million people solely in co-operatives. I have to say that just in the last hour I have become a member myself, having signed up to the Co-operative on the app. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you very much. The exciting point about the last statistic that I referred to is that that number has increased by 1.4 million in one year, showing that the sector is truly on an upward trajectory. Additionally, it is suggested that the combined annual income of the sector is around £179 billion, with WPI Economics estimating that the sector has contributed £35 billion in gross value added, which is equivalent to about 1.5% of the total UK economy. It is obvious, therefore, that the co-operative sector plays an important part in the health and growth of the UK’s economy. Co-operatives help to provide a diverse range of business models, which I believe is a good thing. Any healthy economy needs a variety of business models, and it is really important that we have things like co-operatives. I agree with the premise of the debate, which is about Government support for the co-operative sector. A perfect example of such support is the introduction under the last Government of employee ownership trusts and the tax incentives surrounding them. Offering 100% relief on capital gains tax when a business owner transfers their company to an employee ownership trust has helped to empower communities, and we have seen a strong rise in employee-owned businesses, from 600 in 2020 to 2,500 this year. However, let me express a slight reservation. It is important in a competitive market not to incentivise one part of the economy, or one business model, over another, in the way that the Building Societies Act 1986 opened the way for demutualisation and incentivised building societies to convert into investor-owned commercial companies. Some have said that that was a bad thing, and in retrospect I probably agree. We need to be careful that we do not encourage excessive mutualisation and disincentivise investment in our equity markets. Fundamentally, a balance needs to be struck. I believe—possibly unsurprisingly—that that was done successfully under the last Government through the Co-operative and Community Benefit Societies Act 2014. The last Government introduced measures to increase transparency and facilitate growth, while maintaining the core principles of member benefit and community focus; for example, by increasing the maximum withdrawable shareholding from £20,000 to £100,000 per individual investor, they allowed for broader capital participation. Although the 2014 Act was positive for the sector, I think that there is widespread agreement that it needs to be updated to help support the growth and modernisation of the sector today. It was good, therefore, that the last Government and now this Government have asked the Law Commission to review the legislation, and I look forward to seeing its proposals when they are brought forward, hopefully at the end of this year. I am also glad that the private Member’s Bill now known as the Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 supported the co-operative sector to protect its capital and assets, and to discourage mutualisation. Introducing an asset lock mechanism could mean that organisations are able to lock their capital surpluses, ensuring that assets are non-distributable among members and must instead be preserved for the community and the purposes of the organisation. It is understandably disappointing that although the 2023 Act received cross-party support when it went through Parliament, over two years later the regulations specified in the Act have not yet been announced by the Government and co-operatives are still unable to utilise the statutory protection that it provides. I note, however, that the Law Commission has proposed to put those powers into primary legislation through reform of the 2014 Act. Are the Government considering that? If not, what alternatives are being pursued? It is worth adding that the last Government introduced the community ownership fund. Although that was not directly targeted at co-operatives, some, such as the Calder Valley Community Land Trust, which seeks to reduce energy use and costs at Fielden Hall, have made successful bids. That is positive, but I would be interested to know whether the Government are considering a fund specifically for those in co-operatives and mutuals. In fact, we heard earlier from one Member about the potential for the British Business Bank to be opened up in order to support co-operatives and mutuals. I turn now to what this Government are doing. First, it is important to recognise the commitment in their manifesto to double the size of the co-operatives and mutuals sector. That is a positive direction of travel that the Government want to follow. However, Chris Bose of the Nationwide asked what the Government meant by that and wrote: “Precisely what was to be doubled was unclear, as was the means to achieve that.” This is an important point for the Minister to clarify. Do the Government want to double the number of mutuals, the number of members or the size of mutual balance sheets? What specifically are they seeking to achieve? The measures announced at the Mansion House in 2024—specifically, the creation of the mutuals and co-operatives business council and the commissioning of a report by the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority on the mutuals landscape—will help to lay the groundwork for that, but I hope the Minister will be able to provide the clarity the sector is looking for. Like the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton, I also welcome the creation of a co-operative development unit in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. Those are all good things, but it feels like we are still waiting for some meat on the bone, so let me raise a few points with the Minister. First, the issue that is raised time and time again by those in the sector is their ability to access cash. By their very nature, co-operatives are member-run organisations, so they are more limited than companies when it comes to issuing shares that attract external investors. It is also worth highlighting concerns related to the rumours about what the cash ISA allowance will be following the Budget. There is talk that it will be slashed from £20,000 to £10,000. Cash ISAs are a really important way for building societies to access finances. The Building Societies Association estimates that around 40% of all cash ISA balances are held with building societies, which turn those cash balances into mortgages for our constituents to go and buy homes. It is really important that we get some clarity on that. Returning to the issue of incentivising certain sectors of the economy over others, I am very much in favour of encouraging investment in the UK equity market, but we must be careful that, in trying to achieve the good, we do not get rid of the best. By trying to incentivise cash ISAs to move into equity markets, we are effectively taking cash away from the mutuals and putting it into normal equity. I am worried that, if this policy comes forward, the Budget could cause a problem for the mutual sector. I know the Minister will not be able to comment on the contents of the Budget right now, and we have to wait only another month, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury takes note of this important point and feeds it back. I also encourage the Minister to look into the Credit Unions Act 1979, and specifically the regulations on geographical area and the total number of members in common bonds. The last Government made positive steps to increase the total number of potential members of credit unions from 2 million to 3 million, and at the start of this year the Government ran a call for evidence about common bond reform, which I welcome. However, we are still waiting on the findings and for the Government’s response to be published, even though there seems to be a consensus that the regulations are still stifling growth in the sector. It is important to get the credit union sector to grow. Government Members know exactly how important it is, and so do Opposition Members. We need to get on with this. Doing so would only support the goals of the Government’s financial inclusion strategy, as well as their manifesto commitment to double the size of the sector. Let me put a few final points to the Minister. I had the honour to go to Iceland and meet representatives of the country’s trade unions, which, by any other standard, behave as friendly societies. It is invigorating to see that from something as fundamental as a trade union, funded by both members and employers. Something like 97% of employees are members of those unions, because they act as friendly societies and provide insurance, holidays and all sorts of things. That is a really good example of how friendly societies can work. We should be debating more the mutualisation of other utilities. We heard from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) about an energy company in her constituency that does this, but has she considered the possibility of mutualising Thames Water? It is a very ambitious project—

• 21 Oct 2025 · Co-operative Sector: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is not in her gift, as she says from a sedentary position, but it is quite interesting. Notwithstanding the £17 billion black hole in Thames Water’s balance sheet, the water utilities are very geographically prescribed and millions of people use them, so they have a built-in membership. The most important issue that people are talking about is the pollution of waterways such as the River Thames. By mutualising an institution like Thames Water—by the way, this is not Conservative policy, but— [Laughter . ] But it is a debate we must have, Mr Turner. With mutualisation, members could have a proper debate about what investment they want to make in the purity of the waters. My final point is about skills. I do not want to bring up the ugliness of the debate over the former chairman of the Co-op bank, the Rev. Paul Flowers, back in 2011 or 2012, I think, but he came before the Treasury Committee when I was a member of it and made a very good point. He said that his election as chairman of the Co-operative bank was because he was a member of it, not because he was good at finance. It is incredibly important, particularly with things like corporate governance, that we ensure there is training for corporate governors. Running a bank or a big chain of supermarkets is an incredibly difficult job, so we must make sure that that training includes not only people who work in the bank but those responsible for the corporate governance that looks after the organisations. My experience of the Co-operative in Kidderminster has been absolutely fantastic. A few years ago we were trying to stop a 4G telephone mast. This was several Governments back—perhaps around 2007 or 2008—when 4G masts were first going up, and there was a proposal to put one opposite the Co-op. I had a conversation with the managers there and they said, “We will buy the site in order to prevent the telephone mast from going up.” So I have always been a huge fan of them, and I cannot imagine why it has taken me 20 years to actually join the Co-op. I thank the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton for securing the debate. As I said, there has been an outbreak of unanimity, which is fantastic to see. I am only sorry that I did not bring more of my friends with me.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We tabled new clause 37 partly to try to get some reassurance from the Minister. Two years is still quite a long time, as is five, but it is incredibly important that we are on top of what is going on in the pension industry, not least because we do not want any of our constituents to end up with miserable retirements. However, I am marginally reassured by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 38 Guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator “(1) The Secretary of State must establish a joint protocol outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator regarding their regulatory responsibility of the pension industry. (2) A protocol established under subsection (1) must include— (a) an overview of the coordination mechanisms between the two bodies; (b) a published framework for oversight of hybrid or work-based personal pension schemes; (c) a requirement for regular joint communications from both bodies to clarify regulatory boundaries for industry stakeholders.”— (Mark Garnier.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am partially reassured by the Minister’s comments, but it really comes down to the kindness of my heart—I would not want the hon. Member for Hendon to be pulled off the Committee and put in an awkward situation. It would be unfortunate to force him to fall out with the Whips so early in his parliamentary career, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 37 Review of impact of this Act “(1) Within five years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes. (2) The review must consider— (a) the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes, and (b) whether further measures are needed to ensure that pension scheme members receive an adequate income in retirement. (3) The Secretary of State must prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.”— (Mark Garnier .) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the impact of this Act within 5 years of its passing. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 225, in clause 101, page 98, line 24, leave out “after 31 December 2029”. This amendment, together with Amendment 227, means that relevant Master Trusts and group personal pensions will not have to comply with the scale requirement until after 2030, but that Chapter 3 of Part 2 (including provision relating to the scale requirement, such as the application can otherwise be brought into force at any time in accordance with regulations. Amendment 226, in clause 101, page 98, line 25, at end insert— “(ba) Chapter 3A comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State and the Treasury jointly may by regulations appoint;”. This amendment provides for commencement by regulations of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15. Amendment 227, in clause 101, page 98, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert— “(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may not provide for the following to come into force before 1 January 2030— (a) section 38(4), in respect of the insertion of Condition 1 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (Master Trusts to be subject to scale requirement); (b) section 38(8), in respect of the insertion of section 26(7A) of that Act (group personal pension schemes to be subject to scale requirement) (but nothing in this subsection prevents section 38 from being brought into force before that date in respect of the insertion in that Act of other provision related to that mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)).” This amendment ensures that schemes will not be legally subject to the scale requirement before 1 January 2030. It allows, however, for provision relating to that requirement (e.g., provision around applications for approval) to be commenced before that date in anticipation of the requirement itself taking effect. Amendment 228, in clause 101, page 98, line 34, at end insert— “(5A) If section 38 has not been brought into force before the end of 2035 in respect of the insertion of— (a) Condition 2 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: Master Trusts), and (b) subsection (7B) in section 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: group personal pension schemes), section 38 is repealed at the end of that year in respect of the insertion of those provisions.” This amendment transposes and clarifies the provision currently in clause 38(16). It provides for the key provisions imposing the asset allocation requirement to fall away if they are not brought into force before the end of 2035. Amendment 242, in clause 101, page 98, line 37, at beginning insert— “( ) Chapter 1 of Part 4 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed. ( ) Chapter 2 of”. This amendment provides for the commencement of the new Chapter relating to the consequences of the Virgin Media case . Amendment 243, in clause 101, page 99, line 5, after “section 96” insert “and (Information to be given to pension schemes by employers)”.— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment provides for the commencement of NC20. C lause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am highly reassured by the Minister’s words. The important point is to ensure that if the bodies are to work together and do this, we need to keep them held to account on it. The Financial Conduct Authority was set up as an independent regulator and reports back to such things as the Treasury Committee. Presumably, TPR reports back to the Work and Pensions Committee. Already we can see a potential problem there, because separate Select Committees are doing the investigation. That is an important point, but I am confident that the Minister and his civil servants are aware of the problem and will be resolutely super sharp-focused on this issue to ensure that we have regulatory clarity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 39 Section 38: commencement “(1) The provisions in section 38 shall not come into force except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State. (2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”— (John Milne.) This new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38 could only be enacted once agreed through secondary legislation. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  When we look at the thrust of the Bill, the mandation measure is all about trying to get pension funds to help to create greater productivity within the UK economy. A couple of days ago, in a very helpful intervention on a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Hendon made the point that, while we are standing against mandation, we must ask: what are we standing in favour of? How are we trying to get behind the grain of the Bill? These three new clauses respond to that question of what we are doing to ensure that the Bill actually can use pension fund money to promote economic growth, invest into the UK and get better returns for the pensioners. One of the problems facing defined-benefit pension schemes is that, in response to the outrage over Maxwell and Mirror Group Newspapers pinching money from pension schemes back in the 1980s and 1990s, rules were introduced that were basically designed to ensure that it would not happen again. They were introduced in such a way to ensure that, if a defined-benefit pension scheme were to go into deficit, the deficit would be reflected on the balance sheet of the host company. We still see that today in some larger companies; I think the British Telecom pension scheme currently has a deficit of £7 billion, and that appears on British Telecom’s balance sheet. That does two fundamental things. First, if a company has a deficit on its balance sheet, that restricts its ability to raise equity or debt to invest into its business, so the host business cannot expand because it has a defined-benefit pension scheme with a deficit attached to it. A second problem then comes as a result of the Maxwell rules: the trustees of a defined-benefit scheme with a host company will be reluctant to invest that into high-volatility assets. We know that, over a long period of time, the equity market will perform far better than the bond market. The problem is that we can have volatile markets in the short term, which could introduce a deficit in the defined-benefit pension scheme that translates to a deficit on the balance sheet. For example, if we look at stock market performances from the 1980s to now, we will see a very steady rise in the stock markets over time, which have done particularly well. However, if we go back to 1987 or various other times, such as 2000-01, we will see big stock market crashes that will have appeared on the balance sheets of those defined-benefit pension scheme host companies. As a result, these pension schemes are missing out on the long-term growth to push away the short-term volatility that hits the host company. With these three new clauses, we are trying to get that out of the way so that defined-benefit pension schemes feel more comfortable about investing in higher-growth and therefore higher-volatility assets.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 101, page 98, line 22, leave out “Chapters 1 and 2” and insert “Chapter 1”.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to follow on from the two powerful speeches by the Liberal Democrat and SNP spokespeople, the hon. Members for Torbay and for Aberdeen North, in highlighting the fact that this problem is—dare I say it—disappearing over time. This feels slightly similar to the ongoing contaminated blood debate, and it is a similar type of thing. The people who would be compensated for the contaminated blood are, for tragic reasons, disappearing. Indeed, I think there are now 86,000 pensioners who were caught up in this particular problem, and the longer this is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, for obvious reasons. The principle behind this is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that we as a country, society and community look after all these people. Where people have done the right thing and put money into their pension, but it has not followed through, that is a big problem. One thing does bother me: I do not want to be too political, but the Government have dug themselves a freshly made £30 billion black hole in the last year. Although the SNP spokesperson is absolutely right that the £12 billion in the PPF is available to spend only on pensions, the problem is that because it appears on the country’s balance sheet, if the money to pay the price for this—I think it is £1.8 billion—came out of that, there would be a £1.8 billion increase on the country’s collective balance sheet. The argument would go that it would then reduce it. At some level, fiscal prudence has to come in to make sure we are not creating a deeper black hole. Because of the change of accounting at the back end of last year, this could turn the Government’s £30 billion fiscal black hole into a £32 billion one, even though that money is earmarked only for pensions. I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will resolve that. I would like him to make an undertaking that we will hear something about it on 26 November, and that there will be something in the Budget to resolve this fiscal conundrum. We need to know where the money will come from, and that the Government have set it aside. This is a perfect opportunity to deal with a problem that has been going on since 1997, and that becomes more profound every time the Office for National Statistics announces the rate of inflation. If the Minister gave us that assurance, I would trust him—being an honourable and decent man—that he could make his current boss get something done about this on 26 November.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister raises an interesting point. We have talked about a lot of different bits and pieces with complexity and all the rest of it. We have not spoken about when we educate people about money. In the olden days, when I was a newly elected MP, I was one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for financial education for young people. That was about getting financial education into the curriculum. It is probably now more important than ever that we teach people of school age about the importance of financial planning, including pensions. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will take up with his colleagues in the Department for Education the changes that could be made to bring this type of education into the curriculum for kids, who are all going to be adults soon?