Mark Garnier MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way, because I have very limited time—my apologies. When it comes to fraud and error in the DWP specifically, the Department’s own statistics estimate that around £9.9 billion is overpaid in benefits each year. Two thirds of those overpayments are for universal credit claims, so I hope the Minister will explain why fraud and error are particularly high for universal credit claims and what steps are being taken. In 2017, there were 7,840 convictions for benefit fraud; last year, there were 461. That is a 94% decline in convictions, and fewer than 600 individuals have been convicted in total since the general election. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that we should be making an example of benefit cheats in the courts to disincentivise others. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that I am coming to the end of my speech. Under this Government, hard-working taxpayers are being asked to pay more. Many people would hope that that money would be going towards—for example—increasing the defence budget, but as this estimates day debate has highlighted, it is going to the DWP budget instead. The Government know that this is not right; indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was right when she said that the Government “must not…duck the big challenges facing this country”. —[ Official Report , 1 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 164.] However, when it came to making the tough decisions, they bottled it every time. Maybe the next Government, led by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), will do better. In his speech yesterday, he said that he would control the welfare bill, and told us to “imagine”. We on the Conservative Benches hope that his promises do not turn out to be imaginary.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for securing this debate. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on a great Conservative gain and to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an SNP hold, and I congratulate them both on their maiden speeches. I welcome the opportunity to challenge the Minister on her Department’s spending policies and performance. We cannot pretend that welfare reform is not difficult to achieve. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said recently: “When I speak to former Welfare Secretaries, I hear the same thing again and again. Welfare reform is hard. You will be hated.” That is why we offered our support to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), when she attempted to bring down the benefits bill, because it was the right thing to do. Everyone is paying more in tax to pay benefits to others. That is not fair, and it needs to change. When it comes to our welfare system, we need to be clear what we want from it. The system should be there to help people when they fall into difficulty; at the same time, it should help the most vulnerable people in our society. There are many people who simply cannot work, and they must be protected. However, we have got to a state in which too many people are reliant on the benefits system. Let us take a look at where we have got to today. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. Unemployment was at 4.1%, and youth unemployment was at 14%. Some 6.8 million people were claiming universal credit, and 3.5 million people were claiming personal independence payments. Twenty months later, after Labour came to power, inflation has risen to 2.8%. Unemployment has risen to 4.9%, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. Some 7.9 million people are claiming universal credit, which is 1.1 million more people, and 3.9 million people are claiming PIP—that is 400,000 more people. That is unsustainable. How have we got to this position? Part of it is down to the Government’s policies around employment. The increase in employer national insurance contributions to 15% has added more costs to businesses. That means that many businesses have had to make redundancies and are hiring fewer people than before. That is especially affecting young people, hence why we now have higher youth unemployment than the European average. That is not a good thing after 20 months in power. At the same time, the Government introduced the Employment Rights Act 2025, adding even more costs and complexities to businesses. These costs to businesses are estimated at £5 billion. When the Minister closes the debate, I am sure she will talk about the increased funding in apprenticeships, which is of course welcome. It is all well and good increasing funding for apprenticeships and employment, but it is ultimately pointless if there are no jobs available. That is what this Government seem to fail to understand. This is a crisis of their own making, and they are putting their head in the sand and pretending it is all fine. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if it is all fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning? When it comes to welfare specifically, we are at a point where more than half of all households are net beneficiaries of benefits. Again, that is unsustainable. The Government had the chance to reduce the benefits bill, and the Leader of the Opposition pledged our party’s support in doing that. However, the Government could not face down their own Back Benchers, so we are left waiting for the Timms review of PIP to report in the autumn, which may not even suggest making the necessary savings we should all make on PIP. In this year alone, PIP will cost the Department an extra £3.5 billion, and universal credit will cost nearly £9 billion extra. If we stay on this trajectory, the health and disability-related benefits bill could reach nearly £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. We should be acting now; instead, we are left with dither and delay. Finally, we need to talk about fraud, which is becoming ever more pervasive—the National Audit Office found that it cost the public sector between £55 billion and £81 billion in 2023-24. That figure continues to increase year on year, so there is a real need to tackle fraud and ensure that public money is allocated correctly.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Supporting British Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  The Pensions Minister likes to spend a lot of time criticising the previous Government for their actions on pensioners. He also spends an awful lot of time talking up his legacy on helping pensioners, but his actions simply do not reflect the narrative. So far, he has capped salary sacrifice, there have been delays to the pensions dashboards, we have had retrospective changes to inheritance tax on pension pots, and—as we have heard—the Government are chasing hard-up pensioners for their winter fuel allowance. All of this creates uncertainty among savers and pensioners alike, so I will repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell): is the Pensions Minister hopeful that his successor will do a better job of looking after pensioners?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Venture Capital Trust Income Tax Relief · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by congratulating the former Economic Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion to Chief Secretary? In the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect from those in the financial services industry. May I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary, and wish her the very best of luck in the role? As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services lending and investing in the UK economy. Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of ensuring growth for this country?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to bang on with a very long and intelligent speech, but in the interests of brevity and keeping everybody happy, I will not. I am delighted that the Minister is introducing legislation relating to the glorious regime of the strong and stable Conservative Government of 2020 and the 2023 Budget. This policy was slightly bonkers. We need to do everything we can to encourage people to save and not put a cap on their savings. I am tempted to go on about salary sacrifice, but I will spare the Minister the embarrassment of reminding him about that. We will certainly not oppose these regulations.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting that the Minister raises that point. He will no doubt remember that Chancellor Gordon Brown raised the state pension by, I think, 50p a week. Did he support that policy by one of his predecessor Chancellors?

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Huq, for your stewardship of this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate. Most importantly, I thank the 119,000 people who signed this petition, 247 of whom are from my constituency of Wyre Forest. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) for also raising this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for bringing up the WASPI women, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who needs hearty congratulations on getting Brexit into this debate—well done to him. This is a timely debate, and I agree with the wider point at the heart of the proposal that the petition seeks to address. We are all facing a higher tax burden thanks to this Government’s choices and policies, and we are all really struggling with cost of living rises—again, thanks to this Government’s tax choices on employment. Pensioners, instead of living with the dignity in retirement that they have worked so hard for and deserve, have a greater financial burden placed on them. Now we have the prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer floating more tax rises in the next Budget. That is deeply concerning for all of us, but especially for those on low incomes. I hope that this Minister, who played a key role in the last Budget, will be able to rule out tax rises in the next Budget at the Dispatch Box here today. The thrust behind the petition is very clear, but first we must understand the historical context of how the pension system works. That context goes back over a century to 1921, when the Government of the time struck a deal with future pensioners. The basis of that deal was that people could save money into a fund from untaxed earnings; the Treasury would contribute to that fund the tax that would otherwise have been paid. Then the fund would be allowed to grow without being subject to any tax during its lifetime. At the time of retirement, the fund would be used to provide an income for the pensioner but, importantly, that income would be treated as taxable income. It would be replacing the earnings that that individual would have been generating, had they still been in work. In 1946, when the state pension was introduced, that pension payout was to be subject to tax in exactly the same way that private pensions were back in 1921. That system has remained unchanged ever since. The simple contract between the state and the pensioner has not changed at all since 1921. It is important to underline this point. Successive Governments maintain that a pension, whether state or occupational, is a form of income. Specifically, it is treated as a replacement for earnings. However, there have been breaks for pensioners, most notably the exemption from paying national insurance contributions. Today, a pensioner will be asked to pay income tax above the tax-free threshold, but they will not be asked to pay national insurance, as the working population do. Where we can absolutely agree with the wider sentiment of the petition is that this Government are confusing the pension landscape. In their first 20 months, the Labour Government have not been the pensioner’s best friend. Prior to the last Budget, the Chancellor flew a few kites about reducing the tax-free lump sum. That resulted in pensioners withdrawing £3.9 billion in one-off lump sums from their pensions between October 2024 and October 2025. That was an increase of nearly 30% on the year before. When the Budget was actually announced, the Chancellor raided unused pensions in her inheritance tax calculations—a policy that will bring more families into paying inheritance tax and will mean that fewer people can pass money on to their loved ones when they die. However, this petition talks specifically about the personal allowance. The last Government made a decision to help those in the bottom decile of earnings by increasing the tax-free threshold at an accelerated rate. That helped pensioners as well as lower-earning people, and over time it brought the state pension to a level below that of the tax-free threshold. That has two benefits: first, there is no tax for state pensioners, and secondly there is no tax return to be filled in by state pensioners. But now this Government are choosing to freeze income tax thresholds until 2031, and the Government have extended the freeze because of their economic mismanagement. The Chancellor, in her first Budget, stated: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] As I say, that was her first Budget. After promising to not extend the freeze—something we would have supported —she went back on her word and chose not to protect hard-working people. That matters to pensioners, because the state pension will soon rise above the income tax threshold due to the triple lock, which we all agree is a good thing to remedy the ills that happened when the state pension fell to, I think, about 13% or 14% of average earnings. That means that pensioners will now have to start paying income tax on— [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Minister.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister will chunter intelligently at some point. In our 2024 manifesto, the Conservative party proposed the triple lock plus to stop this problem happening. It would have exempted the state pension from income tax, as the threshold would have risen at the same rate as the triple lock. Now it seems that this Government might be considering using our policy, albeit in a slightly cack-handed way. The Government have proposed that basic-rate state pensioners will not have to fill in a tax return, although this seems to be a specific sort of form-filling break for the over-67s rather than an actual hiking of the allowance. However, in a Treasury Committee hearing recently, a director at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Cerys McDonald, stated that the policy would be included in the next Finance Bill. She said: “We will be working with the Treasury and Ministers to bring forward legislation to support the policy intent in the next Finance Bill.” Of course, we welcome the Government effectively taking our policy and exempting those who are on a state pension, but we do not have any detail as to how this plan will work. Pensioners deserve clarity. Perhaps the Minister could confirm today that the proposals to which Cerys McDonald referred will be introduced. It is not just policy that is blighting pensioners. The Sunday Times has highlighted that up to 8.7 million pensioners have been overcharged on their tax bill by an apparently careless taxman. That means that as much as £43.5 million was collected in error last year. I am pleased that HMRC is putting that right and that the fix should be finalised in the summer, but it has been working on this for a year. It is taking far too long. Will the Minister set out what he will do to resolve the situation and confirm to the House when it is fixed? This petition is well-intentioned and it is correct that we are all facing a higher tax burden than ever before. As has been reported, many pensioners are being overcharged on their tax bill. The Government need to get a hold of this situation and do more to reduce the tax burden on pensioners, because, as we have heard from many Members today, they deserve dignity and security in their retirement, but they have been left wanting by this Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is willing to raise the tax-free threshold, as identified in this petition, from £12,500 or thereabouts to £25,140, and will then maintain it at 200% of the working person’s tax-free threshold. Will he agree with the petition, or will he rule out that proposal today? Finally, I have been shadowing the Minister for about 18 months now. He is a very decent gentleman and I enjoy shadowing him. I wish him the very best of luck in the upcoming reshuffle after the by-election on Thursday.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about crossing the Rubicon, given that the Government are taking mandation powers to interfere in people’s savings and assets. We are talking about pension funds here, but once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no reason why the Government would not feel that they could start mandating how investment trusts or other types of savings schemes invest. This issue is not just about pensions; it is about the fundamental relationship between the state and private individuals.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Global Trade: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that our financial services industry is a shining example of our international economic might. However, overinterpretation of rules and regulations has led to banks being nervous of taking risks, and that has slowed growth in the City and holds up international trade. For example, overinterpretation of anti-money laundering rules means that foreign inward remittances can take up to two weeks to clear into a UK bank account, while poor classification of risk-rated assets potentially starves businesses of growth debt capital. Will the Economic Secretary please assure the House that this ever-unnecessary tightening of the rules will be addressed in the financial services Bill, due to be announced in the King’s Speech?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the greatest respect, the Minister is talking nonsense. At the end of the day, every trustee has a fiduciary duty to get the best return for their members. By putting in these mandation powers, the Government are fundamentally going against the most basic principle of the City of London, which is dictum meum pactum—my word is my bond. The Government entered into a pact with the industry, and they are now reneging on that pact by introducing mandation and not allowing the industry to move things forward. The Government are so wrong on this whole point. The Minister should withdraw the mandation powers and get rid of clause 40.

• 27 Apr 2026 · State Pension Age Changes: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member raises many really important points, much of which we agree with. That is why, I think on Report, the Opposition tabled an amendment to try to understand what the problem was. It specifically asked, “Why are these pension funds not investing in the UK? Is it legislative, is it regulatory or is it cultural?” The Government voted against that. They voted against exactly the work we need to do to understand what the problem is. Could he possibly explain why?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Both sides of this House are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem—we all agree on that—but let us get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. We cannot force people into a minefield if the mines are still there; we have to clear the mines and allow them do it. This is the most fundamental point. The Government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money. If there is a problem that they are going to encounter, we should get those problems out of the way and managers will go into those assets.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Car Insurance Industry: Fraud · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Lewell, and I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) for securing this important debate. We have heard quite a lot of depressing stories about how people have been scammed and ripped off, and all colleagues will agree that more needs to be done to tackle fraud and spoofing in the car insurance industry. Whether it is crash-for-cash scams, ghost broking or paid ad spoofing, our constituents are all being ripped off on so many levels; not just the cost itself, but the increase in insurance premiums. These practices are also harming the insurers and our wider financial services industry. The Minister will therefore agree with everyone in the room that more needs to be done to tackle this problem, but I hope she will reflect on colleagues’ comments about whether the Government are actually going far enough to tackle it. To give some context, fraud is a threat that is becoming more prevalent every year. In 2024, fraud accounted for 44% of all crime reported in England and Wales, with about £1.16 billion of fraudulent general insurance claims identified. On the car insurance industry specifically, a 2024 report from the Association of British Insurers said: “Motor insurance continues to be the area where insurers see the most illicit claims occurring, and they detected 51,700 motor scams worth £576 million.” The ABI’s data suggested that that accounted for 53% of all fraudulent claims that year. It is safe to say that there is an issue that needs to be rectified, that we need to do more to protect our constituents and that we need to work closely with the industry to resolve this issue. The thrust of this debate is paid ad spoofing, which is a very problematic but less well-known practice affecting the car insurance industry. According to the ABI, four in five people have never heard of it, so it is welcome that we have the opportunity to discuss it and raise its profile today. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire set out, paid ad spoofing is when fraudsters mimic legitimate businesses. They pay for ads to appear in search results when a customer searches for a legitimate service. In the context of car insurance, the ads usually refer to unscrupulous claims and accident management businesses, and tend to relate to those who have been involved in an accident. As Direct Line states, the practice relies on “the fact that in the aftermath of an accident, you might not be as vigilant as you’d otherwise be, searching quickly on your mobile and clicking on the first option you see.” Fundamentally, these organisations are relying on a consumer believing they are dealing with their own insurer. They then arrange various services that the consumer’s insurer would provide, adding more cost to the process. This is all done with the aim of recovering costs from the insurer, but if the insurer challenges the charges, the drivers are the ones left to pick up the bill. Understandably, those affected—such as the constituents of the hon. Member for North Shropshire—feel ripped off, and the companies that pretend to support them are actually exploiting them. The last Conservative Government understood that, which is why we instructed the Financial Conduct Authority to become responsible for claims management companies in 2019. As a result, firms must be authorised by the FCA to carry out their activities, and repeated violations will result in their authorisation being removed. It also means that customers can escalate complaints to the financial services ombudsman. However, I understand that accident management activities are currently unregulated, so will the Minister outline whether the Government are considering regulating those activities of claims management companies? I would also be grateful if she could provide an assessment of the resolution process for customers, and whether she thinks improvements need to be made. The other central issue is how these practices are allowed in the first place. Fraud is often complicated and involves many different actors. Consumers and insurers have a part to play in tackling it, but the actors, such as technology firms and social media platforms, should also bear responsibility; after all, they are the delivery mechanism for this fraud. We should acknowledge that some technology firms have taken action, and Google is a good example. In 2021, it required companies advertising financial services to demonstrate that they are authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which is a positive step. But more needs to be done, and we need a joined-up approach. The Government’s fraud strategy was an opportunity to do that. Although it is broadly welcome and recognises the role of technology firms in tackling fraud, not one of its action points requires change from them. Could the Minister set out why that decision was taken and what steps she is taking to ensure that responsibility is correctly allocated when it comes to fraud? Fraud in the car insurance industry is a serious issue, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Shropshire for bringing it up. Fraud in general is becoming an issue of national security, and we need to get a handle on it. The Government should continue working with all actors to stop these practices, and we will support them when they try to do so. Consumers also need to remain vigilant to these practices. I conclude by flagging to my constituents in Wyre Forest the current advice on how to avoid paid ad spoofing. First, people need to check the website’s URL to ensure that it is their legitimate insurer. Secondly, they should save the phone number on their insurance policy document to their telephone. Thirdly, if people are unsure about who they are speaking to, they should hang up and check their insurance details—caveat emptor.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026 Draft Credit Institutions and Investment Firms (Miscellaneous Definitions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. As the Minister has said, the draft regulations are pretty uncontroversial, and the Opposition will certainly not oppose them. I have a couple of questions on the draft Capital Requirements Regulation (Market Risk Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026. The Minister has quite rightly said that they have been introduced in response to delays in other jurisdictions, including the US and the EU. Of course, it is very important that we remain globally competitive and do not cause any self-inflicted harm. However, can the Minister provide some more detail on why other jurisdictions are delaying the implementation of these rules? Is it procedural, or is it because they have some concerns about the rules that they are being asked to implement? Secondly, the draft regulations allow the Treasury to extend the delay beyond 1 January 2028, which is absolutely fine—we completely understand why that might need to be the case. That will also be subject to the affirmative procedure. However, there are one or two concerns within the industry that this provision might create uncertainty about when the rules will actually be brought in. It would be very helpful if the Minister gave some idea about what internal tests the Treasury will use to decide whether to pursue such an extension. As I said, the Opposition support the intention behind the draft regulations, and we will certainly not be pressing them to a vote.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What about Rosebank and Jackdaw?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Roger, for chairing the debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) on bringing this incredibly important subject up for discussion. At the heart of the debate are individual people—people who have lost their businesses, their livelihoods and, in some cases, their health and, indeed, their lives. Let me be crystal clear: where there has been malpractice, those affected should and must be supported and compensated. Every stakeholder in this issue, from the banks to the business owners—certainly the business owners—should agree with that. I have a certain amount of experience of this. I was a member of the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016 and a member of the parliamentary commission on banking standards. We looked at the Financial Services Act 2012, which created the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to replace the previous regulator, the Financial Services Authority, which had been an abject failure. The FSA was created under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, which started the tripartite regime that singularly failed our economy and resulted in the financial crisis in 2008. There is absolutely no question but that what we saw prior to the financial crisis, when we had that credit bubble, were some very bad practices. We looked into this again on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. The legislation that came out of that, the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013, was originally started due to the LIBOR scandal. None the less, we looked into the fundamental malpractices going on in banks, and what we saw, absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt, was a mismatch in the balance of interests between shareholders, customers and staff that was massively in the favour of staff. That is what we found, and that fundamental malpractice by the financial services system is what those two Acts of Parliament were designed to resolve. What we are looking at today is three important areas: those who were sold interest rate hedging products, which most of this debate has been about; those who were placed into RBS’s global restructuring group; and those who were on fixed-rate loans in Northern Ireland. I want briefly to go through each. On the hedging products, it was common practice back in the 2000s for businesses to be sold variable rate loans, as well as interest rate hedging products, which were known as collars and caps. In principle, they are not inherently bad products in themselves, as they offered the borrower greater flexibility. If people are borrowing money at 6% and are capped at 8%, but the quid pro quo is that they are collared at 4%, that actually works for them, because it protects them from a spike in interest rates. Of course, the problem was that we did not see a spike in interest rates; rather, we saw a massive collapse of interest rates during the financial crisis. Interest rates dropped from 575 basis points in 2007 to just 50 basis points in 2009, and that is where borrowers were left out. Of course, we have also seen mismanagement of Government—I am the first to admit that, under Liz Truss’s Government, we saw interest rates spike at 15%. Collar and cap arrangements would have protected borrowers from that, so there is a benefit to them. However, I completely understand that we are looking here at where there has been malpractice behind these contracts. It is incredibly important, though, to look at the problem with the Financial Services Authority, the precursor of the Financial Conduct Authority, which identified that lenders failed to ascertain borrowers’ understanding of risk. That is why it was right that the nine banks involved compensated customers to the tune of £2.2 billion. I appreciate that we are talking about those who were not compensated, but there was a recognition that there was a problem. On the global restructuring group, the Financial Conduct Authority identified a number of clear failings in customer service and poor interactions. I understand that NatWest bank has accepted that the conduct fell far below the standards expected and has paid out something in the region of £100 million in compensation. In the grand scheme of things, that is not a huge amount of money; none the less, it has accepted that. However, it seems from the results of the regulatory reviews by the FCA, as well as the judicial proceedings, that it has not properly compensated people. I should also point out that banks did a great deal to support businesses around the time of the financial crisis. That might sound counterintuitive to hon. Members, but one of the great discussions we had on the Treasury Committee was about the surprisingly small number of businesses that had gone bust. There was an argument at the time that banks were artificially supporting businesses while they had bad cash flow and damaged balance sheets, and that forcing companies into liquidation would crystallise the deficit of the loan on to the banks’ balance sheets. There was an argument that they were doing the wrong thing by keeping alive what were then referred to as zombie businesses. This whole issue was incredibly complicated after the financial crisis, and there was an awful lot going on in various different parts of all this. I want finally to turn to the fixed-rate loans, which are mostly the ones used by Ulster Bank in Northern Ireland, which again is a subsidiary of NatWest. The allegation is that the banks took out their own interest rate swaps, booking them in customers’ names and adding a related credit bump. That is a serious allegation, suggesting that the bank staff recorded up-front profits for those swaps and earned personal commissions. The FCA was absolutely right to investigate it, but following its investigation, it said: “We have seen no evidence that would lead us to conclude that further supervisory work and/or intervention with Ulster Bank/NatWest was required.” I recognise that many will disagree with that conclusion, but even so, it cannot be argued that the FCA did not look into it. This comes down to what we want the FCA to achieve. The hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) said that the FCA is not accountable, but actually, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, and it is the job of Members on the Committee to ensure that the FCA does the job that we want it to. When we created the FCA in 2012, the idea was that there would be greater focus on consumer protection. The Financial Services Authority was set up to do the prudential regulation and the conduct regulation. The FCA was set up purely to do the financial conduct regulation, which is looking at how people are looked after. The Prudential Regulation Authority was then set up to do the nuts and bolts of the financial system—to make sure that we did not see a failing in the banking system rather like we had during the great financial crisis. I recognise that many colleagues will feel that process has not happened, particularly in the case we are talking about, but we have to accept that the FCA is an independent body. As I say, it is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee, but it is an independent body. In a similar debate in 2018, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), when he was Economic Secretary to the Treasury, said: “We can set the law, but we then must be bound by it and respect the judgment and independence of the FCA.” —[ Official Report , 18 January 2018; Vol. 634, c. 1127.] To the extent of the law we created, he is absolutely right. In the same way that we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court, even if we disagree with it, we should respect the judgments of the Financial Conduct Authority. It is up to the Minister to come up with a solution, but does she agree with that, or has the FCA got this fundamentally wrong? If so, what line will the Government take? Will they deliver the judge-led judicial review that people are looking for? I hope she will be able to answer that. In closing, I want to return to those who have been affected. SMEs make up 99% of all businesses in the UK, so it is not an exaggeration that they are the lifeblood of our economy. When they succeed, we all benefit. They need confidence that institutions and financial services are backing them and are there to serve them and to make their businesses work. This issue has damaged that trust, and many have experienced painful losses. We need to rebuild that trust. I am not sure whether a judge-led inquiry is the right step, but I am open to it. The decision on whether to undertake one, however, is ultimately for the Government. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

• 26 Mar 2026 · National Savings & Investments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. This scandal affects tens of thousands of people, and it could end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds. NS&I is supposed to be as safe a place as anywhere for people to put their savings—a place where savers can trust that their money will be looked after. As we have heard, 24 million people do so. It is also a savings scheme that the Government can use as a benefit to taxpayers, borrowing to provide funds for the running of the country. It needs to be demonstrably secure. In reality, bereaved families have been short-changed, with NS&I losing track of investments, delaying transfers and withholding premium bond payments. Customers have faced a complete breakdown in communication at the most difficult time, adding stress and worry. In the breaking newspaper reporting today, we have heard how people have had to chase up their own cases, only to be told that they would have to wait a further six to nine months for a resolution. Some families have also had to call in lawyers to obtain money that is rightfully theirs, and there are examples of bereaved family members receiving letters incorrectly addressed to their dead relatives. NS&I has in the past tried to blame some of these failures on covid and the outsourcing of staff, but whatever its excuse, this is unacceptable and a complete failure of management. NS&I is letting down its customers, and complaints have more than doubled in just over three years. At the same time, the digital transformation of NS&I that was meant to cost £1.3 billion has now ballooned to £3 billion. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee was damning about the digitalisation plan, calling it a “full-spectrum disaster” and concluding that NS&I is “over-confident” and “has no workable plan, and no idea of eventual cost.” If the Public Accounts Committee could see it, why have this Government been sitting on their hands? Poor performance and a botched digital transformation mean that NS&I is short-changing savers at a time when raising money for the Government has never been needed more. NS&I is an arm’s length body overseen by the Treasury. Specifically, it is an Executive agency of the Chancellor, so it is concerning that the Minister has today admitted that NS&I notified the Treasury of these operational failings on 18 December last year. It has apparently taken a breaking news story in The Daily Telegraph for the Government to make a statement today. Can the Minister please explain why it has taken him over three months to come forward with this statement? He also says that the previous Government failed to act. That implies that there was something to act on. Can he set out what actions he has taken between coming to power on 4 July 2024 and 18 December 2025? I have some further questions for the Minister. What provision has been made for compensation and who will pay for it? Where bonuses have been paid to senior staff over the period of poor performance, will they be recovered? On that note, we have seen reports that the chief executive will be resigning as a result of this issue and the botched digital transformation process. Can the Minister confirm whether he has resigned, or has he been sacked? Can he confirm whether the chief executive received bonuses over this period of poor performance? Finally, what confidence do the Minister and the Government have that this is the true depth of the problem affecting bereaved families? What work is he doing to identify whether this might be the tip of an iceberg? I am not trying to imply that it is the tip of an iceberg, but I ask the question to ensure that this is the limit of the problem. People have been let down. While NS&I has apologised for the mistakes, it will be of little comfort to those thousands of people who have lost out. The Government need to act swiftly and the families need to be compensated. The Opposition will work collaboratively with the Government to ensure a swift resolution.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would also like to start by thanking the Lords for their very hard work. I do not think the Government won a single vote during the Bill’s passage in the other place. Over the past few months, we have seen how enthusiastic the Government are to raid savings. In particular, they are very keen to raid pension pots. Whether by taking powers to mandate private pension funds to invest in Government white elephants or through the Bill we are debating tonight, the Government have established beyond any doubt that they have no interest whatsoever in savers and strivers. Pensions are important. They provide for security in retirement. The pact that has been established between the state and the pension saver, which goes back to the 1920s, is all about not just helping savers but taking the strain off the state: encourage saving now and there will not be a burden on the state of an impoverished pension in the future. Under the previous Government, we saw the roll-out of auto-enrolment, bringing 10 million people into the savings culture, and we introduced the triple lock to reverse the decline in the value of the state pension under the previous Labour Government. Despite those positive steps, we recognise that people are still not saving enough for their retirement. As the Government’s own analysis shows, 50% of savers are projected to miss their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, so we need to do better. I know there is cross-party consensus on that point, if nothing else, so let us be honest: the changes to salary sacrifice arrangements will do the complete opposite. As the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK have outlined, we should be improving our current offering and providing new opportunities. Instead, the Government are making the situation worse in a desperate attempt to balance the Government’s books, conveniently in three years’ time. Frankly, it makes little sense and that is why we oppose this legislation. The point of salary sacrifice arrangements is that they incentivise certain behaviours. That is why people are allowed to use these schemes to put money towards not just pensions but workplace nurseries, childcare vouchers and cycle-to-work schemes. Those are all good things. However, in this case the Government have singled out pensions and are attacking one of the most important things that people should be saving towards—their pensions. This is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that could be going towards a good thing. Instead, the Bill will remove an avenue that 7.7 million employees are currently using. The Bill will add even more cost to the 290,000 businesses and charities that use it. It will pile more cost on to students already saddled with student loans. It will harm pensions adequacy and force more people to rely on the state, pushing more costs on to the next generation. I am proud that my colleagues in the Lords, as well as Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, understand those concerns. The Opposition remain opposed to the Bill, but the amendments do go some way to address those issues and support the stated objectives of this policy, even though we disagree with the fundamental policy. Lords amendments 1 and 7 would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from this policy. That would protect a group who typically under-save and allow them to continue to put savings into their pensions. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) may be interested in listening to this, because he raised a very important point about lower rate taxpayers. The amendments are identical to the amendment we tabled in the Commons and that Labour MPs decided to vote down. As the Government’s own impact assessment clearly states, they are trying to target higher earners or those making larger contributions. While that might be the stated purpose and the political justification, in reality that is not the case for two reasons. First, the cap will still affect 858,000 basic rate taxpayers, according to the Society of Pension Professionals. In fact, reporting from the Financial Times has highlighted how the Bill will disproportionately affect those people, compared to those on a higher rate of tax. Those on the basic rate of tax pay 8% national insurance contributions, while those on the higher rate of tax pay 2% NICs. That means that on national insurance contributions alone, lower earners are being hit four times as hard by this policy—four times. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister how that could be fair. He did not answer my question then, but I hope he will be able to answer it when he winds up. Maybe he can tell us how the policy is fair for those hard-working people, or whether they are just casualties of rushed policymaking. Secondly, a behavioural outcome may be that employers will remove salary sacrifice as an option for all their employees. We already recognise that salary sacrifice is mutually beneficial for employees and employers. It is also more attractive to both sides, as it is simple to understand. By enforcing the cap, it will change not only the viability of salary sacrifice arrangements, but employers’ perception of them.This may result in many employers removing them as an option altogether, meaning that 4.4 million people who are supposedly protected may be affected. If this Government were really serious about their policy objective, they would exempt basic rate taxpayers altogether. These amendments give them the chance to do just that and to back hard-working people.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. One characteristic of volatile energy markets is that when wholesale prices rise, consumer prices tend to rise like a rocket, and when the wholesale price stabilises the consumer price tends to fall like a feather. Can the Minister assure me and my constituents that in the conversations that he is having with the Competition and Markets Authority he is also looking at whether, when the market returns to normality, prices will fall as quickly as they have risen in this volatile moment?

• 10 Mar 2026 · State Pension Increase · Hansard source

  More

  Thanks to this Government’s policies on pensions, which actively disincentivise saving into private pension schemes, people will increasingly rely on the support of the state. This is not sustainable. I asked the Minister about this yesterday, and he dodged the question, so I will ask him again: will the Government cancel pension fund mandation and abandon salary sacrifice caps—yes or no?