Peter Bedford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. Business confidence has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has said that there are significant concerns in the housing market. The Prime Minister could inject some confidence back into the economy, he could help working families to get on to the housing ladder, and he could even simplify the tax affairs of his Cabinet if he adopted the policy advocated by the Leader of the Opposition of scrapping stamp duty on residential properties. Will he at least give a commitment not to raise property taxes in his nightmare-before-Christmas Budget?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Net Zero: Evidence-based Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Climate Change Act forces Ministers to meet rigid, legally binding emissions targets, regardless of the economic consequences. Does the Secretary of State accept that this law has directly contributed to higher energy bills, the loss of British industry and declining competitiveness, and that the only sensible course of action is to repeal it?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for introducing the ten-minute rule Bill today. While we may not agree on the Bill, I believe that this House is at its best when Members argue for what they believe in, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so today. My Conservative colleagues and I cannot support this Bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally believe in two core principles: fairness and personal responsibility. I believe that this Bill undermines both. Let us be clear: this debate is not about the principle of child benefit. As the eldest of three children from a single-parent family, I know from my own lived experience the challenges faced by those in genuine poverty—having to scrabble around at the end of the week to find enough money to keep the electricity meter running, having to go next door to borrow a cup of sugar to make it to the end of the week, and having to go without the basics at school that most of my friends had. Every child deserves the best start in life, and we should support that, but what is being proposed is something entirely different. The Bill seeks to remove the two-child benefit cap—a cap introduced by the previous Government to address a spiralling bill in a welfare system that was, at times, being abused. Such a cap is fair to the hard-pressed taxpayer. Why should individuals already in receipt of state support gain additional benefit for having yet more children, while working families who get up early, pay their taxes and take full responsibility for their lives do not? Removing the cap would not foster fairness. Instead, it would penalise the people we should be championing: working families who play by the rules. It is only the Conservative party that is standing up for those families, promoting individual responsibility and protecting the country’s fragile finances. Meanwhile, Members on the Government Benches—not content with the chaos they have recently inflicted on the nation—are now competing to be the most socialist, declaring their support for scrapping the cap despite knowing full well it will cost the country an eye-watering £4.5 billion a year. We must be honest with the British people: removing the two-child cap is a massive unfunded commitment that does not reward people for doing the right thing. Simply put, I ask the House: why should a small business owner in Mid Leicestershire, who is already burdened with additional taxes, be asked to pay even more to support someone else’s children, especially when they are struggling to support their own? At the heart of this matter is a philosophical debate. As Conservatives, we believe in incentivising work, not penalising those who seek it. We do not consign people to a life of state dependency; we encourage them to strive, to achieve and to be the best they can be. Unfortunately, it is not just those on the Government Benches who are promoting this recklessness. The Green party wants to spend £40 billion on its radical net zero agenda while still backing the two-child cap’s removal, and the SNP wants to add billions to their welfare bill by pursuing an open borders immigration policy paid for by hard-working Scots. Most surprisingly of all, though, is Reform UK’s position. Many of their hon. Members are proud Thatcherites—or so I thought. They appear to have undergone a damascene conversion and are now, I believe, backing scrapping the cap—a policy that would hammer hard-working ordinary white van men across the country. As we approach what would have been Mrs Thatcher’s centenary, I can only imagine what she would have to say about such an anti-aspirational and profligate approach to the public finances. Politicians simply cannot claim to want to reduce the welfare bill while pursuing policies that would push that bill up by billions. Let me speak directly to the British public, who are inherently conservative-minded: if your political beliefs are rooted in economic freedom and low taxation, can you really support parties that want to take your hard-earned money and hand it to those unwilling to take responsibility? Only the Conservative party stands with you. We believe in letting people keep more of the money they have earned. We believe in addressing poverty at its roots, not just by writing cheques but by reforming the system that traps people in dependency. Our approach is clear. A future Conservative Government will stop sickness benefits for foreign nationals, fix the UK’s sick note culture and reintroduce face-to-face assessments to stop people gaming the system, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has said. We need to bring about a cultural shift where work, personal responsibility and self-reliance are once again core to our national ethos. As I said at the Work and Pensions Committee last week, we should not blindly throw money at the welfare system. We must instead highlight the importance of getting a job, promote better financial management and uphold a meritocratic system where hard work always triumphs over idleness. The Conservatives will vote against this Bill. We are the only party telling the uncomfortable truth about our out-of-control welfare system and the serious financial realities facing our country. We owe it to our constituents to protect the public purse, we owe it to hard-working families to uphold fairness, and we owe it to future generations to build a society built not on entitlement but on effort, enterprise and aspiration. Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to some of those points later, so I will address them then.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Outrageous!

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As a proud Englishman, it is not often that I admit the Australians are better than us at something. I am talking not about cricket, but about the immensely important issue of pensions adequacy. The Australians do it better, and what underpins their success is the super stapling model, a system that fundamentally changes how savers interact with their pensions. That is why our new clause 36 seeks to follow in Australian footsteps by establishing a model that would automatically amalgamate pension pots through an individual’s working life. Although I recognise and commend the Government’s work on small pot consolidation, I believe that real engagement and adequacy benefit lies in moving towards a lifetime pension pot model. It is a bolder, more engaging and more adequate model that would benefit pension funds and savers alike.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I trust the pensions industry to make those judgments because they are the experts in this area, not Government Ministers, who often have short-term views. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends raised the example of HS2 and how Government priorities and policies can change over time. Would the hon. Member be happy for his constituents to have their money invested in a Government project or a large infrastructure scheme that is then scrapped, and to see huge losses to their pension scheme? I have huge concerns about the mandation point. Clause 38, in its current form, undermines the trust that I mentioned earlier. I therefore urge hon. Members to back our amendment to ensure that the fiduciary duty remains and that we protect the security of millions of savers.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having worked in the water sector before being elected to Parliament. I will be speaking predominantly to amendment 248. The Committee heard evidence from industry experts who expressed concerns about the Bill’s mandation power. They were consistent and clear in raising concerns about the reserve powers in the Bill. I would like to reiterate some of those concerns raised by the industry, which I believe hon. Members should support today. At the heart of clause 38 is its impact on the fiduciary duty of trustees—not just a mere technicality, but a duty that has been at the heart of trust-based governance for centuries. Trustees have a legal duty to act solely in the best interests of their members. However, the Government believe it is acceptable to tear up that duty through a ministerial power grab. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Ministers will have the power to override the judgment of trustees, which I do not believe is appropriate. That is not to guide or support, but to mandate them—to potentially force them to act against what are arguably the best interests and returns for their members. That leads me to the potential impact on pensions adequacy in the UK. We are facing a pensions adequacy crisis, as I and other members of this Committee have said before. The majority of people are not saving anywhere near enough for retirement, and the cost to the state pension will only continue to rise, yet we have seen that the Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope to address some of those points. The Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees to force investments into projects that may be politically convenient for them, but may potentially lead to financial loss for members. They are directing investment on the backs of ordinary UK savers. When people save into a pension scheme, they are entrusting their future security to a system that is working supposedly for them and not for political gain. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, rather than coercing trustees to follow conditions set by Ministers, would it not be better to create the right economic conditions to make trustees want to invest in the UK? The last Conservative Government, through their Mansion House reforms and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, brought in active commitment from the pension fund trustees who want to invest. We did not need to mandate that, and the Government should learn from that approach. Amendment 248 will preserve the fiduciary duty, but continue the trajectory to increase pension fund investment in the UK.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Channel Crossings: Military Assets · Hansard source

  More

  The safety and security of my constituents is my No. 1 priority. Given the national security risk posed by some of those who cross the English channel illegally, I ask the Minister to look again at using military assets to physically stop those small boats from landing in the first place. Will he do that today?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Channel Crossings: Military Assets · Hansard source

  More

  5. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the use of military assets to help prevent crossings by illegal migrants of the English channel.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to reiterate a lot of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Financial education is key to unlocking many of the challenges that we face in adulthood, whether budgeting, debt management, saving or planning for retirement. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Financial Education Bill, earlier this year; I know we already have an element of it in secondary schools, but we need to go further as a country and ensure that everyone, from the very young upwards, has that education to inform the key decisions in our lives. I take the hon. Member’s point on DB schemes funding those seeking advice for DC schemes, but it is often the case that members have pensions in both DB and DC schemes: people move quite fluidly from a job in the public sector to one in the private sector, and will inevitably have membership in both DB and DC schemes. The Bill would benefit from the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I also take the hon. Member’s point on the need for better engagement by employers. I know some large companies offer employees mid-life MOTs on financial education and management. Certainly, FTSE 100 companies that I have worked for offer employees that kind of support as they approach retirement. I am sympathetic to new clause 1, which amendment 3 is connected to, because it is essential that as we get older and plan for retirement, we are fully informed on those decisions. I will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 260. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for outlining our rationale for the amendments. My comments regard informing members. I support the right to pay surplus to employers—I think that is the right thing to do, so long as the correct safeguards are in place—but it is right to inform members of that decision. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will improve member engagement in the whole pensions process. I made a point in Tuesday’s evidence session on the importance of financial education, and a number of witnesses supported that position. By more actively engaging with members, we will ensure that they take part in their own pension provision and ensure that the right decisions are made in their own interests.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes. I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  At present, the Bill arguably lacks a clear definition of how the priorities of the asset pools must follow, particularly on what qualifies as local investments. Our amendment seeks to address that gap by simplifying this. Put simply, we believe that local should mean local. These asset pools should prioritise investment in large-scale projects, actively promote local growth or make tangible improvements in local infrastructure—improvements that directly benefit the people in that local area. Where no such opportunities exist, other investment options should be considered, but we cannot allow a situation where, for example, an LGPS fund raised in the midlands is continuously redirected elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, the Bill appears to suggest that the other areas included in the consolidated LGPS schemes could benefit disproportionately. My constituents may ask me, “Why aren’t these funds being used locally by investing in local opportunities, rather than being gifted to councils in other areas of the country, assisting in the same way?” I believe the amendment will add clarity on that to the Bill, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  As Members of Parliament, we receive campaign email after campaign email every week on dozens of issues, from environmental matters to recent calls for a general election. Amid all that, there is one concern that continues to cut through: support for our pubs and the wider hospitality sector. Why? Because the UK’s hospitality sector is more than just about business. It is a vital part of the social fabric of our communities. Whether it is the Nook café in Anstey, the Ex-Servicemen’s Club in Groby or the Coach and Horses in Markfield, these are not simply places to eat and drink; they are places of refuge from everyday life, places where people come together and places that sustain the spirit of our towns and villages. Yet what do we see from this Government? With Starmer the pub harmer at the helm, it seems they are determined to call last orders on our fantastic hospitality sector. Since the general election, we have witnessed a series of reckless decisions that have shattered business confidence. Take the Chancellor’s disastrous autumn Budget, which slashed the rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and imposed damaging rises in employer’s national insurance contributions; or look at the Secretary of State for Business and Trade attempting to push one of the most damaging employment Bills in a generation through Parliament—and I know so, because I sat on the Bill Committee. The legislation will do more to hinder job creation than to help workers. In my own constituency, I have spoken to countless publicans and small business owners who are feeling the strain—none more so than the Royal Oak in Kirby Muxloe, which recently won my Mid Leicestershire best pub competition. Local hospitality businesses in Mid Leicestershire pose the same questions to me time after time. Should they raise their prices and risk losing customers, or should they cut staff and reduce their opening hours just to stay afloat? Neither choice is fair and neither is sustainable. Across the country, we have seen the consequences: 83,000 hospitality jobs lost as a direct result of this Government’s actions. And what for the future? We know the Chancellor is facing a self-inflicted £40 billion black hole as a result of her Budget, and with the recent reshuffle at No. 10, with supporters of high taxes and high spending being promoted, there is a worry among businesses in Mid Leicestershire that the worst is yet to come. It does not have to be this way. If the Government would only listen to industry experts such as UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, or to brewers such as Punch Pubs and Everards, we could actually help the industry rather than hinder it. I urge the Government to act boldly and continue to cut business rate reliefs for the hospitality sector, reduce duty on draught beer and lower VAT on products sold in hospitality settings, just as many of our European neighbours do. It is time that the Government stopped punishing the sector and listened to the rational arguments of those who work in and care so much about the industry they love.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Where is that support going to lie—with organisations such as Age UK, charities or the pension provider? Where do you see that balance sitting? Christopher Brooks: It could lie either with Government and the Money and Pensions Service providing a widespread service, for example. It could lie with charities, or providers could be told to help people with these decisions—they could potentially commission charities. We are working with Aviva to look at running a pilot in the retirement space, which will hopefully go ahead soon and give us some insights into what kind of support people need. People think about their lives holistically, and they are not necessarily thinking about a pension as separate from their current accounts, so we need to think about how it works for people. That is the key thing. Jack Jones: I think we look at this slightly differently. I am not convinced that any more financial education, guidance, or points at which we need to intervene in the system to ensure that people are equipped to make decisions is the way forward. This Bill recognises that, and the introduction of default retirement products is a recognition that everywhere else in the pension system, it works on the principle of default and generally works quite well. We have seen that that principle is really powerful; if people are defaulted into something, they will stay there, whether that is their contribution rate or the investment options. Defaults are really sticky; we rely on that and make use of it through auto-enrolment, to get people into saving schemes. More and more, as we find ways in which that does not work, we need to go back and look at fixing the system a little bit so that it works better by default, rather than providing people with more education, because that is pushing against the grain of all of our experience of what works and what is effective. I think that Chris is right that it puts a lot on the governance structures and on the consumer protections there, but I think that is where this Bill has to work. It has to put in place something that will be appropriate for the vast majority of members, and that will work with the minimal amount of engagement—we have to have some kind of engagement on retirement, such as, “This is what I am going to retire and this is where my pension should be paid,” but not beyond that.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to go back to your point around the value for money implementation, which a few Members have already raised. Specifically, there is always this competing challenge between satisfying the metrics that are in there and delivering returns for your investors. How do you see that balance in the Bill? Do you see it being too much one way, or do you see it hindering the performance of investment? Colin Clarke: At a high level, the Bill, as it stands, is primarily rule-making powers. A lot of the detail is going to be in the secondary legislation. In terms of rule-making powers, as it stands, I think the Bill has the right provisions in place. The detail is going to be around the actual assessments that you have to follow for determining whether something is delivering value, not delivering, intermediate and so on. For me, getting that detail right in the secondary legislation is going to be quite key, as is having clarity at an early stage on what that is, so that it can go through the proper consultation paper and we can look at the risks and at whether there are any unforeseen consequences. At a high level, we know that the Bill’s rule-making powers set the right framework for that secondary legislation.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Many aspects of the Bill command cross-party support, but I want your view on where the Bill does not quite go far enough, and where it perhaps goes too far. Zoe Alexander: I would probably lean towards talking about the local government pension scheme in that context. There are some parts of the Bill where we feel powers are being taken that may not be required; one is around requiring funds to choose a particular pool, and one is requiring particular pools to merge. We think that the LGPS is moving in a very positive direction. Obviously two pools have been closed, and funds are merging with other pools already. We are not sure that those powers are actually required. We think that the direction of travel is set and that the LGPS understands that, so we feel that those powers might be overstepping the mark. Rob Yuille: I have no view on local government. I think what I am about to say should have cross-party support, or at least cross-party interest. It is a macro Bill about how the market and the system work, but it is also about people and the decisions that they need to make. We are glad to see the small pots provision in the Bill, but it is on an opt-out basis, similar to the default pension benefits solutions. People have decisions to make, such as whether to stay in or not, and they need to be supported in the decision making. We are proposing a textbook amendment that would enable schemes to communicate electronically in a way they currently cannot and in a more positive way—even where people did not have a chance to opt in to that kind of communication, which is seen and regulated as direct marketing. We know that there is cross-party interest in the ability to communicate more clearly with customers, specifically in relation to those provisions.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think financial education is the key to ensuring pensions adequacy. To build on Damien’s question about ensuring that members are fully informed about their pension assets and what the returns are going to be, what they will provide, what are your thoughts on what support the Bill offers, or does not offer, to ensure members are fully informed on the key decisions they have to make? Christopher Brooks: Providing information takes you so far, and it is really important to do that: there are some really big gaps, as we see with Pension Wise UK, which is a really good and well-liked service, but has a really low take-up. That is just an example, but we need to get more people into a position to access the information. However, they will then still need a lot of support, because pension decisions are really challenging for the vast majority of people.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Going back to the consolidation of small pots, have you any thoughts or comments on the timeframes involved in how that would be implemented, particularly in the context of the roll-out of the pensions dashboard, which has taken quite some time to be rolled out in the industry? Patrick Heath-Lay: The Government have put forward a default consolidator model. We are completely supportive of that; we think it is the right solution to tidy up the 13 million small deferred pots that are out there and those that are being created on a daily basis. That model has been done with extensive consultation with the industry. To go back to the first question, which was about all the different options that have been considered before, we do think that this is the right approach. A couple of things around it are critical. First, we need to make sure that the technical solutions—the IT capability or infrastructure—should be as efficient as possible. We are contributing to the various pieces of research being done at the moment to evaluate which models are in existence and ready to be utilised. There is no doubt that the dashboard will contain some elements that will be helpful, such as a pension finder, that will be helpful, and I suspect that they will utilise pieces of that technology. But I do think—and I suspect the conclusion will be—that we need something new. Some of the expertise in the industry can be leveraged. I suspect that that is expertise that our organisations can provide. Given that we have already addressed the big pension savings gap for savers, we can help to develop that model. On whether the solution is doable within the timeframe, 2030 is a big ask, but we should have that target to go after. We should try to be in a position where default consolidators exist in the market, we are developing the solution and we are able to solve the problem, because the number of small pots being created almost daily by the industry is a big problem for savers. Ian Cornelius: I agree with Patrick. It is a problem that needs fixing. We also support the default consolidator approach. The sequencing is sensible: we want scheme consolidation first and then small pots, because there is no point in going through the complexity of consolidating small pots before consolidating at the scheme level. Dashboards will help, but they will not solve the problem. A solution is required, because this is driving a lot of cost and a lot of complexity. It would be nice if it were sooner than 2030. Given the ambition of the Bill as a whole, I think that that is probably realistic, but it does need to come after scheme consolidation, as I say. Patrick Heath-Lay: The requirements on those organisations that choose to apply to be default consolidators need to be of a good standard. Our organisations operate a single-pot model. Whenever anyone rejoins from a different employer, their money goes into exactly the same pension pot. That is not a common model across the industry. Things like that should be thought through when defining the requirements for being a consolidator. Those that wish to apply need to hit a good regulatory standard to ensure that value is delivered through those models.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am just interested in examples of recent shocks that have happened, where you had to pay out significant sums and what those sums were. Michelle Ostermann: The biggest example is a macroeconomic shock that would affect the solvency of corporations. The failure of the corporation itself is more likely to have an impact than just a change in interest rates or equity markets. The change in interest rates can affect the fundedness of a scheme, but many of those schemes, over 75% of them now, are actually really well funded. And they have pretty well locked down their interest rate risk because they have put a good chunk of assets against their liabilities in a fairly tight hedge. Although we saw, as a result of the liquidity crisis a few years ago now, that things can change. The degree of risk, specifically leverage risk inside some of those strategies, does make them fallible. I would say the biggest shocks would be massive interest rate movements that are unforeseen, a very significant macroeconomic environment causing failure in many corporations, and technically, even a significant move in equity markets, but we would usually just ride that out. Markets can go down 20% or 30%. We would only go down 10% or 15% and we would be able to recover that in under five years, historically speaking.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have just a couple of general questions. You have articulated this in your points already, but where do you think the Bill goes too far and may have an adverse impact, and where does it not go far enough to make progress in this space? Helen Forrest Hall: I will take this opportunity to reiterate that we strongly support the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill: the consolidation, value for money and retirement provisions; finally legislating for DB superfunds, which we warmly welcome; and striking the balance on DB surplus—there was a better balance to be struck. To a certain extent we have already talked about our key issue where the Bill potentially goes too far, which is around the mandation requirement and the reserve power. On value for money, I think that the Bill is doing the right thing. Value for money is going to be an everchanging set of circumstances, particularly if we build scale in the market. What might be required on day one for value for money—we probably want a core set of metrics that can be easily comparable across schemes—might really mature as the market consolidates into a small number of fairly significant defined contribution funds. You might quite rightly expect regulators and the regulations to ask an awful lot more of those schemes in terms of what they are doing under value for money. We think it is only right and proper that they sit in secondary. There have occasionally been issues with putting too much in a pensions Bill, and creating problems with the market being able to adapt as we go. So I think that this is actually the right thing to do, albeit that we would welcome further clarity from regulators around the fact that they would like to start small and grow—at the moment there is very little detail on the value for money measurements. We are talking actively with them, but it is useful to get the reassurance that we will start from a principle small basis and move out, rather than potentially creating additional burdens for schemes during what will be, on a number of fronts, quite a busy pensions reform road map. Sophia Singleton: We very much support almost all the provisions in the Bill; mandation, as we have already talked about, is the exception. Where would we go further? There are two things that we would ask for. The first is in relation to DB surplus. We have talked about how we were pleased to see that the safeguards were in place—we feel that they are very robust. We would like some clarity in the Bill, though, that that provision overrides any existing restrictions in scheme rules, because as it is currently drafted there are some schemes that might not be able to utilise that provision. We have provided some more details about making it open to all in our submission—making it clear that the provision overrides any existing restrictions, subject to the safeguards being properly used and so on. The second one is an addition that we would love to see to the Bill: the removal of the admin levy, which pays towards the Pension Protection Fund admin costs. The DWP did a review in 2022 that concluded that it was no longer needed—it is a cost to schemes and therefore to employers. We have prepared a simple draft for the legislation that we have shared with you and the DWP that would remove it, and it is a very easy way to remove a cost on employers. Helen Forrest Hall: If I could just add one point on the DB surplus, because Sophia’s points reminded me of it, I think there are a couple of areas where there could be further easements. They are not necessarily for a pensions Bill—some of them are more Finance Bill-related—but in giving trustees full flexibility to consider all the beneficiaries of a scheme, it would be useful if there were further easements that enabled them to make, for example, one-off payments to members without being subject to extraneous tax charges and, similarly, that would allow employers to pay some of that surplus as DC contributions into another trust. At the moment, the legislation does not provide for that, and obviously that would be a way to help trustees, and actually employers, who might be looking to enhance their pension provision overall—not just being able to move money around within one legal structure.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Building on Steve’s question on the levy, some hon. Members have asked about surplus extraction feeding into the overall risk profile in the markets. Clearly, if that was to happen and there was perceived to be an increased risk, it could result in an increase in the levy. The Bill allows for the levy to be reduced to zero. What are your thoughts about that? Michelle Ostermann: We have thought a fair bit about that. We do not see very many scenarios in which we would need to turn it on, although it is always difficult to predict. As you know, the industry evolves in many ways and over the 20 years we have seen quite an evolution, including the creation of new alternative covenant schemes and commercial consolidators. We will backstop those as well, and we will need to charge a levy for them. There could be an unforeseen market event, similar to that just described, so we need the ability to turn the levy back on—simply to keep it as a lever. Today, the legislation reads that if we were to lower it to 0%, we can only increase it year on year by 25%. However, 25% of zero is zero, so we are a bit cornered. We have asked for a measure that would allow us to increase it by as much as a few hundred million a year. The most we have ever charged in one year was just over £500 million. As I said, we have collected £10 billion gradually over many years. The new measure allows us to increase it by no more than 25% of the ceiling number every year, which is currently £1.4 billion. That means we could go up as much as £350 million in a single year, if needs be. However, we are a very patient long-term investor. Even though we are taking on closed corporate DB schemes, we run it as if we were an open scheme, because we are open to new members all the time. As such, our investment strategy does most of the heavy lifting for our organisation now. On our £14 billion reserves, we make over £1 billion a year in gains from that investment strategy, which funds the £1 billion we pay out in the pension scheme to members. We are now a mature organisation that should be able to maintain a steady state. The most we would be able to increase the levy by in one year is £350 million, but we would expect to be patient, wait a few years, and try to ride out the situation not needing it, only turning it back on should we need it. We consult before we turn it on and we take a lot of feedback on this. We are quite thoughtful, as we have always been, and I hope people agree.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  The best way to reduce poverty is for people to be in work, but as a result of this Government’s damaging economic policies, we have seen youth unemployment rise by 6% since the general election. What representations will the Secretary of State make to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to ensure that more damage is not done?