Sarah Edwards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  Two weeks ago, I held a roundtable for hospitality businesses in Tamworth to discuss the broken business rates system, and I then wrote to the Department about their preferences for support. The rates are crippling, and those businesses asked me to ask the Minister when reform is coming and how they will receive support in the interim, which is essential for my constituency and our businesses.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  I am so glad that we are having this important debate, because my constituents have contacted me to say how concerned they are about the decibels issue. The hon. Lady’s proposal to limit displays to a certain number of days a year, which everybody can plan around, is important, and we should consider whether silent fireworks or reduced decibels are the way to go. I am glad that she has raised those points.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Road Safety Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and happy new year. Although I welcome the road safety strategy, it sadly ignores school minibus safety, despite my raising this issue with the Department last year. I have been campaigning with my constituents Liz and Steve Fitzgerald since 2023, following the tragic loss of their daughter Claire in a minibus accident. Private schools follow strict O licence rules, yet state schools can use weak section 19 permits. Will the Minister remedy this failing in the law through mandatory national safety standards for all school minibuses?

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

  More

  Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Access to a local GP is vital for every community, and residents in Shenstone and Stonnall are rightly concerned about a consultation that proposes reducing services at Westgate surgery from five days a week to three. That raises concerns about the long-term future of the practice, and risks forcing patients to travel 4 miles to Lichfield to access the services they need. Can we have time in this House to debate rural healthcare services and GP access?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents have also raised concerns, particularly around cyber-security. One of my constituents was told by the DWP that they were defrauding the child benefit system when they were not, because they had had data stolen. I am concerned that our Government systems need to be far better, so that if such a thing happened, someone could demonstrate that they were the genuine holder of that data.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her fantastic speech. In Staffordshire, I met representatives of one of my local specialist schools, who said that it receives 200 applications for just 20 places. On top of that, many of our state schools and those who wish to provide support to students with special educational needs are struggling with capacity. Does she agree that it is of the utmost urgency that our county councils, such as Staffordshire, start to get to grips with the issue of placement and support in schools?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend for the work that he has done and that the Department continues to do on this. One of the interesting things about this provision is that, in 2013, the Conservatives changed the period from 12 months to 24 months. They increased the amount of time that people were in an insecure position in the workplace. It is essential that we support working families and working people, so does he agree that this is absolutely the right step forward?

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 278, in clause 41, page 49, line 26, at end insert “and only after VFM assessments are available to the Trustees as part of the decision making process.” This amendment would restrict external transfers until VFM assessments are available to ensure that Trustees can carry out their fiduciary duty. The amendment relates to contractual override. It may have been covered in the new drafting of the clauses, as it was tabled on the previous text. The Minister may have seen this potential eventuality, and it may be provided for elsewhere, but we have spoken at length in Committee about the importance of pensions adequacy and about the landscape moving towards a higher membership of defined-contribution schemes. The amendment is an attempt to bridge the gap presented by the delay between the regulations’ implementation, and to ensure that investments are made not on the basis of low-cost, low-risk funds prior to the regulations being implemented, which potentially would lock down investments. It is another small addition that clarifies the importance of the value for money framework, which the Bill is championing, and it adds to the requirement of consent in the provision by adding focus on ensuring that value for money assessments are available prior to the transfer, as an extra protection for trustees to carry out their fiduciary duty.

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

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendments made: 105, in clause 38, page 43, line 7, at end insert— “(and for that purpose, a provision of the trust deed or rules of the scheme is ‘in conflict’ with provision under this section so far as the former does not allow for the assets of the scheme to be managed in such a way as to meet the conditions for approval under this section)”. This amendment clarifies the application of section 28C(14). Amendment 106, in clause 38, page 43, line 8, leave out subsection (15).— (Torsten Bell.) This amendment is consequential on Amendment 129.

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

  More

  On that basis, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 276, to clause 38, page 42, line 41, at end insert— “(aa) the progress towards the targets set out in the Mansion House Agreement (2025) and the state of the supply pipeline of qualifying assets;”. To clarify the extent of the review to be conducted before the “mandation” power is deployed. It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. It may be that the subject of my amendment is already covered or that the Minister may wish to take it away for consideration. I commend the tracked changes document that was shared with us and that has enabled us to read clause 38 with all of its new additions in a much easier format. I implore the House to use that tool in other Committees, because it has made it much easier this afternoon. The all-party parliamentary group for pensions and growth heard from the pensions industry at the roundtables that it held, and this amendment speaks to a point that I made on Second Reading. It is a clarifying point concerning the Mansion House agreement, which sets out targets and a supply and pipeline of investments to be made available by pension funds to invest into. It is a point of clarification because it is arguably good and noble to channel that investment, but the pipeline needs to be managed to ensure good outcomes for members, whose money will be helping to build these projects. It is about future-proofing the Bill, because as the Minister has said in previous sittings, he may not be our Pensions Minister forever. In short, the purpose of my amendment is to clarify the extent of the review to be conducted before a mandation power is deployed. It is merely a clarification point for the pensions industry.

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

  More

  Q I just wanted to ask for your reflections on the current levels of funding in the UK compared with other funds. Canada is often touted as having a higher rate of funding. Can you comment on what you think some of the barriers might be? Why is that not happening, and do you think the Bill will address that? Charlotte Clark: As Rob says, sometimes it is slightly overplayed. There is a lot of investment from UK pension schemes, whether they are DB or DC, within the UK. Why does Canada look like it invests a lot? It is a very mature system. We have two systems—one is in decline and one is in the ascendancy—whereas the Canadian system has been established for 40 years. The auto-enrolment system is essentially 10 years old, so they have a much more mature system. You see within those schemes that they have scale—they are very large and very mature schemes—and, in terms of things such as their investment approach, it is frequently internalised. They have been looking at private assets for longer than we have, particularly in the DC master trusts, auto—

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

  More

  And I.

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

  More

  Q I am interested in hearing a little more about unlocking surplus and some of the challenges, particularly in the way that it is described or calculated, and what the thresholds might be. Obviously, there is an opportunity, but there is also a balance around conflicts arising when an employer might wish to access the surplus. Perhaps you could comment on your understanding and interpretation of how the Bill deals with that issue. Rob Yuille: The challenge is aligning it with scheme members’ interests so that they are not put at risk. If a surplus turns to a deficit, which it can do because it is by no means guaranteed, and if an employer then fails, there is actual detriment to those scheme members. As we know, economic conditions can change. It is an opportunity for employers, though—that is the purpose of it—and schemes can and do extract surplus now, often when they enter a buy-out with an insurer. It does need guardrails, and the Bill includes the provision that it has to be signed off by an actuary and it is the trustees’ decision. That is important, but there is a related challenge about the interaction of the surplus and superfunds. Each of those is okay: you can extract a surplus, for the reasons that we have discussed, and you can go into a superfund if you cannot afford a buy-out. The problem is, if a scheme could afford buy-out, extracts a surplus and then no longer can, and then it enters a superfund, the scheme members are in a weaker position than they would otherwise be. There are a couple of things that could be done about that: either leave the threshold for extracting surplus where it is—which is buy-out level, rather than low dependency—or change the Bill so that the combination of surplus and superfund cannot be gamed to get around that. In any case, as you say, it is important to monitor the market, and for the regulators to be alive to potential conflicts of interest. Zoe Alexander: Pensions UK is content with the idea of using the low dependency threshold for surplus release. We think the protections are sufficient. Providing that the actuarial certification is in place, the sponsoring employer is in a strong financial position and a strong employer covenant is in place, we think there are real benefits to be had from surplus release. We highlight the fact that some employers and trustees will be looking to move benefits from DB to DC using surplus release, or even to a collective defined-contribution scheme. We are interested in the potential of that to bolster the benefits of those types of scheme, and we would like Government to look at the 25% tax penalty that applies when doing that, because if those funds are kept within the pensions system, that is to the benefit of savers, so perhaps that tax charge need not apply.

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

  More

  Q I want to pick up on the changes around DC, and the fact that there are quite a lot of different things—we have talked about value for money, changes in scale and, obviously, default retirement ages. From your perspective, is there a sequencing that needs to happen to make sure that they work, and is that provided for? What would your guidance be around that? Colin Clarke: I do not think the Bill itself necessarily has the timescales in it, because it will be left to secondary legislation to look at when all these things actually fit together. A very helpful document was published alongside the Bill, with a potential road map. There is a logical order in which certain things have to happen. For example, the value for money test will require movement of members from historical defaults into something that will deliver better value. To achieve that, the contractual override for contract-based schemes would need to be in place in good time before the value for money exercise happens. Otherwise, there will be constraints that might inhibit the ability to do that. Similarly, with small pots, a lot of the measures will lead to consolidation at scheme level. That will address some, but not all, of the small pots issue. The road map sets out small pots being at the end, and that is a sensible place to put them, because there will be a lot of other activity that happens first that will solve some of the problems. It does not make sense for small pots to be moved before they are moved again—you could see things moving around a couple of times. On guided retirement, the potential timing of implementation is quite tight if it is going to be 2027 for certain schemes, when we do not have any secondary legislation yet. It is very important that that is consulted on as soon as possible so that we have clarity. Dale mentioned working on various different solutions. We have been doing something similar at L&G, and they may well be the right thing for members, but we know that we will have to fit them around regulations and make some adjustments, so having clarity on those early would be very helpful.

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

  More

  I was contacted by my constituents, so thank you for that.

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

  More

  Q I want to go back a little and talk about transfer of funds into pools. During the transitional phase there are funds that might have ordinarily been making investments and would have had a set of investment principles and a strategy, and who for 12 months may potentially not be making those decisions. Are there risks to the members in terms of value, or do you not foresee that being a problem? Robert McInroy: It is important to point out that the members are not directly impacted by the scheme returns or cost: their benefits are set in statutes and are guaranteed. However, you can see how that might indirectly implicate them; for example, if there was a higher cost to employers because the scheme was not performing the way we would have liked, that could impact on their business. Councillor Phillips: We know the deadline has been set for the transfer and it is very much business as usual until that happens. Of course, virtually all the funds have been contributing to their pools anyway, so it is just a case of transferring the rest. There are some sensible discussions going on about where it would cost money to pull out of an investment, and common sense must be the first rule, but the direction of travel is what the Government want to see: that the pool is effectively in charge of delivering that investment strategy, which still remains the responsibility of the fund. Robert McInroy: Within the 21 impacted funds, there are two pools that are being wound up and they are to find a new home, and they do not know for certain where that will be. There is sometimes a degree of inertia in some of the decisions made: why would you make a new investment when you do not know whether that is going to fit into your new pool? I appreciate that is why there are some short timescales on this; we need to get clarity and move through this quickly, or there will be increased risk, but the short timescales create risk in themselves, so there is a balance to be made and a tension there.

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

  More

  Q I am interested in exactly what you were saying around the two-tier element, partly around the challenge of the fact that there are people who have got the full recompense or equivalent, and you have not. Do you feel that this is an opportunity to change that dial and set the record straight? Obviously, an amendment has been tabled. I recognise that; I just wanted to get a bit more from you on the fact that there are people who are in a completely different situation, and I just wanted you to build on that point that there are two sides to this. Some have not lost and some have. Terry Monk: FAS stopped when PPF opened its doors in 2005, so most of the people in FAS did not have much opportunity to accrue any increasing benefits post 1997. The majority of them are old—the average age of the FAS member is now 73, which is much younger than I am. It is that age group of people who would really benefit, and their widows and their spouses—let us not forget them—and they would therefore spend money that they currently do not have to spend. They can afford their council tax. They can afford their heating. It would change their lives, in terms of feeling that they have achieved this success on their behalf and on behalf of the members. Roger Sainsbury: I would like to talk a bit about the concept of an amendment. We have observed that one amendment has already been offered: new clause 18 suggested by Ann Davies MP. Our team and I have had a bit of a look at that in the last couple of days. While we very much appreciate her good intention in putting the amendment forward, it actually does not do the job in a number of respects. I do not know how many of you have ever grappled with the obscure and complex language of schedule 7 to the Act, but it is mighty complicated. Some time ago, I and my team spent several days trying to work out what an amendment should be to deliver what we wanted. I have got some first class people on the team, but in the end we decided we actually could not do it, and would have to leave it to the expert drafters in the Department. That is yet another reason why—I mentioned it in the written evidence—at a meeting I have already asked the Minister if he would himself table the requisite amendment. When you come up against the sheer complexity that Ann Davies has obviously already come up against, this is another reason why we think that would be a very good idea. It is slightly unusual for a Minister to table an amendment to his own Bill, but it is permitted, as the Minister said when I was talking to him about it. In a complex situation like this, it would absolutely be the best way of getting straight to the desired answer, so I plead with all of you to join me in urging the Minister to take this on.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  3. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the industrial strategy, published on 23 June 2025, on Wales.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Like many Members in this House, I welcome the Government’s industrial strategy and its focus on growth for our local communities. Across Wales, we have a number of former mining towns, which face the challenge of retraining and upskilling their local workforce. My constituency of Tamworth, a former mining town, faces similar challenges. Will the Minister tell me how the industrial strategy will support former mining towns across Wales and in my constituency of Tamworth?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Birmingham Pub Bombings · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for securing such an important debate. As others have said, an inquiry is absolutely crucial. Last November, I added my name to the calls for an inquiry for the families, for the victims and also for the city. This has been a cloud that has covered Birmingham for 51 years. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend has reflected on what signal—what message—it sends that we are still waiting, and on what it is that those families can believe in if they cannot get the truth for which they have waited for so long.

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Security · Hansard source

  More

  There has been a spate of attacks at Swinfen Hall Prison, which holds young offenders, in my constituency. Drugs, phones and weapons are often dropped in by drone. The families of prisoners are concerned for their safety, and prison officers are at risk. What steps are the Government taking to prevent drones and to tackle the high levels of violence in our prisons?

• 8 Jul 2025 · Prison Security · Hansard source

  More

  13. What steps she is taking to improve prison security.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. It is incredibly important that we make sure those investments are being driven towards the things that are going to change lives, and building houses will change lives. The other thing that my hon. Friend will be very aware of is the fact that the state pension is calculated on the basis that people are going to own a house in retirement. As we know, we are heading to a point at which many people will not own a home and their income in retirement may therefore not be enough, so we need to be alive to that situation. In conclusion, this Bill offers a great deal to my constituents, with the prospect of better pensions through investing for the future so that living standards are higher. For younger generations, there is a real need for investment now in the long-term future of the British economy, so that they can eventually retire with an appropriate income to sustain them. There is also a need to channel that investment beyond our major cities and mayoral authorities to our shire districts, in order to deliver the change that lies at the heart of this Government’s mandate, and the Bill offers an opportunity to do that. I believe that it offers lots of positive opportunities, but as always there will be challenges. Like a good pension fund trustee, I ask the Minister to take the Bill forward with a listening ear as he seeks to link pensions and growth for the long-term benefit of us all.