Pension Schemes Bill

Alex Brewer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Callum Anderson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Stakeholders and firms that I have spoken to—in the local government pension sector, the private sector and the City of London—are unanimous that scale is very much an economic imperative. Have the Government considered what role fiscal incentives can play in helping to accelerate the consolidation of private DC funds, and whether there is scope to reduce the number of LGPS pools in the year ahead?

I particularly welcome the Bill’s proposal for a comprehensive value-for-money framework to guide DC consolidation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) mentioned. This correctly tackles head-on the trustee cost mindset, which too often prioritises the cheapest over the most appropriate asset allocation. That approach has frequently been tried and tested, and it delivers poorer returns for savers and missed opportunities for the wider economy, so I very much hope that DC consolidation can be implemented as soon as possible.

Finally, I want to address the issue of mandation, which, to be honest, probably warrants a debate all by itself. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised by Members from across the House, and by people in the investment industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) referred to the parliamentary fund, and I note non-facetiously that the parliamentary fund, of which we are all ultimately beneficiaries, allocates barely 1% of its assets to UK companies.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

In Hampshire, we have a super-ageing population, so pension and post-retirement financial concerns are frequently raised in my North East Hampshire constituency casework. One of my constituents wrote to me to say:

“I want my pension to be put to work delivering sustainable, long-term growth and prosperity that allows every community in the UK to thrive.”

This Bill should require full transparency from pension schemes to empower people to support sustainable, long-term growth in their communities. Does the hon. Member agree that requiring transparency would be the most effective way of incentivising investment?

[Callum Anderson]

In all aspects of our financial system and our financial markets, and when it comes to either public activities or private markets, transparency is very much the best way to derive the most effective outcomes for those who benefit from pension schemes.

Initiatives such as the Mansion House accord, which has been referred to a number of times in this debate, have been welcome steps. When it comes to asset allocation, private sector leadership should always be preferable where possible, but we need to be candid about the fact that the challenge we face in the UK is stark and immediate. I now consider it necessary for the Government to signal to the markets that they will not ignore the reality that allocations by UK institutions to UK assets have fallen sharply over my lifetime, and certainly over the last 40 or 50 years, and that they are prepared to exercise a degree of agency, if required.

Ideally, any reserve power will not be required. If the Government succeed with their broader economic strategy, there will be a wealth of investable opportunities that will attract capital without the need for compulsion. Although the Government will need to exercise any reserve power in the most judicious and careful way, and in close consultation with the industry, we simply cannot stand by and allow our domestic markets to be hollowed out. I understand that not everyone is in favour of the state intervening in markets, and I am sure that the Minister, who worked at the Treasury, will remember that not everyone in the City wanted the Government to step in and rescue Lloyds Banking Group or the Royal Bank of Scotland, but sometimes the Government have to act decisively in the country’s long-term economic interests.

The Bill is a welcome and necessary step towards answering the question of how we inject greater confidence into our companies, our markets and our economy, while also providing people with a safe and secure retirement. That is why I am pleased to support it tonight.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Alex Brewer Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate before us today, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her excellent opening remarks. In my constituency, there are almost 6,000 women in the age group affected by these pension changes. We have heard that only 43% of women knew that their pension age was changing. That translates to 3,416 women in North East Hampshire who were unaware of the pension changes, which impacted them significantly in the following years.

The Government at the time failed to inform women affected by changes to their pension age. As we have heard, many people have harrowing stories. One of my constituents, now in her 70s, was a victim of this maladministration. She is forced to continue working to supplement her income, due to the lack of notice regarding her retirement age. Like many others, had she received clear, timely communication from the Department for Work and Pensions, she would have been able to make informed life choices and plan accordingly. If a private pension provider failed to inform someone about when they could start to receive their pension, that person would rightly expect compensation for decisions made based on incomplete information—in this case, they would be budgeting with the wrong number. The situation should be no different for those affected by Government errors.

The Government should be ashamed that they have rejected the financial payouts recommended by the ombudsman. North East Hampshire has one of the most significant gender pay gaps, heightened by the fact that men work disproportionately more in full-time jobs than women. Inequality in salary and employment opportunities then worsens the disparity at the point of state pension. That has led to women being less financially independent and increasingly vulnerable in their later years.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituent, Carol, worked as a learning assistant throughout her adult life and was planning for a happy retirement—until she found out, with just a few months to spare, that she had another five years to work. That caused significant mental health challenges for her, and ultimately a stroke, which she attributes to the stress she endured during that difficult time. Does my hon. Friend agree that 1950s-born women experienced dreadful workplace injustices throughout their careers, such as lower pay, which she just referred to, and that this Government have a unique opportunity to undo one of the injustices they face in their retirement?

[Alex Brewer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and I absolutely agree.

Let us be very clear: this generation of women faced discrimination at work—more discrimination than women today, with a larger gender pay gap, more glass ceilings, fewer promotion opportunities, lower pensions and lower savings. This generation of women did the vast majority of unpaid housework and caring responsibilities, and worked more hours for less pay for their whole lives, only to find that the goalposts were moved at the worst possible moment. The ombudsman’s reports have rightly said that WASPI women should be compensated fairly.

As a member of the APPG on state pension inequality for women, I have been part of the calls on the Government to address this injustice. We should not be living in a society in which promises are a campaign tactic abandoned at the first instance of power. We saw Labour MPs meeting many WASPI campaigners and expressing their heartfelt support before July. We know that maladministration occurred and that WASPI women have been harmed by this injustice. It is now time for the Government to act.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Alex Brewer Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

We are delivering change, with £22 billion of extra investment in the NHS and a substantial rise in the minimum wage that will deliver a pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid workers, as well as the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance to help family carers and a new flat repayment rate for universal credit to give an average of £420 per year to the poorest 1.2 million households. However, we also promised that we would be responsible with taxpayers’ money and take fair and appropriate decisions. I hear what the hon. Lady says about her constituents, but the ombudsman’s report is not about the increase in the state pension age for 1950s-born women. We will learn the lessons from the maladministration, but we do not agree with the ombudsman’s report to injustice or to remedy, which is why we have taken this decision.

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

On the Secretary of State’s website is a picture of her holding a sign that reads,

“I will work with WASPI to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected”.

Does she think that today’s announcement is a fair solution?

[Liz Kendall]

May I say gently that I know what is on my website? We did campaign with WASPI women, including in 2017 and 2019, but we lost those elections. This decision is not about the increase in the state pension age, which was what that campaign was about—that decision has been taken—but about how that increase was communicated. I know that it will cause disappointment and anger among many 1950s-born women, but we do not believe that the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy is right, which is why we have taken this decision.