Pension Schemes Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Okay.

We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, even though some Members on the other side of the House seem to disagree with that. We must deliver long-term energy security and bring down bills through domestic green energy, but not only that. In this moment of deep crisis, the Government must pull every lever they can to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, and that must include gearing our pension funds towards a fairer, more prosperous future.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today.

The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle. When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients.

If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here.

The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims.

I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for opening this debate. I was not expecting it to be quite so lively, so I will try to add a bit of animation to what was initially going to be quite a dry speech from me. [Interruption.] That is hard to believe, I know, but I promise that I will mention pensioners in Harlow at least half a dozen times to make up for it.

I rise to speak in opposition to Lords amendments 6 and 77, but before I do so, I would like to say that I welcome this Bill, which will boost the income of pensioners receiving minimum pensions through a workplace scheme by the largest possible amount. It is one of the many things this Labour Government are doing to support pensioners in my constituency of Harlow—that is one mention—with rising living costs. That can be coupled with fixing our NHS after years of austerity, protecting the triple lock pension—that means the new state pension is increasing by £575 this year and the basic state pension by about £440—and launching the largest pension credit drive in history, which I think we will all agree is hugely important.

Lords amendment 6, which I am sure is well-intentioned, would require the Government to carry out an interim review of employer contribution rates and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance. However, as the Minister said in his opening speech, this Lords amendment is redundant, because the Government have already committed to that and will do so later in the year.

I am going to make the next bit, about Lords amendment 77, a little more racy just to entertain Members. Let me take them back, if I may, to the summer of 2010, when I was in a pub with a friend of mine—I will not mention his name—who turned around and said to me, “You’ve got gold-plated pensions, you teachers.” I am not saying this is necessarily the intention of the amendment, but it is something it could do, and it always frustrates me when we create a divide between people receiving public sector pensions and people receiving private sector pensions. I would say that public sector workers, including teachers, and I used to be a teacher—the Chris Vince bingo card is going well today—work incredibly hard and contribute a huge amount to their pensions.

This does not mean that it is not right to review public sector pensions—we have to do that as a Government, as the right and proper thing to do—but it is worth bearing in mind, going back to what I said about Lords amendment 6, that we are already doing so. I am sure Lords amendment 77 is well-intentioned, but again it is redundant. In general, I say to people tempted to criticise those receiving public sector pensions that the duty of a Government should not be to make public sector pensions worse, but to make private pensions better, so that everybody has the opportunity to save and be successful in their retirement.

I want to make a few cheeky requests of the Minister while he is in his place. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), is chuntering, but I am going to be nice to him because he has fantastic hair. The last time I spoke in this place, he kindly said that I had made a really good point, which was incredibly kind of him. It must have been by mistake, but who knows?

I have two requests for the Minister. The first is that he will continue to work with the Secretary of State for Health. The No. 1 thing pensioners in my constituency of Harlow talk to me about—I think I have mentioned them only twice in this speech—is the importance of our NHS. Given the wait times that pensioners have had to face at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, I am delighted that we are seeing those wait times coming down, because we want our pensioners not only to have saved and be financially stable in their retirement, but to be healthy.

Fuel Duty

Katie Lam Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who eloquently championed his local area and covered every point that we could possibly raise—I shall follow humbly on his coat-tails.

Fuel duty is a war on the motorist. It is an attack on hard-working families who have scrimped and saved to drive their child to that special holiday or even to do the school run each day. This tax is regressive. It will hurt normal, hard-working families across Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages. It will also hurt small and medium-sized enterprises, care workers and all the key workers who have to drive from outside Buckinghamshire to work in the area. We have care workers who come from other counties to work in Bourne End, Wooburn and Marlow because the cost of living is so high. That extra driving, that extra cost on their transport, will be devastating to our local care-working community and to those who provide vital services, such as our firefighters and police officers, who often have to drive to the fire station or police station where they are based. That extra cost is the difference between a family making it each month and slightly going under. That is who we are speaking for today: the people who are paying their taxes, working hard and wanting to do the right thing but are being punished by this fuel duty increase.

My constituency is also impacted by rises in off-grid heating oil prices. I myself have off-grid heating oil, and many of my constituents in Dorney, Wooburn, Bourne End, Flackwell Heath and Iver are impacted by price increases. Although we are near London, we are actually very rural. I have more pensioners per capita than pretty much anywhere else—you might be the No. 1 winner, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I would come second. This extra cost will push my pensioners into poverty. They are barely making ends meet right now. They are humbly going about their business, but they all need transport as well. We have poor transport links so people need to use their cars, and my pensioners will be adversely affected by this fuel duty increase. It is incredibly unfair that the increase is coming in now given that world events are causing oil prices to increase anyway, so families, workers and the taxpayer will be further punished.

It would be hard to have this debate without mentioning my right hon. Friend the former Member for Harlow, Robert Halfon, who led the charge on fuel duty. For years, he was the passionate voice making this point clear across the House: high fuel duty taxes are regressive because they affect working people the most. They are a brake on economic growth. We all saw the golden moment on Sunday morning when the harsh inconvenience of the facts hit the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero: that 38% of the cost of petrol is down to fuel duty, a tax entirely in the hands of the Government. This Secretary of State, who could power the entire country with hot air, seemed to get the message slowly but surely, and there is no problem to which the answer is not a faster and more ruinous race to net zero, putting ideology ahead of working families. To govern is to choose, and this Government always choose the most damaging economic pathway for families.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is giving an excellent speech as usual. Is she aware of analysis from the Taxpayers’ Alliance that says the average household will pay £40,000 in fuel duty over a lifetime under the Chancellor’s plans? That is several thousand pounds more than the median disposable income for a household. Does she feel, as I do, that this is an unsustainable burden on people who are already struggling to get by?

[Joy Morrissey]

It is a shocking burden and one that many people and hard-working families will not be able to bear. I am often told by the London elite that people need to switch to electric cars and do all these other things, but many people cannot afford an electric car or the cost of electricity, or even to put fuel in their petrol car. Families will be at breaking point, and they have no alternative to taking their child to school or the doctor. That extra burden can push a family completely over the edge.

We need to make our economy competitive again. We need to look at ways to make energy and fuel affordable for everyone. Working people are being saddled with higher costs and taxes while more money is being pumped into benefits Britain because of the weakness of a Prime Minister without a backbone. It is time to put working people first. It is time for another Government U-turn.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Katie Lam Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

The moral case for the Poor Law’s principle of less eligibility was disproven, because the result was to drive people—in particular, children—into poverty and real hardship. That is what the two-child limit did, and that is what the overall cap has done. All we are appealing to the Government to do in introducing this excellent piece of legislation, which will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, is not leave the 150,000 behind. Will they give us an indication that they have a plan to tackle that issue?

We were virtually united in compassion when this Bill was introduced, and we can be united in compassion once again in scrapping the overall cap, but there is a sense of urgency now. I do not want children in my constituency to continue to live in poverty in accommodation for the homeless, and in temporary accommodation. I do not want them to live in deep poverty, not be able to go on school trips with the other kids in their classroom, or not be able to afford new shoes, a new coat and all the rest of it. We have heard almost the same sort of speeches that were made in this place in the 19th century, the sort that are why the Labour party was founded. It was founded to represent working-class people, and we want to eradicate poverty from our society. As we pass this Bill into law, I urge the Minister to give us some indication of what the next Bill will look like. Surely it must ensure the abolition of the cap.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

I will speak in support of amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). One of the most basic principles of any successful society is that those who work hard are able to reap the rewards, yet under this Government, millions of families are being squeezed by high tax rates, rising prices and increasing energy bills. They are not working any less hard, but many of them are ending up with less money at the end of the month, every month. That is less money to spend on day-to-day essentials, and less money to save for a house, a holiday, a birthday present or a school trip for their children.

Those are the real-life consequences of this Government’s decisions. Many of those families see their money taken by the Government and wasted, or spent on those who choose not to work. A recent study suggested that once the cap is lifted, a family with three children in which both parents work would need to earn £71,000 to match the income of a three-child family in which neither parent works. How can it be right that one couple can wake up early every day, go to work and perhaps even take extra hours at their job, and end up with the same amount of money as their neighbours who do not work at all? It is their money that will pay for those who do not work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor know that, but they are choosing to lift the two-child cap anyway. That is a disgraceful way to treat millions of people across the country who are doing everything they are supposed to do and are being punished for it.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

There are pockets of Grangemouth with the deepest poverty in Scotland. Tonight in Clackmannanshire, 29% of children will go to bed living in destitution. Hunger and hardship are becoming more common. That is why I support the new clause tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).

It is obvious that four decades of de-industrialisation and the economic and social consequences that followed have been devastating for communities like mine. Of course, I understand that we cannot reverse 40 years of decline in 19 months, but we must be bolder than we have been so far, because delay will be lethal.

Let us forget talk of stability. After 14 years of austerity, a global pandemic that exaggerated the inequality that austerity created, and a cost of living crisis that is making people poorer, stability just will not cut it. It is transformation we need. Truthfully, there is plenty of money in society; the problem is: who holds it? Through solutions like an annual wealth tax on the very wealthiest in society—those with assets of over £10 million—and the redistribution of that wealth into public services, education and health, we will improve people’s living standards and effectively tackle the scourge of poverty. Doing that will mean making very different political choices. Our Labour Government must meaningfully shift the dial on poverty in my constituency and across the entire country. We have to make those choices because, frankly, no one else will. There is no doubt that lifting the two-child cap will help many families in my communities, but we cannot stop there, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said.

Sadly, Labour Governments do not come round all that often. We have the chance to be a Labour Government who will transform Britain into a fairer, more equal place, which is what my communities, and others like them all over the country, so desperately need. Tonight, I urge the Government to do much, much more. I urge them to think of previous Labour Governments’ records on lifting people out of poverty, and the words of a previous Labour Prime Minister: we are a moral crusade or we are nothing. It is about time that we acted on those words.