Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.

In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that

“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]

She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:

“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]

Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was

“fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption:

“MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.”

It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them.

If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing.

That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women.

I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes?

This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap?

Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s questions. He is right that there has been a forceful and energetic campaign, which has resulted in lots of emails and contact with Members across the House, but his Government had this report from the ombudsman. They could have taken a decision before the election, but they chose not to, as with so many other issues. And perhaps the ombudsman had an inkling of how unlikely it would be to get a decision from the previous Government, because the ombudsman made the recommendations on remedy to Parliament rather than to his Government.

The hon. Gentleman refers to Labour, to me and to other MPs on this side of the House, and I remind him that we voted against the acceleration in the rise of the state pension age that was put through by the coalition Government.

On re-examining the decision, I thought it was right to do so, to make absolutely sure that we got this right, considering not just the 2007 report but a whole range of evidence and documents. I have repeated my predecessor’s apology for the maladministration found by the ombudsman. There is no change in our position on the triple lock, and the figures quoted reflect the estimates of the Office for Budget Responsibility throughout the Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I had better add my sympathies for your poor leg to those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

The Labour party has performed, frankly, a spectacular U-turn on its support for WASPI women, but now it finds itself bogged down in judicial reviews and accusations of incompetence. If the Government cannot even deliver literally nothing for the WASPI women without messing up, what hope is there for them delivering wider welfare reforms?

[Torsten Bell]

I simply cannot let the hon. Member off on this. It was the Conservatives who made the decisions on accelerating the state pension age and in some cases gave women around five years’ notice or less of the increase. That was a choice made by the Conservative party. This Government are considering a report from the ombudsman that the Conservatives left sitting on their desks and refused to make a decision on—and we are going to make a decision.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert—

“at the higher or additional rate”.

This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, page 2, line 26, leave out from “as” to end and insert—

“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).

(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.

(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”

This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “income tax” insert—

“at the higher or additional rate”.

This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland from the £2,000 cap.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 39, leave out from “as” to end and insert—

“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).

(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.

(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”

This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap in Northern Ireland by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Review of impact on SME recruitment and retention—

“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to the—

(a) recruitment of staff, and

(b) retention of staff.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.

New clause 2—Review of impact on small and medium-sized business tax liabilities—

“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to—

(a) businesses’ overall tax burden,

(b) employment costs, and

(c) business solvency.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the overall tax burden and employment costs faced by SMEs.

New clause 3—Review of impact on employee marginal tax rates—

“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on the number of employees brought into a higher marginal rate of income tax.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must give particular regard to the impact of the freezing of income tax thresholds between April 2022 and April 2031.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the number of employees who move into a higher tax band due the increase in their taxable income due to the effects of this Bill.

New clause 4—Reviews of the impact of the Act—

“(1) The Treasury must, before March 2029, lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the adequacy of pension contributions made by or on behalf of individuals affected by this Act,

(b) use of salary sacrifice schemes and optional remuneration arrangements, and

(c) any effects on the investment capability of UK pension funds.

(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a follow-up assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act before March 2034.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the change made under this Act, before they take effect, and again five years later.

New clause 5—Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values—

“(1) The Treasury must calculate and publish the projected lifetime value of an individual’s pension before and after the changes made by under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the projected lifetime value is the total amount of pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime.

(3) The calculations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and

(b) include illustrative examples covering different pension entitlements.”

New clause 6—Assessment of changes to pension saving through salary sacrifice schemes—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 15 months of the provisions of this Act coming into effect, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on the amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include an—

(a) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months preceding the provisions of this Act coming into effect,

(b) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months following the provisions of this Act coming into effect, and

(c) an assessment of the difference between those amounts.”

[Mark Garnier]

It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end.

Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance.

New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions?

There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said:

“We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.”

There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered?

We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it.

Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments.

Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap.

More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer.

The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings.

In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap.

The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. She said:

“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay.”

At a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension.

I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the shadow Minister for what he is saying. This is about not just those on lower incomes, but those on middle incomes. It is about the mums and dads of the students—all this falls back on their shoulders. Does he agree that this Bill is an attack on younger people who have aspirations and hopes for the future? We should be encouraging young people and helping them, and the Government have very clearly fallen down on that.

[Mark Garnier]

I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

You have years to go.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister very much.

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

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Mark Garnier]

I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech.

This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister.

First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment.

Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated.

The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment.

The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth.

Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround.

Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker!

Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy.

As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November,

“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”

How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place.

Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading.

People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Mark Garnier Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I have to say that it is a joy to yet again be locking horns with the Pensions Minister on a topic that is important to us all: saving for our retirement. And it is important to note that there are many things that we agree on. We all acknowledge there is an impending issue with pension adequacy: when 50% of savers are projected to miss a retirement income target set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, we agree there is a problem that needs dealing with. We also all acknowledge that UK pension funds are not investing into the UK equity market to the extent that we would all want, although I would caveat that with a fundamental disagreement: on this side, we want to understand the problem; the Minister wants to tell fund managers what they should and should not be doing in terms of where their investment goes. But we also agree with the noble aim of delivering growth in the UK economy, even if the Government are making a little bit of a mess of delivering that aim— growth slowing, inflation up, unemployment up—but we hope they get the hang of it in due course.

But that is why the Chancellor’s Budget is disappointing. For pensioners, she has flown kites about the tax-free lump sum, frozen the personal allowance threshold, and forced millions of pensioners to start paying income tax. Those are her choices. For savers, she has reduced the cash ISA limit to £12,000, scrapped the lifetime ISA for new investors, and increased tax on dividends and savings by two percentage points. Those are her choices. For hard-working people, this Government have reduced real household disposable income, pulled millions more people into paying the higher rate of income tax, and created perverse incentives that make some better off on benefits. These are her choices. So it is no wonder that this Budget has been dubbed the smorgasbord of misery.

It has now got to the stage where our economy has never been taxed so much, and it will get worse. When coming into office, the tax take was 36.4% of GDP. By the time Labour leaves office in four years’ time, it will be 38.2%. It is worth looking at examples of how it is levied. For example, a basic rate taxpayer earning £100 will pay 20% tax, but they will also pay 12% national insurance—an actual tax rate of 32%. Add to that their employer’s contribution, and for a headline basic rate taxpayer on up to £50,000, for each £100 they earn, the taxman takes £47. For a higher rate taxpayer, the marginal rate goes to 57%. The taxman takes more than the employee.

Given the hit to payrolls, both at the employee and employer level, it is no wonder that saving into a pension through salary sacrifice has become popular. Even the Government think it is a brilliant idea, using it for 10% of government employees. It is no wonder, therefore, that people use incentives such as salary sacrifice to make the most of their money, to do the right thing, to save a little bit more, to take responsibility for their futures, and to not rely on the state in their retirement. It is no surprise then that 7.7 million people take advantage of that.

Here we are with something that is popular and that incentivises the right behaviour, and the Government say, “No, we don’t like it.” The Government’s proposal, which we are discussing today, is a tax on 3.3 million people and 290,000 employers—those in the highest levels of pay. How much are they being asked to contribute? How much are we going to whack savers? Some £4.48 billion. That is right—if you do the right thing, if you work and save, this Government will come after you. The Office for Budget Responsibility gets it. It realises—unlike, apparently, the Government—that this will change behaviour and so the tax take drops to £2.6 billion in the second year because people will change their behaviour. Even the Government lose out.

The Government’s contradictions are legion. The financial inclusion strategy, published recently, stated very clearly:

“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”

A brilliant idea. [Interruption.] Thumbs up from the Pensions Minister! But even after that very clear message, the Government reduced the cash ISA limit, scrapped lifetime ISAs for new investors, and introduced a 2% increase to dividend tax and, the icing on the cake, a £4.8 billion tax on pension savers.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

To the hon. Gentleman’s point about changing behaviour, we have already seen reports that two out of five people are less likely to save if the salary sacrifice scheme goes. We have already seen a reduction in contributions because of the cost of living crisis. Are we not just moving the pain somewhere else? Will we not end up with fewer people able to support themselves in old age and it will be back on the state again?

[Mark Garnier]

Absolutely. The Government are really keen to get people to save for their futures and then they do everything they can to try to stop them doing that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are just going to kick another problem down the road. By the way, when the Minister talks about hip replacements and so on, it is savers’ money. It is just that they are taxing them less.

At the same time as the Government look to improve pensions adequacy, they will be taking £4.8 billion from savers and employers. They identify a problem, say they will work to make it better, and then make it worse. Surely, when they were writing the Budget—I know the Pensions Minister has been a significant penholder in that process—they must have seen the extraordinary contradictions in their proposals?

The House would expect me to bang on about this—I am the shadow Minister and that is my job—but let us listen to the verdict from a few experts about the policy we are debating today. Pensions UK stated:

“Any change to salary sacrifice would inject uncertainty into a system that needs long-term trust, not sudden shocks…Introducing a cap would weaken incentives to save when we are facing a generation retiring with inadequate retirement savings.”

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales stated:

“This cap will make it more complex for employers to offer a simple and flexible solution for retirement savings.”

The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries stated:

“The decision to impose a £2,000 limit…will undermine current efforts to improve retirement outcomes for individuals. In doing so, the act of saving into a pension will now be more expensive, more complex and less attractive to both employees and employers.”

Evelyn Partners stated:

“Restricting this sensible tax benefit that makes private sector saving more attractive adds insult to injury in a two-tier pension system”.

PwC stated:

“In a bid to bolster the public purse…Budget risks reducing employees’ take-home pay while placing additional pressure on businesses through rising employment costs”.

Hargreaves Lansdown stated:

“Restricting salary sacrifice on pension contribution could cause long-term damage to people’s retirement prospects. We could see employees less likely to increase pension contributions beyond auto-enrolment minimums”.

The Society of Pension Professionals—it goes on and on. Are the Government proud of this rousing endorsement by the industry? It is absurd.

When I was quizzing the Minister about this last week at oral questions—he will remember it well—he proudly held up the report that was commissioned under the previous Government—

[Torsten Bell]

Your report!

[Mark Garnier]

Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for—[Interruption.] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that:

“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,

including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this.

The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away?

The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government.

Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes.

In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times, under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more.

The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [Interruption.] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects.

Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses.

Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that

“If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”.

While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice—[Interruption.] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry.

Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said,

“We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.”

The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter?

I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [Laughter.] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it.

Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that the knife will fall at 7 o’clock.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s Budget put a cap on salary sacrifice for pension savers at just £2,000. That was to raise an extra £4.8 billion in 2029, and it will affect 3.3 million savers and 290,000 employers. What research has the Pensions Minister done to understand and quantify the negative effects that this will have on pension savings?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question because it gives me a chance to bring the House’s attention to research published after the general election in 2024 but commissioned under the last Conservative Government—I have the document here. What was the research into? It was into capping salary sacrifice pension contributions at £2,000. The hon. Gentleman can read the research published and commissioned by his own party about putting back under control this tax relief, which had got out of hand.

[Mark Garnier]

Well, it was not us who put it in place; it was Labour.

This policy hits the private sector disproportionately: 14 times as many people save through salary sacrifice in the private sector as they do in the public sector. Whether it is kite-flying about lump sum withdrawal or taxing inherited pension pots, in a week when Labour Together is canvassing Labour members about a new Labour leader, is it not the case that the Chancellor is more interested in throwing red meat to her sad and unfortunate Back Benchers in a vain attempt to save her job than she is in the interests of the savings of our hard-working constituents?

[Torsten Bell]

There is nothing sad about Labour Members watching wages rise faster under this Government than they did under the Conservatives. There is nothing sad about our Back Benchers seeing the end of austerity and seeing public services being improved right across this country.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.

Conservatives are the party of aspiration. We believe that work is not just a payslip; it is a pathway to opportunity, dignity and hope, but for too many young people across the country, those words may ring hollow. The number of people who are NEET has soared to nearly 1 million, meaning that one in eight people aged 16 to 24 is currently deprived of the sense of purpose that comes from holding down a stable job or training for a future career. In 2024, over half of the NEETs had a health condition, and around one in five had a mental health condition. These are young people with talent and potential; they could, one day, set up a social enterprise or make the next scientific breakthrough, or they could join the workforce as postmen, plumbers and paramedics, as well as countless other roles that form the backbone of our economy and our country. However, they are currently languishing at home with no purpose and no hope for the future.

Being out of work at a young age can cost over £1 million in lost earnings over a lifetime, according to the “Keep Britain Working” review. Every single day of worklessness is a day of wasted opportunity, damaged ambition and diminished income. So far, this Government have not demonstrated an incredible plan to turn the tide; the benefits bill is ballooning, with 1 million more people on welfare than when Labour first entered office, and they are kicking the can down the road with the independent investigation into youth inactivity led by Alan Milburn—we will not hear its findings until summer 2026. Meanwhile, the number of NEETs will continue to grow, with each one costing the economy nearly £200,000.

By contrast, previous Conservative Governments have demonstrated a strong track record of supporting young people into work. [Laughter.] I am glad that some Members find that amusing. We cut youth unemployment by 43.8% between 2010 and 2023, despite the rocky economic terrain that we inherited after the 2008 financial crisis. We oversaw the creation of 1 million more apprenticeships. Our new plan to get Britain working again will give young people a first job bonus, redirecting the first £5,000 of national insurance that they would have paid into a savings account instead, which they can then use to save towards their first home, for example.

However, this Government’s policies are effectively locking young people out of work, denying them the chance to build their own future. The Government have announced a youth guarantee, a new jobs and careers service, and foundation apprenticeships, which are available only to young people. To me, those sound like empty assurances. Labour should not be promising more apprentices on the one hand while slashing accessible jobs in hospitality and retail on the other.

If we are serious about reducing the number of NEETs, we must increase the number of jobs available overall, yet jobs in hospitality and retail have plummeted after Labour’s damaging hikes in employers’ national insurance contributions, with 150,000 jobs having been lost since the last Budget. Between October 2024 and August 2025, a staggering 89,000 jobs were lost in restaurants, bars and hotels, according to UKHospitality.

Additionally, the Employment Rights Bill has rightly been labelled the “Barriers to Work Bill”. Banning probation periods will discourage employers from giving young people a chance. We should be rewarding employers for taking a risk and hiring an inexperienced recruit, not narrowing the talent pool by taking this option off the table. To truly tackle worklessness, we must trust our small and medium-sized businesses to make their own staffing decisions. Increased employment rights mean nothing if there are no jobs in the first place. Shortly after I was elected, I set up the Wyre Forest jobs fair to connect private and public sector employers with local jobseekers, including young people. I recognise that looking for work can, in itself, be hard work, and that was one way to broaden people’s horizons.

Supporting this nation’s NEETs comes with great rewards. If we could get just 5% of unemployed under-25s back into work, the Government would save £903 million over the course of this Parliament, according to research commissioned by the Work and Pensions Committee. Indeed, it found that spending £1 in return-to-work schemes could save the taxpayer £6 through consequential cuts to benefits and increased tax intake from the subsequent jobs. Most importantly, we would also be offering young people the confidence boost that comes from discovering a job where they can thrive.

To conclude, we must ensure that there is targeted support for all young people, no matter what barriers they face, so that they can start and succeed in work. We urge the Government to reverse their damaging economic policies that are crippling the very sectors that offer many young people their first stint in employment. We must back our small and medium-sized enterprises to the hilt, rather than strangle them with ever more costly regulations. Having stronger businesses means more and better jobs for everyone. We cannot afford to waste a generation.

Draft Occupational Pension Schemes (Collective Money Purchase Schemes) (Extension to Unconnected Multiple Employer Schemes and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 General Committees

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I suspect the name of this statutory instrument is probably longer than my speech will be. I am grateful to the Minister for his words about the details of this instrument. Its intention is to bring more people who are not saving into pensions into the pension schemes. In that respect, it builds on work done by the previous Conservative Government, which I think we would all agree were 14 years of strong and stable Government [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Thank you very much. We are 100% behind this. It continues the work of the previous Government. It has the intention that we always had—to get more people saving into pension schemes. In the broader sense, it follows the intentions of the Pension Schemes Bill, which is currently passing through Parliament, and on which we disagree with one or two things. But we are in agreement on the overall thrust of this statutory instrument, so I will not trouble the Committee any longer.

Pensions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. As he rightly says, this is an important, albeit technical, statement, and we in the Opposition certainly accept the contents and the spirit in which it is given. It is about a legal process, and we respect that.

This relates to a matter of keen interest to many of our constituents: those women who have been affected by the changes in retirement age. Known as WASPI, the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign have probably met with all of us here in one way or another, and they will be looking at the point made by the Secretary of State late in his statement:

“retaking this decision should not be taken as an indication that Government will necessarily decide that they should award financial redress.”

The WASPI women are rightly angry with this Government. In opposition, shadow Ministers and Labour MPs stood alongside these women, as the Secretary of State did, campaigning for

“a better deal for WASPI women.”

However, when the Labour party won the general election, they quickly apparently U-turned on that position, blaming the fiscal situation they were left with. Indeed, in December last year, the Government made a statement confirming their about-turn on supporting WASPI women. If I may, Mr Speaker, I would like to quote the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), who said in response to that statement:

“But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances… Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]

She is absolutely right: the Government had the choice then to stand behind the women who they said have faced a great injustice, but they chose not to. Instead, the Labour party is now fighting them in a judicial review in the High Court. Whether it be the multiple U-turns on pensioners’ winter fuel payments or the imminent rumoured freezing of tax thresholds in the Budget, forcing many pensioners into paying income tax, it is clear that this Government are not on the side of our pensioners.

That brings me to some questions for the Secretary of State. First, the Minister for Pensions said in a Westminster Hall debate on this topic on 15 January:

“we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations.”—[Official Report, 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 156WH.]

However, to my knowledge, nothing has been released to that effect. Could the Secretary of State provide an update on when we can expect the plan and what will be in it?

Secondly, in a follow-up to written parliamentary questions from the hon. Members for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) and for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the Government said that they have “no plans” to meet representatives of the WASPI campaign. Indeed, the last time a Minister did meet them was on 5 September 2024. Why have this Government decided not to directly engage with the group they once stood shoulder to shoulder with, especially given that there is new evidence to consider?

Thirdly, during the 14 years we were in Government, we chose to help pensioners by increasing the personal allowance income tax threshold. However, independent research suggests that 1.6 million more pensioners are doomed to be filling in self-assessment tax returns within the next four years, thanks to the Government’s choices that may be made in the upcoming Budget. Has the Secretary of State had conversations with the Chancellor about the serious impact this retirement tax would have on a group that have consistently targeted by this Government?

Finally, why are this Government determined to blame everyone else for the decisions they have made? All this statement shows is that the Government want to keep kicking the can down the road and not be held accountable for their actions, but we should look at the record: unemployment is at 5%, the highest level since the pandemic, up from 4.2% in June last year; inflation is now sitting at 3.8%, up from 2% in June last year; economic growth has flatlined, despite having improved by 0.5% in the three months before this Government took office; borrowing costs have increased to their highest level since 1998, with 30-year gilt yields reaching 5.2%, compared with 4.7% when the Government took office; debt is now 96.4% of GDP, the highest since the 1960s; and winter fuel payments were cut for millions of pensioners, only for the Government U-turn on that after feeling the pressure of our strong campaign.

The Government are set to break their manifesto pledge and increase the tax burden to a historic high. Is it not true that this Government have been trying to dodge taking any form of responsibility for their actions? What is their problem with pensioners?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Back in May last year, while in opposition, the Labour party was outraged to learn that the average processing time for applications to the Access to Work programme was running at 43.9 days. In fact, so outraged were Labour Members that they made it a manifesto pledge to tackle that problem. After more than 15 months in government, Labour is far from having slashed waiting times; applicants now have to wait an average of 93.6 days. That is more than twice the waiting time under the previous Government. After a year in government, the Labour party has doubled the misery and uncertainty suffered by disabled people—why?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are fixing the very serious problems left behind by the previous Government. The number of people who are processing Access to Work applications has been increased by 118 since May last year, but the hon. Gentleman is right that delays are still a problem. That points clearly to the need for reform, which is what we are getting on with.

Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Mark Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I thank the proposers of these new clauses. I will take them in the way they were intended—to spark debate.

We have had quite a wide debate and I think there is consensus on the subject, but I want to put a slightly different spin on the problem statement we are talking about. We have come at a lot of the discussion on the new clause as if there is too little advice. I would slightly reframe the question when it comes to pensions, which is that there is too much complexity, and too little advice or guidance. I think that is the right way to think about the problem that we are confronting with the system as a whole.

I will broadly outline our approach to try to tackle that problem statement. The task is to reduce the complexity as well as to increase the guidance and the advice that are available. Having watched the pensions debate over the past 15 years, I have observed that we have too often made pensions more complicated, and then said, “If we only had this advice, it would all be fine.” I do not think that is the right answer. That is a mistake about the nature of the system that we are delivering.

Our job is to reduce the complexity, or to reduce the consequences of it being difficult for people to deal with. That is obviously what a lot of the Bill is trying to do. With small pots, the aim is obviously to reduce complexity. That is what the value for money measures are designed to do. Seen through that lens, they are also aimed at reducing the costs of that complexity. The value for money regime is there to reduce the consequences of it being difficult to engage with and members not choosing their own provider.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Minister raises an interesting point. We have talked about a lot of different bits and pieces with complexity and all the rest of it. We have not spoken about when we educate people about money.

In the olden days, when I was a newly elected MP, I was one of the chairs of the all-party parliamentary group for financial education for young people. That was about getting financial education into the curriculum. It is probably now more important than ever that we teach people of school age about the importance of financial planning, including pensions. Can the Minister assure the Committee that he will take up with his colleagues in the Department for Education the changes that could be made to bring this type of education into the curriculum for kids, who are all going to be adults soon?

[Torsten Bell]

I shall take that up directly with the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who I am sure will talk to her colleagues in the Department for Education. I can offer the hon. Member some entirely anecdotal optimism on that issue. Whenever I now do school events in Swansea, I am seeing very high levels of financial engagement. After I have given a very worthy speech, most of the questions are not about how to reduce inequality but instead are about personal financial advice. I think the youth of today are all over it—that is my lived experience.

I have mentioned small pots and value for money. I want to flag two other areas. Dashboards have been mentioned, and they are a very large part of how we provide support. The default pensions solutions are crucial to reducing complexity, and that is probably the biggest measure in the Bill. The need to provide more advice or guidance for people to access their defined-contribution pots is reduced significantly because of the existence of default solutions. We definitely still want people to have access to advice and the ability to opt out of those defaults, but default solutions help significantly. That is why the communication of those default pension solutions, which we discussed quite extensively, is so important for people. That is why that is in the Bill.

We have touched on making more support available. We have universal access for people of any age to free impartial support through MoneyHelper—that is what the Money and Pensions Service is providing—and we have a specific focus on support for over-50s in Pension Wise. Several hon. Members have said, absolutely rightly, that access to financial advice fell in the aftermath of the reforms over a decade ago, but there is some better news on Pension Wise. The 2024 Financial Lives survey showed that of those who accessed a defined-contribution pot within the last four years, 40% had accessed Pension Wise. I think that is probably more than most hon. Members in this debate would expect, though it may not be enough. However, those people had used Pension Wise when heading towards access; they had not used it as a mid-life MOT product, which is a different thing. That 40% was up from 34% in 2020, so some things have gone in the right direction. I am gently noting that, not claiming any credit for it because it predates the election. There is a lot of overlap between what those systems of advice are providing and the measures in new clause 1.

Regarding new clause 40, I absolutely agree on how we think about under-saved groups. The groups identified in the new clause are more or less the same groups of people experiencing financial wellbeing challenges whom MaPS targets, so that is a point of consensus, but I am absolutely open to suggestions of what more we can do to make sure that we are tackling that issue. The Pensions Commission is considering the wider question of adequacy, which is why we are looking at not just average adequacy but the fairness of the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to speak in support of the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats and new clauses 18 and 19, which were tabled by my wonderful colleague from Plaid, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).

The witnesses who came before us last week to speak about the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions made an incredibly passionate and powerful case for changing the system. We mentioned earlier the Work and Pensions Committee’s report, which suggested that the Government need to look at this issue seriously. I was quite disappointed by the Government’s response, which did not actually say very much. All it said was that changing the system would have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet. Well, yes, it might have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it would have a significant impact for people who are in this situation through absolutely no fault of their own. They did the right thing all the way along, but the company they were with collapsed and the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme has not given them the uplift.

The group of people we are talking about are getting older. They are not young any more. We know that older pensioners are the most likely to be in fuel poverty and to be struggling with the cost of living crisis. They are the ones making the choice about whether to switch on the heating. Given the rate of inflation that we have had in recent years, there is a real argument for utilising a small amount of the PPF’s surplus to provide a level of indexation. The cut-off is very arbitrary; it is just a date that happened to be put in legislation at that time. Were the Government setting up the PPF today, and the compensation schemes for people who lost their pension through no fault of their own, I do not think they would be arguing for not indexing pensions accrued before 1997. That would not be a justifiable position for today’s Government to take.

I am not sure whether the Bill is the right place to do this, but my understanding is that it needs to be done in primary legislation; it cannot be done in secondary legislation. Given what I mentioned earlier about the significant length of time between pieces of primary pension legislation, if the Government do not use the Pension Schemes Bill to address this problem today, on Report or in the House of Lords, when will they? How many more of the pensioners who are suffering from the lack of indexation will have passed away or be pushed into further financial hardship by the time the Government make a decision on this, if they ever intend to?

As I have said, I cannot see a justification for not providing the indexation. We know the PPF levy changes have been put in place because of that surplus, and there is recognition that the surplus exists and has not been invented—the money is there. I understand that the situation is different for the two funds, but particularly with the PPF, I do not understand how any Member of this House, let alone the Government, could argue against making this change to protect pensioners.

It may have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not have an impact on the Government’s income, outgoings and ability to spend today. The PPF money cannot be used for anything other than reducing the levy or paying pensions. It is very unusual to have such ringfenced, hypothecated money within the Government’s balance sheet, but this money is ringfenced. The Government cannot decide to spend it on building a new school or funding the NHS. It can be used only for paying the pensions of people whose companies have gone under.

I very much appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru on this issue in supporting their constituents, as well as people such as Terry Monk, who gave evidence to us last week along with Mr Sainsbury. Now is the time for the Government to change this to ensure fairness and drag some pensioners out of poverty, so that they have enough money to live on right now during this cost of living crisis.

[Mark Garnier]

I want to follow on from the two powerful speeches by the Liberal Democrat and SNP spokespeople, the hon. Members for Torbay and for Aberdeen North, in highlighting the fact that this problem is—dare I say it—disappearing over time. This feels slightly similar to the ongoing contaminated blood debate, and it is a similar type of thing. The people who would be compensated for the contaminated blood are, for tragic reasons, disappearing. Indeed, I think there are now 86,000 pensioners who were caught up in this particular problem, and the longer this is kicked down the road, the smaller the problem will become, for obvious reasons.

The principle behind this is absolutely right. It is incredibly important that we as a country, society and community look after all these people. Where people have done the right thing and put money into their pension, but it has not followed through, that is a big problem.

One thing does bother me: I do not want to be too political, but the Government have dug themselves a freshly made £30 billion black hole in the last year. Although the SNP spokesperson is absolutely right that the £12 billion in the PPF is available to spend only on pensions, the problem is that because it appears on the country’s balance sheet, if the money to pay the price for this—I think it is £1.8 billion—came out of that, there would be a £1.8 billion increase on the country’s collective balance sheet. The argument would go that it would then reduce it. At some level, fiscal prudence has to come in to make sure we are not creating a deeper black hole. Because of the change of accounting at the back end of last year, this could turn the Government’s £30 billion fiscal black hole into a £32 billion one, even though that money is earmarked only for pensions.

I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will resolve that. I would like him to make an undertaking that we will hear something about it on 26 November, and that there will be something in the Budget to resolve this fiscal conundrum. We need to know where the money will come from, and that the Government have set it aside. This is a perfect opportunity to deal with a problem that has been going on since 1997, and that becomes more profound every time the Office for National Statistics announces the rate of inflation. If the Minister gave us that assurance, I would trust him—being an honourable and decent man—that he could make his current boss get something done about this on 26 November.

[Torsten Bell]

Despite the hon. Member’s kind invitation, and as he well knows, I am not about to start commenting on the Budget—something I have heard him say himself many times over the years in his previous roles.

More seriously, the last 50 years tell us that the question of pension uprating is a big deal and very important. By “uprating”, I mean how pensions keep pace with earnings or prices. Obviously, on the state pension we tend to talk in terms of earnings. It is a big issue. The lesson of the 1980s and 1990s was about rising pensioner poverty at a time when the state pension was not earnings indexed but earnings were growing significantly. That is why we ended up with 30% or 40% pensioner poverty during those years. History tells us that those things are important. History aside, they are also obviously important for individuals, as we heard at the evidence session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I suspect that I have already written to the hon. Lady, because she has raised some constituency cases with me, but she can receive another one of those letters.

New Clause 33

Report of defined benefit schemes impact on productivity

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact on corporate productivity of defined benefit schemes.

(2) The report must include an assessment of—

(a) investment strategies of defined benefit funds,

(b) the returns on investment of defined benefit funds, and

(c) the impact of investment strategies and returns on productivity.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Mark Garnier.)

This new clause would require the Government to commission a report on the impact on corporate productivity of defined benefit schemes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 34—Recognition rules for Defined Benefit scheme deficits—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations revise the balance sheet recognition rules for Defined Benefit pension scheme deficits.

(2) Revision of the balance sheet recognition rules under subsection (1) may include allowing the deferment or partial deferment of deficits to future financial years when calculating the balance sheet.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to revise the balance sheet recognition rules for Defined Benefit pension scheme deficits.

New clause 35—Alternative disclosure for long-term deficits—

“(1) When a Defined Benefit pension scheme has a long-term deficit, it shall be permitted to disclose the deficit on an alternative basis, rather than recognising the full deficit as an immediate liability, if a formal recovery plan has been agreed.

(2) For subsection (1) to apply, a formal recovery plan must have been—

(a) agreed by the scheme trustees, and

(b) approved by The Pensions Regulator.

(3) The Pensions Regulator shall issue guidance on the format and content of the alternative disclosure specified in subsection (1).”

This new clause permits DB schemes to disclose a long-term deficit on an alternative basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

When we look at the thrust of the Bill, the mandation measure is all about trying to get pension funds to help to create greater productivity within the UK economy. A couple of days ago, in a very helpful intervention on a speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Hendon made the point that, while we are standing against mandation, we must ask: what are we standing in favour of? How are we trying to get behind the grain of the Bill? These three new clauses respond to that question of what we are doing to ensure that the Bill actually can use pension fund money to promote economic growth, invest into the UK and get better returns for the pensioners.

One of the problems facing defined-benefit pension schemes is that, in response to the outrage over Maxwell and Mirror Group Newspapers pinching money from pension schemes back in the 1980s and 1990s, rules were introduced that were basically designed to ensure that it would not happen again. They were introduced in such a way to ensure that, if a defined-benefit pension scheme were to go into deficit, the deficit would be reflected on the balance sheet of the host company.

We still see that today in some larger companies; I think the British Telecom pension scheme currently has a deficit of £7 billion, and that appears on British Telecom’s balance sheet. That does two fundamental things. First, if a company has a deficit on its balance sheet, that restricts its ability to raise equity or debt to invest into its business, so the host business cannot expand because it has a defined-benefit pension scheme with a deficit attached to it.

A second problem then comes as a result of the Maxwell rules: the trustees of a defined-benefit scheme with a host company will be reluctant to invest that into high-volatility assets. We know that, over a long period of time, the equity market will perform far better than the bond market. The problem is that we can have volatile markets in the short term, which could introduce a deficit in the defined-benefit pension scheme that translates to a deficit on the balance sheet.

For example, if we look at stock market performances from the 1980s to now, we will see a very steady rise in the stock markets over time, which have done particularly well. However, if we go back to 1987 or various other times, such as 2000-01, we will see big stock market crashes that will have appeared on the balance sheets of those defined-benefit pension scheme host companies. As a result, these pension schemes are missing out on the long-term growth to push away the short-term volatility that hits the host company. With these three new clauses, we are trying to get that out of the way so that defined-benefit pension schemes feel more comfortable about investing in higher-growth and therefore higher-volatility assets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for tabling the new clauses, and for his impressive consistency; he has spoken to this issue many times not only in this Committee, but elsewhere, and I have heard him. I agree on some of the wider issues he is raising, particularly his reflections on some of the impacts of decisions taken in the late 1990s. Before I come to the more technical responses to the new clauses, the hon. Member’s objective is to see different investment approaches taken by defined-benefit schemes. Many issues that were historically the case have been removed by the passing of time, because they are now closed schemes whose investments are now changing for other reasons, not because of the questions of regulatory pressure in the 1990s and so on. I leave that as an aside.

To give the hon. Member a bit more optimism, based on the Bill, I already have schemes saying to me that they may take different approaches on investments because of the option of a surplus release. That gives a different incentive structure for employers about what they wish to see their pension schemes doing, and for trustees, if there is a sharing of the benefits of upside risk that comes with that. I have had several large employer’s pension schemes raising that issue with me in the recent past. That is to give him some case for optimism to set against the long-term pessimism.

I will turn to the details of the new clauses. New clause 33 would require the Government to produce and lay a report before both Houses of Parliament, with an assessment of the investment strategies of defined-benefit pension schemes and their impact on productivity.

There is already a requirement for defined-benefit schemes to produce much of that information in their triennial valuation and to submit key documents to the Pensions Regulator, including information on investments and changes in asset allocations over time, so the regulator has much of the information already. In addition, multiple reports are already produced annually on defined-benefit schemes and their investments. The purple book is the most obvious example; it is produced by the Pension Protection Fund. I know that everybody here will be an avid reader of it; I promise people that it is reasonably widely read, including in the City.

New clause 34 seeks to change the arrangements for reporting defined-benefit pension scheme liabilities in the employer’s accounts. I am impressed by the wish of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for us to engage in a Brexit from international financial reporting standards, but he will be unsurprised to learn that the Government are not about to do that. These are globally recognised financial reporting frameworks that allow comparability, and we are not in the business of changing them.

New clause 35 would require the Secretary of State to introduce an alternative basis to disclose schemes’ funding deficits. The Pensions Act 2004 put in place the current regime for valuations. Our view is that that approach has taken some time to implement but it is now well understood and well established, so leaving it in place is by far the best thing that we can do, while also considering in more detail the consequences of other things that drive the choices of pension schemes. On that basis, I encourage the hon. Member for Wyre Forest to withdraw the new clause, and I certainly do not expect to see my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon support it.

[Mark Garnier]

I am partially reassured by the Minister’s comments, but it really comes down to the kindness of my heart—I would not want the hon. Member for Hendon to be pulled off the Committee and put in an awkward situation. It would be unfortunate to force him to fall out with the Whips so early in his parliamentary career, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 37

Review of impact of this Act

“(1) Within five years of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes.

(2) The review must consider—

(a) the impact of the provisions of this Act on actual and projected retirement incomes, and

(b) whether further measures are needed to ensure that pension scheme members receive an adequate income in retirement.

(3) The Secretary of State must prepare a report of the review and lay a copy of that report before Parliament.”—(Mark Garnier.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare a report on the impact of this Act within 5 years of its passing.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Under new clause 37, the review of the impact of the Act would focus on pensions adequacy. The current Government plan to delay the comprehensive consideration of pensions adequacy to future phases of the pensions review. Any resulting reforms from those future evaluations are projected to take several years to develop and implement, and there is widespread concern that without a mandated regular review process, inadequate pension outcomes will persist. Millions of people in the UK therefore risk having insufficient retirement income, particularly lower earners, ethnic minorities, the self-employed and those with interrupted careers.

Automatic enrolment has expanded workplace pension participation and now covers over 88% of eligible employees, but significant savings shortfalls remain. Recent forecasts and analysis warn of a retirement crisis, with many future pensioners expected to have less income than today’s retirees unless action is taken. The Government’s renewed Pensions Commission is due to report in 2027, focusing on the adequacy, fairness and sustainability of the retirement framework, but that report will only come in 2027.

The new clause would create a statutory obligation for the Secretary of State to conduct a full review within five years of the Bill’s passage, focusing on its impact on actual and projected retirement incomes. It would require an assessment of whether current policies and contribution levels are sufficient to ensure adequate retirement incomes. The Secretary of State would have to report the findings to Parliament, increasing accountability and transparency. That would formalise an ongoing review cycle to monitor pension adequacy regularly, preventing the consideration of the issue being indefinitely postponed.

As we all know, pension adequacy is vital to preventing poverty in later life and to ensuring quality of life for retirees. Despite expanded coverage through auto-enrolment, however, many people are still on track to fail to meet retirement income targets. Financial resilience frameworks show disparities in adequacy among lower earners, women and other vulnerable groups, and current retirement income depends on a number of variables, including contribution, sufficiency, investment returns, longevity and state pension level.

The new clause would ensure that the Government take responsibility to monitor and report regularly on pension adequacy outcomes. It would mandate a formal review mechanism, enhancing policy responsiveness and parliamentary oversight. Ultimately, it aims to safeguard millions of future retirees from inadequate incomes, and support a sustainable and fair retirement system.

[Torsten Bell]

We have now had a few discussions about the case for monitoring and evaluating the Bill and what is going on in the pension landscape more generally. I do not want to repeat everything I have said previously, so I will just address whether this is the right approach or whether it should be done through the Pensions Commission that is under way and looking at most of these issues. My view is that the Pensions Commission is focused on the headline issues that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has just mentioned. I do not want to confuse that work by having another process consider the same issues at the same time. It is also valuable to have the independence of the commission when doing that.

My main message is that we do not have to wait long, because the Pensions Commission will report in 2027, which is earlier than the five years that we would have to wait for the Secretary of State’s inevitably excellent report as a result of this new clause. We should have faith in Baroness Drake, Ian Cheshire and Nick Pearce to deliver that.

[Torsten Bell]

I do not want to speak for the commissioners because that would be to prejudge their work. I can tell the hon. Lady what the terms of reference require and they definitely rule out long-grassing in that they require actual recommendations for change to deliver a fair, adequate and sustainable pension system. It would certainly be open to them to say, “Do these things, and we also think that monitoring should be x and y.” That would be for them to say, and as it is an independent commission, I do not want to prejudge that. It definitely cannot be just that; it would have to include recommendations for change.

[Mark Garnier]

We tabled new clause 37 partly to try to get some reassurance from the Minister. Two years is still quite a long time, as is five, but it is incredibly important that we are on top of what is going on in the pension industry, not least because we do not want any of our constituents to end up with miserable retirements. However, I am marginally reassured by the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a joint protocol outlining the roles and responsibilities of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator regarding their regulatory responsibility of the pension industry.

(2) A protocol established under subsection (1) must include—

(a) an overview of the coordination mechanisms between the two bodies;

(b) a published framework for oversight of hybrid or work-based personal pension schemes;

(c) a requirement for regular joint communications from both bodies to clarify regulatory boundaries for industry stakeholders.”—(Mark Garnier.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This will be the last new clause I will be talking to. It looks at the guidance on the roles of the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator. In preparing for this Bill, we spent a lot of time engaging with the industry just a mile and a half up the road. Among the industry there is persistent confusion regarding the division of regulatory responsibility between the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator.

The FCA regulates contract-based pension schemes—personal pensions, group personal pensions and stakeholder pensions—focusing on firm authorisation, conduct and consumer financial advice. TPR regulates trust-based occupational schemes, including defined-benefit and defined-contribution trust schemes, and it targets schemes, governance and employer duties. Overlapping interests exist in hybrid or workplace pension schemes, but unclear boundaries and differing enforcement powers can create regulatory gaps and inconsistencies. That ambiguity causes compliance difficulties for employers, trustees and industry stakeholders, and may ultimately affect pension savers.

The new clause would require the Government to establish a statutory joint protocol between the FCA and TPR, clearly defining and publishing their respective roles and responsibilities. The protocol must outline formal co-ordination mechanisms between the FCA and TPR, include a published framework specifically addressing oversight of hybrid and workplace personal schemes where regulatory remit overlaps, and include a requirement for regular joint communications from both regulators to guide industry and clarify regulatory boundaries. That matters because collaboration between the FCA and TPR ensures comprehensive consumer protection across all pension products.

With pension system complexity increasing—with mega schemes, master trusts and hybrid arrangements—co-ordinated regulation is critical. That will enable both regulators to leverage their strengths—the FCA in consumer conduct and financial advice, and TPR in governance and compliance enforcement. That will help trustees, employers, firms and savers to better understand which regulator to engage to resolve issues and access support.

Industry feedback consistently calls for more precise demarcation to avoid confusion and compliance risks. The Government’s wider reforms and digitisation initiatives, such as pension dashboards, further heighten the need for co-ordination. The new clause would promote regulatory clarity and efficiency through mandated guidance, protecting pension consumers and enabling robust governance across the sector. Clear regulatory pathways will better support pension savers by ensuring consistent standards and enforcement across all types of pension schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

We all agree that we want providers and, most importantly, consumers to operate in this landscape as easily as possible. Particularly in the case of consumers, we do not want them to know the difference between the two. I have been very clear with both regulators that that is the objective, and I have been very clear with both Departments that oversee them that that is what we are doing.

Delivering that in practice requires thinking about how we legislate, and that is what we have done with the Bill to make sure that we are providing exactly the same outcomes through both markets. It is about Government providing clarity to regulators—we are absolutely providing that—and then about how the regulators themselves behave.

I am very alive to the issue that is being raised. There is some good news about the existing arrangements, which need to continue, because they are examples of effective co-ordination between the FCA and TPR. I have seen that through joint working groups, consultations, shared strategies and guidance, and regular joint engagement with stakeholders. The value for money measures in the Bill are probably the most high-profile recent experience of entirely joint working between the FCA, TPR and DWP.

The wider collaboration is underpinned by what is called the joint regulatory strategy and a formal memorandum of understanding that sets out how the two regulators should co-operate, share information and manage areas of overlap. I think that that basically achieves the objectives that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, even if it is provided not by the Secretary of State but by a memorandum of understanding between the two organisations. I can absolutely reassure him and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North that I am very focused on this issue.

[Mark Garnier]

I am highly reassured by the Minister’s words. The important point is to ensure that if the bodies are to work together and do this, we need to keep them held to account on it. The Financial Conduct Authority was set up as an independent regulator and reports back to such things as the Treasury Committee. Presumably, TPR reports back to the Work and Pensions Committee. Already we can see a potential problem there, because separate Select Committees are doing the investigation. That is an important point, but I am confident that the Minister and his civil servants are aware of the problem and will be resolutely super sharp-focused on this issue to ensure that we have regulatory clarity. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 39

Section 38: commencement

“(1) The provisions in section 38 shall not come into force except in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(John Milne.)

This new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38 could only be enacted once agreed through secondary legislation.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[John Milne]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Overall, this Bill has wide cross-party support, as evidenced by the fact that we have been rattling through it at such a pace. However, the power of mandation is undoubtedly the most controversial aspect. To be briefly Shakespearean: to mandate or not to mandate, that is the question.

The new clause would require that the provisions in clause 38—the mandation powers—be enacted only through secondary legislation. It is an attempt to square the circle between two competing views. The Liberal Democrats have concerns about the implications of mandation, frankly, as has much of the pensions industry. For example, Pensions UK, which is a signatory of the Mansion House accords, has stated:

“We believe that the best way of ensuring good returns for members is for investments to be undertaken on a voluntary, not a mandatory basis. We also note powers being taken to specify required investment capability for schemes, and to direct LGPS funds to merge with specific pools. All of these powers will require careful scrutiny.”

Similarly, the Society of Pension Professionals has said:

“The SPP does not support the reserve power to mandate investment in private market assets and recommends its removal from the legislation. The mandation power creates significant uncertainty, including questions about legal accountability for investment underperformance and how eligible assets will be defined. The threat of mandation risks distorting market pricing and could reduce public trust in pensions, as savers may fear that financial returns are no longer the top priority.”

The Minister has stated on a number of occasions that mandation should not be necessary, that he does not expect to have to use it and that the Mansion House accord demonstrates the industry’s willingness to act voluntarily. The obvious response is that if that really is the case, and that UK private markets truly offer the best option for pension savers while meeting the fiduciary duties, the industry should not need any prodding and mandation will not be required. The Minister’s response on previous occasions, and no doubt today, has been to observe the history and point out that thus far, the industry has been slow to make that change.

We recognise that the Minister is wholly committed to the path of giving himself mandation powers, whatever we or anyone else says. Indeed, he sees it as core to the legislation. For that reason, we have proposed the new clause as a halfway house. The power would be put on the books, but it would require secondary legislation to be enacted. It would give the Minister the ability to have access to mandation powers at short notice if he deemed it necessary, without needing primary legislation, but in the meantime, it does not hang over the industry like a sword of Damocles. It may seem just a psychological difference, but psychology matters, and there are other advantages.

Somewhat counterintuitively, sometimes having too much of a stick can be a problem in itself. The Minister would be under pressure to use the stick for the sake of consistency in every case where any company went slightly over the limit or was under the limit, even when he might prefer to take a softer, more conciliatory approach. We therefore see this new clause as a way to help the Minister exercise the powers he needs, but without stepping too heavily on industry’s toes. As he has said, he does not believe that he will ever need to exercise the power, so let us keep it at arm’s length.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

Clause 98 is a standard provision setting out how regulation-making powers in the Bill may be used. It confirms that all regulations will be made by statutory instrument and allows them to be tailored to different situations and scheme types. The clause ensures that the Bill can work effectively in practice.

Clause 99 sets out how regulations under the Bill will be scrutinised by Parliament, using either the affirmative or negative procedures—we were discussing a particular case relating to clause 38 just now. The clause also allows that regulations that would otherwise be subject to the negative procedure can be made as part of a joint package of regulations under the affirmative procedure.

Government amendment 241 is a technical amendment. The new provisions in chapter 1 of part 4 about changes to Northern Ireland salary-related, contracted-out pension schemes apply specifically to schemes in Northern Ireland. The rest of the provisions in chapter 1 apply to schemes in England, Wales and Scotland. Clause 100 is a standard legislative provision confirming the territorial extent of the measures in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 98 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100

Extent

Amendment made: 241, in clause 100, page 98, leave out line 10 and insert—

“( ) Subject as follows, this Act extends to England and Wales and Scotland only.

(1A) Sections (Validity of certain alterations to NI salary-related contracted-out pension schemes: subsisting schemes) to (Powers to amend Chapter 1 etc : Northern Ireland) extend to Northern Ireland only.”—(Torsten Bell.)

This amendment secures that the new clauses inserted by NC28 to NC30 extend to Northern Ireland only. Northern Ireland has its own pensions legislation, but in view of the retrospective provisions in those new Clauses it is considered appropriate to include material in the Bill for Northern Ireland corresponding to the new clauses inserted by NC23 to NC26.

Clause 100, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 101

Commencement

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to move amendment 255, in clause 101, page 98, line 22, leave out “Chapters 1 and 2” and insert “Chapter 1”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 256, in clause 101, page 98, line 23, at end insert—

“(aa) Chapter 2 comes into force six months after Chapter 4 comes into force.”

Government amendments 225 to 228, 242 and 243.

Amendment 263, in clause 101, page 99, line 5, at end insert—

“(d) section [Administration levy] comes into force on 1 April 2026.”

This amendment is consequential on NC44 and would ensure the amendment to abolish the PPF administration levy should come into force on 1 April 2026 (at the start of the 2026/27 levy year).

Clause stand part.

Clause 102 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Amendments 255 and 256 relate to the value-for-money framework timeline that we discussed when we considered clause 41 on Tuesday and are related to Conservative amendment 257, which was withdrawn. When we considered amendment 278, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Tamworth, the Minister committed to consider the matter on Report, so I will not press those amendments today.

This is, however, because I think it is the last time that I will speak in this Committee—or I hope it will be—a good opportunity to thank everyone. I say a huge thank you to everyone who has worked incredibly hard: the Clerks; you, Ms Lewell, and your fellow Chairs; and all the DWP officials who have supported the Minister who, frankly, with his not inconsiderable inexperience and youth, has done a magnificent job of working in his first Bill Committee. I think we can all agree that he has a terrific future in front of him as an individual who can get stuck into really quite dry, anodyne Bills. Of course, I also thank the members of my office staff, who have worked extraordinarily hard. I had not quite realised how difficult it is to be in opposition and up against the might of the Government, but my office staff have done very well, so I thank them all very much indeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I thank all Opposition Members for those reflections. I will come to my own after I have dealt with the remaining clauses and amendments—we must finish the job.

On the Opposition amendments, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest for his words. I am firmly committed to writing to both him and my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, which I shall do before Report. I am glad that the hon. Member will not press his amendments on that basis.

Amendments 225, 227 and 228 address the timing of the implementation of the provisions introduced by clause 38. Amendments 225 and 227 make it clear that the relevant master trusts and GPPs will not have to comply with the scale requirement until 2030. That is a point of clarification. In response to industry concerns, elements of the provision, such as the transition pathway, can be commenced and become operable prior to the scale requirement itself being active. We are responding to those concerns, and the amendment achieves exactly that. Amendment 228 provides clarification on the asset allocation elements of clause 38 by making it clear that those requirements will fall away if not brought into force by the end of 2035. Amendment 226 provides for the commencement of new chapter 3A, which will be inserted by new clauses 12 to 17.

On amendment 263, we have just discussed the PPF admin levy question. Given what we have just discussed about new clause 44, I ask the hon. Member for Torbay not to press the amendment.

Government amendment 242 introduces a commencement provision for the new chapter 1 of part 4 of the Bill on the validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This measure means that two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, effective pension schemes will be able to use a confirmation from their actuary obtained under this part of the Bill to validate a previous change to benefits—this is the Virgin Media discussion we had earlier today. Two months after the Bill becomes law, a previous change to benefits under an effective pension scheme will be considered valid if the scheme actually confirms that it met the legal requirements at the time of the change. This measure means that this part of the Bill will come into force two months after the Act receives Royal Assent and is a necessary accompaniment to new clauses 23 to 30.

Turning to the clauses, clause 101 is a standard commencement provision that details the timetable for bringing the Bill’s measures into operation and allowing transitional and saving provisions to ensure orderly implementation. Clause 102 is crucial, because it gives the Bill its short title. I commend those clauses to the Committee.

I will finish by adding my support to the comments made by all hon. Members about the proceedings of this Committee. I thank all hon. Members from all parties for their support—broadly—and also for their scrutiny, which is an important part of everything we do in this place. The Bill is important, but the debate around it is also important, both so that the legislation can be improved and in its own right. Such debate makes sure that issues are brought to the attention of the House and are on the record. I also thank this Chair, as well as several others, including those who have stood in at short notice at various phases of the Bill’s consideration. I am particularly grateful to one individual, and I am also grateful to the Clerks for all their work.

Most of all, I put on record my thanks to all the civil servants in the Department for Work and Pensions, His Majesty’s Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Pensions Regulator. Many of them have been working on the content of this Bill for many years, far longer than I have been Pensions Minister and, as many hon. Members have kindly reminded me, far longer than I may end up being the Pensions Minister, given the high attrition rate over the past 15 years in modern British politics. I thank them for the warning, and will take it in the way it was hopefully intended.

To be slightly worthy at the end of my speech, it is probably true that pensions legislation does not get the attention it deserves, but looking back over the 20th century, nothing was more important to the progress that this country and others made in delivering leisure in retirement. That very big win was delivered not only by productivity growth, but by Government decisions and collective decisions made by unions and their employers. The Bill goes further in that regard and, on that basis, it deserves all the coverage it gets.

[Mark Garnier]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: 225, in clause 101, page 98, line 24, leave out “after 31 December 2029”.

This amendment, together with Amendment 227, means that relevant Master Trusts and group personal pensions will not have to comply with the scale requirement until after 2030, but that Chapter 3 of Part 2 (including provision relating to the scale requirement, such as the application can otherwise be brought into force at any time in accordance with regulations.

Amendment 226, in clause 101, page 98, line 25, at end insert—

“(ba) Chapter 3A comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State and the Treasury jointly may by regulations appoint;”.

This amendment provides for commencement by regulations of the new Chapter referred to in the explanatory statement to NC15.

Amendment 227, in clause 101, page 98, line 30, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may not provide for the following to come into force before 1 January 2030—

(a) section 38(4), in respect of the insertion of Condition 1 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (Master Trusts to be subject to scale requirement);

(b) section 38(8), in respect of the insertion of section 26(7A) of that Act (group personal pension schemes to be subject to scale requirement)

(but nothing in this subsection prevents section 38 from being brought into force before that date in respect of the insertion in that Act of other provision related to that mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b)).”

This amendment ensures that schemes will not be legally subject to the scale requirement before 1 January 2030. It allows, however, for provision relating to that requirement (e.g., provision around applications for approval) to be commenced before that date in anticipation of the requirement itself taking effect.

Amendment 228, in clause 101, page 98, line 34, at end insert—

“(5A) If section 38 has not been brought into force before the end of 2035 in respect of the insertion of—

(a) Condition 2 in section 20(1A) of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: Master Trusts), and

(b) subsection (7B) in section 26 of the Pensions Act 2008 (asset allocation requirement: group personal pension schemes),

section 38 is repealed at the end of that year in respect of the insertion of those provisions.”

This amendment transposes and clarifies the provision currently in clause 38(16). It provides for the key provisions imposing the asset allocation requirement to fall away if they are not brought into force before the end of 2035.

Amendment 242, in clause 101, page 98, line 37, at beginning insert—

“( ) Chapter 1 of Part 4 comes into force at the end of the period of two months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.

( ) Chapter 2 of”.

This amendment provides for the commencement of the new Chapter relating to the consequences of the Virgin Media case .

Amendment 243, in clause 101, page 99, line 5, after “section 96” insert

“and (Information to be given to pension schemes by employers)”.—(Torsten Bell.)

This amendment provides for the commencement of NC20.

Clause 101, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

I also thank all hon. Members, Committee Clerks and officials, and our Doorkeeper team.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.