Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q There is a question around surplus release, and the power of trustees in relation to surplus release. It makes sense that there should be surplus release, but trustees may feel under pressure from employers to release the surplus when it might not be the right thing for scheme members. Do you think the Bill has got that balance right? How can that be monitored to ensure that trustees are not pressured when it is not the right thing for scheme members?

Rob Yuille: The most important thing is that trustees do have the power that is in the Bill—that power should stay there. Conflicts of interest were mentioned earlier; it is interesting what surplus release could do to make occupational schemes more like commercial schemes. With master trusts, commercial schemes and superfunds, if pension schemes could be run for the benefit of the employer by taking surplus, that gives rise to a different relationship and potential conflicts. The Pensions Regulator needs to be alive to that. In any case, TPR is becoming more like the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority as a regulator, and I think that needs to continue.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q Many aspects of the Bill command cross-party support, but I want your view on where the Bill does not quite go far enough, and where it perhaps goes too far.

Zoe Alexander: I would probably lean towards talking about the local government pension scheme in that context. There are some parts of the Bill where we feel powers are being taken that may not be required; one is around requiring funds to choose a particular pool, and one is requiring particular pools to merge. We think that the LGPS is moving in a very positive direction. Obviously two pools have been closed, and funds are merging with other pools already. We are not sure that those powers are actually required. We think that the direction of travel is set and that the LGPS understands that, so we feel that those powers might be overstepping the mark.

Rob Yuille: I have no view on local government. I think what I am about to say should have cross-party support, or at least cross-party interest. It is a macro Bill about how the market and the system work, but it is also about people and the decisions that they need to make. We are glad to see the small pots provision in the Bill, but it is on an opt-out basis, similar to the default pension benefits solutions. People have decisions to make, such as whether to stay in or not, and they need to be supported in the decision making. We are proposing a textbook amendment that would enable schemes to communicate electronically in a way they currently cannot and in a more positive way—even where people did not have a chance to opt in to that kind of communication, which is seen and regulated as direct marketing. We know that there is cross-party interest in the ability to communicate more clearly with customers, specifically in relation to those provisions.

[Rachel Blake]

Q I want to probe the suggestion that the mandation sunset clause should come back from 2035. You alluded to your rationale for that, but can you expand on the argument about what difference that could make?

Zoe Alexander: If you put yourself in the position of pension scheme trustees, having the presence of the reserve power, which may or may not be exercised, to direct the way that you invest does not necessarily feel like a comfortable position to be in. We understand why the Government are taking that power. We understand the imperative to get more investment in the UK and we support that. Clearly, the longer the power abides on the statute book, the longer there is that risk hanging over those trustees. They may be required to invest in particular ways. We do not know where we will be politically in 2035. We do not know what Government will be in place. It pushes us potentially into another Government, another Parliament—it is the unpredictability. So we did talk with many of our members about this, and had lively debates about whether it should be 2030, 2032 or 2035. There was a really strong consensus around bringing it forward to 2032. We do not want it too early because it might pre-empt a decision that need not be taken. But 2035 felt too far away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damien Egan]

Q Christopher, a number of us are on the Work and Pensions Committee and we know that one of many big issues is people coming up to retirement and being prepared—even knowing how much they have got to take into retirement. How do you see this Bill—you have talked through some of the challenges—helping people to prepare for their future, know how much money they will have and make decisions at a better time?

Christopher Brooks: How the Bill tackles that is probably through the governance structures that will be put in place. When there is a fiduciary duty, the governance is reasonably strong. I believe it is stronger under a fiduciary duty than under the contract-based system. For example, the trustees are better placed than IGCs—independent governance committees. I think we will see IGCs potentially play a greater role in some of the transfers. That is an opportunity to make sure that IGCs can do their job more effectively and have better access to the necessary data, which was flagged previously by the FCA as not always being the case. Clearly they need to be independent, so it will not be appropriate to have employees of the firm sitting on them any longer. I believe a number of them do at the moment, but I do not think getting employees taken off will be an issue.

Once you are in retirement, you have a separate issue. Because the decumulation part of the Bill leaves a lot to the regulators to decide in the future, it has not been clearly specified how the governance will work, so there is an issue about making sure, when those regulations are written, that it does work well for people. There is clearly going to be a gap around information as well. We recently did some research with Aviva, and one of the recommendations was that we need some kind of intervention for people in their mid-70s about how they look after the rest of their lives and how they manage their pension. That kind of support is going to be crucial if people are expected to take a decision in their late 70s or early 80s with regard to annuitisation or how they draw down the rest of their money. There is a big gap there as well.

[Mr Bedford]

Q I think financial education is the key to ensuring pensions adequacy. To build on Damien’s question about ensuring that members are fully informed about their pension assets and what the returns are going to be, what they will provide, what are your thoughts on what support the Bill offers, or does not offer, to ensure members are fully informed on the key decisions they have to make?

Christopher Brooks: Providing information takes you so far, and it is really important to do that: there are some really big gaps, as we see with Pension Wise UK, which is a really good and well-liked service, but has a really low take-up. That is just an example, but we need to get more people into a position to access the information. However, they will then still need a lot of support, because pension decisions are really challenging for the vast majority of people.

[Mr Bedford]

Q Where is that support going to lie—with organisations such as Age UK, charities or the pension provider? Where do you see that balance sitting?

Christopher Brooks: It could lie either with Government and the Money and Pensions Service providing a widespread service, for example. It could lie with charities, or providers could be told to help people with these decisions—they could potentially commission charities. We are working with Aviva to look at running a pilot in the retirement space, which will hopefully go ahead soon and give us some insights into what kind of support people need. People think about their lives holistically, and they are not necessarily thinking about a pension as separate from their current accounts, so we need to think about how it works for people. That is the key thing.

Jack Jones: I think we look at this slightly differently. I am not convinced that any more financial education, guidance, or points at which we need to intervene in the system to ensure that people are equipped to make decisions is the way forward. This Bill recognises that, and the introduction of default retirement products is a recognition that everywhere else in the pension system, it works on the principle of default and generally works quite well. We have seen that that principle is really powerful; if people are defaulted into something, they will stay there, whether that is their contribution rate or the investment options. Defaults are really sticky; we rely on that and make use of it through auto-enrolment, to get people into saving schemes.

More and more, as we find ways in which that does not work, we need to go back and look at fixing the system a little bit so that it works better by default, rather than providing people with more education, because that is pushing against the grain of all of our experience of what works and what is effective. I think that Chris is right that it puts a lot on the governance structures and on the consumer protections there, but I think that is where this Bill has to work. It has to put in place something that will be appropriate for the vast majority of members, and that will work with the minimal amount of engagement—we have to have some kind of engagement on retirement, such as, “This is what I am going to retire and this is where my pension should be paid,” but not beyond that.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Q I want to build on the questions that the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East were raising. Obviously, part of the challenge we face is around the proliferation of small pots; certainly, when I talk to my constituents about issues of long-term retirement planning, that is the consistent theme. The Bill obviously sets out a path to try to deal with some of that proliferation that has been caused since the introduction of auto-enrolment. What are your views on the extent to which the Bill provides the right framework for dealing with that kind of proliferation?

Jack Jones: As Zoe said earlier, we should be here already. It has taken us a long time to get to the point where we have an agreed solution. It looks as if the mechanics of it will work. I think we need to let that bed in and prove that it works. The main concern from our perspective is the £1,000 definition of a small pot. Obviously, from a lot of angles, £1,000 is a lot of money—but as a pension pot it really is not. Looking at this once you have proved the concept and you have a system that works and that hoovers up the smallest pots and those most likely to become orphaned is one thing, but I think if you are looking at helping people to avoid accumulating 10 medium-small pots over their career, we need to look at how to increase that over time.

Christopher Brooks: I agree with Jack. I think the Bill is really strong on small pots and the system that is envisaged will really help. I guess my only comment would be that £1,000 is not a huge amount of money, so maybe over time that amount could be raised, and some kind of indication that that is the intention might be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Bedford, we do have a little time if you wish to ask a question.

[Mr Bedford]

Q I want to go back to your point around the value for money implementation, which a few Members have already raised. Specifically, there is always this competing challenge between satisfying the metrics that are in there and delivering returns for your investors. How do you see that balance in the Bill? Do you see it being too much one way, or do you see it hindering the performance of investment?

Colin Clarke: At a high level, the Bill, as it stands, is primarily rule-making powers. A lot of the detail is going to be in the secondary legislation. In terms of rule-making powers, as it stands, I think the Bill has the right provisions in place. The detail is going to be around the actual assessments that you have to follow for determining whether something is delivering value, not delivering, intermediate and so on. For me, getting that detail right in the secondary legislation is going to be quite key, as is having clarity at an early stage on what that is, so that it can go through the proper consultation paper and we can look at the risks and at whether there are any unforeseen consequences. At a high level, we know that the Bill’s rule-making powers set the right framework for that secondary legislation.

Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting)

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)]

Q I would like to move us on to the aspects of the Bill that place a duty on schemes to offer members default retirement products. We touched on it a bit this morning. What do you think they could look like?

Sophia Singleton: I might start on this because I think that the Bill should not set out what the product looks like. The policy should set the rules of the game, providers and pension schemes should be allowed to innovate and to develop solutions that meet the needs of their members, and then policy should obviously monitor and oversee product development to ensure that it is effective. When I say “set the rules of the game”, I mean clear guidance around the things that should be considered when developing these solutions. It should consider whether it should deliver an income and consider whether it should provide longevity protection. It should consider those factors, but an income for life might not be the answer for all schemes. It will probably be the answer for many, but not for all, so that is why there needs to be flexibility for providers and schemes to develop solutions.

Helen Forrest Hall: From a PMI perspective, obviously we recognise that with the shift from DB to DC, the choices that are facing people at retirement are growing ever more complicated, and at the moment, they are largely left to their own devices and that is a far from ideal situation so we very strongly support the proposals in the Bill to provide those default pathways, particularly for those who have not made an active choice. Actually, we support the focus on those default options as generating an income because, after all, that is what a pension is for. We do strongly support that.

We have a question around where this sits in the pensions reform road map. We very much share the desire to provide people at that point of retirement with a bit more support, guidance, help and some form of default pathways as soon as possible. But we are concerned that doing so in advance of trying to bring those small pots together and reaching scale in the market puts a burden on schemes, in terms of the number of DC schemes that might not meet the scale test having to put this in place in the meantime, and potentially confuses members. For example, if you have got 11 pots that all happen to be trust based, and you have got 11 different default solutions, that is potentially going to be confusing.

We do not think that nothing should happen in the meantime. Our proposal would be to extend the point at which the mandation requirement would come in, but use engagement from regulators, particularly for large schemes—those that are going to meet scale or be exempt from the scale test—to really start piloting what good looks like in terms of both the guided retirement requirements and the FCA’s proposals for targeted support. There is a really important piece of work to be done thinking about how all of those align into a better, but not perfect, pension saver member journey at the point of retirement. It is not about moving slowly; it is about thinking about the right time that the mandation kicks in so that schemes can plan effectively and things can be tested in the meantime.

Sophia Singleton: Just to add one other element to that point around timescale, I think master trusts are going to be required to comply by 2027. One of the solutions, which might be the right solution for schemes, is the decumulation CDC. We do not expect that the regulations to facilitate that will be in place by 2027. Ensuring that those align so that that option is available to schemes when they are considering their decumulation solution would be beneficial as well. I agree with everything Helen said, but just add that extra element.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Q I have just a couple of general questions. You have articulated this in your points already, but where do you think the Bill goes too far and may have an adverse impact, and where does it not go far enough to make progress in this space?

Helen Forrest Hall: I will take this opportunity to reiterate that we strongly support the vast majority of the provisions in the Bill: the consolidation, value for money and retirement provisions; finally legislating for DB superfunds, which we warmly welcome; and striking the balance on DB surplus—there was a better balance to be struck. To a certain extent we have already talked about our key issue where the Bill potentially goes too far, which is around the mandation requirement and the reserve power.

On value for money, I think that the Bill is doing the right thing. Value for money is going to be an everchanging set of circumstances, particularly if we build scale in the market. What might be required on day one for value for money—we probably want a core set of metrics that can be easily comparable across schemes—might really mature as the market consolidates into a small number of fairly significant defined contribution funds. You might quite rightly expect regulators and the regulations to ask an awful lot more of those schemes in terms of what they are doing under value for money.

We think it is only right and proper that they sit in secondary. There have occasionally been issues with putting too much in a pensions Bill, and creating problems with the market being able to adapt as we go. So I think that this is actually the right thing to do, albeit that we would welcome further clarity from regulators around the fact that they would like to start small and grow—at the moment there is very little detail on the value for money measurements. We are talking actively with them, but it is useful to get the reassurance that we will start from a principle small basis and move out, rather than potentially creating additional burdens for schemes during what will be, on a number of fronts, quite a busy pensions reform road map.

Sophia Singleton: We very much support almost all the provisions in the Bill; mandation, as we have already talked about, is the exception. Where would we go further? There are two things that we would ask for.

The first is in relation to DB surplus. We have talked about how we were pleased to see that the safeguards were in place—we feel that they are very robust. We would like some clarity in the Bill, though, that that provision overrides any existing restrictions in scheme rules, because as it is currently drafted there are some schemes that might not be able to utilise that provision. We have provided some more details about making it open to all in our submission—making it clear that the provision overrides any existing restrictions, subject to the safeguards being properly used and so on.

The second one is an addition that we would love to see to the Bill: the removal of the admin levy, which pays towards the Pension Protection Fund admin costs. The DWP did a review in 2022 that concluded that it was no longer needed—it is a cost to schemes and therefore to employers. We have prepared a simple draft for the legislation that we have shared with you and the DWP that would remove it, and it is a very easy way to remove a cost on employers.

Helen Forrest Hall: If I could just add one point on the DB surplus, because Sophia’s points reminded me of it, I think there are a couple of areas where there could be further easements. They are not necessarily for a pensions Bill—some of them are more Finance Bill-related—but in giving trustees full flexibility to consider all the beneficiaries of a scheme, it would be useful if there were further easements that enabled them to make, for example, one-off payments to members without being subject to extraneous tax charges and, similarly, that would allow employers to pay some of that surplus as DC contributions into another trust. At the moment, the legislation does not provide for that, and obviously that would be a way to help trustees, and actually employers, who might be looking to enhance their pension provision overall—not just being able to move money around within one legal structure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

Q Going back to the consolidation of small pots, have you any thoughts or comments on the timeframes involved in how that would be implemented, particularly in the context of the roll-out of the pensions dashboard, which has taken quite some time to be rolled out in the industry?

Patrick Heath-Lay: The Government have put forward a default consolidator model. We are completely supportive of that; we think it is the right solution to tidy up the 13 million small deferred pots that are out there and those that are being created on a daily basis. That model has been done with extensive consultation with the industry.

To go back to the first question, which was about all the different options that have been considered before, we do think that this is the right approach. A couple of things around it are critical. First, we need to make sure that the technical solutions—the IT capability or infrastructure—should be as efficient as possible. We are contributing to the various pieces of research being done at the moment to evaluate which models are in existence and ready to be utilised. There is no doubt that the dashboard will contain some elements that will be helpful, such as a pension finder, that will be helpful, and I suspect that they will utilise pieces of that technology. But I do think—and I suspect the conclusion will be—that we need something new. Some of the expertise in the industry can be leveraged. I suspect that that is expertise that our organisations can provide. Given that we have already addressed the big pension savings gap for savers, we can help to develop that model.

On whether the solution is doable within the timeframe, 2030 is a big ask, but we should have that target to go after. We should try to be in a position where default consolidators exist in the market, we are developing the solution and we are able to solve the problem, because the number of small pots being created almost daily by the industry is a big problem for savers.

Ian Cornelius: I agree with Patrick. It is a problem that needs fixing. We also support the default consolidator approach. The sequencing is sensible: we want scheme consolidation first and then small pots, because there is no point in going through the complexity of consolidating small pots before consolidating at the scheme level. Dashboards will help, but they will not solve the problem. A solution is required, because this is driving a lot of cost and a lot of complexity. It would be nice if it were sooner than 2030. Given the ambition of the Bill as a whole, I think that that is probably realistic, but it does need to come after scheme consolidation, as I say.

Patrick Heath-Lay: The requirements on those organisations that choose to apply to be default consolidators need to be of a good standard. Our organisations operate a single-pot model. Whenever anyone rejoins from a different employer, their money goes into exactly the same pension pot. That is not a common model across the industry. Things like that should be thought through when defining the requirements for being a consolidator. Those that wish to apply need to hit a good regulatory standard to ensure that value is delivered through those models.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

Q Patrick, we have heard loud and clear your message that getting the value for money framework right is at the core of this. The Bill aims to put that on a sound footing. Which elements are required to get it right? How do you think the Bill will help to build them up?

Patrick Heath-Lay: As a package, the Bill brings forward the concept of value for money in a general sense. We need to move the conversation in our industry, particularly the conversation around workplace pensions, to the subject of value. We are all here to deliver value for members. The bit that always gets a lot of conversation is what value really means, but you cannot walk past the three fundamental drivers of a pension proposition, which are the investment return we give our members, what we charge them for it, and how our service shows up for them, probably in those moments of truth when they need us for guidance. Those are the three core elements to value, which we should not walk past.

We see this as an incredibly important area. I certainly believe that we should try to get this right as an industry, as best we can, from day one, because I think that it will be an important measure that we—regulators, Government, everyone—will lean on to understand how these reforms are playing through.

As an organisation, we have led a pound-for-pound initiative that others have joined. We brought in expertise from Australia, which is about 20 years ahead of us, and brought together a group of providers that are effectively going to dry-run some value for money measures and utilise that concept to provide some findings to regulators and Government that will hopefully help the iteration of our value for money framework. We really do see this framework as an important area, and I would like to see those three elements at its core.

Ian Cornelius: The focus on value has to be the right thing for our members. That is what they care about; that is what we are here for. There is some complexity to work through, such as how you measure value and what timeline you measure it over. Quite lot of engagement is required. We are piloting and trialling it; we almost certainly will not get it right the first time. It will be important to make it as practical and simple as possible. As Patrick said, it has real potential, in combination with the rest of the Bill, to shift the focus from cost to value. In the past, there has undoubtedly been too much focus on cost and not enough on value.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

Yes.

Michelle Ostermann: We have several types of levies that support our organisation. If I may, I will just take a step back to help everyone to understand what role they play.

The PPF is not terribly well understood because we are a bit unique in this industry and there are only half a dozen bodies like us in the world. The UK is one of the few countries that have a protection fund such as this. In some ways we back as an insurer in that we collect premiums or levies from the industry from the 5,000 corporate DB schemes and backstop 9 million potential future members that still sit in those schemes. We collect the levies and hold them in reserve much like an insurance company. We are not an insurance company, but we do so much like they would mathematically and with similar models.

At the same time, if a corporation fails, we take its pension scheme, which is usually underfunded, and its orphan members and put them into a pension scheme. We are both a pension manager and an insurer of sorts. When there is a failure and a scheme comes to us with insufficient assets to make good on its pension liabilities, we take some of our reserves almost as a claim, and move them over to the pension fund so that it is fully funded at all times using a largely liability-driven investment-type strategy. The levies that we collect are twofold: first we collect a levy related to the risk of the industry. You may be familiar with our purple book and the industry-wide assessment we do. We monitor the risk of that entire complicated £1 trillion industry to decide how much to set aside as reserves.

Our reserves are often referred to as a surplus, but they are not a surplus; they are reserves sitting there for potential claims in 50, 80 or 100 years. We will be the last man standing in this industry. We are here as an enduring and perpetual solution. As long as there is DB in the industry, we will have to backstop it. We set aside those reserves for the 9 million members and current £1 trillion in case of future market environments that we cannot predict today. Those levies have been collected over 20 years from the constituents of that industry. We have collected just over £10 billion from that levy system and have paid out £9.5 billion of it as claims to the pension fund.

As those levies were coming in over that 20-year period we were investing them in an open DB growth-type strategy. As such, we have built up £14 billion of reserves and so now consider ourselves largely self-funding. We no longer need to collect that levy from the industry now that those reserves are sitting there—in so far as we can best tell with our models today. We prefer to reserve the right to turn it back on should we need it in the case of a market correction event, some unforeseen circumstance or an evolution in the industry. However, right now, those fees are no longer required by us; it is a risk assessment that is suggesting that.

[Mr Bedford]

Q Building on Steve’s question on the levy, some hon. Members have asked about surplus extraction feeding into the overall risk profile in the markets. Clearly, if that was to happen and there was perceived to be an increased risk, it could result in an increase in the levy. The Bill allows for the levy to be reduced to zero. What are your thoughts about that?

Michelle Ostermann: We have thought a fair bit about that. We do not see very many scenarios in which we would need to turn it on, although it is always difficult to predict. As you know, the industry evolves in many ways and over the 20 years we have seen quite an evolution, including the creation of new alternative covenant schemes and commercial consolidators. We will backstop those as well, and we will need to charge a levy for them. There could be an unforeseen market event, similar to that just described, so we need the ability to turn the levy back on—simply to keep it as a lever. Today, the legislation reads that if we were to lower it to 0%, we can only increase it year on year by 25%. However, 25% of zero is zero, so we are a bit cornered. We have asked for a measure that would allow us to increase it by as much as a few hundred million a year. The most we have ever charged in one year was just over £500 million.

As I said, we have collected £10 billion gradually over many years. The new measure allows us to increase it by no more than 25% of the ceiling number every year, which is currently £1.4 billion. That means we could go up as much as £350 million in a single year, if needs be. However, we are a very patient long-term investor. Even though we are taking on closed corporate DB schemes, we run it as if we were an open scheme, because we are open to new members all the time. As such, our investment strategy does most of the heavy lifting for our organisation now.

On our £14 billion reserves, we make over £1 billion a year in gains from that investment strategy, which funds the £1 billion we pay out in the pension scheme to members. We are now a mature organisation that should be able to maintain a steady state. The most we would be able to increase the levy by in one year is £350 million, but we would expect to be patient, wait a few years, and try to ride out the situation not needing it, only turning it back on should we need it. We consult before we turn it on and we take a lot of feedback on this. We are quite thoughtful, as we have always been, and I hope people agree.

[Mr Bedford]

Q I am just interested in examples of recent shocks that have happened, where you had to pay out significant sums and what those sums were.

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

[John Milne]

Q It has been a long-standing battle over pre-1997 compensation rights. Would you agree that this Bill is perhaps an opportunity to at last address that issue, perhaps by a judicious amendment or two? Do you think that that is feasible, and what framework might that take?

Michelle Ostermann: We have been progressing on this quite a bit lately. It is one of the most prevalent discussions, both with our board and with our members. We speak very often with the entirety of the industry. Several are very strong advocates for it as well, a few of which are here today, and we have taken quite a bit of humble feedback. We have worked as best we can with the Work and Pensions Committee to estimate a significantly complex set of potential scenarios for making good on historical indexation needs for pre-’97. They range in price, are quite expensive and would require us to incur or crystallise a liability. They are not cheap. It would be difficult for both us and the Government to be able to afford. The taxpayer would have an implication to some of these, depending on how they are formed, and it is beyond our prerogative to make that decision but we have been facilitating and encouraging it to be made. We would welcome progress on that. I understand, in fact, an amendment was tabled earlier today in that regard, so I was warmed by that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I understand very well the issue that my hon. Friend raises. As a former chair of Feeding Leicester, the programme to end hunger in my city, I see only too clearly the links between poverty and dependence on emergency food parcels. I am very proud that we have already slashed deductions in universal credit and extended the crisis and resilience fund, providing it with its first three-year funding settlement. There is much more to do. We want to make sure that children have hungry minds, not hungry bellies, and we are determined to deliver that.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

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

[Liz Kendall]

The Labour party believes that everybody who can work must work. The hon. Gentleman should look at his own party’s record: progress on the disability employment gap and the lone parent employment rate stalled under its watch, and economic inactivity rose. We are the only country in the G7 whose employment rate has not got back to pre-pandemic levels. We are overhauling our employment system to help more people into work, and to get on in work. I am proud of our record; maybe he should look at his own.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I will do my best, Sir Roger. I want to address new clause 8, tabled in my name. It is a procedural clause and I do not think it is particularly contentious.

Before I address the new clause, I want to say that I am still getting emails and still being met on the bus and at community events by people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through. I want to put on record for my constituents that, as always, I will not vote for any legislation that cuts benefits to some of the poorest people I represent. I just cannot do that and I want that underlined.

Ironically, just to give some context, some Members may have listened today to an interview on the “Today” programme with George Osborne, who is now the chair of the British Museum, in which he was talking about the Bayeux tapestry coming to this country. I remember another tapestry, which was brought to this House when he introduced cuts to benefits for disabled people. It showed the names of the people who had committed suicide. Do hon. Members remember that? It was one of the most distressing things I have seen in my political life and I wept that day. I do not want that to happen again. Let us be honest, as sure as night follows day, if cuts go through on the scale proposed, people will lose their lives. People will suffer immense harm. Let us all understand that.

Members talk pompously about “The House at its best”, but last week’s debate was a good day for the House. People on all sides expressed their views, the Government responded, although not as far as I wanted them to respond, and the House held the Government to account. It is not often that we see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened was that we were dealing with primary legislation that hon. Members could debate and amend. I have put this new clause forward because, if the Government do anything, they should do it through primary legislation and not delegated legislation, which goes on in Committee, where there is no chance to amend it and it is often rushed through on a vote with no debate. This matter is so important that that is not the way we should operate as a House.

Last week, hon. Members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this Chamber. That is why my new clause says that the Government must bring forward primary legislation in draft form so that we can all see it—no bouncers any more—and it is not done as delegated legislation so that Members do not have the chance to amend it or properly discuss it. That is all I ask for, and to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it, because it is the normal democratic process in this Chamber. I want to be able to go back to my constituents when the review comes forward, and say, “I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I won on some and lost on others—that’s democracy.”

I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). It is truly an excellent setting out of how co-production could work. The only element on which I disagree with her is when the process moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement, which we could reject so that they could not move on. The problem with that is exactly the same as with delegated legislation: we cannot amend a statement. I have been here so long that I know what Governments do. They bring forward a statement including some good stuff that we cannot vote against, but there is also some bad stuff that we disagree with. If we cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result, we get bad legislation. None the less, the part of new clause 11 that sets out who should be consulted, be involved and elect the chair is critical.

I do not want to sound patronising, but the speech made by the hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week brought tears to my eyes, and it is not often a speech in this House does that. The justified anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, and I think it moved the whole House. I do not want a Member standing up in five years’ time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not aggressively but constructively, in a way that we can debate and amend, and hopefully we might even be able to build consensus. That is what my new clause is all about, and that is all I want to say.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues.

New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I hope the hon. Member does not mind my intervening on him, but I want to pick up on the point he was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Is he aware that during the pandemic, for example, people who have leave to remain were unable to avail themselves of any social security support as they do not have recourse to public funds, and that they were left absolutely destitute? I hope he will withdraw his remark, because it is just not true.

[Mr Bedford]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am not going to withdraw the comment I made, because there are people in that situation—

[Hon. Members]

No, there are not!

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order.

[Mr Bedford]

The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent Nick, who works hard for the money he earns and pays into system, walks through his town centre, he asks himself, “What is the point? Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often don’t?” These amendments matter. They are not unfair; they are principled. They would ensure that the welfare system remained strong for those who truly need it, and fair for those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act, and unfortunately, if the Government do not support our amendments today, they will be letting the public down.

Pension Schemes Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Cross-party working is essential to ensuring that there is public confidence in a system we will all need to use in our twilight years. That is why Conservative Members are ready to work constructively to improve this legislation and, where necessary, to provide a “critical friend” approach and challenge the Government’s thinking. When it comes to pensions and the long-term financial security of our constituents, we should not play party politics. It is in this spirit that I raise my own concerns with the Bill.

The Bill does not focus enough on increasing the amount of money flowing into people’s pension pots—something we literally cannot afford to ignore. I am proud that it was the last Conservative Government that led the introduction of auto-enrolment—a significant pensions reform that dramatically improved individuals’ financial wellbeing in later life. The 8% contribution was a game changer. Yes, the system relies on inertia, but for the first time, millions of workers began saving for their retirement. We must now confront an uncomfortable truth: the contribution rate looks less adequate by the day. Too many of our constituents are heading towards retirement without the income they will need. For example, the Pensions Policy Institute has highlighted that 9 million UK adults are currently under-pensioned.

Inaction is not an option. We are allowing people to sleepwalk into a retirement crisis. The level of auto-enrolment contribution was never intended to be a silver bullet. Instead, it was conceived as a foundation or starting point for pension savings. Importantly, that foundation was once supported by two key pillars: defined-benefit schemes, which offered guaranteed incomes to many, and higher levels of home ownership, which provided an asset to fall back on in later life. Both have eroded significantly over the last two decades. The 8% auto-enrolment rate on its own is woefully inadequate, and many workers will not realise that in respect of their own financial circumstances until it is too late.

It would be all too easy to simply raise the auto-enrolment rate to some arbitrary level, but we would find ourselves back here in 15 years’ time having the same conversation about a system where inertia and disengagement continue. If we truly want lasting change, we cannot focus solely on the percentage; we need to dramatically improve how people engage with their savings. That starts with improving financial education. As the sponsor of a private Member’s Bill on this precise topic and as a chartered accountant by background, this is a cause on which I place great importance. Shockingly, though perhaps unsurprisingly, Standard Life has highlighted that three in four people do not know how much they have in pension savings. That needs to change through increased engagement, but also by allowing savers increased control over their own savings. People should be able to easily view all their pots in one place, which is why it is frustrating to have seen delays to the roll-out of the pensions dashboard, which many hon. Members have mentioned.

The pensions dashboard will encourage individuals to make active choices, to understand their options and to assess whether their current savings are enough for their desired lifestyle in retirement.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On that note, does the hon. Member agree that we should also make it easier for people to understand what a defined-contribution scheme pot actually means for them in retirement—that is, how much income it will get them on a monthly or annual basis, rather than just, “This is the value of the pot”?

[Mr Bedford]

The hon. Member makes an important point. That goes back to financial education and ensuring that people truly understand their pensions and savings.

Increasing savings is important, but we need to ensure that it is driven by individuals who understand and can shape their own financial futures. Other countries have looked at increasing incentives for saving. South Africa and the US have schemes that enable people to draw from their pension pots in tightly defined circumstances, such as for emergencies or investment opportunities. Such flexibility would increase confidence in pension savings and help address the other concerning fact that 21% of UK adults have less than £1,000 set aside for emergencies, leaving them susceptible to economic shocks outside of their control and, in turn, less likely to prioritise savings in their pensions.

Poor pensions adequacy does not just harm retirees; it has serious implications for the state. As our life expectancy continues to rise, the state’s pension bill will continue to increase. Benefits like pension credit will increase exponentially as the lack of adequate private provision leaves more and more relying on the state. As we saw just last week, it is often incredibly hard to reform welfare. As a Conservative, I believe that the answer lies in personal responsibility and in encouraging and helping people to build up their own private pension provision for the benefit of themselves, their family and, ultimately, the rest of society.

[Kit Malthouse]

My hon. Friend is making a strong speech and some strong points. Does he agree that the alarm bells he is ringing about financial education, the under-provision of pensions and longevity are even more stark and alarming next to the demographic change that means that over the next 30 years, we will see the number of workers per pensioner plummet? We will go from about 3.6 workers per pensioner at the moment to well under three by 2070, which means that even if pensions are not enough, the country will not be able to afford to plug the gap as it does at the moment?

[Mr Bedford]

My right hon. Friend makes a compelling case. As I said in my speech, this goes back to financial education and ensuring that we all understand the implications of pensions adequacy.

My concern about adequacy does not mean that the Bill does not have its merits. The continuation of Conservative policy, the small pots consolidation and the creation of megafunds are sensible reforms that will increase individuals’ pension pots by reducing dormant pots and increasing economies of scale. However, this is a missed opportunity for a Government with a large majority. They could have acted more boldly, moved faster and improved pension adequacy throughout the United Kingdom.

I would like a clear commitment from the Government that they are actively looking at improving pensions adequacy. The Labour party has long professed to be the party of workers, yet some who look at the Bill will sense that it does not go far enough in preventing the UK from declining into being a society funded by welfare in retirement. Let us encourage people to strive, work hard and save more for a better future. I very much hope that the Government will work collegiately and cross party with His Majesty’s Opposition in Committee to ensure that our constituents do not sleepwalk into a retirement crisis.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

So there we have it: a Prime Minister not in control, a Work and Pensions Secretary with her hands tied behind her back, and a Chancellor now scrambling to find ways to balance the books after months of reckless spending. This shoddy attempt at welfare reform has revealed something that the nation has learned over the last year: Labour did not plan for government. We all know that the welfare bill is enormous, with more than £150 billion being spent on benefits for working-age adults. A staggering one in four claim to have some form of disability; that is simply unsustainable.

The Government had a prime opportunity in their first year in office—their honeymoon period—to bring about long-term reforms, yet this half-baked Bill, which has already been hastily rewritten to appease hard-left Government Members, does not even achieve the £5 billion of savings originally intended. Worse, it leaves us with a two-tier system from a two-tier Prime Minister.

We all know why the Chancellor needs these savings: she will go down as the Klarna Chancellor—spend now, pay later. After all, she has blown taxpayers’ money on 25 more pointless quangos.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Bedford]

I am not giving away.

The Chancellor has also blown billions of pounds on GB Energy—a project so vague that no one seems to know what it does—while handing out inflation-busting pay rises to appease the unions. Now she cannot even claw back £5 billion of savings to keep market confidence as the country’s debt spirals out of control.

When the Work and Pensions Secretary tabled the Bill, Conservative Members gave her three reasonable asks. First, we needed the Government to commit to reducing welfare spending, yet as their screeching U-turn shows, they are incapable of tackling that problem. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts an increase of £60 billion in annual welfare costs by the end of the Parliament.

Secondly, we asked for a clear commitment that the Government would get people back to work. However, as was highlighted by the Secretary of State yesterday, the pathways to work programme will not be fully funded until the end of the Parliament, so it will arguably be inconsequential, weak and woefully underfunded.

[Phil Brickell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Mr Bedford]

I am not giving away; I am going to make progress. The hon. Member can repay the favour sometime.

Thirdly, we needed a guarantee that taxes would not rise again in the upcoming Budget. But let us be honest: the Chancellor has only one move left—she will raid the pockets of hard-working families, which is something Labour promised not to do. Even today, we have heard rumours in the media that she is coming after people’s ISAs.

It is painfully clear that the Government have lost their fiscal credibility. I say to my constituents: I will always be there to support you and I will fight your corner when the Government come back again for more of your hard-earned income to cover their incompetence. This embarrassing failure of leadership from a Government who should be at the height of their power has led Conservative Members to conclude that we cannot and will not support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Organised gangs operate in many spheres—sex, drugs and, as reported in the media, our welfare system. This totally undermines public confidence in the system. Will the Minister make representations to the Home Secretary to ensure that foreign nationals who are found to have abused our welfare system are removed from the country?

[Andrew Western]

I am very happy to raise with the Home Office the issue that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted, but I would say to him, and indeed to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench, that what genuinely undermines confidence in the welfare system is the record of the previous Government, who allowed welfare fraud to spiral towards £10 billion a year and failed to take the powers needed, as we are doing now, to get that number down.

Winter Fuel Payment

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, so the answer is yes. He also provides me with an opportunity to clarify a point that has not been covered in the last hour or so: the payment will continue not to be exportable for those not resident in the UK.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that those pensioners who missed out on their payment in the winter of 2024 and will qualify under these rules should be reimbursed for the money they lost?

[Torsten Bell]

My view is that all pensioners are being supported by our higher level of the basic state pension and the new state pension, supported by the difficult decisions that the Government have been able to take. All pensioners will be supported by a functioning NHS, which is what we are putting in place after the disgrace of the last 14 years. To answer the hon. Member’s question directly, we are setting out the system for future years and not for the past.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The House will know that we have consultations in a number of policy areas relating to my hon. Friend’s question. As I have said, in the end, young people need an opportunity at the start. In places like Thanet, where there are significant poverty and challenges but great opportunity, I want to ensure that we serve employers, and the young people who need them, much better.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Employers in my constituency tell me that they are less likely to employ young people as a result of the Employment Rights Bill because of the increased risk of employing someone at the start of their career. What representations has the Minister made to her colleagues to ensure that the most damaging parts of that legislation are softened?

[Alison McGovern]

The House may know that, on coming into office, the Secretary of State and I totally changed the way the Department for Work and Pensions approaches employers. We want to serve them much better, and we have given them a single point of contact. Having met many businesses over the past six or seven months, my experience has been that they have vacancies and want us to help fill them. We will do that so that we can serve employers and young people alike.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

There continue to be many problems with the Bill, but I recognise that the Minister and his team have had extensive conversations with the Scottish Government and made a number of amendments as a result. I welcome the communication between the two Governments and urge the Minister to ensure that the DWP team have extensive conversations in advance of the coming welfare Bill so that it will not need so many Government amendments on Report for how it interacts with Scottish legislation and Scottish systems.

I turn to new clause 1 on carer’s allowance. It would be completely fair to wait until a review has been done—there needs to be a significant look into that—as clawing back money from people without seeing the results of that review would be incredibly problematic. I am therefore happy to support the new clause.

On sickfluencers, I am concerned that although the shadow Minister has tried to draft new clause 21 to exclude people giving advice, it might unintentionally catch some of those people. On that basis, I am not keen to support it as I would be worried about people who offer genuine advice being caught up in that. However, I understand that she attempted to draft it carefully to try to avoid that.

I would be more than happy to support amendment 11 —the SNP will support it—on the suspicion of wrongdoing. I am thinking in particular about the speech made by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). I was not going to mention the propensity of former MPs to claim things fraudulently, but in looking at who actually costs the taxpayer significant amounts of money, if the Government were to say, “We know that people who hold millions of pounds in offshore trust funds often dodge tax, so we are going to survey all their bank accounts,” I imagine that there would be some sort of uprising, particularly from some wealthier people we are aware of. But because the Government are saying, “It’s cool; it’s just poor people who will be impacted,” we are all expected to assume that this surveillance is fine. It is not fine; it is an absolute imposition on people’s lives. As many have said, it is treating everybody as though they are fraudsters.

Let us look at the amount of money set to be saved. The Government will save less money annually than the DWP makes in overpayments. Rather than imposing on so many people’s civil liberties, surely cracking down on DWP official error overpayments, which would save more money, would be a better place to begin. It is absolutely daft.

I completely agree with new clause 7, tabled by my colleagues the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), particularly in relation to the reasonable expectation that people could understand that they had been overpaid. A constituent contacted me recently because they had a letter telling them that they are to be migrated to universal credit. They are terrified that they will be deported because the word “migrated” was used in that letter. They do not understand the language used by the DWP. Given that universal credit is so complicated to calculate, so many people could not reasonably have been expected to understand that they were being overpaid. The DWP should take that into account before looking at mass surveillance.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

The Bill addresses the serious issue of fraud and error in our public services. I welcome the Government’s continuation of the work of the previous Government to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the integrity of our welfare system. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would not undermine the Bill; they would enhance it. Our amendments would preserve the fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality while strengthening the tools at our disposal to tackle wrongdoing.

In that spirit, I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 21. New clause 8 is a measured and necessary proposal that would simply bring the Department for Work and Pensions in line with other Government bodies, such as HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which already have the power to issue arrest warrants for cases of serious fraud against the state. Why should it lack those enforcement capabilities when the crimes that it deals with are just as serious?

The taxpayer enters into a social contract with the state—a contract based on trust, responsibility and accountability. My constituents pay their taxes and quite rightly expect that those who cheat, lie or exploit the system will face the consequences. We in this House are the guardians of that social contract. If the public believe that we are turning a blind eye to fraud or failing to act decisively, that trust begins to erode and the social contract will be put at risk. Illegal actions must have legal consequences. In supporting new clause 8, the Government could send a clear and unequivocal message: fraud and deceit have no place in our society.

Turning to new clause 21, it has recently been highlighted that individuals are using social media to promote ways of defrauding the system, including through the Motability scheme. That is deeply troubling. Although Ministers have previously responded positively to my questions on that, the current version of the Bill does not go far enough. Unless the Government support our amendments, they will fail to take the concrete steps needed to address that evolving form of deceit.

This House has an opportunity today to work across party lines to further strengthen the Bill and reaffirm our commitment to protecting the social contract between the Government and those governed. Let us act with unity and resolve to reduce fraud, restore public trust and ensure that our systems work for those who truly need them and not for those who seek to abuse them.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Under the previous Conservative Government, fraudsters got away with claiming billions of pounds of covid support funds, as an eyewatering £39.8 billion went uncollected due to tax evasion and other criminal activity. While vulnerable members of our society have seen their benefits cut and our public services are in need of investment, it is not right that public spending has been misplaced into the pockets of fraudsters. I am therefore grateful for many of the measures in the Bill that will work to reduce instances of fraud. However, I have concerns about some of the broader measures regarding the powers the legislation would give the Department for Work and Pensions and the potentially intrusive impact that could have on the civil liberties of citizens.

I speak in support of new clause 23, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), which would require a report to Parliament within six months on the causes and cost of public sector fraud during the covid-19 pandemic. The report would include an account of any fraudulent payments and a review of procurement practices during covid, including contracting for suppliers and the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions, as well as an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight to prevent fraud against public authorities. Much of that work has already been undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee—I am a member, as I was in the previous Parliament—and it would be worthwhile for the Minister to take a look at some of our reporting on those topics.

If failings are found, the new clause would require an outline of corrective actions, including a statement to this House to acknowledge the findings and to set out actions planned to ensure that any failings are not repeated. With public trust in politics at alarmingly low levels, we must take all possible steps to ensure integrity and the highest possible standards in governance. The cronyism, rule breaking and sleaze scandals of the last Conservative Government did huge damage to public trust in politics and politicians in this country. The new clause would lead to an increase of accountability and I urge the Minister to accept it.

Even though I am glad to see the Government introduce measures that would crack down on instances of fraud, I have grave concerns about some of the broader measures in this legislation that would lead to an unacceptable increase in intrusion on individual privacy. That is why I speak in favour of amendment 2, which would revoke clause 74 and remove the requirement for banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts. Some measures in the Bill raise significant concerns regarding the privacy of individuals, and I have heard from constituents who are alarmed at some of the powers that could be introduced with this legislation. I believe that fraud must be rooted out and that more should be done to prevent fraud from happening in the first place. However, clause 74 is an unnecessary and invasive step that I urge the Government to refrain from taking.

I have heard from people who are concerned about the powers granted in the Bill because it enables the Government to have direct access to individuals’ bank accounts and even enables the DWP to withdraw funds or revoke driving licences. That concern is particularly serious when it comes to vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, disabled people and those living in poverty, who could face devastating consequences as a result of wrongful penalties.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to cracking down on fraud. There were clear failures by the previous Conservative Government during the covid pandemic, which we saw highlighted in the PPE procurement scandal and the bypassing of the usual procurement rules via the VIP lane. It is essential that proper rules are in place to ensure that public spending is carried out in an effective, efficient and transparent way, and I am glad to support new clause 23, which would strengthen transparency and accountability on this issue. However, grave concerns about the intrusive powers that this legislation could introduce have been expressed across the House today, particularly those that allow the Government to require banks and other financial institutions to share client data, and as such, I urge the Minister to accept amendment 2 to revoke clause 74.