Autumn Statement Resolutions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Against a pretty horrendous economic backdrop, it was with bated breath and no little trepidation that we on the SNP Benches waited to see what the Chancellor would drop. The backdrop is certainly about as far removed as anyone could ever have hoped it would have been going into such a crucial period. Not only is GDP per capita still not above 2019 pre-pandemic levels, but the UK is expected to suffer the biggest fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s. Most people are expected to be worse off in 2027 than they were in 2019. Real incomes are also expected to be lower in 2027 than they were in 2019. A typical household will be worse off by approximately £694 per annum by 2027-28 as a result of the policies of this Conservative Government who are so adamant, in the face of all outcomes and facts, that they get the big decisions right. That is certainly not borne out by the outlook for the economy under their stewardship.

Sadly, there was nothing at all in the Chancellor’s statement that offered any kind of meaningful change for the millions of people in Scotland and elsewhere who are really struggling right now against that economic backdrop. Last week’s announcements were a clear reminder for people in Scotland, if any were needed, that we cannot hope to build a fair, dynamic economy while being tied to UK Governments who, through their actions, do not reflect the preferences, choices or values that people consistently express at the ballot box when they go to vote.

On the statement, there is the old proverb about the couple who stop for directions and are told, rather unhelpfully, “I wouldn’t be starting from here.” Let us not be in any doubt: we certainly would not wish to be starting from here. We would not wish to be labouring with the aftermath of Brexit, which has permanently given the UK economy the effect of trying to drive a car with the handbrake wedged firmly on. We certainly would not be coming off the back of the catastrophic Budget driven by the right hon. Members for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) and for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), which blew up the economy. Despite that, and in spite of everything, the Chancellor did have slightly more headroom—about £20 billion—than had been forecast. The question was: how would he seek to put that to work?

I will start with the few positives I can find. The uplifting of benefits by 6.7% in line with the higher rate of inflation really is the least the Chancellor could have done. It will still leave too many people struggling and wondering how they are going to pay their bills. It was the very least that should have been done on uplifting the rate. Uplifting the local housing allowance was important. My party called for, and we welcome, allowing rates of housing benefit to be paid at rates that more closely match where the market actually is. A freeze in whisky duty certainly does not undo the damage of the spring Budget, where a 10.1% levy was whacked on the spirit, but at least it makes things no worse.

If the House will permit me, I would like to take the opportunity, while I have a captive audience on the Treasury Bench, to explain why whisky duty matters. The Scotch whisky industry supports 10,000 jobs in Scotland and 42,000 jobs across the whole of the UK. It also represents 25% of total UK food and drink exports. One would think that this is an industry that the Government would want to look after, nurture, take care of and give every possible opportunity to succeed. The level of duty affects domestic consumption and also affects the investment that goes into supporting those jobs. But here’s the rub: it also impacts how other jurisdictions in key markets, particularly the Asian markets, react, because many of them take their cue from the level of duty set by the UK Government. If they see the UK Government setting a rate of duty where there is a gigantic differential between indigenous spirits such as Scotch whisky and other drinks in the market, then they have absolutely no qualms about following suit. That depresses potential sales in key emerging markets and reduces the opportunities we have to drive growth and innovation in that key sector at home.

As for the bigger picture, nothing in the Chancellor’s statement offered meaningful change to the millions of people out there who are suffering at the moment. What the statement did offer was a clear reminder that, as I have said, the key powers over the commanding heights of the economy will do nothing for Scotland while they continue to remain under the control of Governments who do not share the values that people vote for. Sadly, as the soaring cost of household bills outpaces the limited help that was on offer in the statement, the reality is that what was offered is far too little, coming far too late for the squeezed majority of households.

The SNP set what I thought were some pretty basic fundamental tests for the statement: a relatively small number of asks that could nevertheless have made a big difference. We asked for a £400 energy rebate, something that the UK Government have sadly failed to provide although energy bills continue to be roughly double what they were in 2021—and moreover, the day after the statement the energy price cap was increased by a further 5%. We challenged the UK Government to match the council tax freeze by the SNP Government in Edinburgh, which will put a disproportionately high amount of money into the pockets of the lowest earners. We also challenged them to match the game-changing Scottish child payment of £25 a week, another measure that is putting thousands of pounds into the pockets of those who need it most. That payment was highlighted in a recent blog by the London School of Economics as one of the key reasons why the level of child poverty in Scotland—although far too high—is still significantly lower than it is in any other part of the UK.

The UK Government could also have given some respite to hard-pressed homeowners, many of whom are looking down the barrel of significant increases in their mortgage payments as a result of higher interest rates. They could have done that by introducing mortgage interest rate relief, but they chose not to do so.

For my part of Scotland, the north-east, we challenged the UK Government to match what the Scottish Government are doing in kick-starting the energy revolution, the green transition that we need—to match the £500 million set aside purely for the north-east—but we got nothing, although we know how crucial that energy transition is to ensuring fairness, retaining human capital and prosperity, and delivering the changes that not only our economy but our planet needs.

We are invited to believe that the goal of the statement was growth. Let me draw attention to two key areas in which the UK Government have, in my view, been found to be badly wanting. The first is capital spending. There are obviously pressures to maintain existing assets, as we all know from the emergence of the problems that reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete has caused in many public sector buildings constructed over the past 40 years. We can see the waste caused by overspending: the horrendous waste of money represented by some of the stations in central London on the Elizabeth line, a railway that did go ahead, and by the cancellation of HS2 and the bits of that line that did not go ahead. However, we need to recognise the importance not just of private sector capital expenditure, but of the key driving, galvanising force that capital expenditure from the Government and the public sector can have. It drives and encourages investment from the private sector, and, crucially, it increases the productive capacity of each and every one of us. It is therefore unfathomable that the UK Government should cut the Scottish Government’s capital budget by 6.7% between 2023-24 and 2027-28—a figure that will potentially become even higher if inflation persists at its current levels—all the while refusing to devolve long-term borrowing powers.

Secondly, there is a persistent negative when it comes to research and development. There are parts of the UK that punch pretty well above their weight in that regard, most obviously the south-east of England and London but also Scotland. However, there are other parts, such as the regions of England and also Wales, where R&D spending is significantly below the share of GDP, and also below the share of the population that might be expected to be able to attract it. Beyond that, the UK’s investment in research and development consistently lags that of EU competitors such as France and Germany, which is a major drag on long-term growth and economic opportunities for all our constituents.

Looking through the additional spends and revenues forgone as a result of the statement, it seems to me—I am happy to be proved wrong—that the Government are committing more to returning full business rates to the combined authorities in Greater Manchester and the west midlands than they are to research and development or anything that might drive that forward. Lest anyone assail me, I have absolutely no grudge against the west midlands of England or the Greater Manchester combined authority—more power to them! I do not know whether the Greater Manchester combined authority extends to Chorley, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

We are in Lancashire.

[Richard Thomson]

Perhaps some reflected benefit will come through. Those authorities are entitled to every penny that they can get back from this Government, and I wish them well in that endeavour, but it pales in comparison with the strategic importance of research and development, in policy terms and numerically. Until the Government get to grips with the long-term lack of investment in our public sector, our human capital, our physical capital and our R&D, we can expect the country to lag behind.

It is no secret that I come here as a supporter of Scottish independence. I would dearly love to see Governments in Scotland being able to make their own budgets, constrained only by the limits of their own resources, their own choices, their own imaginations and their own political mandates, and with restrictions placed on them by nowhere else. But until that day comes, we are stuck with what this Government and potential UK Governments come forward with, which, I have to say, we find badly wanting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Gentleman is missing the purpose of the reforms that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions clearly outlined earlier today. Perhaps if he had been in the Chamber, he could have listened to it directly.

When this Government came to power, we inherited not only higher unemployment from Labour, as always, but a lopsided welfare system that discouraged people from even seeking work. In the last 13 years, by reducing workless households, tackling low pay and reforming the welfare system, we have helped hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty. In the wake of covid-19, we have nearly 1 million vacancies in the economy, yet more than 7 million adults of working age, not including students, are still not working. Even Opposition Members seem to recognise that many of them want to work, and therefore we will be spending £1.3 billion over the next five years to help nearly 700,000 people with physical and mental health conditions to find jobs. And we will provide a further £1.3 billion of funding to offer extra help for the 300,000 people who have been unemployed for over a year, to help them find work.

The Government also recognise that, to get more people working, we must back business, as it is business that creates the jobs and pays the wages that lift up our communities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) articulated. We will help the households of this country by boosting business through a variety of measures outlined in the autumn statement. Of course, the much-asked-for full expensing will be pivotal. We are also providing £4.5 billion over five years to support strategic manufacturing sectors that already have, or can gain, a competitive edge, namely in aerospace, automotive, clean energy and life sciences, as mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and others.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned, we are also supporting small businesses in this autumn statement. For those smaller businesses that are so integral to their communities, we are freezing the small business multiplier and extending the 75% business rate support for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses for another year. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East and my hon. Friends the Members for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), and others, for highlighting the importance of the tourism sector, which they know I care passionately about.

We are also establishing new investment zones throughout the country that will generate billions of pounds of investment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) and for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) highlighted.

There are other things we can do to ensure that work rewards workers, such as increasing their rate of pay and making sure they keep more of their earnings, which is exactly what we have done. We are abolishing class 2 national insurance contributions and cutting class 4 contributions. Alongside these cuts, we are raising the national living wage by 9.8% to £11.44 an hour and, of course, we are cutting the main rate of employee national insurance by two percentage points, giving a tax cut to 27 million workers. The Opposition may not appreciate that, but I assure them that their constituents do.

These measures will create work, get people into work and make sure that work is rewarding, as Conservative Members have recognised, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton).

Before briefly addressing some of the other points that have been raised, I take this opportunity to congratulate the new hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) on her maiden speech. She started well by praising her constituents, which is always a good move, and I wish her well in this House.

The hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson) mentioned R&D, and the Government will merge the existing R&D expenditure credit scheme and small and medium-sized enterprise scheme from April 2024. This will simplify and improve the system, helping to drive innovation in the UK economy. That message of simplification was also pushed by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman). These reforms represent an overall increase in support to R&D companies of around £200 million a year by 2028-29.

The hon. Member for Gordon also mentioned the Scotch whisky industry. It is somewhat surprising, therefore, that his party’s Members have singularly failed to support any one of the new trade deals that we have signed and are signing, despite the fact that they support every single nation and region of the United Kingdom and are transparently in the interests of their constituents.

[Richard Thomson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Nigel Huddleston]

No, the hon. Gentleman has had plenty of time. I hope he will support the CPTPP deal when it comes before the House.

I always support Scotch whisky, which is a success story that we should all champion. It is a £6 billion export industry, and we can all be proud that 51 bottles of Scotch whisky are exported every second. Let us create more opportunities by supporting these trade deals.

The right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) mentioned the UK tax gap, and she is absolutely right to highlight that important matter but, of course, she is well aware that the tax gap is on a long-term downward trend. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world. The tax gap was 7.5% under Labour, and it is now at a record low of 4.8%, which is something she forgot to mention.

Perhaps most importantly, there is the context in which we have made this autumn statement, as was mentioned by many hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friends the Members for Wokingham (John Redwood) and for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double). I refer to the fact that we have faced difficult times, with not just one but two global shocks that have had an impact on, and reverberated around, the world. That meant that we were required, expected and proud to intervene in a way that we have not had to do since the second world war. The figures are astounding: more than £350 billion provided during the pandemic to make sure that we supported lives and livelihoods; and, in the light of the invasion of Ukraine, a further £100 billion of support to help those facing cost of living challenges, including our paying nearly half of people’s energy bills last winter.

The Opposition seem to have a collective sense of amnesia about that; it is astounding that they do not understand that all of this money needs to be paid back. Their constituents, who are managing their finances every day, completely understand that you cannot spend money you do not have and if you get into debt, it needs to be paid off. Today, not only are the Opposition criticising us for high taxes, but their solution then seems to be spending even more. That is absolute economic incompetence and shows that they are completely unfit for office. The reality is that Conservatives increase taxes out of necessity and then reduce them out of choice, whereas the Labour party increases taxes out of necessity and out of choice. That is a fundamental difference between our parties, and therefore at the first opportunity we have had to reduce taxes, because the economic circumstances are better—how disappointing is good economic news for those on the Opposition Benches—and we are now in a better economic position, we are now reducing taxes.

Another important theme we have seen from those on the Opposition Benches is this utter pessimism and lack of confidence and faith in the UK economy. We are not pretending, for one minute, that everything is perfect; we know, as constituency MPs, that many people in our constituencies, right across the country, are suffering—we are all aware of that. However, constantly talking the UK down is not only incorrect, but bad for business and for the UK economy. I hope that the Opposition Members understand that when they are talking Britain down, they are talking workers, businesses and their constituencies down. Expectations and confidence matter, as they are what lead to investment in the UK. Because of the confidence in the UK economy, we saw investment announced last week by Nissan, this very day we have the global investment summit taking place and we are seeing billions of pounds more of incremental investment coming into the UK. That is because other countries have confidence in the UK economy, as do Conservative Members. The Opposition are signalling that they do not, and that is a terrible signal to send to the world. Again, if you do not have confidence in the UK economy, you are not fit for office.

The Opposition are talking Britain down. We have seen a huge amount of incremental investment. The Opposition do not like to understand that, for example, we have the second highest level of foreign direct investment in the world, after only the US. Just recently, we have overtaken France and moved from being the ninth largest to the eighth largest manufacturing country in the world. Because of our exporting success, we have gone from being the sixth biggest to the fifth biggest exporter in the world, and we have the second largest export of services of any country in the world. The Opposition may not like those facts, but they are true and provide every reason why we are keen to talk Britain up.

Today, we have seen a positive debate and measures in the autumn statement that back both business and our citizens. From a platform of progress, this is an autumn statement for growth, which will bring jobs, opportunities and prosperity to every corner of the country. I commend the autumn statement to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That—

(1) In Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (table of rates of tobacco products duty), for the Table substitute—

“TABLE

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 4th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

For the House’s benefit, let me provide the full-time equivalent staffing levels in the Access to Work team a full six months ago and once the staff at Bradford have moved to Access to Work. The figure stood at 375.22 full-time equivalents in March 2023, and at 462.84 on 4 September 2023. That figure is expected to stand at 530.41 full-time equivalents by the end of October 2023 with the additional staff moving to the Access to Work team in Bradford. I direct the hon. Lady’s attention again to the figure from last week that 88% of claims were paid within 10 days. This is a priority for me as the Minister for Disabled People and for the Department as a whole.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

12. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the two-child limit on trends in the level of child poverty.

[Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

21. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the two-child limit on trends in the level of child poverty.

[The Minister for Employment (Guy Opperman)]

The Government’s firm belief is that the best route out of poverty is through work. In the most recent statistics—in 2021-22—there were 400,000 fewer children living in absolute poverty after housing costs than in 2009-10.

[Richard Thomson]

A recent study by the University of York found that the two-child limit and the benefit cap had contributed to rising child poverty, which, allied to wider benefit cuts, had impacted larger families disproportionately. Given the growing weight of evidence that families are being pushed further into hardship, will the Government finally acknowledge the real harm that their cruel and callous welfare policies are causing, and reverse them?

[Guy Opperman]

Families on benefits should face the same financial choices when deciding to grow their family as those supporting themselves solely through work. A benefit structure adjusting automatically to family size is unsustainable.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

6. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of benefits rates in the context of the rise in the level of inflation.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

9. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of universal credit payment levels in the context of the rise in the cost of living.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (David Rutley)]

We have announced £15 billion in further cost of living support, bringing our total package to £37 billion this year. Through the Government’s recent interventions, we are targeting those most in need. Our package equates to at least £1,200 for almost 8 million of the most vulnerable households, at a challenging time for many people.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I do not know the exact details of that case, but there may be opportunities in that household to explore pension credits. Of course, the Chancellor, with support from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, recently announced that the household support fund has also been increased by a further £500 million, until April next year.

[Richard Thomson]

The Scottish Government have doubled their game-changing Scottish child payment to £20 per child per week and will increase that to £25 by the end of the year, thereby supporting more than 100,000 children. Why will the UK Government not commit to increasing universal credit by an equivalent amount over the same timescale, and match that for and extend it to those on legacy benefits as well?

[David Rutley]

As we have highlighted, we have just set out a really significant increase in benefits payments as part of the package that is now worth £37 billion. As a result of the work we are doing not just to provide support but to enable people to get into work, there are now 200,000 fewer children in the UK who are in absolute poverty before housing costs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

Of course, I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, as I have always sought to do. I remind the House that there have been significant improvements in the public health situation, the vaccine roll-out is a huge success, our economy is opening up, restrictions are lifted, and we have a record number of vacancies in our labour market. Universal credit provides a safety net but it is not designed to trap people on welfare. Work is the best route out of poverty and to prosperity, but I am very happy to meet him to discuss this further.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

17. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the level of universal credit received by claimants.

[Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP)]

23. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of the level of universal credit received by claimants.

[Richard Thomson]

If the UK Government plough ahead with their planned cut to universal credit, it will result in one in three families with children in Scotland losing over £1,000 overnight and plunge 20,000 children into poverty. Does the Minister understand why so many people in Scotland think that it is the uplift that should stay and the Government snatching away that financial lifeline that should go instead?

[Will Quince]

There is no objective way of deciding what an adequate level of benefit should be, as everyone has different requirements. Income-related benefit rates are not made up of separate amounts of specific items of expenditure, such as food or fuel charges. The Government have always been clear that this uplift was a temporary measure, and I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we spend over £110 billion on benefits for working-age people.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 16th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to be called and to have the opportunity to speak briefly in this important debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who made several important points.

The Bill seeks to introduce a number of measures aimed at protecting savings and providing simpler oversight of pension savings. This includes the introduction of pension dashboards, collective defined contribution schemes and new powers for the Pensions Regulator to tackle irresponsible management of private pension schemes. These are important steps forward and they are long overdue. In particular, I welcome the strengthening of consumer protections against scams, as I know many examples of residents in Newport West who have been victims of these scams and have not only lost so much money, but been deeply affected by the scams for years after the event.

I am delighted that many of my noble Friends in the other place were able to secure some important amendments to the Bill—in particular, the amendments that require trustees and managers to take into account the Paris agreement and key domestic climate targets in their overall governance and disclosure of climate change risk and opportunities. This is the first time that climate change has featured in domestic pensions legislation and that is to be welcomed.

I urge Ministers and Government Back Benchers to support Labour’s efforts to mobilise billions of pounds towards the vital and timely effort to tackle climate change through pension funds. Given that Ministers refuse to support the amendment in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), on asking pension funds to develop strategies to help to meet our obligations under the Paris agreement, I hope that we will receive an explanation of how they expect to achieve their goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 or sooner.

The other place also forced the Government to amend the Bill to guarantee a publicly owned pensions dashboard free at the point of use and available to everyone. I have called for that before, as has the shadow Minister, and it is a demand that many residents from across Newport West have raised with me in recent weeks and months. The changes contained in the amendment would ensure that consumers are protected and that they do not make poorly informed or hasty decisions when they see their pension information for the first time. I hope that the Minister will welcome that amendment.

Finally, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who spoke earlier. He has worked hard on these issues and is a man of wisdom and experience. I support his new clause 1, which would set up opt-out appointments with Pension Wise for pension scheme members five years prior to their retirement date, because this is a point at which scheme members are so vulnerable to transfer advice that is not in their best interest or to tax scams. This is so important for the people who need sound guidance and advice before they take their pensions.

The Bill is to be broadly welcomed and I urge Ministers to accept all efforts to make it stronger, more effective and long-lasting.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I rise to support amendments 7 and 8 and new clauses 4 and 5 in my name and those of others. A recurring theme throughout the debates on Second Reading, in Committee and this evening has been the need to try to avoid unintended consequences. That is a particularly important mindset to approach this with given that the consequences of all that we are putting into legislation this evening will potentially last for decades, and the decisions that we take will affect people’s quality of life and financial opportunities in retirement. It is worth bearing that in mind when approaching the Bill, and when we consider any well-meaning assurances that we might get from the Government Front Bench in lieu of the actual substantive changes that have been asked for in the amendments and new clauses.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Minister has referenced the regulator’s consultation. Does he agree that it is entirely appropriate for elected politicians to provide a policy direction of travel to the regulator, without dictating points of detail that remain rightly the realm of regulations? Will the Minister also give assurances that the Bill, as amended by the Government in Committee, will not accelerate the closure of open schemes and that they will be treated differently?

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to get the chance to delve further into some of the issues that were raised on Second Reading, of which this was one. I am happy to add my support, along with that of my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts, to amendment 18.

When I spoke on Second Reading I warned of the need to be aware of unintended consequences, one of which originated outside the Bill. One that merited clear guidance in the Bill to prevent it from ever coming to pass was the issue around defined-benefit schemes.

The Minister says he does not want good schemes to close and schemes to be forced into the de-risking process. That is fine and good as far as it goes, but Ministers come, Ministers go, Ministers change their mind, yet legislation endures. I have been very impressed with the Minister’s handling of the Bill today and I do not want to see him go anywhere—

[Guy Opperman]

Sit down now. Stop now.

[Richard Thomson]

I have got a bit to go. The Minister highlighted paragraphs in the Pensions Regulator’s recent consultation, but I draw his attention to paragraph 210, which states:

“We consider that trustees’ focus should be to ensure the security of members’ accrued benefits rather than to ensure the provision of future benefits.”

Taking all that together, it is at best inconsistent. It should be obvious why we all want to be assured that schemes are funded to meet their liabilities. Nevertheless, that is a deeply worrying statement for many people, including the scheme managers and trustees. There needs to be a difference in the investment strategy between DB schemes, which are open to new members, and those that are not.

As the Minister said, there are clear differences between open and closed schemes. A scheme that is closed to new members, for example, has to have a fixed end point, and their assets need to be readily available to pay pensions. That means investing in assets where the value is predictable, which inevitably leads to investing in asset classes that have lower returns.

In stark contrast, a scheme that is open to new members sees scheme leavers replaced with new members. It does not have to sell assets to pay pensions and can continue indefinitely. To deliver the required investment returns, it needs to be free to invest in a range of asset classes, which may be more speculative and less predictable, but which, nevertheless, over the longer term, might be expected to deliver better financial results and outcomes for the members.

Again, I hear what the Minister says about the actions he has personally taken to increase the range of asset classes in which pension schemes can invest. That is all well and good, which makes it seem all the stranger that we might end up inadvertently with the unintended consequence of choking that freedom off for DB schemes, for want of a lack of clear guidance in the Bill. That is assuredly what will happen.

If we insist on ensuring the security of accrued benefits, which are not at any serious risk, we effectively begin to mandate an investment policy suitable only for closed schemes. As soon as that happens, the potential returns are restricted. The liabilities of the schemes increase overnight, potentially anywhere between £120 billion and £160 billion. The cost of contributions to the employer, potentially the employee, or both is therefore increased. Inevitably, over time—potentially a very short time—the schemes are rendered unaffordable, and we see the closure to new members of what were otherwise perfectly good DB schemes.

Clause 123 provides for open schemes to be treated differently, given their unique characteristics. Retaining the amendment made to the clause would certainly be a stronger safeguard than amendment 18. However, amendment 18 is a genuine attempt to try to find a compromise position that captures the essence of clause 123, while at the same time managing to be far less prescriptive in what the Secretary of State is obliged to do.

Some 21% of DB scheme members belong to schemes that are still open to new members. They still perform a vital role in people’s pension retirement provision, often for lower and middle-income families who have few other savings, and the matter therefore warrants the most careful attention. Amendment 18 would provide the means by which we can ensure that those DB schemes can continue to thrive and deliver for all their members, present, past and future.

I agree with the Minister when he says that there needs to be a reasonable balance between those classes of member, but legislation can be used to usefully set the parameters to guide trustees, which is exactly what amendment 18 would do, given the mixed messages from the regulator. If it is not deemed to be an appropriate compromise, I invite the Minister to work cross-party to try to find a compromise that would offer reassurance to scheme members and managers and that can definitely guarantee the future of DB schemes. Leaving it out of the Bill will not offer reassurance and, given the current mixed messages coming out of the regulator, will lead us down the path of unintended consequences with adverse outcomes for many of those who can least bear the cost.

[Guy Opperman]

I loved the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, and I am grateful for his tacit endorsement of our approach. I also loved the latter part, because I do want to work on a cross-party basis. If mixed messages have in any way been interpreted—I am not sure it is an intention in any way by the regulator; I assure him of that and I have spoken to the regulator—and if any clarification needs to be made, I cannot repeat any more that we are here to support DB in whatever shape or form. We have had a DB White Paper, and that consideration and the consultation has brought forward various things. The ongoing consultation by the regulator is exactly that—a consultation.

The request was made for more thought. There is a legitimate and relevant point, although I will resist the amendment, that this is a perfectly valid debate to have in this place. It will definitely influence the regulator’s approach and ensure that, if there is any doubt whatsoever, not all schemes will be treated the same. There is not a one-size-fits-all approach. If anyone is proposing that that is the case, it simply is not. Every scheme should be looked at on its own merits and in its own particular way, because, as all colleagues have rightly identified, schemes have different profiles, different amounts and different objectives. That is what the regulator is trying to do—to build on the current approach.

I make a couple of quick points. Most schemes will not need to change their approach, as they are already doing the right thing. The investment risk that is supportable for each scheme will continue to depend on scheme- specific factors, including scheme maturity and the strength of the employer covenant, as is currently the case. Maturing schemes, whether open or not, will be expected gradually to de-risk their investments as they move towards lower dependence on the employer. There will be no such requirement for schemes that remain significantly immature, with strong employer covenants, who have been pursing appropriate funding and investment strategies. Taking investment risks—however one wants to describe that—is utterly acceptable as long as it is supportable.

I repeat that I am the Minister who, at the same stage as I am trying to improve and support DB, has given the schemes the power under the illiquids consultation to invest in alternatives, whether that is in green infrastructure, social housing or venture capital, building on the Treasury’s work with the patient capital review and building on the work that the Department for Work and Pensions has done for some considerable time, to make it crystal clear that such investments can be pursued and that they can also produce a higher return.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Thomson]

Does the Minister accept that there is a difference between being given the opportunity to invest in those asset classes and having the freedom to invest in them, if there is a perception that people are being guided down a route of de-risking, and would not that be the benefit of setting it out loosely or flexibly in legislation, in terms of the guidance that could then be given to trustees on how those schemes ought to be managed?

[Guy Opperman]

The appropriate way forward, with respect, is a three-pronged approach, which would be a combination of primary legislation, regulation and the DB funding code to balance effectively employer affordability and member security. I think we all start with the fundamental principle—certainly as Minister I have to have it as the guiding principle—that the member is the most important person to be safeguarded, and I believe that the three-pronged approach is the appropriate way. There is an ongoing consultation and I genuinely believe that it should be allowed to run its course, with us all having the opportunity to make points to it.

I will just finish the point I was making: the scheme funding measures in the Bill, together with secondary legislation and the revised scheme funding code, seek to support trustees and employers to manage their scheme funding with a focus on longer-term planning. As is now the case, the scheme’s liquidity requirements and investment timelines and the amount of risk each scheme can support will depend on factors including its maturity and the strength of the employer covenant. Trustees can and do already invest in illiquid assets such as infra- structure, and our measures do not seek to discourage such investments where they are appropriate.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

The hon. Member for Delyn said on Tuesday that individuals with an interest in particular issues, such as climate change or executive pay, would go and seek out information themselves to inform their saving habits, but it is clear that there are significant barriers to doing that. The amendment would help to allow savers to make more informed use of their pension freedoms by comparing the voting records of particular schemes against others. This is something the Minister should strongly support, as it could make a significant contribution to his climate change agenda. Will he work with us on this important issue before Report stage?

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Robertson.

I rise to speak to new clauses 3 and 4, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends the Members for Airdrie and Shotts, for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), and for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown). I should make it clear to the Minister that it is our intention to make amendments of this nature on Report, so we will hear with interest what he has to say in response to the points we make today.

On Second Reading, I spoke about the impact that section 75 of the Pensions Act 1995, which deals with employer debt, could have on an individual employer within a multi-employer pension scheme. I cited the example of the Plumbing and Mechanical Services (UK) Industry Pension Scheme, but in reality the issue could apply to any scheme of a similar nature. I appreciate that not all of us go to sleep at night and dream of the implications of section 75 of the 1995 Act, so if members of the Committee will bear with me for a moment, I will run through them.

Section 75 sets out regulations that are intended to deal with deficiencies in assets in pension schemes; those regulations have evolved and been amended since they were first introduced in the 1995 Act. The key change came into force in September 2005: any employer who left a scheme or prompted a trigger event, such as retiring or moving from being a sole trader to a partnership or a limited company, was required to pay a section 75 debt. That debt is calculated on a buy-out basis, which assumes that the whole scheme is being bought out by an insurance company, so it is a very expensive way of valuing a pension scheme. Also, part of that buy-out debt comprises the orphan liabilities of past employers, who may have become insolvent or left the scheme before 2005 but did not pay their own section 75 debts, so not only is the scheme being valued generously, but those who remain in it are left to pick up the debt of others who have been able to leave it without that burden being placed upon them.

In the case that I raised, the scheme trustees for the Plumbing and Mechanical Services (UK) Industry Pension Scheme estimate that some 60% or £1.3 billion worth of the total scheme’s liabilities are, in fact, orphan. The trustees did not apply the section 75 debt when the provision was introduced in 2005, saying that, because of the nature of the scheme, it would have been impossible to do so. During that period, they lobbied Government to change the legislation, but the employers were unaware that the legislation was not being applied or indeed that any debts were even due until spring 2016, when they became aware of that situation.

I am given to understand that that has had some pretty serious consequences for the plumbers who have since retired and who have triggered the section 75 debt. It particularly affects a small group of around 30 retired plumbers aged between their late 60s and early 90s, who retired between 2005 and 2016. Some easements were introduced to the section 75 legislation over that period, but none of them apply to this small group, because the trustees did not advise them. I am told that they had a section 75 debt until 2018, and onwards.

The individual debts that I am talking about here have a wide range—up to £1.2 million, but with the majority being in the region of about £700,000. Such debts are totally unaffordable for this group, who were unincorporated sole traders for the most part. Naturally, they and their families are absolutely beside themselves with worry about this situation. If the debt is pursued, as legally it must be, it could lead to their bankruptcy and the repossession of their homes, all in pursuit of assets that, even if they are realised, would still fail to repay the outstanding debt.

As I say, there have been some easements. Deferred debt arrangements were introduced in April 2018 as a statutory easement, to allow an employer who had triggered the section 75 debt simply to defer debt but retain a liability to the scheme. That has allowed employers to continue to trade without facing possible insolvency, dependent on the size of the debt, and it allows employers to continue supporting the scheme. However, this scheme closed to benefit accrual in June 2019. Employers who triggered section 75 before the closure of the scheme, and who continue to trade, are not able to use that easement, as it is only available while a scheme is still open. That is one of the proposals in the new clauses.

The second proposal is to amend legislation to allow the application of a deferred debt arrangement in a closed scheme environment. New clause 3 gives flexibility to waive a debt in certain circumstances, as set out in the clause, where the debt is below a de minimis level; 0.5% for the fund value is suggested, bearing in mind that is a reasonable valuation of the fund and of buying it out on a commercial basis. However, new clause 4 would extend the availability of existing deferred debt arrangements for employers who are still trading, but who do not qualify to use the existing easement at present.

Hopefully we all understand the purpose of section 75, but the obligation to apply it in this case is causing untold misery to groups of small employers who have never sought to do anything other than the right thing by those in their employ. I struggle to believe anyone would have deliberately written that legislation or set up and operated the scheme in such a way to engender this kind of outcome. New clauses 3 and 4 would allow the Minister to resolve this issue mathematically, without undermining the important role that section 75 plays in safeguarding the funding of pension schemes. It is our intention to return to this issue on Report, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s observations on how we might tackle this. If we are not to tackle it in this way, in what way—if any—can the Minister envisage it being addressed in the future?

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am very interested by the points raised so far; I am particularly interested—as many others are—in what the Minister has to say in response to the points raised by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts and my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North about auto-enrolment and where we are going on that.

I will speak to new clauses 9 and 12, and I am grateful for the briefing provided by the organisation ShareAction on the issues raised in these new clauses. One thing I did not need any briefing about was the fact that, 22 years ago, I became the Pensions Minister for the first of two terms in the role. My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey was a Minister in the Department at the time, which was then called the Department of Social Security. I picked up some work on ethical investment in pension funds started the previous year by my predecessor in the job, John Denham. John made quite a groundbreaking speech on this in July 1998. He wanted a fair hearing for ethical investment to encourage open and honest debate on the issues it raises for the pensions world, and the legal framework within which all pension fund investment must be carried out. It prompted a big debate and much discussion.

One of the officials told me he was given the task of making John’s wish to support pension funds in adopting ethical—although the term was changed quickly to socially responsible—investment policies a reality. At the time, the conventional wisdom was that pension funds had a statutory obligation to maximise the returns on pensions savings and were not allowed by law to take any other considerations into account. The official told me he went around the City looking for ideas and drew a blank until he happened to speak to a senior member of staff at the central finance board of the Methodist Church, who explained how they had been applying ethical principles to their investment strategy for years. One weekend, I remember thinking about all of this, and the official put a copy of a speech—or rather, a sermon—delivered by John Wesley in my red box to help me to understand where all this was heading.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes an important and interesting point. If we are to be confident that these new scheme trustees will make decisions that are fair to both the working members of the schemes and to pensioners, it is important that the voices of working age members should be taken fully into account in the trustee board’s decisions. She makes a good argument about why diversity, specifically in respect of age, is important in this context.

It is not as though there is no evidence that diverse trustee boards do a better job. My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North has just reminded the Committee that there is a substantial, growing body of evidence that diverse company boards make more effective decisions than homogeneous boards. We have talked about age, but we should not forget that the gender pensions gap, which is nearly 40%, is almost twice the size of the gender pay gap. The issues here are stark.

The Pensions Regulator commented on diversity in trustee boards for the first time last year:

“Our view is that pension boards benefit from having access to a range of diverse skills, points of view and expertise as it helps to mitigate against the risk of significant knowledge gaps or the board becoming over-reliant on a particular trustee or adviser. It also supports robust discussion and effective decision making.”

Amendment 25 would require those who put boards together to report to the Pensions Regulator on steps to ensure diversity considerations are taken into account in the recruitment of the trustee board, with regard to age, gender and ethnicity. I know that the Pensions Regulator has set up an industry working group to consider this issue, as part of the consultation that the Minister referred to, and to raise the profile of it. However, to be effective, that group needs data, and this amendment would help to provide it. I think the result of the amendment would be not only greater fairness but better trustee decisions. I commend the amendment to the Committee.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I will confine my brief remarks to amendments 6 and 25. I listened carefully and with interest to what the Minister said about the rationale for trying to withdraw clause 27 from the Bill. I agree that with him that in trying to come up with a legal definition of fairness, it will always be nebulous. There are clear difficulties around that, which is why I do not think the initial intention behind the clause was to provide absolute legal clarity.

I was reassured to a large extent by what the Minister said about the steps that would be taken to set up CDC schemes—by definition, schemes that are obviously unfair will not pass approval. The difficulty I have with that argument is that all that is being asked in clause 27 is that there is a requirement for trustees to make an assessment and nothing further. It is useful to have a process of self-challenge and continuous improvement, looking at aspects of the schemes that are directly under their control and that they can directly influence and alter. It is good to always have that consideration of whether the scheme is operating as fairly as possible for all present and future members and those taking benefits from it. My question to the Minister is, very simply, where is the harm? Even after taking on board all that he says, I still do not see the harm that lies in the Bill as it stands.

Moving on to amendment 25, I hear exactly what the Minister says about the requirement that already exists on trustees to be fit and proper people. My observation is that there are many potentially very fit and proper people who do not currently find themselves on boards, advisory committees or any of the governance structures around pensions, and who could nevertheless make a very good contribution to the running of those schemes.

Speaking from personal experience, prior to being elected as the Member for Gordon, I was a councillor in Aberdeenshire. Through that role, I was one of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities nominees to the Scottish local government pension scheme advisory board, whose representation was equally split between employers’ representatives, of which I was one, and trade union representatives. The trade union representatives were all extraordinarily capable and represented quite accurately the diversity of the scheme members whose interests they were there to represent. In all honesty, the employers’ representatives perhaps did not represent that quite so well. I played my own part in skewing that representation.

The requirement to report back on the membership characteristics is a very useful tool in trying to understand whether all that is reasonable is being done to ensure that trustees and those in positions of governance on pension schemes are as representative as possible not just of the membership, but of the interests of the membership, and that we are giving as many people as possible the opportunity to fully skill up, participate and play the role that they can do. As things stand, we are missing out on the talents of many fit and proper people. Again, I do not see the difficulty in simply recording and reporting that information as part of the cycle of continuous improvement and self-reflection on whether we are achieving all that we seek to do.

[Ms Eagle]

I want to support, or enhance, the comments that have just been made by Opposition Members about the two issues that we are discussing in this group of amendments: amendment 25 on diversity, which was tabled my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, and the issue of intergenerational fairness and how it can be properly guaranteed in CDC schemes.

I hope the Minister will reaffirm on the record, in no uncertain terms, his agreement with the principles behind the amendment on intergenerational fairness that was made in the other place, even if he has issues with how one defines fairness in law. I have to say that, in social justice terms, we would have made very little progress in the whole of our society if we quibbled about the meaning of fairness in law. Just because it is difficult to define, it does not mean that we should not assert it or seek to bring it about.

The Minister’s response is a rather a technical answer to the principle that has been asserted by the change that their lordships made to this part of the Bill. His responses to my questions earlier did not fill me with confidence that he knew how the principle would be brought about if the amendment that their lordships put in the Bill was taken out. He simply seemed to say that it was a good thing to assert, and that it would be brought about by regulations that have not yet been written. He could not really give us any thoughts about how it might be guaranteed in the future, although he is asking us to take out an amendment that has actually been made to the Bill. He is asking us to exchange something that is really quite good and not damaging for something that is very nebulous and does not exist yet—it might do at some point in the future—in regulations that will be unamendable. We will have to take them or leave them when they come to the House, so I am slightly worried about that.

As is his wont, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham has zeroed in on the issue of diversity on boards and given us some shocking figures about what is happening on pension trustee boards. That ought to raise many alarm bells about potential group-think and about how the decisions made by trustee boards are not representing the interests of the many people who have pension savings in a way that we would find modern or appropriate.

Amendment 25 is a modest amendment. My right hon. Friend is asking only for the publication of information. He is not doing what I might do, which would be much more radical and would probably include all sorts of things, such as quotas and positive action, in order to make a real difference quite quickly. It is a modest amendment. If the Minister cannot accept that it is and does not have the good grace to support it, I will be rather disappointed.

Pension Schemes Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Richard Thomson Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Rob Roberts]

I am not necessarily advocating a lack of transparency; I am advocating a focus on the outcome, rather than on every element of the journey along the way. There are lots of things that we currently do not talk about, in terms of the costs and charges. We look at the costs and charges of the scheme in general, and it is not necessarily a requirement for the costs and charges of the individual funds that make up the scheme to be included in those calculations. There are lots of things that could be included in there, but it is the outcome that is important, not necessarily the minute detail of every element along the way.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

I do not think anyone would disagree that overall it is the outcome that is important, but historically the trouble is that consumers have often been encouraged to look at outcomes that may or may not have been realistic over an extended period of investment, and have not had the full awareness that they ought to have had of the charges. Surely as part of educating the consumer we should be drawing their attention to the charges and helping them to understand them in the context of everything that is important. If we want engaged, informed consumers, surely we should not be telling them not to worry their little heads about the charges; we should be making it transparent and open.

Pension Schemes Bill [Lords]

Richard Thomson Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 7th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) set out earlier, there is a great deal in the Bill that the SNP can welcome, including pension dashboards, allowing trustees to take cognisance of the environmental impacts of the investments under their control, legislation to help avoid the unsuitable transfer of funds and allowing the Pension Protection Fund to continue. Those are all good and welcome improvements to the regulatory and administrative landscape in which pensions operate.

When it comes to dealing with pensions—as Members have said, in many cases, that is the most significant investment that many of us make—it is crucial that we are aware of unintended consequences. As a cautionary tale, I remind Members of what happened when the ability of funds to benefit from advance corporation tax was removed. While Treasury coffers have swelled as a consequence, that sounded the death knell for many excellent final salary pension schemes. Those on the Treasury Bench may not care terribly much for that comparison, but it is the sort of cautionary tale with which we would wish to approach this to make sure we are doing our level best to avoid similar mistakes arising from past legislation and the present legislation, and it is on that note that I wish to focus my remarks.

The first issue I wish to concentrate on is one addressed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) in relation to clause 123 and funding requirements for defined benefit schemes. It is obvious why we would all wish to be assured that schemes are funded to meet the liabilities they have, but if we are to insist on being able to demonstrate that too rigidly, there is a very grave risk that the resulting investment policy that needs to be enacted will become so conservative that it focuses on meeting current liabilities at the expense of delivering future benefits for members within the scheme.

Obviously, that could mean a change in investment strategy away from equities to secure but potentially lower yielding investments, such as bonds, fixed interest investments, property infrastructure and similar, rather than balancing that mix with other types of investment, which might be expected to deliver higher returns over the longer term, and that danger is very real. Paragraph 210 of the consultation the Pensions Regulator is undertaking says:

“We consider that trustees’ focus should be to ensure the security of members’ accrued benefits rather than to ensure the provision of future benefits.”

An estimated 21% of defined benefit scheme members in the UK belong to schemes that are still open to new members, and if the approach that seems to be favoured by the Pensions Regulator is followed for schemes that are open to new members, then as surely as night follows day, scheme investments will begin to ossify in favour of those preserved benefits, at the expense of the ability of these schemes to absorb new members, and that is something that will slowly be closed off to the detriment of those potential new members.

Clause 123 recognises the difference there needs to be in an investment strategy between schemes that are closed to new members and those that remain open. I do not believe that it is or should be the intention of guidance to close down such schemes to new members, but I think that is a danger this will have. Enshrining in legislation the ability of trustees to reflect the characteristics of the schemes that they manage in their investment strategies would help to avoid such an adverse and presumably unintended consequence. I encourage the Minister to ensure that such a clause or something that has similar effect is included in the final legislation.

The second point on which I wish to focus relates to something that is not addressed in the Bill at present. It relates to the treatment of multi-employer industry pension schemes, and I would like to cite the example of the Plumbing & Mechanical Services (UK) Industry Pension Scheme. I state for the record my interest as a member of the all-party group on plumbers’ pensions. For Members who are not familiar with it, this scheme is an industry-wide occupational scheme that provides defined benefits. It has over 35,000 members and has, over its life to date, had about 3,500 employers involved in the scheme. The scheme opened in 1975, and it closed to future accrual of benefits from the end of June 2019, with about 350 employers participating in it at that point in time. One of the issues here is the size of the scheme relative to the remaining employers, many of which are small businesses.

Employer debt legislation contains a number of statutory easements, which are available to many employers facing a section 75 debt under pension legislation—the Pensions Act 1995—when they close their businesses. However, those statutory easements do not cover all situations, such as where an employer has retired or has ceased trading, where the overall amount of the liability in relation to the scheme is small in comparison with the scheme’s size or where an employer has triggered a section 75 debt prior to the closure of a pension scheme to future accrual. In this particular instance, the trustee has been able to apply some existing easements allowed for in legislation, but there are a number of particularly sensitive cases where easements cannot be applied. As a result, individuals face personal bankruptcy, and companies that would otherwise be financially viable face being forced into insolvency.

I want to go into further detail about this case. The trustee currently has 72 employers to consider pursuing for payment where existing easements may not apply. Of those, 43 are incorporated and 29 are unincorporated. Of the 29 unincorporated employers, 20 have retired, and the existing statutory easements cannot apply where the employer has ceased trading. In these cases, there is no ongoing business, but because those employers were unincorporated, they have personal liability to the scheme, which means that their personal assets can be seized by the trustees and used to settle the employer’s debt to the scheme. The trustees advise that, under section 75, these 20 employers collectively have a liability to the scheme of £7 million. Even if each of those employers was made personally bankrupt, only a fraction of that £7 million is likely to be recovered.

I spoke this morning over the telephone to a member of a small local plumbing business in my constituency. He had written to me at the start of the year, and I will give the House a flavour of what he said, because his experience is sadly not untypical. He said:

“I am approaching retirement age, but retiral will trigger my section 75 debt as the law stands at the moment. My father started our employees on the… pension scheme almost forty years ago, long before it was mandatory to have a pension scheme. When I told him about this section 75 issue, my dad burst into tears and said ‘What have I done to you’. I said it was not his fault as he was only doing what he thought was a good thing for our employees by entering them into a pension scheme. Surely after almost 40 years paying into the scheme, all the payments that were due, it can’t result in me losing my house, my office building and my own personal money, which is by no means substantial, and being declared bankrupt.”

There are two methods that could be used to address that, and my party will table amendments on this in Committee. One is the introduction of a trustee discretion to allow trustees not to pursue a section 75 debt when it is below a de minimis threshold. The other is the alteration of deferred debt arrangements to permit employers in a scheme closed to future accrual to apply for a deferred debt arrangement, providing they meet other statutory tests.

That is exactly the sort of thing that I mean by unintended consequences, because I cannot believe for one moment that anyone would have deliberately set up a scheme or put in place a law of that nature with these sorts of outcome in mind. I hope that my party’s amendments in Committee will be accepted and incorporated, because the Bill provides the best opportunity that many will have to get these issues resolved and ease that burden on their minds.

On the whole, this is a good Bill, and we find much in it to support. It gives opportunities to improve the pensions and retirement savings landscape, and I hope that the Government will remain open to further suggestions on how the Bill might be improved as it progresses and heed the warnings, so that we can avoid these unintended consequences.