Kit Malthouse MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making some important points. We must have an eye, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) said, for the overall lethality of the population of firearms. Will my hon. Friend reflect on whether we are in a “careful what you wish for” situation? I am a shotgun certificate holder and an owner of a shotgun. If I am forced to go through the procedure to effectively get a firearms licence, I am much more likely to acquire a firearm, so although the number of shotguns out there might fall, the number of rifles, and therefore the overall lethality of the population of firearms, might actually rise.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Firearms Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is giving us a fascinating perspective on the statistics, but if the Government were interested in reducing the overall harm from firearms, does he not think that there would be greater benefit from taking all the police effort that we acknowledge would go into the enforcement of this wider regime, and focusing it on those firearms that are more likely to be used in crime? If smuggled handguns, converted antiques or replicas, and blank-firing guns that are brought in illegally were enforced against, would it not have a bigger impact on harm than this measure? My hon. Friend has spoken to the tiny number of incidents involved.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Occupied Palestinian Territories: Genocide Risk Assessment · Hansard source

  More

  All of us are here in this Chamber because of the horror we have at the events of 7 October, and the atrocities that have taken place thereafter and that continue to take place. Many of us are also here because of a profound sense of shame—shame at the way the last Government and this Government have conducted themselves throughout this entire affair. Among the many shames that we will all have to bear is the Government’s reluctance to vigorously and assertively participate in the international rules-based order which we built to prevent exactly this kind of eventuality. As other Members have said, I do not understand what the Government think the ICJ was doing when it ruled that there was a plausible case for genocide. Did they not think that it was triggering exactly the obligations that other Members have mentioned? Those obligations are not rhetorical; they are operational, real, obligatory. We have to act to prevent; we cannot facilitate. Yet time and again, the British Government have done absolutely nothing. From arms to intelligence sharing and diplomatic cover, we have continued as normal. I am left wondering what it is this country stands for, because it is not just on this obligation that there has been nothing. On the torture convention, even when the reputable Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has just published a report saying that Israel is running “a network of torture camps”, there has been nothing from the British Government, notwithstanding their international obligations. On the settlements in the west bank, a hundred parliamentarians wrote to the Government and the ICJ has ruled, yet the Government have done the bare minimum they could get away with to enforce those obligations. There are even the individual cases we have seen on our telephones and on social media: Dr Adnan al-Bursh tortured to death; Hind Rajab, who the world heard as she lay dying in a car, left alone at the age of six; the ambulances ambushed; the hospitals flattened; the schools crushed. Even when British citizens are slaughtered—surely we have an obligation to them if we do not feel that we have one to anybody else—the Government have done nothing. This is a monstrous abdication of duty. In this regard, the law is not unclear. The facts are not hidden. Daily, we hear Israeli Ministers boasting about what is being done in Gaza. What is missing is political will. It is about time that the Minister and his superiors realised that history does not just judge what Governments do; it judges what they allow.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Iran · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in expressing horror at the stories coming out of Iran and the enormous death toll. I hope the Minister will take advantage of those international institutions, in which he has previously expressed confidence at the Dispatch Box, to bring a case to the International Criminal Court, particularly against the leaders in Iran. My secondary question is that, if the Iranian people, through their courage, are able to throw off their oppressors, are we able to say that there is a plan to support whatever may emerge after that event?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is paying attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but, as he will know, I have not been forced out to get a job. I founded my business 30 years ago; I am one of the few people in this House who has created jobs by the sweat of my own hands, rather than just talking about it. Frankly, I pay the Sainsbury’s bill, the mortgages and all the rest of it for all my employees every single month, and I am proud to do so. Maybe he could learn some lessons, by spending time with some businesspeople, about what it is to make true fiscal and economic decisions. Let me return to my third point, which is about legitimacy. One thing that was found in France was a rise in resentment, which resulted in President Macron taking specific steps to means-test the access to family welfare. French political scientists will point to the rise of the National Rally in France directly stemming from a mishandling of the welfare system and a growth in resentment in those who did not participate in it. I am afraid that today we see that writ large in the Order Paper in the Reform party’s reasoned amendment, which was not selected. It calls for open discrimination in our welfare system against those who do not have parents born entirely in this country. I must declare an interest as I am afraid that includes two of my children, who were not born to a British citizen. It also includes the children of Members of Parliament who sit for the Reform party. There is something grotesque about seeking legislation that would downgrade the citizenship of one’s own children.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said, no one in this House doubts the importance of supporting children. Labour Back Benchers are feeling good about the fact that they have organised themselves to deliver what they see as a simple moral good, but as they know and we know, things are much more complicated than that. I know they think they have delivered a simple moral good because not a single one of them has mentioned the rate. None of them has questioned why the additional rate is set at £17.25, rising to £17.90. They have not asked whether that is enough to address poverty. They have not sought to get under the skin of whether this is a more complicated and nuanced argument than it might at first appear. Just the simple act is enough, without contemplating the unintended consequences. I am concerned that the Government are stumbling into a “Careful what you wish for” measure. First, a number of Opposition Members—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—mentioned the demographic time bomb that we face. There has been no discussion of this measure in the context of the overall fiscal problem that our children will face. At the moment, we have about 3.6 workers per pensioner in this country. By 2050, that will have fallen to two. How will we pay for all of this in the future? How will we fund it all without enormous debt? We have only to look across the channel at France to see what a fiscal eruption can look like, with civic disruption and unrest on the streets, when the necessary correction is made to a welfare state that is running out of control. I am afraid that that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in. No one is pretending that decisions about welfare are easy—they are not easy. Having worked briefly as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, I know that these are difficult decisions, yet no one is questioning the micro-decisions that are made. It is simply enough to say to people, “We’re pumping money out there. Let’s hope for the best.” Why is the standard rate for the mobility section of the personal independence payment set at £30.30? I do not know. Does anybody else know? Is there an argument for it? These are the decisions that Ministers have to make on a daily basis, not just about whether we pay welfare but how much we pay. One of my concerns about this measure is that none of that is part of a wider conversation about the massive demographic steam train that is coming down the tunnel towards us. The second issue I have is that this legislation treats children as a burden to be somehow mitigated, necessarily because it includes them in the welfare bill, rather than as a bonus to be encouraged. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) said, we on the Conservative Benches would much rather there were work incentives that came alongside children. When I was briefly the Secretary of State for Education, I was inundated with correspondence and approaches from lots of highly productive and ambitious women who wanted assistance in work. They wanted some kind of bonus, relief or package to encourage them to have children, rather than a safety net that rescued women if they had children. For a country that needs more children, we need a tilt in our mentality and approach to move from mitigation towards encouragement; that is my concern about embedding the notion that people should have more children in the welfare system. The final issue I will raise is the legitimacy of the system, which has been raised by a number of Members. We often pretend that we do things for the first time in this country, whereas we can in fact look overseas for lessons, and we do not have to look very far. In France, where successive Governments increased family-related welfare with weak links towards work or contribution, it has created a wider resentment in society. Any successful welfare system must have an eye to legitimacy and consent from the wider population for it to exist.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Mobile Phones and Social Media: Use by Children · Hansard source

  More

  I realise that the Secretary of State has been sent out to manage a growing political problem— [ Interruption ] —honestly. She is speaking in stentorian terms to try to inspire some kind of confidence, but if colleagues look at the statement, they will see that there is nothing of substance in it at all. That is disappointing, given that in a private Member’s Bill only last year—I was a sponsor of the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), who is now on the Government Front Bench—promises were made that are not even delivered by this statement. In particular on schools—since I have to ask a question—could the Secretary of State acknowledge an inherent conflict? She says that the Government are clear that mobile phones have no place in schools, but she is going to update the guidance on how they should be used in schools. Could she at the very least confirm that that guidance is going to tighten their use in school, and that there is no possibility of any loosening of the current situation?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary is being rather mealy-mouthed about a situation that the President of the United States obviously sees as very simple. He believes that through extortion or military force—he is not denying that he may use military force—he can acquire Greenland, whichever way we look at it. As the Foreign Secretary will know, significant military assets owned by the United States are based here in the United Kingdom. Could they be used as part of an invasion of Greenland against our will? Does she recognise that when tariffs were first wielded as a weapon against the Canadians, we should have stood with them, rather than cut a snivelling deal?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Just for the elucidation of the public, who the Minister knows will be glued to our proceedings this evening, I want to make a couple of points. First, he said that debt is falling. Will he confirm that it is levelling off as a share of GDP and may possibly fall slightly by the end of the forecast period, but is rising in absolute terms? Secondly, when he says that income tax rates are not changing in this Bill, he is technically correct, but fiscal drag means that, for hundreds of thousands of people, the tax rate on their marginal earnings will actually change very significantly in the years to come.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the attention of the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I wonder if the shadow Minister shares my concern about the change in the taxation rate on dividends? Even more important than building a savings culture is building an enterprise culture. Sadly, by continuing the modern trend, started under George Osborne, of taxing the return on risk, we destroy any idea of having an enterprise culture in the UK. If fewer people see that the investment of starting a business, or investment in plant and machinery, results in a return that is taxed more lightly than un-risky income, they are less likely to take that risk.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting and pertinent speech. I hope he will welcome the fact that the Bill strengthens the requirement on companies to not only look at prevention but have an adequate recovery plan. Does he think that there is adequate sanction in the Bill for those companies that are deemed not to have an adequate recovery plan? My reading is that regulators cannot necessarily fine for a negligent recovery. As the hon. Gentleman said, the human factor so often matters, but surely that matters as much in recovery as it does in prevention.

• 6 Jan 2026 · The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Anybody who is currently in litigation with the Revenue that has passed the four-year mark from the period in which the liability may or may not have arisen would now have the expectation that if they win and an award is made, it would not be assessed under part 8C. Will the Minister confirm that now it will be assessed, so people in that situation will need to recalibrate almost completely their assumptions of risk around the litigation?

• 6 Jan 2026 · The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I realise that this is being painted as a concession, but as I hope that the Minister knows, in the most serious restitution cases, where unlawful behaviour by the Revenue has occurred, it is very rare that courts award simple interest. Actually, most of the awards are interest according to part 8C. Presumably, that was what was behind the original introduction of part 8C and the Revenue was saying, “Oh my God, we’ve got this massive financial exposure; what are we going to do? I tell you what: we’ll introduce a penal tax rate on this interest that doesn’t apply to anybody else.” I would caution the Minister against throwing these regulations in as some kind of concession, because in truth, in the biggest, most important, expensive and difficult cases, simple interest is very rarely awarded.

• 6 Jan 2026 · The Corporation Tax Act 2010 (Part 8C) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I am hesitant to delay the Committee, but I am afraid that I have some quite serious reservations about this statutory instrument. In order that Members who may not have looked in detail at the instrument before us can understand them, it may be useful to explain a bit of the background to part 8C, which was introduced by section 38 of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2015. The 2015 Act was snuck through in the first few months after my election as the MP for North West Hampshire, when I was still learning the tricks of the trade, and as a result I did not spot what is actually quite a pernicious part of the corporation tax landscape. So that colleagues are clear, this part of the 2015 Act says that in cases where HMRC has deducted tax unlawfully and is ordered by a court to return it, and where interest is then charged on that, because litigation may have taken years, the Revenue gets 45% of it back. It does not bear the full cost of the interest that is payable and it therefore does not bear the full economic cost of its unlawful behaviour. I have never understood why the Revenue should get special treatment over the interest payable by any other litigant in a commercial case, particularly as these restitution cases follow unlawful behaviour by the Revenue, and the litigation has often taken over a decade to come to some kind of conclusion. While they appear and are presented as benign and clarificatory, the problem with the regulations is that what they are actually doing is embedding that unfairness and asymmetry, and giving particular advantages to HMRC in the litigation process that I am not sure are entirely warranted. First, we have to bear in mind that the situation under the legislation at the moment is that the normal rules of corporation tax apply in terms of limits. The Revenue has to assess whether interest payable under part 8C falls within the scope of the 45% charge within four years of the end of the period in which it arises, even if the litigation has gone on for longer than that. That creates an incentive for the Revenue to act swiftly in the conduct of the legislation. The regulations give a bespoke new two-year time limit from the end of the accounting period in which the case is decided and the restitution is paid. That means that all the litigation delay risk is transferred on to the private sector company, which gives an enormous advantage to HMRC. Effectively, the regulations mean that the cost of the error by HMRC is capped, whereas the taxpayer is now exposed to prolonged uncertainty in the conduct of that litigation. Those two things together seem to entrench the asymmetry that the Revenue enjoys. The second issue I have is around one of the principles that I hoped was embedded in tax legislation, which is that it should never be retrospective. The regulations create a retrospective charge and will apply to cases where litigation is ongoing at the moment. There are litigants at the moment who believe that the case may have run beyond the four-year time limit, and that whatever they are awarded in interest will not now be assessable. The regulations will change that rule and are effectively using a retrospective logic that means that taxpayers cannot confidently close the books on their liability or otherwise, even after prolonged litigation that may have absorbed much of their energy and time. Those two measures seem to me to be particularly pernicious. I am interested to understand the Minister’s thinking on providing HMRC with this much more generous time limit to reach its assessment. I recognise that he is not here to justify the inherent unfairness of part 8C, but the new time limit creates the perverse incentive that HMRC can take its time. We know that since the amalgamation of the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, the culture of HMRC has changed significantly over the years. When I was a trainee chartered accountant in the City, decisions on taxation were a question of two professionals sitting down together to decide what tax was actually due. The Revenue has a much more aggressive attitude towards tax collection—do not forget that this team has the ability to bust down doors without a warrant in pursuit of duty, an inheritance that it maintains from its time tackling smuggling. Those members of the Committee who are Daphne du Maurier fans will know that the excise men were well known for kicking in doors in those days—and they occasionally still do. That culture overtook, and many businesses now find themselves feeling bullied and living in fear of a call from the Revenue because of its much more aggressive approach towards tax collection, and it not necessarily collecting the tax that is properly due but collecting whatever tax it can get. As I am sure the Minister knows, businesses will often settle with the Revenue for more than is entirely due, because they just do not want the hassle and they want it to go away. To me, that is not a proper way to run a tax system; nevertheless it happens on a daily basis. My nervousness about the regulations is that they may give the Revenue the incentive to use as much time as it can and to absorb as much energy as it can from its counterparty in litigation, to the extent that in the end the counterparty will sue for settlement, which may not necessarily be to its advantage or even be the correct amount of tax that is due. Those are broadly my views. I understand from colleagues that they do not necessarily intend to divide the Committee, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

• 5 Jan 2026 · Middle East and North Africa · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister pointed out, the situation in Gaza remains catastrophic. I join colleagues in recognising that, against that backdrop, the barring or denial of access for those aid agencies is particularly cruel and wicked; it is horrifying to think what the motivation might be. Of course, those agencies also deliver services in the west bank where, as colleagues have also pointed out, the situation deteriorates, with home demolitions, summary executions and seemingly psychopathic thugs roaming the territory, burning homes and attacking innocent Palestinians. Happily, we have recognised the state of Palestine and, as the Minister said, we have now established full diplomatic relations. Against that backdrop, if the Palestinian Government were to request that the UK ceased trading with foreign nationals illegally resident on its territory, on what basis would we refuse that?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin by drawing attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, not because I believe there is a conflict, but because it illustrates the fact that I am one of those sadly rare individuals in the House who have spent the last 30 years owning and building a business. Hopefully, it also illustrates that I know whereof I speak. I sincerely wish, on behalf of my employees and my constituents, that I could welcome today’s Budget. Before I am a Conservative, I am a British citizen, and I want the country to win. All of us should hope that any Budget, delivered by any Chancellor of any party, will put the country on a sound footing for a prosperous future. Sadly, today’s Budget was, to me, most redolent of the omnishambles Budget of 2012. We have to admit, as a party, to mistakes that we have made in the past. That Budget attempted to be politically smart to satisfy the Government’s Back Benchers, but in the hours and days that followed, it quickly unravelled, and I must tell Labour Members that I think exactly the same will happen with this Budget, because it is full of contradictions and incoherences in seemingly small areas. Take electric vehicles. I declare an interest, as the driver of an electric vehicle. The Government are pumping money into subsidising the roll-out of charging—indeed, there are grants for take-up—but the pence per mile being charged will discriminate against particular groups who need their cars, such as the disabled and the elderly, and against those in rural constituencies, who will be seriously disincentivised. It will also have a psychologically damaging impact on people who are thinking about buying an electric vehicle. Another of those areas is the housing market. We seem to think that an attack on landlords and the higher end of the market will not have an impact on the rest of the market. I am afraid that Labour Members will hear their constituents squealing, given the inflated prices in the capital, and I think that measures on housing, too, will unravel pretty quickly. The Chancellor said that she wants to encourage co-operatives and employee ownership, yet she has dealt a hammer blow to employee ownership by reducing by 50% the tax incentives for owners to transfer businesses to their employees, so we will see less of it. Much was made of the apprenticeship changes and the roll-out of nurseries. That is great, but hidden in the Blue Book is a £7.5 billion hit to students and an overall reduction in per pupil funding in education. All of these things will be revealed in the days to come.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  That is a very good way of putting it. The other way of putting it is to say that there is a huge attempt to gaslight the country and, I am afraid, Labour Members about what is actually being proposed. Let me give another example. We are told that the Government are trying to encourage business investment, yet the Blue Book contains a £1.5 billion reduction in incentives for business investment. The contradictions are clear, and I urge Members to read the Blue Book, because the Chancellor is relying on us not reading the leaked book. Sometimes it is quite impenetrable, and sometimes it is quite difficult to understand, but there are some key things that I want to point people to, if I may. First, I ask Members to turn to paragraph 1.3 of the executive summary, which tells us that, contrary to what the Chancellor said, debt will rise over the next few years. Debt moves from being “95 per cent of GDP this year and ends the decade at 96 per cent of GDP, which is 2 percentage points higher than projected in March”. That was the first thing she said that was incorrect.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises a very good point, which I will come on to shortly. All of this points to the fact that, let us be honest, this is not actually a Budget about growth. I only left the Chamber for half an hour to have a cup of tea, and all the speeches that I have heard from those on the other side of the House—the “far left” side, or whatever it might be—have been about redistribution. They have all been about how pleased Labour Members are at the redistribution that is going on. That is fine, but I wish their Front Benchers would be honest about what they are trying to do, because they are sacrificing the prospect of future growth for the economy in order to tick the box on Labour Members’ political demands about redistribution. That is fine, and we have been here before. As hon. Members have said, we have been through most of these scenarios before. I am only just old enough to remember, but it happened in the 1970s. That was when we last had an openly redistributive Government—forget Tony Blair, because he was not about that—and we saw what happened to growth as a result. To me, four things were broadly missing from this Budget. First, there very obviously is no governing philosophy of the political economy that any of us can discern. There is no plan or strategy. There is maths, there are inputs and outputs, and there is political box-ticking, but there is no sense of what kind of economy we are trying to build. There was a nod towards it in the desire to review the enterprise investment scheme and venture capital trusts, but that is really about trying to keep the lobby groups in the City happy. There is no plan to build an energetic economy. Secondly, as has been said by a number of Opposition Members, there is no comprehension of how this Government—and I have to say, sadly, previous Governments—have damaged the return on risk. A number of Members have said that capitalism relies on risk. People go out there to invest, to risk their own money and to buy businesses, and they do that calculating the return they are going to get. If we continue to tax that return, to regulate that return and to make that return less attractive, fewer and fewer people will take that risk. If we want a scale-up economy that takes advantage of the scientific and technological inventions that we are so good at producing, we have to reduce the impositions we put on risk and make it worth while. Thirdly, we did not have any talk about frictional taxes. The Chancellor was trumpeting growth this year, but the only reason we had a bump in growth this year was the closing of the stamp duty window, when people rushed—

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is worth remembering that if we had not gone through a period of austerity post the financial crash and the mess that we inherited, we would not have been able to rescue the economy during covid. We would not have had the headroom that allowed us to re-leverage the country in emergency circumstances. I wish that we now had the same foresight. Paragraph 3.13 of the Blue Book points out that, in the OBR’s view, there is nothing in this Budget that will do anything for growth. The OBR has declined to revise its previous output predictions because the Budget does nothing for growth. Finally, the fourth bullet point in paragraph 1.28 points out that the tax-to-GDP ratio will become the highest it has ever been in this country and will constrain business incentives for the future. I urge colleagues to read the Blue Book—the truth lies therein. We find ourselves in a position where we have a Budget that is trumpeting itself as a triumph, but which is nevertheless producing the highest tax rate of all time, completely flat and anaemic growth, and inflation and interest rates—they are in the Blue Book—that will be higher for longer than they otherwise would have been. The outlook has worsened since March, to the extent that the OBR makes a point of it.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way, because I am running out of time. People rushed to fill the void, and we saw a bump in growth in the first half of the year, but since then it has been tailing off. We have to focus on the fact that frictional taxes do enormous damage. Finally, we are at the bottom of an ellipse in human achievement, particularly in this country. If we do not get capitalism right in the UK to take advantage of that, as we did during the Victorian era, we will not build wealth for the centuries of the future, and we or our children will not live off the profits of this period.

• 25 Nov 2025 · COP30 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to learn from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) that I am not the only person who was not invited to COP30. But I followed it closely and was very pleased to see the emergence of the Belém 4X agreement, which committed its signatories to quadrupling the production and deployment of sustainable fuel molecules by 2035. That would include, most importantly for the United Kingdom, green hydrogen. Unfortunately, while I could find the names of India, Italy and, obviously, Brazil on the agreement, I could not find the United Kingdom’s name. Did I miss it?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Pension Investment in UK Equities · Hansard source

  More

  I get the example that the Minister talks about, but I think he misunderstands or perhaps misappreciates how the retail investor thinks. They do not necessarily think, “If I put £1,000 in now, in 20 years’ time it will be worth this.” They think, “If I put £1,000 in now, what is my return going to be next year? What is my running return going to be?” And it will be a percentage return on the dividend. That is why we have a P/E—price-to-earnings—ratio for every share; that is what investors look at. If that is impaired because of taxation and the return is reduced, as it has been over the last few years, they will be less inclined to invest. That, fundamentally, is the pattern that we have seen. The Minister never says this, but in the end, people invest in listed stocks and shares, whether through their pension or otherwise, to make money. They are not doing it for the good of anybody else. They are doing it to make money, and if they are going to make less money, or the perception is that they will make less money, because of Government taxation, they will do less of it. Would he not agree?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Pension Investment in UK Equities · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s views about mandation, as the Minister knows, but would he care to comment on its impact on the appetite for risk? We have learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that since the change in taxation, the general trend in pension funds has been for managers to de-risk and to go into passive funds. If they do so, no one can complain, they are not taking any risk, they do not have to outperform or underperform the market and they get what they want. If they can pass off yet more risk to the Government and effectively sit there and get paid to be told by the Government what to invest in, they will bite the Government’s hand off, will they not?

• 25 Nov 2025 · Pension Investment in UK Equities · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point about the change from defined benefit to defined contribution and the impact of the taxation changes that brought that about. Would he care to comment on whether he sees that as part of an unwitting repricing of the return on risk, which has impacted not only on pension funds, but more widely? He said that pension fund investment in the market is down, but retail investment in the market overall is also down very significantly. It feels like the British people as a whole have lost their appetite for risk, and that might be because the return on risk is now too highly taxed.