Kit Malthouse MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2025 · Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to see your wisdom in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. Although I understand the impetus behind the change, I want to ask the Minister one or two questions about it. She and I have traded blows over this agenda in the past. She was my shadow for two years, so I congratulate her on her new position. I am sure she will do a fantastic job. In considering this change, we have to ask ourselves why sharing was made so difficult in the first place. We have to trust that those who came before us, who put this legislation in place, considered that issue. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West, said that subsequent events have illustrated the need for agencies to work together more closely on the analysis of data for the prevention of the sorts of incidents he mentioned. Despite that, I think we have to come with a bit of scepticism about what the result of these regulations might be, and what liberties we might be trampling over. My questions are framed in that regard. I was slightly alarmed by what the Minister said and the contents of the explanatory memorandum, and I was thinking about raising a point of order about the fact that the Government cannot really tell us why the competent authorities have been included in the list. It raises the question of why we are all here. We might as well have had a list that said, “Whoever we decide. Don’t ask questions.” It does seem a bit odd that we are passing regulations, but we are hampered in our scrutiny in asking questions about particular organisations. Nevertheless, I will ask the questions that I have about them and see what the Minister has to say. First, I wanted to ask about the provosts. The list includes the provost marshals of the Royal Navy Police, of the Royal Military Police and of the Royal Air Force Police, and “The Provost Marshal for serious crime.” I had never heard of that person before, so perhaps the Minister could start by telling us who the provost marshal for serious crime is. I understand that all the other organisations—certainly the police and chief constables—have very strong and automated controls on the data that they use, not least to the extent, for example, that every access that any individual makes to the police computing system is logged and maintained, and people are very often convicted for irregularly accessing material. However, given that these individuals are military and that we are living with the consequences of a major military data breach that has cost us many billions of pounds and put quite a lot of lives at risk, can the Minister reassure us that the processing of data between civil and military organisations will be done to the same standard, and that it therefore will be safe from leakage? Regulation 2(o) states that, “a body established in accordance with a collaboration agreement under section 22A of the Police Act 1996(9)” can be classed as a qualifying competent authority. What type of body might that be? If we were to have an example of such an organisation, we might be able to form a view on whether it is appropriate for it to be on the list. I have a question about the inclusion of Revenue and Customs. As the Minister may know, in the old days when Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise were two separate organisations, they had very different cultures. The culture at Customs and Excise was of kicking the door down. They were kind of “Moonfleet”, Daphne du Maurier-type anti-smuggling hard men and women, whereas at the Inland Revenue they were a little more intellectual and professional. In one, they wore suits; in the other, they wore flak jackets. When Gordon Brown amalgamated the two, unfortunately the muscular culture at Customs and Excise was translated and taken over at the Revenue, to the extent that they now both have more kick-in-the-door characters. So I am concerned about the amount of sensitive personal data that Revenue and Customs control at the moment; about the culture of that organisation and its increasing aggression over the last 20 years or so; and what implication that is going to have for the rest of us. I understand that the Minister cannot tell us why this is being introduced, but is she able to tell us whether Customs and Excise will, as a result, be asked to routinely scan millions and millions of datapoints and people’s personal financial data to look for patterns of movement and transactions, for example? Or is this for use in relation to specific investigations? My general view is that, as with most things, the British people will accept a specific investigatory sharing regime, but may not accept a general fishing regime. The same is true of the Land Registry, which is on the list. I understand that in the search for illicit funds or activity, specific inquiries and the processing of data is required, but on general scanning, particularly as the Land Registry becomes more and more digital and automated, I am nervous about us moving to a kind of American-style National Security Agency approach, where billions if not trillions of datapoints are collected on a regular basis and analysed by computers—artificial intelligence or whatever it might be—to look for patterns of behaviour. That may well be the way that we are going, but if we are going there, we should be transparent with the public about what we are doing, notwithstanding that the Minister cannot tell us why or what today. I have two further questions. On supervision, what will the supervision over this necessarily covert process be? Does the ICO, which I presume will be the supervisory body, have the right security clearance at the right level that will allow it to access this operation of data sharing to the extent that it can satisfy itself that the statement that the Minister has made—that we are in compliance with all our human rights obligations and in compliance with the law—will be looked at? Within the Department, similarly, what will supervision of the effect of this data sharing be? Thirdly, given that this will be new, is it likely to be brought to the Intelligence and Security Committee for review of its operation? That would be at least three layers of supervision over what is quite a large step up in capability—it is not unwelcome, but it is a large step up—by the Security Services and others. Finally, I want to ask about risk assessment. The sharing of data between organisations could present a greater risk of leakage, or alternatively it could mean, if only one of them is maintaining the data to which the other has access, that there is less likelihood of leakage. We have talked about efficacy. The Minister did not say anything about the risks and benefits from a data security point of view. As we have learned to our cost recently with the military, the transfer of data between organisations, whether sharing or otherwise, does run the risk of it falling into hands that it should not. Will these organisations therefore have to subscribe to a tighter data control regime than they would have done, to make sure that the possibility of that leakage is minimised?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Draft Data Protection Act 2018 (Qualifying Competent Authorities) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said that these notices will be published; will these bodies be general powers or specific powers? Will the Government say, “We’re going to grant a notice on this for six months for a specific purpose,” or will it be just, “We’re going to let the Army share it with whoever, in perpetuity”? So, are the powers time limited? Secondly, while I understand that the Minister cannot explain to us why, who or what regarding these organisations, as the hon. Member for Newton Abbot said, all of these organisations will be processing that data on third-party software, much of which will be owned by private corporations, many from overseas. Does this power extend to them, by proxy, because they are contractors to the primary organisation—which is, necessarily, by its nature, public sector—or will there be firewalls and controls therein as well?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister has said that no one is above the law and that violence is never the answer. I agree with him and I know that he believes that the law should be wielded with integrity, so when are we going to see the proscription of violent settler groups in the west bank, many of whom are perpetrating a reign of terror on innocent Palestinians in that part of the world but who may be garnering support and raising funds in the United Kingdom?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that this is another profoundly disappointing statement from the Foreign Secretary that is devoid of anything that is likely to bring a swift end to this conflict. While at home the police have been arresting vicars and grannies, and the Government have been hiring American spy planes to fly over Gaza, the Israelis, as the Foreign Secretary himself has said, have intensified their campaign, aggression and the slaughter of innocents in that awful conflict. Everything he has said—all his condemnation—has come to nothing. In every statement he has made in this place when I have been here, he has stressed the importance of international humanitarian law. Why has he been so passive in defending the International Criminal Court in the face of another wave of American sanctions? What steps is he going to take to support that institution and the individuals who staff it in the face of those sanctions? What discussions has he had with the American Government to get them to reverse the sanctions?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 22 April, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney General raising a number of matters to do with domestic legal issues and our international obligations with regard to this conflict, but 132 days later, I have yet to receive a reply. What steps can I take to elicit the information that I need from the Foreign Secretary?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Why don’t you feel it?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  Like others in this House, I am frankly astonished at the statement of the Foreign Secretary. At a time when we have got daily lynchings and expulsions on the west bank, and dozens being murdered as they beg for aid, I am just beyond words at his inaction—and, frankly, complicity by inaction. He said himself that there is a massive prison camp being constructed in the south of Gaza and he knows that leading genocide scholars from across the world are ringing the alarm bells, yet he has the temerity to show up in this House and wave his cheque book as if that is going to salve his conscience. Can he not see that his inaction and, frankly, cowardice are making this country irrelevant? Can he also not see the personal risk to him, given our international obligations—that he may end up at The Hague because of his inaction? Finally, frankly, I make an appeal to Labour Back Benchers: we cannot get your leadership to change their minds; only you can, if you organise and insist on change.

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  I have been a bit taken aback by the lack of humility shown by the Home Secretary in the face of what has been a catastrophic first 12 months in terms of crossing numbers. It might have been better for her to acknowledge that “smash the gangs”, which she was always told was going to be a complete failure, has indeed been so. I suppose we should be grateful that she has finally reached for the briefing notes left in the Home Office and No. 10—not about a returns agreement but about a swaps agreement. I suppose I offer her congratulations on getting that deal over the line with the French. However, I disagree with her about it not being a silver bullet; I think this has always been the only solution. But she will know that it will be effective only if we can get to a very high percentage of returns to France. I have two questions. First, what further incentive could she offer to the French to go beyond this relatively small pilot? Given that we are offering swaps and the theory is that no one will then cross, would she be willing to go for a two-for-one swap? Secondly, as she pointed out, the gangs will react, so does she plan to cut a similar deal with the Belgians?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to be opening this debate, although, given the turnout in the Chamber, it seems to be a minority interest among Members of Parliament, notwithstanding the fact that the legislation affects some of our most basic freedoms and rights. Before I address amendment 1, I hope you will forgive me, Madam Chair, if I briefly indulge in a preamble. There are a couple of issues that I want to impress on the Minister in the hope that he will respond favourably and, if not accept my amendment, agree to consider the principles it raises in the other place. Given the number of senior lawyers there, this legislation will be examined by some pretty stringent legal eyes. First, Madam Chair, I hope you will agree that we established on Second Reading that this Bill is highly discriminatory. One of the truisms we always utter in this House is that we all stand equal before the law, but I am afraid that where this legislation is concerned, that is just not true. The Minister would be unable to wield against me the powers he is seeking to bring in under this Bill; it would not be countenanced because I have no right to citizenship elsewhere. However, there are Members of this House against whom the Minister could wield that power. Although he could not wield it against me, he could wield it against two of my children, although not against the other one—I have three. He could wield it against the children of the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak); against the children of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt); and against the children of the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden). I am trying to illustrate to the Minister that this legislation is highly discriminatory, and unusually so. He is tampering with some of the basic tenets of British justice through this Bill—a principle has been established in the Supreme Court that he is attempting to reverse—and I want him to have in mind that he is trying to embed that discrimination in law. I hope and believe that that is not his primary motivation, but he must comprehend that before he takes this step. Secondly, I say to the Minister, who has a distinguished record of service in the defence of this country and now serves as Security Minister, that much of the Bill is, let us face it, focused on those accused of committing terrorism here or overseas. Terrorists win in two ways: first, by the physical injury that they inflict and the fear of that physical injury that they are likely to inflict by exploding bombs, killing people and all the horrors we have seen in our lifetimes over the past 30 or 40 years, if not longer; and secondly, by a long, slow undermining of our way of life and by sowing division within our society. Their long game is to force us to twist ourselves in knots around the freedoms that make us different, which they despise, and slowly to erode our standard of living and the atmosphere in which we live, and we have seen that before in this country. The Minister is old enough to remember the evolution of the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, where hearings were held without juries. We dispensed with the basic freedom of the right to a jury trial in Northern Ireland for a while, largely because of accusations of violence towards juries. It was proven later that this was part of a known strategy by the IRA to make the Six Counties ungovernable, other than by military colonial means, so the IRA saw that move as a triumph. What terrorists want in the long term is a twisting of our natural freedoms. They want us to make compromises in our legislation that undermine our sense of belonging in our nation and create a division not just between the governed and the Government, but within society. This legislation, I am afraid, starts to do exactly that. On Second Reading I pointed out, as I have possibly already done today—I hate to be repetitive—that this legislation and this power create two classes of citizenship in the UK. There are those who can have the order removed and those who never can have it removed. As use of the power has accelerated over the past two decades, and we are using it now more than we ever did, it creates a feeling of unease among those whose citizenship is conditional. I will explain to the Minister why I tabled amendment 1. As I said on Second Reading, my view is that he is undermining some of the basic tenets of British justice with what he is attempting to do with this legislation. With this amendment, I am attempting to swing the pendulum back a little in the cause of fairness before the law. As he will know, individuals subject to this power have the right to appeal on a number of bases, and courts will decide whether to allow their appeal. Broadly, there are three areas on which they can appeal: the first is whether the decision was proportional; the second is whether it was procedurally fair; and the third is whether the Minister or the Home Secretary has made a mistake over whether the person has a right to citizenship elsewhere and so may in fact be rendered stateless. As he knows, that is not allowed under the legislation. If I have had my citizenship deprived essentially at the stroke of a pen by the Home Secretary, and I win an appeal, it seems unfair, given that I have won that appeal on the basis of fact, that the Government can continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal by them. Ordinarily, I would have got rid of this legislation, but the Minister seems insistent, and he won on principle at Second Reading, and that is fine. I am therefore appealing to his sense of good old British fair play to say, “This individual has won their first appeal on the basis of fact. Unless we have some profound reason to dispute that fact, we will not appeal, in which case they get their citizenship back.” On the basis of the fundamental British value of “innocent until proven guilty”, that person should get their citizenship back, particularly if a judge decides that the three conditions outlined in my amendment are satisfied.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is a fair man and a fair-minded man. He is quite right, and I am willing to countenance his appeal and give him the benefit of the doubt, and that is exactly what I am asking for the individuals subject to this legislation. He will know that we have certain inalienable constitutional rights as British citizens, which this legislation contravenes. The first is that we have a right to a fair hearing and that any action the Government take must be exercised fairly. That right has been established in the common law again and again, and most recently in 1994, in the case of ex parte Doody, when the court decided that Ministers must exercise their powers fairly. The second inalienable right, which has been decided in the Supreme Court, is that we all have a right to access to the courts, and that cannot be unfairly restricted. As that has been decided by the Supreme Court, the Government cannot put up artificial barriers to our access, such as raising fees or making sure that we cannot physically get to the court. Indeed, as the Minister will know, I have an absolute right to defend myself in person at every stage of legal action, whether that is at first hearing or at subsequent appeal. All those powers or rights that I have as a citizen are affected by the legislation he is attempting to put through. My amendment essentially says three things. If the Government failed to win an appeal, but wished to continue to deprive me of my citizenship pending a further appeal, they must, when seeking leave to appeal from the judge, also ask the judge for leave to continue the deprivation of citizenship. The judge basically could say no in three circumstances. First, the judge could say no if there is a real and substantial threat of serious harm to that individual if they were denied access to the United Kingdom. Some of these people will be living or operating from extremely dangerous places. If that person is likely to be killed pending further appeal on the denial of their citizenship, it would seem grossly unfair, their having already won an appeal, to deny them access to the country. The second ground would be if their exclusion from the UK and the continuing of denial of citizenship would be deeply prejudicial to the conduct of their defence in an appeal that the Government subsequently decided to bring. In such a case, it would be impossible for me to defend myself at appeal in person, which should be my inalienable right as a British citizen. It would be impossible for me to do that remotely in some God-forsaken part of the world where I cannot Zoom in or I do not have the ability to communicate. It would be the same if I am unable to communicate with my legal team. I am sure the Minister can see that it would be unfair to interfere with someone’s ability to mount a proper defence—we should not forget that that person has already won an appeal—through the continuing denial of citizenship. The third ground, which we covered on Second Reading, is the Government’s taking their time, achieving their objective merely by dragging their heels and playing for time, hoping that something, perhaps something untoward, will turn up. A judge should then make a judgment—the clue is in the name—on whether they are being efficient in their use of the legal system, rather than, as I am afraid happens from time to time, gaming it to their own advantage.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the hope that the Minister will do the right thing, yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair. Bill reported, without amendment. Third Reading

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand what the Minister is saying, and, as I said to him on Second Reading, I am not concerned about this power falling into his hands, but we do not know who will be in his position in the future, and we are never quite sure how the power might develop. As I have said, over the years we have seen an acceleration and an increase in what is a very draconian power that we should be taking extremely seriously. To deprive people of their citizenship is a profoundly serious thing to do, which may well—indeed, will—affect them for the rest of their lives. No doubt it will be done in the face of extremely serious offences on the Minister’s watch, but I am not sure that that will necessarily always be the case. Given that under the power that is being created people can be expelled on the basis that their presence is not conducive to the public good, we could see its being used in combination with other powers that have been expanded recently. Just last week, in controversial terms, the Minister proscribed a particular organisation operating in this country. I am sure he will be able to explain, but in my experience—I think he referred to this at the time—proscription has been reserved for terrorist organisations. As the Minister has indicated, this power is reserved for those who are terrorists. Could it be used against individuals who are convicted of crimes under that proscription? That is the danger that I am trying to illustrate to him, and this is an area of law where I urge him to tread carefully and to think about the compromises that he is creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain, at the same time—I do not dispute his motivation—as protecting the United Kingdom in the best way he possibly can. I am just worried that he is taking a step too far.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  To refer back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), would the hon. Lady be interested to comment on this point? My understanding is that, under the terms of the Good Friday agreement, every UK citizen resident in Northern Ireland has a right to claim Irish citizenship. This Bill in effect means that every UK citizen resident in Northern Ireland can be deprived of their citizenship—have it removed by the Home Secretary—if that is conducive to the public good. That is another example of a whole group of people who would have a second class of citizenship.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure that I accept the hon. Gentleman’s logic. The test of mental capacity in the judicial system applies to everyone equally. If I were being prosecuted for an offence, I would be assessed for mental capacity, just as my hon. Friend would. The court would accept that there might be mitigations for his actions, or a requirement for a different disposal if he lacks mental capacity, but that is an external influence on him. It may come about owing to mental illness or some other kind of disability—who knows? The point is that this comes about through no reason other than birth. My citizenship, or my lack of citizenship, is conferred on me by reason of my birth—my parentage, or my heritage. I cannot do anything about it. I cannot be treated for it, as I can be for mental illness. This is purely because my parents may have come from another country, my skin may be of a different colour, or the country of the origin of my DNA may offer particular rights of citizenship. It is something arbitrary, about which I can do nothing. We might as well have a piece of legislation that says that people with red hair receive different treatment under the law, because there is nothing they can do about that.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but I would have more faith, or confidence, in his view if it applied to me as well, which it does not. What we are saying is that we can have two British citizens who commit the same heinous acts but receive two different kinds of treatment. One can have his or her citizenship removed and be expelled from the country, but another—say I were to do that—cannot. My view is that this is highly discriminatory, and tramples over some of the inalienable rights that my hon. Friend has mentioned. We currently have plenty of British citizens in high-security prisons who have committed acts as heinous as those committed by people whom we have deprived of British citizenship, but we have decided to deprive them of British citizenship purely because of their heritage and background—purely because they may be second-generation immigrants. As I pointed out on Second Reading, this legislation applies to every single Jewish member of the United Kingdom citizenry. They all have an inalienable right to Israeli citizenship, and as a result, in my view, they all have second-class citizenship. I do not think that that is right. I do not think that it is fair. I think that it drives a wedge into our society, and sows a seed of doubt at the back of everyone’s mind. This is the point that I was trying to make at the start. Those who perpetrate such heinous acts overseas absolutely should be punished. As my hon. Friend will know, over the past 10 years I have been at the forefront of trying to ensure that as many criminals as possible end up behind bars, whatever the criminality might be, but the fact is that there is a principle in British law—we are all supposed to be equal—and the Bill breaches that principle very significantly. Moreover, what the Government are attempting to do not only reinforces that breach, but aims to twist and skew fundamental tenets of British justice that have been our right for centuries.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister. I have just a couple of points to make, if I may. He is quite right that timetables are agreed and there can be case management reviews, but there is nothing the court can do to restore someone’s citizenship even if the Government do drag their heels. If he could explain to us, perhaps in a little more detail, what recourse I would have were I somebody who had won an appeal, was awaiting a further appeal by the Government against me and mounting a defence but the Government were dragging their heels and basically ignoring the case management reviews. I do not think it is the case that the judge would just dismiss the appeal out of hand. The Government could effectively take their time. I have a second question, if I may. Can the Minister tell the House whether, in his view, given that it is a subjective judgment by the Home Secretary, membership of a proscribed organisation would be prima facie grounds for the deprivation of citizenship?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  By all means. I know he is a busy man, and I do not mean to be critical.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady has made a very good point. My problem with this legislation is that it places a question mark over certain citizens. I am not suggesting that the legislation is on everyone’s lips every day, but when it is used with increasing frequency, it does place a question mark over people’s status as citizens of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, should be a matter of concern.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 1, page 1, line 9, at end insert— “(2BA) But a judge may determine that an order does not continue to have effect for a person “P” during the appeal period if, on granting leave to appeal at any stage, they are satisfied that— (a) “P” faces a real and substantial threat of serious harm as a result of the order, (b) continuation of the order would significantly prejudice their ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal, or (c) the duration of the appeal process has been excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority.”

• 7 Jul 2025 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Along with 6.5 million fellow members, I am a member of the local government pension scheme, through my proud membership of the London Pensions Fund Authority. We are uniquely affected by the Pension Schemes Bill, which we are about to contemplate. I am therefore concerned that it should be a hybrid Bill rather than a public Bill. I seek your guidance, please, as to whether the Bill has been properly certified as a public Bill and whether, in fact, it should be referred to the examiners to decide whether it should go through the hybrid Bill process. If not, and the House decides to proceed today, could the House of Lords independently decide through its examiners whether it is, in fact, a hybrid Bill?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from. She is keen on Government intervention in our pensions, but does she recognise that that represents a fairly significant transfer of investment risk, and that the Government should underwrite that risk in all fairness to pensioners, who may lose money as a result?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making a good point, but does he accept that illiquid investments, by their very nature, tend to be more volatile, and that from a risk-adjusted point of view they therefore represent much higher risk for investors? He mentioned investment in life sciences companies; he will be aware of the collapse a couple of years ago of the fund led by Neil Woodford, which was a significant investor in illiquid private sector life sciences companies and, because of that illiquidity, collapsed. The point is that if we are mandated to do that stuff—I ask the same question as I asked the Minister—who will pay? Who carries the can?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have already given way to the Minister. He said that the Bill contained an opt-out for pension funds, but that is not strictly accurate. It does not create an opt-out for trustees; it creates an opportunity for them to request the ability to opt out from the regulator, with whom the discretion to opt out lies. It also reverses the burden of proof. Even if it is on their own judgment, the trustees must prove, empirically, that investing as the Minister so directs will be to the detriment of their fund. That is not a true opt-out. It is not at the discretion of the trustees. All they can do is request, and all they can do is try to offer whatever evidence they may have. We must reflect on the fact that an awful lot of investment decisions are made by trustees on their judgment—yes, on advice, but on their judgment—and that is a very hard thing to disprove. I am afraid I feel that the Bill is bulldozing into an area of highly sensitive financial structure, and is not taking care of the interests of those whom it purports to protect. It is reclassifying risk, it is recentralising power, and it is rewriting contracts that have hitherto been extant for many years. It is too important to my future, and the future of millions of pensioners, for us to rush into this consensus-driven Bill without proper examination in Committee, with pensioners and pension funds themselves able to petition, as they should be, under a hybrid Bill structure.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, the evidence about performance across the population of funds is mixed. Some smaller funds do extremely well, because they have strong governance and a focused and nimble investment strategy. Some megafunds do reasonably well, because they can spread their risk across a variety of asset classes, but it is not a given that a big fund will perform better than a smaller fund. In fact, in certain circumstances smaller funds, because they have better accountability and can have a more focused investment strategy, may well perform better. Frankly, and this speaks to my hon. Friend’s point, it is for me as a member of the pension fund to decide what I want to do, performance or otherwise, because it is my money. Given that I have contracted with this pension fund under circumstances made clear to me when I contracted with it as part of my employment or otherwise, it is not necessarily for the Government to steam in and tell me what I should or should not do with my own money. That means I carry a certain element of risk—absolutely—but unless we are going full-throated for the total financial infantilisation of the British people, I cannot see that we have any other way to preserve our financial freedom and autonomy.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not dispute the fact that there are too many small funds that are suboptimal; my question is whether it should be the Government who correct that. If, for example, I am a member of a small suboptimal pension fund and the Government, through the Bill, consolidate it with another pension fund, and it turns out that this reduces my return, who carries the can?