Mark Garnier MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Sept 2026 · Public Sector Productivity · Hansard source

  More

  Many commentators have commented about public sector productivity underperformance. EY tells us that the public sector has underperformed to the point where it has cut GDP growth by 3% since 2019. The Institute for Government highlights an average of nearly 1% underperformance every year for that same period. Morgan Stanley reminds us that in the last year private sector productivity was up 1.8%, but public sector underperformance dragged it back into negative territory. Despite that, public sector pay was up over 6% last year, against private sector pay up just 2.8%. Why are the Government rewarding poor performance and does the Chancellor think that is sustainable?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  As I say, I am not an apologist for banks, and I am keen to ensure that we get a balanced argument. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that that is an awful lot of money, but it all comes down to what should be the right and proportionate response. I do not disagree with her fundamental point, but the question is slightly more complicated. I will give the hon. Lady an example from my constituency. Not so long ago, I went into a branch of Santander. It was a Thursday, and I was banking a cheque. I was the fourth customer that the bank teller had seen that week. It was utterly dismal, and that was in the centre of Kidderminster. The branch was closed the following week. There are issues for banks—whether they should necessarily be opening branches that could get one or two customers coming in a week. There is a balance to be struck. If a branch is not viable, should the bank keep it open? We must look at the other opportunities. The last Conservative Government recognised that and were committed to retaining vital banking services. That is why we provided a system of free and convenient access to banks through the post office branch network, why we introduced protections for access to cash and why we enabled the development of banking hubs through the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023. I am glad that the Government have continued our positive trajectory, especially through their commitment to 350 new banking hubs by 2030, but I also welcome the independent access to banking services review chaired by Richard Lloyd. We are interested to see its outcomes and recommendations, but would be grateful if the Minister gave us a clue as to when it will report. Decisive Government action could ensure support for underserved communities in good time and mitigate the impact of bank branch closures. This and previous debates on this subject have shown just how much Members support bank branches, especially in rural areas. Members have emphasised how many of their constituents and local businesses still rely on those services, which is especially true in rural areas such as South Devon. It is vital that the Government step up to support communities who lack adequate banking services provision. The publication of the access to banking services review will help to identify the next steps, but many people will be frustrated that the Government are undertaking another review and not taking action. As the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), said, people are “impatient for change”. When it comes to this issue, our constituents do not want to wait much longer.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for your leadership, Mr Wishart. I welcome the Minister back to her position as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for the second time. It is a great pleasure to see her in her place. Much more importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) on securing this important debate. The fact that 25 Back Benchers have contributed illustrates just how important the subject is to our constituents. The debate has also illustrated the fact that the nature of banking in the UK is evolving quite fast. According to data from Finder, just under 30% of adults used online or remote banking in 2006. In 2024, that figure had increased to 88%. It is simply the case that fewer people are using face-to-face banking services, but that does not mean we should get rid of branches altogether. As we have heard, many people still rely on them. We need to strike the right balance between allowing our banking system to evolve with changing consumer habits and protecting those who rely on traditional banking services, such as vulnerable people and local businesses. Before I go further, it is valuable to provide some context to this debate. According to Which?, 6,871 bank branches have closed since 2015, meaning that 69% of branches closed in that period. Which? also found that 56 of our constituencies, from Norwich North to Mid Bedfordshire, are now without a single bank branch, and that 101 constituencies have just one branch left. The South Devon constituency is part of that category, following the recent closure of the Lloyds Bank branch in Totnes. As the hon. Lady set out, the impact on all her constituents, but especially the vulnerable and older constituents she serves, is significant. In the increasingly digital world in which we live, it is easy to forget that many people struggle to use technology. The Government’s own statistics suggest that 1.3 million adults in the UK are deemed to be digitally excluded. Although that has decreased from 6.8 million in 2017, there are still a significant number of people who find the digital alternatives difficult to navigate.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Face-to-Face Banking: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend raises another big argument that we could have on the issue of rural broadband, but it is worth making the point regarding internet connectivity that I was just coming on to. I know this is as painful in other constituencies as it is in Wyre Forest. According to the financial lives 2024 survey, adults living in rural areas were, “disproportionately more likely to report having poor or no connectivity.” We must also remember that many of our local businesses rely on face-to-face banking services. According to the House of Commons Library, an average small business deposits cash twice a month, withdraws cash once a month and gets change for their cash registers once a month. It is worth bearing in mind that, typically, we have about 3,500 businesses per constituency, so an awful lot of people rely on these services. I remember the impact that was felt in 2015 when HSBC closed the last bank in Bewdley in my constituency; people were utterly dismayed. Happily, the post office stepped in and was able to help resolve the issues, but since then we have now discovered that that the post office is under threat. We are working on it, but it demonstrates the point that things are changing very quickly. There is also a more subtle outcome of a sharp reduction in bank branches: the relationship between a bank and the local economy is being dramatically reduced, which has implications for our wider economy. Local branch managers living in a community, providing banking services to local businesses and understanding local economic opportunities as well as pressures, are well placed to understand the commercial value of a loan application by a local business. That is important. An application for a business loan is usually something that business owners and managers want to get in place as fast as they can, but the reality is that applications for smaller business loans now take an average of nine months to be approved. That is not good for our local economies. Furthermore, banks need to lend money. That is the business they are in. Each loan creates a banking asset. Indeed, 95% of the money in circulation is the result of banks lending it into existence through fractional reserve banking. It is in the interest of both our banks and our economy that they lend, but if it takes too long, others will step in. That can be good, but it can be bad. Private debt is gaining traction alongside private equity. Meanwhile, unregulated loan notes have been central to some recent mis-selling issues at the smaller end of the market. That is not the fault of the banks, but the lack of local banking services opens doors to alternatives, not all of which are properly understood, risk-assessed and regulated. However, we must recognise that banks are businesses. I do not want to be an apologist for banks, but they do provide a very important service, which they have to do in a profitable way. They have to make commercial decisions, and they have to consider the footfall in their branches and the take-up of digital banking.

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) for securing this debate. He speaks with great authority, and it is refreshing to hear a positive vision of the financial services sector, especially given his experience working for the London Stock Exchange Group. He raised a number of points, some of which I will deal with in my speech. The hon. Member raised some interesting points that are strongly related. The first was the lack of growth capital and the fact that we are not seeing a huge amount of money invested into the UK by UK pension funds. Companies looking for growth capital seem to go to places such as America, where they can do better. He also talked about the undervaluation of the UK stock market, which is part of that problem, as well as clean energy and the fantastic opportunity it provides for investment in long-term patient capital. It is interesting that, during the passage of the Pension Schemes Act, one complaint thrown up by a very large annuity asset manager was that it wanted to invest in the equity of wind farms, where there is a predictable income because of contracts for difference, but the Pensions Regulator would not allow it because it had to be invested in bonds, which have a more liquid market. Although the Conservatives completely support the Mansion House compact and the Mansion House accord, there is too much stuff getting in the way. We had a long debate on this during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill, now an Act. We are trying to work with the Government on how not just to force more money into the UK equity market, but to clear away the clag that gets in the way of investments. That comes to the point about regulation and the regulatory environment. I will discuss more of the hon. Member’s points in the main thrust of my speech, but I wanted to get that point over early on. As we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), the financial services sector matters hugely to the UK. It is often described as the engine room of our economy, for two good reasons. The first is that the banking sector provides the plumbing that moves finance around our economy, making sure that money, where it is accumulated through wealth, is distributed to people who need it. The second is our international position: the financial services sector generates 11% of national economic output and contributes £12 in every £100 of tax paid—it pays for a lot of the NHS. As we heard, the sector makes up more than 3% of all jobs in the UK, with 2.5 million people employed in it, and we have the most unicorns in Europe. The sector here is the second-largest asset sector globally, the third-largest insurance market globally and the fifth-largest domestic banking market globally. I could go on, but the point is that the UK is absolutely a world leader in financial services, and we need to continue to be that. It is vital that we get this right. It is worth comparing London to New York. New York is the biggest financial services centre in the world and London is the second biggest, but in New York, 80% of the turnover is driven by the domestic market of America, while just 20% is international; those numbers are reversed in the UK, where 80% of the activity is international. International competitiveness is four times as important for us as it is for those in America. The Conservative party recognises that, and that is why the Leader of the Opposition has promised to deliver a new economic revolution and to create conditions that will allow the financial services sector to innovate, take risks and be an economic powerhouse. Before discussing the future of UK financial services, we need to understand the past. The City of London has been innovating and leading the way for a few hundred years now. The Knights Templar issuing receipts to crusaders for their gold created the first ever bank notes. In the 17th century, Jonathan’s Coffee House—the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley will be familiar with it—was the first to advertise share prices. From there the London stock exchange grew, setting the model for equity ownership the world over. Similarly, Lloyd’s Coffee House created the insurance market that we see today. By continually innovating, the UK led the way for centuries. It is vital that the UK continues that spirit of innovation to maintain its international lead. Although we have enjoyed much success over the years, a recent report by TheCityUK and PwC shows that over the past decade growth has stalled. Technologies such as artificial intelligence and distributed ledger technology are fundamentally rewiring financial market infrastructure, and it is vital that the UK keeps up with the pace of change. Financial services firms are ready to do that, but they need policy makers to create the right conditions and then get out of the way, allowing them to innovate and take advantage of that. That brings me to what we need to do to unlock the future of UK financial services. First, we need to look at regulation in the UK. Although it is important to recognise that the UK’s regulatory and legal frameworks make us an attractive destination—that is really important; our rule of law is vital to this—we believe that the UK has gone too far and that regulation has become too burdensome. Research from TheCityUK suggested that the cost of regulatory compliance across the financial services sector now exceeds £33.9 billion. That represents more than 13% of firms’ annual average operating cost. An interesting number was presented to the Treasury Committee by Nationwide Building Society, which estimated that, as a result of over-regulation by the regulators and over-compliance by their own internal compliance department, their lending book was £35 billion smaller than it would have been, had they been complying with the original rules and regulations. That is an awful lot of money taken out of the economy, getting stuck in one building society—admittedly the biggest one, but none the less, that is an important measure that we need to consider. This money could have been better spent across the whole of the wider sector, but more worryingly, it has affected our international reputation. The chief executive officer of Marsh McLennan said that it cost six times more to comply with regulation in the UK than in any other country it operates in. That does not foster an attractive business environment. Something needs to change. That is why the Conservatives recently announced three policies that would reduce the regulatory burden. First, we would remove the ringfencing on banks. Secondly, we would reduce bank capital requirements. Thirdly, we would replace the Financial Ombudsman Service with a financial adjudication service.

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I can, from having been on the Treasury Committee from 2010 to 2016, when we looked at creating the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulatory Authority, and, more relevantly, on the parliamentary commission on banking standards. Our report recommended that we introduce the measures in the Davies review, which was bringing ringfencing in. The hon. Member may remember that, at the time, the Liikanen review in the European Union looked at ringfences. The subtle difference between our ringfencing and theirs is that it was described as caging the tigers in Europe and as putting a fence around the deer park in the UK. Our retail banks were ringfenced. The problem we have found is that it has become increasingly complex to operate the regime, and the Europeans did not bring it in; as a result the resolution regime on banks—the recent Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Act 2025 looked at this—actually means that we now have an awful lot of other stuff in place and do not necessarily need the ringfencing. The problem with ringfencing is that banks end up with a cliff edge, where their customers are traversing from the ringfenced bank to the commercial and investment banks, and it becomes very difficult. Only one bank has managed to satisfy itself that it is okay, and it has set that ringfence limit at £100 million worth of turnover; all other banks have been at the lower end, which is close to £5 million or £10 million in turnover. It is costing us more and becoming less internationally competitive to have a ringfencing regime that other countries did not adopt. When we adopted it we were the first mover, but we were not followed. International competitiveness is the key point, as well as the bank resolution. There are MRELs, bullion bonds and a lot of stuff out there that makes up for that, brought in since the financial crisis. It just looks like we have too much. I hope that answers the question from the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). Analysis shows that the annual cost to the UK’s banking sector of ringfencing alone is £1.5 billion. At the same time, reports from industry are clear that ringfencing is duplicated and is not responsible for post-crisis improvements. In 2022, the independent review of ringfencing and proprietary trading said that “the reduction in the implicit government guarantee and progress in ending too-big-to-fail was not found to be attributable to ring-fencing.” We understand that the Government are looking at this, and at reforming the ringfencing regime through the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury and I will be spending a lot of time in the coming months going through the minutiae of banks’ balance sheets—frankly, I find it fascinating; I hope she does too. However, like most of the Bill, while welcome, we feel that the Government are not fully utilising the opportunities that the Bill will provide, and that they could go much further. As I say, I will not delve into too much of the detail because we have a long time to go through all this, but I hope that the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley will throw his weight behind the Financial Services and Markets Bill when it comes to the House of Commons. I have a second point on taxation. If we are to unlock the future of UK financial services, the other area we have to look at is the level of taxation. In a world where capital, talent and business activity are highly mobile, the UK needs to remain an attractive place to do business. That is especially important given the international nature of the UK’s markets. While our competitors such as the US have a high domestic focus, the UK is the exact opposite: the London Stock Exchange Group found that more than four fifths of the revenues of FTSE 100 constituents now stem from outside the UK. Despite that, data from across the industry shows that the UK is an outlier when it comes to the level of taxation on our financial services sector. Taking the banks as an example, data from UK Finance and PwC in 2025 suggests that the total tax rate on banks in London is 46.5%, which is significantly higher than in other financial centres such as Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Dublin and New York, as we have already heard. In fact, compared with the US, our banks are paying 60% higher tax than theirs are. Another example is the insurance sector. Data from the Association of British Insurers shows that their membership’s total tax contribution increased by 77% between 2014 and 2024. Analysis suggests that that has mainly been driven by increases in the insurance premium tax.

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  I will draw my remarks to a close, Mr Twigg—I have been rambling on a bit. I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley again for his words. This has been a very intelligent and thoughtful debate. As I say, the most important point is that we have to be incredibly mindful of our international competitiveness, which is so vital for our country. It is so important that we get this right. If we fail, we may find our descendants sitting in this Chamber in 20 or 30 years’ time, wondering what on earth happened to the UK’s financial services sector. We must get it right.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I can see the sense in what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with this reorganisation, and the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority makes a lot of sense—it brings a lot of people together. But why, after Wyre Forest district council voted for the single unitary, did the Secretary of State deliver a two-unitary solution for Worcestershire? North Worcestershire, where Wyre Forest is, will consist of 293,000 people. We are now splitting up adult social care, children’s services, highways, education and refuse disposal. It does not make financial sense. Will the Secretary of State reconsider what is being proposed for Worcestershire, and go with a single unitary authority?

• 15 Jul 2026 · National Energy System Operator: Blackout Risk · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) about the management of NESO creating a hostile environment for technicians in the distribution centres? Like the Minister, I have met the individuals in the control rooms, and I have nothing but admiration for them, so for them to be condemned as enemies of the company by being whistleblowers is profoundly wrong. We have heard Members raise other problems. In particular, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) spoke about small blackouts in his constituency, and the Minister brushed that off as a little local problem. The reality is that at the moment we use about 36 GW of power, and during the winter we use about 45GW of power, and that is before we have electrified transportation and before we have invested a huge amount in data centres and artificial intelligence. Blackouts are indicators that the grid is not working. A small blackout in Tunbridge Wells is an indicator that there could be big blackouts in the future. What is the Minister doing to resolve these problems?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Early Release of Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister not understand that people out there, such as my constituent Leanne Vaughan—her daughter was killed by a hooligan driver, and she had to wait 28 months before he was sentenced to 66 months in prison, but then was released after 21 months—do not believe what he is saying? It is appalling. People are heartbroken by their losses, and this Government are not meeting their expectations or ours.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I am not going to give way, because I have very limited time—my apologies. When it comes to fraud and error in the DWP specifically, the Department’s own statistics estimate that around £9.9 billion is overpaid in benefits each year. Two thirds of those overpayments are for universal credit claims, so I hope the Minister will explain why fraud and error are particularly high for universal credit claims and what steps are being taken. In 2017, there were 7,840 convictions for benefit fraud; last year, there were 461. That is a 94% decline in convictions, and fewer than 600 individuals have been convicted in total since the general election. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) that we should be making an example of benefit cheats in the courts to disincentivise others. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be delighted to hear that I am coming to the end of my speech. Under this Government, hard-working taxpayers are being asked to pay more. Many people would hope that that money would be going towards—for example—increasing the defence budget, but as this estimates day debate has highlighted, it is going to the DWP budget instead. The Government know that this is not right; indeed, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was right when she said that the Government “must not…duck the big challenges facing this country”. —[ Official Report , 1 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 164.] However, when it came to making the tough decisions, they bottled it every time. Maybe the next Government, led by the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), will do better. In his speech yesterday, he said that he would control the welfare bill, and told us to “imagine”. We on the Conservative Benches hope that his promises do not turn out to be imaginary.

• 30 Jun 2026 · Department for Work and Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for securing this debate. I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) on a great Conservative gain and to the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Lara Bird) on an SNP hold, and I congratulate them both on their maiden speeches. I welcome the opportunity to challenge the Minister on her Department’s spending policies and performance. We cannot pretend that welfare reform is not difficult to achieve. As the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said recently: “When I speak to former Welfare Secretaries, I hear the same thing again and again. Welfare reform is hard. You will be hated.” That is why we offered our support to the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), when she attempted to bring down the benefits bill, because it was the right thing to do. Everyone is paying more in tax to pay benefits to others. That is not fair, and it needs to change. When it comes to our welfare system, we need to be clear what we want from it. The system should be there to help people when they fall into difficulty; at the same time, it should help the most vulnerable people in our society. There are many people who simply cannot work, and they must be protected. However, we have got to a state in which too many people are reliant on the benefits system. Let us take a look at where we have got to today. When we left office, inflation was at 2%. Unemployment was at 4.1%, and youth unemployment was at 14%. Some 6.8 million people were claiming universal credit, and 3.5 million people were claiming personal independence payments. Twenty months later, after Labour came to power, inflation has risen to 2.8%. Unemployment has risen to 4.9%, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.2%. Some 7.9 million people are claiming universal credit, which is 1.1 million more people, and 3.9 million people are claiming PIP—that is 400,000 more people. That is unsustainable. How have we got to this position? Part of it is down to the Government’s policies around employment. The increase in employer national insurance contributions to 15% has added more costs to businesses. That means that many businesses have had to make redundancies and are hiring fewer people than before. That is especially affecting young people, hence why we now have higher youth unemployment than the European average. That is not a good thing after 20 months in power. At the same time, the Government introduced the Employment Rights Act 2025, adding even more costs and complexities to businesses. These costs to businesses are estimated at £5 billion. When the Minister closes the debate, I am sure she will talk about the increased funding in apprenticeships, which is of course welcome. It is all well and good increasing funding for apprenticeships and employment, but it is ultimately pointless if there are no jobs available. That is what this Government seem to fail to understand. This is a crisis of their own making, and they are putting their head in the sand and pretending it is all fine. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, if it is all fine, why is the Prime Minister resigning? When it comes to welfare specifically, we are at a point where more than half of all households are net beneficiaries of benefits. Again, that is unsustainable. The Government had the chance to reduce the benefits bill, and the Leader of the Opposition pledged our party’s support in doing that. However, the Government could not face down their own Back Benchers, so we are left waiting for the Timms review of PIP to report in the autumn, which may not even suggest making the necessary savings we should all make on PIP. In this year alone, PIP will cost the Department an extra £3.5 billion, and universal credit will cost nearly £9 billion extra. If we stay on this trajectory, the health and disability-related benefits bill could reach nearly £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. We should be acting now; instead, we are left with dither and delay. Finally, we need to talk about fraud, which is becoming ever more pervasive—the National Audit Office found that it cost the public sector between £55 billion and £81 billion in 2023-24. That figure continues to increase year on year, so there is a real need to tackle fraud and ensure that public money is allocated correctly.

• 29 Jun 2026 · Supporting British Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  The Pensions Minister likes to spend a lot of time criticising the previous Government for their actions on pensioners. He also spends an awful lot of time talking up his legacy on helping pensioners, but his actions simply do not reflect the narrative. So far, he has capped salary sacrifice, there have been delays to the pensions dashboards, we have had retrospective changes to inheritance tax on pension pots, and—as we have heard—the Government are chasing hard-up pensioners for their winter fuel allowance. All of this creates uncertainty among savers and pensioners alike, so I will repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell): is the Pensions Minister hopeful that his successor will do a better job of looking after pensioners?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Venture Capital Trust Income Tax Relief · Hansard source

  More

  May I start by congratulating the former Economic Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion to Chief Secretary? In the eight months that I shadowed her in her previous role, she made a strong impact and gained significant, well-deserved respect from those in the financial services industry. May I also welcome my fourth Economic Secretary, and wish her the very best of luck in the role? As the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, tax and regulation is getting in the way of financial services lending and investing in the UK economy. Does the new Economic Secretary think that the next Chancellor will do a better job of ensuring growth for this country?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I was going to bang on with a very long and intelligent speech, but in the interests of brevity and keeping everybody happy, I will not. I am delighted that the Minister is introducing legislation relating to the glorious regime of the strong and stable Conservative Government of 2020 and the 2023 Budget. This policy was slightly bonkers. We need to do everything we can to encourage people to save and not put a cap on their savings. I am tempted to go on about salary sacrifice, but I will spare the Minister the embarrassment of reminding him about that. We will certainly not oppose these regulations.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  It is interesting that the Minister raises that point. He will no doubt remember that Chancellor Gordon Brown raised the state pension by, I think, 50p a week. Did he support that policy by one of his predecessor Chancellors?

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dr Huq, for your stewardship of this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for introducing the debate. Most importantly, I thank the 119,000 people who signed this petition, 247 of whom are from my constituency of Wyre Forest. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) for also raising this issue, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for bringing up the WASPI women, and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who needs hearty congratulations on getting Brexit into this debate—well done to him. This is a timely debate, and I agree with the wider point at the heart of the proposal that the petition seeks to address. We are all facing a higher tax burden thanks to this Government’s choices and policies, and we are all really struggling with cost of living rises—again, thanks to this Government’s tax choices on employment. Pensioners, instead of living with the dignity in retirement that they have worked so hard for and deserve, have a greater financial burden placed on them. Now we have the prospect of the Chancellor of the Exchequer floating more tax rises in the next Budget. That is deeply concerning for all of us, but especially for those on low incomes. I hope that this Minister, who played a key role in the last Budget, will be able to rule out tax rises in the next Budget at the Dispatch Box here today. The thrust behind the petition is very clear, but first we must understand the historical context of how the pension system works. That context goes back over a century to 1921, when the Government of the time struck a deal with future pensioners. The basis of that deal was that people could save money into a fund from untaxed earnings; the Treasury would contribute to that fund the tax that would otherwise have been paid. Then the fund would be allowed to grow without being subject to any tax during its lifetime. At the time of retirement, the fund would be used to provide an income for the pensioner but, importantly, that income would be treated as taxable income. It would be replacing the earnings that that individual would have been generating, had they still been in work. In 1946, when the state pension was introduced, that pension payout was to be subject to tax in exactly the same way that private pensions were back in 1921. That system has remained unchanged ever since. The simple contract between the state and the pensioner has not changed at all since 1921. It is important to underline this point. Successive Governments maintain that a pension, whether state or occupational, is a form of income. Specifically, it is treated as a replacement for earnings. However, there have been breaks for pensioners, most notably the exemption from paying national insurance contributions. Today, a pensioner will be asked to pay income tax above the tax-free threshold, but they will not be asked to pay national insurance, as the working population do. Where we can absolutely agree with the wider sentiment of the petition is that this Government are confusing the pension landscape. In their first 20 months, the Labour Government have not been the pensioner’s best friend. Prior to the last Budget, the Chancellor flew a few kites about reducing the tax-free lump sum. That resulted in pensioners withdrawing £3.9 billion in one-off lump sums from their pensions between October 2024 and October 2025. That was an increase of nearly 30% on the year before. When the Budget was actually announced, the Chancellor raided unused pensions in her inheritance tax calculations—a policy that will bring more families into paying inheritance tax and will mean that fewer people can pass money on to their loved ones when they die. However, this petition talks specifically about the personal allowance. The last Government made a decision to help those in the bottom decile of earnings by increasing the tax-free threshold at an accelerated rate. That helped pensioners as well as lower-earning people, and over time it brought the state pension to a level below that of the tax-free threshold. That has two benefits: first, there is no tax for state pensioners, and secondly there is no tax return to be filled in by state pensioners. But now this Government are choosing to freeze income tax thresholds until 2031, and the Government have extended the freeze because of their economic mismanagement. The Chancellor, in her first Budget, stated: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] As I say, that was her first Budget. After promising to not extend the freeze—something we would have supported —she went back on her word and chose not to protect hard-working people. That matters to pensioners, because the state pension will soon rise above the income tax threshold due to the triple lock, which we all agree is a good thing to remedy the ills that happened when the state pension fell to, I think, about 13% or 14% of average earnings. That means that pensioners will now have to start paying income tax on— [Interruption.] I am being heckled by the Minister.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the Minister will chunter intelligently at some point. In our 2024 manifesto, the Conservative party proposed the triple lock plus to stop this problem happening. It would have exempted the state pension from income tax, as the threshold would have risen at the same rate as the triple lock. Now it seems that this Government might be considering using our policy, albeit in a slightly cack-handed way. The Government have proposed that basic-rate state pensioners will not have to fill in a tax return, although this seems to be a specific sort of form-filling break for the over-67s rather than an actual hiking of the allowance. However, in a Treasury Committee hearing recently, a director at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, Cerys McDonald, stated that the policy would be included in the next Finance Bill. She said: “We will be working with the Treasury and Ministers to bring forward legislation to support the policy intent in the next Finance Bill.” Of course, we welcome the Government effectively taking our policy and exempting those who are on a state pension, but we do not have any detail as to how this plan will work. Pensioners deserve clarity. Perhaps the Minister could confirm today that the proposals to which Cerys McDonald referred will be introduced. It is not just policy that is blighting pensioners. The Sunday Times has highlighted that up to 8.7 million pensioners have been overcharged on their tax bill by an apparently careless taxman. That means that as much as £43.5 million was collected in error last year. I am pleased that HMRC is putting that right and that the fix should be finalised in the summer, but it has been working on this for a year. It is taking far too long. Will the Minister set out what he will do to resolve the situation and confirm to the House when it is fixed? This petition is well-intentioned and it is correct that we are all facing a higher tax burden than ever before. As has been reported, many pensioners are being overcharged on their tax bill. The Government need to get a hold of this situation and do more to reduce the tax burden on pensioners, because, as we have heard from many Members today, they deserve dignity and security in their retirement, but they have been left wanting by this Government. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether he is willing to raise the tax-free threshold, as identified in this petition, from £12,500 or thereabouts to £25,140, and will then maintain it at 200% of the working person’s tax-free threshold. Will he agree with the petition, or will he rule out that proposal today? Finally, I have been shadowing the Minister for about 18 months now. He is a very decent gentleman and I enjoy shadowing him. I wish him the very best of luck in the upcoming reshuffle after the by-election on Thursday.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about crossing the Rubicon, given that the Government are taking mandation powers to interfere in people’s savings and assets. We are talking about pension funds here, but once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no reason why the Government would not feel that they could start mandating how investment trusts or other types of savings schemes invest. This issue is not just about pensions; it is about the fundamental relationship between the state and private individuals.

• 28 Apr 2026 · Global Trade: Support for Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury will know that our financial services industry is a shining example of our international economic might. However, overinterpretation of rules and regulations has led to banks being nervous of taking risks, and that has slowed growth in the City and holds up international trade. For example, overinterpretation of anti-money laundering rules means that foreign inward remittances can take up to two weeks to clear into a UK bank account, while poor classification of risk-rated assets potentially starves businesses of growth debt capital. Will the Economic Secretary please assure the House that this ever-unnecessary tightening of the rules will be addressed in the financial services Bill, due to be announced in the King’s Speech?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  With the greatest respect, the Minister is talking nonsense. At the end of the day, every trustee has a fiduciary duty to get the best return for their members. By putting in these mandation powers, the Government are fundamentally going against the most basic principle of the City of London, which is dictum meum pactum—my word is my bond. The Government entered into a pact with the industry, and they are now reneging on that pact by introducing mandation and not allowing the industry to move things forward. The Government are so wrong on this whole point. The Minister should withdraw the mandation powers and get rid of clause 40.

• 27 Apr 2026 · State Pension Age Changes: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member raises many really important points, much of which we agree with. That is why, I think on Report, the Opposition tabled an amendment to try to understand what the problem was. It specifically asked, “Why are these pension funds not investing in the UK? Is it legislative, is it regulatory or is it cultural?” The Government voted against that. They voted against exactly the work we need to do to understand what the problem is. Could he possibly explain why?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Both sides of this House are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem—we all agree on that—but let us get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. We cannot force people into a minefield if the mines are still there; we have to clear the mines and allow them do it. This is the most fundamental point. The Government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money. If there is a problem that they are going to encounter, we should get those problems out of the way and managers will go into those assets.