Mark Garnier
MP for Wyre Forest · Conservative · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Mark Garnier, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“It is a great pleasure to speak in this incredibly dry debate about incredibly technical aspects of regulation. I am only disappointed not to see the new Economic Secretary to the Treasury make her debut today, although it is always nice to see the Chief Secretary.”
“All together, we broadly welcome the technical changes that the regulations introduce as they will help to streamline capital market regulation and ensure legal coherence. I was going to ask some questions, but I think in the interests of time we can probably pass on that—we do not want to keep anybody waiting. I will leave it at that.”
“Nevertheless, we have to accept that the EU is our largest trading partner, so it is right that the changes do not significantly deviate from what was in place before. As I said, the UK deviating to a new regulatory regime would not necessarily help our cause. We also welcome the fact that the changes will help to make the UK more responsive to emerging trends and risks. That is crucial as we seek to be competitive in an ever more volatile world and it would be remiss of me not to mention that many stakeholders feel the regulatory burden placed on them by the FCA and PRA is already too high and, in some instances, unnecessary. Although the changes should not increase that burden significantly, I hope the Minister and Treasury officials will be mindful of that when making changes in the future.”
“Many in the sector think the reporting obligations, investor protection rules and governance standards have imposed significant compliance costs and operational complexity. Although the intention is noble, we can over-regulate and we must remember that risk will always be something that we cannot remove completely. That was highlighted in a submission by UK Finance to a recent House of Lords Committee inquiry that showed that the rules have constrained the City’s ability to innovate and grow capital markets. Although we welcome the regulations, the Government now have the freedom to go further and simplify the onerous rules MiFID II introduced. Doing so would unlock growth in our financial services sector and help us to regain ground lost to competing hubs such as New York and to emerging financial centres in the EU.”
“Our financial services are our biggest export and it is vital that we do everything we can to ensure we keep them competitive with their counterparts in Europe and the rest of the world, while at the same time ensuring the UK is a principal destination for international capital. Let me be clear that we support the considered approach being presented, which will allow us to embrace the regulatory autonomy that Brexit provides while keeping us relatively aligned to EU frameworks such as MiFID. That is important because although we need to innovate to maintain our competitive advantage, we must equally avoid trying to reinvent the wheel on financial services regulation. I push the Minister to look at the wider regulatory burden that MiFID II has placed on UK financial firms.”
“Quite right. The hon. Gentleman’s leader is with the parliamentary Labour party right now, I think, which will be very exciting. The regulations are technical, dry but welcome changes to the detailed firm-facing regulations and definitions in the MiFID organisational regulations and capital buffers regime. They follow the comprehensive changes to regulation and tax that the last Government introduced through the Edinburgh reforms, while helping to implement the announcements the Chancellor set out in her 2024 Mansion House speech. We on the Conservative Benches will always support reforms that aim to make the UK financial market more competitive and growth-oriented.”
“Jennifer Devine, head of the Wiltshire pension fund, has said that the cost of closing its asset pool could come to as much as £100 million. There will be some costs incurred, but, none the less, the general thrust of the whole process is one that we support and we certainly would not stand in the way of these amendments.”
“Small funds, whether in local government or elsewhere, are rarely fit for purpose in the global investment environment. We have some concerns. The broad framing of the powers contained in chapter 1, clause 1 could allow for the mandation of certain investments by Government. Pools should be investing in line with the investment approach set out by their underlying asset owners in order to deliver against the fiduciary duties of LGPS funds. Governments should not take powers that would erode fiduciary duty. There are concerns about the costs of the Government’s decision to reduce the number of asset pools from eight to six. This is an administrative cost. We have heard from one council, Wiltshire, which is one of 21 LGPS funds in England now looking for a new pooling partner.”
“Before pooling, of course, it was 86 separate local authorities, which caused huge inefficiency, inequality of opportunities and, in some cases, poorer outcomes for pension beneficiaries. I should mention at this point, Sir Christopher, that I am a member of the LGPS and also that, as a councillor on Forest of Dean district council, I was responsible for looking after some of this activity in terms of pension management. It was not an efficient way of doing things, so pooling is an incredibly good idea. We welcome the Government’s continuing our work to make these pension funds work more efficiently and deliver better returns for members, and ultimately we all want to see improved returns and lower employer contributions.”
“It is great to be starting what I hope will be quite a quick canter through today’s work, Sir Christopher. The Opposition welcome the broad grain of this entire Bill; it seeks to do a lot of very useful things in the pension industry across the UK. We have some contentious points, but those will not come up today. Regarding clause 1, we welcome the creation of asset pool companies. These are sensible and pragmatic steps towards modernising the local government pension scheme, and much of the work had already been done under the previous Government. Consolidating funds represents a responsible approach that should deliver more effective management and investment of pension assets. The LGPS, as we have heard, is among the largest pension schemes in the UK, with 6.7 million members and £391 billion of capital.”
“I have just one question for the Minister. How are the shareholdings to be decided? Will they be determined based on the size of the investment, and how will the Government decide between councils having shareholders or contracting with asset pool companies? That is my only comment.”
“Consequently, we can argue that LGPS megafunds with a focus on best returns can lead to more a fully funded council and therefore to employer contribution holidays. Sir Christopher, would it be helpful for me to speak to the other amendments?”
“In addition, we do not want to shift the focus away from the fiduciary duty of trustees to local investments that might not deliver the best-value returns on schemes. Amendment 246 provides for scheme managers to report back clearly on the financial performance of any local investments that they might make. Scheme managers at local councils should charge the asset pool companies with finding the best value. Although we are not opposed to local investment, the focus of trustees must clearly remain on achieving best value, and the better performance of a pension fund means that local councils can already use their powers under regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013.”
“The Bill makes it clear that co-operation with strategic authorities, such as regional combined authorities, on appropriate investments will be required. However, there is a risk of investment decisions being influenced by political and local interests. The fiduciary duty should always prevail when local investments are considered. We do not oppose the clause, but we call on scheme managers to maintain discipline in prioritising sustainable returns, with local investments as a welcome but secondary consideration. We are considering three amendments with this clause. There is uncertainty about what qualifies as a local investment for LGPS funds, how such investments are defined and what assets or projects will meet the requirements under the new rules.”
“Pensions UK would like to understand what specific risks the Government are seeking to manage through the introduction of these powers, and it is seeking amendments to the Bill to ensure that if these powers remain in the Bill, they will only be exercised after other avenues have been exhausted, to guard against adverse outcomes for the pools, funds and scheme members. The Pensions Management Institute has highlighted that the administering authorities will be required to take their principal advice on their investment strategies from the pool. Given that an administering authority is required to invest all of its assets via the pool, this is a major conflict of interest and puts a significant burden on the administering authority or scheme manager to ensure that the pool is performing effectively, with no independent checks and balances.”
“We caution against overweighing local investment priorities if that risks undermining the long-term financial health of these pension funds. In short, financial returns must come first; local investments can follow, but must not take precedence. Pensions UK has questioned the need for these new powers and believes that they are too far-reaching. LGPS reform is already progressing at pace, and pools and funds are collaborating in line with the direction set by the Government.”
“However, the Opposition’s key concern is that the primary purpose must remain the delivery of strong financial returns for pension funds. Those returns ultimately belong to the pension fund members, but council tax payers also have a responsibility, as they support these schemes. Investment decisions must prioritise financial performance that ensures sustainable pensions while safeguarding public funds. Although we acknowledge that local investments can bring benefits to local communities and local economies, they should only be a secondary focus and should not compromise returns. Local investment should be considered as an additional benefit, but the overriding duty of scheme managers is to act prudently and in the best financial interests of the scheme members and taxpayers.”
“I beg to move amendment 246, in clause 2, page 3, line 33, at end insert— “(4A) Scheme managers must publish a report annually on the local investments within their asset pool company. (4B) A report published under section (4A) must include— (a) the extent, and (b) financial performance, of these investments.” This amendment provides for scheme managers to report back on the financial performance of any local investments that they might make . Clause 2 places important requirements on pension scheme managers regarding how they manage pension funds for local government workers, requiring formulation, publication and review of investment strategies. The Bill encourages investment through asset pool companies and emphasises local investments.”
“That is fine. It has been a few months since I last participated in a Bill Committee, Sir Christopher, so thank you for your advice. We are not proposing to press this amendment to a vote, but I would be very grateful if the Minister could respond to my points and undertake to take them away and consider how advice can be given to these pool managers to ensure that the issues I have mentioned are taken into account.”
“I beg to move amendment 245, in clause 2, page 3, line 39, leave out from first “in” to end of line 39. This amendment changes the definition of local investment to remove the reference to the benefit of persons living or working. This amendment runs closely with amendment 246. Amendment 245 changes the definition of local investment to remove ambiguous reference to the benefit of persons living or working in the area. It is a small, technical amendment, but it is about giving more focus on the key need to members of the fund.”
“I thank the Minister and wish him many happy returns. I hope that he has a happy birthday. We are satisfied with the Minister’s comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.”
“New clause 31 seeks to introduce provisions to allow employers within the local government pension scheme to take contribution holidays or reduce employer contributions when surplus funding is confirmed, with actuarial valuations, subject to maintaining the security of member benefits. It would also require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on how surpluses could be prudently deployed to balance member security with local fiscal needs. That would enable councils to better manage budgets, support local services and stimulate local economies without compromising pension schemes. However, the Minister seems to be working with the Opposition on trying to find ways to move all this forward, so for the sake of brevity we will seek to withdraw new clause 31.”
“Councils can already reduce employer contributions under regulations 64 and 64A of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013. The problem is that, in practice, actuaries and administering authorities hold the cards, and the guidance has been used to shut down reviews even when funding levels are strong. The Minister needs to consider issuing better guidance to councils to make the process more transparent, to rebalance the power between councils and funds, and to ensure that actuaries properly consider reductions when the funding position justifies it. The mechanisms that are currently in place mean that the assumptions are overly prudent, reviews come only in cycles, and councils have no leverage in disputes.”
“On new clause 31, as we have heard, the local government pension scheme in England and Wales has reached a record surplus of some £45 billion, which is 112% of funding levels, as of June 2024, with some estimating that it will rise to more than 125% by the end of 2025. Despite that strong funding position, no measures have been introduced to make it easier to allow councils or employers to reduce contributions or take contribution holidays. The surplus could be used to create contribution holidays for local authorities, as we have heard, or potentially to reduce council tax or increase the money available for spending on local services. The current Government focus remains on asset pooling and local investment strategies, rather than enabling the more immediate and flexible use of surplus funds.”
“Amendment 244 would require the Secretary of State to explicitly consider, for any LGPS scheme merger, the geography of scheme areas, and ensure alignment with strategic authority boundaries. This would help to provide clarity, promote smoother transitions and reduce disruption from concurrent local government reorganisations. The amendment emphasises the importance of integrating pension scheme boundaries with local government structures to support effective government and investment strategies. We hope the Government will reflect on this issue as the Bill progresses through the House.”
“The change in clause 5 would support flexibility for structural consolidation to enhance fund management and efficiencies; however, there is uncertainty about how the Government will confirm geographical boundaries for the local government pension scheme asset pools amid local government reorganisation. Currently, LGPS reform aims to consolidate assets and strengthen local investment, but concerns remain about the implementation timescales and risks of disruption. Stakeholders highlight the need for clarity on new geographical boundary definitions and on alignment with new or existing local authority boundaries. Potential challenges exist in meeting asset-pooling and Government deadlines if changes coincide with wider local government changes.”
“I beg to move amendment 244, in clause 5, page 6, line 6, at end insert— “(2) In the case of merger of schemes for local government workers, the Secretary of State must consider the geography of scheme areas and ensure these areas align with strategic authority boundaries before implementing the merger.” This amendment requires the Government to explicitly consider the geography of new LGPS areas in any reorganisation. The amendment would amend the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to explicitly empower the Secretary of State to make regulations if there was a merger, including a compulsory merger, of two or more LGPS-funded schemes.”
“I am reassured by the Minister’s comments and appreciate that he wishes to make the measure work in the interests, geographically, of local government or local authorities as they undergo a transition through the reorganisation of local authorities. Obviously, this provision needs to work concurrently with that process, but I appreciate that it is up to the authorities in the first instance. We wanted to be reassured, and the Minister has made the point that there will be no or little Government interference unless they really do disagree with themselves. I am reassured. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
“First, the Pensions Management Institute highlighted its disappointment that the Government did not take the opportunity of this legislation, which broadly talks about defined-benefit funds, to make it easier and more tax efficient for employers and schemes to use scheme surpluses to fund contributions under defined-contribution arrangements, including those not held in the same trust. That would have opened up possibilities for many entities that have long since moved their ongoing DC provisions to a master trust or contract-based arrangement. The Phoenix Group also highlighted an issue. To protect funding levels after surplus release, schemes may adopt more cautious investment strategies, reducing allocations to private and productive assets. That could undermine the Government’s growth objectives.”
“I thank the Minister for his comments. We agree that the law needs to be updated to reflect current circumstances, and it makes sense to ensure that companies that have not made pre-2016 resolutions are not unfairly penalised. We broadly support the update to the law because it corrects an important imbalance. However, it is crucial, as we move forward, that we maintain the necessary guardrails and uphold the independence of trustees to protect scheme members’ interests. These important aspects will be further discussed in relation to clause 9. I will raise a couple of points made by people we have been engaging with while looking at the Bill.”
“I will not take up too much of the Committee’s time, but suffice it to say that we all heard the evidence that was presented on Tuesday, and we in the Conservative party agree with the Liberal Democrats’ amendment. We will support it.”
“I beg to move amendment 247, in clause 9, page 8, line 23, at end insert— “(aa) prohibiting the making of a payment unless the scheme’s assets have exceeded a buyout valuation,”. This amendment requires that surplus extraction is only permitted once buyout funding levels are achieved.”
“Both amendments strengthen the guardrails around DB surplus extraction, as part of our overall strategy of putting member interest first and protecting trustees. We will be pressing these amendments.”
“Engagement with members should be undertaken before extraction, because ultimately any decisions on surplus extraction could be impactful on them. Setting out clearly in legislation what effective engagement would look like, including the role of the actuary in the process, would help trustees to understand their obligations and Parliament’s intent. Amendment 260 requires trustees to notify members at least 60 days before making surplus payments to employers, and ensures that members receive full information about proposed surplus payments, enabling informed participation. Amendment 261 aims to strengthen an actuary’s role in oversight of schemes accessing surplus, by requiring confirmation that member notification has occurred before certifying surplus payments.”
“Currently, the Bill is unclear on the level at which employers can extract that surplus and there is concern that, once a scheme is fully funded on a low-dependency basis, buy-out could happen. That is a lower threshold than for a gold standard buy-out and, while it may free up capital for employers and support investment, there are concerns that the change could risk members’ security, as buy-out remains the safest way to guarantee benefits. Amendment 247 would provide strong protection against a change of environment where DB funds start to slip back into deficit positions. Our amendments 260 and 261 are linked. Just Group plc wrote to the Committee to highlight that members of pension schemes that undertake employer surplus extractions should receive proper notification.”
“Moreover, there is nothing in the current legislation to prevent surpluses from being used for purposes that do not support economic growth, such as share buybacks or dividend payments by the host employer. Neither of those outcomes necessarily aligns with the Government’s growth agenda, although it could be argued that the money is going back into the wider economy and finding its way back. None the less, we would like to see more guidance on how that money is to be spent. Simply repaying—potentially—private equity funds a large dividend will not necessarily help the greater good. The Bill proposes new flexibilities for defined-benefit schemes in surplus.”
“One of the behavioural outcomes we have seen is that defined-benefit pension funds have been investing large amounts of money into bonds, including Government bonds, and not into equities where there is the greatest growth potential in the economy. That throws up a couple of problems in this area. First, the money is not going into equities, which are much more volatile than bonds. Secondly, if we see surplus extraction from some of those funds, that money will come from the Government bond market—the gilt market—and there may be an impact on the Government’s ability to borrow funds, which is something we will hear more about on 26 November. Crucially, the Minister will now be part of that, and I suspect he will be taking into account the bond market’s ability to meet Government borrowing requirements when he gets close to that date.”
“One firm belief is that defined-benefit pension funds should be funded to buy-out levels, to the extent that they are capable of securing members’ benefits with an insurer. Additionally, any surplus extraction should demonstrably provide clear benefits to scheme members, rather than simply serving the employer’s interest—although we heard evidence on Tuesday that did not necessarily agree with that. We acknowledge that there are broader issues facing defined-benefit pension schemes that we intend to explore further when the Committee considers the new clauses. In particular, the post-Maxwell accounting framework is a significant constraint on defined-benefit pension funds. The requirement to show deficits on company balance sheets suppresses growth potential. The Bill should not miss an opportunity to address those structural hurdles.”
“Any decision to release surplus funds from defined-benefit pension schemes should rest firmly, as we have discussed, with the trustees. It is important to emphasise that trustees bear the ultimate responsibility for such decisions. We believe that surplus repayments to employers should be permitted only when members’ benefits are fully protected and robust safeguards are in place to maintain the security and sustainability of the scheme. The Bill notes that the detailed criteria for surplus payments will be set out in forthcoming regulations, and those regulations must be subject to close scrutiny with a primary focus on safeguarding members’ benefits before any funds can be released. There remain important unanswered questions regarding what appropriate guardrails for surplus release should look like.”
“As we have heard, the amendment authorises the use of surplus pension funds to contribute to the provision of free, impartial pension advice and guidance services to scheme members. The age of 40 is very important, and I hope that the Minister, on his 42nd birthday—”
“Forty-third! He looks 28. None the less, I hope he is getting plenty of pension advice; who knows when he may need it? This is a very good provision. The more informed people are about their retirement opportunities, the better. I suppose I have to declare a bit of an interest, inasmuch as I will retire in five years’ time, hopefully. It is incredibly important that people are well prepared for their retirement, and the more information a member of a pension fund has, the better it is. If the amendment is pressed to a vote, we will support it wholeheartedly.”
“The key worry is the risk that the Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be, might use these powers to allow the payment of a surplus at funding levels below buy-out standards at some point in future, which could jeopardise scheme security and could happen without parliamentary scrutiny. The amendment is about improving the transparency and accountability of surplus extraction regulations for DB pension schemes, ensuring that Parliament maintains consistent oversight and guarding against premature surplus extractions that might undermine scheme funding security.”
“Conservative amendment 258 would ensure that all regulations made under proposed new section 37(2A) of the Pensions Act 1995, which governs surplus payments from defined-benefit pension schemes, are subject to the affirmative procedure always, not just the first time that they are made. That would give Parliament ongoing oversight and scrutiny of any future regulations in the area. Without the amendment, regulations on defined-benefit surplus extraction would not consistently require parliamentary approval. That would potentially lead to insufficient scrutiny. The amendment aims to provide better parliamentary control over regulations as they are introduced.”
“These are not amendments that we feel particularly inclined to support. They would require pension fund managers to make, publish and keep under review data to show that their portfolio investments are consistent with the goals of the Paris agreement on climate change and clean energy. That would include publishing prescribed information relating to climate change alignment and sewage discharge. Those are immensely important and worthy ambitions and intentions; we share their spirit, as we want a cleaner planet, cleaner waterways and improvements to our climate, but I do not think that this is the place to do it. Pension funds should be allowed to look at the best interests of their members, irrespective of wider public and social aspirations, so this is not a proposal that we feel we can support.”
“I tabled the amendment as we are worried that the current value for money framework for defined-contribution pensions risks focusing too narrowly on costs and charges as the primary determinant of value for members. By contrast, the Australian superannuation system adopts a more holistic definition of value for money, including a net benefit outcome metric, which is defined as the sum of contributions and investment earnings minus all costs, fees, taxes and insurance premiums. Australian trustees are required not only to consider costs, but to act in members’ best financial interests, broadly encompassing factors beyond merely minimising fees. The Australian framework incorporates additional core metrics including service quality, investment performance and member outcomes.”
“The framework, which was initially introduced under the previous Government, is essential to promoting transparency and accountability in the management of defined-contribution pension schemes, and it mandates responsible trustees or managers to assess and publish reports on the performance of their schemes. Ultimately, that should mean improved performance. It is worth bearing in mind, though, that there are potentially perverse outcomes —as we have seen, for example, with the Phoenix Group—as the consequences of an intermediate rating could drive less growth. I suppose it could be a less risky approach, but greater risk can lead to greater growth. None the less, we need to be careful as there could be perverse outcomes.”
“I beg to move amendment 254, in clause 10, page 10, line 20, at end insert— “(2A) Value for money regulations must require responsible trustees and managers to make an assessment of, benchmark and regularly report the— (a) net benefit outcomes, (b) investment performance, (c) quality of service, and (d) long term members outcomes of regulated VFM schemes.” This amendment broadens the definition of value for money to require assessment of net benefit outcome, investment performance, quality of service, and long-term member outcomes, and require schemes to report on these. On the wider point about value for money, we broadly support the introduction of a robust value for money framework as set out in clause 10.”
“It would require the assessment of net benefit outcome, investment performance, quality of service and long-term member outcomes, not just cost. It would introduce a requirement for schemes to report and benchmark across these holistic measures, thereby enabling a more balanced and meaningful comparison of value.”
“There is a concern that the UK value for money framework overemphasises costs and risks discouraging investment in asset classes, as I discussed, that historically produced higher returns but that might have higher shorter-term fees or complexities. This narrow focus could also dampen innovation in pension scheme design and reduce member engagement, ultimately harming long-term retirement outcomes for scheme members. It may be valuable to learn from the Australian approach by developing a value for money framework that balances cost transparency with metrics that encourage good investment strategies and quality services, aligning regulators’ and trustees’ incentives with members’ long-term financial interests. Our amendment tries to broaden the definition of value for money using the Australian model as a template.”
“However, as I was discussing with a Government Back Bencher the other day, one of the problems is that if fees are too low, that reduces the ability of the managers to assess more complicated financial opportunities. If fees are kept at 50 basis points, the capacity to start analysing unlisted investments is retained. If fees are reduced to 10 basis points, the ability and skill of the managers to look into more than investing in other people’s funds or into simple listed equities is reduced. If we start to look at it as a cost-based issue only, we miss out the fact that we get quite a lot of extra expertise if slightly higher management fees are paid. The Australian framework incorporates additional core metrics including service quality, investment performance and outcomes.”