Pension Schemes Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

First, may I express my support for the words of the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) with regard to pre-1997 pensions and that long-standing scandal? It is a great injustice and it feels like successive Governments—including this one, sadly—are just waiting for the problem to literally die away.

I would like to speak to Lords amendment 79, which aims to ensure that pension schemes can offer robust guidance without falling foul of the new regulatory landscape the Bill creates. The Liberal Democrats remain committed to ensuring that the Bill works for individual savers. Of course, it must work for our economy and for industry, but it must, first and foremost, help the “little and less” saver. That requires ensuring that savers have access to decent relevant guidance on their pensions, because without guidance choice does not translate into good outcomes.

The reality is that engagement with pension guidance for the average person is, to put it simply, woeful and worsening. Around 90% of defined-contribution pots are accessed without any engagement with Pension Wise. Uptake of the service has fallen by about 4% since 2018, despite the fact that Pension Wise is demonstrably successful—nine out of 10 users say that they would recommend it to others. That context matters, because in 2015 the introduction of pension freedoms represented a significant opportunity to ensure that guidance could be offered to far more people. Individuals were given the responsibility for spending their pension savings, but that was often without a clear understanding of the tax implications or the consequences for later life. Since then, from 2015 to 2025, many, including the Work and Pensions Committee, have argued that this was precisely the period when an auto-enrolment-style trial for guidance should also have taken place.

The Government recognised the scale of the problem in 2022, when they introduced a stronger nudge towards Pension Wise. That followed a Department for Work and Pensions report that showed a marked increase, rising from 5% to 30%, in drawdown products being accessed without guidance. Over half of transfers were out of pension products, often driven by mistrust, and lower income savers were disproportionately negatively affected by drawdown use compared with higher earners. Yet even then, the opportunity to trial the automatic booking of guidance appointments, which was backed by the Work and Pensions Committee and Age UK, was not taken.

Now, the landscape has changed again. The Bill reshapes the regulatory framework in a significant way, including through the introduction of defaults for pot holders. That makes this moment another opportunity to ensure that as many savers as possible receive good quality guidance, but that chance will be missed if guidance is not properly embedded alongside these reforms. Defaults will fundamentally affect how savers interact with their pensions. That means the Government must provide urgent clarity not just for savers, but for schemes and trustees. Schemes need clear and concise guidance on how defaults operate, and on what advice and guidance they can lawfully provide so that they are protected from future legal challenge, ambulance chasing or scandal.

Equally, savers themselves will need support to navigate what is often a collection of multiple pots with multiple defaults and varying outcomes. What should not happen is for a default system to be put in place without updated and clearly defined guidance alongside it. That would risk encouraging passive defaulting while alternatives are not properly explained or understood, which might act to supercharge the existing problem of disengagement rather than solve it. At the very least, we must ensure that people are given the opportunity to engage. The dashboard’s imminent introduction might address some of these problems, but it is not a silver bullet.

The Department for Work and Pensions and the Minister have set out a road map for reform, but the big glaring hole in that road map is access to guidance. I ask the Government to ensure that guidance is explicitly part of the plan, to set out clearly what role the Money and Pensions Service and free and impartial guidance will play for savers who want it, and to consider whether, alongside the necessary secondary legislation, the Department could publish a clear statement on the role of guidance in both the default and savings journey of pension savers.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I wish to speak to Lords amendment 15 and, ultimately, what it still fails to address: the long-standing injustice faced by almost 1 million pensioners.

The Chancellor’s decision last year diverted attention, with her announcement of the restoration of indexation to a quarter of a million pensioners in some of the schemes in the PPF. While 250,000 now have their indexation back, 90,000 in the PPF do not. In addition to the 90,000 who have lost out, there are 139,000 in the financial assistance scheme. Some of those pensioners were once part of the civil service where functions were privatised. I specifically refer to members of the AEA Technology and Carillion public sector pension schemes, who were promised that their civil service pensions would be honoured after privatisation. Imagine being legally cheated out of your pension by your country’s Government and then ignored when you plead your case. Finally, 750,000 people in private defined-benefit schemes, the pre-1997 pensioners, have also lost out. We are talking about 979,000 people—almost 1 million pensioners—who have lost out on the regular increase for part, or for the whole part, of their pension.

The Bill is trying to paper over an enormous crack in our national pension framework. Ministers themselves have acknowledged the problem for pre-1997 pensioners. Most recently, the Minister confirmed that around 17% of defined-benefit pensioners have not received discretionary increases—in some cases, for nearly 30 years. It is not a minor anomaly. Many have lost more than half the real value of the pensions they have earned. Many will not live long enough to see any redress, but their survivors will receive a fraction of the pension at a time when food costs are projected to go up by 9% this year alone, and who knows what will happen with energy costs.

What is particularly difficult to justify is the piecemeal nature and inconsistency of the Government’s approach. They have been entirely willing to mandate how defined-contribution schemes invest, yet they remain unwilling to mandate even basic fairness for the 17% of defined-benefit pensioners whose sponsoring companies are following a law and avoiding doing the right thing. The Lords amendment would return us to a Bill that would make it easier to extract surpluses from defined benefit schemes. The Minister tells us that the trustees will be in the driving seat, but for the pre-1997 pensioners, trustees have never been in the driving seat. In most cases, trustees cannot compel discretionary increases. They cannot even advocate effectively for those who have already lost out, and they cannot override employers’ decisions. The imbalance is clear: employers decide, trustees administer. Trustees are told that it is not their role to seek to change benefits for pre-1997 pensioners. What is the value of a trustee? Surely it is not just to be a rubber stamp for boards of directors, usually based inthe USA.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I appreciate that the hon. Member is very learned on this subject, as are many Members on both sides of the House. Is he saying that the Bill does not give sufficient protection for pensioners in terms of governance of trustees and equitable distribution of any surplus from defined benefit schemes?

[Clive Jones]

For the pre-1997 pensioners in companies such as Hewlett Packard and many others, the trustees are not able to act on behalf of the pensioners because a board, usually in the USA, says, “No, we are not going to give you a pension increase, even though the trustees say you should have it.”

To ease surplus extraction without first addressing that injustice risks locking it in permanently. It is the wrong thing to do. Once surplus is removed, there may be no realistic prospect of restoring the value lost by pre-1997 pensioners. There will not be any spare cash available to restore their pensions. The spare cash will have gone to the company with the Minister’s blessing. The Minister said, during the Adjournment debate on 19 March, that there was a need to build the evidence base, but decades have already passed. Why has that not been done before? Pensioners are dying at a rate of 15 a week. Delay at this point is not neutral: it is a choice to delay, deny and wait until they die.

Those pensioners have families. What message does the pension failure send to young people about the security of pensions? If the House can legislate in detail on how pensions are invested, it can legislate to ensure that surplus extraction does not come at the expense of those who have already borne nearly 30 years of erosion.

I end with a direct question for the Minister. Will he commit to ensuring that secondary legislation requires that each scheme seeking surplus extraction must have an independent professional examination of the effect of pre-1997 pension erosion, and that funds will be withheld to ensure restoration of full pension value for pre-1997 pensioners?

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

There is a simple question running through what we are debating today: who is ultimately in control of people’s pension savings? When I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume that the answer is straightforward. They assume that their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim and not to be steered from the centre. That is why Lords amendment 1 matters. It would do something very simple. It would remove the ability for Ministers, through regulations, to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors, or in particular places. It would set a clear boundary. It would say that those decisions sit with trustees, acting in the best interests of savers. If the Government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should make the case for it. They should create the conditions for investment, and they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds if that case does not land.

The same concern sits at the heart of the Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments would strip out what is known as the “asset allocation requirement”. In plain terms, they would remove the mechanism in the Bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension schemes invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told those are only backstop powers that may never be used, but if that is true, why fight so hard to keep them? Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the table?

The Government have, in effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu—caps on how far they might go—but that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it. Because this is not about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. There is a broader point here: bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down and not if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.

Lords amendment 77 would require the Government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months, and not just their cost, but their long-term affordability, their sustainability, and whether they are fair across generations—a point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). That is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save and about the pressures on public finances. They expect us to do the same at national level.

Taken together, the Lords amendments would do something quite straightforward.

They would protect savers from unnecessary interference, they would keep decision making where it belongs, and they would ask the Government to be transparent about the long-term picture. I do not think those are unreasonable tests, and the Government are wrong to strip them out.

Pension Schemes Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

My constituent David worked for 3M for 31 years, 23 of them pre-1997. His pension payment for service prior to 1997 has not increased since 2008, since when it has lost 40% of its purchasing power. Other constituents have lost more. Another constituent worked for ExxonMobil, which he says gave him written documentation that he would receive annual increases at 80% of RPI. However, since legislation changed in 1995, that has not happened. Those are just two of the 40-plus constituents who have contacted me about the injustice experienced by pensioners whose pension schemes are failing to provide an inflation increase on their service prior to 1997. I know that many more across the country face the same injustice. Their stories are deeply troubling. Rather than enjoying a well-earned retirement, pensioners are left struggling to keep pace with the cost of living, often while their pension scheme is in surplus.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

I have a similar constituency case with a similar example of discretionary increases. Those were 80% of RPI, but in 2023 that was reduced to half. That has left my constituent, among others, unable to afford their bills and their home. Although I am pleased to see the pre-1997 pension indexation in the Budget for PPF and FAS members, I remain concerned for constituents such as mine. Does my hon. Friend agree that there needs to be a plan for those impacted by a sudden decrease in inflation payments?

[Clive Jones]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There needs to be some sort of plan, and sooner rather than later.

The Government appear to recognise the injustice and are proposing to use surplus funds in the PPF to provide inflation increases on some pre-1997 pensions. Why are we not seeking to resolve the same issue for company defined-benefit pension schemes? Many of these pension schemes have a funding surplus but choose not to use it to support their former employees, despite often being asked to do so by trustees who are ignored by foreign-based employers. Surely that cannot be right.

Research by the Pensions Regulator has revealed that even among schemes whose rules allow for discretionary benefits, less than a third had provided those benefits in the previous three years. Employer discretion has failed in practice and will continue to fail unless Parliament acts. The Pension Schemes Bill fails to address this issue.

Only by amending the original legislation can we ensure fairness for those with pre-1997 service. The Society of Pension Professionals argues that legislation on pre-1997 benefits is unnecessary, but the evidence is clear: discretion, more often than not, is exercised to the detriment of pensioners. As I have said, trustees lack the authority to act and pensioners are left behind. The problem appears to be concentrated in a small number of large companies. They were meant to provide long-term financial security for their employees. We must remember that all defined-benefit schemes paid levies into the PPF, creating a surplus that now funds indexation. If pensioners in the PPF deserve protection, so do those in live schemes who helped build the surplus in those schemes.

The Government have taken the first step by restoring indexation for some. They must now take the logical next step by extending inflation protection to all pre-1997 pensioners in live schemes. I believe that pre-1997 pension service should receive inflation protection on the same statutory basis as post-1997 service. This is about fairness, dignity and justice for those who worked hard, paid into schemes, were made promises, and now deserve security in retirement. Pensioners affected by this injustice live in every constituency, and they deserve the support of this House of Commons and the Government. Our constituents affected by these injustices simply ask for fairness, and hopefully the Minister will make sure that it happens soon.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I hope to devote a large portion of my speech to new clause 36, which stands in my name, but let me first swiftly acknowledge the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) and the hon. Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith).

While pension fund managers should no doubt ensure that they deliver sufficient returns to their clients, they must also reflect on the duties that they have not only to those who make contributions, but to society at large. That means not using public money to prop up industries that rail against our primary objectives, be they preventing violations of human rights, upholding our commitment to net zero or delivering unfettered justice for those who have been wronged, as in the case of those whose pension contributions made before 1997 have not risen with inflation. I wholeheartedly align myself with the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) on the need for ethical parameters.

In tabling new clause 36, I hoped to bring a focus to the practices relating to pension funds that fall under the local government pension scheme—those that make provision for the employees of schools, universities, local authorities and police forces, to name just a few. Those pension fund managers preside over £390 billion in assets, under the management of members of the investment banking sector. Given that much, if not all, of the funding that flows from our schools, councils and the like comes from taxpayers’ money, we have a right to ensure that none of it is being put to waste. I regret to report, however, that these local government pension funds are heading for an absolute embarrassment of riches. While public money sits idle in a vault, lining the pockets of the investment bankers who manage the funds, we are experiencing deep funding crises in our schools, our universities and our local councils.

Year after year, since the moment when these pension funds were established, we have seen the same tactics deployed by those who preside over them. Councils, schools and others end up putting too much of their budgets towards employer contributions, leaving them with less money to spend on the things that matter, while obscene amounts of money are left to be used as a lucrative plaything for the investment banking sector.

When calculating the money that councils, schools and the like must pay into their employees’ pensions, the pension fund managers first estimate the annual rate of return that they expect to get from their assets. To do that, they enlist the work of an actuary firm—usually one of the “big four”—which takes into account market conditions and various risk factors in order to come up with a figure. The work of these actuaries is incredibly precise, yet every year they end up drastically underestimating the amount by which the local government pension funds will grow over the next year. Why? Because the local pension boards set the assumptions and parameters on the basis of which they make such calculations, often with the intention of overstating elements that may hit the fund’s assets, such as market volatility and uncertainty. From there, by default, they then skim a substantial percentage off the fund’s assets, usually about 0.5%. While that may not seem a lot, given that, for example, West Midlands Pension Fund holds £21.2 billion-worth of assets, it means that at least £1 billion is being scraped off the top every year.

When a highly conservative estimate for growth is combined with lofty management expenses, the result is one thing, and one thing only: our councils, schools and key institutions end up putting more than they need into the banking sector, under the guise of securing their employees a comfortable retirement. Then, once they get to the end of the year and have mysteriously exceeded their artificially conservative projections for growth, the pension fund managers are left with an even bigger pot of money, from which they take their mandatory percentage fee.

It is this repeated cycle of grossly inflating the contributions of our state institutions that is resulting in more and more taxpayer money being used not to fix our crumbling public services that benefit society as a whole, but for city bankers to make big bets on the market and make profits. It is the equivalent of pension funds setting the rules of the game, marking their own homework and keeping the proceeds for themselves, rather than refunding those who put into the system. It has got to the point that even the LGPS Scheme Advisory Board, which advises local pension boards, has said that they need to stop overcharging their clients and underestimating their growth. Unfortunately, however, all the power lies in the hands of the Secretary of State to make the changes that would put much-needed investment back into our schools, councils and the like.

I will give an example. Research by David Bailey, of the University of Birmingham, and John Clancy, of Birmingham City University, has shown that Birmingham city council has handed over £1.2 billion in employer contributions to the West Midlands Pension Fund in the past 10 years. By 2022 the council was being asked to pay an extra 37% on top of its standard bill, whereas the nine other core city councils in the UK were asked to pay an average of around 17%. Birmingham city council is calculated to have overpaid the West Midlands Pension Fund by roughly £547 million. In 2023 the council declared section 114 bankruptcy, and this year it has approved council tax rises of 21% and £300 million in cuts to vital services.

Hypothetically, had that payment never been made, Birmingham city council would have needed neither to declare bankruptcy, nor to approve budget cuts that reduced its offer to bare-bones skeleton services. The implications that clamping down on the excesses of local pension boards would have for local councils, schools and universities, and for the British taxpayer, are truly incomprehensible, yet as things stand we are shying away from rebalancing the books and from deploying as much of the Government’s investment into public services as we can.

That leads me to my new clause 36, which would put a cap on the investment expenses that can be claimed on LGPS pension funds. In the case of the West Midlands Pension Fund, the management expenses that are charged amount to an increase of four percentage points in employer contributions. Because the fund charges 60 basis points in management fees, Birmingham council tax payers are paying £13.4 million to the investment managers, which works out at £50 on every band D council tax payer’s bill. However, if new clause 36 were to be put in place, only £3.30 would be charged to every council tax payer’s bill. In the same period, the pension fund has consistently failed to report where the investment management expenses that it charges go, and whom they benefit.

As I say, my new clause 36 would implement a cap on the fees that investment bankers can take from pension funds. While that would certainly mark a great step forward in ensuring that excessive wealth gets put into the hands of the private sector, we must also do more to ensure that our schools and councils pay no more in employer contributions than they must, so that they can put more investment into things that really matter—whether that is local government funding for adult social care or for schoolchildren with special education needs, or being able to put more teaching staff in our classrooms.

Neurodivergent People: Employment

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlotte Cane]

I agree with my hon. Friend that recognising neurodivergence in school and giving support at an early stage is incredibly important. As I said, I want to make the distinction and recognise that neurodivergent people and those with learning disabilities are distinguishable groups, both of which I will speak about.

Over the past year, I have visited many fantastic businesses across my constituency and have been struck by how many are going above and beyond to forge pathways into the world of work for people with learning disabilities. I want to share some of their success stories today.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. In Wokingham, the Kimel café does a fantastic job taking on neurodivergent youngsters, giving them key skills and including them in our community. Does my hon. Friend agree that more businesses should employ neurodiverse people? Does she also agree that the Government must do more to support excellent businesses that support neurodiverse people, like the Kimel café?

[Charlotte Cane]

I do agree and will speak about that.

Local businesses have described employing people with learning disabilities to me as like a game of bureaucratic hopscotch. They can see the end goal but they need to hop from square to square, assessment to assessment, with a lack of resources to dedicate to training staff. Sadly, that is borne out in the data. Under 30% of people with severe or specific learning difficulties were in employment in 2023-24, compared with more than 82% of non-disabled people. Those figures are bad enough in isolation, but just 65% of employees with severe or specific learning difficulties remain in employment for at least a year.

Credit Unions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch East (Katrina Murray) for securing this very important debate.

I must give some credit to my friend, Councillor Beth Rowland, at Wokingham borough council for helping with some of the detail for this speech. Beth has worked in the credit union sector in Berkshire for over 20 years, and it is unlike any other job in finance. People like Beth do not go to work for credit unions to make big money—not for any company, and certainly not for themselves. Instead, it is about dedication to the local community, a desire to help people, and an uncompromising desire to be a force for good in the world for those who need a bit of extra support. That is what drives people like Beth who make a career out of working in this industry. That speaks to Liberal Democrat values instinctively. I thank Beth, not only for helping me with this speech but more importantly for her long record of public service.

In my constituency of Wokingham, we are lucky to be able to call upon the services of Boom community bank. When I was leader of the local council, we began a relationship with Boom. It provides non-profit finance and banking services to more than 12,000 members, not only across Berkshire but across west Sussex, Surrey, parts of Oxfordshire, Hampshire, London and Buckinghamshire. It is not traditional high street banking. For many of its 12,000 members, Boom provides a lifeline service. Credit unions certainly provide loans if people need one and a place to store savings safely, but their real value does not come from offering those financial basics. It comes from the continuous support that is on offer.

Members of credit unions are often in more vulnerable positions than the average high street banking customer. That could mean that they are simply more financially vulnerable and consequently unable to access more traditional forms of credit. However, it can also mean they are vulnerable in other ways. For example, they might, for whatever reason, struggle to navigate technical language and complex arrays of products, or need extra help to create the structure in their lives that allows them to put money away regularly for a rainy day. Access to a friendly face who is on their side, and not looking to make a profit from them but willing to talk about their needs and goals, is invaluable for such people. Frankly, it is the kind of community support that we are sadly losing in our society as it becomes more distant from us as individuals over time. The people I have described cannot afford to lose the service of a credit union.

One case study on Boom’s website refers to a man who was experiencing a debt crisis, with some of his loans imposing an eye-watering 1,295% annual interest burden. I am not sure how we as a society are supposed to read that as anything other than a profound failure. How did we ever allow that kind of exploitation to happen? The man that Boom refers to as John, although that is not his real name of course, could not refinance his debt on the traditional market; he was simply too high-risk. However, the credit union sector was there to help. John’s monthly costs were more than halved and within three years he was debt-free.

It is hard to imagine a version of John’s story that ends well without the support of a credit union and without its willingness to identify a person in genuine need, and to offer help, support and security. Traditional finance viewed John first as a target for high-profit, personally crushing credit and then as a risk—someone to be avoided, in case he could not swim in the choppy waters that it had stirred up for him. Instead, the credit union sector viewed him as a person. I do not know John, but I am certain that that was more valuable to him than just the money on offer.

We know that membership of credit unions is rising, having increased by a third between 2014 and 2024. Over the same period, however, the number of credit unions feel by about the same proportion. That can partly be explained by smaller credit unions—in 2023, the average credit union employed only seven people—seeking to merge and become larger organisations, in order to streamline their operations, but it must be a cause for alarm whenever we see demand rise and supply fall at the same time. What are we doing wrong on a policy level, such that this vital industry is not growing, even though people clearly value it? I ask the Minister to ponder that question carefully.

In bringing my remarks to a close, I make a plea to the Government: bring forward a fair banking Act, which is something we have been calling for for some time. Financial exclusion in the UK is worse than in most other comparable economies. High-cost lenders—or worse, loan sharks—prey on that to target some of the most vulnerable. In 2022, an estimated 1 million people turned to illegal lenders. When people need help, there is usually a credit union they can turn to, but too many people do not realise that. With better legislation, they need not be put in that position in the first place. A fair banking Act could improve the lives of millions and could also help ethical lenders such as credit unions to deliver vital support. Will the Minister say whether the Government might consider introducing such an Act?

Beer Duty

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing this debate. I agree with him; I, too, love beer, and I have for some time—we will not go into how many years—been drinking it and thoroughly enjoying it.

As my hon. Friend will know, back in February our party supported the beer duty cut to support our pubs. The Liberal Democrats have always supported the local pub, perhaps because of our heritage as a party grounded in community politics. Across our country, pubs and other hospitality businesses are the lifeblood of our communities. That is true of my constituency of Wokingham, where we are blessed with many excellent pubs, and I know that it is true of my hon. Friend’s constituency as well.

Wokingham is not just a place where beer is consumed, although I know my constituency team do their best in that department whenever they get the chance, but a place where beer is produced. I have spoken in the House before about some of the breweries that operate in Wokingham. Siren Craft Brew has grown from a small local producer to a significant competitor in the market, with beers such as Lumina being found in pubs across the country. Just across the road, Elusive Brewing produces Oregon Trail, which won best IPA at this year’s champion beer of Britain awards. There are also countless smaller producers across Wokingham and the Reading area, as there have been for many centuries.

Like most MPs, I am happy to stand in this House and make the case for businesses local to me, but I am not just here to plug the record of Outhouse Brewery in Wokingham town centre, whose taproom is open five days a week, including Sundays, selling the feline-themed Apocalypse Meow pale ale.

Brewers and publicans regularly tell me of the challenges that the industry is facing. We need to address those challenges head-on. When the previous Government tried to make hay out of a draught discount in 2023, they managed to apply it only to containers of over 40 litres. That excluded many producers of real cider or craft beer, like those produced by the companies in Wokingham that I have mentioned, who often ship product in smaller containers. As so often with the Conservatives, it was a break for big business, not for local businesses that really needed the support.

[Mike Wood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Clive Jones]

I will carry on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind.

To add insult to injury, the Prime Minister at the time managed to launch the policy with a photo opportunity in which he lifted up a beer keg for all to see. The keg was a 30-litre container, which did not qualify for the discount he was launching. If I were him, I might have drowned my sorrows in a couple of pints of Apocalypse Meow after that one. The industry knows which parties in this place have its back. After pressure from the Liberal Democrats, the Government applied the draught discount to containers of 20 litres or more. I do not believe that the former Prime Minister returned to lift more kegs to mark his U-turn.

A key challenge that comes up time and again, especially when I talk to local independent pubs, is the crushing impact of the broken business rates system. The Liberal Democrats have been calling for years for it to be reformed and replaced with a commercial landowner levy based on the value of landlords’ land, which would remove the responsibility for this tax from local businesses. This fair reform has one core goal: supporting our local economies to thrive and grow. I am led to believe that the Government place a very high value on growth. They are right to do so, but they will not get it while small local businesses choke under the weight of the outdated business system and increases in employer national insurance contributions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking spoke eloquently about the impact of extended producer responsibility on the industry. He is not wrong. It is a cause for huge concern among those I talk to across the drinks and hospitality sector. Our party welcomes the Government’s intention to make packaging more sustainable, but it cannot be at the expense of uncertainty and financial turmoil for local businesses, with all the economic consequences that that brings.

The assumption that local authorities will recycle the packaging from drinks bought in the pub is flawed, and the proposal means that pubs may pay for waste disposal twice: once for private recycling, and then again through EPR-related charges from producers. I urge the Minister to consider our call to exempt pubs from EPR, and to review the scope and timeline of that policy to avoid further harm to our hospitality sector. Will he today commit to a review of how successful the extended draught duty cut has been in supporting hospitality? If he finds that it has been successful, with all the economic benefits that that will bring, will he consider reducing it further to help our struggling pubs across the country?

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I commend the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this very important debate.

Young people battling cancer are being failed by the system. They are forced to wait an average of eight long months before they can access PIP, including a three-month qualifying period that applies even after a confirmed cancer diagnosis. In that time, those young patients and their families face an extra £5,000 in out-of-pocket costs, on top of the emotional, physical and psychological burden of the cancer itself.

Does the Minister understand the consequences of these reforms for young people already enduring the fight of their young lives? Will he commit to working with his ministerial colleagues to scrap the arbitrary wait times, ensure that a medical diagnosis alone is accepted as sufficient evidence for PIP eligibility, and reshape the system so that it does not punish but protects?

Pension Funds

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

I fully agree. The term itself is misleading. The money is not being taken by the state; it actually goes back to HSBC. Had it been labelled properly, as an integrated pension deduction, many people would have asked questions much earlier.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Sue, a constituent of mine, is trying to obtain her full HSBC pension, but because of a clawback deduction by her former employer that has no alignment with the salary she earned, she is losing out on £244 each month. That is unfair and has plunged many pensioners—primarily women—into poverty. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister must seriously consider what support can be provided for people like Sue, who have been left with significant financial difficulties?

[Manuela Perteghella]

Absolutely. I will ask the Minister to take action later in my remarks.

British Sign Language Week

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this important debate during Sign Language Week. Her dedication in advocating for British Sign Language is commendable, and her tireless campaigning is a sign that the 2024 intake of parliamentarians is one of the best.

I am really sorry that I do not have any sign language. My mother lost much of her hearing as a teenager and lived to the age of 93, using aids for as long as I can remember. If she had been able to learn BSL, I am sure her life would have been much easier.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I share the belief of the hon. Member for Thurrock that all deaf and hearing-impaired individuals have the right to participate in society fully and independently. That is not a theoretical right: it is a basic human right that too often remains unrealised.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for securing this debate. When I worked at the Royal National Institute for Deaf People 25 years ago, I learned how important BSL is as a means of communication for deaf people.

[Rachel Taylor]

BSL is a rich and important part of the cultural identity of the deaf community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is essential that deaf people and their parents have access to BSL based not on whether they can pay for the courses but on need? That would enrich the language and cultural identity of the deaf community.

[Clive Jones]

I agree 100% with everything the hon. Lady said.

The Liberal Democrats have a long history of pushing for British Sign Language to be given legal status. We have worked for change since one our councillors, David Buxton, became the first deaf sign language politician in the UK to be elected as a borough councillor. He co-founded the Liberal Democrat Disability Association, and has extensive experience of campaigning and doing incredible work across the UK in advocating for the deaf community.

In 2022, David fought hard for the British Sign Language Act, which officially recognised BSL as a language in England, Wales and Scotland. That was a significant victory, but we must acknowledge that it was only one step on a much longer journey. Recognition is essential, but it is not enough: we need respect for BSL alongside tangible pathways to a world where deaf people can achieve their full potential.

We are concerned about the previous Conservative Government’s legacy of cuts to British Sign Language interpretation services for deaf people accessing health services. Funding for the BSL health access app was withdrawn, and it is deeply unjust that BSL users currently have to ask for reasonable adjustments through the Equality Act 2010 if they want to access information and services. Furthermore, the adjustments provided are usually written notes, rather than the provision of a BSL interpreter.

We are committed to seeing more deaf BSL users elected to public and political office, and a good step towards that aim is wider access to services in BSL. Extensive research suggests the best time to learn a second language is from the age of six to puberty. The opportunity for access to language experience is crucial, especially for deaf children’s language, emotional and cognitive development. That is why the Department for Education should commission a feasibility study into the introduction of BSL lessons in primary schools, which would embed the teaching of basic BSL from an early age, and offer expert findings to devolved Education Departments to share best practice across the United Kingdom.

Furthermore, we support the rapid introduction of GCSE-equivalent qualifications in BSL in England, which would provide a clear formal pathway for students to gain fluency in British Sign Language. It is deeply concerning that, despite the Government’s commitment to rolling out the qualification by the start of the 2025 academic year, the implementation of BSL in the national curriculum continues to be delayed.

There is a real risk that further delays in implementing BSL qualifications will deprive the next generation of BSL users of the access and opportunities they rightly deserve. Without this opportunity, deaf children may grow up without the proper foundation to navigate the world fully and confidently. That would be simply unacceptable. Will the Minister commit today that the BSL GCSE will not go the way of the Welsh equivalent by eventually being scrapped? Will he also give more specific details as to when Ofqual’s proposed consultation on assessment arrangements and its technical consultation will be launched?

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

It is a joy to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell-Buck. I will be brief.

I grew up the eldest of four children, and the only girl. My brothers and I were all grateful recipients of scholarships and bursaries to public schools. I am, believe it or not, a Cheltenham lady, and my brothers all attended King’s, Canterbury. Two served in His Majesty’s armed forces—Johnny was a half-colonel in the Grenadier Guards, and Ben still serves as a brigadier in what we still call the Black Watch. My other brother, James, worked as a heart surgeon before serving his community in Wales as a GP. In my own small way, I have tried to contribute to my country and my community. I am now serving as an MP, but I have also been a town and district councillor. I worked for international and national non-governmental organisations, and the National Farmers Union and the Environment Agency. That was made possible for all of us in large part by the education that we were fortunate enough to receive.

As Members can imagine, I very often get asked by people who tend to put their cross in the blue team box why I am a Liberal, and my answer is this: I am a Liberal because I was very well educated and I have a conscience. As a Liberal, individual political choice is part of my political DNA, and that is why I resist any attempts to erode choice. Steps taken to remove parental choice over where and how children receive their education are, to my mind, politically indigestible. Ultimately, parental agency must come first in any discussion about children’s future; it is not for the state to disrupt that dynamic.

There are a few misconceptions about private schools in this country. One is that most of those who are fortunate enough to attend independent schools are somehow part of the elites. Many students in such schools up and down the country hail from families that have saved and made many a sacrifice to strive to provide the best possible education for their children. My parents were both teachers—not a particularly highly paid profession. This policy would overturn a long-established VAT exemption on independent schools and would hit hard-working families the most. Those schools would be forced to increase fees to stay afloat, cutting off opportunity for many children and driving the further balkanisation of our education system, with the result that only the most financially fortunate would be able to afford private school fees.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

The Government’s policy will harm SEND children currently enrolled in independent schools One constituent wrote to me to say that their daughter goes to a local independent school because of her autism, and that it is an environment that is best suited for her needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister should recognise the potentially detrimental effect on children with SEND if the VAT exemption causes schools to cut scholarships and bursaries?

[Rachel Gilmour]

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting and adept intervention. I will be coming to that matter in a minute. There are some shocking—shocking—statistics on this from the Conservative party in Devon.

This policy will immeasurably increase the strain on the state school system, which is already bursting at the seams, through a large influx of pupils transferring across to comprehensive schools. This tax will not offset the impact. Moreover, many pupils at private schools are there because bursaries and scholarships have enabled them to be there, as was the case for me. For example, Blundell’s school, the independent school in my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, has a proud reputation of offering a very high number of bursary places to disadvantaged children from low-income households, who would otherwise not have the opportunity of a first-class education. It also opens its doors to the community, who regularly make use of its wonderful facilities. That is the case for independent schools up and down the country—I think I referred to one earlier.

What about those pupils in need of extra support with their learning? Here comes the shocking statistic about EHCP roll-out across Devon, where Conservative-run Devon county council fails to meet its statutory duty to issue 95% of EHCPs within 20 weeks. I think all of us—even the blue team—would agree that that is shameful. Many parents whose pockets are not bottomless and who have children whose needs are not being met see independent schools as a means of securing the best possible future for their child. Who could possibly decry parents doing such a thing? [Interruption.] Mutter, mutter.

Of course, my desire is to see our state school system rise to such standards that parents would not feel as though independent schools were the only way for their children to receive a first-class education. I sincerely hope that that day comes sooner rather than later, and I have confidence that this Government will make that happen, but I cannot help but come back to choice, which is the central premise of my argument—the choice of parents to decide themselves, and themselves alone, where their children learn.

Support for Pensioners

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. I declare my interest as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital.

My constituency is home to 18,164 people aged 65 and over. Whether under the Conservatives or Labour, Britain’s pensioners have been a political football for successive Governments to mistreat, kick around and turn their back on. That has been the case from the winter fuel allowance under this Government to the betrayal on the triple lock by the previous Government and the failure to compensate WASPI women by both the Conservatives and Labour.

Pensioners are some of the most vulnerable in our society. They have worked hard all their lives, and they should have an opportunity for some much-deserved rest and relaxation. Instead, they are forced to stress about finances and to make impossible decisions that threaten their health. I am sure every MP of every political party will have received casework or correspondence about older people being forced to choose between heating and eating. Fuel poverty is a blight on our nation and a sign that our welfare state is failing—and it will get worse. The energy price cap is forecast to rise for the third consecutive period in April 2025, and the average energy bill is already 57% higher than it was in 2021.

The Chancellor’s cuts to winter fuel payments have only exacerbated the problem that poor pensioners face. The Government are attempting to clear up the horrific mess the Conservatives left the economy in, and they have picked up the pieces—but they have dropped them all over again. In October 2024, a YouGov poll commissioned by Independent Age found that 43% of older people who had lost their winter fuel payments would go to bed earlier to avoid having to heat their homes, while 23% said they would not turn on their heating at all. That poses a clear and direct threat to their health, with Independent Age estimating that it would cost roughly £4 billion in increased NHS and social care costs. Locally, that could fund two new Royal Berkshire hospitals.

One of my constituents, Philippa, came all the way to Parliament to talk to me about the impact of the cuts. Many of the people with her remarked how few Labour MPs took an interest in meeting pensioners from their constituencies face to face to hear about the effects of the policies they ended up supporting—I will let the evidence speak for itself. Philippa is not the only one who made contact. Mark, Pauline, Maxine and many others all wrote to tell me how worried they were. The Government have made the wrong decision in trying to cut spending, and they should have taxed the banks, social media giants and online gambling companies instead.

Liberal Democrat Wokingham borough council has done a great job trying to make the best of a difficult situation. It has encouraged eligible pensioners to sign up for pension credit before Christmas, including by sending 1,000 letters to people identified as potentially eligible. That exercise revealed that, although the DWP knows which individuals are eligible for pension credit, it does not release that information to councils. Having that information would have supported the great effort by Wokingham borough council, so will the Minister commit to changing that policy, to allow councils to inform those eligible for pension credit more effectively? If I am wrong on that, the Minister can write and tell me, but I do not think I am.

What steps are the Government taking to support people with their energy bills who are above the threshold for pension credit and other means-tested benefits? Will the Minister commit to launching an emergency home energy upgrade programme to provide free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households?

When many pensioners were already suffering through the loss of the winter fuel allowance, the Government decided to turn their back on hundreds of thousands of WASPI women. It was a shameful decision to betray millions of pension-age women, who were wronged through no fault of their own, and to ignore the independent ombudsman’s recommendation. The ombudsman concluded that just 43% of people knew that the planned change to the state pension age would affect them personally. The Liberal Democrats pushed the Government for years to compensate WASPI women fairly. That tone-deaf decision cannot be allowed to stand. Will the Minister state precisely why he does not believe that WASPI women are owed compensation? Will he do the right thing and agree to a parliamentary vote on this issue?

On a related matter, my constituent Alan sadly lost his wife recently. She was one of the many women affected by the increase in pension age. To add to that injustice, there was a change in 2016, and Alan has been told that he is no longer entitled to any form of widower’s state pension. Therefore, he is losing money that his wife received, even though his normal living expenses are pretty much the same. I wrote to the Minister some months ago, and I still look forward to a response. I hope he will be able to dig further into this matter and send me a reply soon.

Finally, let us not forget that the Conservatives have failed pensioners, both when they were in government and, more recently, outside of government. The Leader of the Opposition has many low moments to point to from her first 100 days, and the right hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) must rub his hands together excitedly after Prime Minister’s questions most weeks. For me, however, the most obvious low moment was when the Leader of the Opposition decided to go after the triple lock on pensions. One moment, when it is politically convenient, the Conservatives are all for means-testing benefits, but suddenly, when they are starved of new ideas, they are against it. The Conservative leader promised not to have too many policies, yet one of her first was to advocate slashing the state pension.

The Liberal Democrats are proud that we introduced the triple lock for pensions, and we will fight tooth and nail against any attempt by the Conservatives to weaken it, or if the Minister and the Labour Government decide to do what the Tories did in 2022 and temporarily suspend it. Will the Minister commit today to never make that mistake?

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing this important debate. It is the second on this topic today, but it puts a particular focus on the support that the Government should be providing.

I also thank hon. Members for the many contributions that we have had, and I will briefly touch on a couple that raised points that I was not planning to raise. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) highlighted the lack of notice that pensioners had about the change to the winter fuel payment. That highlights the fact that nobody could be expected to do any planning, as well as the lack of a wider impact assessment of what this change would actually mean for real people’s lives.

My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) is no longer in his place, but he talked about the council tax increase that many pensioners will also face in the coming months. My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) highlighted the knock-on impacts of the change to winter fuel payment on our health and social care systems. My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) talked about the impact on 44,000 terminally ill patients.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the lack of heating in damp homes. It is interesting to note the cross-reference to the Government’s Renters’ Rights Bill, where there was a huge emphasis on tackling mould. Yet what we have here is the knock-on impact of the challenges faced by pensioners, which may instead lead to an increase in mould in their homes.

Finally, I will just highlight the rather humorous point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), who I think will go down in history for coining the phrase, “Strapping of Strangford”, which could well be the highlight of this whole debate, alongside the lots of equally great points that he made about his constituency. Sorry— I digress.

What has really been highlighted this afternoon is Labour’s broken promises, particularly to pensioners. They fought the election claiming that they were on the side of pensioners, but this entire debate has highlighted that that may not be the case. Actually, I should also refer to the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), who made a whole load of claims about the Conservative party and who seemed to forget the successes that I am about to highlight. I also wholeheartedly refute his claims about what has been happening since the election.

[Clive Jones]

I am not the MP for Swansea West; I am the MP for Wokingham.

[Rebecca Smith]

Sorry, I meant to say Wokingham. I had circled “Swansea West” in my notes; I was trying to be clever—forgive me. Anyway, I will go back to my notes; that would be much better.

In the same way that the Government are coming after farmers, with the family farm tax, they have also gone after pensioners right across the country—and all of that on the back Labour wiping £118 billion off the value of people’s pensions the last time it was in government. So, many of these pensioners have already seen their pensions being devalued.

At the same time, the Government are finding the money to launch the vanity project GB Energy—if we are lucky, we will see lower energy bills by 2030—and pouring money into public pay packets, with no expectation of improving productivity. Pensioners and farmers seem to be the easy targets, and some Labour members seem to believe that that is the case—or perhaps I should say former members, given that they are perhaps less likely to vote Labour.

Labour has come to power against the backdrop of a Conservative record of improving dignity in people’s retirement. We protected the triple lock; uprated the state pension by £3,700; drove up pension credit applications earlier in our time in office; and abolished the pension lifetime tax allowance, which we need some credit for, because it incentivised more experienced workers, including GPs, to stay in work for longer. The Resolution Foundation, which the Minister previously worked for, has confirmed that pensioners are £1,000 better off since 2010, thanks to the decisions made by successive Conservative Governments.

As other Members have said, among the more disappointing policy decisions the Government have made since they came into office is the decision to scrap winter fuel allowance for pensioners who are not in receipt of pension credit—that is the key point. The decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance has seen 10 million pensioners lose access to payments they were previously eligible for. I note the excellent research published by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), which shows that my constituency of South West Devon is likely to be among the hardest hit. Previously just over 22,000 people received winter fuel allowance, but now only about 1,600 would be eligible through pension credit. Some 21,301 pensioners in my constituency would lose out.

Many of us have had representations from constituents, and I want to particularly highlight single pensioners, who are the hardest hit in many cases. We have heard that some earning as little as £11,344—less than £1,000 a month—are no longer eligible for winter fuel payments. There is also an undue hit on the disabled and those whose modest savings lift them out of the bracket. That is completely immoral.