The Westminster lensArchive · §02 Speeches · 1,491 contributions

Speeches by Glen.

Every Hansard contribution by John Glen this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.

Showing 1,2811,300 of 1,491 contributions · most-recent first

← PreviousPage 65 of 75Next →
DateDebate & contributionWords
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

We are going to hear from a consumer panel afterwards that will tell us about the poorest in society being excluded from many of these things, so it is an unrealistic aspiration, yet from a macroeconomic point of view, it is desirable. How do we reconcile that?

47
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

I was going to ask that question specifically. The Prime Minister is reportedly going to focus on disposable income, but if you increase from 8% on a ratchet to about 10%, 12% or 13%—where Australia is—that will have an impact on disposable income. Is he wrong to do that? We have a direct conflict here, between a fixin

86
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

I am not sure that is still the mission.

9
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

I think it would be worth going back to the original question, because this is the core issue you face as representatives of the industry.

25
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

In some of our conversations previously, some of your members were probably the most assertive about wanting a primary objective. In the end, the Government at the time settled for a secondary objective. Would you like to describe where your members are now in terms of what they think needs to happen to realise the obj

75
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

So what do we need to do to stop that? Your commentary is not in dispute; I am sure your colleagues this morning would share it. I understand that in your report you put a number of recommendations about 10-year horizons, clarity and all the rest of it. That means resisting some of the calls to intervene and give compe

87
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

Can we focus in on the growth and competitiveness objective? As I see it, the previous Government legislated to institutionalise, in our country, a secondary growth objective for the regulator. At the same time, there is a call for higher standards of consumer care. When I was the Minister in this area, I always felt t

236
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

In reality, a step change in the level of financial knowledge and awareness among the poorest in our society will not happen immediately. I am not saying that there are not things that can be done—I think we could all find a way of doing that. However, notwithstanding the point about not doing enough research, if peopl

244
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

Thank you. Mr Celic, could you tell us what your members are saying? This is a topic that again has been discussed for most of the last five years. Do you think progress is being made? Is there a risk that we are once again avoiding some difficult challenges? We have one bad conduct thing, and there is always a call fo

86
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

Isn’t the reality that the poorest consumers have a lack of pathways? Mr McAteer suggests that that is because the banks and financial institutions are not using the opportunities of AI to create products and pathways, but consumers are losing growth in their cash, if they put it in equities. More than that, they are g

356
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

That is a massive consumer detriment at the moment, isn’t it?

11
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

They do not trust themselves.

5
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

If the chair of the FCA says that there are 13 million consumers who have basically got £430 billion in cash, you have said there is nothing preventing the market from giving tailored advice. Given the economic advantage, presumably, to those companies of giving that advice, why is that not happening? They would do it

68
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

Previously, we moved from a situation where you had commission for advice. There was more transparency, then the cost of it was too high and people could not afford it, and now nobody does it. If you want to have more than 7% of people taking advice, how is that paid for? It seems to me that if you go to the money advi

154
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

And your members would be liable for then apparently making a bad judgment in year one.

16
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

One thing that has been cited in the conversation this morning is the negative consequences for consumers of being dependent on cash—“safe”—savings and low-risk products, and not defaulting to others. My experience of the consumer protection narrative is that—if I think of Mr Postings and some of his members—there is a

87
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

I want to follow up on one thing you said about the reforms at Mansion House. We have always said that this whole aspiration of pooling pensions funds is the right thing to do, starting with local government. Mr Celic, you talked about culture. Are the Government being robust enough in placing hard stops here to say, “

164
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

Sorry to interrupt, but in the context of the increase in national insurance contributions, it is unrealistic to expect that to be added in the short term. Basically, you are saying that we should have a 10 or 15-year plan, with the changes in pension age, for example, so that industry is certain about those milestones

78
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

We are going to hear from a consumer panel afterwards that will tell us about the poorest in society being excluded from many of these things, so it is an unrealistic aspiration, yet from a macroeconomic point of view, it is desirable. How do we reconcile that?

47
3 Dec 2024Treasury Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 417)

I was going to ask that question specifically. The Prime Minister is reportedly going to focus on disposable income, but if you increase from 8% on a ratchet to about 10%, 12% or 13%—where Australia is—that will have an impact on disposable income. Is he wrong to do that? We have a direct conflict here, between a fixin

86
← PreviousPage 65 of 75 · click a debate to open the transcript with this MP’s speeches highlightedNext →
Sources
SourceHansard · official report
MethodEach row is one contribution (intervention or speech). Word count from the official text.