Raises concerns about potential financial losses for constituents due to pension changes. Requests clarification on methods to reassure constituents.

Supports judicial pensions reform but raises an additional issue regarding the lifetime cap on pension earnings, suggesting it may discourage High Court appointments. Advises the Minister to discuss this with the Chancellor.

Stresses the importance of good pension schemes and their impact on society. Acknowledges the contribution of public sector workers during the pandemic. Questions the cost of correcting a £17 billion mistake from 2015 reforms, suggesting it could help with rising energy bills. Raises issues regarding the design of the remedy for the McCloud judgment, questioning who will pay and how members will choose between schemes without additional costs. Emphasises the need for clear information to prevent pension fraud. Asks about cost control mechanisms and whether benefits reductions might occur. Welcomes security for former Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock employees but asks for clarity on costs. Questions deregistering of judicial pensions and its impact on others seeking similar treatment. Supports raising judges' retirement age to 75 but raises concerns over diversity in the judiciary. Discusses a 'pensions trap' issue affecting police officers and calls for further dialogue with representatives.

The clause would allow judges to serve until 75, addressing concerns about talent retention and diversity. It acknowledges modern health advancements that extend career viability beyond 70 years of age. The change could attract more women who have taken career breaks due to family responsibilities and those joining the legal profession later in life.

Reinforces Robert Buckland's argument by highlighting statistics showing a shortfall in appointments to district and circuit benches. He emphasises that the ability to access full pension is crucial for these judges, particularly senior juniors and solicitors who face financial pressures.

Grant raises concerns about clauses that force people to opt into single pension schemes, potentially costing them benefits. He questions the fairness of dismissing 245,000 affected individuals as a small number and the practicality of proving reasons for opting out seven years prior. Grant also expresses skepticism over the complexity and reliability of interplay between contributions, pension amounts, and tax liabilities.

Welcomes the Bill for providing certainty and enabling reforms, supports changes to judicial retirement age due to increased life expectancy. Argues that a small amendment is needed in the Bill to give the Secretary of State powers to issue guidance on pension fund investments to align with UK foreign and defence policy, citing the Supreme Court's 2020 decision which disapplied previous guidance. Emphasises the importance of preventing politicisation of public sector pensions by ensuring decisions do not conflict with government policy.

Mr McDonnell argues that the cost of remedying the McCloud judgment should be borne by the Government, not scheme members. He highlights the impact on constituents who feel betrayed and may face hardship in retirement due to increased contributions without corresponding benefits. He also raises concerns about the pensions trap and loss of incentive for contributing to pension schemes.

Neill welcomes the Government's response to the McCloud judgment, appreciating the even-handed approach towards fee-paid judicial office holders. He argues that raising the retirement age for judges to 75 is necessary due to societal and medical changes, allowing for greater diversity and attracting the best talent in high-value litigation areas. Neill highlights concerns over a potential decrease in diversity but notes the impact assessment indicates minor real-world effects. He emphasises the importance of judicial pensions for those who make income sacrifices upon joining the bench, advocating for fair tax treatment to attract top-tier judges. Neill also addresses the shortage of district and circuit court judges, stressing the need for increased retirement age to encourage longer service and improve diversity.

Supports the Bill's aim to ensure equal treatment in pension schemes but raises concerns about implementation details, potential complexity, and adverse effects on women. Emphasises the need for guidance and support for members making important decisions. Raises concerns about judicial diversity due to increased mandatory retirement age.

Welcomes the Bill but raises several key questions regarding funding, design of remedy, costs to pension scheme members, and diversity in the judiciary. Highlights potential adverse impacts on police and fire service employees. Urges clarity on how to mitigate these issues.

Acknowledges the challenges faced by the justice system due to pandemic-related capacity issues, particularly highlighting the impact of social distancing measures on jury trials. Emphasises the importance of maintaining a world-class independent judiciary and supporting recruitment efforts for judges and magistrates. Reiterates that the amendment will help address judicial backlog and ensure fairness in pensions.

[Intervention] Emphasises the ongoing crisis of confidence in recruitment for judiciary roles, supporting the need for a world-class independent judiciary as highlighted by the Bill.

[Intervention] Supports the inclusion of an amendment related to the boycotts policy within this Bill, advocating for its timely legislative action due to the relevance of the issue.