Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

As the Secretary of State set out on 11 November 2025, we are retaking the decision made in December 2024 as it relates to the communications on state pension age. We will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached.

[Mr Dillon]

I was one of 100 MPs who signed a cross-party letter calling on the Government to take action for WASPI women. Such is the strength of feeling in my constituency that I am regularly contacted about this issue. In the Government’s determination, are they planning to consult with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, especially if they are minded to deny 1950s-born women their lived experience again?

[Torsten Bell]

I know that hon. Members across the House will have been contacted by constituents who have been affected, and many of us will also have family members who have been affected. As I said, we will update the House as soon as a conclusion is reached. We have committed in public to doing so within three months of the decision in December, which means a decision will be reported to the House before the beginning of March.

I gently say that we need to be clear about what is at stake here: this decision relates narrowly to the question of the communication of the state pension age changes. For many women, including many of my constituents, the issue they are actually most focused on is the increase, and the acceleration in the increase, in the state pension age that was put in place by the coalition Government, which not a single Lib Dem MP voted against back in 2011. I think we should be clear about that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be clear on that with his constituents when they raise the matter with him.

[Sarah Dyke]

There are more than 8,000 WASPI women across Glastonbury and Somerton, including Miriam from Martock, who has lost a staggering £50,000 because of the maladministration of state pension ages changes. Because she was unable to work, she was forced to sell her home and live on released capital; now, aged 70, she has rejoined the workforce. Miriam and women like her deserve fairness. Will the Minister commit to properly compensating 1950s-born women, and will the Government consult with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman before finalising their response?

[Torsten Bell]

I know that many of our sympathies would be with Miriam. Many Members have constituents who face challenges in the years running up to the state pension age and who are, for whatever reason, unable to work.

The hon. Lady has rather made the point that I just set out, though. She talks about losses of £50,000 or £60,000, which I also see in letters from constituents, but that does not relate to the issue of communication of the state pension age. What she is referring to—the increase and acceleration in the state pension age—was put in place by a Liberal Democrat Government, and not a single Liberal Democrat MP voted against it. It is important to be clear about what is and is not part of the PHSO’s investigation. As I say, it is very important that we take these issues seriously. We should not have seen an acceleration of the state pension age where some women were only given five years’ notice, but that was put in place by the coalition Government. We will not be making those mistakes.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, can I offer my deepest sympathies for your recent injury?

I pay tribute to the WASPI women in my constituency for their tireless campaigning on this issue. Will the Minister outline the difference that his Department and this Labour Government are making to all pensioners in Harlow?

[Torsten Bell]

Mr Speaker will not be on camera right now since I am speaking, but I can reassure the whole world that he is very much still with us. We all hope that that will be the case for some time to come, but when he does decide to become a pensioner, he will, like all pensioners, have the full support of the Government. We are bringing down waiting lists, which is benefiting pensioners right across the country. The biggest single disgrace facing older generations across the UK today is the state of our NHS, and that is why this Government are investing in bringing down waiting lists month after month after month.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I had better add my sympathies for your poor leg to those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

The Labour party has performed, frankly, a spectacular U-turn on its support for WASPI women, but now it finds itself bogged down in judicial reviews and accusations of incompetence. If the Government cannot even deliver literally nothing for the WASPI women without messing up, what hope is there for them delivering wider welfare reforms?

[Torsten Bell]

I simply cannot let the hon. Member off on this. It was the Conservatives who made the decisions on accelerating the state pension age and in some cases gave women around five years’ notice or less of the increase. That was a choice made by the Conservative party. This Government are considering a report from the ombudsman that the Conservatives left sitting on their desks and refused to make a decision on—and we are going to make a decision.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Prior to the Government’s decision not to grant compensation to WASPI women, there was a disturbing lack of engagement with the ombudsman. Since then, the ombudsman has been able to gain access to the paused action plan, but only after leaving their electronic device at the door. Is the Minister comfortable with the way that this trusted civil servant has been treated?

[Torsten Bell]

The ombudsman is an important part of the systems that we have in place to make sure that the administration of public services is done in the right way. The hon. Member will know that our permanent secretary met the ombudsman before Christmas. A draft of the action plan that he refers to was shared with her in order to provide her with reassurance that progress was being made on it. As he will be aware, the work on the action plan has been stopped because it was an intrinsic part of remedy set out in the case last year. As I have said, the Secretary of State is considering the evidence in the round, and we will report back to the House as soon as a decision is taken.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the number of claimants of the personal independence payment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

T7. In the Budget, the Chancellor froze thresholds, which brings state pensioners into paying tax. This was raised with the Chancellor, who said that she did not want that to happen and that she would create a workaround. However, only two weeks ago we voted on the Finance Bill, which the Labour party pushed through, and as it stands that means that pensioners will pay tax on their state pension. What is the DWP doing to ensure that they will not pay tax on their state pension or have to submit a tax return?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

It has been confirmed that those whose income is only the basic level of the basic state pension or the new state pension will not be required to pay tax next year, because the level of personal allowance has been set above the level of the new state pension. What the Chancellor said at the Budget was that in future years we will make sure that no pensioner will be required to fill in a self-assessment form, or indeed a simple self-assessment form, for any tax that is due because the new state pension level is above that of the personal allowance.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine disclosed full details of her change in circumstances to the Department, but although the Department admitted it was its mistake—it had received that information and had repeatedly failed to update its records—it still sent her a very threatening letter. Although I fully support the need to protect the public purse, would the appropriate Minister agree to meet me to discuss how the Department could improve its updating procedures, reduce the occurrence of overpayments, and treat claimants more considerately when they have received overpayments through no fault of their own?