Oral Answers to Questions
Torsten Bell Excerpts(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Minister for Pensions (Torsten Bell)
We want all pensioners, including women born in the 1950s, to have the comfortable retirements they deserve. That is why we are delivering on our twin priorities for pensioners: raising the state pension, and rescuing the NHS. We are also delivering the largest ever pension credit take-up campaign, which is particularly important for low-income pensioners, a disproportionate number of whom are women.
Brian Leishman
More than 3.5 million WASPI women were affected by the change to the state pension age. Time is of the essence, because another WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes on average, without receiving fairness or justice. The Prime Minister personally assured the WASPI campaigners during the Makerfield by-election that he would meet them to discuss potential routes to redress. Can the Minister confirm what actions the Department is taking to support the Prime Minister in those discussions? Crucially, when will the meeting happen?
Torsten Bell
The Prime Minister and I opposed the 2011 acceleration of the state pension age by the coalition Government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, in particular because it gave some women as little as five years’ notice of changes to their state pension age. Those same women have faced disadvantage in the workplace and very uneven burdens of caring responsibilities. I have recently written to WASPI representatives to set out the Government’s position. With legal proceedings ongoing, further comment is not appropriate, but I continue to hear from and to speak to women affected by the accelerated increases in the state pension age.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
It is several years since the ombudsman reported on this matter. As I recall, the last Government agreed to accept the recommendations of the ombudsman. To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), many of these ladies will be dead before they see any money at all. When will the Government stop messing around and do something?
Torsten Bell
I thank the right hon. Member for his question; I just do not agree with the tone in which he asked it. This Government have considered the case set out by the ombudsman and provided a detailed response. I am afraid that the previous Government did nothing of the sort—they did not say they would proceed with a compensation scheme. In fact, the reason the ombudsman laid their report before Parliament, rather than to the Government, is that it was clear where the last Government were going with this.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
The Minister for Pensions (Torsten Bell)
The Government’s reforms provide greater flexibility for well-funded defined-benefit pension schemes to share surplus with employers and to benefit members. Scheme trustees, who must act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries, are best placed to determine the appropriate use of any surplus for their individual scheme. Trustees will agree how members can benefit, working with sponsoring employers.
Clive Jones
Is it not the case that nothing in law stops the Government requiring pre-1997 pensions to be restored before surplus goes back to employers, and that the only reason it is not happening is that the Minister has decided that it should not?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he and I have met and discussed this issue on many occasions. Around three quarters of schemes already provide some pre-1997 indexation, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out the strength of feeling on this. I have met with many MPs and scheme members, including those in south Wales who have been affected by lack of pre-1997 indexation on their defined benefit schemes. It is separate from the changes that we have already introduced for the Pension Protection Fund’s indexation.
Trustees need to be in the driving seat. Employers will have no direct access to a scheme’s surplus. The flexibilities we have put in place through the Pension Schemes Act 2026 and the guidance being provided by the Pensions Regulator are already changing the nature of the discussion between trustees and employers, and will lead to a step change in this area.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It did not sound as though the Minister could commit to improving outcomes for pensioners. That is no surprise given this Government’s record: they cut the winter fuel payments, undermined incentives to save into pensions through the salary sacrifice scheme, and dragged pensions into the scope of inheritance tax. The Prime Minister’s announcement at the Labour party conference created yet more uncertainty for those in or approaching retirement. Will the Minister give a commitment to the House that there will be no further policies undermining pensioners’ prospects and damaging their retirement?
Torsten Bell
Although I listened closely to much of the Conservative party’s conference—not quite all of it, but lots of it—I am still not clear what its policy is on the triple lock or on many other things in the pensions space. I have been paying a lot of attention, and what I have learned is that the shadow Foreign Secretary calls the triple lock a Ponzi scheme and the previous shadow Chancellor calls it completely unsustainable.
The shadow Secretary of State knows she has a ridiculous position on reform of the state pension. This Government will put the state pension on a sustainable basis and address the other big challenge of ensuring an adequate private pension system. That is what the Pensions Commission will do.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Young workers are facing real challenges in their living standards, particularly because their housing costs dwarf those faced by the generations that came before them. That is leading many to reduce the contributions they make to their workplace pensions, or even to forgo making them entirely, at the risk of having inadequate pensions when they retire. Will the Pensions Commission make recommendations on how to address those challenges?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the challenges facing younger workers. They face exactly the same cost of living challenges as the rest of society, but often with added pressure when it comes to housing. The good news is that between 2012 and 2025, participation among employees aged 22 to 25 who are eligible for automatic enrolment increased from 28% to 85%. He is completely right that there is much more to do, and I can confirm that the Pensions Commission is exploring exactly these long-term questions.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
My constituents are facing extremely large delays in getting a response from the DWP. One of my constituents has now been waiting for two months for a response with regard to his dispute with the Child Maintenance Service, despite receiving a final letter before action. Another constituent has been waiting for four months for a response to his PIP review claim. Why are we seeing such long delays, what is the Minister doing to resolve them, and why have my constituents not had a response in months?
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is always very obvious when a Labour Government are in place, because the first thing a Labour Prime Minister will do is take a swing at pensioners—so it is not at all surprising that the Prime Minister is already abandoning his promises to WASPI women. How can pensioners, WASPI women and the public in general trust the DWP when the Prime Minister seems to find it so easy to say yes and make grand promises, when there are no consequences and those promises seem to have absolutely no meaning in practice?
Torsten Bell
This Government promised in our 2024 manifesto to ensure that the state pension in Scotland, England and Wales would rise every single year, and that is exactly what this Government are getting on with doing.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I established the “Get Hyndburn Working” group, and together we are looking at how we can bring our youth hub into a town centre location and also bring health, training and education services all under one roof. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how the Government can support us to make that a reality?
Sovereign Grant Bill
Torsten Bell ExcerptsMonday 14th September 2026
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Sovereign Grant Bill 2026-27 View all Sovereign Grant Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 14 September 2026 - (14 Sep 2026)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill relates to the sovereign grant that Parliament has provided to support the official duties of the monarch and the work of the royal household. The Bill implements the conclusions of the recent royal trustees’ review of that sovereign grant. In doing so, it resets the grant level for the next financial year, giving effect to the commitment of successive Governments and the expectation of the royal household for a reduction in the level of funding following the completion of the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme, which keen Members will have heard about on the news this morning on the back of the discovery of some historical documents.
The Bill also makes targeted improvements to the statutory framework for this funding, introducing limited flexibilities to ensure that funding levels remain appropriate even in exceptional circumstances. This will make it easier to respond where funding would otherwise become inappropriately low or inappropriately high.
To support the monarch’s official duties, the sovereign grant funds the staff, official travel, property maintenance and essential services for the sovereign to fulfil their unique constitutional role. That role extends beyond ceremonial functions: it includes hosting heads of state, supporting diplomatic engagements, representing the United Kingdom overseas, and strengthening our relationships across the Commonwealth and the world. These activities support the UK’s interests, including trade, investment and security. At home, the grant supports the significant role of the sovereign and the wider royal household, from recognising charitable and voluntary service to bringing communities together across the United Kingdom.
Since 2012, the amount of the sovereign grant has been determined through a statutory framework established by Parliament in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011. That framework requires the annual grant amount to be calculated by reference to the previous year’s expenditure and a percentage of the profits of the Crown Estate—an independent public corporation whose net revenue profits are returned to the Exchequer. To ensure that funding levels remain appropriate, the 2011 Act requires the royal trustees—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Keeper of the Privy Purse—to conduct regular reviews.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister is setting the scene incredibly well. He is right to underline that the British monarchy has clearly been a source of stability across the world, and to say that its unity remains irreplaceable in a world full of division. We acknowledge the ongoing need to review and adjust the sovereign grant, but does he agree that it is vital that the monarchy remains appropriately funded? When he sums up, can he assure us that the monarchy will be funded to effectively fulfil its duty to this country, the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his tribute to the monarchy. His description of what he would like to see in the setting of the sovereign grant reflects exactly what has to take place. As I was just explaining, the three trustees are required to take into account the funding required to deliver the function that we all want our monarch to deliver.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
There is what might be an important innovation in the text of this year’s sovereign grant annual report and accounts, which the Bill refers to and which the Minister is describing. Usually, the description of the sovereign’s role includes the term “defender of the faith”, but that term does not appear in this year’s report and accounts. Instead, the monarch is referred to as the
“Supreme Governor of the Church of England”.
That is good. The report also says that he
“protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.”
That is an admirable ambition, but I invite the Minister to confirm that no alteration to the monarch’s role is implied in that change. If there were to be such an alteration, would it be debated properly in Parliament, rather than introduced quietly through these sorts of official reports?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member has shown interest in this topic over many years, in a lot of different environments. This is a question of “and”, rather than “or”. As he says, the document spells out that His Majesty is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I encourage him to go on to the royal family’s website, where he will see the language about the King being the defender of the faith very prominently displayed. I hope that gives him the reassurance that he seeks.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
We are extremely fortunate to have a monarchy, particularly this monarchy. Since the reign of George III, the profits from the Crown Estate have accrued to the Treasury; in return, the institution of the monarchy receives a grant, which we are debating today. Part of that is an annually determined proportion of the profits. However, for things other than exceptional expenditure, such as on Buckingham Palace, the institution presumably requires some sort of stability and certainty about the receipts necessary to carry out its functions. Is it logical for the grant to be a proportion of profits, which will inevitably vary year by year, because they are a commercial matter?
Torsten Bell
I think everybody in this House will agree with the thrust of what the right hon. Gentleman successfully argues. A royal household with an important role, both as the sovereign, and in maintaining an estate of grade I listed monuments, needs certainty about its income. It is not for me to defend the previous Government, but the 2011 Act provided two bases for funding. The first is the mechanism that he mentioned, relating to a proportion of the profits of the Crown Estate. The second is a proviso that there be no fall, from year to year, in the amount of the grant. That is to provide exactly the stability that he talks about. That is why we are taking forward this primary legislation, with that dual lock. The reduction this year is purely to take into account the bringing to an end of the Buckingham Palace 10-year repair project. The legislation then provides an ongoing commitment to the royal household and the monarch that the grant will remain at next year’s level, at least. I hope that offers the right hon. Gentleman reassurance.
As I was saying, a key point of context is that Parliament agreed a temporary uplift to the grant from 2017-18 to 2026-27 to fund the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme. That was a major 10-year investment to modernise ageing infrastructure, replace critical electrical and mechanical systems, and safeguard the long-term future of one of the nation’s most historic buildings. As that programme nears completion, it is time for the level of funding to be reassessed. Earlier this year, the then royal trustees completed the latest review and considered both the royal household’s projected expenditure and the Crown Estate’s projected revenues for the period from 2027 to 2032. The trustees concluded that with the Buckingham Palace reservicing programme nearing completion, the exceptional funding requirements that justified that temporary uplift no longer exist. They therefore recommended that the sovereign grant should fall from £137.9 million in 2026-27 to £99.9 million in 2027-28. That represents a reduction of almost £38 million, or more than a quarter.
At the same time, the trustees recognised that the royal household continues to face operational pressures in delivering what we all think of as crucial work. The recommended amount of funding will enable the household to address a maintenance backlog that was exacerbated by the pandemic, and to replace ageing digital infrastructure to strengthen cyber-security. The grant provided for by this Bill ensures value for money for taxpayers, and that the royal household can continue to discharge its crucial functions effectively.
This Bill delivers a fair and proportionate funding settlement. It reduces the amount of the sovereign grant, following the completion of a major capital programme; it improves the resilience and sustainability of the statutory framework established in 2011, while maintaining parliamentary oversight; and it ensures that the sovereign grant can continue to fulfil its core purpose, which is supporting the official duties of the monarch and maintaining the occupied royal palaces on behalf of the nation. On that basis, I commend this Bill to the House.
Oral Answers to Questions
Torsten Bell Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
The Government are committed to supporting British pensioners to enjoy a comfortable retirement after a lifetime of work. That is why we are raising the state pension throughout this Parliament via the triple lock. That saw the state pension increase by 4.8% in April, boosting the level of the new state pension by £575 a year.
Andrew Rosindell
I thank the Minister for his reply, but he will know that my borough of Havering has the second largest number of older people in the entirety of Greater London. Nearly a quarter of my constituents are within that age bracket, and they are losing out. I know that the Government’s policy on the winter fuel allowance has changed, but it frightened them and made them ask whether Labour is really on their side. Will the Minister assure my constituents that the next Labour Administration will not target pensioners, but will give them the respect they deserve, and ensure that they have a happy and healthy retirement?
Torsten Bell
I can give the hon. Member the assurance he asks for, which is that this Labour Administration, like all Labour Administrations, are on the side of pensioners. Of course, he only defected earlier this year, so he was a Conservative MP during all 14 years of the Conservative party’s disastrous last Government—a Government who saw pensioner poverty rise and left one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists. That is what letting down pensioners looks like.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Can the Minister set out what plans he has to make sure that today’s workers—tomorrow’s pensioners—enjoy a decent retirement?
Torsten Bell
That is a very important question. We need to make sure that those who will retire in 2050 can look forward to the same kind of comfortable retirements that many—not all, but many—of today’s pensioners enjoy, and the honest answer is that we are not on track for that at the moment. This Government are taking a two-stage approach. We are driving up returns on pension savings now—that is what the Pensions Schemes Act 2026 does—but we are also doing the longer-term work through the Pensions Commission to look at exactly the question of how we make sure that tomorrow’s pensioners can enjoy comfortable retirements. I promise that the commission will bring forward its report early next year.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
The Pensions Minister likes to spend a lot of time criticising the previous Government for their actions on pensioners. He also spends an awful lot of time talking up his legacy on helping pensioners, but his actions simply do not reflect the narrative. So far, he has capped salary sacrifice, there have been delays to the pensions dashboards, we have had retrospective changes to inheritance tax on pension pots, and—as we have heard—the Government are chasing hard-up pensioners for their winter fuel allowance. All of this creates uncertainty among savers and pensioners alike, so I will repeat the question asked by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell): is the Pensions Minister hopeful that his successor will do a better job of looking after pensioners?
Torsten Bell
I am incredibly hopeful that this Government are doing a much better job than the previous Government in supporting pensioners, not only by driving up the state pension, but by getting on with the much delayed reforms to our defined-contribution pension system, which the previous Government left on ice. We are also coming forward with something much more important, because the biggest betrayal of older generations in Britain today is the state in which the Conservatives left our national health service.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we need to fund the NHS to stop letting down older generations. Taxes have consequences that affect the whole population, including pensioners. The Chancellor has set out that the level of the personal allowance will remain above the level of the new and the basic state pension—the headline rates—throughout this year. In future years we will ensure that we ease the administrative burden for pensioners who have small amounts of tax due.
Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and she has been an important campaigner for pensioners in her constituency who have been affected by it. Although three quarters of schemes provide some degree of pre-1997 indexation, there is a very real impact on members of schemes that do not—indeed, we have discussed that with local pensioners in south Wales. The surplus reforms that this Government are bringing forward will make it easier for some trustees to negotiate for additional indexation. We launched a consultation on this issue on 10 June, and it runs until 2 September. I will take my hon. Friend’s comments as input for that consultation.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Pensions Minister knows that there is no retirement on a dead planet, so will he commit to writing to the 50 largest UK pension funds to ask them to set out their timetable for divesting from fossil fuels?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend is a consistent campaigner on these issues in this place and in our regular meetings, and I always learn something from those conversations. I am not going forward with exactly the suggestion he brings forward, but I agree that there is more we can do, not least to provide clarity for trustees. We are working with industry to develop guidance clarifying that fiduciary duties allow trustees investing in members’ best interests to consider systemic risks, including climate change, and we will consult later this summer.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The increased PIP costs are expected to add an extra £5 billion to the welfare budget this year. As the TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted, the number of households earning over £100,000 and getting PIP has doubled to 200,000 claimants. Will the Minister make an assessment of the potential merits of means-testing PIP to ensure targeted support?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Given that benefit fraud is estimated at around £9 billion, and that the WASPI women are apparently willing to have the cost of their just compensation claim capped at around a third of that figure, can someone from the ministerial team confirm that the Government are willing to change course and negotiate with the WASPI women?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member will know that a judicial review claim has been filed, and that we cannot comment on live litigation. There are legitimate views on raises in the state pension age, particularly the 2011 acceleration put in place by the coalition Government, but the investigation that is being considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is not about those increases; it is purely on the narrow point about communication. The Government have made their position clear on that and set it out in the decision document placed in the House of Commons Library.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
Safeguarding has been a key focus of the Work and Pensions Committee, so I was shocked to hear that my constituent Barbara Skedd received a letter to her executors, incorrectly notifying them of her death. This resulted in Barbara’s benefits being stopped, including the personal independence payment and all her pensions. My team have been working hard to get those reinstated. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps he is taking to ensure that those kinds of errors are minimised, and that the appropriate package of support is put in place so that when errors do occur, they are dealt with quickly?
State Pension Age Communications and Complaints Handling
Torsten Bell Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
In January 2026 the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the Government’s new response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This included a commitment to deliver an action plan to learn lessons from the ombudsman’s investigation. Today this action plan has been published on gov.uk.
I will also place a copy of the action plan in the Libraries of the House.
The action plan sets out key steps for state pension age communications and complaints handling, recognising the importance of building a continuous learning approach.
I am grateful to the ombudsman who has provided support to develop the action plan. As we have set out in the plan, we will work collaboratively with a range of stakeholders on future state pension age communications.
[HCWS148]
Draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) Regulations 2026
Torsten Bell Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) Regulations 2026.
I will briefly take the Committee through the background and purpose of these draft regulations, which relate to the abolition of the pensions lifetime allowance. At the 2023 spring Budget, the previous Government announced that they would abolish the lifetime allowance. The Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 removed the lifetime allowance charge. The Finance Act 2024 removed the other elements of the lifetime allowance from the pension tax regime from 6 April 2024. That was a significant task; the entire pensions tax regime was structured around the existence of a lifetime allowance, and many other aspects of the regime, such as allowable pension and lump sum benefits, were calculated with reference to the lifetime allowance. Additional regulations have thus been needed to provide further administrative and technical detail.
Since the Finance Act 2024 and the regulations that followed, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has continued to work with industry representatives to ensure that the legislation operates correctly. In doing so, HMRC has identified further areas that do not operate as intended. This statutory instrument simply modifies a number of areas of primary legislation and some areas of subordinate legislation purely to ensure that the abolition of the lifetime allowance is delivered as originally intended.
Those changes ensure that the lump sum allowances work fairly and consistently, including treating overseas pensions in the same way as UK schemes and giving individuals flexibility to decide the order of multiple payments on the same day. They also clarify the calculation of protections and enhancements so that the outcomes more closely reflect those achieved under the lifetime allowance. Finally, they introduce targeted technical fixes and improved reporting rules to support accurate administration for the post-lifetime allowance regime. The draft regulations are not a change in policy but make the further technical and consequential amendments necessary to ensure that pensions tax legislation can operate as intended following the abolition of the lifetime allowance.
Most of these changes will take effect from 6 April 2024 —in other words, they will apply retrospectively—when the lifetime allowance was abolished, although a small number of amendments will come into effect only from the date that the regulations come into force. The regulations have been made by the Treasury by exercising the powers conferred by paragraph 134 of schedule 9 of the Finance Act 2024. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.
Defined Benefit Pensions Regulation: Flexible Apportionment Arrangements
Torsten Bell Excerpts(3 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
We are taking action to ensure the strong regulatory framework for defined benefit pensions remains effective as innovation develops, to manage future risks and protect member benefits.
On 4 December 2025, a novel use of existing legislation led to an asset manager assuming responsibility for the liabilities and the assets of another employer’s defined benefit pension scheme.
This Government have since delivered the landmark Pension Schemes Act 2026, introducing major reforms to UK occupational pensions, consolidating our fragmented pensions system into larger, better run, more secure schemes.
We want to encourage innovation that has the potential to benefit scheme members throughout the pension system and need to ensure the right legislative guard rails are in place for this to happen safely.
Flexible apportionment arrangements, the legislative mechanism used in this transaction, were introduced in 2012. They were designed to ensure that corporate restructurings, mergers and sales do not cause employer insolvency events when there is an appropriate sponsor who can support the scheme. Whilst this transaction complied with the existing FAA mechanism it did so in a way not anticipated when the mechanism was introduced.
We therefore intend to review this area of legislation to ensure the regulatory standards and safeguards evolve and keep pace with the innovation we are seeing in the pension market. This is to protect members and the Pension Protection Fund, which is there to protect people’s pensions in the event of an employer insolvency.
The DB superfunds framework set out in the Act reflects the fact that superfunds operate schemes on a commercial basis and is designed to ensure that the interests of commercial providers are appropriately aligned with those of scheme members. This contrast highlights the importance of considering whether additional safeguards are required where other mechanisms, such as FAAs, are used in ways that similarly involve the commercial operation of DB pension schemes. We will therefore consult in due course on whether and how existing FAA regulations could be strengthened.
Where providers are looking to run schemes for profit, this can work in scheme members’ interests but regulatory standards and safeguards must evolve to match the new risks this creates.
[HCWS114]
Public Service Pensions: SCAPE Discount Rate
Torsten Bell Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
SCAPE—superannuation contributions adjusted for past experience—is the process for setting employer contribution rates at valuations of unfunded public service pension schemes. As part of the SCAPE process, the SCAPE discount rate is used alongside many other factors such as earnings changes, changes to life expectancy and demographic assumptions to determine the appropriate employer contribution rate. Valuations as at 31 March 2024 are currently under way and will result in new employer contribution rates, which will be implemented from April 2027.
The current methodology for setting the discount rate, based on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast of long-term GDP growth, was adopted in 2011, with a commitment to review its methodology every 10 years. A review under the previous Government, from 2021 to 2023, maintained this methodology.
The SCAPE discount rate to be used as part of the ongoing 2024 valuations will therefore be based on the expected long-term GDP growth figures, published by the OBR in July 2025. Based on these figures, the new SCAPE discount rate is CPI+2% p.a.
[HCWS37]
National Savings & Investments: Bereavement Claims
Torsten Bell Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
I am today updating the House on the steps being taken to address historic failures in the handling of some bereavement claims by National Savings and Investments.
On 26 March, I informed the House that NS&I had identified a population of cases where, following notification of a customer’s death, holdings were not fully settled in a timely way. These failures relate to past tracing and operational processes and do not reflect current practice. I recognise the distress and inconvenience that these shortcomings may have caused to those that have suffered bereavements.
The Treasury has instructed NS&I to put this right swiftly and fairly, requiring a delivery plan detailing how it plans to do so to be published during May.
NS&I has now completed extensive work to understand the affected population and to design a remediation approach. Today NS&I is publishing the delivery plan that it will follow to ensure proactive timely contact, payment of outstanding holdings, and appropriate compensation.
The current remediation population is estimated at up to 34,000 cases, with a total value of approximately £367 million. These figures have reduced since my announcement and are likely to reduce further.
We are committed to making the process for reuniting estates with their money as easy as possible. NS&I will contact all affected estates with holdings of £10 or more to reunite them with the full value of those holdings that should have been returned to them earlier. To ensure estates have not been disadvantaged by the delay, this will then be adjusted upwards to include either the higher of the interest accrued since the error occurred or the Bank of England base rate plus 1 percentage point, in line with Financial Ombudsman Service principles.
The de minimis threshold is being set lower than seen in some redress cases reflecting the priority we attach to returning funds to those affected while avoiding creating disproportionate administrative burdens and disturbance in the cases of the smallest holdings.
Contact will be made with estates through executors or personal representatives. Beneficiaries will not be contacted directly except where, as is often the case, beneficiaries are themselves executors or personal representatives. Where solicitors or professional executors dealt with the administration of an estate they will be contacted and it will be for them to contact beneficiaries. All cases will be subject to proportionate tracing checks to ensure payments are made safely and to the correct party.
Remediation will be delivered in phases. NS&I will begin contacting the first cohort next week, with payments made shortly after contact. NS&I aims to return holdings to their rightful owners as swiftly as possible and expects to have completed this remediation programme in the first half of 2027.
I have committed to helping bereaved families avoid disproportionate disruption and administrative costs that could result from the inheritance tax consequences of rectifying previous tracing errors. To achieve this I am confirming today that there will be a full inheritance tax exemption for the holdings of the remediation population affected by the NS&I tracing error which are returned to the estates to which they rightly belong. To further ease the administration of estates, the personal representatives or executors will not be liable for any income tax ordinarily due in their role on interest accrued before death or in the administration period. HMRC is working with NS&I to ensure that executors, personal representatives and beneficiaries do not incur any unnecessary administrative burdens or costs where tax is not due.
Beyond individual redress, NS&I has strengthened its bereavement processes to ensure these tracing errors do not reoccur. While this has driven an increase in processing times, an additional 100 people have been hired to ensure this is temporary. NS&I is also exploring broader improvements to the bereavement journey, including alignment with cross-Government services such as Tell Us Once.
As I committed to the House, Sir Jim Harra, acting chief executive of NS&I, is leading a wider review into the background to the tracing problem and what lessons must be learned. This will report before the summer recess and be shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees. The Treasury has also started the process to recruit a permanent chief executive.
Further information for anyone who believes they or loved ones may have been affected is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week.
[HCWS44]
Pension Schemes Bill
Torsten Bell ExcerptsTuesday 28th April 2026
(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2026 View all Pension Schemes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 28 April 2026 (issued at 17:55) - large print - (28 Apr 2026)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes further amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill.
It is obviously disappointing to see that not every Member in this Chamber wishes to stay for a detailed discussion of the Pension Schemes Bill, but it is not the biggest disappointment ever. It is good to see our regular engagers on this Bill in their place. I thank in particular those Members for helpful discussions on the Bill in recent days.
I do not intend to detain the House for long. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is the reaction we are always looking for. Members will be aware that there is one outstanding issue between this House and the other place when it comes to the Bill, and it relates to the reserve power on asset allocation. Today the Government return to their previous amendments on this issue. They spell out the intended purpose of the reserve power to underpin the industry’s own commitments in the Mansion House accord and to rule out other uses, such as a focus on any specific asset or asset class.
We are also bringing forward a final set of changes that aim to do justice to the points made in this House and the other place, while retaining the original policy intent. They have three elements. First, there is a new requirement on regulators—in this case, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority—to make an assessment of barriers to the delivery of private asset investment, including the extent to which those barriers reflect the collective action problem, which we have discussed extensively in our exchanges on the Bill. That assessment would be required to be incorporated into the ex-ante report that the Secretary of State must produce before any use of the reserve power that the Bill provides for.
Importantly, our amendments also place on the Government a duty to have regard to this regulatory assessment before any use of the power. That will ensure that a Secretary of State behaving reasonably—as they are required to do—must place weight on the assessment of the regulators on this matter. It was always the Government’s intention to evaluate progress against the Mansion House accord commitments in terms of the broad direction of travel over a substantial period of time, rather than looking at short-term movements in private asset exposure. To reinforce that, we propose to add to the Bill that the power cannot be exercised any earlier than 2028.
Our second set of changes builds on the savers’ interest test to reinforce the central role of trustees and providers. Our amendments in lieu would change the bar required to engage the savers’ interest test. Rather than having to demonstrate that meeting the asset allocation requirements would be likely to cause material financial detriment, a scheme would instead have to show that meeting the requirements is
“likely not to be in the best interests of members”.
That reflects language regularly used when considering trustees’ duties. In addition, we have more tightly specified the regulators’ role, confining it to ensuring that the trustee or provider’s own assessment of what is in the best interests of members is “reasonable”, rather than replacing that assessment with their own.
Thirdly, our amendments address worries about the differential treatment of particular investment vehicles by allowing for consideration of direct or indirect holdings in the six asset classes named in the Mansion House accord.
I remind the House that the Bill has its roots in much work that was under way for some time in Government, but also in the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to ensure that workplace pension schemes take advantage of scale and invest in a wider range of productive assets. That is why one of the first things that the Government did on taking office was to launch a comprehensive review of pensions investment. That review found clear evidence that the defined-contribution pensions market is operating with an excessively narrow focus on costs, to the detriment of saver outcomes. That is where the reserve power comes from. It exists because the review found—and the industry itself has told us this, publicly and privately—that competitive pressure focused on cost minimisation is the single biggest barrier to diversifying in savers’ long-term interests.
However, things can of course change over time, and a range of other factors may come into play. We have discussed them with, in particular, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The changes that we propose today address directly that worry and others. They require regulators to assess whether these competitive pressures remain a material barrier to more diverse private asset investment before any use of the power, and they put trustees’ or providers’ own assessments of savers’ best interests centre stage.
On that basis, I commend the Government’s position to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Steve Darling
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point; I am sure that the Minister will reflect on it when winding up. The Liberal Democrats continue to oppose mandation, and we plan to vote against the motion tonight.
Torsten Bell
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words.
I will be brief. The Government have continued to insist on the inclusion of the reserve power in the Bill in all rounds of discussions in this place because we have not heard a convincing alternative approach to solving the collective action problem that we have discussed. However, we have heard convincing arguments about how this part of the Bill can be strengthened, and we have acted on each of them. That is why the amended power is necessary but also constrained. It is capped, time limited, single-use, sunsetted and subject to a savers’ interest test that has been materially strengthened, as the shadow Secretary of State laid out.
The elected House has now been clear on many occasions, and has had large majorities. Given that, it is clear that this is the time to resolve the issue and get the Bill passed; that is what the industry and the groups supporting workers and pensioners have repeatedly called for. The Government have not only listened to the arguments from the Opposition and those in the other place, but acted on them. The elected House has also made its position overwhelmingly plain. Given both those points, both of which are important, it is clearly time for the unelected House to bring to an end attempts to frustrate the clearly expressed will of this Chamber. With that entirely reasonable expectation, I commend the Government’s amendments and the Bill to the House.
Question put.
Oral Answers to Questions
Torsten Bell Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The Government made their decision on this case on 29 January 2026, after giving the PHSO’s report careful consideration. The detailed reasons for our decision were set out in our response, which has been placed in the Library of the House.
James MacCleary
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has recommended compensation for millions of WASPI women. In 99% of cases, PHSO recommendations are complied with, so does the Minister accept that singling out this group by not complying amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex and age? If not, what possible justification can the Minister offer?
Torsten Bell
As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.
Jim Shannon
I ask this question on behalf of the 6,000 WASPI women in Strangford. Given that the Department’s own 2007 evaluation raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, how can the Minister justify the decision that no direct financial loss occurred when thousands of women were deprived of the 28-month notice period required to adjust their life savings and retirement plans? In the light of the Scottish Parliament’s decision to again press this issue in February, will he please do the right thing, put actions before apologies, and deliver help and support? I say that respectfully, but I do want a good answer.
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. What is sitting behind the ombudsman’s judgment saying that is that the issue facing the ombudsman was not either the original decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age or the decision to accelerate the increase by the coalition Government in 2011. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at the question of how that increase in the state pension age was communicated, and I think it is really important to clarify that distinction with our constituents. It is the latter—the communication of the state pension age—that we have discussed in this House on numerous occasions.
The hon. Member specifically raises the 2007 evidence, which showed that a minority of people read and remembered such letters. However, it showed something else quite important, which was that those with good knowledge of their state pension entitlement were most likely to read the letters. It was therefore not a good metric for assuming that the majority of those who were sent letters would have learned something from that and changed what they knew.
Seamus Logan
These women were not properly informed about changes to their state pension. So said the PHSO on 21 March 2024, just in time for the election that year, when so many Labour Members of course promised to address the issue, if elected—another shameful, broken promise. First, can I ask the Minister to explain why the last ministerial meeting with the WASPI women took place in September 2024? Secondly, can he tell the House what work has been undertaken in his Department on a properly structured compensation scheme that could be implemented when the Government decide it is time for another U-turn?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member raises a question about what Labour Members were promising in the 2024 election. As I am sure he is aware, our manifesto was clear that it did not make a commitment to bring forward compensation. What is the case is that Labour Members opposed the acceleration of the state pension age back in 2011, which in some cases gave women only five years’ notice. However, we of course lost that vote in Parliament and subsequent elections, and the courts unfortunately upheld that decision. As I have said, what we are debating in this case is the communications, not the decision itself. On those grounds, we have set out in detail the reasons for the decisions we have made and laid that document in the House of Commons Library.
Mr Speaker
We now come to a marathon runner—five hours and 20 minutes—Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I will not lie, Mr Speaker: bobbing is slightly more difficult than normal this morning.
Can the Minister detail what the ombudsman found about the financial loss women suffered as a result of the delay in sending out letters? On a more general point, can he say what this Government are doing to support women in retirement in my constituency of Harlow?
Torsten Bell
My hon. Friend makes a large effort not only when it comes to pounding the streets, but in raising his constituents’ cases and, in this case, those of female pensioners. He is absolutely right to say that there is a distinction between the communication of state pension age increases and the increase in the state pension age, and it is the latter that has had such an effect on millions of women, particularly the speed of the increase in 2011. I think there are lessons for this House and for all Governments about what would happen in future, and we certainly would not be bringing forward such short-notice changes.
My hon. Friend is also right to say that what matters more generally is what we are doing to support pensioners, and making sure they have dignity and support in retirement. On that front, just this month we are increasing the state pension, and we will be continuing to do that over the course of this Parliament via the triple lock, which is set to increase it by up to £2,100. We are also making sure that £26 billion of investment is going into our NHS, bringing down waiting lists month on month, because this Government came into office with one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists, and we cannot allow that to continue.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?
Torsten Bell
We have debated this issue quite extensively in recent weeks, and the House will have another chance to do so later today. As I have set out during our debates, representatives of the industry itself have said that it is in the interests of savers to invest in a wider range of assets. That reflects lessons from across the industry—from open defined-benefit schemes, but also from those in the rest of the world, where the lack of exposure of the UK’s defined-contribution schemes to that wider range of assets makes it stand out. We have introduced a reserve measure to backstop the changes that the industry says are needed to solve a collective action problem. I will not try the patience of the House by repeating them now, but the aim is to ensure that savers do not lose out. We have also put in place significant protections relating to an affirmative vote, as well as the savers’ interest tests that enable pension schemes to spell out what is in the interests of their members.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
Can the Minister provide an update on the action plan to ensure that lessons are learned from the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There absolutely are lessons for us to learn from this experience, both related to that particular case, and on the general point about giving adequate notice of any changes to the state pension age; that is the most important lesson, and we are absolutely committed to learning that. On the action plan, that will be focused on state pension age comms, and on complaint handling. We will work closely with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on that right away, and I hope to be able to publish that action plan in the coming months. More broadly, we are not waiting for that, but are getting on with action. I am sure that hon. Members will have seen over the last few months the “check your state pension age” campaign, encouraging people to be aware of their state pension age.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Twelve weeks ago, I raised four cases with the DWP, and I am still waiting for a response, despite chasing. These delays are upsetting for my Wokingham constituents. What is the Minister doing to address this backlog, and when can my constituents expect a response?
Torsten Bell
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and he is absolutely right. We have seen progress in the last 15 years; 23 million employees now save into a pension, and that is restarting the business of workplace pension savings in the UK, but the job is not done. It is not done because of the issue that he raises about the adequacy of the amount saved by those who are saving, and because 45% of working-age adults are saving nothing at all. That is why there has been cross-party consensus that we should bring back the Pensions Commission to look at the question of adequacy, and I am pleased to say that its interim report will be published in the coming months.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
When a child is diagnosed with an illness such as cancer, their caring needs start immediately. Such a diagnosis upends any household; there are appointments, and often families are unable to work. Will the Minister review again the question of whether child disability living allowance should be paid immediately on diagnosis, as opposed to the family having to wait three months, and will he meet the Watson family from my constituency, who have, sadly, lived with this barrier to support?