Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I share my right hon. Friend’s frustration about developments in the Lords on those matters, not least because some of those who voted against amendments that would have introduced statutory guidance, as he says, have spent years calling for exactly that—but that is a matter for them. The Government will proceed on work to draft that guidance. The technical working group is well under way and is doing good work to provide clarity to the industry. We will come forward with proposals to put the guidance on a statutory footing in the months and years ahead.

As I was saying, the timeline tightly matches that of the accord. I hope that everybody can see that the framework is a long way from the characterisation of this power that we have occasionally heard. I understand that some Members of this House and the other place would prefer it if the power did not exist at all. I respect that view, but I do not share it. The evidence for the collective action problem is clear—we have lived it—and I have listened but heard no alternative proposal to address it. The consequences of not addressing it fall on pension savers—the people who rely on their defined-contribution savings for a comfortable retirement. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take.

The elected House has now considered this question twice. On both occasions, it has overwhelmingly endorsed the case for the reserve power to deliver our manifesto commitments in this area. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and have responded not with warm words but with real concessions, through changes to primary legislation that directly address the arguments made. I hope that MPs and peers will now accept that the Government have moved significantly and provided the assurance they have been seeking.

Lords amendment 35B would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations across the scale measures and those for default arrangements, to have regard to

“the benefits of competition among providers of pension schemes”.

The Government of course support the importance of competition as the market moves towards scale, and have done so in the Bill’s provisions. The market is already highly competitive, and the new entrant pathway is designed to ensure that it remains so. The same goal is reflected in a scheme’s ability to open new default arrangements.

However, we have heard the arguments that have been made during debates, and I recognise the desire in the other place to see that commitment in the Bill. This is why I have tabled amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 35B. It sets out that the Secretary of State, in setting regulations in respect of both the scale measures and those relating to default arrangements, must have regard to the importance of competition and innovation. The amendment in lieu delivers on the proposals from the other place, but with an appropriately holistic approach to the issues to which a Secretary of State will need to have regard in the years ahead. That reflects that our ultimate focus is, of course, on delivering the best outcomes for members, of which competition in the market is one important driver. Under the Government’s amendment, regulations must have regard not just to scale, but to competition and innovation, alongside effective governance. The explanatory notes will make that clear.

On Lords amendment 37B, the case for scale has been made, and both Houses have broadly agreed with the benefits that it brings. Indeed, all main parties are on the record as recognising the key role of scale in delivering better outcomes for savers. We all made those arguments, recognising that moves towards scale would always mean some schemes exiting the market because we collectively prioritise the need to deliver for those who work hard to save for retirement, and we must ensure that they are saving into schemes that can deliver better outcomes.

Scale drives lower costs, better governance, investment expertise and a balance sheet that can provide a more diverse portfolio for savers, improving overall outcomes for them in the longer term. That focus on scale was explicitly laid out in our manifesto, and the evidence for the approach we are taking was detailed in the pensions investment review. The Lords amendment pays too little regard to that evidence and that manifesto. It would also be unworkable in practice, as it would enmesh regulators in years of legal proceedings while leaving providers and savers in limbo.

However, I have listened to the argument made in this House and the other place that the innovation some smaller schemes offer members should not be dismissed. I absolutely agree, which is a key reason our approach to ensuring that scale is achieved has been so pragmatic.

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

I do not claim to be a huge expert on pensions, which may be why, rather than focusing on the point last week, I made comments about the hair of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I will not do so again—but it is fantastic hair.

Pensioners in my constituency are passionate about ensuring that they get the best return on their savings—that is hugely important—and that their pensions are secure, as the Paymaster General said in his statement. What reassurance can the Minister give them that the provisions he has set out today and last week will give them the best returns and security?

[Torsten Bell]

As always, my hon. Friend asks an important question. As I have said, the entire focus of the Bill is on ensuring that we drive up returns for savers. I am sure that he has already read all 200-odd pages of the extensive impact assessment, which sets out clearly that we would expect an average earner who saves over their lifetime, in line with auto-enrolment levels, to see higher returns of around £29,000 to their pension pot when they head towards retirement. That is not an inconsequential amount when we want to ensure that future generations can trust the system to deliver them a comfortable retirement in the years ahead.

As I was saying, the Lords amendments in this area are unworkable, but we must recognise the importance of innovation. That is why we have taken our pragmatic approach. The evidence suggests that the benefits of scale are achieved once a threshold ranging from £25 billion to £50 billion of assets is reached. The scale requirements in the Bill not only target the bottom end of that range—£25 billion—but provide a long timeline for schemes to reach it, especially given that this is a fast-growing market. Smaller schemes require only £10 billion of assets in 2030 to qualify for the transition pathway.

To provide further reassurance, I have tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37B to require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the effects of pension schemes consolidation and the extent to which innovative product designs are adopted or maintained following consolidation activity, as well as any barriers that may exist to preserving those features. The timing of the report, which is required to be published within 12 months, will ensure that the Government are then able to take necessary action in advance of the scale measures being commenced in 2030.

On Lords amendments 77 and 85, the Government agree with the points made during the Bill’s passage regarding the importance of transparency around, and clear accounting for, public service pensions. I discussed those issues yesterday with Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who tabled the amendments. I completely agree with her that it is crucial that the future cost of payments from unfunded pension schemes is understood and taken into account in Government decision making. That applies to the Treasury in aggregate, as well as to individual organisations making decisions about the nature and level of staffing. We will continue to ensure that accounting and budgetary processes support this.

The Government invite the House to accept our amendment (a) in lieu, which recognises the important principle that Parliament, policymakers and the public should be able to see clearly the long-term cost of unfunded public service pension schemes. The amendment requires the Government Actuary to produce within 12 months a document setting out its analysis of the long-term impacts of public sector pensions, covering both expenditure on benefits and income from member contributions. The document must be provided to the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the former is required to make it available to Parliament. That approach is focused on the evidence base, using the Government Actuary to produce impartial numbers to aid understanding and debates on this issue.

I hope that Members will have heard our serious engagement with the issues raised by peers and by Opposition parties in this House. We are committed to delivering the policy intent in the Bill, given its crucial role in driving better outcomes for savers and the important place given to these pension reforms in our 2024 manifesto. We have tabled significant amendments to address the specific issues raised, aiming to further reinforce the consensus on the Bill that has been evident since its Second Reading in this House. On that basis, I hope that Members will be happy to support our amendments.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member always raises questions brought up by his constituents, which we know is a valuable part of the work he does in this place. The direct answer to his constituents is that all of them have a very strong tax incentive to save for their pension, without salary sacrifice. We spend £70 billion a year to provide that incentive, whether via the lump sum or the national insurance exemption for employer contributions. I hope the main thing he says to any of his constituents who come through the door is that they have a very strong incentive to save, whatever their circumstances. On the pension gap, that is why we have revived the Pensions Commission. Its work is ongoing, and I am sure he will read in detail its interim report, which will be coming out in the coming months.

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

I like to think I represent my constituents as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does his, if anyone could. My constituents are really concerned about the pension gap, because the reality for many of them is that they do not earn enough money to begin to think about saving for a pension. Those are actually the things this Government should focus on, not tax reliefs for higher earners who can afford an additional small bit of tax. Personally, as a resident of Harlow, where a number of young people are in poverty, I will not have sleepless nights over this tax change.

[Torsten Bell]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He was pretending that the competition is about who is the better MP, but we know it is really about the volume of speaking in this Chamber. The two of them are running it close, but never testing the patience of this House. It is amazing that you have allowed them both in this early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is what the closing minutes of every debate in this House should be about. It is important to have traditions, and they both deliver admirably, but I will make some progress before we get sidetracked entirely.

I was talking about the pragmatic approach we are taking to this change. As I have said, there will be no change until 2029, and the £2,000 cap means that salary sacrifice contributions can continue. That recognises the fact that that has become an established process in several companies and for individuals, so we are giving people time to adjust. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised that, and I have responded by saying that this is pragmatic because pension tax relief continues in its entirety. It is important to remember that relief is available to all savers, not just to the minority who have salary sacrifice available to them.

With that in mind—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the Conservatives will have decided to support the Bill in its entirety having listened to those powerful arguments—I turn first to Lords amendments 1 and 7, which would exempt basic rate taxpayers from the operation of the Bill, and Lords amendments 5 and 11, which would increase the contributions limit to £5,000. The Government’s balanced and pragmatic approach, with the £2,000 cap, means that 74% of basic taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The small proportion of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above the cap will still be getting the national insurance contributions relief on the first £2,000 of contributions made via salary sacrifice, in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions.

Exempting basic rate taxpayers in the manner proposed would be incredibly difficult to operate. An individual’s tax band is not knowable until the end of the tax year, which means employers would be required to carry out complicated calculations at the end of the year to reconcile the figures, and they would need to know their employees’ other sources of income, which I do not think anyone would believe is a good idea.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will follow your advice, but will try to respond to some of the hon. Member’s points when I address the question of how we have gone about making the changes that this Bill introduces.

As I have said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach, which is my answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). The Bill is pragmatic in that it continues to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. It is pragmatic in that it gives employers and the industry four years to prepare.

[Chris Vince]

The Minister has said that the cost to the Exchequer of the salary sacrifice scheme is going to triple by the end of this decade. Does he agree that that is unsustainable for the Treasury, and also that we in this Chamber have to get real? The reason why people in my constituency of Harlow cannot even begin to think about pensions or savings is that they are living day to day. What this Government need to do is tackle the cost of living crisis, and that is what they are doing.

[Torsten Bell]

In a shock move, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Members of those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this Bill today cannot keep coming to this Chamber, day after day, calling for additional spending in more areas, while opposing any means of raising taxes. [Interruption.] Well, you have raised the welfare budget, and without trying—

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Wednesday 25th June 2025 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

Consumers have waited too long for the change before us. More than 10 million people now use buy now, pay later products. When used responsibly, such products can help people manage their finances. Many especially value the fact that the products are interest-free, often making them an affordable alternative to credit cards and personal loans. Yet, unlike those traditional forms of credit, buy now, pay later products sit outside the UK’s consumer credit regulatory framework. That is because buy now, pay later products fall under an exemption originally designed to help small businesses offer instalment plans to their customers. In recent years, however, innovative fintechs have used the exemption to roll out buy now, pay later products offering to customers, usually at an online checkout, new ways to pay via the likes of Klarna, PayPal and Clearpay.

Small firms do not need authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority, nor are buy now, pay later agreements required to adhere to the Consumer Credit Act. That approach makes sense for small businesses offering simple instalment plans for goods and services, but it is not right for the large-scale consumer credit lenders now in this market.

Back in February 2021, under the previous Government, the Woolard review set out the risks of that unregulated market. First, there are no rules on what information buy now, pay later firms must give their customers. Too many people are left unclear about what they owe, and some do not even realise that they have taken out credit. Secondly, the firms are not required to check whether people can afford these products. Finally, that lack of checks brings real danger.

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

Does the Minister agree that this draft legislation is particularly important to protect those facing hardship? Potentially, people—certainly residents in my constituency—may feel the need to turn to buy now, pay later products, but given that they are not regulated, that could lead them into further debt.

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that is generally relevant to financial services regulation: we want the availability of credit for people, but we want it done safely. That is exactly what the changes are about. As I was saying, debt can quickly mount up when people take out several buy now, pay later products at once, with no one checking what they already owe.

The previous Government rightly pledged to bring the products into regulation, although sadly did not get to the point of delivering on that promise. I am proud that, in May, this Government laid this draft order to bring unregulated buy now, pay later products offered by third-party lenders into regulation under the Financial Conduct Authority. That will bring proper oversight of such firms and strong protection for consumers.

In future, buy now, pay later firms will have to carry out robust affordability checks, ensuring that consumers are protected from taking on debt that they cannot afford. Firms will also be required to give consumers clear information. That will help people to decide whether buy now, pay later is right for them, and to know that support is available if they face financial difficulty. Buy now, pay later users will gain strong rights under the Consumer Credit Act, including section 75 protection. That will make it easier for consumers to get a refund if something goes wrong with a purchase. Crucially, consumers will have the right to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That will guarantee them access to a fair, independent resolution if problems arise. Those are the rights and protections that users of other regulated credit products already enjoy. It is only right that users of buy now, pay later products receive them, too.

There is also something new: the Financial Conduct Authority will be able to develop a modernised information disclosure regime for buy now, pay later products, set by FCA rules, not by the Consumer Credit Act. We have recognised, in line with feedback, including from consumer groups, that the existing provisions of the Consumer Credit Act on information requirements do not suit interest-free, short-term buy now, pay later products. However, this is not special treatment for these products. On the same day as we laid the draft order that we are debating today, we launched a consultation to reform the Consumer Credit Act more widely.

Lastly, let me stress that a new regulatory regime is not just a win for consumers. Buy now, pay later firms will benefit as well. For years, they have faced regulatory uncertainty. This order ends that uncertainty, and we have ensured that the order delivers a smooth transition to regulation for them. They will be able to continue lending under a temporary permissions regime while the FCA authorisation is under review. That guarantees business as usual, for them and for customers, throughout the transition.

Twelve months after this order is made, the new regulatory regime for these products will come into force. In that time, the FCA will consult on and finalise the rules that will govern buy now, pay later lending. We must not delay giving millions of consumers the vital protection that they deserve.

I thank the Committee for its attention to this issue and would welcome any questions from the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury or any other Members.

Winter Fuel Payment

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, which pensioners in Harlow will welcome. The fastest growth in the G7, three trade deals and four interest rate cuts—is that the context in which the Minister feels we are able to provide more pensioners in Harlow with the winter fuel allowance?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend always does a good job of not only representing Harlow, but remembering the economic progress that is being made. If anyone did not hear what he just said, he talked about rising growth, rising wages, interest rates falling and a country back on the path to success.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Vince and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 8th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

What the Government are doing is raising the state pension, extending the warm home discount, and ensuring that an extra 50,000 people have had access to pension credit over the last six months. When Members talk about mistakes that have had lasting consequences for pensioners, I look back to the coalition Government’s decision to cut the rate of energy installations by 90%. Pensioners are living with that legacy, in leaky homes, day in day out, but this Government are getting on with insulating homes throughout the country.

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

The 4.1% increase in the new state pension will make a huge difference to pensioners in my constituency. What more are the Government doing to tackle the cost of living crisis left by the last Government?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for being a regular attender at Treasury questions, and indeed, as far as I can work out, at every other departmental questions session. He is right to suggest that we will do more, because we are not just increasing pensions above the rate of inflation this year but doing so throughout the current Parliament, and that should raise the state pension by up to £1,900 by the end of the Parliament.