Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Fuller and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

That was a shockingly complacent response by the Government Minister. The latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast shows that this Labour Government will borrow nearly a quarter of a trillion pounds more in just two years, this year and next year, costing every household an extra £476 a year in additional debt interest. Does the Chancellor accept not only that was this Budget a lost opportunity to bring borrowing under control, but that Labour’s addiction to borrowing is bleeding the British people dry?

[Torsten Bell]

Our record is reducing borrowing. The hon. Member’s record is being a Minister under Liz Truss. What is the Leader of the Opposition’s big idea now? It is appointing the Liz Truss fanboy and coming back to the Liz Truss playbook, promising over £30 billion of unfunded tax cuts. The Conservative party is offering lettuce-wilting levels of fiscal incontinence.

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Debate between Richard Fuller and Torsten Bell

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a privilege to respond to a debate under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for opening the debate. He was referred to as a limpet earlier, but he has been more proactive than that in his campaigning on this issue over the years. It is an important issue to him and to lots of other hon. Members. I should echo the point he made at the beginning about the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in the Chamber but who has been focused on this issue for a long time. Members have campaigned on this issue with tireless energy and kept the issue in the spotlight.

I want to reflect on some of the astute points that several hon. Members made. The truth is that it is not possible to restore trust entirely—certainly, not in the firm that was involved in this among the people affected, but also probably in the regulator, but hopefully Members’ campaigning has restored trust in local representation and the campaigning energy of local representatives.

The issue is even more important to the thousands of Equitable Life savers who were affected. The point, which was well made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and others, about the human effect is one that I am sure everybody in this Chamber has at the front of their mind. Those affected included my grandfather, and I have met lots of other constituents who were members of the mutual before it disappeared. I have also met with the action group, which many hon. Members have also met with. We have all heard about the kinds of human impacts that hon. Members have set out well today.

On the big picture, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about the importance of people having trust in pensions. This is a particular part of the pension system, but the point also applies to the entire pension system. That is something I take very seriously indeed as the Pensions Minister. I was up in Liverpool at the Pensions UK conference last week talking in those exact terms about how our task is to make sure that we address what is today, if we are honest, too low a level of trust in pensions. That is true of both state and private pensions. It is our job to rebuild that trust. That includes how, in some parts, pension scams are on the rise—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that.

Obviously, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme now exists, in a way that it did not in the period that we are talking about, when we are talking about pensions operating within the contract-based part of the pensions system. That is a big change, and it is compensation paid not by taxpayers, but by the financial services industry itself. That is the answer to the specific question posed by the hon. Member for Christchurch about what happens when the regulators or, more importantly, the providers fail. The answer is that there is a compensation scheme, although we are here because there was not a compensation scheme in place—and it has caps in terms of the compensation due.

I will make some progress on the specifics of this case. Hon. Members will be aware this is a topic that has been well documented and explored over the years—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) set out the role of the sabbatical for him in the period in which that has taken place. The Equitable Life payment scheme was established to make payments to eligible policyholders where maladministration had been found. That maladministration contributed to some savers suffering a relative loss totalling £4.1 billion. Relative loss was defined as the difference between the value of the policyholder’s funds with Equitable Life and what they would have received if they had made a comparable investment elsewhere. I am merely pointing out that that is not a cash loss; it is a loss relative to a counterfactual of having invested in a different but similar product.

That approach followed the 2008 parliamentary ombudsman’s report into the collapse, and was the foundation of the payment scheme. In 2010, the Government of the day accepted the ombudsman’s findings and chose to allocate in the region of £1.5 billion —the quote from the Chancellor at the time—to make tax-free payments to eligible policyholders in respect of the reduced returns that they received from their investments. That Government chose what they saw as the correct balance of interests between the interests of the affected policyholders and taxpayers. That is the choice that was made. I am obviously fully aware that, as we have again heard today, people are dissatisfied with that £1.5 billion and suggest that the issue should be reopened.

It is not for me to defend the decisions made by the then Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. To be fair to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), she came closest to doing so today, but other colleagues chose not to—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady chose to defend the decisions of that Government to some degree and others obviously did not. The balance of opinion in this Chamber is that the then Government made a mistake in the size of the compensation that was allocated. It is not for me to make that case, but were they here to do so, they would say that decisions need to be fair to taxpayers as well as policyholders, and they would point out that there is a wide range of people responsible for the disaster that we saw in Equitable Life, including those who were responsible for the firm through that period in the 1990s when very reprehensible actions took place.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister is making the case that the position when that settlement was made about balance between taxpayers and policyholders was a matter of fault and responsibility. Does he not also recognise that a substantial part of that balance was to do with the state of the public finances? Will he confirm that that is still a live consideration in the Treasury that could in future lead to the settlement being reopened?

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s last question towards the end of my remarks, but on his first point he is absolutely right to say that the then Government’s key consideration—when I referenced taxpayers—was the public finances. That is the point being made. That was the key driver in the decision by the then Government about how much money to allocate, rather than trying some kind of specific accounting for the impact of the maladministration per se.

Ministers at the time also noted the consistency of their decision with the ombudsman’s report—we have discussed a bit of that today—and the ombudsman subsequently wrote on this issue to the all-party parliamentary group, which I think several hon. Members present have been part of, confirming that the then Government’s decisions

“cannot be said to be incompatible with the report.”

As hon. Members know, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government prioritised those acknowledged by all parties to be the most vulnerable—the with-profit annuitants. They received 100% of their losses. That meant that, of the £1.5 billion, £725 million was allocated to with-profit annuitants, to be paid annually over the duration of the annuity, which continues to this day. That included the £100 million contingency fund—that is the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—to ensure that the provision for the annuitants, should they live longer than expected, was there. That is obviously a standard actuarial process; it is what sits behind the regulation of the insurance sector when annuities are being sold. The remaining £775 million was allocated to be paid as lump sums to with-profits non-annuitants holding other products.

As for the details of how much has been spent, I can provide answers to the questions put by several hon. Members. As of 30 September 2026, the total value of payments made by the scheme was almost exactly £1.4 billion—it is just short of that figure—and that is an increase on the previous figure that the hon. Member for Christchurch cited.

I note the references in this debate to the pre-1992 with-profit annuity holders. The coalition Government excluded them from the scheme, not because they had not suffered real impacts from the collapse of Equitable Life—I think the then Government recognised that they had suffered real impacts—but because their purchase of those annuities, which is the point at which someone locks into the decision in the case of an annuity, was outside the period of maladministration, so the Government would have struggled to find a locus to make a payment in the terms of a scheme, because there was no maladministration to tie a payment to. Again, it is not for me to defend that Government. However, if they were here today, that is how they would explain the decision that was taken. That is why the 2013 decision, which was referenced by the then Government, to provide separate, tax-free ex gratia payments was the way in which the previous Government chose to proceed.

The scheme has now been fully wound down; it was closed in 2016 by the then Conservative Government. That is now over a decade ago. I suspect that hon. Members know that I cannot give all of them, or indeed all the impressive campaigners on this issue, the answer that they would like—a straight “more compensation”. I suspect that hon. Members know that that is the case. However, I want to give them what I think is the next best thing, which is a straight answer, and it is the direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the Opposition spokesperson. It is that there are no plans to reopen the previous policy decisions taken by the previous Government. The previous Government made decisions given the public finances at the time. Those decisions were debated by that Parliament—some Members present were part of that Parliament, and the rest of us respect the decisions of that House.

The only part of the payment scheme in operation is the annual payments made to eligible annuitants. The scheme is on track to distribute the remainder of the funds allocated, as planned, on that basis. The right thing for this Government to do is to ensure that the ongoing payments to those eligible with-profit annuity holders—the group recognised, I think by all of us, to be the most vulnerable—continue to be made. I will finish by assuring them that the funding for those payments remains protected and again thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and Torsten Bell

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Then why worry?

[Torsten Bell]

I have just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He is happy to carry on with the status quo; we are not.

We are going to set this out in two ways. First, we will specify on the face of the Bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% in the UK—exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral between asset classes, spelling out that a future Government who took a different view from this one could not use the power to direct investments into hand-picked asset classes.

The existing safeguards in the Bill also remain: the time limit, the reporting requirements, the affirmative procedure, and—most importantly—the savers’ interest test that allows pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where it is not in savers’ interests to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Fuller and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Last month, The Times reported that the Government may drop their pledge on minimum wage equalisation over fears of youth joblessness, and the BBC reports that the Government are considering a delay. Can the Minister advise whether the Government have considered any such delay or policy changes, and if so, what decision has been reached?

[Torsten Bell]

I want to offer my condolences to the hon. Gentleman for the recent loss of his father. It is something we all have to face at some point in our lives, but it is a lot to deal with. All our thoughts are with him at this time.

In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, no, there is no change in Government policy. Our view is that we should see alignment of the national minimum wage and national living wage rates, but that should happen in the right way, which is with the guidance of the Low Pay Commission, which will continue to play an important role.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Richard Fuller and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the two Front-Bench spokespeople, one of whom spoke admirably briefly. I will not repeat the case for these changes, given that we have heard that both opposition parties are happy to support the Government’s changes to the charter, so I will just respond directly to the questions.

I say to the Lib Dems spokesperson that it is always good to hear anybody praising Sweden in any debate. On the questions about scrutiny, I do not think he gives enough credit to his hon. Friends on the Finance Bill, who have spent many hours scrutinising the policies, and I am sure they would be upset to hear his lack of faith in them today. Directly on his question about transparency, I think that is important, and that is why we are maintaining the two forecasts a year, despite there being only one fiscal event.

The Opposition spokesperson asked why we are making these changes now, and the answer is that in our manifesto we committed to one fiscal event a year. The IMF has come forward with sensible recommendations to reinforce that, and we are just responding to the IMF’s recommendations. He asked a question about the range contained in the previous charter, and that has been removed because it applied only at the spring forecast, and we are no longer carrying out a fiscal assessment at the spring forecasts. He asked about the IFS report suggesting a dashboard rather than fiscal rules. I can tell him that there will be no change to the fiscal rules, although I obviously always enjoy reading any think-tank’s reports, and I would point out that we have already doubled the headroom against the fiscal rules.

More importantly, I was sad to hear the Opposition spokesperson’s remarks more generally, because I always enjoy his normal perkiness, at least outside this Chamber, but he has turned into a gloomster.

[Richard Fuller]

No, never!

[Torsten Bell]

He is a total gloomster. He has totally ignored the record monthly surplus for the public finances. He has ignored the fact that wages are up, business investment is up and GDP has grown the fastest of any European G7 economy. He has ignored the fact that GDP per capita grew in 2025, after flatlining in the last year of the Tory Government and falling during the previous Parliament. He has ignored inflation falling and interest rates falling. I think it is right for the gloomster to be gloomy about his party’s prospects, but not to be gloomy about the UK economy. On that basis, I commend this motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Richard Fuller and Torsten Bell

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Persistently high inflation and fears that things will get tougher for their children are top issues for the British public, but the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment of Labour’s plans was that:

“Growth in real household disposable income per person is projected to fall… to around ¼ per cent a year… well below the last decade’s average”.

Minister, why is the sum of all this Government’s economic policies condemning the British public to such a despairing prospect?

[Torsten Bell]

Mr Speaker, that is called leading with your chin. Members on the Conservative Benches were in power in the last Parliament, which saw living standards fall by 2.9%. Living standards have already risen under this Government by 1.5%, because we are turning around their mess day after day after day.