Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

1. If he will make an estimate of the potential cost to the public purse of disregarding the war pension scheme and the armed forces compensation scheme for the purpose of calculating pension credit entitlement.

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

I am glad that the hon. Member and I have had the chance to discuss this issue on a number of occasions, and, more importantly, that we had the chance to do so with his constituent Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, who served our country and campaigned on behalf of other veterans. I know that she has sadly passed away since our meeting, so I wish to put on the record my condolences to her family—not least to her son Les, on whose behalf my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) has been in touch in recent days. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) is aware, exactly because of the service of our armed forces, £10 per week of any armed forces compensation scheme award is disregarded when calculating pension credit entitlement.

[Josh Babarinde]

The Minister will remember that Pauline was a veteran who was awarded military compensation for injuries sustained in her service, but that led to her pension credit being cut from £77 a week to £10 a week, because military compensation is considered income by the Department for Work and Pensions. I have introduced Pauline’s law—the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme and War Pension Scheme (Report) Bill—to ask the DWP to correct that injustice and disregard military compensation in those calculations. Will the Minister work with me, and with Pauline’s sons, Les and Simon Haffenden, to conduct a review into the merits of disregarding that income in order to protect our veterans in future?

[Torsten Bell]

I recognise the powerful arguments that the hon. Member and Pauline made in our meeting. Our position today reflects the balance between recognising service injuries and being consistent across the welfare system. Pension credit is a means-tested benefit, the goal of which is to top up pensioners’ income to a guaranteed minimum level, so in order to ensure consistency, most forms of income—including those he refers to—are taken into account. However, as I said, there is a partial disregard in order to recognise veterans’ service, and the value of lump-sum payments received in respect of personal injury are fully disregarded.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of trends in the level of unemployment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 a year over the current Parliament. That reflects the Government’s commitment to the triple lock for the duration of the Parliament. Payments of both the basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.8% in a few weeks’ time, boosting pensioners’ incomes by up to £575 a year.

[Peter Prinsley]

I declare an interest, in that I receive a state pension. [Hon. Members: “No! No way!”] We welcome the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, but some pensioners in my constituency continue to live in poverty and isolation, and are in need of food banks. What specific measures can the Government take to reduce social isolation and tackle poverty in this group of people?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question—and for the shocking news of his age. He is absolutely right to highlight both these issues. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government, but it has risen more recently. That is why it is so important that, as well as increasing the state pension, we have put in place the biggest-ever take-up campaign for pension credit and focused on the cost of essentials—most importantly, energy, where new measures will come into place in the next few weeks.

My hon. Friend is also right to focus not just on poverty, but on isolation. I am sure that all Members of the House, when we are out knocking on doors at the weekend, meet some younger, but also some older, constituents who are too isolated. They might not be happy to see the Member who comes to knock on their door, but they might be. Whatever people think about politicians knocking on their doors, we all have organisations and charities in our constituencies—such as Age Cymru in Wales and, I am sure, many in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that do important work in tackling isolation among all our communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I declare a similar interest to that of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I read this weekend that if we grapple with the increase in pensions and benefits, we might be able to afford 15 new frigates. It is easy for Opposition Members to attack in-work benefits; it is more difficult to question the state pension. Has the Minister seen the paper from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says we should consider moving to a smoothed earnings link for state pensions, which would ensure that they never fall in real terms but, in the long term, always rise with earnings? He will not give me an answer now, but perhaps he can write to me about how we are going to buttress the long-term sustainability of the state pension.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is right to recognise the challenge. We have around 12 million pensioners at the moment, but that will rise to 18 million over the next 50 years. Our view is that having the triple lock drive above-inflation increases, on average, among pensioners is the right thing to do for this Parliament. That is why we set it out in our manifesto, and that is what is driving the increases in the state pension. When it comes to affording the cost of frigates, I merely point him to the fact that defence spending under this Government is higher in every year than it was in a single year under the Conservative party.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Helping millions of people ensure financial security in their retirement is a cornerstone of the Minister’s Department, but in the Government’s first 18 months, they have disincentivised pension savings by introducing inheritance tax on pensions, removing pensions from their lifetime ISA reforms, forcing pension trustees into mandation and, most recently, introducing a cap on salary sacrifice savings incentives. Through their actions, this Government are pushing people to be more reliant on the state pension, rather than encouraging people to take control of their own financial future. Which will be the next Government U-turn: cancelling mandation, or abandoning salary sacrifice caps?

[Torsten Bell]

That was just a bit sad, because the U-turn that we are seeing is from the hon. Member, who declined to vote against the Pensions Schemes Bill at Second Reading and on Report. I will quote him back to himself. He told me that “the Minister”—that is me—

“will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”

[Interruption.] Wait a second. He then got even more excited—back in his reasonable days, before he had been leant on by the “looney tunes” who will wander off to Reform—and told us that

“we broadly support the measures in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722-723.]

The U-turn has been done by the hon. Member, who has let himself down.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to improve the protection of workers against exposure to potentially hazardous medicinal products.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are no doubt familiar with the dramatic principle of Chekhov’s gun: if there is a gun on the wall in the first act, it will be fired by the final scene. Ministers say that the mandation power in the Pension Schemes Bill is merely a backstop that they do not intend to use, but once they have a power in law like a gun on the wall, how long will that intention last? Will the Secretary of State make a commitment to the House that the mandation gun will never be fired at the expense of UK pension savers?

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

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that the industry itself set out in the Mansion House accord that it thinks there needs to be change in the pattern of investment in our largest defined contribution schemes. It says that because it is in the interests of savers, and that is why the previous hon. Member for Hexham, the longest-lasting Conservative Pensions Minister, labelled it a good thing. All the Pension Schemes Bill does is put in place the mechanism to make sure that change, which the industry has said is in the interest of members, actually happens.

[Helen Whately]

Given that the savings of millions of people are at stake, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State did not rise to answer this important question. The Pensions Minister needs to stop conflating the voluntary Mansion House agreement with changing the law to give Government the power to direct pension fund investments. The two are not the same. Both the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK are urging the Government to drop the mandation power from the Bill. The Pensions Minister has a tendency to think he always knows best, but he is not always right; apparently, the Ed stone was his idea. Let us not have people’s retirements savings suffer the same fate as the quest of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) to become Prime Minister. The Government should not be giving themselves control over how people’s retirement savings are invested, but that is what mandation does. I am against it, the pensions sector is against it, and savers are against it. Will he listen and change tack?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Lady is going to be absolutely furious when she finds out what those on the Opposition Front Bench did when the Pensions Schemes Bill came through this House. There is all this sound and fury now, but, when it came to choosing whether to vote against the very power she now says is incredibly dangerous, she went for a snooze on both Second and Third Reading. She is going to be even angrier when she finds out what her right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) have called for, which is the mandation of pensions schemes in the UK to invest—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members and Ministers that this is topical questions—we should have short questions and short answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

T9. British pensioners living in the European Economic Area, the United States and up to 20 other countries get their pensions uprated, but those living in Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not. Campaigners know that the Government will not uprate frozen pensions retrospectively, but will they commit to a review of uprating frozen pensions for British pensioners going forward?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the policy on overseas uprating is long standing under Governments of all parties, including the Liberal Democrat coalition Government. I am not going to make promises that will not be delivered. We will not be changing that policy in the near future.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Today, The Guardian published an article showing that up to 13,000 survivors of Ireland’s mother and baby homes living in Britain today could lose their compensation payments if they accept the redress scheme from the Irish Government. My campaign for Philomena’s law is backed by public figures including Dara Ó Briain, Siobhán McSweeney and Steve Coogan. It would resolve the issue by ensuring that the payments are ringfenced. Will the Secretary of State consider the merits of the case and agree to meet me to discuss it further?