National Savings & Investments

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Written Statements

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

On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of a failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of this failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates.

Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customers’ holdings where those were spread across multiple profiles or systems despite consistent identifying details, such as name, address and date of birth, that should have made that possible.

There have been wider related historical challenges, for example, the FCA took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following bereavement claims. It is now clear that NS&I did not respond to these warning signs as fully as we in the Government, and more importantly their customers, would expect.

Action so far

Since being notified of this issue, HM Treasury has ensured external advisers, including EY and Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, have been engaged to identify the scale of these errors. Through this work NS&I has reviewed 34 million customer records.

Their work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,000 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. This number is likely to fall in future, but while it currently represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, it is still far too many.

NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising for these failings today.

The Government’s priorities are now threefold:

Fixing the problem going forward

First, and immediately, the priority is to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place.

NS&I has received written assurances from its customer facing supplier, SSL, that the causes of this tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation given this issue is long standing.

Reuniting funds and compensation

Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds.

We can confirm that those savings are 100% safe. This issue is about tracing, not the security of any funds.

NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team to oversee this work, hiring an additional 100 staff, and will be publishing a delivery plan in May, detailing how it will take forward this work to reunite funds with their owners.

This will cover:

the numbers of cases affected

how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds they are due, including interest on savings;

and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid.

There is no need for individuals to utilise a claims management company or solicitor to reclaim this money. The onus is not on individuals but on NS&I to act and to contact estate representatives and reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. We are committed to ensuring NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible.

We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates, and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of this error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan.

Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week.

To confirm, current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any customers wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website.

The organisation

NS&I plays an important role, helping the public save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role, while also addressing the tracing issue.

NS&I must also complete what has proved a challenging digital business transformation programme. This programme was put in place back in 2020 but with little progress made in the latter years of the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report set out. This Government have appointed David Goldstone —former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence—to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track.

It is important that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, we have appointed Sir Jim Harra, former HMRC first permanent secretary, to take over as chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. We would like to thank Dax Harkins, his predecessor, for his 22 years of public service at NS&I.

As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to this tracing problem, and to set out what lessons must be learned for NS&I going forward.

We will ensure Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion.

[HCWS1482]

National Savings & Investments

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to make a statement regarding National Savings & Investments. On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of an operational failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of that failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates as they should have been. Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customer holdings where they were spread across multiple profiles or systems.

Hon. Members will be aware of historical challenges in financial services in this regard. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following notification that a customer had passed on. That received significant attention at the time. However, what is now clear is that NS&I and its suppliers did not respond to those warning signs as fully as I and, more importantly, their customers, would expect, and nor did the last Government act.

Bereaved families, whose loved ones held accounts with NS&I, will rightly be anxious about this news, so let me turn to the action that we have taken and the further steps that we are putting in place today. Since being notified, the Treasury has ensured that external advisers, including EY and legal experts, have been engaged to identify the scale of the errors. Through this work, NS&I has reviewed over 34 million customer records. That work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,500 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. Three quarters of cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025. The number is likely to fall in future, but although it represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, that is still far too many.

NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit-taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising today. The Government’s priorities now are threefold. First—and immediately, to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place—NS&I has received written assurances from its customer-facing supplier Sopra Steria that the causes of the tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation, given that it was responsible for handling bereavement cases until 2025.

Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds. Those deposits belong to customers. Returning them in no way represents an additional liability to the taxpayer, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell out that those savings are 100% safe. The issue is about tracing and not the security of any funds, but it is important, none the less. NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team and hired an additional 100 staff. I have asked it to publish a delivery plan in May detailing how they will take forward the work to reunite funds with their owners. This will cover: the number of cases affected; how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds that they are due, including interest on savings; and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid.

There is no need for individuals to waste money on a claims management company or solicitor. I reassure people that the onus is not on them but on NS&I to act—to contact estate representatives and to reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week. I will also ensure that MPs have a dedicated means of contacting NS&I to raise any constituency cases directly.

Dealing with bereavement is always challenging, and I am sure that we all recognise that finding out, as party of that, that such errors have been made could be distressing. We are committed to ensuring that NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible. We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of the error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan in May.

Current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website. Because in the past some searches have focused too narrowly on searching for specific accounts, I have also instructed NS&I to make it simpler for people to search for all the accounts or products that they might hold.

Our third priority is institutional. NS&I plays an important role, helping the public to save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role while addressing the tracing issues that I have laid out today. It must also complete what has been a challenging business transformation programme. The programme was put in place back in 2020, but with little progress made in the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report has set out. This Government have appointed David Goldstone, former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track.

With all this in mind, I also want to make sure that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, I have appointed Sir Jim Harra—former first permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to take over as the chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. I also recognise the 22 years of public service of his predecessor Dax Harkins at NS&I.

As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to the tracing problem and to set out what lessons must be learned by NS&I. I have discussed this with Sir Jim and am confident that his extensive experience will help guide NS&I in the months ahead. I will ensure that Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion.

NS&I holds over £240 billion of savings belonging to 24 million customers. It is an organisation that is valued by those saving with it and by this Government. I repeat NS&I’s apology to its customers and reiterate that every penny of their savings is safe, and—as always—they are 100% guaranteed by the Treasury. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for early sight of his statement. This scandal affects tens of thousands of people, and it could end up costing taxpayers many millions of pounds. NS&I is supposed to be as safe a place as anywhere for people to put their savings—a place where savers can trust that their money will be looked after. As we have heard, 24 million people do so. It is also a savings scheme that the Government can use as a benefit to taxpayers, borrowing to provide funds for the running of the country. It needs to be demonstrably secure.

In reality, bereaved families have been short-changed, with NS&I losing track of investments, delaying transfers and withholding premium bond payments. Customers have faced a complete breakdown in communication at the most difficult time, adding stress and worry. In the breaking newspaper reporting today, we have heard how people have had to chase up their own cases, only to be told that they would have to wait a further six to nine months for a resolution. Some families have also had to call in lawyers to obtain money that is rightfully theirs, and there are examples of bereaved family members receiving letters incorrectly addressed to their dead relatives. NS&I has in the past tried to blame some of these failures on covid and the outsourcing of staff, but whatever its excuse, this is unacceptable and a complete failure of management.

NS&I is letting down its customers, and complaints have more than doubled in just over three years. At the same time, the digital transformation of NS&I that was meant to cost £1.3 billion has now ballooned to £3 billion. Is it any wonder that the Public Accounts Committee was damning about the digitalisation plan, calling it a “full-spectrum disaster” and concluding that NS&I is “over-confident” and

“has no workable plan, and no idea of eventual cost.”

If the Public Accounts Committee could see it, why have this Government been sitting on their hands? Poor performance and a botched digital transformation mean that NS&I is short-changing savers at a time when raising money for the Government has never been needed more.

NS&I is an arm’s length body overseen by the Treasury. Specifically, it is an Executive agency of the Chancellor, so it is concerning that the Minister has today admitted that NS&I notified the Treasury of these operational failings on 18 December last year. It has apparently taken a breaking news story in The Daily Telegraph for the Government to make a statement today. Can the Minister please explain why it has taken him over three months to come forward with this statement? He also says that the previous Government failed to act. That implies that there was something to act on. Can he set out what actions he has taken between coming to power on 4 July 2024 and 18 December 2025?

I have some further questions for the Minister. What provision has been made for compensation and who will pay for it? Where bonuses have been paid to senior staff over the period of poor performance, will they be recovered? On that note, we have seen reports that the chief executive will be resigning as a result of this issue and the botched digital transformation process. Can the Minister confirm whether he has resigned, or has he been sacked? Can he confirm whether the chief executive received bonuses over this period of poor performance? Finally, what confidence do the Minister and the Government have that this is the true depth of the problem affecting bereaved families? What work is he doing to identify whether this might be the tip of an iceberg? I am not trying to imply that it is the tip of an iceberg, but I ask the question to ensure that this is the limit of the problem.

People have been let down. While NS&I has apologised for the mistakes, it will be of little comfort to those thousands of people who have lost out. The Government need to act swiftly and the families need to be compensated. The Opposition will work collaboratively with the Government to ensure a swift resolution.

[Torsten Bell]

I welcome the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. I obviously absolutely agree with him that customers deserve better and they deserve reassurance. I have tried to provide that today by setting out what we are doing, and giving everybody reassurance that their savings are 100% safe and are guaranteed by the Government.

The hon. Member asks why we have come to the House today. This has been the intention for some time. As he says, we were notified in December. During that period, we have reviewed the over 34 million cases of customer records, as I mentioned, and have put in place the process to ensure that we have fixed this problem as we go forward, so that we can provide the reassurance for customers that I know we both want. I have also put in place the change of leadership that I have set out today, about which the hon. Member asked. I can confirm that the former chief executive of NS&I has resigned today and that he did not receive a bonus last year.

The hon. Member asked about the cost to taxpayers. There has been some deeply misleading reporting over the course of the last 24 hours, so I want to be absolutely clear: the money we are talking about returning to estates belongs to those estates—it is their money. The returning of people’s money to them is not a liability to other taxpayers; it is the right thing to do, and that is what is going to take place.

The hon. Member asks whether it would have been reasonable to have expected the previous Government to act. I am sure that he would rightly note that NS&I is operationally independent; I think the challenge comes given that it became clear in around 2018 that there were significant problems in this area—I mentioned the Santander case in particular—and there was widespread coverage at that time; within NS&I, people realised that this could pose problems for them.

The hon. Member has taken an excellent tone today. I was less impressed to read the comments of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), in the Telegraph, in which he talked about a “staggering failure of oversight”—he was the Treasury Minister in 2018 when the Santander case came forward! As often, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has shown better judgment than his superiors. Then again, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has also talked about

“incompetence on a staggering scale”,

which is an irony given that he, too, was a Minister in the Government carrying out the incompetence to which he refers.

I broadly welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has conducted himself today. It is absolutely right that we provide the reassurance to taxpayers and, most importantly, to savers with NS&I; I hope that I have done so today.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am glad to see that he is stepping in, and I am pleased to hear that National Savings & Investments will focus on reuniting bereaved families with their money, which it holds after things went badly wrong. How will he and the Government raise awareness with savers of the fact that they do not need to use claims management companies and that they can rely on NS&I putting things right?

[Torsten Bell]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He is absolutely right—the priority for us is to ensure that people are reunited with their money and that they do not incur costs in trying to get it back. That is why I have been so clear with NS&I over the past few months that it makes sure that it understands the problem it is dealing with and that it needs to set out a delivery plan as soon as May for how it will reunite people with their money. That will involve contacting representatives of estates in the first instance, and that is what people need to rely on. As I said, I want to be clear with the public today that the onus is not on them; the onus is on NS&I to contact the people whose funds deserve to be reunited with them, and that is what we will all be focused on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the action he has outlined that the Government are already undertaking. He will know that customers often choose National Savings & Investments because it is Government-backed, and because that provides them with extra reassurance that their savings will be safe. The news that the money of tens of thousands of people was essentially lost for a period of time will be a hammer blow to trust in that institution, and the fact that these cases involve bereaved families makes it particularly damaging.

To restore trust in the institution, it will be vital that justice is served comprehensively and swiftly. Will the Minister confirm the estimated timeline for identifying and contacting every family affected? Have the Government committed not only to reimbursing or returning the money that the families are due, but compensating them fully to reflect the distress that has been caused? He has already mentioned interest; will he confirm that all that interest will be returned? Will legal costs also be reimbursed? Some of the bereaved families resorted to legal action to get what they believed they were owed, and I am sure that they will feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed on that as well. Will the Government now carry out a full independent investigation to fully learn the lessons of what happened and ensure that there will be much stronger oversight of the system going forward?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his questions —let me try to do justice to them. He is completely right that one of the reasons customers choose NS&I is that they trust the institution, but they also know that it has that 100% Government backing. It is important that we are all clear with everybody that that remains in place, that no funds have been misplaced and that everybody will be entitled to every penny of their savings.

On rebuilding that trust, that is why I have put new leadership in place. Sir Jim’s review will lay out those lessons. He is an interim chief executive, and we will be recruiting for a permanent replacement, so he is in a position to give us the full truth about what he sees. He is an experienced public servant and public sector leader, so we should look to his review. As I say, I have asked him to report in three months’ time. I will ensure that the appropriate Select Committee Chairs have that review. It will set out the lessons that we need to learn.

The hon. Member rightly asks about compensation. As I set out in my statement, we will ensure that the appropriate compensation is paid along the lines of how the FCA encourages best practice. That will include compensatory interest where funds have been withheld from estates for longer than they should have been, and that will be done automatically. People who have more complicated cases will as always be able to go direct to NS&I to have them considered on a case-by-case basis.

[Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for providing an update. Many families across the country will be incredibly anxious about this news. Can he tell us a bit more about how he will hold the new executive and non-executive teams to account, to ensure that lessons are learned and there are no more systems failures in the future? Beyond the two Select Committees he mentioned, how will he keep the House up to date?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the anxiety that I am sure some people will be feeling, but it is more than that: we are talking not just about any old savings, but about bereavement cases. We do not want issues to be dragged back up in historical cases—as I said, 75% of them took place between 2008 and 2025, but there are also older cases, too. I appreciate that that will be difficult for many people, and it is our job to ensure that NS&I provides as much support as it can for those people.

On the new leadership, I have been absolutely clear that we will see a delivery plan in May setting out the full timeline for rectifying the errors. As I said, on a longer timeline—although only three months, so there is not long to wait—I am asking Sir Jim to give us his wider review of the lessons from this and for the future of the governance of NS&I.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to restore trust in NS&I, and to take the appropriate compensation measures. I was in the Treasury for a while, and I had conversations with the previous chief executive—the one prior to 2023. Like the Minister, I took advice from my officials on what assurances I could have from NS&I on the delivery of programmes to transform the IT infrastructure, and I was given those assurances. I welcome the appointment of Jim Harra, who I think is an excellent public servant and is very well placed to understand the nuances of this issue. Will the Minister review the mechanisms by which his officials keep on top of what is happening at NS&I, so that he can be absolutely sure that when things go awry, they are brought to his attention and he can make the necessary interventions? I do not think that that happens currently.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Gentleman was a Treasury Minister for some duration, so he brings experience on these issues. He is right to say that, when it comes to an Executive agency such as this one, Ministers’ job is to receive assurance and provide strategic direction, so let me just say a bit about how we have been thinking about that. In terms of assurance, I have asked in the shorter term for written attestation not just from NS&I but from the providers that do most of the customer-facing work in that organisation. I have asked for assurances from the current provider that we will not see any such mistakes going forward, and, as I said, I have asked Atos—the previous provider—to provide attestation that it will co-operate fully, given that it was the provider throughout the entirety of the last Government, until 2025. I hope that that gives the right hon. Gentleman some assurance about how we are seeking assurances.

More broadly—this is a slightly separate issue, but I think it is relevant to the question of the organisation’s leadership—the right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the challenges in the transformation programme, which started in 2020 but has gone far too slowly and over budget, as the Public Accounts Committee has made abundantly clear. We have already put David Goldstone, the former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, in to support that programme of work—we need to ensure that it is back on track. We will update the Select Committee—and the right hon. Gentleman, if he would like—about that process of work.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

Sadly, I have administered the wills of two relatives in the past year, both of whom held NS&I accounts, so I know acutely how difficult and emotional that time can be. I have two questions for the Minister in that regard. Can he assure my Carlisle constituents that any moneys owed to them and their families will definitely be paid, and can he give an assurance that NS&I will handle these cases very sensitively, taking into account the distress that many families will be experiencing?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is completely right. I am sure that she speaks for many people today. The experience of administering estates is challenging for us all at the best of times, and it is of deep regret to me—and, I am sure, to everyone at NS&I—that we are putting anybody through complications. I can give her the reassurance that everybody will be paid all moneys due and held by NS&I. We will make every endeavour to reconnect people to their funds. That will include, as I say, directly contacting the representatives of estates, who will have contacted NS&I in the first place to notify it of a death. Were that not to be successful, we would then put in place a chain of contact below it. The details will be set out in the plan in May, but I can give a reassurance that that is already being worked through. We will use the time between now and May to continue to examine the data that NS&I holds—I have said that we are reviewing over 34 million cases—to ensure that we have the absolute best contacts and are able to go as soon as the delivery report plan has been set out.

My hon. Friend rightly raised the question of distress. I can absolutely give her the reassurance that everybody involved understands how they should be handling matters. As I said, for the Treasury’s part, that includes recognising that there will be worries about the implications for some estates of taxes due. I will set out how we intend to address that in May.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for making this statement today, and welcome the appointment of Sir Jim Harra, who did indeed have an excellent record at the head of HMRC, as interim chief executive.

I think we ought also to have a word of praise for the consumer affairs team at The Daily Telegraph, who have drawn welcome attention to unwelcome statistics, such as £116 million in unclaimed premium bond prizes, £3 billion spent on digitisation and £43 million spent on consultants for doing we know not what. Given that the Financial Ombudsman Service can award only token sums by way of compensation for maladministration, can the Minister assure NS&I savers that, when it comes to the question of compensation that must be paid to them by NS&I, there will be some dedicated method whereby those who are already severely out of pocket can have speedy resolution of their claims and recompense?

[Torsten Bell]

Let me try to take the right hon. Member’s questions in turn. I would think of compensation as two buckets. There will be automatic compensation relating to the withholding of funds. The FCA provides guidance on how that should be administered, and we will ensure that is put in place in full. More complicated cases—he has given examples in which the deprivation of funds has had implications—will be considered on a case-by-case basis, rather than by using the FCA formula that I have mentioned.

I am keen to praise journalists where we can, but I am afraid that, in the case of The Daily Telegraph in recent weeks, praise needs to be caveated. It is important to raise cases brought up by members of the public, but some of the reporting I have seen in the past 48 hours has been incredibly inaccurate. I will give the right hon. Gentleman two examples. The Daily Telegraph has published a piece claiming that 160,000 cases relating to NS&I have been brought to the Financial Ombudsman Service, when in truth that number is in the hundreds. That was printed on the front page of the newspaper without basic fact-checking taking place. Today, the paper has talked about taxpayers’ money being used to reunite people with their funds. That is entirely inaccurate for the reasons that I have set out. I worry that that will have worried some MPs and members of the public. It is important that we raise questions of customer service, in which NS&I has fallen short, as I have said, but we should not be blind to what has been inaccurate journalism in the past 48 hours.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I have very fond memories of the National Savings & Investment savings account that I held as a child—I regularly paid money into it at Little Lever post office. I understand how important it is for the Government to right historical failings at NS&I, and to reassure my constituents. I commend the Minister and the Treasury for the decisive action that they have taken, including the appointment of a new NS&I chief executive who is well respected across this House. What more can the Minister say to assure savers in Bolton West that NS&I will get to grips with the issues that he has mentioned today? In the light of his comments about false reporting in The Daily Telegraph, and given the extreme sensitivity around bereavement and funds, what more are his Department and officials doing to dispel the false information that has been put out by newspapers?

[Torsten Bell]

I am sure that many Members across the House, and many people across the country, share my hon. Friend’s experience of early engagement with NS&I. The brand has very high awareness and support for exactly the reasons he gives. On his question about an assurance that there will be change, I hope that I have set that out. The most important thing is putting in place new leadership and ensuring that we have spent the time with external advisers involved in recent months to understand the problem in detail and to set the path to putting it right. He will have heard what I have said about some of the media reporting. I hope that my statement has laid out the facts on the implications for taxpayers and the nature of the problem we are facing.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and the way in which he has addressed the House. I want to pick up on the important question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns). The administration of a deceased loved one’s affairs is a lengthy and difficult process at the best of times. It will come as a tremendous shock to many of our constituents to learn that matters that they thought were settled are in fact not so. We can also all think of examples of public agencies that have promised tact and sensitivity, but have not always followed through in practice. Will the Minister look at individual cases that we might raise with him as constituency Members, and will he meet with groups of Members who have constituents affected by the issue?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that administering the affairs of deceased family members or friends is always challenging, both emotionally and administratively. That is why it is so important that we get this right, now that we have set out the scale of the problem. On his specific question, I encourage him to support constituents. That is why I have said that I will require NS&I to put in place a direct method of communication for MPs who wish to raise constituency cases, and obviously I will be happy to meet him or anybody else who has constituents affected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very thorough responses.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12, and Government motions to disagree.

[Torsten Bell]

I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of it, and I particularly thank the Financial Secretary, Lord Livermore, for leading the Bill so expertly through the other place. Before addressing the amendments directly and explaining the Government’s decision not to support them—I know that will be shocking—I turn briefly to the need for these reforms.

As the Chancellor set out at the Budget, we are taking action to make the tax system fairer and fit for the 21st century. That requires us to keep the effectiveness and value for money of the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review, and it is especially important to do so when costs are expected to increase significantly. The cost of national insurance contributions relief on salary sacrifice into pension schemes was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2031, without reform, which would be equivalent to the cost of the Royal Air Force. This is not only an expensive tax relief, but one with a very uneven impact. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all. The vast majority of salary sacrifice contributions are made by higher and additional-rate taxpayers. Salary sacrifice is unavailable entirely to those earning at or near the national living wage, or to the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, and we know that both groups are more likely to be under-saving for retirement.

On this basis, the status quo is indefensible. Change was inevitable, but we have chosen to take a pragmatic approach, with no change until 2029, and a £2,000 cap to allow pension contributions via salary sacrifice to continue.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for bringing this Bill forward. He brings a good story to the House, but sometimes these decisions give rise to questions. My constituents believe that the Bill creates a financial disincentive for middle-income earners to save for their retirement. Does he not agree that this risks creating a pensions gap, with individuals becoming more dependent on the state in later life, which will cost the taxpayer more in the long run than the tax relief costs today? My constituents feel that, and I am asking the Minister the question. How would he answer it?

[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.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Lords amendments might not be perfect, but do they not set out the principled objection to the Government taxing some basic rate taxpayers more for choosing to save for their pension and at the same time using that money to increase welfare spending?

[Torsten Bell]

No, that is not what is going on. What will happen is that everybody will still have a strong tax relief incentive to save for their pension, and by taking a sensible approach to reforming that, we will avoid seeing the cost of the tax relief rise to the same level as the cost of the RAF. I listen to Opposition Members day in, day out calling for more defence spending. There are consequences for that. One of them is that we have to do our job of looking carefully at the quality of our tax reliefs, and that is what we are doing today. Hon. Members should support us in doing that.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Rather than raising taxes, could the Minister perhaps not send £36 billion to the Government of Mauritius to rent back an airbase that we already own?

[Torsten Bell]

That is a question the hon. Gentleman should put to his Front Benchers, who opened the negotiations with Mauritius in the first place. Opposition Members come to the House making cheap points, because they used to take seriously the job of government and they have given up entirely. I will make some progress now, having engaged with the hon. Member who obviously gave up on the job of serious government some time ago.

A world where 95% of those earning £30,000 or less and contributing via a salary sacrifice are unaffected makes the case for the £2,000 cap I have set out, but the Government agree with the sentiment raised in the Lords about keeping it under review. The Bill allows for that to take place in future.

That leads me to Lords amendments 2 and 8, which would exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the £2,000 cap from the calculation of student loan repayments. It is right that we focus on the outcomes for younger generations too often let down by the failures of the previous Government. I gently remind Conservative Members—there are only two of them here, but there are some Liberal Democrats who deserve some of the “credit” too—of their track record on this matter: trebling tuition fees, raising interest rates, scrapping maintenance grants and the rest. And that is before I get to not allowing anything to be built. That is what younger generations are being let down by.

On the specific proposal, it is worth noting that while salary sacrifice arrangements can reduce the student loan repayments made, they do not reduce the total amount due for repayment. Much more important is the fact that the £2,000 cap means that young graduates are broadly unaffected. In fact—these are new figures that were not available for the discussion in the Lords, but as this issue has been raised and brought to the Commons, I will provide them—the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into a pension will be unaffected, in the sense that 90% of them save less than £2,000 a year. I hope that provides some reassurance to Members who have raised that point.

Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 would make the regulation-making powers in the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, except for those which solely increase the contributions limit. The Government agree on the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals’ national insurance liabilities. However, the Bill already contains a series of safeguards and the legislative approach taken follows long-standing precedence for national insurance legislation. In addition, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has carefully scrutinised the powers in the Bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny, and concluded that there is nothing in the Bill that it wishes to draw to the special attention of the House.

Lords amendments 6 and 12 seek to exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, alongside smaller charities and social enterprises, from the Bill’s provisions. Again, the Government agree on the importance of supporting small businesses—I am sure that that is a matter of cross-party support—but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in the Bill will help to level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors. Those wanting to see support for small businesses should support the measures in the Bill. The Government are engaging with employers, payroll professionals and software developers to ensure that the changes are implemented in the least burdensome way possible for employers of all sizes.

I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand why it would not be right to support the amendments from the other place, even though we recognise the valuable objectives that have in many cases motivated them. As I said, the Government spend over £500 billion each year on various tax reliefs within the tax system. That is more than double the entire annual NHS budget. The size of the spend means that the Government must always keep the effectiveness and the value for money of those reliefs under review. These are necessary, pragmatic and fair reforms that protect ordinary workers while ensuring that public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. I respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for their contributions. I will not reiterate the arguments for the Bill as a whole, but I will try to respond directly to the points that they have made.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest explained that the Conservatives are opposed entirely to these changes, but of course he did not explain at all which bits of the NHS services they would cut, since they obviously do not support the revenue being raised from this sensible—[Interruption.] Which bit of the benefits system would they like to change then?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The two-child benefit cap. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Torsten Bell]

Here we have it again: when the Conservatives are faced with any difficult choice, the answer is higher child poverty. It is the answer to every question they are ever faced with. They stand up day in, day out and say that what they want to see is higher child poverty—and they cheered enthusiastically for it just then.

I will move on. Not only can the hon. Member for Wyre Forest not say which bit of the NHS he would like to cut because he opposes these changes, but he cannot even explain why the Conservatives were planning to implement exactly these kinds of changes when they were in government—before their whole giving up on being serious people thing.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the Minister accept that if these changes go through and people save less for their future, we will have pensioner poverty? That is the impact of these measures.

[Torsten Bell]

Absolute nonsense. Members of the House should be reminding everybody in this country that they have a strong incentive to save for their pension, not misleading them by implying that they will somehow lose out by saving for their pension. That is not the case, and it is really important that we are consistent in our messaging to the public about that. I will come back to the wider point about the levels of saving in society.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest also asked questions about savings gaps, and he was right to do so. Unfortunately, however, he talked nonsense about that. He talked about the self-employed, low earners, women and those working for SMEs, all of whom do have lower pension savings rates, but all those groups who are under-saving are those least likely to use salary sacrifice. He talked about those on lower incomes, but as I said, 95% of those earning under £30,000 and contributing to a pension via salary sacrifice are completely unaffected. He claimed that the impact was largest on those on low earnings. That is nonsense, because 86% of contributions over £2,000 are from additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest went on to invent a brilliant story of a young graduate struggling to get by who was somehow putting £5,000 into their pension every year. As I mentioned earlier, 90% of young graduates are saving £2,000 or less into their pensions. Why are they not saving more? Because their wages did not rise under the Conservative party. Why are they not saving more? Because that party did not build enough houses to help them get on to the property ladder. He asked—[Interruption.] I am glad to hear that all Conservative Members will stop opposing the building of homes in their constituencies in the years ahead.

The hon. Member asked about the implementation. As he mentioned, I have set out that it will operate on a per-job basis. He also asked about how it will operate over a pay period basis. As he knows, national insurance broadly operates on a pay period basis, but we are consulting with employers and payroll providers to ensure that we get that right. As is normal with national insurance legislation, we will set that out in the regulations.

I turn to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). It is not surprising that he, as a Liberal Democrat, opposes these measures but set out absolutely no ideas for how to pay for that. I look forward to him calling for more spending later this week—again with absolutely no idea how to pay for it. He raised timing. Directly to his two questions, we think it is pragmatic to give employers and individuals time to adjust—that is the basis for the pragmatic point that he raised. He also raised the scoring of that, which is a technical issue reflecting how the national accounts deal with the claiming back of tax relief for some pensions. He also mentioned the OBR. If he looks at its report, he will find that it set out that the Budget measures will have no material impact on savings levels.

To end on a point of wide cross-party consensus, both hon. Members raised the case that people do need to save more for their pensions—the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just did so, too—and we all agree on that, and particularly those 45% of working-age adults who are currently saving nothing. As I said, that includes in particular groups such as low earners and the self-employed, for neither of whom is salary sacrifice available. The answer to that is the work of the pensions commission, which I hope will continue to operate on a cross-party basis. Its interim report will be coming forward soon, and I will commend its work to the House. For today, I am afraid that the Government will oppose the Lords amendments.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) has secured the debate on this important matter and thank him for the thoughtful way in which he described the impact on his constituents. He spoke on behalf of many others as well, and in particular those members of the Nissan pension scheme. I join him in praising the persistent campaigners on this issue. He mentioned one organisation in particular—I have met its members, who have been campaigning for many years and have not shown any let-up in their energy during that time.

A period of high inflation and the return of many defined-benefit schemes to surplus has rightfully put up in lights of the situation of members whose pre-1997 benefits are not protected by statutory indexation. That wider debate has rightly featured heavily during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. It was also discussed by the Work and Pensions Committee prior to the election. As my hon. Friend said, it was considered in some length here when we debated new clause 22, when we heard many powerful speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). The right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), as he said, has been raising the issue for many years, and I have also discussed it with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis).

I have met many scheme members and their representatives. Recently my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and I met three members in Swansea to discuss exactly this issue in a lot of detail. I was grateful for their time and to her for organising that discussion.

I have listened, and I recognise the difficulties faced by some scheme members who can now see their income, their living standards and the quality of their retirement eroded by inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said. It is particularly understandable that members are disappointed when schemes do not award discretionary increases when they are in a strong funding position—that is obviously the change that has happened over the last few years.

As my hon. Friend will know, defined-benefit pension schemes have very different approaches to awarding pre-1997 indexation. The truth is—obviously, we will not be discussing these schemes at length today—most do provide for increases under their scheme rules; others do not allow it or require it at all; and a significant number allow discretionary increases only where there is agreement between both trustees and the sponsoring employer. Those are the cases that we are mainly focusing on in this debate. The result is that, in some cases, when employers are unwilling to support discretionary increases —even when the scheme is in a strong funding position—trustees can effectively be prevented from acting.

[Jesse Norman]

I will not detain the Minister long. If a group of trustees never pays a discretionary bonus, even though the scheme is in surplus, it starts to look like it is a policy of theirs to discriminate against a subset of their beneficiaries, and I think that is illegal. I would be grateful for his guidance on that.

[Torsten Bell]

I think there is a slightly harder case, which is examples where schemes had an established practice of paying discretionary increases—my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned Nissan cases from before the turn of this century, where that was the practice—and that was seen as the norm, and then, for different phases, such as when schemes slipped into deficit, as many did, they stopped and then did not restart when the surplus arrived. That is the case raised here. In many ways, those are the harder cases to understand, and I will come to how we think about such cases as we go forward.

[Jesse Norman]

I can understand why the Minister thinks those cases are harder; in some respects, they are less hard, because in those cases changes have been made reflecting circumstances. In the cases that I am talking about, there is a policy to discriminate against a settled group of beneficiaries. That is the bit that I think is potentially illegal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I hear the right hon. Member’s point. I am not going to comment on individual legal cases, obviously, but the basis of the distinction at 1997 reflects the decisions taken in 1995 by a previous Conservative Administration to introduce statutory indexation, but not wanting to do that for accruals that had already taken place. The Pensions Act 1995 brought in statutory indexation from 1997 onwards. 

We can recognise the underlying reasons for this situation—not retrospectively changing the basis of scheme rules—while sharing Members’ huge frustrations with it. It is why I continue to encourage trustees and sponsoring employers to think carefully about the effect of inflation on member benefits when making decisions. The Pensions Regulator already sets out that trustees should consider specifically—not just generally—the situation of those members and whether the scheme has a history of making such awards.

Pensions legislation sets minimum legal standards that all schemes must meet, and they are designed to strike the balance between fair and workable, and having a stable DB landscape. I completely recognise the case for change that the right hon. Member for New Forest East has made today and in the past. The challenge is that it would be unreasonable to retrospectively change long-standing rules in blanket terms in a way that would put some schemes’ stability at risk, whether that is today by fundamentally changing their funding position, or in future, when we do not know what the world will look like.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

If the Minister would follow the recommendation of at least giving the trustees the full power to make the decision over discretionary awards and taking it away from the company, one could be pretty sure that if the scheme went into deficit, the trustees would act accordingly.

[Torsten Bell]

I will come in a second to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, which is about where power lies in the system.

[Dame Nia Griffith]

I thank the Minister for his time in meeting us in Swansea, as well as the time he has spent on this topic here in the House. He mentions the disadvantages of making any sort of blanket legislation, but does he not agree that there are ways we can caveat that, such as applying it when the scheme is in surplus? Does he not recognise that most of these schemes were paying increases until they stopped, either because of financial crisis or because they realised they did not have to? There are options that could be explored. Would he be willing to do that?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner on this issue. I recognise her point about situations where there was a habit of paying discretionary increases in the past. On the question of what we do about it, let me come to the Government’s approach, and then I will perhaps offer two reflections specifically on the points that have been raised on which we might want to continue making progress, even if I cannot satisfy all the demands for instantaneous change today.

So, what are we doing? The reforms introduced in the Pension Schemes Bill will give more trustees of such schemes the flexibility to release surplus. That will help shape the balance of power between trustees and employers when it comes to well-funded schemes. There is not nothing we can do, and the Pension Schemes Bill will make a difference, particularly for the kind of schemes being raised tonight—those which have a surplus today.

The decision to release surplus will remain entirely with the trustees. That will place them in a better position to negotiate benefit improvements as part of any release. It is entirely for trustees, working with the employer, to determine how members may benefit. Let me be really clear: if trustees wish to insist on discretionary pre-1997 indexation as a condition for surplus release, they will be entitled to do so. I expect that many will, given the discussions I have had with them. We are obviously in the early stages of that Bill; it has not passed through Parliament yet. Employers and trustees are thinking through a world where they suddenly find themselves with a surplus, and in many cases are thinking about what that means for the future of their pension scheme. These reforms recognise trustees’ and members’ understandable frustration with the status quo, but also the diverse circumstances of DB schemes.

Let me end with two reflections on the wider contributions that Members have made, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who has brought us here today. First, whatever the scheme rules, there is no excuse for employers not to fully engage with trustees on these decisions and questions, and I have too often heard from members and trustees that employers have not done so. I will take that away to consider what more we can do to make sure there is an open consultation and people are clear about what is going on and how decisions are taken.

Secondly, given the importance of this matter, I recognise that it would be beneficial to develop a clearer understanding of the circumstances, particularly in relation to the issue that has been raised about well-funded schemes are choosing actively not to award discretionary increases, particularly where employer consent is the binding constraint. The Pensions Regulator has been considering how to build its evidence base in this area, and I will talk to it in the weeks and months ahead about what more we can do about that.

I will finish by paying tribute to my hon. Friend and the other right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, but also to Members who are not here, but have consistently raised this issue with me. In the coming weeks, I will be meeting other Members who have asked me to discuss this with them and their constituents. It is important that we have the chance to discuss these important matters, and I am glad that we have done so.

Question put and agreed to.

Fuel Duty

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“recognises that, at the Autumn Budget 2025, the Government extended the five pence per litre fuel duty cut for five months and cancelled the inflation linked increase for 2026-27; welcomes that Fuel Finder helps consumers compare prices and encourages competition and that the Government has ensured that all UK petrol filling stations must report prices within 30 minutes of a change; notes that HM Treasury will continue to work with the Competition and Markets Authority on behalf of consumers; and further notes that the Government keeps fuel duty under review and that a rapid de-escalation in the Middle East is the best way to keep prices low at the pump.”

I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), for opening this debate. The Government recognise that fuel costs matter enormously to people right across the country. Fluctuations in pump prices cause fluctuations in working people’s bank balances. The effects are real and, as we have heard, widespread; about 80% of us drive each week. That is why the Government have already taken action to ensure that fuel remains affordable. In November’s Budget, we extended the temporary 5p per litre cut to fuel duty for a further five months. Additionally, we cancelled the inflation-linked increase planned for 2026-27. Our fuel duty changes will save the average motorist over £90. In 2026-27 alone, a van driver will save an average of £100, rising to more than £800 for heavy goods vehicle drivers.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make a bit of progress, and then I am sure I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, who is always very enthusiastic. He did actually stand up on this occasion. That is what a learning curve looks like—it is a shame Conservative Front Benchers have not found one in 14 long years.

[Graham Stuart]

Is that the best you can do?

[Torsten Bell]

That was not the best; there is much more to come. I am enjoying the enthusiasm.

Sector-specific support continues for the likes of agriculture and horticulture, which retain access to red diesel, after it was withdrawn from most sectors in 2022. Our extension of the temporary 5p fuel duty cut includes a proportionate reduction for rebated fuels, including red diesel.

As the shadow Secretary of State noted, the context is that we are entering the third week of the ongoing conflict in Iran, the effects of which have spread directly across the middle east and indirectly around the world. In responding to that conflict and those effects, the Government’s priority will always be the national interest. The immediate focus is on protecting British nationals in the region, and taking necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies. That is supported by the Chancellor’s decision not just to deliver the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, but to approve access for the Ministry of Defence to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the middle east.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With the strait of Hormuz in effect closed, does that not prove the point we have been making for years, which is how important it is for our energy security to have new licences in the North sea? The Minister is known as “Torsten Tax”, so I will ask him about tax. Does he accept that not having new licences in the North sea will lose this country billions in tax revenue—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

Our position is to deliver a stable transition. That was the position of the Conservative party. It is the party that introduced the energy profits levy. [Interruption.] I will answer the question. Gas and energy from the North sea will be part of the energy transition in the UK for some decades to come, as several Members have mentioned. That is why the Chancellor met the industry in recent days, and why we are setting out proposals to allow tiebacks that will help us get gas out of the ground in the near future. Longer-term changes will take significantly longer, but none of what I have heard from Conservative Members is an excuse for rejecting the tens of billions of pounds of renewable energy investment that is important for delivering domestic energy security for this country.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I like the Minister very much, not least because he represents the Welsh seat of my birth and upbringing, and because I have such respect for him, I am going to try to make the point to him that I have so far made with zero success to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, among others. It is all well and good to talk about the greatest increase in spending on defence since the end of the cold war if we are comparing the post cold war period with what is—shall we say?—a quiet defence period, but we are not. What we need to spend now is not to be compared with what it was like after the end of the cold war, but what it was like during the cold war, and during the cold war we regularly spent between 4.5% and 5% of GDP on defence. If he recognises that there is some merit in that argument, could he try to persuade his colleagues to stop making that false comparison?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his kind remarks, even if they were driven by geography rather than personality. I will take what I can get in today’s debate! Since we are being kind to each other, I recognise the point he makes about the significant uncertainty we face in this world today. That uncertainty always existed to a significant extent, if we are honest, and I think most Conservative Members realise that defence cuts year after year in the last decade were a mistake—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

indicated assent.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is nodding. So I would offer that by way of comparison.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make a bit of progress, and then take some interventions.

As I was saying, we are providing additional capabilities to the middle east, but I want to be clear that the UK will not be drawn into a wider war. We on the Labour Benches have been clear about our approach. We are in the business of protecting British nationals, not of trying to deliver regime change from the air. We need to de-escalate the conflict and we are playing our part in doing so, but the full economic impact of the conflict will of course depend on its severity and duration. Recent events have led to significant increases in oil and gas prices. As of this morning, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel and gas prices at 129p per therm.

[Harriet Cross]

Yesterday, the Chancellor said it was great that Norway and Canada were increasing their production of oil and gas, and congratulated them doing so. And who could disagree with that—other than, seemingly, herself and the Cabinet? Does the Minister agree that, along the same lines, we should be increasing our production from the North sea and lifting the ban on North sea licences?

[Torsten Bell]

As I have said, oil and gas will be with us for some time. [Interruption.] Let me finish. That is why the Chancellor met the sector. [Interruption.] I hear all the chuntering from Opposition Members, but I did not hear as much chuntering when we saw a 70% fall in jobs in the North sea on their watch. [Interruption.] That is the truth of what you delivered. Now, on top of that, you are trying to double down. The Conservative party is doubling down on opposing investment in renewable energy, threatening those jobs. The Labour party believes in domestic energy security delivered by a range of sources, including the nuclear that the Conservatives failed to invest in.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister has been saying “you”, but I am not responsible for these things; I would not want that responsibility.

[Simon Hoare]

We see you as responsible for everything, Mr Speaker!

The Minister was clearly right to point out the inflationary cost pressures as a result of the Iranian situation. He might be reminded that the announcement the Chancellor made on the increase in fuel duty predates that situation. Were it not to have been made, and given the impact that we are seeing on, among other things, fuel costs from Iran, would he and the Chancellor be thinking that now is a good time to make an announcement about increasing fuel duty? The world has changed and surely this policy should change as well to reflect the immediacy of the situation.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his question and his invitation to discuss some hypotheticals. I would just point out that it is only next week that the policy of extending the 5p freeze comes into effect. Fuel duty will be frozen until the end of August this year. That is the position as it is. I will turn later to how we think about the future, because that is a fair question, but the policy I am talking about comes into effect next week exactly.

[Simon Hoare]

There are a huge number of families up and down the country who manage their household budgets incredibly tightly. They will be thinking about whether they can afford a holiday this year and so on. I appreciate that August seems a long way away, but many of those people will be sorting out their budgetary plans now. I am not certain that those “just about managing” families, as we used to call them, can wait until August for any clarity or certainty. Do not play cat and mouse with the British people; take the sensible decision now, and press pause to reflect the dramatic change in circumstances we are seeing.

[Torsten Bell]

I completely agree with the hon. Member that families up and down the country are worried about what they are seeing on their TV screens about the conflict in the middle east—maybe because they know people directly, but also much more universally about the effect on all of us and on their budgets—and they expect a Government who take a sensible approach, meaning that we protect household finances, which I will come to, as well as the public finances. That means taking decisions based on recognising the unavoidable uncertainty about how the future of the conflict plays out.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

rose—

[Torsten Bell]

I am going to make a bit of progress, but I will give way soon, because Members have been very patient.

I was coming on to the fact that we are not in the business of delivering regime change from the air, but we do need to de-escalate the conflict and we will play our part in doing that.

Oil and gas prices remain below the peaks they reached in 2022 following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but I do not want to hide the fact that, as we have just discussed, these are significant increases. Oil is up by 40% and gas prices have risen by around 64% since the end of February. The movement in energy markets we have already seen are likely to put upward pressure on inflation in the coming months—exactly as we have just discussed—but the ultimate size of the effects is highly uncertain. What is certain is that in the face of them, this Government will take the necessary decisions to help protect both household finances and, as I was just saying, public finances. I want to make it clear that, given the very real uncertainty, the policy and approach we are taking does give an assurance to households about how we will act.

[Dr Luke Evans]

That is good to hear. As it is under review, it sounds as if, should there be a change, the Government would look to support the British public, and I support that. Is there some kind of framework that the Government are using to make this decision? Is there a trigger point on fuel prices, or on how long petrol prices remain at that level? This relates to the previous question about budgeting. Are the Government using triggers, or is it just finger in the air and wait and see what happens?

[Torsten Bell]

I understand why the hon. Member is asking that. I would gently point out that the level of petrol prices today is lower than at the time of the election, when the Conservatives had a temporary 5p freeze and explicitly did not include continuing that freeze in their manifesto. I offer that by way of indication of where we are today.

We will keep working towards a swift resolution, one that brings stability back to the region, security to Iran’s neighbours and relief to households in the UK, who are understandably worried about the effect of the conflict.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister rightly talks about household budgets, but the other impact, particularly of the gas price, is industrial energy costs in this country, not least for the ceramics sector, which is gas-dependent rather than electric-dependent. When the Chancellor was asked about gas prices in her statement last week, she pivoted straight to the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is an electrical subsidy. What is coming down the line to help the gas-intensive sectors, which currently get no relief and which are seeing, as the Minister points out, a huge increase in the price per therm, particularly for those sectors looking to renegotiate their long-term contracts?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I regularly discuss exactly the kind of industries he raises today, because he is such a powerful champion on their behalf. Most firms, obviously, will be significantly more hedged than households against changes in prices, but he is absolutely right to say that the effect of energy price rises is very uneven across our industrial base. He is right to highlight energy-intensive industries and what the Government are doing when it comes to the increase in the discount delivered by the supercharger in the coming months and then the BICS in the years ahead. He is also right to make sure that we keep concentrating on this issue in the months ahead, and I am sure I will be talking to him and others about it.

We want the war to end as swiftly and quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the greater the impact on the cost of living back here at home. A rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases—despite the bluster today, I think that is the goal of everybody sitting in this House—and that requires a return to the diplomatic process. It also means the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. On that front, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance, but I want to be clear, given some of the things that have been said in recent weeks, that this is a complement—not an alternative—to the physical security of vessels.

As the Chancellor said following her call with G7 Finance Ministers last week, we are supporting a co-ordinated release of oil reserves. That has helped to some degree to stabilise international oil markets. We have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to remain vigilant on price developments for essentials such as road oil and heating oil. On Friday, the Chancellor and the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary met petrol retailers to make it clear that the Government will not tolerate anyone exploiting the current situation to make excess profits.

[Dave Doogan]

What evidence did the Chancellor have to suggest there was profiteering in petrol retailing? The Petrol Retailers Association rightly took umbrage at the implication of the Chancellor; I think that did not go quite the way that she thought it would.

[Torsten Bell]

This Government are showing that we care about the living standards of households up and down the country, and that is exactly what we should be doing. Encouraging all retailers to engage in the fuel finder scheme, which I will come to in a second, is very important. On heating oil, we had heard worrying evidence from people—I suspect the hon. Gentleman has, too, from his constituents—about the behaviour of some suppliers.

To further support competition in the market, we are introducing the fuel finder to ensure that petrol stations publish their live prices. That will make it easier for drivers to choose the lowest price. Since the beginning of February, all UK petrol stations have been asked to report price changes for petrol and diesel within 30 minutes.

Almost 90% of retailers have already registered. Last week, officials were instructed to accelerate the integration of fuel finder into major digital map applications, which will make it easier for drivers to use.

This tool sits alongside action to support households who rely on heating oil, as I just touched on. As the Prime Minister announced earlier this week, the Government will provide an additional £53 million of targeted support for the vulnerable households who would struggle to make an up-front lump sum to top up their tanks.

[Dr Luke Evans]

It sounds as though this support will be provided through the crisis and resilience fund, which replaces the household support fund. The problem is that many more people will not fall within that, despite seeing the price of heating oil double, if not triple—plus doubling the amount they have to order. What support is there for them? If those figures are going from £500 to £1,500 overnight, that will be a huge impact, and they will not get the £35 from the Government.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman is right, at least within England: yes, the funding will be delivered via local authorities, through the mechanism that was the household support fund, which becomes the crisis and resilience fund in a few weeks. We have written to local authorities to make it clear that they do not need to wait for the new fund to be in place and can start making commitments today. The decision on exactly who qualifies as vulnerable sits with local authorities, because one thing we have learned is that different parts of the country have different challenges on this issue.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make a bit of progress; I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman.

To reflect the highly uneven geographical spread of heating oil reliance, as highlighted by lots of Members in recent weeks, not least those from Northern Ireland and west Wales, the funding will be allocated on the basis of census data, instead of via usual mechanisms.

I have focused so far on laying out the challenge facing the country and our consistent approach to this conflict, but as this is an Opposition day, it would be rude not to talk a little about the Opposition, who have displayed rank opportunism and incoherence. This week, the Leader of the Opposition has said that she is

“concerned that there isn’t a clear plan behind the strikes”,

which is the opposite of what she has been saying for weeks. She welcomed the strikes and the military action that she now says lacked a clear plan. She called for Britain to get involved in the military action that she now admits lacked clear objectives. She says that her leadership is about consistency, but, on this most important of issues, the whole country can see that she is just making it up as she goes along—a cavalier attitude without a second thought for the consequences for households here in the UK. She does not get to wrap herself up in another country’s flag and play politics with a serious conflict and then pretend she never did so once the consequences for those living in the United Kingdom became clear.

Opportunism is the word for the Opposition on fuel duty, too. For all the froth from the shadow Minister, the truth is that the previous Government did not budget for any extension of the 5p cut—they explicitly said that it was temporary. Here is the truth on the level of fuel duty: through their entire 14 years in office—

[Dr Luke Evans]

Fourteen years!

[Torsten Bell]

Wait for it; I am going to come to come to those 14 years. The hon. Gentleman is going to regret saying that. Through the Conservatives’ entire 14 years in office, fuel duty was never lower than it is today. In fact, it was higher than it is today for 80% of the time they were in office.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Torsten Bell]

I absolutely understand why the shadow Minister is looking so worked up; fuel prices matter for everyone, especially those travelling long distances. After all, it is around 270 miles from North West Durham to Billericay—once he found his new constituency, that is. I know it is called a chicken run, but I am assuming he drove.

The Opposition may not be serious, but these are serious times. The cost of living matters. In a few weeks’ time, fuel duty will be 11p lower compared with the plans we inherited from the previous Government. Our action on fuel duty will save the average motorist over £90, on top of the savings from the Government’s fuel finder scheme. We will, of course, continue to keep fuel duty under close review, but it is frozen now and will remain frozen in the months ahead.

[Matt Western]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Torsten Bell]

We will continue to be responsive to a changing world, be responsible in the national interest and with the public finances, and take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living. That is this Government’s promise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Well, it was clear that the Minister was not giving way. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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?

AEA Technology Pension Scheme

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing today’s debate, and endorse his opening remarks about the general importance of pensions. We should all think that, but Pensions Ministers should certainly endorse wholeheartedly what he said. He and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and he has spoken clearly and passionately about it today, as always. We all absolutely understand why it has such resonance, particularly for his constituents.

I express my sympathy for all the AEAT pension scheme members. All of us would hate to see our employer enter administration and our pension scheme enter the Pension Protection Fund. I meet a wide range of individuals who have been through that exact experience, and many of them rightly bring the same kind of passion to their cases as he has done. That is particularly true of many of those with pre-1997 accrued pensions, as was the case for many members of this scheme.

The hon. Member is right to say that there was a particular focus on securing better indexation at the point of transfer, so I can understand why these pensioners feel that they have not secured what they had hoped for. It is also particularly true for those with accrued public sector pensions that transferred into private sector schemes at the point of privatisation. We are discussing one of them today, but it is far from the only one—Carillion is obviously the highest-profile case in the recent past. That can no longer happen, given the changes that have been put in place. At the point of privatisation, we will no longer see accrued pension rights transferred into private sector schemes. This is a real issue, but that exact situation cannot occur in future.

As we have heard, this matter has a long and complex history. The company was privatised 30 years ago, in 1996. On the hon. Member’s questions about the value at transfer, the reassurance I can offer—I know it will not be enough for his constituents and others who have raised the case with him—is that the transfer value was agreed by the trustees. It was not proposed by the firm or the Government at the point of transfer, and the financial assumptions that underpinned it were common at the time.

Unfortunately, as we have heard, AEAT entered administration in 2012, which resulted in its pension fund scheme entering the PPF. Of course, that was when the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government were in office. It is not for me to speak for the coalition Government, who included a Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister, but they responded to the grievances raised by pension scheme members by maintaining that all legal obligations had been fulfilled and that the safety net existed through the PPF. I understand that that is not the position of the hon. Member, but it was the position of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government at the time.

The hon. Member has raised two big-picture concerns, to which I will try to do some justice. One is about the income levels that scheme members are living on, which is the most immediate and important thing, and the other is about the consideration of this case by appropriate bodies. On the first of those, AEAT members receive compensation from the PPF, which is a well-established compensation scheme that provides a vital safety net. I do not want to underplay that, because the world before the PPF saw members exposed to much more risk in the case of insolvency. We do not want to underplay the importance of the PPF compensation route, but there have been concerns about the lack of indexation of pensions accrued before 1997, which in this case applies to all the pensions accrued prior to privatisation.

Unlike previous Governments, we have listened to those concerns and are acting. The Government have brought forward legislation in the form of the Pension Schemes Bill, which the hon. Member mentioned. It will introduce annual increases to compensation payments that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997 where the schemes provided for this. I can confirm that AEAT members will benefit from the changes to the PPF, because their scheme provided for such indexation, as we have discussed. That will make a real difference in the years ahead by making sure that we do not see further erosion of the value of their pensions due to inflation.

Turning to the second issue raised, the hon. Member is aware that this matter has been considered by a range of different Government and parliamentary bodies since the insolvency in 2012. That includes the Public Accounts Committee inquiry, which he mentioned. All I would say is that the first recommendation of that inquiry was that we address the issue of pre-1997 indexation within the PPF. The answer to his first question is that we have taken those inquiries seriously. That is one of the contributing factors to our acting now, unlike previous Governments, to address the issue of pre-1997 indexation in the PPF.

This issue has been debated twice previously in Parliament, although it is a decade since it was last discussed, so I am sure scheme members will be glad to see the hon. Member bringing it back before Parliament. It has obviously been raised in other debates. Most recently, I have been involved in discussions of it during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill, during which hon. Members on both sides of the House raised it, including on Report on the Floor of the House just a matter of months ago.

Multiple ombudsmen have considered specific complaints —the hon. Member is right to say that they have considered specific complaints, not the case as a whole—and in the majority of those cases, they have come to a view, not said that it is out of scope. One did such a thing, but in general they have considered the specific complaints raised and brought them to a resolution, although obviously not always in the in the way that some people would prefer.

More generally, my reflection is that I understand the temptation to call for more reviews in this case, because scheme members—and I have spoken to some myself—do not feel fairly treated. I understand that, and it is right that hon. Members come to the House to raise such effects on their constituents in debates like today’s. However, the Government’s view is that the best thing we can do is not to promise further reviews, but to act. The most important way in which we can act, given the circumstances, is by addressing the lack of pre-1997 indexation for AEAT members.

[Olly Glover]

I understand what the Minister is saying about pre-1997 indexation, but that is not the primary issue. The calculations by the campaigners about the difference this makes to their losses is that it is trivial—very small. I do not have the exact percentage, but it is probably a 5% difference, or something along those lines. I am very happy to share that with the Minister. That does not address the key issue, which is that Government guidance was incorrect at the time, and that led people to make decisions on the basis of wrong information. I suggest to the Minister that pre-1997 indexation is a different issue.

[Torsten Bell]

I recognise the point the hon. Member is making, which is that the nature of insolvency and entering into the PPF will have made more of a difference than future PPF accruals. However, had a previous Government—for example, the one that included the Liberal Democrats—introduced pre-1997 indexation a decade back, it would have made significantly more than a 5% difference. That would have made a very large difference to the pensions that AEAT members are living on today.

I am responsible for what the Government are doing about indexation now, and it is a lot more than 5%, because even in just the last years inflation has been running at particularly high levels. I do not agree with the hon. Member’s calculation, but I do agree with him that that is definitely not the entire story. I totally understand that members’ feeling about the advice they received back in the 1990s is at the core of their view that they should never have been in a situation where their pensions were transferred out of the public sector in the first place, and he is right to say that that issue is different from the indexation that occurs within the PPF.

I am merely pointing out that the reviews the hon. Member has mentioned, including that of the Public Accounts Committee, focused on the issue of indexation. My best bet is that, if the Government were not acting on this issue, it would have been one of the issues he raised with us here today, but he is completely right to say that it is not everything. I have said what we are doing to address the lack of indexation: we are acting where previous Governments failed to do so, and acting because we can all put ourselves in the shoes of pensioners who have not seen their pension incomes live up to what they were expecting, through no fault of their own.

Let me close by again congratulating the hon. Member on securing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to speak on such an important subject. I appreciate that I cannot and have not offered everything that he and, indeed, AEAT scheme members would want, but this Government are making real, concrete changes to better protect the pensions of those members from inflation in the years to come. That cannot right all of their feelings about what has happened in the past, but as I say, this Government are choosing to act rather than promising another review in the months and years ahead.

Question put and agreed to.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.

The motion relates to the UK’s fiscal framework. It is a framework that matters: it guides fiscal policy and provides both transparency and accountability. Since coming into office, this Government have reformed the fiscal framework and, more broadly, set the public finances on a sustainable footing. At the autumn Budget, that included doubling the buffer against our fiscal rules, providing more certainty and stability for taxpayers and businesses. This is a core part of a wider economic strategy that includes Budget measures to reduce inflation, pushing down on the cost of living. All this helps to push down on interest rates and give businesses the confidence to invest. This is the right plan, and things are moving in the right direction. Just last week, we learned that January saw a £30.4 billion public finance surplus, the highest monthly surplus on record.

This is all supported by our reforms to the fiscal framework. We have reset the fiscal rules to reprioritise public investment and introduced a fiscal lock to ensure that Governments cannot sideline the Office for Budget Responsibility, as we sadly saw in the last Parliament. We are also committed to delivering one fiscal event a year, delivering on our manifesto and bringing the UK in line with the vast majority of advanced economies. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to strengthen that commitment. We are doing so by drawing on recommendations from the International Monetary Fund’s article IV report last summer. The IMF made the case that fiscal policy stability would be aided by ensuring that the fiscal rules would only be assessed once a year. We agree, so this Government are legislating to ensure that this is the case.

To deliver this change, we are updating the two core parts of the fiscal framework. First, we are updating the primary legislation, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, via the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Clause 251 of that Bill provides for one fiscal rules assessment per financial year. We are also updating the secondary legislation, the charter for Budget responsibility, which is the subject of today’s debate. The updated charter reinforces the change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. It makes no changes to the fiscal rules, but ensures that those rules should only be assessed once per financial year. Specifically, it removes the requirement in chapter 4 of the charter for the OBR to conduct a fiscal rules assessment alongside any forecast. This will ensure that we can reduce the number of fiscal rules assessments per year without any reduction in fiscal transparency.

This Government are absolutely committed to the OBR’s independence, and to its vital role in providing regular assessments of the economy and the public finances. The OBR will continue to publish a second five-year forecast in the spring, which will aid transparency and inform the Debt Management Office’s financing remit, but the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy. I look forward to seeing a few more Members of this House at the next of these forecasts, the spring forecast, a week today. I recommend that this House approves the updated charter, and I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

[Torsten Bell]

The instruments that we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under two no-fault compensation schemes administered by the Department through the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. Although there is no statutory requirement to increase these rates in line with prices, there has long been cross-party consensus that we should do so. The Government therefore intend to increase the value of lump sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026. That also means that the increase will once again be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27, debated on the Floor of the House yesterday.

By way of background, the 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people with the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma. It was designed to cover people who were unable to claim damages from employers because, for example, they had gone out of business, and people who have not brought any action against another party for damages. To be eligible for a lump sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.

The 2008 Act scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with mesothelioma who were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That may have been because they were self-employed or because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly at a time of their greatest need. To recognise the suffering that these diseases can bring to the whole family, claims can be made to either scheme by a dependant, if the person with the disease sadly passes away before being able to make a claim.

I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation schemes offered by the 1979 and 2008 Acts. Finally, I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am happy to do so. I commend the increases to the payment rates under these two schemes to the Committee and ask for approval to implement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the Opposition for their support for the regulations. I will not reiterate what I said in the opening beyond fully endorsing the case made by the Opposition about the importance of these payments and their uprating. Hon. Members will know that these schemes are only a part of the way that the Government provide support and compensation to people suffering from these diseases. The industrial injuries disablement benefit provides weekly payments as well, which are important for those who have had an industrial accident or developed certain diseases, including those covered by the lump sum compensation schemes that we are talking about today.

On the point about the nature of these diseases being caused by dust exposure, it is important to spell out the importance of the work of the Health and Safety Executive on the prevention front, and of the NHS in providing support to those who have had a diagnosis of these diseases. On the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the importance of early diagnosis when possible, given the nature of these diseases, I want to refer hon. Members to the work of the national lung cancer screening programme, which exists precisely for that purpose.

We all believe that cross-party support on this measure is important—it continues as it has since 2010. It is an important part of how we provide support to individuals living with these diseases and their families. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.—(Torsten Bell.)

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Written Statements

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

At Budget 2025, the Government strengthened the fiscal framework in order to deliver on their commitment to holding one major fiscal event per year, supporting the economy with greater policy certainty.

Responding to recommendations made by the International Monetary Fund, the Government set out that they would legislate to ensure that the Office for Budget Responsibility assesses performance against the fiscal rules once a year at the Budget.

The Finance (No. 2) Bill includes an amendment to the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, the underlying primary legislation that sets out the requirement for fiscal rules assessments.

The draft “Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2025” has been published on gov.uk. The charter already set out the Government’s commitment to hold one major fiscal event per year. This update to the charter makes technical changes to deliver the policy announced at Budget 2025 relating to fiscal rules assessments, complementing the changes being made to the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act. The updated charter will be laid before Parliament, and a debate and vote will be scheduled in due course.

A copy of the document is available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/draft-charter-for-budget-responsibility-autumn-2025

[HCWS1275]