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]

Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

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

As the Secretary of State set out on 11 November 2025, we are retaking the decision made in December 2024 as it relates to the communications on state pension age. We will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached.

[Mr Dillon]

I was one of 100 MPs who signed a cross-party letter calling on the Government to take action for WASPI women. Such is the strength of feeling in my constituency that I am regularly contacted about this issue. In the Government’s determination, are they planning to consult with the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, especially if they are minded to deny 1950s-born women their lived experience again?

[Torsten Bell]

I know that hon. Members across the House will have been contacted by constituents who have been affected, and many of us will also have family members who have been affected. As I said, we will update the House as soon as a conclusion is reached. We have committed in public to doing so within three months of the decision in December, which means a decision will be reported to the House before the beginning of March.

I gently say that we need to be clear about what is at stake here: this decision relates narrowly to the question of the communication of the state pension age changes. For many women, including many of my constituents, the issue they are actually most focused on is the increase, and the acceleration in the increase, in the state pension age that was put in place by the coalition Government, which not a single Lib Dem MP voted against back in 2011. I think we should be clear about that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be clear on that with his constituents when they raise the matter with him.

[Sarah Dyke]

There are more than 8,000 WASPI women across Glastonbury and Somerton, including Miriam from Martock, who has lost a staggering £50,000 because of the maladministration of state pension ages changes. Because she was unable to work, she was forced to sell her home and live on released capital; now, aged 70, she has rejoined the workforce. Miriam and women like her deserve fairness. Will the Minister commit to properly compensating 1950s-born women, and will the Government consult with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman before finalising their response?

[Torsten Bell]

I know that many of our sympathies would be with Miriam. Many Members have constituents who face challenges in the years running up to the state pension age and who are, for whatever reason, unable to work.

The hon. Lady has rather made the point that I just set out, though. She talks about losses of £50,000 or £60,000, which I also see in letters from constituents, but that does not relate to the issue of communication of the state pension age. What she is referring to—the increase and acceleration in the state pension age—was put in place by a Liberal Democrat Government, and not a single Liberal Democrat MP voted against it. It is important to be clear about what is and is not part of the PHSO’s investigation. As I say, it is very important that we take these issues seriously. We should not have seen an acceleration of the state pension age where some women were only given five years’ notice, but that was put in place by the coalition Government. We will not be making those mistakes.

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

Mr Speaker, can I offer my deepest sympathies for your recent injury?

I pay tribute to the WASPI women in my constituency for their tireless campaigning on this issue. Will the Minister outline the difference that his Department and this Labour Government are making to all pensioners in Harlow?

[Torsten Bell]

Mr Speaker will not be on camera right now since I am speaking, but I can reassure the whole world that he is very much still with us. We all hope that that will be the case for some time to come, but when he does decide to become a pensioner, he will, like all pensioners, have the full support of the Government. We are bringing down waiting lists, which is benefiting pensioners right across the country. The biggest single disgrace facing older generations across the UK today is the state of our NHS, and that is why this Government are investing in bringing down waiting lists month after month after month.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I had better add my sympathies for your poor leg to those of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

The Labour party has performed, frankly, a spectacular U-turn on its support for WASPI women, but now it finds itself bogged down in judicial reviews and accusations of incompetence. If the Government cannot even deliver literally nothing for the WASPI women without messing up, what hope is there for them delivering wider welfare reforms?

[Torsten Bell]

I simply cannot let the hon. Member off on this. It was the Conservatives who made the decisions on accelerating the state pension age and in some cases gave women around five years’ notice or less of the increase. That was a choice made by the Conservative party. This Government are considering a report from the ombudsman that the Conservatives left sitting on their desks and refused to make a decision on—and we are going to make a decision.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Prior to the Government’s decision not to grant compensation to WASPI women, there was a disturbing lack of engagement with the ombudsman. Since then, the ombudsman has been able to gain access to the paused action plan, but only after leaving their electronic device at the door. Is the Minister comfortable with the way that this trusted civil servant has been treated?

[Torsten Bell]

The ombudsman is an important part of the systems that we have in place to make sure that the administration of public services is done in the right way. The hon. Member will know that our permanent secretary met the ombudsman before Christmas. A draft of the action plan that he refers to was shared with her in order to provide her with reassurance that progress was being made on it. As he will be aware, the work on the action plan has been stopped because it was an intrinsic part of remedy set out in the case last year. As I have said, the Secretary of State is considering the evidence in the round, and we will report back to the House as soon as a decision is taken.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the number of claimants of the personal independence payment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

T7. In the Budget, the Chancellor froze thresholds, which brings state pensioners into paying tax. This was raised with the Chancellor, who said that she did not want that to happen and that she would create a workaround. However, only two weeks ago we voted on the Finance Bill, which the Labour party pushed through, and as it stands that means that pensioners will pay tax on their state pension. What is the DWP doing to ensure that they will not pay tax on their state pension or have to submit a tax return?

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

It has been confirmed that those whose income is only the basic level of the basic state pension or the new state pension will not be required to pay tax next year, because the level of personal allowance has been set above the level of the new state pension. What the Chancellor said at the Budget was that in future years we will make sure that no pensioner will be required to fill in a self-assessment form, or indeed a simple self-assessment form, for any tax that is due because the new state pension level is above that of the personal allowance.

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine disclosed full details of her change in circumstances to the Department, but although the Department admitted it was its mistake—it had received that information and had repeatedly failed to update its records—it still sent her a very threatening letter. Although I fully support the need to protect the public purse, would the appropriate Minister agree to meet me to discuss how the Department could improve its updating procedures, reduce the occurrence of overpayments, and treat claimants more considerately when they have received overpayments through no fault of their own?

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

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

[Mark Garnier]

I completely agree. That is a fundamental problem. We are doing completely the wrong thing for people who want to do the right thing. We are disincentivising people taking responsibility for their future at a time when the state pension is coming under a lot of pressure. It is expected in 11 or 12 years, I think, that less money will be paid into the pension schemes pot than is withdrawn by those of us who are approaching retirement—I declare an interest, in my own case.

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

You have years to go.

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister very much.

--- Later in debate ---

The Bill removes a helpful incentive for long-term financial planning and will place a costly additional burden on small businesses at a time when they can least afford it. I think it is an unwise, short-term move with no regard for the longer-term consequences that will cost the Treasury more than the Bill brings in, so I urge the Government to reconsider. For this reason, I will be pushing to a vote this afternoon the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5, which would require the Government to calculate and publish the changes to lifetime pension values before and after the changes made in this Bill have taken effect, and we will be voting against the Bill.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the reminder of the excellent debate we had before the Christmas break. I thank him and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for their contributions. I will briefly reiterate the case for the three short and perfectly formed clauses of this Bill before focusing my remarks on the hon. Members’ amendments.

As hon. Members know, this reform was inevitable. We have had a detailed discussion of the last Government’s secret plan to implement a very similar proposal—the “secret plan” label came from the Conservative party, not Government Front Benchers—and the cost of pensions salary sacrifice was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030. That is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. The status quo is also hard to defend when low earners and the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK are entirely excluded, reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Minister will recall our many happy hours together in Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. One of the issues that the Liberal Democrats raised was the need for an MOT for people as they approach pension age, to see how their pension is going and test its adequacy. Does the Minister accept that putting these stark restrictions in place will significantly restrict the ability of somebody who realises that they are running out of time to make additional contributions to their pension to get to a better place? Would he consider extra flexibility, so that people could perhaps use 10-year allowances in three years?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I remind Members that the scope of this Bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought not to be bringing in new concepts.

[Torsten Bell]

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

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

[Chris Vince]

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

[Torsten Bell]

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

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

No, I will not mention the welfare budget.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. First, I have not raised anything. Secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare budget. This is a very narrow Bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I have given to other Members.

[Torsten Bell]

I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.

I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Can the Minister explain what is pragmatic about withdrawing a 2p in the pound tax relief from a higher rate taxpayer without a student loan, while withdrawing a 17p in the pound tax relief from a basic rate taxpayer who happens to have a student loan?

[Torsten Bell]

The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension.

Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity. That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it.

Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.

Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today.

Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts.

New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected. The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make.

New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point.

New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation.

I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings. I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee national insurance contributions on salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I have said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030 without reform. The Government are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform: first, by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected; secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead-in time, so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare; and thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely tax-advantageous. The Government continue to provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance relief on pension contributions each year. Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax-advantaged part of the system.

In this debate and others on pensions, we have heard strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important. We all look at the forecasts for private pension income and see that they show lower private pension income on average for those retiring in 2050 relative to those retiring today. That is not an acceptable place to be. Answering that question is the job of the Pensions Commission, which we have put in place with cross-party support. It is rightly examining the question of retirement income adequacy and fairness. I gently note that those groups that we all agree are under-saving for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups.

Part of what we are doing through the Bill is delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system alongside other measures from the Budget. These measures are what it takes to keep waiting lists falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead. Those who do not wish to support changes like these cannot have it both ways and call for additional spending, additional support on energy bills and the rest.

More generally, it is important that we all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £500 billion a year. If we defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly, that means that higher taxes for everybody else. We are not prepared to see that happen.

Indeed, I am sure that in their hearts the Opposition parties also believe that these reforms are necessary. As a test of that, I invite the shadow Minister to stand up and commit to reversing the changes if—though it is very unlikely—the Conservatives ever happen to form a Government again. I am 100% sure that he will not do that, because he knows that these changes need to be made. On the basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Work and Pensions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the Report stage of the Pension Schemes Bill on 3 December 2025.

[Torsten Bell]

Government amendments 55 to 86 relate to clauses 100 and 107 of the Bill, on the validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes—more often referred to as the Virgin Media case.

[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1042.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):

[Torsten Bell]

Government amendments 55 to 86 relate to clauses 100 to 107 of the Bill, on the validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes—more often referred to as the Virgin Media case.

[Torsten Bell]

The Budget last week confirmed the transfer of the full £2.5 billion-worth of reserves.

[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1042.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):

[Torsten Bell]

The Budget last week confirmed the transfer of the full £2.3 billion-worth of reserves.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) asked how many people will benefit from the change to the PPF indexation and how many will not benefit. The answer is that 250,000 members will benefit and 90,000 will not benefit, because their schemes did not provide for indexation in the scheme rules in the first place. I hope that answers the question she raised.

[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1081.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) asked how many people will benefit from the change to the PPF indexation and how many will not benefit. The answer is that over 250,000 members will benefit and up to 90,000 may not benefit, because their schemes did not provide for indexation in the scheme rules in the first place. I hope that answers the question she raised.

Automatic Enrolment: Earnings Trigger and Qualifying Earnings Band Review 2026-27

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Written Statements

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

Automatic enrolment has transformed workplace pension saving for millions of workers. However, despite this success, the Government recognise that millions are still under-saving for their retirement. That is why we have revived the landmark Pensions Commission to finish the job that we started 20 years ago. The commission will examine why tomorrow’s pensioners are on track to be poorer than today’s and make recommendations for change.

It is against the backdrop of the commission’s work that I have considered and completed this year’s annual statutory review of the automatic enrolment thresholds, which are the earnings trigger and lower and upper earnings limits of the qualifying earnings band. The main focus of this year’s annual statutory review has been to ensure the continued stability of automatic enrolment for employers and individuals, particularly during the ongoing work of the Pensions Commission, which will explore long-term questions of adequacy and how to improve retirement outcomes, especially for those on the lowest incomes and at the greatest risk of poverty or under-saving.

The thresholds review has therefore concluded that all automatic enrolment thresholds for 2026-27 will be maintained at their 2025-26 levels.

The 2026-7 annual thresholds are as follows:

The automatic enrolment earnings trigger will remain at £10,000.

The lower earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £6,240.

The upper earnings limit of the qualifying earnings band will remain at £50,270.

The publication supporting the review will be published on the www.gov.uk website and a copy placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS1206]

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

This is a short and simple Bill. It is a stocking filler to yesterday’s Finance Bill. [Interruption.] There are just three clauses for the chuntering Opposition Members to enjoy. They focus on amending the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and they do so to create a power to apply national insurance contributions to salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029.

I will focus my remarks on three areas: first, why Government action in this regard was inevitable; secondly, the case for the pragmatic, balanced approach that we propose to take; and thirdly, how this sits with wider, crucial questions about pension savings on which the House rightly focuses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My intervention will be very brief. The Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland has told me of its concerns about national insurance contributions, but it has also told me that utility prices are up by 52.7%, labour costs by 51.5%, and taxes by 47.2%. I ask the Minister respectfully how he and the Government can expect small businesses to survive increases at that level.

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The main answer to his question is that we are introducing this change with a very long implementation period—it will not come in until 2029—in order to give businesses and others time to adjust. Businesses have welcomed that across the board, but I will come on to it shortly.

It is always important to keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review; after all, their cost is estimated to be over £500 billion a year. That is always true, but it is especially true when we see the cost explode. That is why we acted in the Budget to reform employee ownership trust capital gains tax relief, because the cost was set to reach more than 20 times what was intended at its introduction.

That is what we see happening in the case of pension salary sacrifice: its cost is on course to almost treble between 2017 and the end of this decade. That would take it to £8 billion a year. For some context, that is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. I will repeat that: the cost of pension salary sacrifice was due to rise to the equivalent of our spending, in real terms, on the Royal Air Force. The growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate payers tripling their pension salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. While those on higher salaries are most likely to take part, many others are unable to do so at all.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I understand the justification for making changes to the salary sacrifice arrangements. The Minister mentions higher earners. Can he explain a bit more about the breakdown of those who are benefiting under the current system as a percentage of the whole? I do not know whether he has that data with him.

[Torsten Bell]

I will come on to some statistics that might answer my hon. Friend’s question.

While those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress before giving way again.

The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all, including many small businesses. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. On grounds of cost and fairness, it is near impossible to defend the status quo.

Of course, a major part of the job of the Opposition is to oppose some things that the Government are doing. I do not want to prejudge the remarks that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), will offer shortly, but I am confident that we will hear some opposition—maybe a word or two—to the Bill.

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to the Minister for arguing for more money for the Royal Air Force, and I very much hope that his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Treasury are listening. We were told a little over a year ago that we had wiped the slate clean and that the Government would not be coming back to demand more money to fill various non-existent black holes. What has changed over the past several months that means he is now coming back to levy this very large sum of money?

[Torsten Bell]

I think I have already answered the right hon. Member’s question: it is important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of pension salary sacrifice is growing very fast indeed, so we have reviewed this tax relief and think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to.

As I was saying, I am confidently looking forward—

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I am going to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Member.

The truth is that reform was inevitable. Although Conservative Members are not saying it now, they know this is true, because it is what they said in government. In the 2015 summer Budget, they said:

“Salary sacrifice arrangements…are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”—

[Interruption.] I will come on to what the last Government wanted to do in the pensions space in a second. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is so keen to hear this; he is setting me up nicely for what is coming in a second.

The summer Budget of 2015 went on to say:

“The government will actively monitor the growth of these schemes and their effect on tax receipts”,

which is the same argument that I just made to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That monitoring led, a year later, to the then Chancellor—now Baron Hammond of Runnymede—announcing benefit-in-kind restrictions. He told this House:

“The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax… That is unfair”.—[Official Report, 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.]

He was right then, and the same argument holds today.

Former Conservative Ministers should certainly agree, because in government they were planning exactly the kind of change to pensions that we are now introducing. By way of proof, in 2023 the Conservatives commissioned research on restricting salary sacrifice arrangements for pensions, which is exactly the same measure they are opposing today. What was the proposed cap on pension salary sacrifice in that report? It was £2,000 a year, which is exactly the same cap they are opposing today.

[Lincoln Jopp]

The Minister seems to have co-opted the amount of money spent on the Royal Air Force into his argument. Is he aware that absent the defence investment plan—it was promised in the autumn, and the House rises tomorrow—we have no idea about the size, shape and cost of the Royal Air Force, because the Government are late with their homework?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, because he always makes interesting points, but my larger point is this: if the Conservative party refuses ever to support any increases in taxation, increases in such spending—I think there is cross-party support for the Ministry of Defence, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned—cannot be funded and cannot happen.

Almost every tax expert in the country has noted the need for change, and most have called for pension salary sacrifice to be ended entirely. However, we are taking a more pragmatic approach by recognising that change will affect many employers and employees. Our balanced approach has two key parts. The first is time. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, nothing will change overnight. We are providing over three years’ notice of the reform’s implementation. What did the previous Government provide to employers? One year’s notice of their reforms to salary sacrifice. This will give everybody involved time to prepare and adjust, which is widely welcomed by firms and business groups. Employers and payroll providers have already been working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that this change operates in the most effective way, and that process will continue as we approach implementation.

The second key design choice is the cap of £2,000. This cap protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The cap means that the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected. It means that almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less, who work disproportionately for small businesses, will be entirely unaffected, and 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a pragmatic and fair approach, as well as the fiscally responsible one.

Some will claim—I am sure we will hear this from the Opposition—that salary sacrifice arrangements drive aggregate levels of pension savings. That is simply wrong. After all, salary sacrifice arrangements existed through the 2000s and into the early 2010s, and what happened to pension savings during that period? There were not rises, but big falls in private sector participation in pension savings. The existence of salary sacrifice did nothing to prevent a situation in which, by 2012, only one in three private sector workers were saving into a pension.

What made the difference was not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but automatic enrolment, the groundwork for which was laid under the last Labour Government and which was continued by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. That reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving, and it means that over 22 million workers are now saving each month.

We also see that contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. Pension salary sacrifice relief doubled between 2019 and 2023. Was that associated with a surge in average pension contribution levels? No, they have remained entirely stable as a proportion of pay, because all the evidence indicates that it is largely automatic enrolment that drives changes in pension savings. That should not surprise anybody, because the research commissioned by the Conservative party that I mentioned earlier pointed in the same direction. It found that the majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions.

More importantly for any member of the public listening—and it is important for all of us to be clear about this throughout this debate—pension saving will remain highly tax-advantaged after these changes. I have seen some deeply misleading comments in the media and otherwise on wider changes to pension tax relief, saying that people will not be saving as much as they previously were. The public should be clear that we are spending over £70 billion per year on pension tax relief, and that will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employer contributions will continue to be the most tax-advantaged part of the pension tax system, being made entirely national insurance contribution-free.

These are necessary changes that everyone who has thought about this subject knew would be needed, and they are changes being implemented in a pragmatic and balanced way. They are also consistent with the longer-term approach to reforming the pension system that is now in train.

There is cross-party agreement that the work of the Pensions Commission is important as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. We all know too many people are under-saving. Many commentators have called for higher minimum saving rates within automatic enrolment, including some on the Opposition Front Bench. The commission is crunching the numbers and talking to employers, trade unions and the pensions industry. We should not prejudge its work so I would now simply note that higher savings rates means pension tax relief costs rising further. If we combine that with the reality that if pension salary sacrifice remains unreformed, the end point could be all employee contributions being funnelled through this route, it implies costs at least doubling again to well over £15 billion a year, which means £15 billion in higher taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services. That is the logical conclusion of the arguments from those opposing today’s Bill.

Then we come to the real problem of some groups disproportionately under-saving, which, again, Members on both sides of this House have rightly raised in debates on pensions in recent months. The Pensions Commission is focused on groups we know are most exposed, including low earners, some ethnic minorities, women and the self-employed. This is a real challenge for our pension system but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. That is true whichever group we look at. Let us take them in turn. The self-employed are a top concern, with only one in five saving into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from pension salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but it is higher earners who are most likely to be using salary sacrifice. And many more women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice.

These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect ordinary workers, they give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. Opposing them is not cost-free: the savings from this measure are equivalent to over 250,000 knee and hip operations every year. The truth is that they are inevitable, which is why at least one party opposite was planning to introduce them. I gently suggest to some Members that they can, of course, take the easy route of opposing this change, but the truth is that they will be doing so with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because many know this change needed to come one day, and I suspect not one of the parties opposite will promise to undo it in the years ahead—but we will see.

The Budget delivered badly needed tax reforms ducked for too long by previous Chancellors. Whether it is the pragmatic reform in front of us today or ensuring that everyone driving on the roads contributes to their upkeep, these reforms are what it takes to keep cutting waiting lists, cutting borrowing and cutting energy bills, and I commend them and this Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

Your report!

[Mark Garnier]

Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for—[Interruption.] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that:

“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,

including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this.

The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away?

The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government.

Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes.

In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times, under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more.

The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [Interruption.] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects.

Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses.

Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that

“If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”.

While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice—[Interruption.] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry.

Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said,

“We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.”

The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter?

I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [Laughter.] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it.

Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

It strikes me that it should not be particularly controversial that a Government should be encouraging people to save for their retirement, to take responsibility for their future and to feel secure in later life. Therefore, although we are dealing with a short Bill that appears to be purely procedural in nature, its practical consequences are profound, because it takes us in precisely the wrong direction.

Beneath the layer of technical language lies a troubling choice. It is a choice to tax aspiration, penalise prudence and chip away at the very habits that ensure financial security in our later years. The Government have sought to assure us that this only affects high earners and that most will not be affected, but that is not how it will feel to the majority of people in the real world. One in five people—approximately 20%—rely on salary sacrifice. Those are people who are doing the right thing; they are choosing long-term security over short-term consumption. Yet under the Bill, to save means to pay more. That is not positive pension reform; it is a stealth national insurance rise, dressed up in the cloak of technicality.

At a time when businesses are struggling under huge wage bills, regulatory uncertainty and sluggish growth, the Bill quietly imposes on them yet another burden. I remind Government Members that fairness cuts both ways. It is not fair to tell people to save for their future and then tax them more for doing so, it is not fair to talk of fiscal responsibility when penalising prudence, and it is not fair to build long-term public finances on short-term revenue grabs.

There is a moral component to this, because women will be disproportionately affected. Many women, on returning from maternity leave, increase their contributions to cover for that career break. The proposals as drafted will result in those who plan responsibly being encumbered with higher additional national insurance charges.

[Torsten Bell]

I am reluctant to intervene, but I just want to pick up on two points that the hon. Member has just made. Men are much more likely to use salary sacrifice than women, so I offer him the chance to reconsider his last point about women being disproportionately affected. Before that, he said that the Bill meant that people were being encouraged to save but that they would be penalised if they did so. Given that there are members of the public listening who will make choices about their savings, I invite him to remind everyone that saving into their pension is still a very tax-advantaged thing to do. All Members on both sides of the House should encourage people to save into their pension, as the tax system will continue to do.

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

The Minister is right that people should be putting into their pensions and we should encourage them to do so, but we should not put forward legislation that disincentivises that. In respect of women, it is a fact that they are more likely to take career breaks and, by virtue of that, they may want to make up their contributions. This legislation will disadvantage those individuals.

The salary sacrifice scheme has become the bedrock of the modern pension system in the workplace. By decreasing gross pay, it decreases employer national insurance contributions and allows firms to invest more in their people. That is a positive step. My fear is that, as a consequence of this piece of legislation, many employers may scale back those contributions, cut other benefits associated with work or even discontinue schemes entirely. If we want a country that values responsibility and rewards work, and in which people make long-term plans for their economic security, I am afraid that the Bill takes us in entirely the wrong direction.

Budget 2025: Impact on Graduates

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. Budget discussions, which there have been lots of in the past month, tend to focus on economic statistics, GDP and borrowing. Those are very important, but they can sound abstract. What ultimately matters is what happens to people, including young people, and their wages and bills, the firms they work for and the public services they rely on.

I welcome the hon. Member’s focus on young people and what is happening to their wages, homes and student finance, as well as apprenticeships actually, which he did not touch on much. I also welcome his honesty about a number of the trends and policies put in place by the previous Government. I would add to his critique of the previous Government the 40% fall in youth apprenticeship numbers, which has had a real effect on the volume of routes available to young people.

Across all the fronts that he mentioned, the Government are supporting graduates and, for that matter, non-graduates. I know he would agree that the most important thing we can do for them is to make sure our economy overall is strong, because in the end, that is what provides graduate opportunities. He will be aware that Britain outperformed the growth forecast this year, with growth upgraded from 1% to 1.5%. Lots of things in the long run matter to economic growth, but raising Britain’s investment levels is high up the list. That is why public investment is up by £120 billion and why we place so much emphasis on the old-fashioned idea of actually getting things built in this country. He raised the issue of housing, which I will return to shortly. We have also seen real wages rise more in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government, but there is a lot further to go, and the Budget does go further.

Let me touch on some of the areas that the hon. Member mentioned. On the microeconomic policy side, Britain is already the best place to start a business in Europe. That can be seen clearly in all the statistics, but it needs to be the best place to scale up a business and for a business to stay. That is exactly what we dealt with in the Budget, with tax breaks to make it easier to grow and keep attracting capital and workers. In the long run, that is what creates more graduate jobs, which he rightly focused on.

On the macroeconomic strategy, we aim to support growth by cutting borrowing and inflation. That in turn helps the Bank of England to keep interest rates falling—they have already been cut five times since the election—and that is crucial to give businesses the confidence to invest and to directly cut mortgage bills for millions of Henrys, Henriettas and everybody else, because those with mortgages are disproportionately graduates.

The hon. Member rightly raised the question of assets. He touched on housing but in my day job dealing with pensions, the same thing applies, because the young people he referenced will also be saving for pensions in a very different environment from those who came before them.

Briefly on housing, what are the Government doing? We aim to tackle two things: first, the security of rental accommodation through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, making sure that if people are renting, whether that is for a temporary period or an extended period, they cannot be evicted at short notice, with no certainty. Secondly, we have to tackle housing costs, and in the long run that means building houses. There is no substitute for that. It means building affordable housing and market housing. The hon. Member mentioned London, where a package of measures has been announced to deal with the building trend over the last few years towards lower building levels than we would like, but we also need to see this around the country. We need to see all enthusiastic MPs not opposing planning permissions when that is their easiest path to take.

On pensions, I will add two things that I think matter for today’s younger generations. The first is the adequacy of the system that they are saving into, largely via defined contribution pension schemes. We have launched the Pensions Commission—I think that has cross-party consensus—to make sure, when we look ahead to 2050, that young people are on course for an adequate retirement. But we also need to address the fact that it is not just the amount of the pension, but the level of risk that younger generations are being asked to bear—in longevity, investment, inflation and other risks. That is exactly what the Pensions Commission is doing.

I agree with most of the comments about young people in the labour market. It is a disgrace that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training—I think we would all agree about that. Of course, it is a disgrace that we inherited from the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Windsor is well aware. It is good that the number of NEETs has not continued to rise, but I absolutely agree that it is far too high, and that is on all of us. That is why we have committed to tackling it, not least through a youth guarantee. That needs to continue, as does the work on mental ill health. We have committed to expanding the use of talking therapies in the NHS, delivering an additional 384,000 courses of treatment by 2028-29. There is one thing that I would gently add, in thinking about some of these issues, and mental health is a good example. We must not forget that the long-lasting effects of mental ill health, for example in the labour market, tend to be felt among those with fewer qualifications, even though, on the health side, that affects a very wide range of people.

Turning to tax, we are certainly not hiding from the fact that the Budget asked everybody to make a contribution. The reason for that is simple: people have had enough of failing public services that are not doing the basics, and they know that borrowing levels must be brought down. The hon. Member will know that the Budget reduces borrowing in every single year of the forecast, because spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals is already quite enough. The Budget included the freeze on the repayment threshold for plan 2 student loans from April ’27—where the threshold remains above that for other student loans, such as the plan 5 loans.

The hon. Member mentioned some details of the plan 2 rules, which, again—I gently say—were introduced by the Conservatives, who looked to rebalance the system away from having as much taxpayer funding of students in the university system as there had been, with the cost being passed on to individuals. The measures are part of a wider package of reforms, including in relation to higher-value properties, electric vehicles and changes to income tax rates on income from assets. Those are part of the Budget so that we make sure that the wider contributions we are asking for from everybody can be kept to an absolute minimum.

More broadly, there has been a cross-party consensus that a fairer system of university funding will require a lower net contribution to universities from the taxpayer, particularly from taxpayers who did not go to university—I think that the hon. Member still agrees with that. In 2025, 34% of loan debt for full-time plan 2 graduates was forecast not to be repaid, so what we are talking about is still substantive. I agree with him more broadly on the need for other higher-quality qualifications in greater numbers; he will have heard the Prime Minister referring to that in his conference speech earlier this autumn.

We must also not lose sight of something that is still very true, despite the call for more and a wider range of qualifications: graduates still genuinely benefit from higher earnings and higher employment rates. We have talked about NEET numbers, and a degree still provides a very high level of protection against that. That does not mean that we should not continue to focus on ensuring that we get the best value for money for everything that young people go on to do.

It is important that we have a sustainable student finance system, and also one that is fair to students and to the taxpayer. Students will pay nothing back unless they earn above the threshold, as they do now, and no one whose salary remains the same will see their monthly repayments change as the years of the freeze continue. Of course, we will keep the system under review.

I again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. It is vital that we secure the best possible future for graduates and, I think we all agree, for all young people and the younger generations. We will do that by tackling inflation and making sure that we bring down debt, as well as by ensuring that this is a country where wages and living standards are rising, where people can get things built again and where firms are able to grow. The Budget goes about delivering exactly that.

Question put and agreed to.