Pension Schemes Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes further amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill.

It is obviously disappointing to see that not every Member in this Chamber wishes to stay for a detailed discussion of the Pension Schemes Bill, but it is not the biggest disappointment ever. It is good to see our regular engagers on this Bill in their place. I thank in particular those Members for helpful discussions on the Bill in recent days.

I do not intend to detain the House for long. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is the reaction we are always looking for. Members will be aware that there is one outstanding issue between this House and the other place when it comes to the Bill, and it relates to the reserve power on asset allocation. Today the Government return to their previous amendments on this issue. They spell out the intended purpose of the reserve power to underpin the industry’s own commitments in the Mansion House accord and to rule out other uses, such as a focus on any specific asset or asset class.

We are also bringing forward a final set of changes that aim to do justice to the points made in this House and the other place, while retaining the original policy intent. They have three elements. First, there is a new requirement on regulators—in this case, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority—to make an assessment of barriers to the delivery of private asset investment, including the extent to which those barriers reflect the collective action problem, which we have discussed extensively in our exchanges on the Bill. That assessment would be required to be incorporated into the ex-ante report that the Secretary of State must produce before any use of the reserve power that the Bill provides for.

Importantly, our amendments also place on the Government a duty to have regard to this regulatory assessment before any use of the power. That will ensure that a Secretary of State behaving reasonably—as they are required to do—must place weight on the assessment of the regulators on this matter. It was always the Government’s intention to evaluate progress against the Mansion House accord commitments in terms of the broad direction of travel over a substantial period of time, rather than looking at short-term movements in private asset exposure. To reinforce that, we propose to add to the Bill that the power cannot be exercised any earlier than 2028.

Our second set of changes builds on the savers’ interest test to reinforce the central role of trustees and providers. Our amendments in lieu would change the bar required to engage the savers’ interest test. Rather than having to demonstrate that meeting the asset allocation requirements would be likely to cause material financial detriment, a scheme would instead have to show that meeting the requirements is

“likely not to be in the best interests of members”.

That reflects language regularly used when considering trustees’ duties. In addition, we have more tightly specified the regulators’ role, confining it to ensuring that the trustee or provider’s own assessment of what is in the best interests of members is “reasonable”, rather than replacing that assessment with their own.

Thirdly, our amendments address worries about the differential treatment of particular investment vehicles by allowing for consideration of direct or indirect holdings in the six asset classes named in the Mansion House accord.

I remind the House that the Bill has its roots in much work that was under way for some time in Government, but also in the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to ensure that workplace pension schemes take advantage of scale and invest in a wider range of productive assets. That is why one of the first things that the Government did on taking office was to launch a comprehensive review of pensions investment. That review found clear evidence that the defined-contribution pensions market is operating with an excessively narrow focus on costs, to the detriment of saver outcomes. That is where the reserve power comes from. It exists because the review found—and the industry itself has told us this, publicly and privately—that competitive pressure focused on cost minimisation is the single biggest barrier to diversifying in savers’ long-term interests.

However, things can of course change over time, and a range of other factors may come into play. We have discussed them with, in particular, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The changes that we propose today address directly that worry and others. They require regulators to assess whether these competitive pressures remain a material barrier to more diverse private asset investment before any use of the power, and they put trustees’ or providers’ own assessments of savers’ best interests centre stage.

On that basis, I commend the Government’s position to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point; I am sure that the Minister will reflect on it when winding up. The Liberal Democrats continue to oppose mandation, and we plan to vote against the motion tonight.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words.

I will be brief. The Government have continued to insist on the inclusion of the reserve power in the Bill in all rounds of discussions in this place because we have not heard a convincing alternative approach to solving the collective action problem that we have discussed. However, we have heard convincing arguments about how this part of the Bill can be strengthened, and we have acted on each of them. That is why the amended power is necessary but also constrained. It is capped, time limited, single-use, sunsetted and subject to a savers’ interest test that has been materially strengthened, as the shadow Secretary of State laid out.

The elected House has now been clear on many occasions, and has had large majorities. Given that, it is clear that this is the time to resolve the issue and get the Bill passed; that is what the industry and the groups supporting workers and pensioners have repeatedly called for. The Government have not only listened to the arguments from the Opposition and those in the other place, but acted on them. The elected House has also made its position overwhelmingly plain. Given both those points, both of which are important, it is clearly time for the unelected House to bring to an end attempts to frustrate the clearly expressed will of this Chamber. With that entirely reasonable expectation, I commend the Government’s amendments and the Bill to the House.

Question put.

Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

The Government made their decision on this case on 29 January 2026, after giving the PHSO’s report careful consideration. The detailed reasons for our decision were set out in our response, which has been placed in the Library of the House.

[James MacCleary]

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman has recommended compensation for millions of WASPI women. In 99% of cases, PHSO recommendations are complied with, so does the Minister accept that singling out this group by not complying amounts to discrimination on the basis of sex and age? If not, what possible justification can the Minister offer?

[Torsten Bell]

As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.

[Jim Shannon]

I ask this question on behalf of the 6,000 WASPI women in Strangford. Given that the Department’s own 2007 evaluation raised serious doubts about the effectiveness of letters to pensioners, how can the Minister justify the decision that no direct financial loss occurred when thousands of women were deprived of the 28-month notice period required to adjust their life savings and retirement plans? In the light of the Scottish Parliament’s decision to again press this issue in February, will he please do the right thing, put actions before apologies, and deliver help and support? I say that respectfully, but I do want a good answer.

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. What is sitting behind the ombudsman’s judgment saying that is that the issue facing the ombudsman was not either the original decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age or the decision to accelerate the increase by the coalition Government in 2011. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at the question of how that increase in the state pension age was communicated, and I think it is really important to clarify that distinction with our constituents. It is the latter—the communication of the state pension age—that we have discussed in this House on numerous occasions.

The hon. Member specifically raises the 2007 evidence, which showed that a minority of people read and remembered such letters. However, it showed something else quite important, which was that those with good knowledge of their state pension entitlement were most likely to read the letters. It was therefore not a good metric for assuming that the majority of those who were sent letters would have learned something from that and changed what they knew.

[Seamus Logan]

These women were not properly informed about changes to their state pension. So said the PHSO on 21 March 2024, just in time for the election that year, when so many Labour Members of course promised to address the issue, if elected—another shameful, broken promise. First, can I ask the Minister to explain why the last ministerial meeting with the WASPI women took place in September 2024? Secondly, can he tell the House what work has been undertaken in his Department on a properly structured compensation scheme that could be implemented when the Government decide it is time for another U-turn?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member raises a question about what Labour Members were promising in the 2024 election. As I am sure he is aware, our manifesto was clear that it did not make a commitment to bring forward compensation. What is the case is that Labour Members opposed the acceleration of the state pension age back in 2011, which in some cases gave women only five years’ notice. However, we of course lost that vote in Parliament and subsequent elections, and the courts unfortunately upheld that decision. As I have said, what we are debating in this case is the communications, not the decision itself. On those grounds, we have set out in detail the reasons for the decisions we have made and laid that document in the House of Commons Library.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a marathon runner—five hours and 20 minutes—Chris Vince.

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

I will not lie, Mr Speaker: bobbing is slightly more difficult than normal this morning.

Can the Minister detail what the ombudsman found about the financial loss women suffered as a result of the delay in sending out letters? On a more general point, can he say what this Government are doing to support women in retirement in my constituency of Harlow?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend makes a large effort not only when it comes to pounding the streets, but in raising his constituents’ cases and, in this case, those of female pensioners. He is absolutely right to say that there is a distinction between the communication of state pension age increases and the increase in the state pension age, and it is the latter that has had such an effect on millions of women, particularly the speed of the increase in 2011. I think there are lessons for this House and for all Governments about what would happen in future, and we certainly would not be bringing forward such short-notice changes.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that what matters more generally is what we are doing to support pensioners, and making sure they have dignity and support in retirement. On that front, just this month we are increasing the state pension, and we will be continuing to do that over the course of this Parliament via the triple lock, which is set to increase it by up to £2,100. We are also making sure that £26 billion of investment is going into our NHS, bringing down waiting lists month on month, because this Government came into office with one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists, and we cannot allow that to continue.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

When his party was in opposition, the Prime Minister promised compensation for WASPI women, but when faced with the economic reality of the costs, he and the Secretary of State chose common sense over ideology. In the spirit of that pragmatism, may I ask the Pensions Minister also to take a sensible, thoughtful approach to mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill, and to remove clause 40 altogether?

[Torsten Bell]

We have debated this issue quite extensively in recent weeks, and the House will have another chance to do so later today. As I have set out during our debates, representatives of the industry itself have said that it is in the interests of savers to invest in a wider range of assets. That reflects lessons from across the industry—from open defined-benefit schemes, but also from those in the rest of the world, where the lack of exposure of the UK’s defined-contribution schemes to that wider range of assets makes it stand out. We have introduced a reserve measure to backstop the changes that the industry says are needed to solve a collective action problem. I will not try the patience of the House by repeating them now, but the aim is to ensure that savers do not lose out. We have also put in place significant protections relating to an affirmative vote, as well as the savers’ interest tests that enable pension schemes to spell out what is in the interests of their members.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

2. What steps he is taking to improve his Department’s response times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

Can the Minister provide an update on the action plan to ensure that lessons are learned from the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s?

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

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. There absolutely are lessons for us to learn from this experience, both related to that particular case, and on the general point about giving adequate notice of any changes to the state pension age; that is the most important lesson, and we are absolutely committed to learning that. On the action plan, that will be focused on state pension age comms, and on complaint handling. We will work closely with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman on that right away, and I hope to be able to publish that action plan in the coming months. More broadly, we are not waiting for that, but are getting on with action. I am sure that hon. Members will have seen over the last few months the “check your state pension age” campaign, encouraging people to be aware of their state pension age.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Twelve weeks ago, I raised four cases with the DWP, and I am still waiting for a response, despite chasing. These delays are upsetting for my Wokingham constituents. What is the Minister doing to address this backlog, and when can my constituents expect a response?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question, and he is absolutely right. We have seen progress in the last 15 years; 23 million employees now save into a pension, and that is restarting the business of workplace pension savings in the UK, but the job is not done. It is not done because of the issue that he raises about the adequacy of the amount saved by those who are saving, and because 45% of working-age adults are saving nothing at all. That is why there has been cross-party consensus that we should bring back the Pensions Commission to look at the question of adequacy, and I am pleased to say that its interim report will be published in the coming months.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

When a child is diagnosed with an illness such as cancer, their caring needs start immediately. Such a diagnosis upends any household; there are appointments, and often families are unable to work. Will the Minister review again the question of whether child disability living allowance should be paid immediately on diagnosis, as opposed to the family having to wait three months, and will he meet the Watson family from my constituency, who have, sadly, lived with this barrier to support?

Pension Schemes Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A and 88C to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendment 88B to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 37B and 37C but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 35B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments 77 and 85 but proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank Members and peers for the continued scrutiny of the Bill before us. Our task today is to focus on the limited outstanding areas of disagreement, although that should not detract from the consensus behind this Bill—behind the case for a better pension landscape that sees bigger, better pension schemes focused on delivering stronger returns for savers. On the issues that remain before us, I hope that Members and peers will see that we have listened to the points they have raised and brought forward amendments that directly address what we have heard, while of course holding to the core principles of delivering against the Labour manifesto, which was clear on our policy intent around scale and productive investment.

First, I turn to the reserve power on asset allocation. Last week I set out the Government’s case for such a power at some length, and I will spare the House a full repetition today—[Interruption.] I know, I know, but there is so much more to discuss. We will not have time to discuss the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) if I offer a full statement.

In brief, since hon. Members have asked, there is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined-contribution pensions market. Providers want to diversify their asset allocations in their members’ long-term interests and in the interests of better pensions for savers, but they are clear publicly—and even more emphatically in private—that market dynamics, which focus on minimising cost rather than maximising long-term value for savers, are the single biggest barrier to doing so. That is not a theoretical risk; it is exactly why so little progress was made against the Mansion House compact under the last Government. The reserve power exists for the sole purpose of solving this problem.

Last week, we brought forward changes to make that absolutely explicit by writing the industry-set Mansion House accord targets into primary legislation through the 10% and 5% caps, and requiring any regulations to operate neutrally across asset classes. These were designed to make it clear in the Bill that the power can be used only in line with what the industry itself has committed to. The cap prohibits any move beyond the accord targets and the neutrality requirement rules out the possibility that any Government could direct investments into a particular asset or asset class.

As is plain, however, we have not yet reached agreement across the two Houses. Rather than simply restating our position today, the Government are bringing forward a further package of changes.

First, we are bringing forward the current sunset date for the reserve power from 2035 to 2032. The Mansion House accord commits the industry to reaching its targets by 2030, and bringing forward the sunset clause aligns the power more closely with that timeline. If the power has not been exercised by the end of 2032, it falls away entirely. Secondly, because the power has only one purpose, we are providing that it may be exercised only once.

Thirdly—I want the House to understand the significance of this—we are providing for not just the power but any effects of it to fully fall away at the end of 2035. That goes beyond the sunset clause I have just described and means that even if the power has been used, the entire framework and any requirements on schemes will fall away at the end of 2035. This timeline reflects the fact that once the cultural shift has occurred and the impacts of the Mansion House accord are embedded, the collective action problem falls away. At that point, other elements of the Bill—greater scale and the impacts of the value for money framework—will help to sustain the change.

I want to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) in our previous debate. She observed correctly that the Bill referred to assets held in default funds as a whole, whereas the Mansion House accord applies only to main default funds. As the policy is intended to reflect the accord, the legislation would ideally use the same language, so we have tabled amendments to ensure that that is the case throughout the relevant provisions and have retabled the percentage cap with the same wording. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pressing that point last week.

Let me be clear that the House today is being asked to consider a reserve power that is highly constrained and narrowly focused on solving a very specific problem. It is capped at the accord targets and provides for absolute neutrality among private asset classes. The Government cannot direct investments. The power explicitly applies only to main default funds, more explicitly matching the language used in the accord. The power’s timeline also matches tightly that of the accord. It can be used only once and lapses entirely in 2035 if not used; even if used, which is unlikely, the entire regime is repealed at the end of 2035. On top of all that, it remains subject to the savers’ interest test, the affirmative procedure and the statutory reporting requirements, both before and after any regulations are made.

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on stewarding the Bill with such expertise, and I very much hope that the cultural change that he is hoping for sticks and that we do not just get an unwinding of the repatriation of UK investment. A necessary corollary of what he is proposing is a fiduciary duty and a fiduciary code that give pension fund trustees real clarity in investing in a wide range of investments that are good for the long-term health of the savings they are stewarding. It was unfortunate that the other place rejected the Government’s amendment that would have allowed a new statutory code to be implemented. Will the Minister confirm that the technical working group that he has set up to revise that code will proceed, and will he commit to bringing forward further amendments to future legislation to give effect to the ambition that he set out in response to my new clause 17?

[Torsten Bell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Torsten Bell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats broadly support the proposals before us in the Bill as a whole. I know from conversations with residents in Torbay that there are some challenges within the pensions market, and the Bill as a whole addresses an awful lot of them. However, I suggest that the Minister has been studying his Greek history, assumed the position of Odysseus and developed a Trojan horse, which he has sneaked into the Bill. The Trojan horse is, of course, mandation.

While the Minister may have cut off a couple of the Trojan horse’s legs, it remains a Trojan horse before us. Clearly, as Liberal Democrats, we welcome that as a step in the right direction, but the Government should be shaping the market appropriately through policy so that there is a pipeline of opportunities for investments—that goes across to the Mansion House accord—so that the market has those opportunities and can invest in them appropriately.

There is an element that we need to touch on. Since 2008, there has been risk aversion in the market, which stifles profits; we need to be alive to that. Risk is a good thing when investing, but investments should be sensible and with appropriate spreads. The Bill does elements of that, but I fear that some of the monitoring could stifle risk and therefore stifle returns.

The Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure opportunities. The Government should be ensuring that there are baskets of opportunities to invest in things that matter to our communities, whether regenerating our town centres or social rented housing. We know that people such as Legal & General lead the market in those investments; we need to think about how we can enhance those opportunities. We must also ensure that we are investing in net zero, which is close to the heart of several parties. Again, the Government should be shaping the market in that way rather than dictating. While the Minister alludes to this as a one-shot opportunity, other colleagues are fearful that mandation is the thin end of the wedge.

Finally, I would like to reflect on the changes that the Minister has proposed. We welcome the changes allowing greater innovation and greater development of the market, which are significant steps in the right direction. However, as Liberal Democrats we are not prepared to see the dead hand of Government directing here. We continue to oppose mandation in whatever form it may take.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the Members from across the House who have contributed to the debate today. Let me respond directly to a few of their comments. I welcome much of the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks. I am glad that she welcomed many of the Government’s amendments, including those on public sector pensions and around innovation and competition—I appreciate that. I hope, when those issues are debated in the Lords in the near future, that there will be similar consensus across that House.

The shadow Secretary of State raised the question of scale. Again, I am glad that she has welcomed the review that will happen within 12 months of the Bill’s commencement. On scale, I am a bit more confident than she is on the role of small schemes to grow, because we can see significant growth right across the market, including among small schemes, partly because the market itself is growing so fast in the current climate. However, I offer no comment on her pessimism about Tottenham Hotspur; that is for others to speak on.

To be fair, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, the main area of disagreement that remains is around the reserve power. She raised the question of the accord and whether it applied to the whole industry. She is correct; it does not apply to the whole industry, but it does cover 90% of defined contribution assets held within the industry. We are therefore talking about not just a majority but the overwhelming majority of the industry.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Labour manifesto, which set out two focuses on pensions. One was around the question of scale, on which we have just touched and which I think is a matter of cross-party consensus; the second, which, again, I think is a matter of cross-party consensus, is on the importance of delivering change in terms of investment in productive assets in private assets. That is exactly the focus of both the Mansion House accord and the reserve power.

The hon. Lady said the power was about directing specific outcomes. As I have been setting out, it absolutely does not do that. It will not allow any direction of savers into particular assets or particular asset classes, and it offers no ability for Government to take control of pension savers’ pensions. Indeed, I think it is actually dangerous to have members of the public hearing remarks like that when that is categorically not the case.

The shadow Secretary of State is right to say, though, and this maybe gets to the crux of where we are, that the money belongs to savers. That is what this is about and that is what we all agree about; we want to see higher returns to savers. The industry is telling us that diversifying their range of assets is in their savers’ interest and it is admitting that it has not done so to date. [Interruption.] No, that is what the industry is saying. Savers are not saying that, because savers do not have that choice and they are intermediated by providers, some of which have trustees and some of which do not. That is the underlying point: they need to see that change happen, that it has not happened and that we have seen it not happen. Implicitly, what that is saying is that members are losing out from the status quo, and what I am not hearing from the Conservatives is a serious engagement with that reality that has let down savers. [Interruption.] I will come to the point about the previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) shortly.

I now come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), not least because he admirably set out the big challenge facing Britain, which is to turn this country back into a country that invests in its own future once again. That means higher investment. It is not acceptable that Britain saw both the second-lowest public investment in the G7 and by far the lowest business investment in the G7 under the last Government—and not for some years but for almost every single year. That is the challenge that I think we all want to see addressed. Part of the issue being raised about whether this is about UK assets or private finance is overdone, because what we see around the world is a higher home bias among private asset investments than among public asset investments, for all the obvious reasons about the comparative advantage of different investors in those situations.

My right hon. Friend also rightly says—I think this is, again, part of a cross-party consensus—that moving to that high-investment world is overwhelmingly not about pensions, but much wider changes and about making sure that actual investment happens so firms can actually get things built. That is why this Government have come in and provided the go-ahead for solar farms, wind farms, national grid investments and nuclear power stations that have been held up for too long. That is what a higher-investment country looks like and that is what we need to be getting on with, and I have a nugget of good news to bring my right hon. Friend on that. If hon. Members go and look at the investment levels in the national accounts—I know everybody in this room spends their time doing that—they will see that, since the election, Britain has seen the fastest investment growth of any country in the G7. That is what we are starting to deliver against what we set out as our core objective, which is turning Britain back into a higher-investment country.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned his previous amendment, which asked for the reasons why schemes say the change would be in savers’ interest but have not done it. The problem is that we have had a lot of reviews. The Association of British Insurers has written some and published them, explaining why the previous Government’s attempt with the Mansion House compact did not work. We have the answer; I am afraid the hon. Gentleman just does not want to engage with what he is being told.

[Mark Garnier]

Both sides of this House are going with the grain of what is intended on this. There is a fundamental problem—we all agree on that—but let us get the issues out of the way that are blocking it. We cannot force people into a minefield if the mines are still there; we have to clear the mines and allow them do it. This is the most fundamental point. The Government should not be telling pension fund managers how and where to invest their money. If there is a problem that they are going to encounter, we should get those problems out of the way and managers will go into those assets.

[Torsten Bell]

I am afraid the hon. Member has just revealed his lack of focus on what is going on. Pension schemes from around the world are investing in British private assets; it is UK pension schemes that are not. The hon. Member implied that there were minefields when investing in Britain. It is that kind of talking down Britain that is the problem. We are making sure that there is a robust pipeline of investments, which is absolutely right.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I think all of us on the Opposition Benches would be keen to understand why, if the Minister is so confident that pension funds will invest, he does not make it a choice rather than a mandate.

[Torsten Bell]

I fear the hon. Lady has not sat through enough of these sessions. Earlier, those on her own Front Bench engaged exactly with some of the arguments that I have made, explaining exactly the points she has raised. I will just say that she should go and have a look at what Australian pension schemes are doing investing in UK infrastructure and go and look at what is happening when US investors are investing in UK venture capital. Why is that happening? It is not because of differential tax breaks—there are very strong tax incentives. No, it is because of a history of not having the collective action problem that we have set out, and the fact that those on the Conservative Front Bench do not wish to engage with that is holding us back.

[Helen Whately]

On the ABI report that he referred to—he has referred to it before—yes, the ABI has agreed with the diagnosis of the problem, as I set out, as a collective action problem. However, it does not agree with mandation as the remedy. The Minister needs to be clear about that.

[Torsten Bell]

The truth is that there is a range of opinion among ABI members about that. However, there is agreement across the industry about the need to deliver change.

I turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) who, again, kindly did not refer to the Lib Dem manifesto, which called not just for reserve power, but for the direction of pension scheme assets into certain asset classes. I gently say that it is a shame to not see him engage with the substance, rather than taking the easy option of offering high-level, throwaway comments about a thing that he had in his own manifesto. On the plus side, however, he is right to say that the investment pipeline is important. The issue there is that that is different in different sectors. Within the infrastructure sector, it is obviously about having a country that is delivering actual infrastructure. Within venture capital, it is about making sure that there is easier intermediation for pension schemes into a market of which they have less experience. We are doing exactly that and that is what the Sterling 20 process is doing. I see very good engagement between pension schemes right across the board on that and every chief executive I speak to is engaging with exactly those questions that the hon. Member for Torbay raises.

The Bill has received detailed scrutiny over the past year, and it is a better Bill for it. We have brought forward amendments that, subject to delivering the core pension reform programme of the elected Government, respond to the detailed points raised by peers in the other place. With those improvements, this is a Bill that industry worker representatives and charities wish to see passed into law. The TUC said:

“It’s vital the Bill is passed so workers can start to benefit.”

Age UK has said the measures in the Bill will help both the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. It is important that these can be implemented as soon as possible. Aviva welcomed today’s amendments and said:

“We hope this is enough to build the consensus needed for the Bill to be passed”.

The ABI has said that it and its members are

“clear that we want the Bill to pass”.

They are right, and I commend the Government’s position to the House.

Question put.

Alternative Measures to GDP

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Alec. I start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this debate and on her speech. I am glad to be here for three reasons. More than most Ministers, I enjoy a chance to discuss statistics, so that is high on the list. The second reason is that I agree with lots of what the hon. Member said about the broad purpose of government and the need to reflect all that in how we govern. The third reason is that everybody likes a quote from Bobby Kennedy, and she has supplied one.

I will start with some of the areas of less agreement and then come to our agreement, so that we can end on a high. A good summary of my view is that there is a very large amount more to life than GDP, but that the lack of GDP growth in recent years has been a very big problem for ordinary working people. That was the big absence in the hon. Member’s speech: she did not wrestle with the fact that the lack of GDP growth over the past 15 years has been a huge problem for the British people that has had real effects on all our constituents, particularly those on the lowest incomes. Much of her speech could have been given in 2010; it did not engage with the real world as we have lived it for 15 years, and the catastrophic consequences of a lack of productivity growth feeding through to a lack of wage growth, feeding through into food bank use and the rest. Those are really important things that her speech did not do justice to.

All of that does not mean that I do not agree with lots of the points she raised, but I see those as being entirely consistent with the Government’s view that economic growth does matter, but not as an end in itself. It matters because it remains one of the most reliable ways to raise living standards and because, for example, wages in Swansea, where I am a representative, did not grow between 2009 and 2023. That is what a failure of Government looks like, and it is a failure of GDP growth, not because of too much focus on GDP growth.

GDP is also important because it is very highly correlated with—I am not saying it is a cause of them—other things that we do care about: health and wellbeing. The correlation between longevity and GDP over time and across countries is very strong indeed. We all, I think, care about longevity because we are hoping to go on for as long as is humanly possible—not in speeches but in life generally.

It is good news that the UK has seen some signs of progress in GDP. It had the highest GDP growth among European countries in the G7 last year. The hon. Member will have seen recent GDP statistics for the start of this year, which show more significant growth than people expected. But—this is where I am in complete agreement with her—there is much more not just to life but to government and statistics than GDP. We care about secure power, clean water, lower poverty and lower inequality, not just higher GDP. All those things are incredibly important and we should care about all of them; Government’s job is to focus on them.

Let us turn to GDP and some arguments that that the hon. Member made about it. I will explain why I do not quite agree, even though I agree with many of the big-picture arguments that she made. Her argument was that there has been too much focus on GDP recently and that has led to bad outcomes. Has there been too much focus on GDP? If so, it has not had any effect because there have been the lowest levels of GDP growth that we have seen in a very long time. GDP per capita fell in the last Parliament—so there was apparently a huge focus on it but it fell. Growth in GDP per capita over the 10 years prior to that Parliament was incredibly sluggish. Was that because there was too much focus on it? No. That is why people oppose the building of houses: they do not care about younger generations or care enough about GDP; they just care about themselves, in some cases, and that is not acceptable any more.

Why, if we cared just about GDP, would successive Governments, disgracefully including the Liberal Democrats after 2010, have slashed public investment levels? Such public investment boosts GDP in the long run. That would be the target. It is a good thing for our society. It would make our country cleaner and help with clean water and the energy crisis, yet public investment levels were slashed. People were not motivated by GDP; they were motivated by easy politics. That is what happened in that Government.

The hon. Member gave the specific example that building prisons would boost GDP. Is that what actually happened? The last Governments, from 2010 onwards, did not build any prisons. They were not motivated by GDP; they were motivated by easy answers. That is why we have had to come into Government and deal with the prisons crisis that was left to us. What actually happened was the opposite of the argument that the hon. Member made.

It is sometimes argued that GDP and the other things that we care about are in tension. I totally agree. But remember: there is one area where they heavily overlap. GDP, in many ways, measures the effectiveness with which we turn resources into output. That is what we who are environmentalists should care about. We want things to become more productive. Fewer resources going in to produce the same output gets us higher GDP and a better environment. That is a really important point to hold on to. We have had a 17% fall in energy usage in the recent past. Some of that is because we have become more efficient at using that energy. That is absolutely the kind of productivity growth that we need; it helps GDP but it really helps the environment.

[Chris Hinchliff]

On the point about statistics and what GDP measures, I ask the Minister to take away the issue of imputed rent. A fairly strange part of GDP, it measures hypothetical rent on the value of existing houses, inflates the value of our GDP as a country, and could be part of what we are measuring when we say that we are trying to achieve GDP growth, though it is actually entirely theoretical.

[Torsten Bell]

A debate has come on to imputed rent; we can tell it is nearly 4.30 pm on a Tuesday. The hon. Member is tempting me—and I will engage with the question. What is the big picture that matters regarding the state of Britain when it comes to housing? I will come to why imputed rent is relevant to that and tells us something important.

Housing in Britain is too expensive—incredibly expensive —but most of the population of Britain do not face market housing costs because they are homeowners who bought a long time ago. The negative effect of those high housing costs is very severe for a subset of the population. If I am honest, I think that is why Liberal Democrats oppose house building left, right and centre: the consequences for younger generations of not having built, over the last 20 years, homes that they can live in, that keep their housing costs down and that let them and their children lead a decent life have been ignored because we did not care enough about—forget GDP—actual people and their families. That is what happened. Imputed rent tells us the effect of that, which is that those people who do not face market housing costs but do live in a property that they own, are receiving a stream of benefits from owning that property. By living in it, they are consuming that; that is all that is telling us. The important lesson from GDP and housing is, “Get on with building some houses because younger generations are getting stuffed over,” not, “We paid too much attention to GDP.” That would be the opposite of what it teaches us.

What is GDP a measure of? It is imperfect for lots of the reasons that have been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but it does represent income flowing into people’s pockets, business revenues, and a tax base that funds our public services. Those things do matter. My hon. Friend is right that they are not the only things that matter—I totally agree with that—but they are real things. They are not abstractions, and we do need to care about them. If people do not care about those things, they do not mind that Britain has seen the lowest levels of business investment in the G7 year after year.

Turning to areas of agreement, I absolutely agree with lots of what the hon. Member for South Cotswolds said about the limitations. I also endorse her praise for the approach of the Welsh Labour Government in this area; lots of my friends have spent years developing that work. On its own, GDP does not capture everything that underpins either our economic strategy or what matters in people’s lives; that is absolutely correct. It does not, for example, tell us how growth is distributed or about wealth inequalities, physical and mental health, and environmental sustainability. As the hon. Member set out, those limits have been long recognised, but we need to keep pushing against them. In 2016, the Bean review set out some of the issues that she has raised about the need to consider broader measures of wealth distribution and natural capital. In response, the ONS has put more resources into some of those things. Some progress has been made over the last 10 years—obviously, we were not in government so I am not claiming credit for that.

The Dasgupta review further encouraged us to treat natural capital as an economic asset, as we absolutely should. Those principles have been accepted by the Government and they are being embedded in decision making. Hon. Members will have seen the supplementary guidance to the Green Book that puts in place the appraisal of environmental impacts alongside economic costs.

The truth is that it is easy to say that everyone just myopically focuses on GDP. I have set out that that is not the case because if they did, hopefully we would have seen a better job over the last 15 years. The truth is that across Government we consider a much wider range of economic indicators. Wellbeing is an important one; I have carried out research on wellbeing data and it does have something to bring to the party. But the strongest conclusion from wellbeing data is that people need a decent income and they need to be healthy. The Government do focus on those things because they should. Because we care about wellbeing, we are lifting the two-child limit. Because we care about health, we are investing in the health service to bring down waiting times. Our tax rises, which are opposed by all the Opposition parties, are delivering those things. We care about wellbeing because health is really important.

Even within economic indicators, what is the truth? We look at indicators not just on GDP, but on income, pay, employment, jobs, regional performance, and the environment. I encourage the Government to continue to do that. Ongoing improvements to the national accounts will also help better capture natural capital and the quality of public services, not to mention AI and the things that tend to get reported in the newspapers. Ministers look at all those things when they make policy. When I am looking at pensions policy, I am definitely into the weeds of health data and healthy life expectancy. I promise hon. Members that GDP is not dominating all those decisions.

To conclude, GDP remains central to how we understand the economy. It tells us something important, but partial. Both of those things are important to understand. It is not remotely a measure of everything that matters. It does not aim to do justice to non-market interactions, which is a technocratic phrase for the fact that it does not do justice to some of the most important things in our lives—not least, caring for each other. That is why this Government are so committed to both reversing the dreadful economic performance seen under the previous Government—performances that left wages flatlining—while also assessing success against a far wider range of measures. The goal is a Britain that is not just growing but thriving.

Question put and agreed to.

Pension Schemes Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (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 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, and Government motions to disagree.

Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.

[Torsten Bell]

Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.

This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.

A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.

First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.

Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.

Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.

Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I declare an interest as a pensioner. The pensioners who come to me are a wee tad unsure about what is on offer for them. They are perhaps confused, because they get advice from people here to move in one direction, and then somebody else will give them advice to move in another direction. What can the Minister and the Government do to provide the correct support and advice to people who are hesitant or unsure about what to do with their pension pots at a time when it is really important? We have seen many scams, and we hear about much happening in relation to this issue. I want to ensure that pensioners in particular have the opportunity to get the advice that they need very much.

[Torsten Bell]

As always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working, it is important to keep the simple advice at the front of their mind that people should be saving towards their pension. In almost all circumstances, saving is the right thing to do, and we have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. We should ensure that that message is heard loud and clear, and I am sure that he makes that clear to his constituents.

On the harder question of how those approaching retirement decide to use their pot, it is often right to take advice, and obviously the Money and Pensions Service exists to provide that. Others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. The hon. Gentleman is right; we are leaving too much pressure on individuals to manage those decisions alone. That is why the default pensions parts of the Bill, which I think have cross-party support, are important in simplifying that journey for people. People can do what they want, but they will not end up with a bad outcome just because they are faced with a confusing situation in front of them. The onus will be on trustees and providers of pensions to navigate that for those individuals.

Let me come back to small pots. I will make one specific point, which was raised in the other place, regarding worries about those who are taking career breaks, particularly for maternity leave, and have a dormant pot for a period of time. I want to reassure the House that paid maternity leave obviously sees contributions into pension pots continue, rather than those pots becoming dormant, and there is the most important wider safeguard, which is the ability for anyone to opt out of their pot being consolidated. That safeguard covers exactly this kind of eventuality, even though it would be only a very small number of cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Then why worry?

[Torsten Bell]

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

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

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

[Jim Shannon]

I have just been sent a question from a person back home, which I will ask directly as it has been put to me. Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s revised investment powers would never be used to direct capital away from Northern Ireland infrastructure and small business in favour of national priority projects? That is the question I have been asked, and I need to ask it of the Minister.

[Torsten Bell]

If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.

It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.

I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.

Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.

Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.

Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.

I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister, if he is ready.

[Torsten Bell]

I am always ready to engage in exciting debates about pensions. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is right to say that far more Members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about pensions. I hope not to speak for two hours, but somewhere close to that, and I thank Members on both sides of the House and from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I will avoid trying the House’s patience by reiterating the reasons why the Government do not think it right to accept amendments that are unnecessary or that undermine policy intent, but I will respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked specifically about what the international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has an unusually low allocation to private assets, for example compared with similar schemes in Australia. The second is the point she raised that they have lower home bias—a point also partially raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. We tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than investments in public assets, for all the obvious reasons to do with the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about the home market.

I recognise the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made about the PPF and the FAS. Her powerful campaigning on this issue, including raising it through the Work and Pensions Committee, is one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous Governments and Pensions Ministers have not.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Going back to the asset aspect of the debate, I came across some new analysis from the New Financial that shows that over the last 10 years UK equities allocation by DC pensions has fallen from 25% to just 5%. It argues that this has helped create a self-fulfilling doom loop of lower demand, lower valuations and lower performance. It argues that an increase in allocation to UK equities would have delivered performance that was broadly in line with or better than the performance that most pension providers managed to deliver. That makes the Minister’s argument for him, but I wonder if he wants to comment on it?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the Select Committee Chair for her intervention. The organisation she mentions has been consistently making these cases. In fact, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench about the work of that organisation in these debates, including in a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. It is an important thing to think about. Some of it reflects increasing international cross-border investments, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that we see a lower level of home bias among the UK’s defined contribution schemes.

[Tom Tugendhat]

One of the challenges with defined contribution schemes is that so many of them are parcelled out in much smaller volumes than one would like, and when one compares them with, for example, Canada or Australia, we see superfunds in certain countries and not in the UK. While the Minister is correct that this means slightly lower bias, it also means significantly less growth in the UK market, because there is less capital flowing. This is an argument for both young and old people. I know that the Minister understand this, but it is worth making that link. Pensions are just as much about funding youth as sustaining age.

[Torsten Bell]

I absolutely agree with the last point that the right hon. Member made. I am planning an extensive discursion on his wider point about investment in equities versus gilts shortly, so I ask him to bear with me, but it is an important point to raise. We may not agree on it, but it is important to make sure that we have aired it properly.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) started his speech with a powerful story about his father, which I am sure will have resonated with many hon. Members. The point he made actually makes the case for the diversification that the Mansion House Accord itself aims to drive. That may not have been the intention of the hon. Member’s argument, but that is the point it makes. It also reinforces the importance of default pensions as a way to make sure that we support everybody. We should allow people to make their own choices while ensuring that there is a good option for everybody as they approach retirement.

The hon. Member for Torbay also talked about mandation. I am not going to lie; his words were a combination of disappointing and a bit confusing. He said that what is being proposed in the Bill is anathema to him. In that case, he is will be absolutely horrified to read the Lib Dem manifesto from the last election, which required investment managers to direct investments into particular assets. I leave him and his conscience to wrestle with that tension. The rest of us are not surprised by the Lib Dems’ attempt to sit on a fence, and then fall off it.

More importantly, and usefully, the hon. Member for Torbay raised the case of AEAT pensioners. I absolutely recognise the argument that he made. That particular case and the more broad set of cases of schemes that have entered insolvency and the PPF are exactly why this Government have acted in a way that previous Governments, including the coalition Government, chose not to act.

That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who also touched on surplus extraction and the question of its interaction with pre-1997 indexation insolvent schemes that are currently not choosing to pay indexation. I absolutely agree with his problem diagnosis. I have met many of the pensioners who have been affected; I have gone out of my way to meet them locally and nationally, along with many other MPs. All of us would feel the same in their situation.

I am less pessimistic than the hon. Member and, specifically, I think that he underestimates the role of trustees. He is right to say that there is nothing in the Bill that gives trustees the power to override employers—that is true. What is does do is give trustees a veto over any release of surplus. Trustees who want to put at the top of their priorities progress on discretionary pre-1997 indexation in those schemes but who have not done so will now have the potential to do so under this Bill. I recognise the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I think he underestimates the change that the Bill can bring to some schemes. It is important to remember that there are some schemes that are not paying pre-1997 indexation that are not in surplus, but I absolutely recognise that those are different situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

In my speech I asked the Minister a very specific question: whether or not he would write to the top 50 pension schemes to ask them about the scale of their investment in thermal coal. I wonder if he might consider that.

[Torsten Bell]

I am not going to commit from the Dispatch Box to writing 50 letters, but I will happily have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it, as I always do.

Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I was going to welcome his speech, but unfortunately he spent most of his remarks praising the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, showing both questionable judgment and—[Laughter.] Obviously I am joking; it is some of the finest hair in Parliament, as we all appreciate. When he got passed praising the hon. Member’s hair, he turned to the division between public and private sector pensions. It is an important one to dwell on. There have been big changes in public sector pensions under both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. He rightly made the case that the priority should be making private pensions better. That is what we should be focused on, and that is what we need to see.

That is what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) did not quite touch on. She was focusing on levelling down pensions, whereas we want to be able to level up and make sure that the younger generations, who are the ones who are invested in our defined-contribution system, can be confident that it is delivering a comfortable retirement. I think we all agree on that.

That is why the Bill is increasing the returns that are available within the defined-contribution system. It is also why we have the Pensions Commission, which I think is part of the cross-party consensus that we should look at the adequacy that that leaves us with into the middle of this century and return to the question of how we secure that adequacy, particularly for low and middle earners.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly mentioned the relevance to pensioners of the NHS, even if that is not of huge relevance to this Bill. If we are honest, the biggest betrayal of today’s pensioners, not tomorrow’s pensioners, is the state of our NHS, and that is what the Government are in the business of turning around. We debate in this House the tax rises that the Conservatives would not like to see, but it is those tax rises and the reforms that the Secretary of State is putting in place that are seeing waiting lists now consistently falling across the country.

I promised a discursion on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I particularly liked his opening point that all MPs should care about pensions, not least because I think we all plan to draw our pensions—if we are not already doing so—for as long as we possibly can.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Not yet.

[Torsten Bell]

There are Members of this House who are drawing several pensions, and they are to be encouraged to do so, working past the state pension age and contributing with their valuable expertise.

The right hon. Member then focused on how regulatory changes, partly in the 1990s, have driven changes in investment behaviours. We have discussed that on a number of occasions, and it is important to distinguish between a number of points. The regulatory changes in the 1990s by the then Conservative Government, which, as he said, were motivated by good worries about people trying to rip off their scheme members, introduced more of a safety bias into the investment strategies of those schemes at that point—that will have had an effect over time. When we look at the defined-benefit market—the biggest by asset values at the moment—it is important to recognise that that is not what is driving it today. What is driving it is the maturity of defined-benefit schemes and the fact that the vast majority of them are closed, so they are investing in a different way, and they would not want to be as exposed to equities as I am sure he is.

The question is therefore about the defined-contribution market, which is the future of not the entirety of our pension system but the majority of it. There the story is not the same: none of the regulations that flow from the 1990s Acts relate to the defined-contribution system today. That is why it is important to have had the debates we were able to have—until we heard recently some of the slightly over-the-top views of Conservative Front-Bench Members—about what would be the right thing in savers’ interests. The right hon. Member is absolutely right that this debate is about what is the right investment strategy for savers’ interests for the longer term. I therefore completely endorse what he said on that.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the Minister for his words; it seems that we rather agree. I agree with him that the problem with the defined-benefits system is that it is addressing—let us be frank—an ageing demographic. There is, however, a challenge: because of those changes and the influence that has had on defined benefits, there has also been some influence—I would not overstate it—in the culture that has affected defined contributions, which are therefore overly bond asset-heavy, if you see what I mean, in comparison to Australian and Canadian markets. That is not to the degree that I was talking about earlier of 60%—clearly, that is different—but it does mean that we have got a pensions economy more geared to an ageing demographic and then over-geared in other areas to follow the lead of the defined benefits. That means we see that that removing or strangling, if you like, of live money—turning live money into dead money—which is a net burden on the whole economy. I appreciate that it is not quite as black-and-white as I have painted it, but it is a challenge that is affecting the entire economy.

[Torsten Bell]

I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s focus on the generational challenges, but I have a slightly different view on what the biggest challenge is. The biggest issue for younger generations is if they do not have faith in a pensions system because they do not believe it will deliver adequate retirement incomes. That is the most important thing. That is why this Bill will aid the higher returns on those savings through a whole range of measures, and it is also why the Pensions Commission is so important to show those younger generations that we are looking ahead to their futures. I think that will help with some of the issues he raised.

I agree a bit less with the right hon. Member on the defined-contribution side. What stands out in the defined-contribution market is less the difference between bonds and equities—we see a much larger share of asset allocation to equities in defined-contribution systems—and more the exposure to private assets versus public assets. But there is a question about whether, if we do not have what we are trying to put in place with default pensions, we see some people in defined-contribution pensions lifestyling down, which means moving cash from equities into bonds.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to the Minister, because this is actually becoming a debate in the Chamber, which is so rare. The Minister is absolutely right, but the reason why I link the two is that the nature of defined-benefit removing assets from UK equity markets has led to much slower growth in the UK stock exchange. That means that the levels of return for UK equities are lower, so defined-contribution trustees do not invest so heavily in shares. We then have a knock-on effect: when pensions need to have UK asset allocations—they want to have their savings in pounds, for understandable reasons—they cannot get the return off the FTSE 100 or 250, so they end up being tied into Government bonds. We therefore get that draw in a slightly different way.

[Torsten Bell]

Yes, basically I recognise the risks that the right hon. Member raises.

I think that I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). [Interruption.] It is not that I was confused; I was worried, because she used to be a calm and reasonable person, but something weird has happened. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative party, and a leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. This infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone who will listen—that is not many—that pensions are being raided and that there is a war on savers. Wow—those are strong words.

There are just two problems with those words. First, they are nonsense on stilts, designed to scaremonger good savers. I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, which is disappointing. The second problem is the lack of consistency and self-respect. If you really thought the Bill was as dangerous as we have been told today, you would have fought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, you are making a very passionate speech, but you said “you” and I do not think I was involved in fighting with you in any trenches at any point.

[Torsten Bell]

As a point of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I never fight with you—it would end badly for everyone and I would lose every time.

The Conservatives would have opposed the Bill every step of the way. They would have not just been on the barricades but built them, which is the exact opposite of what the shadow Secretary of State did. What did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell the House on Second Reading? He said that

“the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722.]

Well, that was nice.

[Mark Garnier]

rose—

[Torsten Bell]

No, we have got some more. That was before Conservative Front-Bench Members—then in a less bonkers phase of life—nodded through the Bill, which they now claim is some kind of end-of-days Armageddon. Let us be reasonable.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

No, I am going to finish.

Let us be reasonable. Maybe Conservative Front Benchers just needed some time to think about it. What happened at Third Reading? On that occasion we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State—she had not quite got to the frothing phase of her development—saying that

“there is a lot in it that we do welcome”,

as it will

“help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns.”

She went on,

“so we will not be voting against the Bill”—[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1130-1131.]

We are now told it is an Armageddon Bill.

The shadow Secretary of State was right then, and she is ludicrously over the top now. The Bill puts savers’ interests first, as she well knows. She knows something else, which makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing. Who are the politicians who have lobbied me to mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories. That has been mainly in private, so I will spare their blushes, but one ventured out into the open. The Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), called me and others to a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my

“effort to hold back from mandation”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 110WH.]

What was he worried about? That we were not doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments. That is the truth behind all the froth today. The Bill supports savers and focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most over-excited Opposition Members know that is the right thing to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister gave a very passionate speech, but when one mentions colleagues in the Chamber, one is meant to give prior notice. I assume that has happened.

[Torsten Bell]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The comments in the Westminster Hall debate are on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The appropriate thing to do will be to drop him a note very quickly.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Torsten Bell.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches in the Chamber—if only we were. However, the Minister is in his place and will have heard what the right hon. Member has said. If an error has been made, I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible.

[Torsten Bell]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his point of order. As I have already said to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I would raise the comments that he made in that Westminster Hall debate. The point that I made in my closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on—but I know that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench enjoyed every minute of it—is that he has made the case that there is a challenge, in that there is not enough investment in UK equities, and he has called for measures to push in that direction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We do not want to prolong the debate any further. Both the Back-Bench Member and the Minister have put their points on the record.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.

That Torsten Bell, Gen Kitchen, Natalie Fleet, David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Mr Will Forster be members of the Committee;

That Torsten Bell be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provision shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 9 March 2026 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 3)):

Consideration of Lords Message on 15 April 2026

The Lords Amendments and Reasons shall be considered in the following order: 17B, 38, 41B, 102, 106 and 105B.

Question agreed to.

Treasury

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from consideration of Lords amendments to the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill on 23 March 2026.

[Torsten Bell]

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.

[Official Report, 23 March 2026; Vol. 783, c. 95.]

Written correction submitted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell):

[Torsten Bell]

… He claimed that the impact was largest on those on low earnings. That is nonsense; 87% of contributions over £2,000 are forecast to be from higher and additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts.

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 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 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.