Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

Or, indeed, when they first start to work. As somebody once said, compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world.

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

Q I definitely agree about the eighth wonder of the world. Thank you for coming this morning. This is the Committee’s first sitting, and it is great to have both of you before us. One of the features on the DC side of our pension landscape is the two different regimes that we are operating. The Government’s policy intent is that, from the experience of the saver, they do not see a difference between the trust and the contract regime in so far as possible. That will certainly be true for their experience of the measures in the Bill on value for money and decumulation. Could you share a bit about how the FCA and the TPR are working together to make sure that is the case?

Patrick Coyne: Over a number of years, we have worked closely with the Financial Conduct Authority to ensure that when we deliver interventions within the pensions landscape, the outcomes are consistent. One way we have done that is through an update to a joint strategy. We also have almost daily calls with one another to ensure that when we consider interventions and how to enable the system to provide value for money and support people at retirement, we do so in a coherent and comprehensive way. We must really understand the different constituents of our marketplace, whether they be workplace versus non-workplace pensions, or, in the People’s Pension space, pensions analogous to the master trust offer.

Charlotte Clark: To add to Patrick’s point, we meet fairly regularly. There are various different forums and working groups. As you say, Minister, there is that sense that it does not matter where you save. Most people are probably saving in both the contract-based side and the master trust side, given that people have pots in lots of different places. It is important not that people understand where the regulation is, but that the regulation is consistent and there is no arbitrage between the two systems.

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

Q Are there not going to be too many hoops to jump through to prove that the trustee is correct, if they have to prove it to a regulator? I suppose that is what the safe harbour means. Will the trustees have the benefit of the doubt, or are they going to have to be watertight in their belief that they are right, to make sure that they can stand up to the regulator?

Charlotte Clark: The level of that process would be something that we would put into secondary legislation and rules. We would really have to think through what that process looks like.

Patrick Coyne: Yes, absolutely. Implementation is critical here. This will be something that is done with wide consultation with the industry.

[Torsten Bell]

Q It is not right to say that mandation is at the centre of this Bill. There is one backstop power and there are a lot of clauses that we are going to spend a lot of the next few months—

[The Chair]

Order. We need questions to the witnesses.

[Torsten Bell]

The question to the witness is to expand a bit more on that point. In reality, this provides a “comply or explain” power. In terms of the point Charlotte was just making there, it is absolutely right about the ability of the trustees to say, “This is not in the interest of our members.” It might be worth talking a bit about how when we move forward the consultation will allow us to set out how that would work in practice.

Charlotte Clark: It is an area that we would need to work through in terms of the road map. At the moment, our focus is very much on getting the value for money framework right. How the mandation would work and the process around it—as the Minister says, first, we would consult on it. We would have to have a look to see what information was given and how we would monitor it in the period from now to 2030 or 2035. We would have to work through all of those aspects of the process. We would do that in conjunction with the industry, making sure that what we were asking for was information that it could readily provide and that we felt confident that we could make a good assessment around.

Patrick Coyne: Our engagement with the marketplace so far already shows that many are considering investment strategies that have significant proportions of diversified investments, so the market is already responding based on some of the Mansion House accord commitments.

[John Milne]

Q Do you think that the finance industry has a clear understanding of how to apply its fiduciary duty? Do you think the Bill makes that clearer or muddies the waters, or somewhere in between?

Patrick Coyne: I think that fiduciary duty is a powerful force for good. Across the Bill, this is about giving those trustees the tools for the job. I think there are a number of areas where that is true. Within the value for money framework, at the moment, it is very difficult for employers or schemes to effectively compare performance. As an anecdote, I was speaking to a provider recently. They were pitching for new business. They came in and pitched their investment data, and the employer said, “You’re the third provider today that has shown us they are the top-performing provider.” That cannot be right.

Then, when you are looking across the Bill towards the DB space, because of the funding reality that many schemes are facing at the moment, there is choice in end game options—so, “How do I enhance member outcomes at the same time as securing benefits?” Actually providing a statutory framework for super-funds as another option is a good first step, as is allowing the release of surplus, if it is in the members’ best interests to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

Q Christopher, do you have any thoughts on that, quickly?

Christopher Brooks: We do not work on final salary pensions, so I do not take a view on it.

[Torsten Bell]

Q As we have just heard, there is some cross-party agreement that the main purpose of the changes is ensuring that we drive up the returns to members—particularly financial returns, but also more generally. What do you think will make the most difference, from the perspective of the returns, particularly to DC savers? Balance between VFM; scale metrics; decumulation changes; small pots—all of these are about driving up returns for members. What are you most excited about?

Christopher Brooks: I think they all work together, so I would say it is a combination of them, but scale seems to be one of the main drivers. I am thinking about NEST in particular, which has been leading the way in terms of investing in private assets. It is able to negotiate a good deal, because of its scale. If you can drive that with similar outcomes across the marketplace, it will be really beneficial to members.

[Torsten Bell]

Q Could you explain a bit about what NEST has done in order to do that?

Christopher Brooks: NEST has essentially negotiated with the private finance industry, and is not paying the “two and 20” classic fee structure, so it is not paying the performance fees. It has incorporated it all into its existing charges. If the intention is to drive greater investment in private finance, that is the way to go about it. If that scale is replicated across the industry—across the 15 to 20, or however many, schemes remaining at the end of the consolidation process, which I fully support—then hopefully you would be in a position to replicate those types of outcomes for members across the board, in their DC savings.

Jack Jones: I would say something very similar. As a package, on the DC side, it is scale that potentially has the greatest power. It is probably important to look at the factors that would make sure that the scale results in the changes you want. It is interesting to look at NEST; it has scale, but it also has a business model and governance structure that incentivise it to go and build up its experience in investing in those markets, and to have an understanding of what its fiduciary duty is, which very clearly includes looking at the widest range of assets possible and investing in them. So I think it is scale, as long as you have everything else in place there to make sure that schemes are using that scale in ways that benefit members.

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Can I ask for short answers now, please, because we need to move on to other Members.

Colin Clarke: It is an interesting question. It is not something I am a huge expert on, to be honest, and it needs careful thought, because there could potentially be some unforeseen consequences that I have not considered. If there were going to be any suggestions to change any rules in that regard, there would have to be evidence gathered to understand what the potential implications of that would be.

[Torsten Bell]

Q I want to move to DC pensions, not just DB, given what you do. One of the larger changes in this Bill for your providing to savers is on the default pension benefit solutions. Would you give us an update on your internal thinking about how you plan to operationalise those requirements, if this Bill receives Parliament’s support?

Dale Critchley: Obviously, this is dependent on regulations, but DWP people have been very open in conversations. That has been really welcome, and we have a good picture of where we are headed. We launched a “flex first, fix later” solution called guided retirement. We are now looking at flexing that guided retirement solution to offer different flavours to fit the different cohorts and the amount of risk people can take in terms of fluctuations in their income, dependent upon guaranteed income from elsewhere, or the level of their fund. At one end, you might have a cohort of people who almost need a guarantee. We could go down the route of an annuity, but we are reluctant to do that, because we think that an immediate annuity purchase might put people off. We need to ease people into the idea of an annuity purchase, and that is where we are going. For those people who want more of a guarantee, it might be lower-risk investments and in a drawdown phase for a shorter amount of time. For people who can take more risk, it may be higher-risk investments in the drawdown phase and in drawdown for longer, with an annuity purchase later. That is where our thinking is at the moment.

[Torsten Bell]

Q So when you are thinking about segmenting, your main segmentation is size of pot and other pensions.

Dale Critchley: It is the ability to take risk.

[Torsten Bell]

Your metric for that is just other income sources plus size of pot?

Dale Critchley: It is those main two at the moment. We are also working with a guy called Shlomo Benartzi, who is a behavioural science expert, to look at the whole concept of defaults in retirement. It is one thing defaulting people into taking £120 a month from their salary; it is a very different thing to say, “I am now going to take the biggest amount of money you have ever seen in your life and use that to purchase an income.” That is what we want to test, because if the default is strong and if inertia works, we will get people moving away from the poor solutions they are choosing at the moment, but if people still think, “Well, I do not like the look of that,” they will go on to make the same poor decisions they are making now, and we will not achieve the policy aim. So we think we need to deliver what is right for customers and members, but also what is attractive to them—so looking at their wants as well as their needs.

[The Chair]

Could we have shorter questions and answers? Does Mr Clarke have anything to add?

Colin Clarke: We have been working a lot on the FCA’s targeted support proposals, which are very supportive of the measures proposed in the Bill. We have been doing a lot of research around member segmentation and looking at the different scenarios and outcomes, so potentially going a little bit further than looking just at age and pot value, and also looking at what sort of questions we need to ask people to ensure that they are guided to the solution that is appropriate for them.

I agree with Dale that decumulation defaults and accumulation defaults are completely different things. In accumulation, there is more of a “one size fits all” approach, because it is all about delivering the best returns for members, whereas when you get to decumulation, it is very personalised, and you do not want to put people into something where they cannot change their mind. It needs to be flexible; people have a wide variety of different needs, and we are doing a lot of research on member needs at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

14. What steps she is taking to increase the uptake of pension credit.

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

The Government are committed to ensuring that all pensioners receive the support to which they are entitled. That is why we have been running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign. We plan to continue promotional activity from September through to the end of this financial year, with the focus not just on eligible pensioners but on their friends and family too.

[Christine Jardine]

Earlier this year, a constituent of mine in Edinburgh West contacted me about the delay she had faced in getting the pension credit she was entitled to. She applied in September last year and was told that she would receive it in November, but it was March before she got her pension credit awarded. The delay meant that she went without extra support just when she lost her winter fuel allowance, so what steps will the Minister take to cut those delays and stop more vulnerable pensioners from being left cold this winter?

[Torsten Bell]

I hope the hon. Member will write to me with the details of the case she raised. On the more general picture, I can reassure her that we now have a lower backlog of pension credit cases to be processed than we inherited from the last Government, despite the record number of claims that have come through.

[Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)]

Boots has been a significant employer in my constituency since 1927, and many of my constituents have been proud to work for it. However, those close to claiming their pensions have been advised that they will be unable to withdraw their pension at an unreduced rate at the age of 60, contrary to what they were led to believe. Does the Minister recognise the frustration that many of the Boots pensioners feel, and does he agree that the Pensions Ombudsman should progress swiftly with its process?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend has raised this matter with me before, and the one thing I can confirm is that she is a powerful advocate for her constituents on this very important issue for them. As she knows, I cannot comment on individual cases—particularly as the matter is now with the Pensions Ombudsman—but more generally, it is important that promises made to pensioners about their pensions are lived up to. Making sure that happens is exactly why the Pensions Ombudsman exists.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Thanks to our Conservative winter fuel payments campaign, thousands of pensioners have signed up to pension credit, and millions more pensioners will receive winter fuel allowance, now that the Labour party has admitted that its policy on winter fuel payments was wrong. However, the Social Security Advisory Committee recently concluded that the Government’s winter fuel plans fall short of delivering their objectives of fairness, administrative simplicity and targeted support. It seems that the Government have prioritised civil service bureaucracy over helping frozen pensioners. Does the Minister agree with the Social Security Advisory Committee’s conclusion about their policies?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, and I congratulate Members on all sides of this House who have run campaigns to drive up pension credit uptake. That is very important, and it is why we have seen 60,000 extra awards over the course of the year to July 2025 compared with the previous year. That work, which is very welcome, has been done by not just Members but civil society organisations and local authorities.

On the points that the hon. Member raised about the process for winter fuel payments this winter and going forward, I do not agree with the characterisation he chose to present. Particularly on the tax side, the process will be automatic. Nobody will be brought into tax or self-assessment purely because of that change; the vast majority of people will have their winter fuel payments automatically recouped through the pay-as-you-earn system; and anyone who wants to can opt out. I remind Members that the deadline for that is 15 September.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Around a year ago, the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government around 3 million pensioners in poverty. Sadly, last winter’s cuts to the winter fuel payment saw many pensioners pushed into hardship. In the light of winter fuel price hikes, will the Minister reconsider the Government’s proposals and ensure that moneys are paid to pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment last winter?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, but would gently say that every time he opposes every single tax rise or any difficult choice in this House, he is saying that the Liberal Democrats are not a party that could deliver on commitments, for example, to the triple lock, which will increase in cost, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, by £31 billion by the end of this Parliament. There are things called “choices”, which are necessary if we are to provide for our top priorities—and for Labour Members, the top priorities, when it comes to pensioners, are making sure that we can increase the state pension, the bedrock of most pensioners’ living standards, and saving the NHS, and that is exactly what we will continue to do.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

15. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of increasing the number of remote personal independence payment assessments on claimants in West Dorset constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

T3. One of the main benefits of saving into a private pension is the tax relief that people get from the Government, which is one of the smartest ways to save for later life. Any move by this Government to cut pension tax relief will devastate savings rates and the adequacy of pension provisions. I would hope that the Secretary of State knows that, so can she assure me that she has made it clear that when the Chancellor is looking to fill the fiscal black hole of her own making, she must not target pensions?

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

The hon. Lady only had to wait till next week’s Treasury questions, when she could have asked her question, but she has the same answer. What we should do is look at the record of parties and what they have done. When I look back over the last 14 years of Tory Budgets, I see a party—[Interruption.] And the Lib Dems; thank you for pointing that out. I have seen parties chopping and changing pension tax relief left, right and centre, because they had no plan. Those were the same Budgets that drove child poverty up and wages down.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

T7. It is great to be back after taking paternity leave, and thank you for your support, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Government’s parental leave review, but currently partners only get unpaid time off work for two antenatal appointments. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a gap, and can he confirm that the review is looking at how we can better support parents at that crucial time?

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

T4. Cruel cuts to the winter fuel allowance by both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Edinburgh left thousands of pensioners cold in their homes last winter. When will the Secretary of State apologise for the misery her Government have caused for vulnerable pensioners in the Scottish Borders and across the United Kingdom?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. We discussed this issue at some length in the statement before the recess. He knows that the priority for the Labour party has been to raise the state pension by committing to the triple lock throughout this Parliament at a cost of £31 billion a year. For the new state pension, that will mean an increase of £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament.

On winter fuel payments specifically—and I thought this was the Conservative party’s position—most people think that we should not be paying hundreds of pounds to the very richest pensioners. We have listened to concerns and raised the threshold, but it is important to maintain that principle. If the Conservatives’ position is now that they want a return to universal winter fuel payments, they need to have a word with the Leader of the Opposition, who has not supported universal winter fuel payments or, indeed, a universal state pension.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T8. I am visiting the jobcentre in Rugby next week, and I am looking forward to hearing more about its work with local businesses, and also with people with disabilities and special educational needs, to get people back into work. Will the Minister set out what further steps we are taking on that very important job for a Labour Government?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T9. Can my hon. Friend set out how this Government are reforming pensions long term to help people in Bracknell Forest and across the country to save for their futures?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his crucial question. That is exactly why we have revived the landmark pensions commission. We have to confront the reality that we are on track for tomorrow’s pensioners to be poorer than today’s. Auto-enrolment has been a huge success, with 88% of eligible employees now saving, but 45% of working-age adults, including 3 million self-employed and one in four low earners, are currently saving nothing. The commission will ensure that we build a pension system that is strong, fair and sustainable.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The carer’s allowance overpayments review was due to report in early summer. It is now 1 September. In recent weeks, I have become aware of a case where the DWP has informed somebody that they now owe it £18,000. That is a scandal. When will the review report back?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Despite his new role in riding to the rescue of the Treasury, is the Pensions Minister still available to fulfil in principle the undertaking he gave me before the recess to have a meeting about the plight of ExxonMobil pensioners and the difficulties in them getting the discretionary surplus benefits to which I think they should be entitled?

[Torsten Bell]

Absolutely.

Work and Pensions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on Women's State Pension Age: Financial Redress on 3 July 2025.

[Torsten Bell]

An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.

[Official Report, 3 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 513.]

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

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2004 rather than 2003 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women closest to those born in the 1950s, the figure is far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.

Credit Unions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I start obviously by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) on securing this important debate and speaking so powerfully about the role of credit unions. The interest in this topic, particularly on this side of the House and for some parts of the country, shows how important credit unions are in supporting individuals and communities. The same commitment and motivations underpin the Government’s strong support for credit unions and the mutuals sector more widely, as the Opposition spokesperson just mentioned.

As a country, we have a rich history of mutuality. In 1775, Richard Ketley founded the world’s first ever building society in Birmingham, and that continues in the west midlands today, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). The modern co-operative movement was also British-born, albeit slightly further north, in Rochdale.

Today we are here to discuss credit unions, which are deeply embedded in our local communities. Everyone in this Chamber passes on our thanks to Beth, who the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) talked about so powerfully in his remarks. Before I turn to the important points that colleagues have raised specifically about credit unions, let me say a few words about the Government’s strong support for the mutual sector, as the Opposition spokesperson has raised it.

Mutuals have a footprint in high streets around the country and they provide jobs. They strengthen their communities, and they support people to build savings habits and access affordable credit and mortgages. Growth in the mutual sector means growth that touches all levels of society, aiding economic participation in the broadest possible sense, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) set out. That is why the Government have committed to doubling the size of the sector.

I am glad that the Opposition spokesperson has been paying attention to all the Government’s commitments and the change that we were elected to bring. In south Wales, building society branches are expanding in some areas, even as banks are stepping back. We have already begun to make our commitment a reality, not least when it comes to credit unions, whose lending is growing, even though, as several hon. Members have mentioned, the number of credit unions has fallen in recent years.

In her November Mansion House speech, the Chancellor announced new measures to support the growth of credit unions and mutuals. The shadow Minister would be keen to have the Chancellor give an even longer speech at every Mansion House, but she cannot reiterate all her greatest hits at every single one. We did not let people away till after 10 o’clock last night as it was, and there is such a thing as decent human behaviour. The measures included publishing a call for evidence on the potential to reform common bonds for credit unions in Great Britain, asking the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority to produce a report on the mutuals landscape by the end of this year, which is now well under way, and welcoming the establishment of an industry-led mutual and co-operative business council, which has a live workstream specifically exploring the role of the credit union sector.

The common bond is a unique feature of a credit union. It fosters trust and accountability among members. However, there has been a long-standing request from the sector that the Government review the common bond, and that was reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East this morning. That is why we put out the call for evidence. I thank everyone who fed into that process, including individual credit unions, trade associations and some Members here today. We are now engaging with the sector and the regulators on those responses and are considering next steps. The Government and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury will provide an update on that work in due course.

More widely, all Members who have spoken today, including my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Kenneth Stevenson), recognise the role that credit unions play in achieving financial inclusion, more broadly considered. They provide access to financial services and products and allow people to participate in the economy.

The hon. Member for Wokingham asked about the long-standing calls for a fair banking Act. I gently note that there was little progress on that in the five years in which the Liberal Democrats were part of the UK Government. That tends to get slightly forgotten. When I spend time here in Westminster Hall—as was pointed out earlier, I do spend a lot of time here—I am told about long-standing Liberal Democrat policy in a whole range of areas.

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that our focus is on taking forward a financial inclusion strategy under the Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I know she will want to work with my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) in her new role—I congratulate her on it. That work is being supported by a committee of consumer groups and industry representatives, including Fair4All Finance, which has a key role in supporting the sector. That strategy will be published later this year and will seek to tackle a range of barriers facing individuals in accessing financial services, including banking and affordable credit. More importantly, it will consider what more the industry and the Government can do to address these issues.

The financial inclusion committee has recommended that the financial inclusion strategy focus on helping people build an emergency savings buffer—a pot of money that could help them replace a household appliance or repair a car. One area we are exploring is payroll saving schemes, which several Members have called for, which are offered by employers to staff. In my day job of dealing with the pensions landscape, people are talking about learning from the experience of automatic enrolment, and a number of credit unions already deliver such schemes. We talked about the role of a particular credit union earlier.

The Government are directly encouraging those on lower incomes to save via help to save, introduced under the previous Government. Although the scheme has been effective for those who use it, I think we would all say that take-up has been low. In April, eligibility was extended to all universal credit claimants in work, meaning that about 3 million people will be able to benefit from the scheme.

More widely, we are continuing to monitor the availability of affordable credit as part of that financial inclusion strategy work. The Treasury engages regularly to understand the current barriers faced by the mutual sector and credit unions specifically, and to identify opportunities for growth. There have been several discussions about credit union service organisations. That is an important development. The PRA is consulting on how we can facilitate that, given its role in the growth of the sector.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about growth. He is obviously well aware that the policy area is devolved to Northern Ireland, but he can see the legislation that is being progressed here. We are always happy to engage with our opposite numbers in the Northern Ireland Executive, and we do indeed do so. I join him in celebrating the growth in Northern Ireland. He might not like the progress on the legislative side, but on actual lending and members’ engagement, those of us in other parts of the United Kingdom have a lot to learn.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) asked wider questions about bank finance regulation—not least about buy now, pay later. I hope he is happy that the legislation that has long been promised was introduced just a few weeks ago. A few Members who are taking part in this morning’s debate were present in that Committee.

More widely, hon. Members rightly said that credit unions have a different regime from mainstream providers when it comes to regulation. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch that we are really clear about the differential requirements, including capital requirements and exemptions from consumer credit regulations. We maintain those different regimes for good reasons: we want a proportionate system for different parts of our financial sector.

My hon. Friend has consistently raised concerns about the Financial Ombudsman Service’s approach to handling certain complaints against credit unions, and about the volume of complaints more generally. Although they are a very small part of the Financial Ombudsman Service’s work, I appreciate that is not how it feels for the credit unions wrestling with them. We have heard those complaints, and we recognise the risk of a chilling effect on credit union lending. That is why we have acted. In the March regulation action plan, the Government announced that the Economic Secretary would lead a review of the FOS to examine whether it is delivering on its role.

Today’s debate is well timed. Yesterday the Chancellor launched a consultation on a significant package of policy proposals. That will run until October and I encourage all Members to engage with it. As the Chancellor set out at the Mansion House, the Financial Ombudsman Service will be returned to its original role as a simple, impartial dispute-resolution service, which quickly and effectively deals with complaints. Directly addressing the central point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch, the Government propose to reform the legislative framework that the FOS operates in to stop it acting as a quasi-regulator. We will take steps to provide greater regulatory coherence with the FCA. Consumers and industry will benefit from a more consistent and predictable regulatory environment, and I encourage my hon. Friend and credit unions with recent exposure to and experience of the ombudsman to feed into the consultation over the summer.

In conclusion, the Government recognise the important role that credit unions play in our economy: helping individuals, strengthening communities, and as a major player in any attempt to make our society and economy genuinely financially inclusive. I see that in Swansea, not least in the work of the Celtic credit union. We remain absolutely committed to supporting the growth of the credit union sector now and into the future. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s important debate.

Beer Duty

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I always look forward to seeing you in the Chair, Dr Murrison—nearly as much as I am looking forward to that pint. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for securing and opening the debate. I thank all the colleagues who have spoken—perhaps unsurprisingly, given the subject—with great enthusiasm. I am shocked that there is in fact cross-party support for beer; that is the kind of bold politics that has got everybody in this room where they are today.

Nobody in this place needs persuading of the cultural, social and economic value of the Great British pint, nor of the pubs that serve pints and the breweries that produce them. Pubs are places of consumption but, more importantly, they are places of friendship, community and employment. I have learned a lot in a year as a new MP, but not as much as I learned about life when I started my first job in a pub at 16. I learned a lot about the price of beer, even if not about the ins and outs of alcohol duty, or indeed, drinking alcohol—obviously.

Last autumn, the Chancellor cut alcohol duty on qualifying draught products, affecting 60% of the alcoholic drinks sold in pubs. The cut reduced bills by over £85 million a year. People now pay 13.9% less in tax for draught beer and cider than their packaged equivalents—a discount up by more than 50% since the previous Government’s introduction of the policy, as mentioned in the debate. The cut recognised the roles of pubs and other hospitality venues in supporting responsible drinking in social settings.

The Chancellor also recognised the UK’s 1,600 or so small breweries by making more generous small producer relief, which, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) was kind enough to mention, was introduced by Gordon Brown under the last Labour Government, and continued by the previous Conservative Government.

To respond directly to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), small producer relief is available in Northern Ireland, even though licensing is a devolved policy matter. I am happy to exchange letters with him on the wider points he made.

The Budget also committed to a review of small brewers’ access to UK pubs, including through the provision of guest beers, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). I know that Members with breweries in their constituencies will contact the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), given his responsibility for that review.

Of course, alcohol duty does not exist in a vacuum. It relates to the real challenges that we face as a country on public health and the public finances. I understand the wish to call for lower duties, as the hon. Member for Woking did, but the implications for the Exchequer are real. I will dwell on a few related points, given that that call was the basis of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I am not sure that the 50p call has been entirely thought through: the duty on a typical draught pint of 4.5% beer is currently 48p, so the hon. Gentleman has called for the whole duty to be abolished. He might want to reflect on that.

Questions were asked about the relationship of what is technically called the elasticity of beer consumption to the changes in duties. The Office for Budget Responsibility publishes its own view on the elasticity, which hon. Members can go and find. Suffice it to say that the implications of any large change in alcohol duty for the Exchequer are real. Obviously, the context is that alcohol duty on beer is down by 10% in real terms since 2019.

Questions were also asked about the international comparisons. The proportion of the price of beer that is made up of tax here is similar to that in Ireland. As Finland was raised, I should point out that the proportion there is less than that in Sweden, where members of my family are consuming beer today at higher prices.

At the autumn Budget, the Chancellor increased the main duty rate in line with the retail price index, but she kept the tax burden on packaged products flat overall in real terms, as has been the long-established policy under all three main parties. Along with the increase to draft relief, that balanced the need to fund public services, reduce harmful alcohol consumption, and support moderate responsible drinkers with the cost of living. We have to weigh all those factors together.

Alcohol harm costs this country an estimated £27.4 billion a year. Regrettably, deaths from alcohol are at record highs—admittedly, that is mainly among a concentrated part of the population, but that is still something we all need to wrestle with. That is why the Government will introduce new standards for alcohol labelling.

But we want to address the health challenges while supporting valued producers and communal settings. That is the grounds for the balanced approach we have taken on duty, valuing the pubs that are at the centre of all our communities, as we have heard this afternoon. There is also good reason to be optimistic about the future of the brewing industry, although I recognise the wider challenges that brewers face. I thank hon. Members for their clear representations on those challenges.

Some Members, including the hon. Member for Woking in particular, raised the issue of the extended producer responsibility for packaging and the forthcoming deposit return scheme. I gently point out that the Liberal Democrats regularly call for a fast move to a circular economy, but when anything actually turns up, they oppose it in practice. I gently note that that is not a politics that will get any of us very far in the long term.

The reforms are designed to increase recycling and reduce litter and landfill. Critically, local authorities will receive every penny of the EPR fees, thereby bringing much-needed investment into our recycling infrastructure. The EPR scheme administrator has already published the 2025 base fees, with those for most materials, including glass, down on earlier illustrations. In the case of glass, the base fee is down by 20%.

DEFRA continues to work with the industry on the dual-use packaging that several hon. Members mentioned. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh) recently held a roundtable on the issue, and I think she intends to hold more.

I acknowledge, as many Members have, that alcohol duty is but one small part of the business equation for pubs and hospitality venues, which is why the Government have made concrete interventions to support the sector, including a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme. I also recognise the points raised, not least by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), about business rates. We have frozen the small business multiplier for the current tax year and are providing 40% relief to retail, hospitality and leisure properties. As I say, I recognise the points made, but the package is worth more than £1.6 billion this year, and the previous Government left us with the relief due to end entirely in April 2025.

We are introducing high street rental auctions to bring vacant properties back into productive use, thereby offering smaller brewers and taprooms more affordable sites. Although there is bad news about pubs shutting across the country, and we are all sad when we see it in our constituencies, we also see some opening up on some high streets, and that is to be welcomed.

On 4 April 2025, we announced the licensing policy taskforce, co-chaired by Nick Mackenzie, the chief executive of Greene King. It is working intensively with the industry to ensure that the licensing conditions for businesses such as pubs, restaurants and music venues are proportional.

I began by acknowledging the unique place that beer and pubs hold in our national life. They deserve and have the steadfast attention of this Government and, it is clear, every hon. Member in this room. My local pubs in Swansea, from the Brunswick to the Deer’s Leap, certainly have my attention, and—I promise—my consumption. Through draught relief, small producer relief and tailored interventions for high streets, we are helping the sector to thrive.

I close with two brief invitations. First, I urge Members to please continue to bring to the Treasury their stories, spreadsheets, and suggestions from pubs and brewers, as they have done this afternoon. Secondly, I invite the industry to continue talking to us and demonstrating, year in and year out, that the British brewing scene is second to none.

Pension Schemes Bill

Torsten Bell Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

This Bill aims to deliver fundamental reforms to our pensions landscape, and it is good to see that the prospect of discussing a long, slightly technical pensions Bill has seen so many Members flooding into the Chamber. These are reforms on which there is a broad consensus across the pensions industry. They also build on at least something of a consensus across the House. In its principal focus on higher returns for pension savers, the Bill also responds to specific responsibilities that we hold in the House.

It is because of decisions of Parliament that something significant has happened over the past decade: British workers have got back into the habit of saving for a pension. Today, more than 22 million workers are building up a pension pot. That represents a 10 million increase since 2012, when Parliament introduced the policy of automatically enrolling workers. The rise is largest for women and lower earners. So there is lots to celebrate as more save, but there are no grounds at all for complacency about what they are getting in return.

The private sector final salary pensions that many of today’s pensioners rely on guarantee a particular income in retirement. If those pension schemes do not deliver good investment returns, that is a problem for the employer and not directly for the saver. But most of tomorrow’s retirees with a defined-contribution pension bear all the risk; there is nothing guaranteed. How well the pension scheme that they save into performs matters hugely, and because pensions are a very long game, even small differences in how fast a pension pot grows can make a massive difference over time.

That is the system that the House has chosen, so the onus is on us to ensure that it delivers. But the pension system that we have today is too fragmented, too rarely does it ensure that people’s savings are working hard enough to support them in retirement, and it is too disconnected from the UK economy. That is the case for change and the context for the Bill.

The UK has the second-largest pension system in the world, worth £2 trillion. It is our largest source of domestic capital, underpinning not just the retirement we all look forward—or at least most of us look forward to—but the investment on which our future prosperity depends. But our big pension system has far too few big pension schemes. There are approaching 1,000 defined-contribution schemes and less than 10 providers who currently have £25 billion or more in assets.

A consolidation process is already under way, with the number of DC schemes reducing by about 10% a year. What the Bill does is add wind to the sails of that consolidation. It implements the conclusions of the pensions investment review, creating so-called megafunds. For the DC market, we intend to use the powers provided for in clause 38 to require multi-employer schemes to have at least £25 billion in assets by 2030, or a credible pathway to be there by 2035. Bigger and better pension funds can deliver lower costs, diversified investments and better returns for savers. That supports the work that the industry is already doing to better deliver for savers.

As the House has discussed before, in May, 17 major pension providers managing about 90% of active defined-contribution pensions signed the Mansion House accord. This industry-led initiative saw signatories pledge to invest 10% of their main default funds in private assets such as infrastructure by 2030, with at least 5% in UK assets. That investment could support a better outcome for pension savers and back clean energy developments or fast-growing businesses. To support this industry-led change, the Bill includes a reserve power that would allow the Government to require larger auto-enrolment schemes to invest a set percentage into those wider asset classes. That reflects the reality that the industry has been calling for the shift for some time, but words have been slow to translate into actions.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a trustee of the parliamentary contributory pension fund. Consolidation is absolutely the right direction of travel so that pension funds have better experts who are better able to advise. I still have a slight concern, though, about mandation. There will have to be schemes to invest in, and they will need to ensure that they are getting returns. How will the Minister ensure that the Bill actively delivers on both sides of the equation?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her oversight of all our pensions, which I think is reassuring. [Laughter.] Sorry; it is reassuring! I will come directly to her point, because I know that is one question that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want to raise. Let me just say that the Bill explicitly recognises the fiduciary duty of trustees towards their members.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

In the last Parliament, a number of us raised concerns about the administration of defined-benefit schemes by, among others, BP, Shell and Hewlett-Packard. It was obvious at that stage—I think this view was held by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who was then the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee—that one of the root causes of the problem was insufficient independence and oversight by defined-benefit pension trustees. What is there in this Bill that will protect the position of pensioners in their retirement under those schemes?

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member invites me to skip quite a long way forward in my speech, and it is a long speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ah.

[Torsten Bell]

That was not the support I was hoping for from the Chair—understandable, but harsh. I will come to some of the points that the right hon. Member raises. I think he is referring particularly to pre-1997 indexation, which I shall come to.

As I said, the Bill includes a reserved power that will allow the Government to require larger auto-enrolment schemes to invest a set percentage into wider assets. That reflects the wider calls that have been made for this change but have not led to its taking place. What pension providers are saying is that they face a collective action problem, where employers focus too narrowly on the lowest charges, not what matters most to savers: the highest returns. I do not currently intend to use the power in the Bill, but its existence gives clarity to the industry that, this time, change will actually come.

Some argue—I will come to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier)—that this somehow undermines the duty that pension providers have to savers. That is simply wrong. First, the Bill includes clear safeguards to prioritise savers’ interests and is entirely consistent with the core principle of trustees’ fiduciary duties. Clause 38 includes an explicit mechanism, which I have discussed with Members from the main three parties in this House, to allow providers to opt out if complying risks material detriment to savers. Secondly—this is the key point that motivates a lot of the Bill—savers are being let down by the status quo. There is a reason major pension schemes across the rest of the world are already investing in this more diverse range of assets.

Fragmentation within the pensions industry happens within providers, not just between them. Some insurers have thousands of legacy funds, so clause 41 extends to contract schemes the ability that trust-based schemes already have to address that. Providers will be able to transfer savers to another arrangement without proactive individual consent if, and only if, it is independently certified as being in the member’s best interest.

Another point that I hope is of common ground across the House is that we need to do more to realise the untapped potential of the local government pension scheme in England and Wales. We need scale to get the most out of the LGPS’s £400 billion-worth of assets. Again, the Bill will turn that consensus into concrete action. It provides for LGPS assets spread across 86 administering authorities to be fully consolidated into six pools. That will ensure that the assets used to provide pensions to its more than 6 million members—predominantly low-paid women—are managed effectively and at scale. Each authority will continue to set its investment strategy, including how much local investment it expects to see. In fact, these reforms will build on the LGPS’s strong track record of investing in local economic growth, requiring pension pools to work with the likes of mayoral combined authorities. In time, bigger and more visible LGPS pools will help to crowd private pension funds and other institutional investors into growth assets across the country.

Our measures will build scale, support investment and deliver for savers, but the Bill does more to ensure that working people get the maximum bang for every buck saved. To reinforce the shift away from an excessively narrow focus on costs, clause 5 provides for a new value-for-money framework. For the first time, we will require pension schemes to prove that they provide value for money, with standardised metrics. That will help savers to compare schemes more easily, and drive schemes themselves to focus on the value that they deliver. For persistently poor performers, regulators will have the power to enforce consolidation. That will protect savers from getting stuck in poorly performing schemes—something that can knock thousands of pounds off their pension pots.

We are also at last addressing the small pension pots issue. I was out door-knocking in Swansea earlier this spring, and a woman in her mid-30s told me that something was really winding her up—and it was not me knocking on the door. [Laughter.] This is a very unsupportive audience. It was trying to keep track of small amounts of pension savings that she had from old jobs; the only thing that was worse was that her husband kept going on about it. There are now 13 million small pension pots that hold £1,000 or less floating around. Another million are being added each year. That increases hassle, which is what she was complaining about, with over £31 billion-worth of pension pots estimated to currently be lost. It costs the pensions industry around £240 million each year to administer. Clause 20 provides powers for those pots to be automatically brought together into one pension scheme that has been certified as delivering good value. Anyone who wants to can of course opt out, but this change alone could boost the pension pot of an average earner by around £1,000.

Of course, once you have a pension pot, the question is: what do you do with it? We often talk about pension freedoms, but there is nothing liberating about the complexity currently involved in turning a pension pot into a retirement income. You have to consolidate those pots, choose between annuities, lump sums, drawdowns or cashing out. You have to analyse different providers and countless products. Choice can be a good thing, but this overwhelming complexity is not—77% of DC savers yet to access their pension have no clear plan about how to do so.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I agree with a lot of what the Minister is saying. Given what was said last week by the Financial Conduct Authority on targeted support, would he look again at what is being resisted by the Money and Pensions Service? It is not prepared to work with the pension schemes to allow automatic appointments so that pension savers can be guided to better outcomes. I realise that MaPS will say that it is too busy, but this is a key moment. If we could get people to engage at age 50, say, we would see vastly different outcomes for them if they invested properly, and in better ways, with their pensions.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and for the discussions that we have had on this important topic. He spent years working on this. The priority for MaPS right now is to ensure that we have the system set up to deal with the additional calls that are likely to come when pension dashboards are rolled out, but I will keep in mind the point that he raises. I think he and a number of hon. Members wrote to me about exactly that point. As I promised in my letter, I will keep it under review, but we must not overburden the system, because we need it to be able to deliver when pension dashboards come onstream.

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

Will the Minister update us on when consumers will see the introduction of the pensions dashboard? [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I think recent progress on the pensions dashboard means that that deserves a little less laughter. What we are seeing at the moment is success, driving the first connections to the dashboards. Obviously, all schemes and providers are due to be connected by the autumn of 2026, but I will provide good notice of when we can give a firm date for that. My hon. Friend and near neighbour has secured himself early warning of exactly that happening.

We need to make the choices clearer for people as they move from building retirement savings to using them. The Bill gives pension schemes a duty to provide default solutions for savers’ retirement income—yes, with clear opt-outs. As well as reducing complexity and risk for savers, that will support higher returns because providers will be able to invest in assets for longer if they do not need to secure the possibility of having to provide full drawdown at retirement.

Each of these measures to drive up returns will have an impact on their own, but it is their cumulative impact that matters most, especially when it is compounded over the decades that we save for a pension. To give the House a sense of scale, someone on average earnings saving over their career could see their retirement pot boosted by £29,000 thanks to the higher returns that the Bill supports. That is a significant increase for something that should matter to us all.

The reforms that I have set out will transform the DC pensions landscape, but with £1.2 trillion-worth of assets supporting around 9 million people, defined-benefit schemes remain vital—they have already been raised by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). Their improved funding position is hugely welcome. Around 75% are now in surplus, which has enabled far more schemes to reach buy-out with an insurer. Many more intend to do so, welcoming the security that buy-out can offer. Others may not be able to reach buy-out or may value running on their scheme for at least a time. The Bill provides those trustees with a wider range of options. Clauses 8 and 9 give more trustees the option to safely share surplus funds, which is something that many can already do.

[Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising this issue. What will the Bill do for my constituent Patricia Kennedy and the members of the Hewlett Packard Pension Association who are asking for more action on their pre-1997 non-index-linked contributions.

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me on a number of occasions, and he is a powerful advocate for his constituents who have lost out through the discretionary increases that they were hoping to see on their pensions not being delivered. This is the same issue that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised. One of the things that surplus release will allow is that trustees may at that point consider how members can benefit from any release that takes place. One thing I would encourage them to prioritise if they are considering a surplus release is the indexation of those that have not received it on their pre-1997 accrual. I hope that provides some clarity to the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend.

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

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for taking my intervention and for the very helpful letter he sent me on 30 June about schemes of this sort, and in particular the ExxonMobil pension scheme. His letter encouragingly states:

“Following our reforms, trustees will continue to consider the correct balance of interest between members and the sponsoring employer when making decisions about the release of surplus funds. Trustees will be responsible for determining how members may benefit from any release of surplus…and have a suite of options to choose from—for example, through discretionary benefit increases.”

The trouble is that these pensioners have received a letter from the trustees of the ExxonMobil pension fund stating:

“The power to award discretionary increases is held by Esso Petroleum Company Limited (the “Company”). Whether or not any discretionary increase is provided is for the Company to determine: the Trustee has no power to award discretionary increases itself.”

This may be a loophole that the Minister needs to address. If the trustees cannot award the surplus as benefits and the company says no, that is not going to benefit my constituents.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that specific case. I will look at it in more detail for him as he has kindly raised it here, but he has raised a point that will have more general application, which is that lots of different schemes, particularly DB schemes, will have a wide range of scheme rules. He has raised one of those, which is about discretionary increases. One thing that is consistent across all the schemes, with the legislation we are bringing in today, is that trustees must agree for any surplus to be released. It may be the case that the employer, in the details of those scheme rules, is required to agree to a discretionary increase, but the trustees are perfectly within their rights to request that that is part of an agreement that leads to a surplus release.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

What if it is the other way round?

[Torsten Bell]

In any circumstances, the trustees would need to agree to a surplus release, so they are welcome to say to their employer: we are only going to agree to it on the basis of a change to something that the employer holds the cards over. I am happy to discuss that with the right hon. Member further, and there may be other schemes that are in a similar situation.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The way in which the Minister is talking about insurance buy-out suggests that, in the Government’s mind, insurance buy-out is still in some way a gold standard. Can he reassure the House that he is seeking to flatten the playing field, such that the increased choice available to defined-benefit pension schemes will mean that for perpetuals who run on—such as OMERS, which started off as the Ontario municipal employees retirement system and is now worth 140 billion Canadian dollars—there is as much safety in superfunds as there is in insurance buy-out?

[Torsten Bell]

I shall come on directly to the question of superfunds, which I know the hon. Member has a long-standing interest in. There is obviously a distinction between closed and open defined-benefit schemes, which I think is relevant to the point he is raising. It is also important for trustees to have a range of options.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Obviously that can happen only where there are surplus funds, and there may not be surplus funds in all circumstances. I just want to give the Minister a heads-up in relation to the questions about employee benefits. It would be useful in Committee to have more information about the Government’s analysis of how many of these surplus releases will directly benefit the employees rather than the employers. I understand that the Government, with their mission for growth, want investment in growing the company as well, but what kind of split does he expect to see? I do not expect an answer to that today.

[Torsten Bell]

It is nice to sometimes be able to surprise on the upside. I would expect employees to benefit in most cases, because trustees are in the driving seat and I am sure they will want to consider how employers and employees will benefit from any surplus release. Obviously, the exact split between the two will be a matter for the individual cases, but I am sure we will discuss that further in Committee.

I want to reassure the House that this is not about a return to the 1990s free-for-all. DB regulation has been transformed since then, and schemes will have to remain well funded and trustees will remain in the driving seat. They will agree to a release only where it is in members’ interests and, as I said, not all schemes are able to afford to buy out members’ pensions with insurers.

The Bill also introduces the long-awaited permanent legislative regime for DB superfunds, which is an alternative means to consolidate legacy DB liabilities. This supports employers who want to focus on their core business, and, as the superfunds grow, they will have the potential to use their scale to invest in more productive ways. Crucially, trustees will be able to agree to a transfer into a superfund only where buy-out is not available and where it increases savers’ security.

The Pension Protection Fund is, of course, the security backstop for DB members. It celebrates its 20th anniversary this year, and it now secures the pensions of over 290,000 people. The Bill updates its work in three important ways: first, by lifting restrictions on the PPF board so that it can reduce its levy where appropriate, freeing schemes and employers to invest; secondly, by ensuring that PPF and financial assistance scheme information will be displayed on the pensions dashboard as it comes onstream, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney (Nick Smith), who is now not in his place, is keen to see; and thirdly and most importantly, by making a change to support people going through the toughest of times. As several hon. Members have called for, we are extending the definition of terminal illness from a 6-month to a 12-month prognosis, providing earlier access to compensation for those who need it most.

Pensions are complex beasts, and so are the laws that surround them. That complexity is inevitable, but not to the extent that some recent court cases risk creating. The Bill also legislates to provide clarity that decisions of the Pensions Ombudsman in overpayment cases may be enforced without going to a further court. I have been clear that the Government will also look to introduce legislation to give affected pension schemes the ability to retrospectively obtain written actuarial confirmation that historical benefit changes met the necessary standards at the time.

Governments are like people in one important respect: they can easily put off thinking about pensions until it is too late. I am determined not to do that. We are ramping up the pace of pension reform. The past two decades have delivered a big win, with more people saving for their retirement, but that was only ever half the job. Today, too many are on course for an income in retirement that is less than they deserve and less than they expect. The Bill focuses on securing higher returns for savers and supporting higher income in retirement without asking any more than is necessary of workers’ living standards in the here and now.

The Bill sits within wider pension reforms as we seek to build not just savings pots but a pensions system that delivers comfortable retirements and underpins the country’s future prosperity. Legislation for multi-employer collective defined-contribution schemes will be introduced as soon as possible after the summer recess, and we will shortly launch the next phase of our pensions review to complete the job of building a pensions system that is strong, fair and sustainable. It is time to make sure that pension savings work as hard for all our constituents as our constituents worked to earn them. I commend the Bill to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kit Malthouse]

That may well be true, but that is a different question. There is a question about financial education and the ability of large numbers of our fellow citizens to understand these financial complexities. We have a large and professional independent financial adviser community, and all pension funds are required to have pension advisers who can speak to members, tell them what is going on and explain the decisions before them. I do think that over the years, such steps have disenfranchised the British people from their financial decisions, yet we hold them responsible for their debts, their mortgages and their future. There is a larger question for us in this House about how much we have subtracted from the autonomy of the British people, and therefore how much blame attaches to us as politicians when their financial circumstances are not what they expect.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is giving a lucid speech, as he always does—he speaks very well—but I am failing to understand exactly the point he is making. He is talking about a local government pension scheme, which is guaranteeing him an income in retirement, as if it is a defined-contribution scheme where he is the one at risk from changes in the investment performance. It is local taxpayers with their employer contribution who ultimately bear the risk in the scheme he is talking about. It is our job to make sure that those taxpayers have the best possible chance of not having bad returns, leading to bad outcomes for them. He is not at risk in the way he is talking about.

[Kit Malthouse]

But I have paid into that scheme.

[Torsten Bell]

You have.

[Kit Malthouse]

Yes, I have. I paid contributions through my employment at City Hall, as did my employer. Admittedly, it was a scheme based on a defined benefit, rather than a defined contribution, but that was the deal done with me on a settled contract, saying that this was what I would be provided for from my contribution. Every year, I review my pension benefit forecast. I am consulted by the fund about how it should conduct its affairs. I am asked to turn up to my pensioners’ conference to discuss with trustees how they are looking after my future. The point is that the Government are steaming in with absolutely no consultation with me as a pensioner and I have no right to be represented, although I am uniquely affected, beyond other pension schemes. I consider that to be high-handed and, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth said, to be solving a problem that does not exist.

My third point was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier): who carries the can? What happens when the Minister tells my private pension scheme or the parliamentary pension scheme that it must invest in, for instance, HS2 and it turns out to be a disaster? What happens when whichever ministerial pet project rises to the top of the priority list for pension allocation—what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Whitehall to get its finance—and it all goes horribly wrong? I am sorry to quote Yeats to the Minister, but who will pay when that happens? When there is a deficit in defined-contribution pension funds that have been so directed by the Minister, who will pay for that deficit?

[Torsten Bell]

rose—

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank all hon. Members who have spoken powerfully today, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for leading today’s debate on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee. This is an important topic that she and I have discussed several times, both in public and in private. I look forward to her closing remarks.

When we retire, the question of how comfortable we will be in retirement and in the years leading up to it— ot least given the growth in pre-retirement poverty, partly due to ill health, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbarton-shire (Susan Murray) set out—is crucial to all of us. We ask that question of ourselves, and of those we care about. As the debate has shown, many hon. Members rightly ask that about the country as a whole. We should expect people to have strong views on the state pension age. We all know women affected by the changes made, since 2010 in particular, that affect that age group—constituents, friends and family. I have declared a family interest on this front before, alongside my professional one.

[Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)]

I, too, have many constituents who are affected, and I have held up the banner saying, “I stand with WASPI women.” My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) laid out where we can find the money. Surely we can promise to revisit this when the public purse allows, rather than letting down these women who have been let down over and over again. Justice delayed is justice denied.

[Torsten Bell]

I always thank my hon. Friend for her contributions. She makes a powerful case. I will come on to the reasons why we do not agree with that case, but I understand her point.

This is a cohort of women who have too often faced discrimination in the world of work, with lasting effects on the value of their workplace pensions. They have borne the brunt of unequal caring responsibilities, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford set out, historically the genders have had very unequal state pensions. That, at least, has been addressed, but the workplace pension divide remains as big as ever.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

I should declare that my mum is a WASPI woman. She would be disappointed if I was not here today, and there is nothing worse than your mum being disappointed in you. I also represent 6,030 other WASPI women in my constituency. I just wonder if the Minister really understands the discrimination faced by 1950s women, including sexism and a lot of discrimination in the workplace. They just feel let down. Does the Minister realise that, and that they absolutely deserve justice?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know, without having met her, that his mum will not be disappointed in him. Obviously, the point he makes is absolutely right; it is the point that I was just making. I think we are all aware of the experiences that this generation of women have had to face, not just in the labour market but much more broadly. He makes a powerful case, as always.

Now, there is broad political consensus that it is right to equalise the state pension age for men and women, but the acceleration of the state pension age increases by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition was more politically controversial. I was not going to mention it, but I will gently remind Liberal Democrat Members who have spoken today—the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) and for Lewes (James MacCleary) used particularly strong language on this point—that it was the choice made by their party. Not to mention that acceleration at all—[Interruption.] If Members are going to use strong language about difficult choices, then they need to reflect on the choices that led to that point. My party opposed those choices at the time.

However, neither the acceleration nor the longer planned increases to the SPA legislated for since 1995 were matters the ombudsman investigated. This matters, given that it is the desirability of the original policy decisions made by previous Governments that is most frequently referred to by campaigners and by hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) today, who focus on the increases to the state pension age. In contrast, the ombudsman’s focus was on how those changes were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, as the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire very clearly pointed out.

As all hon. Members know, we carefully considered the ombudsman’s findings. We always will, given its important role, which was set out by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) today and in several debates that I have taken part in with him in recent months.

[Sir John Hayes]

The Minister is right to say that no party—indeed, no previous Government—can be excused in this respect, because this matter covers the time in office of several Governments. The difference is that members of his party, in opposition, said,

“This injustice can’t go on. I have been a longstanding supporter of the WASPI campaign”,

and that Labour “will compensate” the WASPI women, as it is “their money”. That was said by the current Work and Pensions Secretary and the current Deputy Prime Minister.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Gentleman has been a Member of this House for much longer than me, so he knows how this works. Parties set out their manifestos, and I am sure that if he looks at the Labour party’s 2024 manifesto, he will find there different words from the ones he has just shared with the House.

The Government agree that letters should have been sent sooner. We have apologised, and we will learn the lessons from that. However, as hon. Members and campaigners on this issue are well aware, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or to remedy—and neither, reading carefully between the lines of the speech from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), do the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman spoke very eloquently, as always.

Let us look at what the ombudsman said when it made its decision to lay the report before Parliament. It was not looking ahead to what a future Government might do; it knew that the then Conservative Government would have come to a similar conclusion. Hon. Members should remember that the long debate over those years between the Government and the ombudsman was held in private, so the ombudsman was aware of the approach of the Government, to whom it was talking in a way that those of us outside Government at the time could not have known.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) and the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) asked about the decision not to accept an ombudsman’s findings. They are right to say that it is unusual, but it is definitely not unprecedented. I should spell out that the Government have accepted other ombudsman findings since, so it is not right to say that this is some kind of fundamental break in the approach by Government.

[Seamus Logan]

Earlier, the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) warned us that we might simply see the Government Front Bencher regurgitation the Government’s views today. Can the Minister clarify whether he has been sent here to defend the indefensible, or will he give us something new today?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman is welcome to choose his tone; I will continue to the end of my comments. My job is to come and explain the Government’s decision, and to be held accountable for it. That is what I am doing today, and what I will continue to do over the course of my remarks. It is right that the Government are then asked questions about their decision; that is the nature of this democracy, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said.

An important consideration in the Government making this decision was that evidence showed that sending people unsolicited letters is unlikely to affect what they know. That is why letters are sent only as part of wider communication campaigns. This evidence was not properly considered by the ombudsman. Another consideration was that the great majority of 1950s-born women were aware of the state pension age changing, if not of a change in their specific state pension age, as several hon. Members have pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned the statistic of 43%, referring to the 2024 rather than 2023 survey. However, as she will know, that refers to all women, including some women as young as 16; if we look at the cohort of women born in the 1950s, the figure is far, far higher. On those and other grounds, we rejected the ombudsman’s approach to injustice and remedy.

Members will be aware that litigation is live, so I will not go into lots more detail on the research evidence, which is the core of that litigation. I will just say two things: first, our decision was based on published research reports, which were robust and met professional standards; secondly, the same awareness research, which the right hon. Member for New Forest East disparaged, was used by the ombudsman.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Will the Minister explain to the House why not one single speech in this debate until his has taken the line that he is taking? Everyone who has spoken in this debate believes that some compensation, at least symbolically, should be paid.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I am a liberal man. People will come to different views on the evidence. There are many Members in the House who have campaigned powerfully on this issue over many years, and I respect the work they have done on that. I am setting out a different view from the one that the right hon. Member has taken. That is the nature of policy choice, the nature of accountability, and the nature of this debate.

The ombudsman is clear that redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact, as it did in the case of the Equitable Life compensation scheme that an hon. Member mentioned. And they spell out the challenges of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women, not least given that it took the ombudsman nearly six years to look at just six cases. The reality is that assessing them would take thousands of staff very many years. We gave detailed thought to whether we could design a fair and feasible compensation scheme. However, most of the schemes that were suggested would not focus on women who lost opportunities as a result of the delay in sending letters. Rule-based schemes, such as that suggested by the Work and Pensions Committee, would make payments on the basis of the likes of age rather than injustice. Simply playing a flat rate to all 3.5 million women born in the 1950s, irrespective of any injustice, is also hard to justify.

Fundamentally, though, our decision was not only driven by cost—to answer directly the question of the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank)—but by the fact that we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy for the reasons that I have set out. Indeed, our commitment to pensioners can be seen in the significant fiscal investments that we are making in our priorities for pensioners, including raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS.

[John McDonnell]

I have an awful lot of affection for the hon. Member. Is there any difference between this speech and the one that was made in Westminster Hall? As it does not look as though there is, he might as well just send us the tape of the last one.

[Torsten Bell]

Well, the right hon. Member has demonstrated more affection on previous occasions is what I would gently say to that. If he is asking me whether the Government’s position has changed, I am afraid that the answer, from his perspective, is no.

[Daisy Cooper]

A few moments ago, the Minister said that the Government had concluded that it would not be appropriate to apply a flat rate to all 3.8 million women. Have the Government done any modelling on paying a flat rate to any other smaller cohorts within that 3.8 million women—for example, women on pension credit, or under a certain level of income or savings?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we have discussed versions of this question before. Yes, there have been models that may have focused on a subset of women—for example, those on pension credit—but that still comes up against the fundamental challenge of payments based on some other qualifying condition, which in this case is income, and not the injustice that has been suffered. The ombudsman set out that compensation was due for the injustice, not just the virtue of being a woman born in the 1950s.

[Daisy Cooper]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will give way, but then I will wrap up before Madam Deputy Speaker loses her patience.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. He will be aware that in other compensation schemes, there are often waves of compensation. The first wave of compensation can be on one indicator, with a second wave looking at other complicating factors. Have the Government looked at that model?

[Torsten Bell]

I refer the hon. Lady to our very detailed response, which was published in December. It runs over a number of pages, so I will send her the relevant extracts on the conclusions that we have considered. [Interruption.] I will have to conclude now because I am testing the patience of Madam Deputy Speaker.

I recognise that none of what I have said today is likely to change the minds of many Members here, as the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) has kindly pointed out to me. I know that, not least because I see many familiar faces from similar debates in Westminster Hall, as the even more friendly right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has told me. The campaigners, too, are unlikely to be satisfied. Their tenacity has been clear for all to see and has been attested to sufficiently today. They are right to continue to point to the wider context, which is that society has been far from universally kind to women born in the 1950s, as they have wrestled with discrimination in the labour market and beyond, which is what the hon. Member for Ceredigion Preseli (Ben Lake) set out earlier. Nothing regarding the case I have set out today diminishes any of that. However, the Government have made their decision and we owe it to everybody to be clear about it. It is right that hon. Members hold us to account for it, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) has set out.

That has happened today and in other debates in the House, including Westminster Hall. As I have said before, there are lessons for the Department to learn, and learn them we will. We will also continue to support women born in the 1950s and pensioners generally, not least by raising the state pension and turning around our NHS. I know that they and hon. Members will expect nothing less.

Work and Pensions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Written Corrections

[Shaun Davies]

Away from the knockabout of Westminster politics, I and people in Telford welcome this change. The principle of means-testing was right, but the level was too low. Does my hon. Friend agree that millionaires, MPs who happen to be of pensionable age and those who are living abroad should not receive this payment?

[Torsten Bell]

I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, so the answer is yes. He also provides me with an opportunity to clarify a point that has not been covered in the last hour or so: the payment will continue not to be exportable for those not resident in the UK.

[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 636.]

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

[Torsten Bell]

I almost always agree with my hon. Friend, so the answer is yes. He also provides me with an opportunity to clarify a point that has not been covered in the last hour or so: the payment will not be exportable for those not resident in the UK.

Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th June 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities etc.) (Amendment) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.

Consumers have waited too long for the change before us. More than 10 million people now use buy now, pay later products. When used responsibly, such products can help people manage their finances. Many especially value the fact that the products are interest-free, often making them an affordable alternative to credit cards and personal loans. Yet, unlike those traditional forms of credit, buy now, pay later products sit outside the UK’s consumer credit regulatory framework. That is because buy now, pay later products fall under an exemption originally designed to help small businesses offer instalment plans to their customers. In recent years, however, innovative fintechs have used the exemption to roll out buy now, pay later products offering to customers, usually at an online checkout, new ways to pay via the likes of Klarna, PayPal and Clearpay.

Small firms do not need authorisation from the Financial Conduct Authority, nor are buy now, pay later agreements required to adhere to the Consumer Credit Act. That approach makes sense for small businesses offering simple instalment plans for goods and services, but it is not right for the large-scale consumer credit lenders now in this market.

Back in February 2021, under the previous Government, the Woolard review set out the risks of that unregulated market. First, there are no rules on what information buy now, pay later firms must give their customers. Too many people are left unclear about what they owe, and some do not even realise that they have taken out credit. Secondly, the firms are not required to check whether people can afford these products. Finally, that lack of checks brings real danger.

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

Does the Minister agree that this draft legislation is particularly important to protect those facing hardship? Potentially, people—certainly residents in my constituency—may feel the need to turn to buy now, pay later products, but given that they are not regulated, that could lead them into further debt.

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that is generally relevant to financial services regulation: we want the availability of credit for people, but we want it done safely. That is exactly what the changes are about. As I was saying, debt can quickly mount up when people take out several buy now, pay later products at once, with no one checking what they already owe.

The previous Government rightly pledged to bring the products into regulation, although sadly did not get to the point of delivering on that promise. I am proud that, in May, this Government laid this draft order to bring unregulated buy now, pay later products offered by third-party lenders into regulation under the Financial Conduct Authority. That will bring proper oversight of such firms and strong protection for consumers.

In future, buy now, pay later firms will have to carry out robust affordability checks, ensuring that consumers are protected from taking on debt that they cannot afford. Firms will also be required to give consumers clear information. That will help people to decide whether buy now, pay later is right for them, and to know that support is available if they face financial difficulty. Buy now, pay later users will gain strong rights under the Consumer Credit Act, including section 75 protection. That will make it easier for consumers to get a refund if something goes wrong with a purchase. Crucially, consumers will have the right to take their complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service. That will guarantee them access to a fair, independent resolution if problems arise. Those are the rights and protections that users of other regulated credit products already enjoy. It is only right that users of buy now, pay later products receive them, too.

There is also something new: the Financial Conduct Authority will be able to develop a modernised information disclosure regime for buy now, pay later products, set by FCA rules, not by the Consumer Credit Act. We have recognised, in line with feedback, including from consumer groups, that the existing provisions of the Consumer Credit Act on information requirements do not suit interest-free, short-term buy now, pay later products. However, this is not special treatment for these products. On the same day as we laid the draft order that we are debating today, we launched a consultation to reform the Consumer Credit Act more widely.

Lastly, let me stress that a new regulatory regime is not just a win for consumers. Buy now, pay later firms will benefit as well. For years, they have faced regulatory uncertainty. This order ends that uncertainty, and we have ensured that the order delivers a smooth transition to regulation for them. They will be able to continue lending under a temporary permissions regime while the FCA authorisation is under review. That guarantees business as usual, for them and for customers, throughout the transition.

Twelve months after this order is made, the new regulatory regime for these products will come into force. In that time, the FCA will consult on and finalise the rules that will govern buy now, pay later lending. We must not delay giving millions of consumers the vital protection that they deserve.

I thank the Committee for its attention to this issue and would welcome any questions from the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury or any other Members.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

It is an absolute joy to serve under your very professional and diligent leadership and chairmanship of this Committee, Mr Stuart. I also congratulate the Minister on his debut in a Delegated Legislation Committee. He does it masterfully.

These buy now, pay later measures, as colleagues will recall and as pointed out by the Minister, were consulted on extensively by the previous Government. As the Minister also pointed out, there was an unfortunate general election, which got in the way of us actually—

[Torsten Bell]

Fortunate.

[Mark Garnier]

That rather depends on one’s point of view. I think it was fortunate for everyone in this room apart from Conservative Members.

Moving on, we are absolutely supportive of bringing these products within the scope of financial regulation. As we have heard, the sector has seen rapid growth. Because the products are now used by millions of people, the last Government rightly acted to protect consumers from harm—or wanted to act. The proposed regulations require FCA authorisation, affordability checks and clearer information for consumers, which are all measures that we absolutely support. An ability to access the Financial Ombudsman Service will also give consumers an avenue to escalate any issues.

However, as these regulations have been developed, several concerns have been raised by businesses operating in the BNPL market, and I hope that the Minister may be able to address those issues today. First, the exemption for merchants offering their own BNPL products could create inconsistencies and consumer risks. I appreciate the sentiment for keeping an exemption, and Conservative Members do not want to expose small businesses to burdensome regulation. For example, the local gym should not be required to undertake the FCA approval process to provide a 12-month membership; I am sure that many people would agree with that. However, a potential loophole still exists. A large e-commerce website, such as Amazon, could offer BNPL directly and not come under these regulations. That is because there is no way in the Consumer Credit Act to distinguish between a large e-commerce site and a small or medium-sized enterprise. Currently, no online retailer is operating its own version of BNPL, as opposed to using a third party provider. However, I am sure that the industry would welcome reassurance from the Minister today that the Government will be looking at any knock-on effects that these regulations might cause.

Opposition Members also welcome the Treasury’s saying that work is under way to review and reform the Consumer Credit Act, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that the review will specifically address the issue of definitions, ensuring that there is a way to distinguish between the largest retailers and small businesses. Will the Government also provide further details on how they will go about monitoring the prevalence of retailer-provided BNPL services, and at what point they will intervene once they see evidence of such activity taking place?

Secondly, short-term lenders have highlighted the fact that although interest-free agreements under 12 months will fall under a new regime, longer or interest-bearing agreements remain subject to older rules. A 10-month interest-free instalment agreement and a 14-month low-interest agreement may be economically and structurally similar, but one will benefit from modern disclosure rules while the other will not. I hope that the Minister can address whether that has the potential also to be reviewed as part of the review of the CCA.

Finally, the regulations do not address late fees, which can disproportionately impact vulnerable consumers, so again I would welcome the Minister’s setting out today whether the Government will also keep that under constant review.

The Opposition support the intent of these regulations, but call for the Government to address some of the outstanding points raised by the industry in order to ensure robust consumer protection and a level playing field for everybody participating in this market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I thank Members for their comments. Let me try to do justice to their questions in turn.

The core question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire and both Opposition spokespersons was about merchant-offered credit. First, we do not see huge evidence of that happening. As things stand, we cannot see large providers doing that, and there are good reasons why they would choose not to.

Secondly, where large providers look to do that kind of thing, they tend to do it through a separate finance arm. Where that is the case, it will be required to be FCA-authorised, and the wish to avoid that lending sitting on the balance sheet of the retailer is a strong disincentive to the kind of activity that is being discussed. There are risks on the other side, because if we accidentally bring instalment plans or gym memberships into regulation, that would be a significant loss to consumers. We do not see the evidence today, but as I said, the Government will keep this under active review.

I can confirm that the wider CCA reforms will look at the question of definitions. The big picture is that when the CCA was created, the FCA did not exist, so primary legislation was very prescriptive about the nature of regulation. However, markets, technology and products have changed significantly, so we do not need the primary legislation to be as specific as it has been in the past, and there is more role for FCA rules to carry out that purpose.

In terms of next steps, the first phase of the review is under way. There will be a second consultation covering rights and protections later this year, and then there will be one Bill, bringing together the conclusions of that, to introduce that reform. That is also the answer to the question that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest asked about the unfairness of a 12-month cut-off in terms of the level of regulation we are talking about on the disclosure of information requirements that will apply to buy now, pay later. The lessons from that consultation over the next year will also inform what the future FCA rules might look like for the wider market under CCA reform. I am sure we will keep debating that, and that he will debate it with the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the months ahead.

The hon. Member for St Albans mentioned the consumer duty. I can confirm that, because these will be FCA-authorised firms, it will apply in the normal way. The question of fees was also raised. I should remind everyone that FCA-authorised firms are already not allowed to impose fees and charges on customers who are in arrears or default beyond the costs required to match their costs. They are not allowed to rack up arrears and fees for people who are already in that situation. That is progress that has been made in recent years.

Lastly, I can confirm that the Government will publish their financial inclusion strategy, covering many of the issues that have been raised. It is a chance to pick up the wider questions about financial inclusion that I know are important to all Members.

In conclusion, let me stress once again that millions of people are using buy now, pay later products every year. They value that in many cases, but they deserve vital consumer protections, and we must not keep them waiting any longer. That is what this order does, so I hope Members will join me in supporting it.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Torsten Bell Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

14. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in the level of unemployment.

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

We all know the importance of work, and since the election we have seen employment rise by 500,000, but Britain is a country that has too few young adults in work or education, and where the post-pandemic employment recovery has taken too long. That is why we will continue our reforms to support more people into work.

[Julia Lopez]

To cut spending and balance the books, Labour has to get people off welfare, but the Chancellor’s job tax and the Deputy Prime Minister’s unemployment Bill mean that there are fewer jobs for them to go to. Some 285 more of my constituents are out of work than last year, and since the Budget a quarter of a million jobs have vanished. A rise in public sector roles in the same period is probably masking a far deeper crisis going on in the private sector. There is no joined-up thinking. Has the Secretary of State warned her Cabinet colleagues that their policies are making her job impossible?

[Torsten Bell]

The Secretary of State inherited a labour market that was a mess under the Conservatives, with nearly 1 million young people not in education or training, and 2.8 million too sick to work. Employment is up by 500,000. Economic inactivity—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not like to hear it, but economic inactivity is down by 300,000 under this Government. No one on the Government Benches will take lectures on a good labour market from the Conservatives.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Unemployment is now 115,000 higher than when Labour took office. The Chancellor’s new jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill make hiring a new person more expensive. The family farms and family business taxes are reducing investment. Can the Minister therefore explain how he will reduce unemployment while the Chancellor is pursuing policies that increase it?

[Torsten Bell]

I do not want to try the patience of the House but, as I have said, employment is up by 500,000 under this Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to talk about that. The hon. Gentleman mentions what British business wants—what British business wants is a Government who are actually fixing the public finances and the public services that mean that when a member of staff gets sick, they do not sit on a waiting list for years, as they did under the previous Government. The Conservatives like to attack the Employment Rights Bill, but stopping good employers being undercut by bad is the pro-business thing to do.

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Paisley jobcentre runs a “Take a job to work” day, where work coaches look for local employment opportunities and take those suggestions into the jobcentre to match jobseekers with local jobs. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is a good example of local innovation in jobcentres, and would the Government consider sharing that good practice across the rest of the country?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank everyone in Paisley who has been working on those practices—it is exactly the kind of innovation we like to see. Under the Conservatives, only one in six employers said they bothered to engage with their local jobcentre, which is exactly what we need to change with our reforms to Jobcentre Plus. I thank everyone in Paisley, but there is much more to do right across the UK.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

The previous Government left us with one in eight young people out of work, training or education, and with 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, not only costing the economy billions more but costing people opportunity, hope and dignity, and now the Conservatives cannot even agree a plan among themselves to address that. Does the Minister agree that the Conservative party is in chaos, while this Government are bringing forward sensible plans to give the country a way forward after the mess the Conservatives left it in?

[Torsten Bell]

That was a powerful and long question, and I am glad that Conservative Members listened to every word of it, because they left us 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—that is what a disgrace looks like. What is happening now? We have seen falling numbers of NEETs over the past quarter and the past year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?

[Torsten Bell]

A firm footing for economic recovery looks like kicking the Conservative party out of office and growing the economy once again, and that is what we see if we look at the data. The hon. Lady likes to look at one month’s data—well, let us look at it. Data from the Office for National Statistics show that vacancies rose by 27% between April and May. I know the Conservatives want to pretend that everything was wonderful a year ago, but every business and every voter in this country knows that that was not the case.

[Helen Whately]

Honestly, who does the Minister think he is fooling with this spiel? Growth forecasts have been slashed and inflation has surged. What world is he living in? The Government have been in office for a year and people are losing their jobs because of the decisions that they have made. How does he think his “everything’s fine” mantra actually sounds to one of the people who have lost their jobs or to a business facing a tax bill that it cannot afford? Has the Secretary of State even told her Back Benchers, who will be strong-armed into voting for cuts next week, that the welfare cuts Bill that we will be debating will get a grand total of zero people into work, according to the Government’s own impact assessment?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Lady asks about what is going on with the economy. What is going on is that we have had four rate cuts over the past year. What is going on is that we have signed three trade deals over the past year. What is going on is that employment has gone up and inactivity has gone down. I know that the Opposition love to latch on to one month’s data, but let us look at the whole period of this Government: wages have increased by more under this party in the past 10 months than they did in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the personal independence payment application process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)]

8. Whether she is taking steps with Cabinet colleagues to help support climate and nature targets through her Department’s pensions policies.

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

The short answer to that question is yes. The Department is contributing to two consultations that will shortly be published by the Business and Energy Departments. They will invite views on the new UK sustainability reporting standards and transition plans. This will help investors, including pension savers and their schemes, to understand the impact of climate and nature on investments.

[Anna Gelderd]

As a co-chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on sustainable finance and on global deforestation, I remain concerned that around £388 billion in UK pension savings is still invested in fossil fuels and deforestation-related activities. Will the Minister reassure me further that undermining the long-term financial security of savers in South East Cornwall is not the Government’s intention, and will he commit to reviewing this, including via the Pension Schemes Bill and the landmark pensions review?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner on this issue for some years, and she will know that larger pension schemes are now required to publish annual reports with climate-related disclosures. The evidence shows that around two thirds of pension funds have a net zero commitment in place, and we will be reviewing those regulations over the course of this year.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is very important that those who have pensions get a return, so that their pensions are beneficial. It is also important to ensure that net zero is delivered, because many people who have pensions want to see that happen. It is about getting a balance, so how will the Minister get that balance?

[Torsten Bell]

On the first part of the hon. Member’s question, I do not want to get the balance, because we want to make sure that savers get the absolute best value they can for every buck they save. I completely endorse his sentiment on that part; that is the very purpose of the Pension Schemes Bill that is coming through. On the second part of his question, I also endorse the point that he makes. When we look at those disclosures, we see that they set out a balance of judgments about the requirements on schemes, but they also provide greater transparency so that both individuals and the schemes themselves can take a view about the investments.