Torsten Bell
MP for Swansea West · Labour · United Kingdom
“That includes how, in some parts, pension scams are on the rise—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The truth is that it is not possible to restore trust entirely—certainly, not in the firm that was involved in this among the people affected, but also probably in the regulator, but hopefully Members’ campaigning has restored trust in local representation and the campaigning energy of local representatives.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members present have been part of, confirming that the then Government’s decisions “cannot be said to be incompatible with the report.” As hon.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have all heard about the kinds of human impacts that hon. Members have set out well today. On the big picture, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about the importance of people having trust in pensions.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why the 2013 decision, which was referenced by the then Government, to provide separate, tax-free ex gratia payments was the way in which the previous Government chose to proceed. The scheme has now been fully wound down; it was closed in 2016 by the then Conservative Government. That is now over a decade ago. I suspect that hon.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is always a privilege to respond to a debate under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for opening the debate. He was referred to as a limpet earlier, but he has been more proactive than that in his campaigning on this issue over the years.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
1,686 held · 658 searchable for Torsten Bell. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“It is not for me to make that case, but were they here to do so, they would say that decisions need to be fair to taxpayers as well as policyholders, and they would point out that there is a wide range of people responsible for the disaster that we saw in Equitable Life, including those who were responsible for the firm through that period in the 1990s when very reprehensible actions took place.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am obviously fully aware that, as we have again heard today, people are dissatisfied with that £1.5 billion and suggest that the issue should be reopened. It is not for me to defend the decisions made by the then Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. To be fair to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), she came closest to doing so today, but other colleagues chose not to— [ Interruption. ] The hon. Lady chose to defend the decisions of that Government to some degree and others obviously did not. The balance of opinion in this Chamber is that the then Government made a mistake in the size of the compensation that was allocated.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am merely pointing out that that is not a cash loss; it is a loss relative to a counterfactual of having invested in a different but similar product. That approach followed the 2008 parliamentary ombudsman’s report into the collapse, and was the foundation of the payment scheme. In 2010, the Government of the day accepted the ombudsman’s findings and chose to allocate in the region of £1.5 billion —the quote from the Chancellor at the time—to make tax-free payments to eligible policyholders in respect of the reduced returns that they received from their investments. That Government chose what they saw as the correct balance of interests between the interests of the affected policyholders and taxpayers. That is the choice that was made.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will make some progress on the specifics of this case. Hon. Members will be aware this is a topic that has been well documented and explored over the years—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) set out the role of the sabbatical for him in the period in which that has taken place. The Equitable Life payment scheme was established to make payments to eligible policyholders where maladministration had been found. That maladministration contributed to some savers suffering a relative loss totalling £4.1 billion. Relative loss was defined as the difference between the value of the policyholder’s funds with Equitable Life and what they would have received if they had made a comparable investment elsewhere.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That includes how, in some parts, pension scams are on the rise—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that. Obviously, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme now exists, in a way that it did not in the period that we are talking about, when we are talking about pensions operating within the contract-based part of the pensions system. That is a big change, and it is compensation paid not by taxpayers, but by the financial services industry itself. That is the answer to the specific question posed by the hon. Member for Christchurch about what happens when the regulators or, more importantly, the providers fail. The answer is that there is a compensation scheme, although we are here because there was not a compensation scheme in place—and it has caps in terms of the compensation due.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have all heard about the kinds of human impacts that hon. Members have set out well today. On the big picture, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about the importance of people having trust in pensions. This is a particular part of the pension system, but the point also applies to the entire pension system. That is something I take very seriously indeed as the Pensions Minister. I was up in Liverpool at the Pensions UK conference last week talking in those exact terms about how our task is to make sure that we address what is today, if we are honest, too low a level of trust in pensions. That is true of both state and private pensions. It is our job to rebuild that trust.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The truth is that it is not possible to restore trust entirely—certainly, not in the firm that was involved in this among the people affected, but also probably in the regulator, but hopefully Members’ campaigning has restored trust in local representation and the campaigning energy of local representatives. The issue is even more important to the thousands of Equitable Life savers who were affected. The point, which was well made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and others, about the human effect is one that I am sure everybody in this Chamber has at the front of their mind. Those affected included my grandfather, and I have met lots of other constituents who were members of the mutual before it disappeared. I have also met with the action group, which many hon. Members have also met with.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is always a privilege to respond to a debate under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for opening the debate. He was referred to as a limpet earlier, but he has been more proactive than that in his campaigning on this issue over the years. It is an important issue to him and to lots of other hon. Members. I should echo the point he made at the beginning about the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in the Chamber but who has been focused on this issue for a long time. Members have campaigned on this issue with tireless energy and kept the issue in the spotlight. I want to reflect on some of the astute points that several hon. Members made.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will finish by assuring them that the funding for those payments remains protected and again thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is that there are no plans to reopen the previous policy decisions taken by the previous Government. The previous Government made decisions given the public finances at the time. Those decisions were debated by that Parliament—some Members present were part of that Parliament, and the rest of us respect the decisions of that House. The only part of the payment scheme in operation is the annual payments made to eligible annuitants. The scheme is on track to distribute the remainder of the funds allocated, as planned, on that basis. The right thing for this Government to do is to ensure that the ongoing payments to those eligible with-profit annuity holders—the group recognised, I think by all of us, to be the most vulnerable—continue to be made.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why the 2013 decision, which was referenced by the then Government, to provide separate, tax-free ex gratia payments was the way in which the previous Government chose to proceed. The scheme has now been fully wound down; it was closed in 2016 by the then Conservative Government. That is now over a decade ago. I suspect that hon. Members know that I cannot give all of them, or indeed all the impressive campaigners on this issue, the answer that they would like—a straight “more compensation”. I suspect that hon. Members know that that is the case. However, I want to give them what I think is the next best thing, which is a straight answer, and it is the direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the Opposition spokesperson.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The coalition Government excluded them from the scheme, not because they had not suffered real impacts from the collapse of Equitable Life—I think the then Government recognised that they had suffered real impacts—but because their purchase of those annuities, which is the point at which someone locks into the decision in the case of an annuity, was outside the period of maladministration, so the Government would have struggled to find a locus to make a payment in the terms of a scheme, because there was no maladministration to tie a payment to. Again, it is not for me to defend that Government. However, if they were here today, that is how they would explain the decision that was taken.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is obviously a standard actuarial process; it is what sits behind the regulation of the insurance sector when annuities are being sold. The remaining £775 million was allocated to be paid as lump sums to with-profits non-annuitants holding other products. As for the details of how much has been spent, I can provide answers to the questions put by several hon. Members. As of 30 September 2026, the total value of payments made by the scheme was almost exactly £1.4 billion—it is just short of that figure—and that is an increase on the previous figure that the hon. Member for Christchurch cited. I note the references in this debate to the pre-1992 with-profit annuity holders.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members present have been part of, confirming that the then Government’s decisions “cannot be said to be incompatible with the report.” As hon. Members know, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government prioritised those acknowledged by all parties to be the most vulnerable—the with-profit annuitants. They received 100% of their losses. That meant that, of the £1.5 billion, £725 million was allocated to with-profit annuitants, to be paid annually over the duration of the annuity, which continues to this day. That included the £100 million contingency fund—that is the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—to ensure that the provision for the annuitants, should they live longer than expected, was there.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s last question towards the end of my remarks, but on his first point he is absolutely right to say that the then Government’s key consideration—when I referenced taxpayers—was the public finances. That is the point being made. That was the key driver in the decision by the then Government about how much money to allocate, rather than trying some kind of specific accounting for the impact of the maladministration per se. Ministers at the time also noted the consistency of their decision with the ombudsman’s report—we have discussed a bit of that today—and the ombudsman subsequently wrote on this issue to the all-party parliamentary group, which I think several hon.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Where there are lump sums or extra cost payments, those are disregarded within pension credit. Where there are regular payments that support income—one type of such payments is the focus of the debate and relates to how Pauline received her treatment—those are treated as income, and then the legislation requires us to partially disregard them. I appreciate that that is a technocratic explanation that does not do justice to Pauline’s individual circumstances, or to the circumstances of veterans with whom we all engage every day.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was the nature of how pension credit was introduced. The hon. Member draws a parallel with the LGBT+ compensation payments. I hope that he will agree that the circumstances surrounding the Government setting up that financial recognition scheme are quite different and involve a different set of considerations. More broadly, no one is ever going to say that everything about the benefits system is perfect—certainly not anybody who spent a long time working on it and trying to help people navigate it prior to coming into Parliament, and who, like all hon. Members, has helped their constituents to navigate it—but I will try to give an explanation of what sits behind the logic. I absolutely recognise that, as Pauline set out clearly, it feels like an arbitrary system to people.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Comparisons can sometimes involve payments with different legal status, but they are not like-for-like payments. The hon. Member has argued that pension credit and service-related compensation meet different needs—again, that was an important part of his speech today. I actually agree with him on that point, but I think I need to explain what that means. Pension credit is a means-tested income safety net, and it provides a guaranteed minimum income. That is why we take people’s other income into account when assessing eligibility and need. Pension credit operates in a totally different way from universal credit, which sets a level of support and then tapers that away as other income comes in. It is not really about double funding; it is about the level of support that the state provides in addition to the income that a person already has.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By contrast, capital above £6,000 can affect universal credit entitlement, and that entitlement normally ends if somebody has over £16,000 of capital. Comparisons with civilian personal injury compensation should be made carefully. I know why the hon. Member makes that point, but I want to be clear that lump sums paid under the armed forces compensation scheme are treated as personal injury capital, so they would be treated exactly the same as the payments that I think he said were more generous. That would not be the case; they would be treated identically. By contrast, ongoing war pension scheme payments, and guaranteed income payments under the armed forces compensation scheme, are income payments. That is the fundamental point on which there is probably disagreement.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“A more important point is that the two benefits serve very different purposes: one takes work incentives into account, while the other is intended to provide that minimum guaranteed income. What is probably more relevant to this specific case is the fact that pension credit rates are significantly higher than the standard allowances in universal credit, because the House decided, in passing the legislation, that our aim was to more or less guarantee pensioners’ incomes up to a minimum level. Pension credit is also more generous in its treatment of capital: the first £10,000 has no effect on entitlement and, unlike universal credit, it has no upper capital limit. That is for the obvious reason that pensioners tend to have larger savings, and those savings provide other contributions to people’s income.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Those arrangements are more favourable than the treatment of other similar schemes with disablement elements. For example, the industrial injuries disablement benefit is taken fully into account for pension credit, and the fire and police service schemes also have no disregards applied. However, I think that the centre of the hon. Member’s argument is the different treatment in respect of universal credit. That is the point that he dwelt on, so I will try to do justice to it. Universal credit was introduced with no partial disregards, which is what drove the initial change. Pension credit predates the introduction of universal credit and does retain the partial disregard structure that all the legacy benefits had.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“During the 2000s, it drove the halving of pensioner poverty that was such a big feature of the previous Labour Government. Pension credit rules already recognise veterans’ specific circumstances. As the hon. Member said, the first £10 of specified war pension scheme and armed forces compensation scheme income is disregarded. I should add—because this is important and it has not been discussed in the debate so far—that the armed forces independence payment and specific additions to the war disablement pension are disregarded in full, in recognition of the different nature of those payments. Lump sum payments under the armed forces compensation scheme are treated as personal injury capital, which can remain protected through a trust or annuity under the applicable rules.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me now turn to the long-standing policy issues in this area, and try to do justice to the matters that the hon. Member has raised. He is right to say that there is no single rule for how compensation payments are treated in the benefits system. Treatment depends on the nature and purpose of a payment, whether it is in the form of a regular income or a lump sum capital payment, as well as the legislation governing the relevant schemes. In pension credit, most income is taken into account, because the benefit is intended to top up the retirement income that a person already has. Pension credit is intended to do something different from any other element of the benefits system: to provide a guaranteed minimum level that our pensioners will always have to live on.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I should also recognise the work of veterans’ hubs beyond the Royal British Legion, including the one in Swansea, where I have discussed this and many other issues with veterans face to face. The hon. Member has been a fierce and determined campaigner on this issue. He mentioned the first question that he asked during Prime Minister’s Question Time—always a stressful but meaningful moment for a new MP. He has also persistently raised the subject of the interaction between military compensation and the benefits system, and I note that his private Member’s Bill was reintroduced in the House today. I have listened to him and to others, including Members in the House today, and, as I am sure he knows, my colleague the Minister of State in the House of Lords met representatives of the Royal British Legion in November and discussed the matter.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was very glad to meet her and to have the chance of knowing how accurate the hon. Member’s description of her was, and again I offer my condolences to her family, who have continued to support the campaign that she championed. I have corresponded with at least one of her sons about this case. As well as paying tribute to all our armed forces and veterans, I want to acknowledge the work that the Royal British Legion does on their behalf, working to promote and secure the welfare of veterans, campaigning on issues involving armed forces personnel such as the one we are discussing today, and securing a wider recognition of what our armed forces have given to this country.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I join other Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) on securing this debate on an issue that I know he has championed passionately for some time. I also congratulate him on how he has gone about it, both today and over the past few years in which I have been engaging with him on the issue. Indeed, I think he first raised it with me a month into my time as the Minister for Pensions, when I met him and his constituents, including the late Staff Sergeant Pauline Cole, and members of his team. It was nice to hear him paying tribute to them today. They have obviously worked hard on this issue. The hon. Member’s speech included a touching and fitting tribute to Pauline, who served our country and campaigned not only for herself but on behalf of other veterans.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the most I can do for him is to give him a straight answer: the Government are not in a position to change the regulations. I am not in a position to give him the first answer that he would like tonight, but he at least deserves a straight answer. This is a long-standing position, for the reasons I have set out. It is about the consistency of how the benefit system deals with a very large and growing number of compensation payments, all of which have similar issues to the ones we are discussing.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Whether compensation is provided via income or lump sums is obviously part of the compensation schemes, but I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Gentleman about that. I do not know enough about the specifics of Pauline’s case to say how that would have played out, but it is the scheme rules, rather than the benefit system itself, that determine lump sum payments or ongoing payments. More broadly, I just want to say that I absolutely hear the hon. Member’s arguments and have done so on a number of occasions. I have also heard them from Pauline and from her family. I hear his clear request for the Government to change the regulations, and I recognise the power of those arguments. He has asked a straight question.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The straight answer is that my hon. Friend’s question has been tested on a number of occasions and the answer is no, but the legal question is not sufficient. The question is this: what is the right thing to do and are we supporting our veterans? The legal answer to his question is yes, but that does not take away from the need to test that more broadly in the way that we are doing tonight and have done on other occasions.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I should finish by emphasising again the Government’s deep-felt gratitude to our armed forces for their professionalism, bravery and dedication to duty, and to those in such a position previously. Veterans now represent large parts of all our communities, and we continue to honour them for the work they did while they were serving, but also for being active citizens supporting all kinds of work. I have mentioned the veterans hub in Swansea, where I see brilliant work being done by people day in and day out. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The answer to that is the legal position I have just set out, which is that the DWP does take that seriously, has considered it and is content that this is consistent with our obligations under the armed forces covenant. I think the hon. Member is trying to go beyond that to say that there are other things we should take into account, including arguments in this place, the position of veterans and the rest. However, narrowly on the legal question, the answer is yes. That has been tested, and our position is that it is consistent with the armed forces covenant. The fact that that is our position in no way undermines the powerful arguments that he has made and other hon. Members have supported, or those we have heard from our veterans, and I want to put that clearly on the record.”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We want all pensioners, including women born in the 1950s, to have the comfortable retirements they deserve. That is why we are delivering on our twin priorities for pensioners: raising the state pension, and rescuing the NHS. We are also delivering the largest ever pension credit take-up campaign, which is particularly important for low-income pensioners, a disproportionate number of whom are women.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister and I opposed the 2011 acceleration of the state pension age by the coalition Government of the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, in particular because it gave some women as little as five years’ notice of changes to their state pension age. Those same women have faced disadvantage in the workplace and very uneven burdens of caring responsibilities. I have recently written to WASPI representatives to set out the Government’s position. With legal proceedings ongoing, further comment is not appropriate, but I continue to hear from and to speak to women affected by the accelerated increases in the state pension age.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the right hon. Member for his question; I just do not agree with the tone in which he asked it. This Government have considered the case set out by the ombudsman and provided a detailed response. I am afraid that the previous Government did nothing of the sort—they did not say they would proceed with a compensation scheme. In fact, the reason the ombudsman laid their report before Parliament, rather than to the Government, is that it was clear where the last Government were going with this.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s reforms provide greater flexibility for well-funded defined-benefit pension schemes to share surplus with employers and to benefit members. Scheme trustees, who must act in the interests of scheme beneficiaries, are best placed to determine the appropriate use of any surplus for their individual scheme. Trustees will agree how members can benefit, working with sponsoring employers.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The flexibilities we have put in place through the Pension Schemes Act 2026 and the guidance being provided by the Pensions Regulator are already changing the nature of the discussion between trustees and employers, and will lead to a step change in this area.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question; he and I have met and discussed this issue on many occasions. Around three quarters of schemes already provide some pre-1997 indexation, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out the strength of feeling on this. I have met with many MPs and scheme members, including those in south Wales who have been affected by lack of pre-1997 indexation on their defined benefit schemes. It is separate from the changes that we have already introduced for the Pension Protection Fund’s indexation. Trustees need to be in the driving seat. Employers will have no direct access to a scheme’s surplus.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although I listened closely to much of the Conservative party’s conference—not quite all of it, but lots of it—I am still not clear what its policy is on the triple lock or on many other things in the pensions space. I have been paying a lot of attention, and what I have learned is that the shadow Foreign Secretary calls the triple lock a Ponzi scheme and the previous shadow Chancellor calls it completely unsustainable. The shadow Secretary of State knows she has a ridiculous position on reform of the state pension. This Government will put the state pension on a sustainable basis and address the other big challenge of ensuring an adequate private pension system. That is what the Pensions Commission will do.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the challenges facing younger workers. They face exactly the same cost of living challenges as the rest of society, but often with added pressure when it comes to housing. The good news is that between 2012 and 2025, participation among employees aged 22 to 25 who are eligible for automatic enrolment increased from 28% to 85%. He is completely right that there is much more to do, and I can confirm that the Pensions Commission is exploring exactly these long-term questions.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Government promised in our 2024 manifesto to ensure that the state pension in Scotland, England and Wales would rise every single year, and that is exactly what this Government are getting on with doing.”
House of Commons12 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are committed to supporting British pensioners to enjoy a comfortable retirement after a lifetime of work. That is why we are raising the state pension throughout this Parliament via the triple lock. That saw the state pension increase by 4.8% in April, boosting the level of the new state pension by £575 a year.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I can give the hon. Member the assurance he asks for, which is that this Labour Administration, like all Labour Administrations, are on the side of pensioners. Of course, he only defected earlier this year, so he was a Conservative MP during all 14 years of the Conservative party’s disastrous last Government—a Government who saw pensioner poverty rise and left one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists. That is what letting down pensioners looks like.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is a very important question. We need to make sure that those who will retire in 2050 can look forward to the same kind of comfortable retirements that many—not all, but many—of today’s pensioners enjoy, and the honest answer is that we are not on track for that at the moment. This Government are taking a two-stage approach. We are driving up returns on pension savings now—that is what the Pensions Schemes Act 2026 does—but we are also doing the longer-term work through the Pensions Commission to look at exactly the question of how we make sure that tomorrow’s pensioners can enjoy comfortable retirements. I promise that the commission will bring forward its report early next year.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am incredibly hopeful that this Government are doing a much better job than the previous Government in supporting pensioners, not only by driving up the state pension, but by getting on with the much delayed reforms to our defined-contribution pension system, which the previous Government left on ice. We are also coming forward with something much more important, because the biggest betrayal of older generations in Britain today is the state in which the Conservatives left our national health service.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s point, and we need to fund the NHS to stop letting down older generations. Taxes have consequences that affect the whole population, including pensioners. The Chancellor has set out that the level of the personal allowance will remain above the level of the new and the basic state pension—the headline rates—throughout this year. In future years we will ensure that we ease the administrative burden for pensioners who have small amounts of tax due.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and she has been an important campaigner for pensioners in her constituency who have been affected by it. Although three quarters of schemes provide some degree of pre-1997 indexation, there is a very real impact on members of schemes that do not—indeed, we have discussed that with local pensioners in south Wales. The surplus reforms that this Government are bringing forward will make it easier for some trustees to negotiate for additional indexation. We launched a consultation on this issue on 10 June, and it runs until 2 September. I will take my hon. Friend’s comments as input for that consultation.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is a consistent campaigner on these issues in this place and in our regular meetings, and I always learn something from those conversations. I am not going forward with exactly the suggestion he brings forward, but I agree that there is more we can do, not least to provide clarity for trustees. We are working with industry to develop guidance clarifying that fiduciary duties allow trustees investing in members’ best interests to consider systemic risks, including climate change, and we will consult later this summer.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member will know that a judicial review claim has been filed, and that we cannot comment on live litigation. There are legitimate views on raises in the state pension age, particularly the 2011 acceleration put in place by the coalition Government, but the investigation that is being considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman is not about those increases; it is purely on the narrow point about communication. The Government have made their position clear on that and set it out in the decision document placed in the House of Commons Library.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“UK employment levels are strong by historic and international standards. The hon. Member is right, though, to highlight a structural challenge when it comes to young people being out of work and, for that matter, education. That is why we have committed £2.5 billion over the next three years to the youth guarantee, helping to deliver up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn.”
House of Commons23 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The background to this is that employment is up 920,000 since the election. As I just said, there are structural challenges when it comes to youth unemployment. I gently refer the Tories to the fact that we saw a 250,000 increase in the number of those not in education, employment or training in the last three years that they were in office, and youth apprenticeships saw a 40% fall when they were in office. This Government are getting on with supporting young people. That is why this month will see the introduction of a £3,000 hiring bonus for firms that take on someone aged 18 to 24 who has been looking for work for six months.”
House of Commons23 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗