Torsten Bell
MP for Swansea West · Labour · United Kingdom
“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.”
“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.”
“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 Ser…”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 complete record
Every one of 618 lines we hold for Torsten Bell, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“My hon. Friend has done significant campaigning on this issue in recent months, and we all know why. The Government obviously inherited the student loan system situation, and we have already acted to cap the interest rate on student loans. We look forward to reading her Committee’s report, and, I am sure, to her ongoing campaigning on this issue.”
“The draft regulations are not a change in policy but make the further technical and consequential amendments necessary to ensure that pensions tax legislation can operate as intended following the abolition of the lifetime allowance. Most of these changes will take effect from 6 April 2024 —in other words, they will apply retrospectively—when the lifetime allowance was abolished, although a small number of amendments will come into effect only from the date that the regulations come into force. The regulations have been made by the Treasury by exercising the powers conferred by paragraph 134 of schedule 9 of the Finance Act 2024. I therefore commend the instrument to the Committee.”
“This statutory instrument simply modifies a number of areas of primary legislation and some areas of subordinate legislation purely to ensure that the abolition of the lifetime allowance is delivered as originally intended. Those changes ensure that the lump sum allowances work fairly and consistently, including treating overseas pensions in the same way as UK schemes and giving individuals flexibility to decide the order of multiple payments on the same day. They also clarify the calculation of protections and enhancements so that the outcomes more closely reflect those achieved under the lifetime allowance. Finally, they introduce targeted technical fixes and improved reporting rules to support accurate administration for the post-lifetime allowance regime.”
“That was a significant task; the entire pensions tax regime was structured around the existence of a lifetime allowance, and many other aspects of the regime, such as allowable pension and lump sum benefits, were calculated with reference to the lifetime allowance. Additional regulations have thus been needed to provide further administrative and technical detail. Since the Finance Act 2024 and the regulations that followed, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has continued to work with industry representatives to ensure that the legislation operates correctly. In doing so, HMRC has identified further areas that do not operate as intended.”
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Pensions (Abolition of Lifetime Allowance Charge etc) Regulations 2026. I will briefly take the Committee through the background and purpose of these draft regulations, which relate to the abolition of the pensions lifetime allowance. At the 2023 spring Budget, the previous Government announced that they would abolish the lifetime allowance. The Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 removed the lifetime allowance charge. The Finance Act 2024 removed the other elements of the lifetime allowance from the pension tax regime from 6 April 2024.”
“Do we have clear enough priorities that can be delivered on, and delivered on at times when there are many other competing pressures? Our priorities as a Government, when it comes to supporting pensioners, are twofold: raising the state pension and rescuing the NHS. The foundation of the vast majority of pensioners’ incomes is, of course, the state pension, which we have heard a lot about today.”
“It is a pleasure to speak in the debate with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. I thank the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening it and for rightly highlighting and celebrating the fall in pensioner poverty, while noting that that is no grounds for complacency about what happens in the years to come. I also thank the select but high-quality group of hon. Members who have chosen to speak and to share their insights, and the honourable members of the public who contributed their own voices to the debate by signing the petition. As we have heard, over 100,000 have done so. I suspect that many more people would have at least shared the sentiment behind the petition of wanting to support our pensioners in retirement. This Government certainly do. The real question is how that is best done.”
“It is interesting that—one, two, three, four—four Conservative Members neglected to mention that the pension had to be rescued because of policies put in place by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. Decoupling pensions and leaving the uprating significantly behind the level of earnings in the population is why we saw pensioner poverty rates rise to 30% over the course of the 1990s. Everyone has limited time and there is only so much we can choose to—”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Our approach is to increase the basic pension and the new state pension in the years ahead, because pensioners, as well as the population as a whole, have seen living standards pressures in recent years. As her constituent’s case shows, the foundation of not all but the vast majority of pensioners’ incomes is the state pension. The yearly amount of the full new state pension is projected to rise by about £2,100 over this Parliament, reflecting our manifesto commitment to uprate via the triple lock throughout this Parliament. I enjoyed the discussion of the triple lock and the praising of the raising of the level of the state pension from the lows we saw before.”
“He was not my predecessor, because I am the Pensions Minister and Gordon Brown was never a Pensions Minister. Does the hon. Gentleman know who was? Margaret Thatcher. Gordon Brown oversaw big falls in pensioner poverty. Why? Because he introduced pension credit in the early 2000s. That then drove the huge falls in pensioner poverty that we saw in the 2000s, supported by increases in private pension savings that came through during those years. So, yes, I do endorse the record of that previous Chancellor, even though he is not a predecessor of mine. Hon. Members will know that the basic and the new state pensions increased by 4.8% in April; I think it is a matter of cross-party consensus that that is a good thing. It will boost pensioner incomes by up to £575 a year.”
“As always, that applies particularly to the Liberal Democrats, who gave up connecting the two several years ago. Delivering the funding to raise the state pension and rescue the NHS involves choices. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) talked about one area in the welfare space and about choices there. I gently say to him, having seen the work of the Department under the previous Government, that there was no plan then. Under the current Opposition, there still is no plan to change the welfare system, but they also claim that changes to the welfare system would fund their proposals on defence and on tax. It is implausible that they would make any difference in this area.”
“Here is one fact that it is hard to get over: over one in five of those aged over 75 were on English NHS waiting lists, which soared to over 7 million. One in five people over 75 were left on an NHS waiting list. That is what letting down pensioners looks like, and our priority is to turn that around. The number of those waiting has fallen by over 400,000 since we took office. That progress reflects reform, but it also reflects resources, with £26 billion additional investment supporting 5 million appointments. The need to turn around the NHS is something that I think we all agree on. It is slightly telling that there was no mention of the NHS in the previous contributions. As I am also a Treasury Minister, it is my job to remind all hon. Members that we can will the ends, but not the means.”
“It is for the Chair to decide what is appropriate, but I will come on to the question of fair rates of tax. We should be clear and transparent in how we talk about this issue: any increase in the rate of the state pension is always significantly greater than any increase in tax that follows from that increase due to our not having tax rates of over 100%. It is important that we are heard to say that to people. I will come on to the rates of tax in a second. It is obviously an important part of this debate, given the nature of the petition. The single biggest betrayal of older generations today is not anything to do with pensions. It is the state of the NHS that we inherited: an NHS that our pensioners in particular rely on and that in 2024 was letting far too many of them down.”
“The best way to deliver that is for this Government to continue their work to rescue the NHS and increase the state pension throughout the course of this Parliament, and, as we look to future generations of pensioners, to put in place a stronger private pensions system. That is what the Pensions Commission is looking at right now, which I think has cross-party support, because we want to know that tomorrow’s generations of pensioners will also look forward to the retirement we all want to see them enjoy.”
“The personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic state pension and the full new state pension this year, but, as several hon. Members have set out, the Chancellor has also promised that we will ease the administrative burden for pensioners so that they do not have to pay small amounts of tax via simple assessment from 2027-28. I have heard hon. Members’ requests for more detail on that in the near future, and the direct answer to the question from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest is that those changes will be included in the forthcoming Finance Bill. I recognise the substantial support for the petition, which is as it should be. Pensioners who have worked hard all their lives deserve a decent retirement.”
“Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk mentioned the 2010 Government’s record on the triple lock, but he slightly missed the abolition of the age-related personal allowance, a very generous version of which the petition calls to have brought back. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) praised the coalition Government but somehow also forgot to mention the abolition of the age-related personal allowance. Our tax system recognises pensioners in other ways, not just by that position, which was abolished under the coalition Government. As the hon. Member for Wyre Forest set out, those over the state pension age pay no national insurance. Older generations also tend to benefit most from the multiple tax allowances, not least the £1,000 savings allowance for basic rate taxpayers.”
“I am not hiding from the consequences of that policy decision, but the UK has one of the most generous personal tax allowances in the OECD and the G7. It is important to note that our income tax system is progressive; it is not about just who comes into tax but how much tax people pay. Those who have more contribute more, which is exactly as it should be. The impact of the freeze is that higher rate taxpayers, on average, will contribute roughly three times as much as a basic rate taxpayer; the majority of pensioners who pay tax do so at the basic rate or not at all. Although I have been honest that doubling the personal allowance for any particular group is not a remotely realistic prospect, our tax system recognises pensioners. The hon.”
“That is what the last Budget focused on: making the system fairer by asking those who can afford to contribute more to do so, not least by taxes on those with the most valuable properties. As he has done in many of our interactions, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest opposed some of the changes that we set out on inheritance tax, salary sacrifice and the rest, but that would mean less money for the NHS or higher tax rates on pensioners, workers and others—there are consequences to our choices. It is true that we have extended the personal allowance freeze that was put in place by the previous Government. That reflects the need to protect the state pension, rescue our NHS and make sure that public finances are put on a sustainable footing.”
“Too often, debates on this topic do pensioners an injustice by pretending that most of them are not already paying income tax. The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) said a little about that, but the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) explained the situation exactly: the system, as it was set up, has always been that state and private pensions are taxable. The vast majority of pensioners are already paying income tax; over 80% of pensioners were doing so by the end of the previous Conservative Government. The question is whether we can keep the contribution that is asked of pensioners—and workers, for that matter—down by making other changes to our tax system.”
“Given the nature of the petition, I want to come on to how those choices include tax, because those who made the effort to sign the petition deserve to know where we stand. Not a single Member set out their views on the petition’s proposal clearly, but we owe some honesty about that for the quality of the debate. The reality is that no political party will deliver a doubling of the personal allowance for pensioners. If any Member disagrees with that, now is the moment for them to stand up and set out their support for the petition, but I suspect all Opposition Members will agree. Why is that? It would come at a very substantial fiscal cost of several billion pounds each year. That is inconsistent with the priorities I have set out, including on the state pension and the NHS, which I think most hon. Members share.”
“I apologise to the right hon. Member for underselling him, but I think that he is also underselling the work that this Government are doing. Changes to the flawed welfare system that we inherited are already taking place. In April, we reduced the financial incentive put in place by a previous Conservative Prime Minister that provided people with a strong incentive to label themselves as too sick to work and therefore did not provide them with any employment support whatsoever. We are bringing forward other measures month by month. Members will see progress in the next few months, in terms of offering people support if they hire young, unemployed people. Changes are happening right now. I have discussed the choices on the welfare side.”
“The rise in food banks across Britain is among the most visible signs that, under the last Government, ours was a country in which growth was too low and inequality was too high. This Government are committed to ending the mass dependence on emergency food parcels. We have expanded free school meals to children in all families receiving universal credit, and we have removed the two-child limit to lift around half a million children out of poverty. Britain is now on course for the biggest reduction in child poverty of any Parliament on record, and charities such as Trussell believe that will significantly reduce demand for food banks.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Food bank use has fallen in recent years, but it is still far too high, including in her constituency. It is part of a wider challenge that the cost of essentials places too much pressure on household finances. The Department for Work and Pensions spends around £37 billion a year on housing support, but in the long run, the answer to high housing costs is to build more homes. That is what we are doing through the £39 billion social and affordable homes programme, but we also need to protect tenants in the here and now, and the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 comes into force just next week. Among other things, it will allow tenants to appeal excessive, above-market rents.”
“They require regulators to assess whether these competitive pressures remain a material barrier to more diverse private asset investment before any use of the power, and they put trustees’ or providers’ own assessments of savers’ best interests centre stage. On that basis, I commend the Government’s position to the House.”
“That is why one of the first things that the Government did on taking office was to launch a comprehensive review of pensions investment. That review found clear evidence that the defined-contribution pensions market is operating with an excessively narrow focus on costs, to the detriment of saver outcomes. That is where the reserve power comes from. It exists because the review found—and the industry itself has told us this, publicly and privately—that competitive pressure focused on cost minimisation is the single biggest barrier to diversifying in savers’ long-term interests. However, things can of course change over time, and a range of other factors may come into play. We have discussed them with, in particular, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The changes that we propose today address directly that worry and others.”
“That reflects language regularly used when considering trustees’ duties. In addition, we have more tightly specified the regulators’ role, confining it to ensuring that the trustee or provider’s own assessment of what is in the best interests of members is “reasonable”, rather than replacing that assessment with their own. Thirdly, our amendments address worries about the differential treatment of particular investment vehicles by allowing for consideration of direct or indirect holdings in the six asset classes named in the Mansion House accord. I remind the House that the Bill has its roots in much work that was under way for some time in Government, but also in the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to ensure that workplace pension schemes take advantage of scale and invest in a wider range of productive assets.”
“It was always the Government’s intention to evaluate progress against the Mansion House accord commitments in terms of the broad direction of travel over a substantial period of time, rather than looking at short-term movements in private asset exposure. To reinforce that, we propose to add to the Bill that the power cannot be exercised any earlier than 2028. Our second set of changes builds on the savers’ interest test to reinforce the central role of trustees and providers. Our amendments in lieu would change the bar required to engage the savers’ interest test. Rather than having to demonstrate that meeting the asset allocation requirements would be likely to cause material financial detriment, a scheme would instead have to show that meeting the requirements is “likely not to be in the best interests of members”.”
“First, there is a new requirement on regulators—in this case, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority—to make an assessment of barriers to the delivery of private asset investment, including the extent to which those barriers reflect the collective action problem, which we have discussed extensively in our exchanges on the Bill. That assessment would be required to be incorporated into the ex-ante report that the Secretary of State must produce before any use of the reserve power that the Bill provides for. Importantly, our amendments also place on the Government a duty to have regard to this regulatory assessment before any use of the power. That will ensure that a Secretary of State behaving reasonably—as they are required to do—must place weight on the assessment of the regulators on this matter.”
“Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is the reaction we are always looking for. Members will be aware that there is one outstanding issue between this House and the other place when it comes to the Bill, and it relates to the reserve power on asset allocation. Today the Government return to their previous amendments on this issue. They spell out the intended purpose of the reserve power to underpin the industry’s own commitments in the Mansion House accord and to rule out other uses, such as a focus on any specific asset or asset class. We are also bringing forward a final set of changes that aim to do justice to the points made in this House and the other place, while retaining the original policy intent. They have three elements.”
“I beg to move, That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes further amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill. It is obviously disappointing to see that not every Member in this Chamber wishes to stay for a detailed discussion of the Pension Schemes Bill, but it is not the biggest disappointment ever. It is good to see our regular engagers on this Bill in their place. I thank in particular those Members for helpful discussions on the Bill in recent days. I do not intend to detain the House for long. [Hon.”
“Given that, it is clear that this is the time to resolve the issue and get the Bill passed; that is what the industry and the groups supporting workers and pensioners have repeatedly called for. The Government have not only listened to the arguments from the Opposition and those in the other place, but acted on them. The elected House has also made its position overwhelmingly plain. Given both those points, both of which are important, it is clearly time for the unelected House to bring to an end attempts to frustrate the clearly expressed will of this Chamber. With that entirely reasonable expectation, I commend the Government’s amendments and the Bill to the House. Question put.”
“I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words. I will be brief. The Government have continued to insist on the inclusion of the reserve power in the Bill in all rounds of discussions in this place because we have not heard a convincing alternative approach to solving the collective action problem that we have discussed. However, we have heard convincing arguments about how this part of the Bill can be strengthened, and we have acted on each of them. That is why the amended power is necessary but also constrained. It is capped, time limited, single-use, sunsetted and subject to a savers’ interest test that has been materially strengthened, as the shadow Secretary of State laid out. The elected House has now been clear on many occasions, and has had large majorities.”
“The Government made their decision on this case on 29 January 2026, after giving the PHSO’s report careful consideration. The detailed reasons for our decision were set out in our response, which has been placed in the Library of the House.”
“As I have previously said to this House, it is unusual but not unprecedented for the Government to take a different view from the PHSO. That does not mean that we have not taken its report incredibly seriously—I have also met its representatives—but as I have said, we set out the detailed reasons for the decision we came to in the response we laid in the House of Commons Library on 29 January.”
“It is the latter—the communication of the state pension age—that we have discussed in this House on numerous occasions. The hon. Member specifically raises the 2007 evidence, which showed that a minority of people read and remembered such letters. However, it showed something else quite important, which was that those with good knowledge of their state pension entitlement were most likely to read the letters. It was therefore not a good metric for assuming that the majority of those who were sent letters would have learned something from that and changed what they knew.”
“The hon. Member has raised this issue repeatedly over a number of years, and I recognise that. Specifically on the issues he raises, it was the ombudsman itself, rather than the Government, that initially set out that the women affected did not suffer direct financial loss. What is sitting behind the ombudsman’s judgment saying that is that the issue facing the ombudsman was not either the original decision in 1995 to increase the state pension age or the decision to accelerate the increase by the coalition Government in 2011. The ombudsman was looking narrowly at the question of how that increase in the state pension age was communicated, and I think it is really important to clarify that distinction with our constituents.”
“The hon. Member raises a question about what Labour Members were promising in the 2024 election. As I am sure he is aware, our manifesto was clear that it did not make a commitment to bring forward compensation. What is the case is that Labour Members opposed the acceleration of the state pension age back in 2011, which in some cases gave women only five years’ notice. However, we of course lost that vote in Parliament and subsequent elections, and the courts unfortunately upheld that decision. As I have said, what we are debating in this case is the communications, not the decision itself. On those grounds, we have set out in detail the reasons for the decisions we have made and laid that document in the House of Commons Library.”
“On that front, just this month we are increasing the state pension, and we will be continuing to do that over the course of this Parliament via the triple lock, which is set to increase it by up to £2,100. We are also making sure that £26 billion of investment is going into our NHS, bringing down waiting lists month on month, because this Government came into office with one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists, and we cannot allow that to continue.”
“My hon. Friend makes a large effort not only when it comes to pounding the streets, but in raising his constituents’ cases and, in this case, those of female pensioners. He is absolutely right to say that there is a distinction between the communication of state pension age increases and the increase in the state pension age, and it is the latter that has had such an effect on millions of women, particularly the speed of the increase in 2011. I think there are lessons for this House and for all Governments about what would happen in future, and we certainly would not be bringing forward such short-notice changes. My hon. Friend is also right to say that what matters more generally is what we are doing to support pensioners, and making sure they have dignity and support in retirement.”
“We have also put in place significant protections relating to an affirmative vote, as well as the savers’ interest tests that enable pension schemes to spell out what is in the interests of their members.”