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 4 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.
“As always, the hon. Member asks an excellent question. For people who are currently still working, it is important to keep the simple advice at the front of their mind that people should be saving towards their pension. In almost all circumstances, saving is the right thing to do, and we have strong tax incentives in the system to encourage people to do that. We should ensure that that message is heard loud and clear, and I am sure that he makes that clear to his constituents. On the harder question of how those approaching retirement decide to use their pot, it is often right to take advice, and obviously the Money and Pensions Service exists to provide that. Others choose to take it from other sources, not least from their providers themselves. The hon.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The existing safeguards in the Bill also remain: the time limit, the reporting requirements, the affirmative procedure, and—most importantly—the savers’ interest test that allows pension schemes not to deliver against the reserve power requirements where it is not in savers’ interests to do so.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have just explained to the hon. Member why he should be worried. He is happy to carry on with the status quo; we are not. We are going to set this out in two ways. First, we will specify on the face of the Bill that regulations under the reserve power cannot require more than 10% of assets to be held in qualifying assets overall or more than 5% in the UK—exactly matching the Mansion House commitments. Secondly, our amendments require any regulations to implement the reserve power to be entirely neutral between asset classes, spelling out that a future Government who took a different view from this one could not use the power to direct investments into hand-picked asset classes.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases. Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead. Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable. I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for. It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made about the PPF and the FAS. Her powerful campaigning on this issue, including raising it through the Work and Pensions Committee, is one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous Governments and Pensions Ministers have not.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked specifically about what the international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has an unusually low allocation to private assets, for example compared with similar schemes in Australia. The second is the point she raised that they have lower home bias—a point also partially raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. We tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than investments in public assets, for all the obvious reasons to do with the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about the home market. I recognise the argument that my hon.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am always ready to engage in exciting debates about pensions. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is right to say that far more Members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about pensions. I hope not to speak for two hours, but somewhere close to that, and I thank Members on both sides of the House and from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I will avoid trying the House’s patience by reiterating the reasons why the Government do not think it right to accept amendments that are unnecessary or that undermine policy intent, but I will respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made. The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Select Committee Chair for her intervention. The organisation she mentions has been consistently making these cases. In fact, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has spoken from the Opposition Front Bench about the work of that organisation in these debates, including in a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. It is an important thing to think about. Some of it reflects increasing international cross-border investments, but my hon. Friend is right to highlight that we see a lower level of home bias among the UK’s defined contribution schemes.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He is right to say that there is nothing in the Bill that gives trustees the power to override employers—that is true. What is does do is give trustees a veto over any release of surplus. Trustees who want to put at the top of their priorities progress on discretionary pre-1997 indexation in those schemes but who have not done so will now have the potential to do so under this Bill. I recognise the issue that the hon. Member raises, but I think he underestimates the change that the Bill can bring to some schemes. It is important to remember that there are some schemes that are not paying pre-1997 indexation that are not in surplus, but I absolutely recognise that those are different situations.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That particular case and the more broad set of cases of schemes that have entered insolvency and the PPF are exactly why this Government have acted in a way that previous Governments, including the coalition Government, chose not to act. That issue was also raised by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who also touched on surplus extraction and the question of its interaction with pre-1997 indexation insolvent schemes that are currently not choosing to pay indexation. I absolutely agree with his problem diagnosis. I have met many of the pensioners who have been affected; I have gone out of my way to meet them locally and nationally, along with many other MPs. All of us would feel the same in their situation. I am less pessimistic than the hon. Member and, specifically, I think that he underestimates the role of trustees.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should allow people to make their own choices while ensuring that there is a good option for everybody as they approach retirement. The hon. Member for Torbay also talked about mandation. I am not going to lie; his words were a combination of disappointing and a bit confusing. He said that what is being proposed in the Bill is anathema to him. In that case, he is will be absolutely horrified to read the Lib Dem manifesto from the last election, which required investment managers to direct investments into particular assets. I leave him and his conscience to wrestle with that tension. The rest of us are not surprised by the Lib Dems’ attempt to sit on a fence, and then fall off it. More importantly, and usefully, the hon. Member for Torbay raised the case of AEAT pensioners. I absolutely recognise the argument that he made.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with the last point that the right hon. Member made. I am planning an extensive discursion on his wider point about investment in equities versus gilts shortly, so I ask him to bear with me, but it is an important point to raise. We may not agree on it, but it is important to make sure that we have aired it properly. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) started his speech with a powerful story about his father, which I am sure will have resonated with many hon. Members. The point he made actually makes the case for the diversification that the Mansion House Accord itself aims to drive. That may not have been the intention of the hon. Member’s argument, but that is the point it makes. It also reinforces the importance of default pensions as a way to make sure that we support everybody.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We debate in this House the tax rises that the Conservatives would not like to see, but it is those tax rises and the reforms that the Secretary of State is putting in place that are seeing waiting lists now consistently falling across the country. I promised a discursion on the remarks of the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). I particularly liked his opening point that all MPs should care about pensions, not least because I think we all plan to draw our pensions—if we are not already doing so—for as long as we possibly can.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is also why we have the Pensions Commission, which I think is part of the cross-party consensus that we should look at the adequacy that that leaves us with into the middle of this century and return to the question of how we secure that adequacy, particularly for low and middle earners. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow rightly mentioned the relevance to pensioners of the NHS, even if that is not of huge relevance to this Bill. If we are honest, the biggest betrayal of today’s pensioners, not tomorrow’s pensioners, is the state of our NHS, and that is what the Government are in the business of turning around.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is what we should be focused on, and that is what we need to see. That is what the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths) did not quite touch on. She was focusing on levelling down pensions, whereas we want to be able to level up and make sure that the younger generations, who are the ones who are invested in our defined-contribution system, can be confident that it is delivering a comfortable retirement. I think we all agree on that. That is why the Bill is increasing the returns that are available within the defined-contribution system.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not going to commit from the Dispatch Box to writing 50 letters, but I will happily have a conversation with my hon. Friend about it, as I always do. Turning to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), I was going to welcome his speech, but unfortunately he spent most of his remarks praising the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest, showing both questionable judgment and— [ Laughter. ] Obviously I am joking; it is some of the finest hair in Parliament, as we all appreciate. When he got passed praising the hon. Member’s hair, he turned to the division between public and private sector pensions. It is an important one to dwell on. There have been big changes in public sector pensions under both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. He rightly made the case that the priority should be making private pensions better.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is why it is important to have had the debates we were able to have—until we heard recently some of the slightly over-the-top views of Conservative Front-Bench Members—about what would be the right thing in savers’ interests. The right hon. Member is absolutely right that this debate is about what is the right investment strategy for savers’ interests for the longer term. I therefore completely endorse what he said on that.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When we look at the defined-benefit market—the biggest by asset values at the moment—it is important to recognise that that is not what is driving it today. What is driving it is the maturity of defined-benefit schemes and the fact that the vast majority of them are closed, so they are investing in a different way, and they would not want to be as exposed to equities as I am sure he is. The question is therefore about the defined-contribution market, which is the future of not the entirety of our pension system but the majority of it. There the story is not the same: none of the regulations that flow from the 1990s Acts relate to the defined-contribution system today.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“There are Members of this House who are drawing several pensions, and they are to be encouraged to do so, working past the state pension age and contributing with their valuable expertise. The right hon. Member then focused on how regulatory changes, partly in the 1990s, have driven changes in investment behaviours. We have discussed that on a number of occasions, and it is important to distinguish between a number of points. The regulatory changes in the 1990s by the then Conservative Government, which, as he said, were motivated by good worries about people trying to rip off their scheme members, introduced more of a safety bias into the investment strategies of those schemes at that point—that will have had an effect over time.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What stands out in the defined-contribution market is less the difference between bonds and equities—we see a much larger share of asset allocation to equities in defined-contribution systems—and more the exposure to private assets versus public assets. But there is a question about whether, if we do not have what we are trying to put in place with default pensions, we see some people in defined-contribution pensions lifestyling down, which means moving cash from equities into bonds.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I absolutely agree with the right hon. Member’s focus on the generational challenges, but I have a slightly different view on what the biggest challenge is. The biggest issue for younger generations is if they do not have faith in a pensions system because they do not believe it will deliver adequate retirement incomes. That is the most important thing. That is why this Bill will aid the higher returns on those savings through a whole range of measures, and it is also why the Pensions Commission is so important to show those younger generations that we are looking ahead to their futures. I think that will help with some of the issues he raised. I agree a bit less with the right hon. Member on the defined-contribution side.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“First, they are nonsense on stilts, designed to scaremonger good savers. I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, which is disappointing. The second problem is the lack of consistency and self-respect. If you really thought the Bill was as dangerous as we have been told today, you would have fought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way—”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Yes, basically I recognise the risks that the right hon. Member raises. I think that I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). [ Interruption. ] It is not that I was confused; I was worried, because she used to be a calm and reasonable person, but something weird has happened. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative party, and a leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. This infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone who will listen—that is not many—that pensions are being raided and that there is a war on savers. Wow—those are strong words. There are just two problems with those words.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a point of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I never fight with you—it would end badly for everyone and I would lose every time. The Conservatives would have opposed the Bill every step of the way. They would have not just been on the barricades but built them, which is the exact opposite of what the shadow Secretary of State did. What did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell the House on Second Reading? He said that “the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.” —[ Official Report , 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722.] Well, that was nice.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, we have got some more. That was before Conservative Front-Bench Members—then in a less bonkers phase of life—nodded through the Bill, which they now claim is some kind of end-of-days Armageddon. Let us be reasonable.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Who are the politicians who have lobbied me to mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories. That has been mainly in private, so I will spare their blushes, but one ventured out into the open. The Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), called me and others to a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my “effort to hold back from mandation”. —[ Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 110WH.] What was he worried about? That we were not doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments. That is the truth behind all the froth today. The Bill supports savers and focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most over-excited Opposition Members know that is the right thing to do.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I am going to finish. Let us be reasonable. Maybe Conservative Front Benchers just needed some time to think about it. What happened at Third Reading? On that occasion we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State—she had not quite got to the frothing phase of her development—saying that “there is a lot in it that we do welcome”, as it will “help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns.” She went on, “so we will not be voting against the Bill” —[ Official Report , 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1130-1131.] We are now told it is an Armageddon Bill. The shadow Secretary of State was right then, and she is ludicrously over the top now. The Bill puts savers’ interests first, as she well knows. She knows something else, which makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The comments in the Westminster Hall debate are on the record.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his point of order. As I have already said to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I would raise the comments that he made in that Westminster Hall debate. The point that I made in my closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on—but I know that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench enjoyed every minute of it—is that he has made the case that there is a challenge, in that there is not enough investment in UK equities, and he has called for measures to push in that direction.”
House of Commons15 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have discussed this with Sir Jim and am confident that his extensive experience will help guide NS&I in the months ahead. I will ensure that Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion. NS&I holds over £240 billion of savings belonging to 24 million customers. It is an organisation that is valued by those saving with it and by this Government. I repeat NS&I’s apology to its customers and reiterate that every penny of their savings is safe, and—as always—they are 100% guaranteed by the Treasury. I commend this statement to the House.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This Government have appointed David Goldstone, former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track. With all this in mind, I also want to make sure that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, I have appointed Sir Jim Harra—former first permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to take over as the chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. I also recognise the 22 years of public service of his predecessor Dax Harkins at NS&I. As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to the tracing problem and to set out what lessons must be learned by NS&I.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Because in the past some searches have focused too narrowly on searching for specific accounts, I have also instructed NS&I to make it simpler for people to search for all the accounts or products that they might hold. Our third priority is institutional. NS&I plays an important role, helping the public to save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role while addressing the tracing issues that I have laid out today. It must also complete what has been a challenging business transformation programme. The programme was put in place back in 2020, but with little progress made in the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report has set out.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dealing with bereavement is always challenging, and I am sure that we all recognise that finding out, as party of that, that such errors have been made could be distressing. We are committed to ensuring that NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible. We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of the error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan in May. Current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This will cover: the number of cases affected; how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds that they are due, including interest on savings; and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid. There is no need for individuals to waste money on a claims management company or solicitor. I reassure people that the onus is not on them but on NS&I to act—to contact estate representatives and to reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week. I will also ensure that MPs have a dedicated means of contacting NS&I to raise any constituency cases directly.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds. Those deposits belong to customers. Returning them in no way represents an additional liability to the taxpayer, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell out that those savings are 100% safe. The issue is about tracing and not the security of any funds, but it is important, none the less. NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team and hired an additional 100 staff. I have asked it to publish a delivery plan in May detailing how they will take forward the work to reunite funds with their owners.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The number is likely to fall in future, but although it represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, that is still far too many. NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit-taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising today. The Government’s priorities now are threefold. First—and immediately, to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place—NS&I has received written assurances from its customer-facing supplier Sopra Steria that the causes of the tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation, given that it was responsible for handling bereavement cases until 2025.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“However, what is now clear is that NS&I and its suppliers did not respond to those warning signs as fully as I and, more importantly, their customers, would expect, and nor did the last Government act. Bereaved families, whose loved ones held accounts with NS&I, will rightly be anxious about this news, so let me turn to the action that we have taken and the further steps that we are putting in place today. Since being notified, the Treasury has ensured that external advisers, including EY and legal experts, have been engaged to identify the scale of the errors. Through this work, NS&I has reviewed over 34 million customer records. That work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,500 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. Three quarters of cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to make a statement regarding National Savings & Investments. On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of an operational failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of that failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates as they should have been. Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customer holdings where they were spread across multiple profiles or systems. Hon. Members will be aware of historical challenges in financial services in this regard. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following notification that a customer had passed on. That received significant attention at the time.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has also talked about “incompetence on a staggering scale”, which is an irony given that he, too, was a Minister in the Government carrying out the incompetence to which he refers. I broadly welcome the way in which the hon. Member for Wyre Forest has conducted himself today. It is absolutely right that we provide the reassurance to taxpayers and, most importantly, to savers with NS&I; I hope that I have done so today.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure that he would rightly note that NS&I is operationally independent; I think the challenge comes given that it became clear in around 2018 that there were significant problems in this area—I mentioned the Santander case in particular—and there was widespread coverage at that time; within NS&I, people realised that this could pose problems for them. The hon. Member has taken an excellent tone today. I was less impressed to read the comments of the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), in the Telegraph , in which he talked about a “staggering failure of oversight”—he was the Treasury Minister in 2018 when the Santander case came forward! As often, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) has shown better judgment than his superiors. Then again, the right hon.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member asked. I can confirm that the former chief executive of NS&I has resigned today and that he did not receive a bonus last year. The hon. Member asked about the cost to taxpayers. There has been some deeply misleading reporting over the course of the last 24 hours, so I want to be absolutely clear: the money we are talking about returning to estates belongs to those estates—it is their money. The returning of people’s money to them is not a liability to other taxpayers; it is the right thing to do, and that is what is going to take place. The hon. Member asks whether it would have been reasonable to have expected the previous Government to act.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I welcome the tone of the shadow Minister’s remarks. I obviously absolutely agree with him that customers deserve better and they deserve reassurance. I have tried to provide that today by setting out what we are doing, and giving everybody reassurance that their savings are 100% safe and are guaranteed by the Government. The hon. Member asks why we have come to the House today. This has been the intention for some time. As he says, we were notified in December. During that period, we have reviewed the over 34 million cases of customer records, as I mentioned, and have put in place the process to ensure that we have fixed this problem as we go forward, so that we can provide the reassurance for customers that I know we both want. I have also put in place the change of leadership that I have set out today, about which the hon.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He is absolutely right—the priority for us is to ensure that people are reunited with their money and that they do not incur costs in trying to get it back. That is why I have been so clear with NS&I over the past few months that it makes sure that it understands the problem it is dealing with and that it needs to set out a delivery plan as soon as May for how it will reunite people with their money. That will involve contacting representatives of estates in the first instance, and that is what people need to rely on. As I said, I want to be clear with the public today that the onus is not on them; the onus is on NS&I to contact the people whose funds deserve to be reunited with them, and that is what we will all be focused on.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As I say, I have asked him to report in three months’ time. I will ensure that the appropriate Select Committee Chairs have that review. It will set out the lessons that we need to learn. The hon. Member rightly asks about compensation. As I set out in my statement, we will ensure that the appropriate compensation is paid along the lines of how the FCA encourages best practice. That will include compensatory interest where funds have been withheld from estates for longer than they should have been, and that will be done automatically. People who have more complicated cases will as always be able to go direct to NS&I to have them considered on a case-by-case basis.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗