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 7 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 speak for the coalition Government, who included a Liberal Democrat Pensions Minister, but they responded to the grievances raised by pension scheme members by maintaining that all legal obligations had been fulfilled and that the safety net existed through the PPF. I understand that that is not the position of the hon. Member, but it was the position of the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government at the time. The hon. Member has raised two big-picture concerns, to which I will try to do some justice. One is about the income levels that scheme members are living on, which is the most immediate and important thing, and the other is about the consideration of this case by appropriate bodies.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a real issue, but that exact situation cannot occur in future. As we have heard, this matter has a long and complex history. The company was privatised 30 years ago, in 1996. On the hon. Member’s questions about the value at transfer, the reassurance I can offer—I know it will not be enough for his constituents and others who have raised the case with him—is that the transfer value was agreed by the trustees. It was not proposed by the firm or the Government at the point of transfer, and the financial assumptions that underpinned it were common at the time. Unfortunately, as we have heard, AEAT entered administration in 2012, which resulted in its pension fund scheme entering the PPF. Of course, that was when the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Government were in office.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is particularly true of many of those with pre-1997 accrued pensions, as was the case for many members of this scheme. The hon. Member is right to say that there was a particular focus on securing better indexation at the point of transfer, so I can understand why these pensioners feel that they have not secured what they had hoped for. It is also particularly true for those with accrued public sector pensions that transferred into private sector schemes at the point of privatisation. We are discussing one of them today, but it is far from the only one—Carillion is obviously the highest-profile case in the recent past. That can no longer happen, given the changes that have been put in place. At the point of privatisation, we will no longer see accrued pension rights transferred into private sector schemes.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing today’s debate, and endorse his opening remarks about the general importance of pensions. We should all think that, but Pensions Ministers should certainly endorse wholeheartedly what he said. He and I have discussed this issue on a number of occasions, and he has spoken clearly and passionately about it today, as always. We all absolutely understand why it has such resonance, particularly for his constituents. I express my sympathy for all the AEAT pension scheme members. All of us would hate to see our employer enter administration and our pension scheme enter the Pension Protection Fund. I meet a wide range of individuals who have been through that exact experience, and many of them rightly bring the same kind of passion to their cases as he has done.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That cannot right all of their feelings about what has happened in the past, but as I say, this Government are choosing to act rather than promising another review in the months and years ahead. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have said what we are doing to address the lack of indexation: we are acting where previous Governments failed to do so, and acting because we can all put ourselves in the shoes of pensioners who have not seen their pension incomes live up to what they were expecting, through no fault of their own. Let me close by again congratulating the hon. Member on securing this debate and for giving us the opportunity to speak on such an important subject. I appreciate that I cannot and have not offered everything that he and, indeed, AEAT scheme members would want, but this Government are making real, concrete changes to better protect the pensions of those members from inflation in the years to come.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I totally understand that members’ feeling about the advice they received back in the 1990s is at the core of their view that they should never have been in a situation where their pensions were transferred out of the public sector in the first place, and he is right to say that that issue is different from the indexation that occurs within the PPF. I am merely pointing out that the reviews the hon. Member has mentioned, including that of the Public Accounts Committee, focused on the issue of indexation. My best bet is that, if the Government were not acting on this issue, it would have been one of the issues he raised with us here today, but he is completely right to say that it is not everything.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I recognise the point the hon. Member is making, which is that the nature of insolvency and entering into the PPF will have made more of a difference than future PPF accruals. However, had a previous Government—for example, the one that included the Liberal Democrats—introduced pre-1997 indexation a decade back, it would have made significantly more than a 5% difference. That would have made a very large difference to the pensions that AEAT members are living on today. I am responsible for what the Government are doing about indexation now, and it is a lot more than 5%, because even in just the last years inflation has been running at particularly high levels. I do not agree with the hon. Member’s calculation, but I do agree with him that that is definitely not the entire story.”
House of Commons26 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Specifically, it removes the requirement in chapter 4 of the charter for the OBR to conduct a fiscal rules assessment alongside any forecast. This will ensure that we can reduce the number of fiscal rules assessments per year without any reduction in fiscal transparency. This Government are absolutely committed to the OBR’s independence, and to its vital role in providing regular assessments of the economy and the public finances. The OBR will continue to publish a second five-year forecast in the spring, which will aid transparency and inform the Debt Management Office’s financing remit, but the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy. I look forward to seeing a few more Members of this House at the next of these forecasts, the spring forecast, a week today.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The IMF made the case that fiscal policy stability would be aided by ensuring that the fiscal rules would only be assessed once a year. We agree, so this Government are legislating to ensure that this is the case. To deliver this change, we are updating the two core parts of the fiscal framework. First, we are updating the primary legislation, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, via the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Clause 251 of that Bill provides for one fiscal rules assessment per financial year. We are also updating the secondary legislation, the charter for Budget responsibility, which is the subject of today’s debate. The updated charter reinforces the change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. It makes no changes to the fiscal rules, but ensures that those rules should only be assessed once per financial year.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is the right plan, and things are moving in the right direction. Just last week, we learned that January saw a £30.4 billion public finance surplus, the highest monthly surplus on record. This is all supported by our reforms to the fiscal framework. We have reset the fiscal rules to reprioritise public investment and introduced a fiscal lock to ensure that Governments cannot sideline the Office for Budget Responsibility, as we sadly saw in the last Parliament. We are also committed to delivering one fiscal event a year, delivering on our manifesto and bringing the UK in line with the vast majority of advanced economies. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to strengthen that commitment. We are doing so by drawing on recommendations from the International Monetary Fund’s article IV report last summer.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved. The motion relates to the UK’s fiscal framework. It is a framework that matters: it guides fiscal policy and provides both transparency and accountability. Since coming into office, this Government have reformed the fiscal framework and, more broadly, set the public finances on a sustainable footing. At the autumn Budget, that included doubling the buffer against our fiscal rules, providing more certainty and stability for taxpayers and businesses. This is a core part of a wider economic strategy that includes Budget measures to reduce inflation, pushing down on the cost of living. All this helps to push down on interest rates and give businesses the confidence to invest.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More importantly, I was sad to hear the Opposition spokesperson’s remarks more generally, because I always enjoy his normal perkiness, at least outside this Chamber, but he has turned into a gloomster.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Opposition spokesperson asked why we are making these changes now, and the answer is that in our manifesto we committed to one fiscal event a year. The IMF has come forward with sensible recommendations to reinforce that, and we are just responding to the IMF’s recommendations. He asked a question about the range contained in the previous charter, and that has been removed because it applied only at the spring forecast, and we are no longer carrying out a fiscal assessment at the spring forecasts. He asked about the IFS report suggesting a dashboard rather than fiscal rules. I can tell him that there will be no change to the fiscal rules, although I obviously always enjoy reading any think-tank’s reports, and I would point out that we have already doubled the headroom against the fiscal rules.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the two Front-Bench spokespeople, one of whom spoke admirably briefly. I will not repeat the case for these changes, given that we have heard that both opposition parties are happy to support the Government’s changes to the charter, so I will just respond directly to the questions. I say to the Lib Dems spokesperson that it is always good to hear anybody praising Sweden in any debate. On the questions about scrutiny, I do not think he gives enough credit to his hon. Friends on the Finance Bill, who have spent many hours scrutinising the policies, and I am sure they would be upset to hear his lack of faith in them today. Directly on his question about transparency, I think that is important, and that is why we are maintaining the two forecasts a year, despite there being only one fiscal event.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He is a total gloomster. He has totally ignored the record monthly surplus for the public finances. He has ignored the fact that wages are up, business investment is up and GDP has grown the fastest of any European G7 economy. He has ignored the fact that GDP per capita grew in 2025, after flatlining in the last year of the Tory Government and falling during the previous Parliament. He has ignored inflation falling and interest rates falling. I think it is right for the gloomster to be gloomy about his party’s prospects, but not to be gloomy about the UK economy. On that basis, I commend this motion to the House. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons24 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Finally, I am required to confirm that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights, and I am happy to do so. I commend the increases to the payment rates under these two schemes to the Committee and ask for approval to implement.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The 2008 Act scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with mesothelioma who were unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That may have been because they were self-employed or because their exposure to asbestos was not due to their work. The 2008 Act scheme provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly at a time of their greatest need. To recognise the suffering that these diseases can bring to the whole family, claims can be made to either scheme by a dependant, if the person with the disease sadly passes away before being able to make a claim. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in recognising the continued importance of the compensation schemes offered by the 1979 and 2008 Acts.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That also means that the increase will once again be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit as part of the main social security uprating provisions for 2026-27, debated on the Floor of the House yesterday. By way of background, the 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump sum compensation payment to eligible people with the diseases covered by the scheme. That includes pneumoconiosis and diffuse mesothelioma. It was designed to cover people who were unable to claim damages from employers because, for example, they had gone out of business, and people who have not brought any action against another party for damages. To be eligible for a lump sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The instruments that we are debating today seek to increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under two no-fault compensation schemes administered by the Department through the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. Although there is no statutory requirement to increase these rates in line with prices, there has long been cross-party consensus that we should do so. The Government therefore intend to increase the value of lump sum awards by 3.8%, in line with the September 2025 consumer prices index. These new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April 2026.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“DRAFT PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2026 Resolved, That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.— (Torsten Bell.)”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the point about the nature of these diseases being caused by dust exposure, it is important to spell out the importance of the work of the Health and Safety Executive on the prevention front, and of the NHS in providing support to those who have had a diagnosis of these diseases. On the point made by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest about the importance of early diagnosis when possible, given the nature of these diseases, I want to refer hon. Members to the work of the national lung cancer screening programme, which exists precisely for that purpose. We all believe that cross-party support on this measure is important—it continues as it has since 2010. It is an important part of how we provide support to individuals living with these diseases and their families. I commend the regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Opposition for their support for the regulations. I will not reiterate what I said in the opening beyond fully endorsing the case made by the Opposition about the importance of these payments and their uprating. Hon. Members will know that these schemes are only a part of the way that the Government provide support and compensation to people suffering from these diseases. The industrial injuries disablement benefit provides weekly payments as well, which are important for those who have had an industrial accident or developed certain diseases, including those covered by the lump sum compensation schemes that we are talking about today.”
House of Commons11 February 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Rising living standards are the ultimate goal of economic policy, and living standards are now rising following the unprecedented fall during the last Parliament. The latest data shows that the average person’s real disposable income is £800 higher than in the final year of the previous Parliament.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner on this issue; week after week, he consistently raises the issue of living standards for people in Basingstoke. He is right to highlight the key role of energy bills in that. The Budget took levies off energy bills to save families £150 on average next year, as part of wider measures to directly cut inflation by 0.4 percentage points, further supporting living standards by making it easier for banks to cut mortgage rates and giving businesses the confidence to invest. Energy bills cut, ground rents cut—change promised, change delivered.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will always give the hon. Member an answer—and I mean always, at every single one of these sessions. Government Ministers, particularly at the Northern Ireland Office, spend a lot of time speaking to Ministers in Northern Ireland. He is absolutely right to say that the cost of living crisis affects not just one part but all parts of the United Kingdom. To take just one example, the six interest rate cuts since the general election have already made a big difference to those in Northern Ireland whose mortgage renewal is coming up.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Speaker, that is called leading with your chin. Members on the Conservative Benches were in power in the last Parliament, which saw living standards fall by 2.9%. Living standards have already risen under this Government by 1.5%, because we are turning around their mess day after day after day.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Energy bills are too high, and Britain is too dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices. That is why the autumn Budget reduced the cost of levies on energy bills to save households £150 on average from April this year.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right: people need to see inflation come down, and that is what the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Bank of England forecast to happen. As she said, from April our plans for energy bills will save households £150 on average, which is something she has campaigned for over the past 18 months. I am pleased energy companies have confirmed that those savings will be passed on to those with fixed tariffs. She asks that we go further, and I should add that we have extended the £150 warm home discount to a further 2.7 million of the poorest households.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Conservatives did not just leave Britain dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices; they left families paying almost £2 billion on their bills for their failed energy efficiency ECO scheme. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee described the scheme’s failings as the “worst” he had ever seen. That fuel poverty scheme cost 97% of those in fuel poverty more than it saved them, and it damaged thousands of homes. We are scrapping the ECO scheme, and cutting families’ bills.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Energy bills are too high because the Tory party left us dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices. Wholesale gas prices today remain more than double what they were at the start of 2020. If Conservative Members think that is some kind of advert for staying on gas forever, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What this Government are doing is getting on with building the energy infrastructure that this country needs, and we are not going back to the 11% inflation seen under the Conservative party. This Government are supporting small businesses, because the hon. Gentleman is right on one thing, which is that high energy bills are not in the interests of British industry. That is why we are getting on with fixing the energy system that we inherited.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an important question, because too many people have been let down by the scheme that was introduced by the Conservatives. I am sure that the hon. Lady noted the Energy Secretary’s announcement last week about the £15 billion warm homes plan, which will ensure that work to upgrade the quality of British homes continues in the years ahead for all households, but particularly for low-income households. She will also be aware that ongoing remediation work will take place as part of that scheme.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend is right that the rise in private markets has brought benefits, including to growth and financial stability—we have discussed that many times in the context of pensions—but it does come with new risks. The Treasury and regulators have increased their focus on those risks in the non-bank sector in recent years and, as I am sure he is aware, have played a leading role in the response to emerging non-banks’ risks internationally. In particular, the Government emphasised in the November remit letter to the Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee that the committee should continue to consider risks in private markets. We are considering the House of Lords Committee’s recommendations, and will respond in due course.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Secretary of State set out on 11 November 2025, we are retaking the decision made in December 2024 as it relates to the communications on state pension age. We will update the House on the decision as soon as a conclusion is reached.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For many women, including many of my constituents, the issue they are actually most focused on is the increase, and the acceleration in the increase, in the state pension age that was put in place by the coalition Government, which not a single Lib Dem MP voted against back in 2011. I think we should be clear about that, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be clear on that with his constituents when they raise the matter with him.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that hon. Members across the House will have been contacted by constituents who have been affected, and many of us will also have family members who have been affected. As I said, we will update the House as soon as a conclusion is reached. We have committed in public to doing so within three months of the decision in December, which means a decision will be reported to the House before the beginning of March. I gently say that we need to be clear about what is at stake here: this decision relates narrowly to the question of the communication of the state pension age changes.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We should not have seen an acceleration of the state pension age where some women were only given five years’ notice, but that was put in place by the coalition Government. We will not be making those mistakes.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that many of our sympathies would be with Miriam. Many Members have constituents who face challenges in the years running up to the state pension age and who are, for whatever reason, unable to work. The hon. Lady has rather made the point that I just set out, though. She talks about losses of £50,000 or £60,000, which I also see in letters from constituents, but that does not relate to the issue of communication of the state pension age. What she is referring to—the increase and acceleration in the state pension age—was put in place by a Liberal Democrat Government, and not a single Liberal Democrat MP voted against it. It is important to be clear about what is and is not part of the PHSO’s investigation. As I say, it is very important that we take these issues seriously.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Mr Speaker will not be on camera right now since I am speaking, but I can reassure the whole world that he is very much still with us. We all hope that that will be the case for some time to come, but when he does decide to become a pensioner, he will, like all pensioners, have the full support of the Government. We are bringing down waiting lists, which is benefiting pensioners right across the country. The biggest single disgrace facing older generations across the UK today is the state of our NHS, and that is why this Government are investing in bringing down waiting lists month after month after month.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I simply cannot let the hon. Member off on this. It was the Conservatives who made the decisions on accelerating the state pension age and in some cases gave women around five years’ notice or less of the increase. That was a choice made by the Conservative party. This Government are considering a report from the ombudsman that the Conservatives left sitting on their desks and refused to make a decision on—and we are going to make a decision.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The ombudsman is an important part of the systems that we have in place to make sure that the administration of public services is done in the right way. The hon. Member will know that our permanent secretary met the ombudsman before Christmas. A draft of the action plan that he refers to was shared with her in order to provide her with reassurance that progress was being made on it. As he will be aware, the work on the action plan has been stopped because it was an intrinsic part of remedy set out in the case last year. As I have said, the Secretary of State is considering the evidence in the round, and we will report back to the House as soon as a decision is taken.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It has been confirmed that those whose income is only the basic level of the basic state pension or the new state pension will not be required to pay tax next year, because the level of personal allowance has been set above the level of the new state pension. What the Chancellor said at the Budget was that in future years we will make sure that no pensioner will be required to fill in a self-assessment form, or indeed a simple self-assessment form, for any tax that is due because the new state pension level is above that of the personal allowance.”
House of Commons26 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The status quo is also hard to defend when low earners and the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK are entirely excluded, reinforcing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince).”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the reminder of the excellent debate we had before the Christmas break. I thank him and the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for their contributions. I will briefly reiterate the case for the three short and perfectly formed clauses of this Bill before focusing my remarks on the hon. Members’ amendments. As hon. Members know, this reform was inevitable. We have had a detailed discussion of the last Government’s secret plan to implement a very similar proposal—the “secret plan” label came from the Conservative party, not Government Front Benchers—and the cost of pensions salary sacrifice was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2030. That is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will follow your advice, but will try to respond to some of the hon. Member’s points when I address the question of how we have gone about making the changes that this Bill introduces. As I have said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach, which is my answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). The Bill is pragmatic in that it continues to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. It is pragmatic in that it gives employers and the industry four years to prepare.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In a shock move, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Members of those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this Bill today cannot keep coming to this Chamber, day after day, calling for additional spending in more areas, while opposing any means of raising taxes. [ Interruption. ] Well, you have raised the welfare budget, and without trying—”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures. I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney.”
House of Commons21 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗