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 7 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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).”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”
“I can reassure the Committee that the Office for Budget Responsibility has set out that it does not expect any material impact on savings as a result of the Budget 2025 tax changes. I hope that these remarks reassure Members on the points that their amendments have raised. I commend the Bill to the Committee. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
“Member for Wyre Forest, who is showing admirable zeal for supporting the argument that I made on Second Reading that any responsible Government should keep the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review to ensure that they are delivering efficiently on their objectives. That is the exact thought pattern that identified this relief as needing reform. I look forward to the shadow Minister changing his mind and supporting our measures. The Government should and will continue to keep this and all taxes and tax reliefs under review, rather than singling this particular relief out via primary legislation. I turn briefly to new clauses 5 and 6, which focus on the impact on pension savings.”
“The opposite is true. Only 39% of employers offer pension salary sacrifices, and small businesses are less likely to do so than larger businesses. Indeed, the status quo puts SMEs at a disadvantage relative to their larger competitors, which is the opposite of the point that the hon. Member for Witney wanted to make. New clause 3 focuses on marginal tax rates, but the changes in the Bill do not directly affect a person’s marginal tax. Those wanting to make pension contributions to keep their taxable income below a certain level can continue to do so, and I have read much misleading commentary on that point. New clause 4 proposes an impact assessment of the changes before they take effect and five years after. I again commend the hon.”
“Our approach is consistent with the one that this House has taken under Governments of all three main parties, which is to have key elements of the pension tax system that are not routinely indexed, including the annual allowance. It is of course right that this and all Governments will want to keep the cap under review to ensure that it continues to meet the objectives we have set out today. Several of the new clauses probe at the impact of the changes. The Government have published a tax information and impact note alongside the Bill. It sets out the impact of the policy on the Exchequer, the economy and individuals and businesses. It also provides an overview of the equality impacts. New clauses 1 and 2 focus on SMEs. I have heard suggestions—this has been gently hinted at today—that SMEs are more likely to be affected.”
“That is not least because employers would in many cases not know which employees would end up being basic rate taxpayers. They certainly would not know for sure until the end of the financial year, or at least late on into it. Amendments 7 and 8 would uprate the cap by inflation. The Government have set out our policy intent for a £2,000 cap to be introduced in April 2029, with the timing driven by the desire to give everyone time to adjust. In that context, it does not make sense to index that cap ahead of 2029. Our view is that the future level of the cap in the next decade and beyond is for Budgets in those decades—or at least significantly closer to them. I know that Members are keen to start debating the 2031 Budget, but having heard from Ms Nokes, I think we should leave that for another day.”
“The pragmatic approach is to allow people to continue with salary sacrifice up to £2,000 and to not bring in the measure for four years, so that people have time to adjust. Opposition Members will need to justify wanting to spend more than is being spent on the Royal Air Force on that—I sat through Prime Minister’s questions today, and I heard people calling for more defence spending—while not being able to live up to what that requires, which is taking seriously that we spend tax reliefs effectively. For everybody, there will still be a strong tax incentive to save into their pension. Taking the approach that the Opposition propose, rather than our proposed cap, would likely be impossible to implement in practice and add unnecessary complexity.”
“As a test of that, I invite the shadow Minister to stand up and commit to reversing the changes if—though it is very unlikely—the Conservatives ever happen to form a Government again. I am 100% sure that he will not do that, because he knows that these changes need to be made. On the basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend the Bill to the House.”
“These measures are what it takes to keep waiting lists falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead. Those who do not wish to support changes like these cannot have it both ways and call for additional spending, additional support on energy bills and the rest. More generally, it is important that we all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £500 billion a year. If we defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly, that means that higher taxes for everybody else. We are not prepared to see that happen. Indeed, I am sure that in their hearts the Opposition parties also believe that these reforms are necessary.”
“We all look at the forecasts for private pension income and see that they show lower private pension income on average for those retiring in 2050 relative to those retiring today. That is not an acceptable place to be. Answering that question is the job of the Pensions Commission, which we have put in place with cross-party support. It is rightly examining the question of retirement income adequacy and fairness. I gently note that those groups that we all agree are under-saving for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups. Part of what we are doing through the Bill is delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system alongside other measures from the Budget.”
“The Government are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform: first, by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected; secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead-in time, so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare; and thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely tax-advantageous. The Government continue to provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance relief on pension contributions each year. Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax-advantaged part of the system. In this debate and others on pensions, we have heard strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important.”
“I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. The Bill amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee national insurance contributions on salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I have said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030 without reform.”
“I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This is a short and simple Bill. It is a stocking filler to yesterday’s Finance Bill. [Interruption.] There are just three clauses for the chuntering Opposition Members to enjoy. They focus on amending the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, and they do so to create a power to apply national insurance contributions to salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. I will focus my remarks on three areas: first, why Government action in this regard was inevitable; secondly, the case for the pragmatic, balanced approach that we propose to take; and thirdly, how this sits with wider, crucial questions about pension savings on which the House rightly focuses.”
“That is what we see happening in the case of pension salary sacrifice: its cost is on course to almost treble between 2017 and the end of this decade. That would take it to £8 billion a year. For some context, that is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. I will repeat that: the cost of pension salary sacrifice was due to rise to the equivalent of our spending, in real terms, on the Royal Air Force. The growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate payers tripling their pension salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. While those on higher salaries are most likely to take part, many others are unable to do so at all.”
“I will come to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The main answer to his question is that we are introducing this change with a very long implementation period—it will not come in until 2029—in order to give businesses and others time to adjust. Businesses have welcomed that across the board, but I will come on to it shortly. It is always important to keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review; after all, their cost is estimated to be over £500 billion a year. That is always true, but it is especially true when we see the cost explode. That is why we acted in the Budget to reform employee ownership trust capital gains tax relief, because the cost was set to reach more than 20 times what was intended at its introduction.”
“I will come on to some statistics that might answer my hon. Friend’s question. While those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).”
“I will make some progress before giving way again. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all, including many small businesses. Workers on the national living wage are excluded entirely, and so are the 4.4 million self-employed people across the UK. On grounds of cost and fairness, it is near impossible to defend the status quo. Of course, a major part of the job of the Opposition is to oppose some things that the Government are doing. I do not want to prejudge the remarks that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), will offer shortly, but I am confident that we will hear some opposition—maybe a word or two—to the Bill.”
“I think I have already answered the right hon. Member’s question: it is important to keep tax reliefs under review. The cost of pension salary sacrifice is growing very fast indeed, so we have reviewed this tax relief and think it is important to bring in pragmatic changes, as I will come on to. As I was saying, I am confidently looking forward—”
“By way of proof, in 2023 the Conservatives commissioned research on restricting salary sacrifice arrangements for pensions, which is exactly the same measure they are opposing today. What was the proposed cap on pension salary sacrifice in that report? It was £2,000 a year, which is exactly the same cap they are opposing today.”
“The summer Budget of 2015 went on to say: “The government will actively monitor the growth of these schemes and their effect on tax receipts”, which is the same argument that I just made to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). That monitoring led, a year later, to the then Chancellor—now Baron Hammond of Runnymede—announcing benefit-in-kind restrictions. He told this House: “The majority of employees pay tax on a cash salary, but some are able to sacrifice salary…and pay much lower tax… That is unfair”. —[ Official Report , 23 November 2016; Vol. 617, c. 907.] He was right then, and the same argument holds today. Former Conservative Ministers should certainly agree, because in government they were planning exactly the kind of change to pensions that we are now introducing.”
“I am going to make a bit of progress, and then I will give way to the hon. Member. The truth is that reform was inevitable. Although Conservative Members are not saying it now, they know this is true, because it is what they said in government. In the 2015 summer Budget, they said: “Salary sacrifice arrangements…are becoming increasingly popular and the cost to the taxpayer is rising”— [ Interruption. ] I will come on to what the last Government wanted to do in the pensions space in a second. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is so keen to hear this; he is setting me up nicely for what is coming in a second.”
“Whether it is the pragmatic reform in front of us today or ensuring that everyone driving on the roads contributes to their upkeep, these reforms are what it takes to keep cutting waiting lists, cutting borrowing and cutting energy bills, and I commend them and this Bill to the House.”
“Opposing them is not cost-free: the savings from this measure are equivalent to over 250,000 knee and hip operations every year. The truth is that they are inevitable, which is why at least one party opposite was planning to introduce them. I gently suggest to some Members that they can, of course, take the easy route of opposing this change, but the truth is that they will be doing so with their fingers crossed behind their backs, because many know this change needed to come one day, and I suspect not one of the parties opposite will promise to undo it in the years ahead—but we will see. The Budget delivered badly needed tax reforms ducked for too long by previous Chancellors.”
“This is a real challenge for our pension system but the data is entirely clear that today’s salary sacrifice is not the answer. That is true whichever group we look at. Let us take them in turn. The self-employed are a top concern, with only one in five saving into a pension, but they are entirely excluded from pension salary sacrifice. Low earners are most likely not to be saving, but it is higher earners who are most likely to be using salary sacrifice. And many more women are under-saving for retirement, but many more men use pension salary sacrifice. These are fair and balanced reforms. They protect ordinary workers, they give employers many years to prepare, and they ensure both our pension system and the public finances are kept on a sustainable footing.”
“If we combine that with the reality that if pension salary sacrifice remains unreformed, the end point could be all employee contributions being funnelled through this route, it implies costs at least doubling again to well over £15 billion a year, which means £15 billion in higher taxes elsewhere or cuts to public services. That is the logical conclusion of the arguments from those opposing today’s Bill. Then we come to the real problem of some groups disproportionately under-saving, which, again, Members on both sides of this House have rightly raised in debates on pensions in recent months. The Pensions Commission is focused on groups we know are most exposed, including low earners, some ethnic minorities, women and the self-employed.”
“There is cross-party agreement that the work of the Pensions Commission is important as it examines questions of adequacy and fairness. We all know too many people are under-saving. Many commentators have called for higher minimum saving rates within automatic enrolment, including some on the Opposition Front Bench. The commission is crunching the numbers and talking to employers, trade unions and the pensions industry. We should not prejudge its work so I would now simply note that higher savings rates means pension tax relief costs rising further.”
“I have seen some deeply misleading comments in the media and otherwise on wider changes to pension tax relief, saying that people will not be saving as much as they previously were. The public should be clear that we are spending over £70 billion per year on pension tax relief, and that will be entirely unaffected by these changes. Employer contributions will continue to be the most tax-advantaged part of the pension tax system, being made entirely national insurance contribution-free. These are necessary changes that everyone who has thought about this subject knew would be needed, and they are changes being implemented in a pragmatic and balanced way. They are also consistent with the longer-term approach to reforming the pension system that is now in train.”
“No, they have remained entirely stable as a proportion of pay, because all the evidence indicates that it is largely automatic enrolment that drives changes in pension savings. That should not surprise anybody, because the research commissioned by the Conservative party that I mentioned earlier pointed in the same direction. It found that the majority of employers reducing their tax bill by offering pension salary sacrifice did not use the savings to increase pension contributions. More importantly for any member of the public listening—and it is important for all of us to be clear about this throughout this debate—pension saving will remain highly tax-advantaged after these changes.”
“The existence of salary sacrifice did nothing to prevent a situation in which, by 2012, only one in three private sector workers were saving into a pension. What made the difference was not the complicated national insurance reliefs available to some employees, but automatic enrolment, the groundwork for which was laid under the last Labour Government and which was continued by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers. That reversed the collapse in workplace pension saving, and it means that over 22 million workers are now saving each month. We also see that contributions have risen in line with regulatory requirements, not with the growth of salary sacrifice. Pension salary sacrifice relief doubled between 2019 and 2023. Was that associated with a surge in average pension contribution levels?”
“It means that almost all—95%—of those earning £30,000 or less, who work disproportionately for small businesses, will be entirely unaffected, and 87% of affected salary sacrifice contributions above the cap are forecast to be made by higher and additional rate taxpayers. This is a pragmatic and fair approach, as well as the fiscally responsible one. Some will claim—I am sure we will hear this from the Opposition—that salary sacrifice arrangements drive aggregate levels of pension savings. That is simply wrong. After all, salary sacrifice arrangements existed through the 2000s and into the early 2010s, and what happened to pension savings during that period? There were not rises, but big falls in private sector participation in pension savings.”
“We are providing over three years’ notice of the reform’s implementation. What did the previous Government provide to employers? One year’s notice of their reforms to salary sacrifice. This will give everybody involved time to prepare and adjust, which is widely welcomed by firms and business groups. Employers and payroll providers have already been working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure that this change operates in the most effective way, and that process will continue as we approach implementation. The second key design choice is the cap of £2,000. This cap protects ordinary workers and limits the impact on employers, while ensuring that the system remains fiscally sustainable. The cap means that the majority of those currently using salary sacrifice will be unaffected.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman, as I always do, because he always makes interesting points, but my larger point is this: if the Conservative party refuses ever to support any increases in taxation, increases in such spending—I think there is cross-party support for the Ministry of Defence, as the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire mentioned—cannot be funded and cannot happen. Almost every tax expert in the country has noted the need for change, and most have called for pension salary sacrifice to be ended entirely. However, we are taking a more pragmatic approach by recognising that change will affect many employers and employees. Our balanced approach has two key parts. The first is time. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford, nothing will change overnight.”
“I am reluctant to intervene, but I just want to pick up on two points that the hon. Member has just made. Men are much more likely to use salary sacrifice than women, so I offer him the chance to reconsider his last point about women being disproportionately affected. Before that, he said that the Bill meant that people were being encouraged to save but that they would be penalised if they did so. Given that there are members of the public listening who will make choices about their savings, I invite him to remind everyone that saving into their pension is still a very tax-advantaged thing to do. All Members on both sides of the House should encourage people to save into their pension, as the tax system will continue to do.”
“Students will pay nothing back unless they earn above the threshold, as they do now, and no one whose salary remains the same will see their monthly repayments change as the years of the freeze continue. Of course, we will keep the system under review. I again thank the hon. Member for securing the debate. It is vital that we secure the best possible future for graduates and, I think we all agree, for all young people and the younger generations. We will do that by tackling inflation and making sure that we bring down debt, as well as by ensuring that this is a country where wages and living standards are rising, where people can get things built again and where firms are able to grow. The Budget goes about delivering exactly that. Question put and agreed to.”
“I agree with him more broadly on the need for other higher-quality qualifications in greater numbers; he will have heard the Prime Minister referring to that in his conference speech earlier this autumn. We must also not lose sight of something that is still very true, despite the call for more and a wider range of qualifications: graduates still genuinely benefit from higher earnings and higher employment rates. We have talked about NEET numbers, and a degree still provides a very high level of protection against that. That does not mean that we should not continue to focus on ensuring that we get the best value for money for everything that young people go on to do. It is important that we have a sustainable student finance system, and also one that is fair to students and to the taxpayer.”
“The measures are part of a wider package of reforms, including in relation to higher-value properties, electric vehicles and changes to income tax rates on income from assets. Those are part of the Budget so that we make sure that the wider contributions we are asking for from everybody can be kept to an absolute minimum. More broadly, there has been a cross-party consensus that a fairer system of university funding will require a lower net contribution to universities from the taxpayer, particularly from taxpayers who did not go to university—I think that the hon. Member still agrees with that. In 2025, 34% of loan debt for full-time plan 2 graduates was forecast not to be repaid, so what we are talking about is still substantive.”
“Member will know that the Budget reduces borrowing in every single year of the forecast, because spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on schools and hospitals is already quite enough. The Budget included the freeze on the repayment threshold for plan 2 student loans from April ’27—where the threshold remains above that for other student loans, such as the plan 5 loans. The hon. Member mentioned some details of the plan 2 rules, which, again—I gently say—were introduced by the Conservatives, who looked to rebalance the system away from having as much taxpayer funding of students in the university system as there had been, with the cost being passed on to individuals.”
“That needs to continue, as does the work on mental ill health. We have committed to expanding the use of talking therapies in the NHS, delivering an additional 384,000 courses of treatment by 2028-29. There is one thing that I would gently add, in thinking about some of these issues, and mental health is a good example. We must not forget that the long-lasting effects of mental ill health, for example in the labour market, tend to be felt among those with fewer qualifications, even though, on the health side, that affects a very wide range of people. Turning to tax, we are certainly not hiding from the fact that the Budget asked everybody to make a contribution. The reason for that is simple: people have had enough of failing public services that are not doing the basics, and they know that borrowing levels must be brought down. The hon.”
“But we also need to address the fact that it is not just the amount of the pension, but the level of risk that younger generations are being asked to bear—in longevity, investment, inflation and other risks. That is exactly what the Pensions Commission is doing. I agree with most of the comments about young people in the labour market. It is a disgrace that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training—I think we would all agree about that. Of course, it is a disgrace that we inherited from the Conservatives, as the hon. Member for Windsor is well aware. It is good that the number of NEETs has not continued to rise, but I absolutely agree that it is far too high, and that is on all of us. That is why we have committed to tackling it, not least through a youth guarantee.”
“Member mentioned London, where a package of measures has been announced to deal with the building trend over the last few years towards lower building levels than we would like, but we also need to see this around the country. We need to see all enthusiastic MPs not opposing planning permissions when that is their easiest path to take. On pensions, I will add two things that I think matter for today’s younger generations. The first is the adequacy of the system that they are saving into, largely via defined contribution pension schemes. We have launched the Pensions Commission—I think that has cross-party consensus—to make sure, when we look ahead to 2050, that young people are on course for an adequate retirement.”
“He touched on housing but in my day job dealing with pensions, the same thing applies, because the young people he referenced will also be saving for pensions in a very different environment from those who came before them. Briefly on housing, what are the Government doing? We aim to tackle two things: first, the security of rental accommodation through the Renters’ Rights Act 2025, making sure that if people are renting, whether that is for a temporary period or an extended period, they cannot be evicted at short notice, with no certainty. Secondly, we have to tackle housing costs, and in the long run that means building houses. There is no substitute for that. It means building affordable housing and market housing. The hon.”