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 8 of 13.
“That is exactly what we dealt with in the Budget, with tax breaks to make it easier to grow and keep attracting capital and workers. In the long run, that is what creates more graduate jobs, which he rightly focused on. On the macroeconomic strategy, we aim to support growth by cutting borrowing and inflation. That in turn helps the Bank of England to keep interest rates falling—they have already been cut five times since the election—and that is crucial to give businesses the confidence to invest and to directly cut mortgage bills for millions of Henrys, Henriettas and everybody else, because those with mortgages are disproportionately graduates. The hon. Member rightly raised the question of assets.”
“That is why public investment is up by £120 billion and why we place so much emphasis on the old-fashioned idea of actually getting things built in this country. He raised the issue of housing, which I will return to shortly. We have also seen real wages rise more in the first year of this Government than in the first 10 years of the Conservative Government, but there is a lot further to go, and the Budget does go further. Let me touch on some of the areas that the hon. Member mentioned. On the microeconomic policy side, Britain is already the best place to start a business in Europe. That can be seen clearly in all the statistics, but it needs to be the best place to scale up a business and for a business to stay.”
“I would add to his critique of the previous Government the 40% fall in youth apprenticeship numbers, which has had a real effect on the volume of routes available to young people. Across all the fronts that he mentioned, the Government are supporting graduates and, for that matter, non-graduates. I know he would agree that the most important thing we can do for them is to make sure our economy overall is strong, because in the end, that is what provides graduate opportunities. He will be aware that Britain outperformed the growth forecast this year, with growth upgraded from 1% to 1.5%. Lots of things in the long run matter to economic growth, but raising Britain’s investment levels is high up the list.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) on securing this important debate. Budget discussions, which there have been lots of in the past month, tend to focus on economic statistics, GDP and borrowing. Those are very important, but they can sound abstract. What ultimately matters is what happens to people, including young people, and their wages and bills, the firms they work for and the public services they rely on. I welcome the hon. Member’s focus on young people and what is happening to their wages, homes and student finance, as well as apprenticeships actually, which he did not touch on much. I also welcome his honesty about a number of the trends and policies put in place by the previous Government.”
“The forecasts accompanying the Budget set out that the Office for Budget Responsibility expects employment levels to rise in every year of this Parliament. They also set out that employment is forecast to be higher in every year than previously expected back in March.”
“The hon. Member is right to call those things a moral and economic disgrace. Does he know who created them? It was the Conservative party opposite. Who saw a 50% rise in the number of those not in education, employment or training? The party opposite. Who created the benefits system that is failing today? The party opposite. Who failed to reform the benefits system? The party opposite.”
“Energy bills are too high. The Conservatives left Britain dependent on the rollercoaster of gas prices, and left families paying almost £2 billion on bills for their failed energy efficiency scheme, the energy company obligation. We are scrapping ECO and taking some of the expensive levies off bills. My hon. Friend makes an important point about standing charges. He will know that Ofgem continues to consider low standing charge tariffs for exactly the reason that he raises. More generally, reducing energy bills is so important precisely because they are typically a higher share of disposable income for low-income households.”
“The welfare state that the Conservative party created is failing, and we are changing it. Welfare spending rose three times as fast under the Conservative Government than it has under this one, because they created a broken welfare system, and I repeat: we will change it.”
“We have all watched the hon. Member voting with his feet by leaving the bunch of crazies that he was with before. Let us get back to what this Government are doing to drive growth: we are increasing public investment by £120 billion over this Parliament and making sure that things get built. We are building housing and giving a default “yes” to developments around train stations. We are building transport infrastructure, including the lower Thames crossing and expansion at Heathrow and Gatwick airports. We are expanding energy infrastructure at Wylfa and Sizewell. This Government are backing the builders, month after month.”
“My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner for those surpluses to be shared with the members of those pension schemes. He knows that we made an announcement at the Budget to ensure that the British Coal staff superannuation scheme surplus is shared with its members, and I know that the trustees are bringing forward their proposals on the sharing of future surpluses.”
“To tackle pensioner poverty, we are both increasing the state pension and running the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign. Raising the new state pension in line with the triple lock over this Parliament is set to increase it by over £2,000 a year, while 60,000 extra pension credit awards were made in the year to July compared with the previous 12 months.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. I, like her, have met and listened to lots of those affected by the lack of indexation on pre-1997 accruals within the PPF and the FAS. I can assure her that, assuming the Pension Schemes Bill receives Royal Assent, the uprating will take place at the next PPF uprating, which means January 2027 on current estimates.”
“I am always keen to work together with the Father of the House. He mentions the triple lock, but we are doing far more things to tackle pensioner poverty. There were 900,000 pensioners eligible for pension credit under the Conservatives who were not claiming, and that is why we have brought forward the biggest take-up campaign ever seen. The marketing campaign this year will run from September to the end of the financial year, we are carrying out research on what works to encourage take-up of pension credit and we are stepping up data sharing across Departments, including between His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question because it gives me a chance to bring the House’s attention to research published after the general election in 2024 but commissioned under the last Conservative Government—I have the document here. What was the research into? It was into capping salary sacrifice pension contributions at £2,000. The hon. Gentleman can read the research published and commissioned by his own party about putting back under control this tax relief, which had got out of hand.”
“There is nothing sad about Labour Members watching wages rise faster under this Government than they did under the Conservatives. There is nothing sad about our Back Benchers seeing the end of austerity and seeing public services being improved right across this country.”
“We are taking a pragmatic approach to reforming pension contributions made via salary sacrifice, the costs of which are set nearly to triple to £8 billion between 2017 and the end of this decade. The case for change was made powerfully by a previous Chancellor: “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.] So said Baron Hammond of Runnymede.”
“As the Secretary of State set out to the House a few months ago, the decision to which the hon. Member refers is being retaken by the Department, and we have committed to updating the House on that decision in due course.”
“The hon. Gentleman is a powerful champion for his constituents and I am sure that all hon. Members will be unhappy to hear about this case. I know that staff from the Department for Work and Pensions have already been in touch with his office, and I am happy to follow up myself.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his brief question. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government. It went up under the previous Conservative Government, but it is going to come down again under this Government.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her important question. We have seen poverty rates fall less fast among people approaching the state pension age, rather than those over it. We need to look across the range of policy levers to address that, which includes growing the economy so that wages are rising and building houses so that people’s housing costs come down.”
“Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), for Torbay (Steve Darling) and for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna), and my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), for their proposed new clauses and amendments related to this matter.”
“The PPF is one of the most important legacies of the last Labour Government, but we have all heard about the challenges caused by the lack of indexation of compensation related to pre-1997 pensions. I am grateful for the time that affected pensioners have given me in discussing their experiences directly. I have listened carefully to them and to hon. Members who have kept attention on this issue. I particularly acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and her Work and Pensions Committee, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) who raised this matter in Committee. I am also grateful to the hon.”
“The case for this focus is clear: those retiring in 2050 are currently set to do so with lower private pension income than those retiring today. The Bill also recognises that, with the second largest pension system in the world, pensions matter not just to deliver an income in retirement but for the whole economy as the largest source of domestic capital. With those goals in mind, this Bill builds a solid foundation on which we can build, not least via the Pensions Commission over the next year, exactly as several hon. Members called for on Second Reading. The vast majority of the amendments tabled by the Government are minor technical amendments, and there are two substantial areas on which I would like to dwell. The first is on pre-1997 indexation within the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme.”
“I start by thanking all hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the Bill’s passage to date. In particular, I thank members of the Public Bill Committee who offered line-by-line scrutiny. They have challenged the Government, but always constructively—that includes the shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), who is not with us today. That reflects the broad consensus across the House that the Pension Schemes Bill is an important piece of legislation, and it is a consensus for which I am very grateful. The same consensus underpinned the introduction of automatic enrolment under the previous Government. It is exactly because we as legislators have more than gently nudged people into pension savings that the Bill’s most fundamental job is to drive up returns on those savings.”
“I do not agree with the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question, because I think that members of the scheme he mentions will benefit from the improvement in pre-1997 indexation within the PPF, albeit I am sure they would rather not be within the PPF, which applies to most people who have fallen into it. All I would gently say is that the change we are introducing was refused by Liberal Democrat Pension Ministers during the coalition Government, so this is a big step forward and will make a difference to others.”
“My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner on this issue in the run-up to the Budget, and he brings me on to my next point. We are not just listening; we are acting. We have tabled new clauses 31 to 33 and Government amendment 87 to introduce prospective indexation of Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme payments that relate to pensions built up before 6 April 1997. And directly to his question, these will be consumer prices index linked, capped at 2.5% and apply to members whose former schemes provided for such increases. I thank the Pension Protection Fund for its support on this measure and its implementation, which rests with the PPF.”
“Friends the Members for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) and for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Elaine Stewart), wider changes in the Pension Schemes Bill relating to surplus release will put trustees in the lead in a way that will help on this issue.”
“Members will support this step forward, and on that basis, that those with related amendments will feel content not to press them today. New clauses 22 and 24 and amendment 19 concern that issue of discretionary increases or pre-1997 indexation in solvent defined-benefit pension schemes more generally. I put on record that we all recognise the impact of the high inflation in recent years on the value of some pensioners’ retirement income in exactly the way that has just been set out. I want to be straightforward with the House that we do not support retrospectively changing scheme rules. Neither did previous Conservative or Liberal Democrat Governments, given that contribution levels were set on the basis of the scheme rules at the time they applied. As I have said before, and as I discussed recently with my hon.”
“The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and I shall come to exactly that issue when I finish discussing the changes within the PPF, because as he rightly notes there are wider indexation questions for solvent pension schemes. On the PPF itself, this issue has been long running and many campaigners have long campaigned on it. Our changes aim to bring the matter to a conclusion. It is a step change that will make a meaningful difference to over 250,000 members. Over five years, the average PPF compensation will be boosted by £400 a year. Of course, I recognise that this does not go as far as some affected members would have wanted, but this change is real progress and rightly balances the interests of eligible members, levy payers, taxpayers and the Pension Protection Fund’s ability to manage future risk. I hope all hon.”
“I want to add that there is no change to the desired policy intent; this is about the mechanism by which we deliver it. We are committed to exploring both models in full. Amendments 37 to 53, on the scale clauses, are minor in nature. They include clarifying the circumstances in which schemes may count assets held in other schemes towards the scale condition—the requirement to have at least £25 billion-worth of assets under management by 2030—and clarifying when the transition pathway relief will end. On guided retirements, amendment 54 simply removes a redundant interpretation provision. Government amendments 55 to 86 relate to clauses 100 and 107 of the Bill, on the validity of certain alterations to salary-related contracted-out pension schemes—more often referred to as the Virgin Media case. [ Official Report , 12 January 2026; Vol.”
“New clause 34 introduces new wording to clause 4, with amendment 23 deleting the existing wording. Rather than stating in this Bill how procurement law affects the LGPS, new clause 34 will instead move the LGPS exemption directly into schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023, future-proofing the exemption from future changes to that Act. Amendment 28 is the central amendment on small pots. It introduces the concept of a destination proposer. This allows for either a single entity or multiple entities to be designated as the proposer of pot transfers. This reflects recent work by the DWP and Pensions UK to consider a federated model as a potential alternative to a centralised data platform for delivering the small pots policy.”
“The levy was initially introduced to allow transparency when these administration costs were significant relative to the PPF’s reserves, but this is no longer the case, with the levy standing at around £18.5 million while the PPF manages over £10 billion-worth of reserves. The PPF is now more than able to cover its administration costs, and transparency can be achieved in the normal way through annual reports and accounts. These amendments therefore abolish the levy, simplifying the pension levy landscape. I will now briefly cover some minor amendments, starting with those on the local government pension scheme. Amendment 22 exempts the Environment Agency, as a national body, from the requirement on other administering authorities to co-operate with strategic authorities on local investment opportunities.”
“Absolutely, is the short answer. I am always very happy to meet my hon. Friend and near constituency neighbour. I will explain how the change may help in that situation, but I am very happy to take that meeting. The changes give those trustees overseeing schemes without pre-’97 indexation greater leverage in discussions with employers on discretionary increases, should those trustees see fit. I would encourage them to do so. The other substantial amendments are on the Pension Protection Fund administration levy paid by DB schemes, allowing the Secretary of State to recover the PPF’s administration costs. It also covers the costs of administering the Fraud Compensation Fund.”
“I thank the hon. Member, who was one of the contributors to our debates on this matter in Committee. I hope to bring forward clarity on the next steps in a matter of months.”
“My hon. Friend has discussed this challenge with me many times and is a powerful campaigner for his affected constituents. I give him absolutely that assurance, and I extend to him the same offer I have given to other hon. Friends: I will be happy to meet him and affected constituents, or trustees who have been affected by this issue.”
“Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) mentioned, did not provide for indexation in their scheme rules. He is right to say that, on those matters, the changes that I have outlined today on the PPF do not provide relief. I have gone on to say that because of the changes we are bringing forward in the surplus rules, I think the trustees—as was discussed with some of his trustees—do have more ability and more leverage with which to ask for those discretionary increases, but I completely appreciate that that is different in form from the compensation indexation that we are providing within the PPF.”
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for that and for our conversations on this matter in recent months. Although I think it is completely reasonable that people would feel like that—so would many of us if we had seen the high inflation of recent years eat into our non-index-linked pension payments—let me explain the consistency of the Government’s position. We are providing pre-’97 indexation on compensation relating to pensions now held within the PPF to those who were in schemes that did provide for indexation. There is no question of retrospectively changing the entitlement within the schemes; we are simply requiring that the compensation within the PPF and the FAS recognises that the schemes that people were in did previously recognise the need for indexation. Other schemes within PPF and outside the PPF, including the one that the right hon.”
“I recognise the right hon. Member’s point. I think the level of pessimism may be overstated. My view is that our changes on surplus, which put trustees clearly in the driving seat, provide for more ability for trustees to seek to change that balance of power within their relationship. I do not want to prejudge the individual discussions between all trustees and their employers—those will be different in different circumstances—but trustees are in a stronger position given the changes on surplus release that we are introducing through this Bill. But I am not pretending for a second that that solves overnight the points that the right hon. Member is making.”
“I should say that this is about giving trustees that ability and not specifying that they must do so. I hope I have usefully set the scene for the debate. Let me close my opening remarks by reiterating my thanks to everyone who has engaged with the Bill so far. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ further contributions this afternoon.”
“The hon. Member brings me back to the part of my speech I was coming to. The direct, quick answer to her question is that I would envisage taking powers in primary legislation and then consulting on the statutory guidance relating to the powers provided to the Government. That is the order in which I would think about it, but, exactly as she has asked for, I will endeavour to provide more clarity on the timeline. As I said, I think there is good support for such a change across the industry—actually, I heard calls for it long before I became Pensions Minister—and it is time that we get on with setting out more details and providing that clarity to trustees so that, rather than debating whether trustees have the ability to invest with these longer-term structural or systemic factors in mind, they can get on with doing so, if they so wish.”
“Just reflecting on the excellent speech that my hon. Friend is making, I should add that the Pensions Regulator will be bringing forward guidance to provide exactly that kind of clarity to trustees.”
“With the leave of the House, I will respond to as many of the points raised as I can manage. I thank hon. Members for their speeches today. They have shown not only the depth of knowledge in this House, but the breadth of pensions issues that matter to all of us and to our constituents. I start by thanking those who have welcomed some of the changes that we have introduced and set out today. My hon. Friends the Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) spoke about the PPF, and I appreciate their remarks. On the changes we have set out on the statutory guidance for trustees, the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) is much appreciated, as is that from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).”
“I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I covered that extensively in my opening remarks. I want to mention two points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) asked about the timeline for the Pensions Commission. I can assure him that nothing is going slowly, so the final report will be delivered in early 2027, which is significantly quicker than the last one in the 2000s. I will update the House as soon as I have more to say on that front. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) asked how many people will benefit from the change to the PPF indexation and how many will not benefit. The answer is that 250,000 members will benefit and 90,000 will not benefit, because their schemes did not provide for indexation in the scheme rules in the first place. I hope that answers the question she raised.”
“(4) Regulations under this section must require the Pension Protection Fund and the Financial Assistance Scheme to make the appropriate payment or payments within a specified time of receipt of a valid application.”— (Manuela Perteghella.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide, by regulations, for the use of a valid SR1 form to make it easier for a person to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes related to compensation from the PPF or FAS. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“(3) Regulations under this section must provide that, where the Department of Work and Pensions (“the Department”) holds a valid SR1 form in respect of a person seeking to demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes relating to compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or Financial Assistance Scheme, the Department must share that form with the Pension Protection Fund or the Financial Assistance Scheme.”
“New Clause 3 Terminal illness: means of demonstrating eligibility “(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision about how a person may demonstrate that they are terminally ill for purposes relating to compensation or assistance from the Pension Protection Fund or Financial Assistance Scheme. (2) In making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must seek to minimise the administrative burden placed upon the person with a terminal illness.”
“(7) In the Pensions Act 2008, in Schedule 10 (interest on late payment of levies), omit paragraph 3 (which makes an amendment about interest for late payment of the administration levy that has not been brought into force).”— ( Torsten Bell .) This new clause (which is intended to be added after clause 112) enables administrative expenses of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund to be paid out of the Pension Protection Fund and the Fraud Compensation Fund, and removes the existing administration levy mechanism; it also clarifies that no administration levy is payable for 2023/24 or 2024/25. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“(4) In section 173 (Pension Protection Fund), in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert— “(za) any sums required to meet expenditure of the Board that is attributable to the operation or administration of the Pension Protection Fund,” (5) In section 188 (fraud compensation fund), in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert— “(za) any sums required to meet expenditure of the Board that is attributable to the operation or administration of the Fraud Compensation Fund,” (6) No amount is payable to the Secretary of State by virtue of section 117 of the Pensions Act 2004 (administration levy) in respect of the financial years beginning with 1 April 2023 and 1 April 2024.”
“This is intended to replace Clause 4 in the current print of the Bill. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 35 Funding of the Board of the Pension Protection Fund “(1) The Pensions Act 2004 is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5). (2) Omit section 116 (power of Secretary of State to pay grants to Board of Pension Protection Fund). (3) Omit section 117 (power of Secretary of State to impose administration levy on pension schemes).”
“(6) In this paragraph— “asset pool company” has the meaning given by section 1(7)(a) of the Pension Schemes Act 2025; “investment management activities” means activities involved in or connected with the management of funds or other assets for which a scheme manager is responsible (including making and managing investments on behalf of the scheme manager); “local government pension scheme manager” means a person who is, by virtue of section 4(5) of the Public Service Pensions Act 2013, a scheme manager for a pension scheme for local government workers in England and Wales; “participating scheme manager” , in relation to an asset pool company, means a local government pension scheme manager who participates in the company within the meaning of section 1(9)(b) of the Pension Schemes Act 2025.””— ( Torsten Bell .) This new clause amends the Procurement Act 2023 to create a new category of exempted contract covering certain investment management contracts between a local government scheme manager and the asset pool company.”