Torsten Bell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2026 · National Savings & Investments · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to make a statement regarding National Savings & Investments. On 18 December 2025, NS&I notified the Treasury of an operational failure to comprehensively trace accounts for some customers who had passed away. The result of that failure is that not all savings were identified by NS&I and paid to the beneficiaries of their estates as they should have been. Specifically, processes failed to comprehensively trace some customer holdings where they were spread across multiple profiles or systems. Hon. Members will be aware of historical challenges in financial services in this regard. For example, the Financial Conduct Authority took enforcement action in 2018 against Santander relating to the tracing of accounts following notification that a customer had passed on. That received significant attention at the time. However, what is now clear is that NS&I and its suppliers did not respond to those warning signs as fully as I and, more importantly, their customers, would expect, and nor did the last Government act. Bereaved families, whose loved ones held accounts with NS&I, will rightly be anxious about this news, so let me turn to the action that we have taken and the further steps that we are putting in place today. Since being notified, the Treasury has ensured that external advisers, including EY and legal experts, have been engaged to identify the scale of the errors. Through this work, NS&I has reviewed over 34 million customer records. That work is ongoing, but it points to up to a maximum of around 37,500 customers, with up to £476 million in deposits, being affected. Three quarters of cases relate to the period between 2008 and 2025. The number is likely to fall in future, but although it represents less than 0.2% of NS&I’s customers, that is still far too many. NS&I is not regulated by the FCA, but the Government expect it to live up to the same standards as regulated deposit-taking banks. It is therefore right that NS&I is apologising today. The Government’s priorities now are threefold. First—and immediately, to ensure that the problem is no longer taking place—NS&I has received written assurances from its customer-facing supplier Sopra Steria that the causes of the tracing issue have been addressed and will not affect customers going forward. Its previous supplier, Atos, has also committed to full co-operation, given that it was responsible for handling bereavement cases until 2025. Our second priority is to ensure that we reunite beneficiaries of those customers who have passed away with any funds that NS&I holds. Those deposits belong to customers. Returning them in no way represents an additional liability to the taxpayer, and for the avoidance of doubt, let me spell out that those savings are 100% safe. The issue is about tracing and not the security of any funds, but it is important, none the less. NS&I has put in place a dedicated programme team and hired an additional 100 staff. I have asked it to publish a delivery plan in May detailing how they will take forward the work to reunite funds with their owners. This will cover: the number of cases affected; how NS&I will proactively contact representatives of estates to ensure they receive the funds that they are due, including interest on savings; and the compensation that, where appropriate, will be paid. There is no need for individuals to waste money on a claims management company or solicitor. I reassure people that the onus is not on them but on NS&I to act—to contact estate representatives and to reconnect beneficiaries with the money they are due. Further information is available on the NS&I website and its contact centre is open seven days a week. I will also ensure that MPs have a dedicated means of contacting NS&I to raise any constituency cases directly. Dealing with bereavement is always challenging, and I am sure that we all recognise that finding out, as party of that, that such errors have been made could be distressing. We are committed to ensuring that NS&I supports those who have experienced a loss by making the process for reuniting beneficiaries with their money as easy as possible. We also recognise that there may be tax implications for affected estates and want to avoid bereaved families facing disproportionate disruption and administrative costs as a result of the error. We are exploring what support we can provide and will set this out alongside NS&I’s delivery plan in May. Current NS&I customers can access their accounts as normal. Any wishing to trace old accounts can use the tracing services direct through NS&I or the My Lost Account website. Because in the past some searches have focused too narrowly on searching for specific accounts, I have also instructed NS&I to make it simpler for people to search for all the accounts or products that they might hold. Our third priority is institutional. NS&I plays an important role, helping the public to save and providing a material contribution towards Government financing. The organisation must continue to play that role while addressing the tracing issues that I have laid out today. It must also complete what has been a challenging business transformation programme. The programme was put in place back in 2020, but with little progress made in the previous Parliament, as the recent Public Accounts Committee report has set out. This Government have appointed David Goldstone, former chief operating officer at the Ministry of Defence, to support NS&I to bring the programme back on track. With all this in mind, I also want to make sure that NS&I has the very best leadership in place. Effective from today, I have appointed Sir Jim Harra—former first permanent secretary at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—to take over as the chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start for NS&I’s next phase of development. I also recognise the 22 years of public service of his predecessor Dax Harkins at NS&I. As well as providing leadership to the organisation, Sir Jim will undertake a review over the next three months to spell out in detail the background to the tracing problem and to set out what lessons must be learned by NS&I. I have discussed this with Sir Jim and am confident that his extensive experience will help guide NS&I in the months ahead. I will ensure that Sir Jim’s review is shared with the Chairs of the Treasury and Public Accounts Committees upon completion. NS&I holds over £240 billion of savings belonging to 24 million customers. It is an organisation that is valued by those saving with it and by this Government. I repeat NS&I’s apology to its customers and reiterate that every penny of their savings is safe, and—as always—they are 100% guaranteed by the Treasury. I commend this statement to the House.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolute nonsense. Members of the House should be reminding everybody in this country that they have a strong incentive to save for their pension, not misleading them by implying that they will somehow lose out by saving for their pension. That is not the case, and it is really important that we are consistent in our messaging to the public about that. I will come back to the wider point about the levels of saving in society. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest also asked questions about savings gaps, and he was right to do so. Unfortunately, however, he talked nonsense about that. He talked about the self-employed, low earners, women and those working for SMEs, all of whom do have lower pension savings rates, but all those groups who are under-saving are those least likely to use salary sacrifice. He talked about those on lower incomes, but as I said, 95% of those earning under £30,000 and contributing to a pension via salary sacrifice are completely unaffected. He claimed that the impact was largest on those on low earnings. That is nonsense, because 86% of contributions over £2,000 are from additional rate taxpayers. Those are the facts. [ Official Report , 14 April 2026; Vol. 783, c. 12WC.] (Correction) The hon. Member for Wyre Forest went on to invent a brilliant story of a young graduate struggling to get by who was somehow putting £5,000 into their pension every year. As I mentioned earlier, 90% of young graduates are saving £2,000 or less into their pensions. Why are they not saving more? Because their wages did not rise under the Conservative party. Why are they not saving more? Because that party did not build enough houses to help them get on to the property ladder. He asked— [ Interruption. ] I am glad to hear that all Conservative Members will stop opposing the building of homes in their constituencies in the years ahead. The hon. Member asked about the implementation. As he mentioned, I have set out that it will operate on a per-job basis. He also asked about how it will operate over a pay period basis. As he knows, national insurance broadly operates on a pay period basis, but we are consulting with employers and payroll providers to ensure that we get that right. As is normal with national insurance legislation, we will set that out in the regulations. I turn to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard). It is not surprising that he, as a Liberal Democrat, opposes these measures but set out absolutely no ideas for how to pay for that. I look forward to him calling for more spending later this week—again with absolutely no idea how to pay for it. He raised timing. Directly to his two questions, we think it is pragmatic to give employers and individuals time to adjust—that is the basis for the pragmatic point that he raised. He also raised the scoring of that, which is a technical issue reflecting how the national accounts deal with the claiming back of tax relief for some pensions. He also mentioned the OBR. If he looks at its report, he will find that it set out that the Budget measures will have no material impact on savings levels. To end on a point of wide cross-party consensus, both hon. Members raised the case that people do need to save more for their pensions—the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) just did so, too—and we all agree on that, and particularly those 45% of working-age adults who are currently saving nothing. As I said, that includes in particular groups such as low earners and the self-employed, for neither of whom is salary sacrifice available. The answer to that is the work of the pensions commission, which I hope will continue to operate on a cross-party basis. Its interim report will be coming forward soon, and I will commend its work to the House. For today, I am afraid that the Government will oppose the Lords amendments. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is a question the hon. Gentleman should put to his Front Benchers, who opened the negotiations with Mauritius in the first place. Opposition Members come to the House making cheap points, because they used to take seriously the job of government and they have given up entirely. I will make some progress now, having engaged with the hon. Member who obviously gave up on the job of serious government some time ago. A world where 95% of those earning £30,000 or less and contributing via a salary sacrifice are unaffected makes the case for the £2,000 cap I have set out, but the Government agree with the sentiment raised in the Lords about keeping it under review. The Bill allows for that to take place in future. That leads me to Lords amendments 2 and 8, which would exempt salary sacrifice pension contributions over the £2,000 cap from the calculation of student loan repayments. It is right that we focus on the outcomes for younger generations too often let down by the failures of the previous Government. I gently remind Conservative Members—there are only two of them here, but there are some Liberal Democrats who deserve some of the “credit” too—of their track record on this matter: trebling tuition fees, raising interest rates, scrapping maintenance grants and the rest. And that is before I get to not allowing anything to be built. That is what younger generations are being let down by. On the specific proposal, it is worth noting that while salary sacrifice arrangements can reduce the student loan repayments made, they do not reduce the total amount due for repayment. Much more important is the fact that the £2,000 cap means that young graduates are broadly unaffected. In fact—these are new figures that were not available for the discussion in the Lords, but as this issue has been raised and brought to the Commons, I will provide them—the £2,000 cap means that 90% of graduates under the age of 30 repaying student loans who are saving into a pension will be unaffected, in the sense that 90% of them save less than £2,000 a year. I hope that provides some reassurance to Members who have raised that point. Lords amendments 3, 4, 9 and 10 would make the regulation-making powers in the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure, except for those which solely increase the contributions limit. The Government agree on the importance of maintaining strong parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where changes could affect individuals’ national insurance liabilities. However, the Bill already contains a series of safeguards and the legislative approach taken follows long-standing precedence for national insurance legislation. In addition, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has carefully scrutinised the powers in the Bill, including the proposed level of parliamentary scrutiny, and concluded that there is nothing in the Bill that it wishes to draw to the special attention of the House. Lords amendments 6 and 12 seek to exempt small and medium-sized enterprises, alongside smaller charities and social enterprises, from the Bill’s provisions. Again, the Government agree on the importance of supporting small businesses—I am sure that that is a matter of cross-party support—but small businesses are much less likely to use salary sacrifice than larger businesses. Furthermore, the £2,000 cap means that 90% of employees in SMEs making pension contributions through salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. Indeed, the largest benefits from uncapped salary sacrifice accrue to larger businesses, not smaller ones. In practice, the changes in the Bill will help to level the playing field between small businesses and their larger competitors. Those wanting to see support for small businesses should support the measures in the Bill. The Government are engaging with employers, payroll professionals and software developers to ensure that the changes are implemented in the least burdensome way possible for employers of all sizes. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will understand why it would not be right to support the amendments from the other place, even though we recognise the valuable objectives that have in many cases motivated them. As I said, the Government spend over £500 billion each year on various tax reliefs within the tax system. That is more than double the entire annual NHS budget. The size of the spend means that the Government must always keep the effectiveness and the value for money of those reliefs under review. These are necessary, pragmatic and fair reforms that protect ordinary workers while ensuring that public finances are kept on a sustainable footing. I respectfully propose that this House disagrees with the amendments.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He was pretending that the competition is about who is the better MP, but we know it is really about the volume of speaking in this Chamber. The two of them are running it close, but never testing the patience of this House. It is amazing that you have allowed them both in this early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is what the closing minutes of every debate in this House should be about. It is important to have traditions, and they both deliver admirably, but I will make some progress before we get sidetracked entirely. I was talking about the pragmatic approach we are taking to this change. As I have said, there will be no change until 2029, and the £2,000 cap means that salary sacrifice contributions can continue. That recognises the fact that that has become an established process in several companies and for individuals, so we are giving people time to adjust. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised that, and I have responded by saying that this is pragmatic because pension tax relief continues in its entirety. It is important to remember that relief is available to all savers, not just to the minority who have salary sacrifice available to them. With that in mind—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the Conservatives will have decided to support the Bill in its entirety having listened to those powerful arguments—I turn first to Lords amendments 1 and 7, which would exempt basic rate taxpayers from the operation of the Bill, and Lords amendments 5 and 11, which would increase the contributions limit to £5,000. The Government’s balanced and pragmatic approach, with the £2,000 cap, means that 74% of basic taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The small proportion of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above the cap will still be getting the national insurance contributions relief on the first £2,000 of contributions made via salary sacrifice, in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions. Exempting basic rate taxpayers in the manner proposed would be incredibly difficult to operate. An individual’s tax band is not knowable until the end of the tax year, which means employers would be required to carry out complicated calculations at the end of the year to reconcile the figures, and they would need to know their employees’ other sources of income, which I do not think anyone would believe is a good idea.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of it, and I particularly thank the Financial Secretary, Lord Livermore, for leading the Bill so expertly through the other place. Before addressing the amendments directly and explaining the Government’s decision not to support them—I know that will be shocking—I turn briefly to the need for these reforms. As the Chancellor set out at the Budget, we are taking action to make the tax system fairer and fit for the 21st century. That requires us to keep the effectiveness and value for money of the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review, and it is especially important to do so when costs are expected to increase significantly. The cost of national insurance contributions relief on salary sacrifice into pension schemes was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2031, without reform, which would be equivalent to the cost of the Royal Air Force. This is not only an expensive tax relief, but one with a very uneven impact. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all. The vast majority of salary sacrifice contributions are made by higher and additional-rate taxpayers. Salary sacrifice is unavailable entirely to those earning at or near the national living wage, or to the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, and we know that both groups are more likely to be under-saving for retirement. On this basis, the status quo is indefensible. Change was inevitable, but we have chosen to take a pragmatic approach, with no change until 2029, and a £2,000 cap to allow pension contributions via salary sacrifice to continue.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member always raises questions brought up by his constituents, which we know is a valuable part of the work he does in this place. The direct answer to his constituents is that all of them have a very strong tax incentive to save for their pension, without salary sacrifice. We spend £70 billion a year to provide that incentive, whether via the lump sum or the national insurance exemption for employer contributions. I hope the main thing he says to any of his constituents who come through the door is that they have a very strong incentive to save, whatever their circumstances. On the pension gap, that is why we have revived the Pensions Commission. Its work is ongoing, and I am sure he will read in detail its interim report, which will be coming out in the coming months.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, that is not what is going on. What will happen is that everybody will still have a strong tax relief incentive to save for their pension, and by taking a sensible approach to reforming that, we will avoid seeing the cost of the tax relief rise to the same level as the cost of the RAF. I listen to Opposition Members day in, day out calling for more defence spending. There are consequences for that. One of them is that we have to do our job of looking carefully at the quality of our tax reliefs, and that is what we are doing today. Hon. Members should support us in doing that.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Here we have it again: when the Conservatives are faced with any difficult choice, the answer is higher child poverty. It is the answer to every question they are ever faced with. They stand up day in, day out and say that what they want to see is higher child poverty—and they cheered enthusiastically for it just then. I will move on. Not only can the hon. Member for Wyre Forest not say which bit of the NHS he would like to cut because he opposes these changes, but he cannot even explain why the Conservatives were planning to implement exactly these kinds of changes when they were in government—before their whole giving up on being serious people thing.

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), for their contributions. I will not reiterate the arguments for the Bill as a whole, but I will try to respond directly to the points that they have made. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest explained that the Conservatives are opposed entirely to these changes, but of course he did not explain at all which bits of the NHS services they would cut, since they obviously do not support the revenue being raised from this sensible— [ Interruption. ] Which bit of the benefits system would they like to change then?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Tobacco and Vapes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  She is trying to be nice to you!

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I will come in a second to the point that the right hon. Gentleman is making, which is about where power lies in the system.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I hear the right hon. Member’s point. I am not going to comment on individual legal cases, obviously, but the basis of the distinction at 1997 reflects the decisions taken in 1995 by a previous Conservative Administration to introduce statutory indexation, but not wanting to do that for accruals that had already taken place. The Pensions Act 1995 brought in statutory indexation from 1997 onwards. We can recognise the underlying reasons for this situation—not retrospectively changing the basis of scheme rules—while sharing Members’ huge frustrations with it. It is why I continue to encourage trustees and sponsoring employers to think carefully about the effect of inflation on member benefits when making decisions. The Pensions Regulator already sets out that trustees should consider specifically—not just generally—the situation of those members and whether the scheme has a history of making such awards. Pensions legislation sets minimum legal standards that all schemes must meet, and they are designed to strike the balance between fair and workable, and having a stable DB landscape. I completely recognise the case for change that the right hon. Member for New Forest East has made today and in the past. The challenge is that it would be unreasonable to retrospectively change long-standing rules in blanket terms in a way that would put some schemes’ stability at risk, whether that is today by fundamentally changing their funding position, or in future, when we do not know what the world will look like.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has been a powerful campaigner on this issue. I recognise her point about situations where there was a habit of paying discretionary increases in the past. On the question of what we do about it, let me come to the Government’s approach, and then I will perhaps offer two reflections specifically on the points that have been raised on which we might want to continue making progress, even if I cannot satisfy all the demands for instantaneous change today. So, what are we doing? The reforms introduced in the Pension Schemes Bill will give more trustees of such schemes the flexibility to release surplus. That will help shape the balance of power between trustees and employers when it comes to well-funded schemes. There is not nothing we can do, and the Pension Schemes Bill will make a difference, particularly for the kind of schemes being raised tonight—those which have a surplus today. The decision to release surplus will remain entirely with the trustees. That will place them in a better position to negotiate benefit improvements as part of any release. It is entirely for trustees, working with the employer, to determine how members may benefit. Let me be really clear: if trustees wish to insist on discretionary pre-1997 indexation as a condition for surplus release, they will be entitled to do so. I expect that many will, given the discussions I have had with them. We are obviously in the early stages of that Bill; it has not passed through Parliament yet. Employers and trustees are thinking through a world where they suddenly find themselves with a surplus, and in many cases are thinking about what that means for the future of their pension scheme. These reforms recognise trustees’ and members’ understandable frustration with the status quo, but also the diverse circumstances of DB schemes. Let me end with two reflections on the wider contributions that Members have made, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, who has brought us here today. First, whatever the scheme rules, there is no excuse for employers not to fully engage with trustees on these decisions and questions, and I have too often heard from members and trustees that employers have not done so. I will take that away to consider what more we can do to make sure there is an open consultation and people are clear about what is going on and how decisions are taken. Secondly, given the importance of this matter, I recognise that it would be beneficial to develop a clearer understanding of the circumstances, particularly in relation to the issue that has been raised about well-funded schemes are choosing actively not to award discretionary increases, particularly where employer consent is the binding constraint. The Pensions Regulator has been considering how to build its evidence base in this area, and I will talk to it in the weeks and months ahead about what more we can do about that. I will finish by paying tribute to my hon. Friend and the other right hon. and hon. Members who have participated in this debate, but also to Members who are not here, but have consistently raised this issue with me. In the coming weeks, I will be meeting other Members who have asked me to discuss this with them and their constituents. It is important that we have the chance to discuss these important matters, and I am glad that we have done so. Question put and agreed to.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I think there is a slightly harder case, which is examples where schemes had an established practice of paying discretionary increases—my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham mentioned Nissan cases from before the turn of this century, where that was the practice—and that was seen as the norm, and then, for different phases, such as when schemes slipped into deficit, as many did, they stopped and then did not restart when the surplus arrived. That is the case raised here. In many ways, those are the harder cases to understand, and I will come to how we think about such cases as we go forward.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) has secured the debate on this important matter and thank him for the thoughtful way in which he described the impact on his constituents. He spoke on behalf of many others as well, and in particular those members of the Nissan pension scheme. I join him in praising the persistent campaigners on this issue. He mentioned one organisation in particular—I have met its members, who have been campaigning for many years and have not shown any let-up in their energy during that time. A period of high inflation and the return of many defined-benefit schemes to surplus has rightfully put up in lights of the situation of members whose pre-1997 benefits are not protected by statutory indexation. That wider debate has rightly featured heavily during the passage of the Pension Schemes Bill. It was also discussed by the Work and Pensions Committee prior to the election. As my hon. Friend said, it was considered in some length here when we debated new clause 22, when we heard many powerful speeches, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith). The right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), as he said, has been raising the issue for many years, and I have also discussed it with the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I have met many scheme members and their representatives. Recently my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and I met three members in Swansea to discuss exactly this issue in a lot of detail. I was grateful for their time and to her for organising that discussion. I have listened, and I recognise the difficulties faced by some scheme members who can now see their income, their living standards and the quality of their retirement eroded by inflation, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said. It is particularly understandable that members are disappointed when schemes do not award discretionary increases when they are in a strong funding position—that is obviously the change that has happened over the last few years. As my hon. Friend will know, defined-benefit pension schemes have very different approaches to awarding pre-1997 indexation. The truth is—obviously, we will not be discussing these schemes at length today—most do provide for increases under their scheme rules; others do not allow it or require it at all; and a significant number allow discretionary increases only where there is agreement between both trustees and the sponsoring employer. Those are the cases that we are mainly focusing on in this debate. The result is that, in some cases, when employers are unwilling to support discretionary increases —even when the scheme is in a strong funding position—trustees can effectively be prevented from acting.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  That was not the best; there is much more to come. I am enjoying the enthusiasm. Sector-specific support continues for the likes of agriculture and horticulture, which retain access to red diesel, after it was withdrawn from most sectors in 2022. Our extension of the temporary 5p fuel duty cut includes a proportionate reduction for rebated fuels, including red diesel. As the shadow Secretary of State noted, the context is that we are entering the third week of the ongoing conflict in Iran, the effects of which have spread directly across the middle east and indirectly around the world. In responding to that conflict and those effects, the Government’s priority will always be the national interest. The immediate focus is on protecting British nationals in the region, and taking necessary action to defend ourselves and our allies. That is supported by the Chancellor’s decision not just to deliver the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war, but to approve access for the Ministry of Defence to the special reserve to deploy additional capabilities to the middle east.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said, oil and gas will be with us for some time. [ Interruption. ] Let me finish. That is why the Chancellor met the sector. [ Interruption. ] I hear all the chuntering from Opposition Members, but I did not hear as much chuntering when we saw a 70% fall in jobs in the North sea on their watch. [ Interruption. ] That is the truth of what you delivered. Now, on top of that, you are trying to double down. The Conservative party is doubling down on opposing investment in renewable energy, threatening those jobs. The Labour party believes in domestic energy security delivered by a range of sources, including the nuclear that the Conservatives failed to invest in.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I understand why the hon. Member is asking that. I would gently point out that the level of petrol prices today is lower than at the time of the election, when the Conservatives had a temporary 5p freeze and explicitly did not include continuing that freeze in their manifesto. I offer that by way of indication of where we are today. We will keep working towards a swift resolution, one that brings stability back to the region, security to Iran’s neighbours and relief to households in the UK, who are understandably worried about the effect of the conflict.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress, and then take some interventions. As I was saying, we are providing additional capabilities to the middle east, but I want to be clear that the UK will not be drawn into a wider war. We on the Labour Benches have been clear about our approach. We are in the business of protecting British nationals, not of trying to deliver regime change from the air. We need to de-escalate the conflict and we are playing our part in doing so, but the full economic impact of the conflict will of course depend on its severity and duration. Recent events have led to significant increases in oil and gas prices. As of this morning, oil prices remain over $100 per barrel and gas prices at 129p per therm.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for his kind remarks, even if they were driven by geography rather than personality. I will take what I can get in today’s debate! Since we are being kind to each other, I recognise the point he makes about the significant uncertainty we face in this world today. That uncertainty always existed to a significant extent, if we are honest, and I think most Conservative Members realise that defence cuts year after year in the last decade were a mistake—

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I regularly discuss exactly the kind of industries he raises today, because he is such a powerful champion on their behalf. Most firms, obviously, will be significantly more hedged than households against changes in prices, but he is absolutely right to say that the effect of energy price rises is very uneven across our industrial base. He is right to highlight energy-intensive industries and what the Government are doing when it comes to the increase in the discount delivered by the supercharger in the coming months and then the BICS in the years ahead. He is also right to make sure that we keep concentrating on this issue in the months ahead, and I am sure I will be talking to him and others about it. We want the war to end as swiftly and quickly as possible, because the longer it goes on, the more dangerous the situation becomes and the greater the impact on the cost of living back here at home. A rapid de-escalation remains the best way to protect people from further fuel price increases—despite the bluster today, I think that is the goal of everybody sitting in this House—and that requires a return to the diplomatic process. It also means the security of vessels passing through the strait of Hormuz. On that front, the UK will play its part as the global hub of maritime insurance, but I want to be clear, given some of the things that have been said in recent weeks, that this is a complement—not an alternative—to the physical security of vessels. As the Chancellor said following her call with G7 Finance Ministers last week, we are supporting a co-ordinated release of oil reserves. That has helped to some degree to stabilise international oil markets. We have also asked the Competition and Markets Authority to remain vigilant on price developments for essentials such as road oil and heating oil. On Friday, the Chancellor and the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary met petrol retailers to make it clear that the Government will not tolerate anyone exploiting the current situation to make excess profits.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right, at least within England: yes, the funding will be delivered via local authorities, through the mechanism that was the household support fund, which becomes the crisis and resilience fund in a few weeks. We have written to local authorities to make it clear that they do not need to wait for the new fund to be in place and can start making commitments today. The decision on exactly who qualifies as vulnerable sits with local authorities, because one thing we have learned is that different parts of the country have different challenges on this issue.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  We will continue to be responsive to a changing world, be responsible in the national interest and with the public finances, and take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living. That is this Government’s promise.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a bit of progress; I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman. To reflect the highly uneven geographical spread of heating oil reliance, as highlighted by lots of Members in recent weeks, not least those from Northern Ireland and west Wales, the funding will be allocated on the basis of census data, instead of via usual mechanisms. I have focused so far on laying out the challenge facing the country and our consistent approach to this conflict, but as this is an Opposition day, it would be rude not to talk a little about the Opposition, who have displayed rank opportunism and incoherence. This week, the Leader of the Opposition has said that she is “concerned that there isn’t a clear plan behind the strikes”, which is the opposite of what she has been saying for weeks. She welcomed the strikes and the military action that she now says lacked a clear plan. She called for Britain to get involved in the military action that she now admits lacked clear objectives. She says that her leadership is about consistency, but, on this most important of issues, the whole country can see that she is just making it up as she goes along—a cavalier attitude without a second thought for the consequences for households here in the UK. She does not get to wrap herself up in another country’s flag and play politics with a serious conflict and then pretend she never did so once the consequences for those living in the United Kingdom became clear. Opportunism is the word for the Opposition on fuel duty, too. For all the froth from the shadow Minister, the truth is that the previous Government did not budget for any extension of the 5p cut—they explicitly said that it was temporary. Here is the truth on the level of fuel duty: through their entire 14 years in office—