1-20 of 9,212 results for subject:Increases
Librarians' tools
- Search time
- 0.534 seconds
- Solr query time
- 0.016 seconds
- Search query
- subject:Increases
- We searched for
- subject_t:Increases OR subject_ses:91628
Type
House
Session
More
Year
More
Department
More
Member
More
Primary member
More
Answering member
More
Legislative stage
Legislation
More
Subject
More
Publisher
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the answer of 2 March 2026, to Question 113737, on Council Tax: City of Westminster and Wandsworth, what assessment his Department has made of the financial viability of the six councils if they do not...
To ask the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, with reference to the answer of 2 March 2026, to Question 113737, on Council Tax: City of Westminster and Wandsworth, what assessment his Department has made of the financial viability of the six councils if they do not...
Government does not intend to set referendum principles for six authorities in 2027-28 and 2028-29 including City of Westminster and Wandsworth. Within our modelling, we made an assumption that these authorities increase their council tax by 5% plus an additional £150 in each of 2027-28 and 2028-29 for the purposes of calculating their funding floor allocations in these years. Decisions on council tax levels in these areas remain a matter for the individual local authorities.
The Local Government Finance Settlement ensured these councils were funded according to their needs, taking into account their ability to raise council tax, assuming 5% plus £150 in each of 2027-28 and 2028-29. We monitor the financial health of councils on a regular basis using a range of data as well as through extensive direct engagement. While councils are responsible for their own financial management, any council that has concerns about its ability to set or maintain a balanced budget should approach the department in the first instance where we will treat all discussions in confidence.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what role the Pensions Regulator plays in overseeing decisions where discretionary increases are declined despite scheme affordability; and whether that role will be expanded.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what role the Pensions Regulator plays in overseeing decisions where discretionary increases are declined despite scheme affordability; and whether that role will be expanded.
The Government recognises the concerns of members of defined benefit pension schemes whose benefits accrued before 1997 are not subject to indexation.
The design of pension benefits, including whether discretionary increases may be awarded and whether employer consent is required, is a matter for each scheme’s trust deed and rules. Trustees in turn, must act in accordance with their fiduciary duties, trust law and scheme rules. The Pensions Regulator already expects trustees to consider whether discretionary increases would be in members’ interests, including any history of making such awards. However, the Regulator does not have the power to require discretionary increases to be paid where this is not permitted under scheme rules.
Analysis by the Pensions Regulator shows that 17 per cent of members of private sector defined benefit pension schemes do not receive any pre-1997 indexation on benefits in excess of any Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights accrued between 1988 and 1997, which must be indexed by the scheme. This information is published and available at:
The Department does not hold central data on the number of defined benefit schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed but not implemented due to a lack of employer consent. Decisions on discretionary increases are taken at scheme level, reflecting individual funding positions, scheme rules and employer covenants. The Regulator has been considering how it might strengthen its evidence base in this area, and any insights from that work may help inform future thinking.
When it comes to requirements on schemes to provide advance notification when policies on discretionary increases are changed or withdrawn, trustees must continue to comply with existing disclosure requirements.
Recent reforms will give trustees of well‑funded defined benefit schemes greater flexibility in relation to scheme surplus, subject to safeguarding members’ benefits. This may place trustees in a stronger position to negotiate benefit improvements, including discretionary increases where appropriate.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what recent estimate he has made of the number of defined benefit pension schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed by trustees but not implemented due to employer refusal.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what recent estimate he has made of the number of defined benefit pension schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed by trustees but not implemented due to employer refusal.
The Government recognises the concerns of members of defined benefit pension schemes whose benefits accrued before 1997 are not subject to indexation.
The design of pension benefits, including whether discretionary increases may be awarded and whether employer consent is required, is a matter for each scheme’s trust deed and rules. Trustees in turn, must act in accordance with their fiduciary duties, trust law and scheme rules. The Pensions Regulator already expects trustees to consider whether discretionary increases would be in members’ interests, including any history of making such awards. However, the Regulator does not have the power to require discretionary increases to be paid where this is not permitted under scheme rules.
Analysis by the Pensions Regulator shows that 17 per cent of members of private sector defined benefit pension schemes do not receive any pre-1997 indexation on benefits in excess of any Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights accrued between 1988 and 1997, which must be indexed by the scheme. This information is published and available at:
The Department does not hold central data on the number of defined benefit schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed but not implemented due to a lack of employer consent. Decisions on discretionary increases are taken at scheme level, reflecting individual funding positions, scheme rules and employer covenants. The Regulator has been considering how it might strengthen its evidence base in this area, and any insights from that work may help inform future thinking.
When it comes to requirements on schemes to provide advance notification when policies on discretionary increases are changed or withdrawn, trustees must continue to comply with existing disclosure requirements.
Recent reforms will give trustees of well‑funded defined benefit schemes greater flexibility in relation to scheme surplus, subject to safeguarding members’ benefits. This may place trustees in a stronger position to negotiate benefit improvements, including discretionary increases where appropriate.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he plans to review the legislative framework governing employer consent requirements in relation to discretionary increases in defined benefit pension schemes.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he plans to review the legislative framework governing employer consent requirements in relation to discretionary increases in defined benefit pension schemes.
The Government recognises the concerns of members of defined benefit pension schemes whose benefits accrued before 1997 are not subject to indexation.
The design of pension benefits, including whether discretionary increases may be awarded and whether employer consent is required, is a matter for each scheme’s trust deed and rules. Trustees in turn, must act in accordance with their fiduciary duties, trust law and scheme rules. The Pensions Regulator already expects trustees to consider whether discretionary increases would be in members’ interests, including any history of making such awards. However, the Regulator does not have the power to require discretionary increases to be paid where this is not permitted under scheme rules.
Analysis by the Pensions Regulator shows that 17 per cent of members of private sector defined benefit pension schemes do not receive any pre-1997 indexation on benefits in excess of any Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights accrued between 1988 and 1997, which must be indexed by the scheme. This information is published and available at:
The Department does not hold central data on the number of defined benefit schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed but not implemented due to a lack of employer consent. Decisions on discretionary increases are taken at scheme level, reflecting individual funding positions, scheme rules and employer covenants. The Regulator has been considering how it might strengthen its evidence base in this area, and any insights from that work may help inform future thinking.
When it comes to requirements on schemes to provide advance notification when policies on discretionary increases are changed or withdrawn, trustees must continue to comply with existing disclosure requirements.
Recent reforms will give trustees of well‑funded defined benefit schemes greater flexibility in relation to scheme surplus, subject to safeguarding members’ benefits. This may place trustees in a stronger position to negotiate benefit improvements, including discretionary increases where appropriate.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department plans to require pension schemes to provide clearer advance notification to members when established policies on discretionary increases are (a) changed and (b) withdrawn.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department plans to require pension schemes to provide clearer advance notification to members when established policies on discretionary increases are (a) changed and (b) withdrawn.
The Government recognises the concerns of members of defined benefit pension schemes whose benefits accrued before 1997 are not subject to indexation.
The design of pension benefits, including whether discretionary increases may be awarded and whether employer consent is required, is a matter for each scheme’s trust deed and rules. Trustees in turn, must act in accordance with their fiduciary duties, trust law and scheme rules. The Pensions Regulator already expects trustees to consider whether discretionary increases would be in members’ interests, including any history of making such awards. However, the Regulator does not have the power to require discretionary increases to be paid where this is not permitted under scheme rules.
Analysis by the Pensions Regulator shows that 17 per cent of members of private sector defined benefit pension schemes do not receive any pre-1997 indexation on benefits in excess of any Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights accrued between 1988 and 1997, which must be indexed by the scheme. This information is published and available at:
The Department does not hold central data on the number of defined benefit schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed but not implemented due to a lack of employer consent. Decisions on discretionary increases are taken at scheme level, reflecting individual funding positions, scheme rules and employer covenants. The Regulator has been considering how it might strengthen its evidence base in this area, and any insights from that work may help inform future thinking.
When it comes to requirements on schemes to provide advance notification when policies on discretionary increases are changed or withdrawn, trustees must continue to comply with existing disclosure requirements.
Recent reforms will give trustees of well‑funded defined benefit schemes greater flexibility in relation to scheme surplus, subject to safeguarding members’ benefits. This may place trustees in a stronger position to negotiate benefit improvements, including discretionary increases where appropriate.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of safeguards for members of defined benefit pension schemes where trustees recommend discretionary increases and those increases are actuarially affordable but sponsoring employers withhold consent.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of safeguards for members of defined benefit pension schemes where trustees recommend discretionary increases and those increases are actuarially affordable but sponsoring employers withhold consent.
The Government recognises the concerns of members of defined benefit pension schemes whose benefits accrued before 1997 are not subject to indexation.
The design of pension benefits, including whether discretionary increases may be awarded and whether employer consent is required, is a matter for each scheme’s trust deed and rules. Trustees in turn, must act in accordance with their fiduciary duties, trust law and scheme rules. The Pensions Regulator already expects trustees to consider whether discretionary increases would be in members’ interests, including any history of making such awards. However, the Regulator does not have the power to require discretionary increases to be paid where this is not permitted under scheme rules.
Analysis by the Pensions Regulator shows that 17 per cent of members of private sector defined benefit pension schemes do not receive any pre-1997 indexation on benefits in excess of any Guaranteed Minimum Pension rights accrued between 1988 and 1997, which must be indexed by the scheme. This information is published and available at:
The Department does not hold central data on the number of defined benefit schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed but not implemented due to a lack of employer consent. Decisions on discretionary increases are taken at scheme level, reflecting individual funding positions, scheme rules and employer covenants. The Regulator has been considering how it might strengthen its evidence base in this area, and any insights from that work may help inform future thinking.
When it comes to requirements on schemes to provide advance notification when policies on discretionary increases are changed or withdrawn, trustees must continue to comply with existing disclosure requirements.
Recent reforms will give trustees of well‑funded defined benefit schemes greater flexibility in relation to scheme surplus, subject to safeguarding members’ benefits. This may place trustees in a stronger position to negotiate benefit improvements, including discretionary increases where appropriate.
This act increased the number of ministers who are entitled to receive a ministerial salary from 109 to 120.
This act increased the number of ministers who are entitled to receive a ministerial salary from 109 to 120.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of safeguards for members of defined benefit pension schemes where trustees recommend discretionary increases and those increases are actuarially affordable but sponsoring employers withhold consent.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of safeguards for members of defined benefit pension schemes where trustees recommend discretionary increases and those increases are actuarially affordable but sponsoring employers withhold consent.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department plans to require pension schemes to provide clearer advance notification to members when established policies on discretionary increases are (a) changed and (b) withdrawn.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether his Department plans to require pension schemes to provide clearer advance notification to members when established policies on discretionary increases are (a) changed and (b) withdrawn.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what role the Pensions Regulator plays in overseeing decisions where discretionary increases are declined despite scheme affordability; and whether that role will be expanded.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what role the Pensions Regulator plays in overseeing decisions where discretionary increases are declined despite scheme affordability; and whether that role will be expanded.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what recent estimate he has made of the number of defined benefit pension schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed by trustees but not implemented due to employer refusal.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what recent estimate he has made of the number of defined benefit pension schemes in surplus where discretionary increases have been proposed by trustees but not implemented due to employer refusal.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he plans to review the legislative framework governing employer consent requirements in relation to discretionary increases in defined benefit pension schemes.
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, whether he plans to review the legislative framework governing employer consent requirements in relation to discretionary increases in defined benefit pension schemes.
It has not proved possible to respond to the hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
Lords motion to consider. Agreed to on question.
My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement...
My Lords, this instrument introduces fees for applications in the residential property division of the Property Chamber that arise from, or are amended by, the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. It is made under the powers provided by Section 42(1)(a) and 42(2) and Section 49(3) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement...
My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The schedule of fees...
My Lords, for the first time we start to consider some of the practical effects of this controversial Act. I will make no comments on its merits; the Act has been passed, as was the will of Parliament, and now we have to deal with the consequences.
The schedule of fees...
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system...
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this order. It forms part of a wider programme of reform to the Property Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal following the passage of the Renters’ Rights Act 2025. We recognise the Government’s objective: to move towards a more sustainable system...
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying...
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sandhurst and Lord Fuller, for their helpful and constructive contributions. A point that they both made, with which I agree, is that this is always a balancing exercise. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there is no question of trying...