National Savings & Investments

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his important question. He is absolutely right—the priority for us is to ensure that people are reunited with their money and that they do not incur costs in trying to get it back. That is why I have been so clear with NS&I over the past few months that it makes sure that it understands the problem it is dealing with and that it needs to set out a delivery plan as soon as May for how it will reunite people with their money. That will involve contacting representatives of estates in the first instance, and that is what people need to rely on. As I said, I want to be clear with the public today that the onus is not on them; the onus is on NS&I to contact the people whose funds deserve to be reunited with them, and that is what we will all be focused on.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the action he has outlined that the Government are already undertaking. He will know that customers often choose National Savings & Investments because it is Government-backed, and because that provides them with extra reassurance that their savings will be safe. The news that the money of tens of thousands of people was essentially lost for a period of time will be a hammer blow to trust in that institution, and the fact that these cases involve bereaved families makes it particularly damaging.

To restore trust in the institution, it will be vital that justice is served comprehensively and swiftly. Will the Minister confirm the estimated timeline for identifying and contacting every family affected? Have the Government committed not only to reimbursing or returning the money that the families are due, but compensating them fully to reflect the distress that has been caused? He has already mentioned interest; will he confirm that all that interest will be returned? Will legal costs also be reimbursed? Some of the bereaved families resorted to legal action to get what they believed they were owed, and I am sure that they will feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed on that as well. Will the Government now carry out a full independent investigation to fully learn the lessons of what happened and ensure that there will be much stronger oversight of the system going forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that administering the affairs of deceased family members or friends is always challenging, both emotionally and administratively. That is why it is so important that we get this right, now that we have set out the scale of the problem. On his specific question, I encourage him to support constituents. That is why I have said that I will require NS&I to put in place a direct method of communication for MPs who wish to raise constituency cases, and obviously I will be happy to meet him or anybody else who has constituents affected.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for his very thorough responses.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

A Division was called.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Division off.

Question agreed to.

Lords amendment 4 disagreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5.—(Christian Wakeford.)

Fuel Duty

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter]

And the taxation being paid gives people back more services and better services. Things such as the removal of peak rail fares and the freeze on bus fares—the cap on bus fares has been put in place and is being tested in the north of Scotland—all really benefit people. Beyond that, however, more than half of taxpayers in Scotland do not pay more income tax than people do south of the border. That is a fact.

I urge the UK Government to consider many of these proposals. They could consider measures on bus fares and peak rail fares, but they also have the power over key taxation levers, including fuel duty. They need to make decisions quickly to give people more certainty and a little bit less risk about where things are going. Some things are not controllable, and I wish the Government did not have to consider them, because they are difficult, but the Government have levers that can make it a bit easier for people, and they should use those levers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

That this House recognises that, at the Autumn Budget 2025, the Government extended the five pence per litre fuel duty cut for five months and cancelled the inflation linked increase for 2026-27; welcomes that Fuel Finder helps consumers compare prices and encourages competition and that the Government has ensured that all UK petrol filling stations must report prices within 30 minutes of a change; notes that HM Treasury will continue to work with the Competition and Markets Authority on behalf of consumers; and further notes that the Government keeps fuel duty under review and that a rapid de-escalation in the Middle East is the best way to keep prices low at the pump.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I will now announce the results of today’s deferred Divisions.

On the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 368 and the Noes were 107, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, the Ayes were 277 and the Noes were 98, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Youth Unemployment

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

In fact, we can hear them claiming it right now. But the truth is that the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose by 250,000 in the three years running up to the last election, and the Conservatives did precisely nothing about it. Youth unemployment has been rising since 2022, and youth employment never reached pre financial crash levels in any single year of the Conservatives’ 14 years in power. On top of that, the Conservatives kicked away the ladder of opportunity from young people when they presided over a shocking 40% fall in youth apprenticeship starts over the past decade.

The problem is long term and deep rooted. We will back young people with more youth apprenticeships, more chance of getting a job, and more help in overcoming the challenges they face. We have already announced a youth guarantee to help the young unemployed. It involves intensive work coaching, 300,000 work experience and training places, and subsidised work for long-term unemployed people aged 18 to 21. However, we will now go much further, with an explicitly pro young people package, aimed at helping them to learn and earn. From this summer, we will introduce hiring bonuses for businesses that hire a young person who has been out of work for six months. The bonus will be worth £3,000 per young person. There will also be bonuses of £2,000 for small and medium-sized businesses that hire young apprentices. Both bonuses can be combined if the young person hired has been out of work for six months or more. What a contrast with the Conservatives’ record on apprenticeships, which was to take opportunity away from young people—[Interruption.] They don’t like to hear it, but I am going to continue!

We are introducing new foundation apprenticeships in retail and hospitality, and new short courses in AI, electric vehicle charging point installation, electrical fitting and assembly, mechanical fitting and assembly, modular building, solar photovoltaic installation, and welding—the skills that young people need for the future. On top of that, the jobs guarantee, which we previously announced for the long-term unemployed, will be extended to those aged 22 to 24. Those young people will get six months of paid work, at 25 hours per week paid on minimum wage rates. Altogether, this will create 200,000 job and apprenticeship opportunities over the next three years.

This is our new deal for new times, offering new hope to the young people who are so often disparaged by the Conservatives as shirkers and scroungers. Our message is different: “We back you, we believe in you and we want you to succeed.” The package that I have announced is new investment of about £1 billion, and it comes on top of the funding that we announced at the Budget. Taken together, it is a package of support for young people worth about £2.5 billion. The existing exemption from employer national insurance contributions for workers under 21 will stay in place. This package is not just pro young people; it is pro business. I welcome the comments by the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that the provision is a “game-changer” and “a decisive step forward”, and rightly describes the package as “pro-jobs, pro-opportunities”. The package has also been welcomed by large employers such as Amazon, Kier Group and PwC, and the welcome goes beyond business. We know that a lot of young people face challenges in the labour market, and the chief executive of Mental Health UK, Brian Dow, said that the package

“will support young people to be ready for work and help organisations large and small to capitalise on the skills, talents and enthusiasm that young people have to offer.”

As well as the package, there is an urgent need to offer help to young people, given technological and demographic change. They need our help, and we cannot afford to lose their talent and energy. This is about not just young people, but their parents and grandparents. This is a generational challenge, because who does not want their child or grandchild to have a better chance in life? That is why investment in the young is a bond between the generations. It is an act of solidarity that is in the interests of the whole country, because if a young person has prolonged periods out of work, the scarring effects can stay with them for the rest of their life. A young person under the age of 25 on the health element of universal credit is now less likely to get a job than someone over 55 on the same benefit. We have to act to change that.

I am often asked, “So when will you do welfare reform?” Well, I tell the House that this is welfare reform. Putting work and opportunity at the heart of our system is the best reform we can make. Asking not just, “What are you entitled to?” but “How can we help you change your life?” is the change that the system needs. That view lies behind the changes that I am announcing in this package. I commend the statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend says that young people deserve support; I believe that with the right support, young people want to work and to make the most of their life. He asked how people in his constituency would be helped. They could be helped through the hiring incentives that I have announced, and through the hiring bonuses that will allow small and medium-sized businesses to hire a young apprentice. The young unemployed in his constituency will be helped, because we are offering hope, ensuring that they get a chance, and offering the sense of pride, purpose and dignity that comes with having a job.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is correct to suggest that the Government inherited a crisis around youth unemployment. However, by introducing the hikes in national insurance contributions, the Government made that crisis into a catastrophe for young people, and supercharged the pressure on our youth across the United Kingdom. Rather than tackling what is now the root of the problem—the NIC hikes—these proposals are just papering over the cracks.

Young people’s childhoods are massively different from those that many of us experienced, especially hon. Members who grew up some years ago, so I pay tribute to the organisations that get young people to the right place, including Eat That Frog, Doorstep Arts, Sound Communities and South Devon college, who do incredible work. They help young people who have come through the pandemic, those who feel as though they are in a pressure cooker because of social media, which is gnawing away at their life, and who face a cost of living crisis.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned about an element of the Government’s policy: we do not understand why the Government are removing funding for apprenticeships for management. Surely managers are the people who support young people in their hour of need, as they go into work. Young people aspire to move into those positions eventually, so will the Secretary of State think again about the impact of the national insurance contributions hike on hospitality, retail and tourism industries in areas like Torbay?

I was interested to hear the Secretary of State speaking on the “Today” programme on Monday. The presenter challenged him by suggesting that the NIC hike had jacked up youth unemployment, and the Secretary of State appeared to agree with that. Finally, an article in The Times suggested that the Government are thinking about making young people second-class citizens through their changes to disability benefits; I would welcome comments from the Secretary of State about that.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Removal of two child limit: report on effects on children in households subject to the benefit cap—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on households and children.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must include an estimate of the total number of households, and the number of households in poverty, which will not receive—

(a) an overall increase in benefit support from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026 due to being subject to the overall benefit cap, and

(b) the full potential increase in benefit support they would have been entitled to from the abolition of the two child limit from April 2026, but for the fact that they became subject to the overall benefit cap following any increase provided through the abolition of the two child limit, and the assessment must include the total number of children in such households, and the impact on the number of such households in poverty.

(3) The estimates made under subsection (2) must include analysis at the following levels—

(a) country,

(b) county,

(c) local authority, and

(d) parliamentary constituency.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of the Act on households and children, including the number who will either not receive an increase in benefit support, or the full potential increase, because they are subject to the benefit cap.

New clause 2—Report on the effects on households with a disabled family member—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the effects of this Act on the number of households in poverty with more than two children that have at least one disabled family member.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must also consider—

(a) the cumulative impact of changes to universal credit since July 2024 on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member, and who are affected by this Act, and

(b) any changes in the standard of living for households with—

(i) three or more children, and

(ii) at least one person in receipt of the Universal Credit health element, arising from implementation of this Act.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the effects of the Act on households in poverty that have at least one disabled family member.

New clause 3—Review of the impact of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, review the effect of this Act on—

(a) overall levels of child poverty in the UK;

(b) levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children;

(c) households in receipt of Universal Credit which include children;

(d) educational outcomes for children in households affected by poverty;

(e) physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; and

(f) longer-term impacts on economic participation, workforce skills, and demand on health and welfare services arising from child poverty and destitution.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the effects of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes.

New clause 4—Assessment of the impact of the Act on child poverty—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty.

(2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider households with three or more children which are subject to, or as a result of this Act become subject to, the benefit cap.

(3) The assessment must estimate the annual cost to the Exchequer of—

(a) implementation of this Act, and

(b) implementation of this Act if households were not subject to the benefits cap.

(4) The Secretary of State must consult the following organisations in undertaking the assessment—

(a) Child Poverty Action Group,

(b) End Child Poverty Coalition,

(c) Save the Children UK,

(d) The Children’s Society,

(e) Barnado’s UK,

(f) Action for Children,

(g) Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and

(h) any other organisation that he deems appropriate.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the assessment.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effects of this Act on children and child poverty in consultation with a number of relevant specialist organisations and also assess the cost of removing the cap.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that we will turn to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a few moments, but I reassure her that we will undertake a thorough evaluation of the impacts of the strategy. We will publish regular updates, and I think she will find there the information that she is interested in.

We cannot leave millions of children to succumb to the damaging impacts of poverty. The Government want instead to invest in children and in Britain’s future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I will speak in part to amendments 1 and 2, although we will not vote on them this evening. Essentially, I am speaking because we do not believe that scrapping the two-child limit and lifting it in this way is the way to tackle child poverty.

When the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit in 2017, we did so for one simple reason: fairness. We believed then, as we do now, that people on benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. Nine years later, we stand by that principle.

The welfare state should be a safety net for people in genuine need, yet too many people feel that the welfare system has drifted from its original purpose. They see a system that rewards dependency while working families and individuals shoulder the tax burden. The two-child limit is a way of saying that work should pay, that taking responsibility should matter and that the system should stand with those who pull their weight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)]

I speak in support of new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), me and others, and I will try to be as brief as I can. Scrapping the two-child limit in full remains the single most impactful step we can take to reduce child poverty, and will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by 2030. When combined with other measures in the child poverty strategy, more than 550,000 children will be lifted out of poverty by the end of the decade.

Some Members of this House have said, “How can the country justify this multibillion-pound spend?” It is around £3 billion a year, but child poverty costs the UK economy £39 billion annually—more than 10 times as much. That £39 billion reflects poorer health, lower educational attainment, increased pressure on public services and lost economic potential. Investing £3 billion to reduce a £39 billion problem is not reckless spending; it is a highly targeted, cost-effective investment with long-term returns. It is preventive policy at its very best.

Other Members have asked why taxpayers should support larger families. Well, the honest truth is that only a very small number of families have more than four children, and almost all are working hard to provide for them. The two-child limit has had no measurable impact on family planning and has not influenced fertility rates; it simply punishes children who are already here. Every child, regardless of birth order, deserves enough food, a safe home and a fair start in life. When children are supported to thrive, they do better in school, stay healthier and contribute more fully as adults, and that benefits all of us.

Those who argue that support should not go to families out of work should remember that six in 10 children affected by the two-child limit live in households where at least one parent works, and those families are taxpayers too. As my mum says, there but for the grace of God go I. A crisis can happen in an instant at any moment, and bereavement, illness, redundancy or family breakdown can push any household into temporary reliance on universal credit. A humane and flexible social security system exists to provide stability in those moments of crisis.

I urge all Members to support the passage of the Bill today, but it must be just the start and we must go further. Alongside scrapping the two-child limit, we have to address the wider benefit cap, which was introduced in 2013. It has bored down on the backs of many families like a rucksack full of lead. Organisations including the Child Poverty Action Group, the End Child Poverty Coalition, Save the Children UK, the Children’s Society, Barnardo’s, Action for Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all highlighted the damaging impact of the overall cap. It places arbitrary ceilings on support, regardless of rent levels, local costs or family size. It disproportionately affects single parents—overwhelmingly women—and families in high-cost areas. It drives rent arrears, temporary accommodation and homelessness, and the evidence is clear that it does not meaningfully increase employment; it increases hardship.

If we are serious about tackling structural poverty, we cannot remove one barrier while leaving another firmly in place. Lifting the overall benefit cap would complement the removal of the two-child limit, ensuring that the gains we make today are not clawed back through arbitrary ceilings that fail to reflect real living costs. I applaud the Government for scrapping the two-child cap, which is the right thing to do, but I hope that the Minister can give us some assurances that his next step will be to look at lifting the benefit cap.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members to speak specifically to the amendments.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

The Government should have brought this Bill forward as soon as they were elected 19 months ago, but they failed to do so. They could have listened to the families and children—with more than 200,000 children affected—enduring the overall benefit cap before making their final plans, but they failed to do so. Ministers still could have listened to the many hon. Members, including myself, who said on Second Reading that the policy was too narrow. They could have widened the scope of the Bill, but they failed to do so. The Bill is not wrong, but it fails to do right by far too many children.

I speak in support of new clause 1, which has wide cross-party support. It would mandate a full assessment within six months of the families left in poverty by the failure of the Government to tackle the overall benefit cap, showing its impact on each of our constituencies and the families we represent. We need to know who is left out from the help provided in this Bill, including those who are left in poverty.

We also need to know the wider impacts as the change takes hold. That includes the removal of exemptions, because this Government are seeking at the same time to remove people from the few qualifying benefits that exempt people from the cap, including disability benefits. This wider attack on benefit claimants threatens to make the gap in the Bill even worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

The claim that there was no money left was disproved time and again. The argument that the Tories put forward was that we were spending too much on tackling poverty, on paying teachers and on our health service, but the crisis was a result of speculation, due to deregulation under the Tories for over 30 years—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman is experienced enough to know that he has strayed some distance from the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

True, true, so I will bring this section of my remarks to a fairly rapid conclusion. What happened was that the Chancellor at that time—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

No, we are going to return to the amendments to the Bill.

[John McDonnell]

My amendment to the Bill would tackle the inequity that was introduced as a result of George Osborne’s policies, which targeted children and disabled people. That is what they did; that is what that was about. What the Conservatives have done today is what they did in 2013 when they introduced the policy. They thought, “How can we construct a moral argument for this?”, so they reverted to the 19th-century Poor Law and the argument of less eligibility. The idea behind the 19th-century Poor Law was that someone in need of support should never be raised to the level of decency of an ordinary labourer. This policy echoed the argument from the 19th century that we cannot allow people to be raised out of poverty; they must remain in poverty. That is what the Poor Law did, and that is what this policy did. It thrust hundreds of thousands of children into poverty and deep poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely true. I accept the rebuke, which is completely reasonable. It is not the parents’ fault—I should have been far clearer about that. I tend to think that poverty and a lack of privilege are caused by a lack of choices. Poverty means that people cannot make mistakes, while privilege means that they can. I can make mistakes because I have enough of a financial cushion and family support. For people who live in poverty, without family support or with poor mental health, one mistake can mean very quickly spiralling into an un-rescuable situation. That is how I think about privilege: those situations are not anybody’s fault. Just because I am lucky enough to be in a more privileged position, I am allowed to make far more mistakes than someone who is struggling on the breadline. How is that fair?

Conservative Members made comments about people working hard. A lot of the people who are on universal credit while working are in the jobs that we really need people to do. They work as carers, shopworkers and all sorts of other jobs that not one of us would say are easy. I do not know if any Members have worked as care workers. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has been a carer and knows how physically and emotionally demanding that is. Someone working in care and being paid the minimum wage is doing a physically demanding, very necessary and hard job, yet they might still be in receipt of universal credit because they earn so little. I hate the distinction made between people who work hard and people who do not, when that is based simply on salary—not the fact that lots and lots of people work hard for very little money, because the minimum wage is not a real living wage but just a minimum wage.

I think I have been clear about some of the issues raised in the debate, including the benefit cap, issues faced by disabled family members and disabled children, and the effect of these measures on child poverty, destitution and wider social outcomes. On that last point, all of us, and particularly Governments, could probably do more about the impacts of poverty and ensuring that those are also measured.

Some of the monitoring and evaluation suggestions for the child poverty strategy look at the cold, hard measure of how many children are in poverty, and at how those numbers are reduced or increased as things go on, but they look less at some of the impacts. To be fair to the hon. Member for South West Devon, how do such measures impact on school readiness? Can we see more information on whether the Government’s plans have had an impact on school readiness? Has there been an improvement in the mental health of young people as a result of these measures on child poverty?

I still think that the Government are deeply unambitious and they could do more on the benefit cap. They could also do more, for example, to match the Scottish child payment; child poverty has been reducing in Scotland because that is the key mission of our SNP Government. It is worth looking at what works anywhere in these islands, and seeing whether it could or should be replicated to ensure that we reduce poverty and protect children, and that everybody has those opportunities—no matter how much their parents earn, how many children are in the family and whether there is a disabled family member. It is important that every one of us champions every child in our constituencies, and tries to ensure that they get the best possible start in life.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Interventions in the child poverty strategy will lead to the biggest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. I well understand the concerns of those saying we should go further, and it is certainly right to urge the Government to do that, but let us recognise how big a change this will be. Removing the two-child limit is the key step. It will help children to live better lives, fulfil their potential, have better mental health, do better at school, and thrive in the future. That change is in the national interest.

The amendments propose a number of reports on different topics, and I am grateful that everybody who has spoken to them has indicated that they support the Bill. New clauses 1 and 4 ask the Secretary of State to report on the effect on children in households subject to the benefit cap. Indeed, new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), fulfils a commitment that he made on Second Reading to devise an amendment that would have that effect. It is an important point, and something we need to monitor carefully, but it is in the best interests of children to be in working households—and keeping the benefit cap in place protects the incentive to work. Work incentives are important. Under the policies of the last Government, far too many people gave up on work and concluded that it was not worth their while. We want it to be clear to everyone that it is worthwhile to be in work, and the Universal Credit Act 2025, enacted last summer, made an important step in that direction.

Removing the two-child limit does not undermine work incentives. From time to time, the Conservatives suggest that it does, but actually it does not. Removing the two-child limit increases the income of many families in work and increases the reward for work, and it does not undermine work incentives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Scrapping the two-child limit is an investment in the future of children and of the country. Two million children will benefit from this Bill. We will be held to account on progress through the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we have put in place to ensure that the change we are making is genuinely lasting. I want to thank every Member who has contributed to these debates. Removing the two-child limit from universal credit will help more children to fulfil their potential, to grow up make a positive contribution and to be part of a fairer, stronger country. I hope that the whole House will now support this vital measure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Pensions and Social Security

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

In my view, the provisions in the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.8%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2025. It will increase most other benefit rates by 3.8%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025, so the regular formula has been used.

The order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in 2026-27, of which £6 billion will be from state pensions and pensioner benefits, £2 billion from disability and carers benefits, and £1 billion from other working-age benefits. A further £2 billion of expenditure on working-age benefits will be incurred in 2026 as a result of uprating decisions made under separate legal powers in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will set new rates for universal credit and income-related employment and support allowance.

Let me say a little more about each of the benefits being uprated in turn. First, on pensions, the Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices or 2.5%. That means that the uprating will be by 4.8% for 2026-27. As a result, from April the basic state pension will increase from £176.45 per week to £184.90, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £230.25 at the moment to £241.30 per week.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think perhaps the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that it does not fulfil the aspirations of the essentials guarantee campaign, with which he and I are familiar, and that is true. However, April’s above-inflation uprating will be the first of four such upratings, so there will be a similar over-inflation uprating in each of the following three Aprils. It will not end up at the level on which the essentials guarantee campaign has focused, but let us see what happens beyond the period for which we have made these announcements. As he said, it is an historic change of direction for public policy.

Benefits for people in England and Wales who have additional costs as a result of disability or ill health will also increase by 3.8%. These include disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The increase will also apply to carer’s allowance.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 sets out the yearly amount by which the guaranteed minimum pension part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension, earned between 1988 and April 1997, must be increased when it is being paid. The increase is paid by occupational pension schemes, and helps to provide a measure of inflation protection for people in receipt of contracted-out occupational pensions earned between 1988 and 1997. The law requires that GMPs earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices measured the previous September, capped at 3%. The September 2025 inflation figure— or CPI—was 3.8%, so the increase for the financial year 2026-27 will be 3%.

The 3% cap provides pension schemes with more certainty, allowing them to forecast their future liabilities more reliably. That is important when they are considering their funding commitments. The measure strikes a balance between, on one hand, protecting members against the effects of inflation, and on the other, not increasing scheme costs beyond what schemes and sponsoring employers can reasonably afford.

The draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2026 will, if Parliament approves it, commit the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in the next financial year. Changes will mainly come into effect from 6 April this year and apply for the tax year 2026-27. The order maintains the triple lock—which benefits pensioners in receipt of both the basic and new state pensions—raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices, increases the rates of benefit for those in the labour market, and increases the rates of carers benefits and benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formally contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMPs in pensions earned between April 1988 and April 1997, giving a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by the scheme. I commend the orders to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

I wish to reassure the Minister about something that I said in last week’s debate on the two-child benefit cap. I shared something of my story, and said that we had lost child benefit as a result of the Labour Government coming into office in 1997. I was convinced I had said “family credit”, which was what I was supposed to say. When I read back over Hansard, I realised that, in my haste to get my point across, I had said the wrong thing, which explains why I caught sight of the Minister’s perplexed face from across the Dispatch Box. I have also corrected the record through Hansard.

I can confirm that the Opposition support the usual increase in the guaranteed minimum pension, and the uprating of social security benefits. However, given that this debate is largely a formality and there will be no vote on the motions, it is a good opportunity to take a step back and reflect on the pensions and benefits system more broadly—in the context of the motions before us, of course.

First, let me highlight what I call the “benefits barbell”. At one end is the working-age welfare bill, which keeps getting heavier; at the other is the eye-watering cost of public sector defined-benefit pensions. In the middle of those two heavy weights is the hard-working taxpayer, straining under the load. Welfare and pensions both matter—they are pillars of a decent society—but it is Britain’s taxpayers who do the heavy lifting. They are the ones who get up before dawn, commute in all weathers and keep the economy moving. Without their efforts or even more Government borrowing, there would be no welfare state at all, and we cannot pile more weight on to their shoulders indefinitely.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already admitted that the long-awaited Timms review will not involve making welfare savings and is not likely to be published before 2027. It seems that this Government are shunning any attempts at reform over the coming year, and yet again, it is taxpayers who bear the cost of this delay. Right now, the UK is on the verge of becoming a welfare state with an economy attached. Over 40,000 people were signed off work every day by GPs over the last year, according to the Centre for Social Justice. Over 5 million people are claiming benefits with no work requirements, which is equivalent to over half of London’s population.

Concerningly, that number includes more than 300,000 people aged 16 to 24—young people with promising lives ahead of them whose ambitions are being stifled by a benefits system that would rather write them off. Labour is presiding over a youth unemployment crisis and seems unable to offer long-term solutions. There are already nearly 1 million young people in the UK who are not in education, employment or training. Over 700,000 university graduates are out of work and on benefits. One and a half years after taking office, this Government are still failing to tame the runaway benefits bill and rising unemployment rates. By contrast, the Conservative plan to get Britain working again will tackle youth unemployment by offering young people a first jobs bonus, which they can use to save for their first home.

Living within our means is one of those sensible, mundane things that gives the Conservative party its reputation as a safe pair of hands for the economy. Of course, making welfare savings is far less likely to grab headlines—scrapping the two-child benefit cap or rolling out more free school meals is a far easier win—but getting the deficit under control is crucial to a healthy economy. When the Conservatives took office in 2010, the Government were running a deficit of 9%. By the time covid struck, we had brought it down to under 1%. That, in turn, enabled us to provide generous support to individuals and businesses during lockdowns.

As I said in the debate on the two-child benefit cap last week, keeping the limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31, yet our current Prime Minister would rather throw some red meat to his Back Benchers than exercise fiscal discipline. He has caved in to their demands, even though scrapping the two-child benefit limit was previously ruled out by the Chancellor and was conspicuously absent from Labour’s manifesto.

Conservatives believe in fairness for the working parents who make difficult choices about whether they can afford another child. Many working families do not have incomes much higher than the threshold for universal credit but are paying for others through their taxes. Why should we make those parents bear the double burden of supporting their own children and subsidising other people’s? A fair system should not simply exempt families on benefits from making tough choices.

Speaking of fairness, the issue of passported benefits desperately needs investigating. Last week, I highlighted the shocking statistic that one in four full-time UK workers would be better off on benefits than in work, but something that often gets overlooked is that people on universal credit also gain access to a raft of discounts and additional benefits such as free prescriptions, discounted broadband, healthy food cards and special savings accounts. There are over 20 of these schemes sprinkled across multiple Government Departments. Taken together, passported benefits give some families who are already on universal credit over £10,000 a year in extra support, costing the taxpayer over £10 billion, according to a new report from the think-tank Onward. These benefits need rationalising and streamlining within universal credit. Otherwise, we will continue to face three serious problems.

First, passported benefits disincentivise people from entering employment. Any sensible person would think twice about starting a job if they faced a cliff-edge denial of additional benefits worth thousands of pounds once their universal credit tapers away. Secondly, we have a two-tier system. As a result of these linked benefits, individuals just outside the universal credit threshold often face greater financial hardship than benefit claimants. Thirdly, for those who really do need these extra schemes, there is a labyrinth of bureaucracy that slows down the process of getting help. These piecemeal entitlements distort the system. From a quantitative perspective, it is harder to see which poverty interventions are actually having a positive effect. It is also incredibly difficult for everyone to see whether this Government are succeeding at reducing poverty.

I welcome the Government’s new emphasis on deep material poverty as a headline poverty metric, which is a far more holistic measure that captures how poverty impacts people’s daily lives and whether they can afford necessities. Last week, we heard endlessly that the Government’s child poverty strategy and the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap will bring half a million children out of poverty, but it is worth noting that we are talking about relative poverty. That can never be eradicated, because it refers to a household income below 60% of the median household income. The only way to reduce relative poverty is to raise the incomes of the poorest faster than the middle or compress the income distribution. An overemphasis on relative poverty has underpinned a misleading left-wing argument that exaggerates the need for income redistribution. I worry that we will end up paying people to be so-called middle-class if we continue as we are.

At the heart of Conservative philosophy is a belief in personal responsibility—taking control of our future through hard work and aspiration. If we are serious about tackling child poverty in the long term, it is vital to deal with the effects of intergenerational worklessness and not just rely on social security. Children in long-term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived and 10% more likely to end up workless themselves. For every parent who does not go out to work, there is a child who misses seeing a positive example of work modelled to them—the early alarm clock, the daily routine, the reward for an honest day’s work and the ability to save up to buy important things. That is not to say that there are not those in dire circumstances for a vast number of reasons, but ultimately, when we are looking at people in general, that is the reality we need to deal with. Under our watch, the number of children in workless households fell consistently. Under Labour, the number has reached a nine-year high, with 1.2 million children now living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year.

Turning to the topic of personal independence payments, I would like to ask the Minister about a disabled constituent I caught up with at the weekend. She is a veteran who served in the Royal Navy for 19 years and is now an unpaid carer for her elderly father. She works full time, mainly from home, and commutes to London a few times a month. She had a Motability scooter, which enabled her to get to the office and around London when required, but after her last PIP review, which took place over the phone, she lost her higher rate of PIP and thus her scooter. She then received a puzzling letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which wrongly claimed that full-time work indicated she had reasonable mobility, despite the fact that her entire home is adapted for her accessibility requirements.

My constituent is a highly capable woman who is skilled at advocating for herself as well as her father and, indeed, her fellow veterans, but she admitted that she felt too stressed to open the letter for a few weeks, meaning that the reconsideration window had timed out by the time she fully processed the DWP’s decision. For context, she has also been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder following a traumatic experience in the military and is currently on a long waiting list for treatment. Statistically, she is unusual; fewer than one in six PIP claimants are in employment.

It seems bizarre that the DWP assessors are happy to downgrade someone in this situation, who is in work and genuinely needs the higher rate of PIP to help her carry out that work, yet the Department seems reluctant to stem the tide of benefits claims from people with less severe mental health issues. That is why a Conservative Government will end sickness benefits for low-level mental health problems, to ensure that support is targeted at people who need it most. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the number of face-to-face PIP assessments to 30%, up from the very low rate of 5% in 2024, but I urge them to be even more ambitious with their target, to ensure that constituents like mine are accurately assessed and receive the help they need.

In conclusion, as I return to the image I began with, the barbell is getting heavier by the year, with welfare on one side and pensions on the other, and still the hard-working taxpayer stands in the middle doing all the heavy lifting. The Government are doing far too little to ease that pressure. Working families are paying the price for a system that grows ever more expensive, while true reform moves at a crawl. It is time for a welfare system that is fair to those who need support and fair to those who pay for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I am familiar with the child payment, but I need to understand it in the context of what else is happening in Scotland. I am aware of it, and I think it is an interesting way for Scotland to try to address the issue. We had a meeting with the Children and Young People’s Commissioner Scotland and were impressed with what she was doing, but I will reserve judgment until I understand it a little more in the round.

Only last week, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published new analysis:

“In 2021-24, the average person in poverty had an income 29% below the poverty line, with the gap up from 23% in 1994-97”.

If we use equivalised figures, that means that couples without children are living on less than £12,500 a year, and couples with two children under 14 get about £17,500 a year. Social security is complex, but looking at deep poverty, as my right hon. Friend the Minister is doing, is important. If we are to avoid the appalling situation with NEETs that we have inherited, that is what we need to do.

Of the 14.2 million people living in poverty identified in JRF’s most recent poverty analysis, 6 million are in severe and persistent poverty, and more than half are disabled or live in a disabled household. Although I recognise the significant moves that this Government have made to address the inadequacy of working-age social security support to tackle the poverty and cost of living crisis that people are experiencing, I personally think we need to be a bit bolder.

As I said last week, I want to see us be clearer about our vision and values, which define what our social security system is for. It is 80 years since the National Insurance Act 1946, which was introduced in response to the Beveridge report and the outcomes and appalling circumstances after the second world war. I believe we need a new social contract that the British people can buy into and that spells out how all the elements of a comprehensive 21st century welfare state work together to deliver for them.

Our social security system, like our NHS, should be there for all of us in our time of need. It should protect us from poverty if we lose our jobs, are born with or acquire health conditions or disabilities, and when we grow old. It should also be there for us if and when we need extra support, become carers and, sadly, lose a loved one, but it cannot work in isolation; it needs to be considered in conjunction with our health and social care, education and skills, and business and employment systems in particular, but there are more.

Without a fit and healthy working-age population, a skilled workforce and a fair employment system providing quality, well-remunerated jobs, our economic productivity is known to fall, and our welfare system as a whole then comes under threat. As an example, Health Equity North’s “Health for Wealth” report shows that improving the health of the north to the same level as the rest of the country would add an extra £18.4 billion to the economy through enhanced productivity while reducing demand on the NHS.

Last year, the Work and Pensions Committee commissioned Health Equity North to report on what income could be generated through increasing returns to work for people in receipt of universal credit by just 5%. Its estimates show that that would yield an extra £20 billion over the life of this Parliament, with a return on investment of between £5.21 and £6.63 for every £1 of employment support invested. That is the way that we will reduce DWP spending and increase growth.

I look forward to seeing how the “Get Britain Working” and “Keep Britain Working” programmes, such as Connect to Work and the vanguards, are expanded. They are fantastic examples of how we can proceed. I was so impressed when I met organisations delivering Connect to Work. The Work and Pensions Committee had a session last week with Sir Charlie Mayfield and small businesses to see how they could be involved in that, and I hope that we can expand and build on this work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Clive Lewis]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman. Conservative Members always seem to portray this as an individual moral failing. That is how they see welfare, when actually it is about a collective insurance against economic risk. That is how we see it. You see it as a moral issue; we see it as an economic one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It is not me who is being referred to; it is the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Evans]

That is far from the truth. I am simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. I worry that we are pulling at the fabric here.

It is interesting that the debate in the House is slanted towards the Labour view, because they have the numbers. If we look at the public polling, however, we know that, consistently, 60% of the public support the cap and only 30% want it to be taken away. Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand that there has to be give and take. The worry here is that someone will suddenly get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better themselves.

The money could be better spent. To take an example from the last Government, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% to 55% to encourage work. That cost about £2.5 billion; we are talking about £3 billion today. We have heard from the Government how this will be paid for. It is not hypothecated. The pharmacist I was talking about and the sister of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) will pay for this, as will the publican who goes out to work. They will see their taxes rise. That is the contract that I am worried about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

It seems that with increasing frequency I stand in this place welcoming Labour U-turns, and today I welcome yet another. The decision to lift the two-child cap is clearly the right moral choice, and it will lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty.

For those in Scotland, this is a particularly welcome change. There will no longer be any need for the Scottish Government to divert funds from social care and council services to the Scottish child payment. With that in mind, I urge the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who is on the Bench behind me, to discuss with her colleagues in Holyrood the merits of using some of the projected £155 million savings to help fund a new health and care hub for the people of Bearsden and Milngavie in my constituency.

I am aware that some people do not support lifting the cap. The change is set to cost UK taxpayers over £3 billion annually by 2030—clearly an enormous sum. Over the past year, we have seen that this Labour Government are set on making working people pay for their changes through tax band freezing, national insurance rises and pension changes. With that in mind, I urge the Government to look seriously at the Liberal Democrat proposals that aim to raise tax revenue. First, banks have made record profits—an estimated £50 billion in a single year—off the backs of hard-working people. We Liberal Democrats believe that it is only fair that the banks pay back some of that money. A windfall tax on these enormous profits could raise £7 billion per year, without placing any more strain on people who are already struggling.

On top of that—I know that Conservative Members will not be happy to hear this again—we need a customs union with Europe. Trade deals with China and India are not unwelcome, but the biggest opportunity is right on our doorstep: an extra £90 billion a year in tax revenue that does not require going cap in hand to those who stand against our values or who facilitate our enemies.

Lifting children out of poverty does not have to put a further strain on working people. We can create a fair tax system in which companies pay their fair share to help those from whom they profit.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I gently remind the hon. Lady that this is a very specific debate about the removal of the two-child limit and not a wider debate on tax policy?

[Susan Murray]

I apologise.

Removing the two-child cap is a vital step, and I hope that the Government choose to listen to more Liberal Democrat proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. For the assistance of Back Benchers who still wish to speak, I am about to remove the time limit. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes]

I think that my community is full of wonderful British people—people who stand up for British values, and who go out every single day and work to do the best for their children and community. If you want to have a fight based on British values, bring it on, because every day Labour Members will defend—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman not to use the word “you”. He was suggesting that he might like to have a fight with me, and that would not end well.

[Andrew Pakes]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am wearing a deep heat patch for my bad back, so there would be no fight from me today. I apologise to the House for the passion I have for British values and the hard work of people in my community, who I will stand up for every day against the plastic patriots and others who seek to attack them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

I say to the people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised questions with me about this policy that in order to will the ends, you have to will the means. Save the Children published this morning some polling showing that 78% of the country want to see child poverty cut. The fastest and most effective way to cut child poverty is to get rid of this punitive, gross policy that artificially inflates the number of children in poverty and creates an escalator to get more into poverty every day, with every child born.

To the Opposition parties, I would say this. I hear you say to these families, “Go out and get a job.” Most of them are already in work. Are you telling those five and six-year-olds—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Not “you”—I have not spoken in this debate!

[Antonia Bance]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I say to those on the Opposition Benches who are telling people already in work to go out and get a job: what are those people supposed to do? Are they supposed to send their five-year-olds out on a paper round to make the money add up when it does not? Do not talk to me about how families should plan better—you will never meet a better planner than a single mum in Princes End making the money stretch. Do not cry crocodile tears for kids whose dad died but when his widow needed help, we said, “Nah. You shouldn’t have had so many kids.” Do not tell me that a dad who lost his job does not deserve help for his kids because he did not predict years in advance, when planning his family, that his factory would close and he would be dumped out of work. Be honest about what supporting the two-child limit means. If you support it, you think that some kids should be hungry tonight—well, we don’t.

I have no words for the idea of the charlatans of the Reform party, who would reimpose the two-child limit, plunge thousands of children into poverty and take hundreds of pounds from families each month in order to make it cheaper to have a pint. The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was too frit to give way to me, so I will say this to her this now. Her policy would affect Sikh children living in my constituency who have a mum or dad born in the Punjab, or children in my constituency with a mum or dad who was born in Bangladesh, Poland or Pakistan. These are British people. They are our neighbours and our friends—people who work and play by the rules. They are British citizens, but they are second-class citizens for Reform.

I was glad to see that the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) called out Reform. I would like to see more calling out of that frankly disgusting point of view: the differentiation between different types of British citizen based on nationality and the colour of their skin that we see going on in our national political dialogue and in the Reform party. I hope that people across the country, in Scotland, in Wales and in my borough of Sandwell, will reject that division when the time comes in May—and that those in Gorton and Denton will do so as well.

I say this to my constituents who are working hard to make ends meet: I will not apologise for prioritising our kids. Every child deserves a fair start in life. As one of our greatest Prime Ministers said when launching his own child poverty mission:

“Poverty should not be a birthright. Being poor should not be a life sentence”.

We want every child to have the freedom to learn, to play sport, to sing, to dance and to get on in life, free from want and fear—the freedom to be kids. This is what a Labour Government will deliver: half a million of children out of poverty. I will be voting for the Bill tonight, and I hope other Members will too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, I will not be giving way.

It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). Her party is looking more and more like a cut-price Boris Johnson reunion party, with all the old faces turning up on the Reform Benches. Now they are even starting to sing some of the old songs. The leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two-child limit, and just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) wrote an article in which she said that she opposed it. Today they are voting with the Tories in favour of the cap. Those old policies would cause the same damage if they were brought in again in the future.

I remember a time when there seemed to be at least some degree of consensus in the House on the importance of tackling child poverty. Well, there was not much sign of that among Conservative Members this afternoon, and I am sorry that we have lost it. Scrapping the two-child limit on universal credit is the single most effective lever that we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor, and in pulling that lever we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We are supporting their families, the majority of whom are working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential we are investing in our country’s success in the years to come.

The Bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty in any Parliament on record, and in doing so it will make a very big contribution to the missions of this Government. Our manifesto was summed up in one word—“change”—and this is what change looks like: ambition for families, and for the country.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

Youth Unemployment

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment tabled in the name of the Prime Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Those are very wise words from my hon. Friend.

I want to say something about employers, because they have a vital role to play in all this. On keeping people in work when they develop an illness or a disability, we are really pleased that we are working with over 100 Vanguard employers to take forward the recommendations in Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” review, and helping to create a picture of what best practice looks like when it comes to building healthy and inclusive workplaces. We have had an outstanding response from businesses, because they know that when their workers win, they win too. Contrary to what some people say and believe, the interests of employees and employers are not diametrically opposed. Everybody wins when workers are secure, happy and healthy.

That leads me on to the Employment Rights Act 2025, which includes reforms such as the extension of statutory sick pay, so that more people can take the time they need to recover, instead of risking longer-term absences. That is not just good for workers; it is good for businesses, too.

I want to address the issue of national insurance contributions and business rates. Let us be clear: employers generally do not have to pay any employer national insurance contributions for employees under the age of 21 or for apprentices under 25. Yesterday we announced that every pub and live music venue will get 15% off its new business rates bill. That is on top of the support announced at the Budget. Bills will then be frozen, in real terms, for a further two years. This Government will always support businesses, giving them the stability that they need to grow, and to create good jobs.

Before I finish, there is one other thing I want to talk about. What happens at the start of people’s working lives can have many consequences for their future, and the same is true of what happens in our childhood. When a young person ends up out of work or training, it is no use pretending that that has suddenly come about in a bubble. Someone who grows up poor is less likely to do well at school and more likely to be a NEET. Poverty, low attainment and low aspiration can not only waste the potential of a young life, but cascade on to the next generation. Shockingly, the number of children in poverty increased by over 900,000 under the Conservatives, which is shameful, and they now come to this House to ask why a generation is struggling.

We are very proud to be lifting the two-child limit. That will have benefits for hundreds of thousands of children, who will be less likely to experience mental health issues, less likely to be unemployed, and more likely to be in work and earning more, yet the Conservatives oppose it. As ever, they seem determined to pull the rug out from under the next generation, and does that not sum them up? They blame; we support. They complain; we fix. They cut; we build.

We will never forget the neglect that left our young people without the hope and opportunity that every generation deserves, but this Government are doing things differently. We are laying the foundations for young people to succeed, and giving them the opportunities that they need and the skills and support to seize them. These opportunities are of course accompanied by obligations to take them up, but that is so much better than a life that is just written off. We are breaking down barriers to opportunity, so that every young person, in every part of our United Kingdom, can fulfil their potential.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 21st January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes in the Chair]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that, in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our names or “Madam Chair”, “Chair” and “Madam Chairman”.

Clause 1

Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 5, page 1, line 10, after “income tax” insert—

“at the higher or additional rate”.

This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in England, Wales and Scotland from the £2,000 cap.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 7, page 2, line 26, leave out from “as” to end and insert—

“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).

(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.

(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”

This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 6, clause 2, page 2, line 38, after “income tax” insert—

“at the higher or additional rate”.

This amendment would exempt basic rate taxpayers in Northern Ireland from the £2,000 cap.

Amendment 8, page 3, line 39, leave out from “as” to end and insert—

“the amount calculated under subsection (5) for a tax year (but subject to any provision made in reliance on subsection (6C)(a) or (b) of that section).

(5) In 2029-30 the contributions limit must be set at a figure equal to £2,000 uprated by any percentage change in the consumer price index between 2026-27 and 2028-29.

(6) In subsequent tax years the contributions limit must be uprated by the same percentage change as that applied to the consumer price index that year.”

This amendment would uprate the £2,000 cap in Northern Ireland by the percentage change in the consumer price index during the period before 2029-30, and would require the cap to be uprated by the same percentage as the change in the consumer price index each year thereafter.

Clause 2 stand part.

Clause 3 stand part.

New clause 1—Review of impact on SME recruitment and retention—

“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to the—

(a) recruitment of staff, and

(b) retention of staff.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the ability of SMEs to recruit and retain staff.

New clause 2—Review of impact on small and medium-sized business tax liabilities—

“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on small and medium-sized businesses with regard to—

(a) businesses’ overall tax burden,

(b) employment costs, and

(c) business solvency.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must also consider the cumulative impact of changes to employer’s national insurance on businesses affected by this Act since July 2024.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the overall tax burden and employment costs faced by SMEs.

New clause 3—Review of impact on employee marginal tax rates—

“(1) The Treasury must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report assessing the effect of its provisions on the number of employees brought into a higher marginal rate of income tax.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must give particular regard to the impact of the freezing of income tax thresholds between April 2022 and April 2031.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to review and report on the impact of the Bill’s provisions relating to National Insurance contributions on the number of employees who move into a higher tax band due the increase in their taxable income due to the effects of this Bill.

New clause 4—Reviews of the impact of the Act—

“(1) The Treasury must, before March 2029, lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the adequacy of pension contributions made by or on behalf of individuals affected by this Act,

(b) use of salary sacrifice schemes and optional remuneration arrangements, and

(c) any effects on the investment capability of UK pension funds.

(3) The Treasury must lay before Parliament a follow-up assessment of the impact of the changes made under this Act before March 2034.”

This new clause would require the Treasury to undertake an impact assessment of the effect of the change made under this Act, before they take effect, and again five years later.

New clause 5—Calculation and publication of lifetime pension values—

“(1) The Treasury must calculate and publish the projected lifetime value of an individual’s pension before and after the changes made by under this Act.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), the projected lifetime value is the total amount of pension income an individual is expected to receive over their lifetime.

(3) The calculations made under subsection (1) must—

(a) be based on clearly stated assumptions, and

(b) include illustrative examples covering different pension entitlements.”

New clause 6—Assessment of changes to pension saving through salary sacrifice schemes—

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 15 months of the provisions of this Act coming into effect, lay before Parliament an assessment of the effect of this Act on the amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes.

(2) The assessment made under subsection (1) must include an—

(a) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months preceding the provisions of this Act coming into effect,

(b) estimate of the total amount saved into pensions through salary sacrifice schemes in the 12 months following the provisions of this Act coming into effect, and

(c) an assessment of the difference between those amounts.”

[Mark Garnier]

It is a great pleasure to be with you yet again, Ms Nokes. I enjoyed our last sparring with the Pensions Minister just before Christmas, which cheered us up to no end.

Let me speak to amendments 5, 7, 6 and 8 as well as new clause 4, which all stand in my name. It will not surprise the Pensions Minister to hear that we are not at all happy with this Bill, which actually will do nothing to enhance pension savings. I will go through each of our amendments in the reverse order of importance.

New clause 4 would require the Government to assess the impact of the Bill, should it receive Royal Assent, before and after its implementation in 2029. We think it is important that the Government do their homework before implementing policies. We asked for something similar in the Pension Schemes Bill, but the Pensions Minister described it as unnecessary. In this case, the Government seem not to have listened to industry, to experts or to savers. Our new clause asks the Government to do that, so that we can better understand the impact. First, how will the Bill affect pensions adequacy? That will be after the pensions review has concluded, so we do need to know. Secondly, how many people use salary sacrifice or optional remuneration arrangements? Thirdly, what are the investment capability of UK pensions?

There has been a certain amount of commentary on this matter. The Association of British Insurers has said:

“We have consistently raised concerns about the potential impact of a cap on pension salary sacrifice on both people’s savings and employers’ resources.”

There are some issues that are of great concern to many people on this matter, so have the Government fully considered the knock-on effect that it will have on investment from UK pension funds? Also, will the Government update the terms of reference for the pensions commissioner, which is being led by Baroness Drake, to ensure that this is considered?

We are unlikely to press new clause 4 to a vote. However, I believe that the Liberal Democrats’ new clause 5 would have a similar effect. Should the Liberal Democrats wish to move the new clause, we would support it.

Amendments 7 and 8 concern the indexation of the cap. These amendments look to make the £2,000 cap naturally rise in line with the consumer prices index. We have brought these amendments forward because if the cap remains static, it will become increasingly meaningless. We have seen today, when we have had an above-expectation inflation rise of 3.4%, that would clearly devalue the value of the cap, even by the time that it is implemented in 2029. Our amendments seek to address that so that salary sacrifice arrangements do not become redundant without parliamentary intervention. Obviously, we use CPI because it is the basis for inflation. Again, the ABI has made a similar argument, as the cap does not allow for inflationary changes. Having said that, we do not propose to press those amendments.

Let me move on to amendments 5 and 6, which we feel particularly strongly about. They are mirror arrangements for each other. Importantly, we are trying to make what we feel is a very poor Bill into something that is less poor. The amendments would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from the £2,000 cap. They would support the group in the UK that typically under-saves and is the least prepared for retirement. According to the Society of Pension Professionals, a quarter of the people who enjoy salary sacrifice, who will be hit by the changes that this Bill brings in, are basic rate taxpayers. Around 850,000 basic rate taxpayers will be affected by the cap.

More fundamental to that is the fact that this group of people—lower-paid workers—will be hit disproportionately hard. Salary sacrifice allows an employee to give up a certain amount of their salary to be contributed to their pension directly by the employer. We all understand that, but it not only takes advantage of the income tax allowance, as with all pension contributions, but allows national insurance contributions to be included and transferred into the pension, in the case of an employee national insurance, and allows for employer national insurance to be used at the discretion of the employer.

The employee element—the national insurance that we all pay as employees—is the important part of this matter. While higher rate taxpayers will continue to enjoy 40% tax relief at their higher rate, the national insurance is just 2 percentage points—around one-twentieth of the tax break on the income tax. While a basic rate taxpayer enjoys just 20% income tax breaks, their national insurance contribution is 8%. The effect on lower-paid workers is four times that on higher-paid workers. That is not a good thing—indeed, 8% is two-fifths of the value of the other contribution for which they benefit from their income tax savings.

In absolute terms, as I have said, the marginal rate is four times more expensive for lower rate taxpayers than it is for higher rate taxpayers, but there is an even bigger problem: this is a harder attack on other types of savers than we had anticipated. Another group of people affected are those paying back student loans. Graduates pay back their student loans once they pass the thresholds of £28,745, and they do so at a rate of 9%. Graduates who would otherwise enjoy that 9% that goes into student loans being paid into a pension will not see it being paid into their pension because of the salary sacrifice cap. The effective loss for a graduate paying back student loans is 9%. Graduates on the basic rate of tax will see not just a loss of 8% for their national insurance schemes, but a total loss of 17% of the benefit at the marginal level above the £2,000 cap.

The director of the Chartered Institute of Taxation agrees. She said:

“The change will disproportionately affect basic rate taxpayers because they will pay at 8% NIC on contributions over the £2,000 cap, compared with a 2% charge on higher earners. It will also disproportionately impact those with student loans who earn above the repayment threshold, as they will have incurred an extra 9% student loan deduction from their pay.”

At a time when we are trying to get people to do the right thing and save for the future, it seems that the Government want to whack the lower-paid harder. Because of the way that this system works, they will whack the lower paid. They also want to whack a younger generation even harder than those who enjoyed free university education. That younger generation cannot afford to buy a house and have to pay for university education. The Government have made it far harder to get a job, with their jobs tax, and at a time when we are desperately trying to get people to save for their retirement, they are making it harder to save for a pension.

I challenge Labour MPs. Why are they being whipped to vote against these measures and against the interests of lower-paid people? Why are they being asked to vote against the interests of graduates and younger people and vote for a regressive tax?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

I am trying to finish my speech—in fact, I had finished my speech.

This is a very important point, and we will push amendment 5 to a vote. As I said, we will challenge Labour MPs not to do the wrong thing for their constituents—for the young, hard-working graduates who are desperate to do the right thing.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

My chief concern with this Bill is that, like a lot of the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, it looks like it may be a route to some medium-term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer-term consequences. That will help the Chancellor meet her fiscal rules, but I say “may” because the Bill does not kick in this year, next year, the year after or the year after that; rather conveniently, it will kick in during the election year of 2029-30. That is pretty useful if you are fighting an election and want to meet your fiscal rules, but it is not very useful if you are trying to be fiscally prudent, so that leads to some scepticism about what is actually going on here.

Given the pressures on the state pension and the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save more towards their retirement. Let us look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses that rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state:

“Higher National Insurance costs and operational disruption would make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth, or plan effectively.”

We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this Bill, they were battling the sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills, supplies, business rates, the costs of Brexit and so on, and they also have to adjust to the changes in their NICs bills that the Chancellor announced a year ago. One can imagine how that must feel for small business owners—the additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable.

This Bill is a double whammy on last year’s national insurance hikes—the NICs burden went up last year due to the rate increase, and now this measure is raising their NICs bills for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on businesses, and on small businesses in particular. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the Government to publish full assessments of the impact of the Bill on the recruitment and retention and the tax liabilities of businesses.

Let us now consider the potential damage that this choice will do further down the road by disincentivising saving. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK are not on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, which is a 4% increase since 2023. Research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year, but projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace, given the rising cost of living.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Minister will recall our many happy hours together in Committee on the Pension Schemes Bill. One of the issues that the Liberal Democrats raised was the need for an MOT for people as they approach pension age, to see how their pension is going and test its adequacy. Does the Minister accept that putting these stark restrictions in place will significantly restrict the ability of somebody who realises that they are running out of time to make additional contributions to their pension to get to a better place? Would he consider extra flexibility, so that people could perhaps use 10-year allowances in three years?

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I remind Members that the scope of this Bill is very narrow indeed, and we really ought not to be bringing in new concepts.

[Torsten Bell]

Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will follow your advice, but will try to respond to some of the hon. Member’s points when I address the question of how we have gone about making the changes that this Bill introduces.

As I have said, change is inevitable, but it is important to take a pragmatic approach, which is my answer to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). The Bill is pragmatic in that it continues to allow £2,000 to be salary sacrificed free of any NICs charge, ensuring that 95% of those earning £30,000 or less will be entirely unaffected. It is pragmatic in that it gives employers and the industry four years to prepare.

[Torsten Bell]

In a shock move, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Members of those parties who have said that they intend to vote against this Bill today cannot keep coming to this Chamber, day after day, calling for additional spending in more areas, while opposing any means of raising taxes. [Interruption.] Well, you have raised the welfare budget, and without trying—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order.

[Torsten Bell]

No, I will not mention the welfare budget.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. First, I have not raised anything. Secondly, we are not here to debate the welfare budget. This is a very narrow Bill with limited scope. The Minister can listen to the same strictures I have given to other Members.

[Torsten Bell]

I am listening to every word of your strictures, Ms Nokes. This Bill is also pragmatic by providing time to adjust and by ensuring that saving into a pension remains hugely tax-advantaged. I say gently to Members who do not agree with the detail of this Bill that they should be careful not to give the impression to savers or those not saving that there is not already a strong financial incentive to continue pension saving in exactly the way people have been doing. Clause 1 provides for that pragmatic approach in Great Britain. Clause 2 does the same for Northern Ireland, and clause 3 provides for the territorial extent and start date of these measures.

I will turn more substantively to the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Witney. At one level, I was glad to see amendments 5 and 6 tabled by the shadow Minister, which aim to exempt basic rate taxpayers. It shows the Opposition, as part of the secret plan that I mentioned earlier, accepting the inevitability of change and instead grappling with what the right pragmatic version of that looks like. In many ways, the amendments aim to deliver the same objective as the £2,000 cap, which, as I said, will mean that 95% of those earning less than £30,000 are unaffected, as are the vast majority of basic rate taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill amends the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, creating a power to apply employer and employee national insurance contributions on salary sacrifice pension contributions above £2,000 a year from April 2029. Reform of this type, as I have said, was inevitable. The cost to the Exchequer of salary sacrifice pension schemes was due to almost treble by 2030 without reform. The Government are taking a pragmatic and balanced approach to that reform: first, by introducing a cap so that ordinary workers are, in the vast majority of cases, unaffected; secondly, by giving employers, employees and providers a long lead-in time, so that everybody has plenty of time to prepare; and thirdly, by ensuring that saving into a pension, including via salary sacrifice, remains hugely tax-advantageous. The Government continue to provide over £70 billion of income tax and national insurance relief on pension contributions each year. Employer pension contributions will remain the most tax-advantaged part of the system.

In this debate and others on pensions, we have heard strong cross-party consensus that greater pension adequacy is important. We all look at the forecasts for private pension income and see that they show lower private pension income on average for those retiring in 2050 relative to those retiring today. That is not an acceptable place to be. Answering that question is the job of the Pensions Commission, which we have put in place with cross-party support. It is rightly examining the question of retirement income adequacy and fairness. I gently note that those groups that we all agree are under-saving for retirement, such as low earners and the self-employed, are precluded from using salary sacrifice or are much less likely to use it than other groups.

Part of what we are doing through the Bill is delivering badly needed reforms to the tax system alongside other measures from the Budget. These measures are what it takes to keep waiting lists falling, cut borrowing and cut energy bills in the years ahead. Those who do not wish to support changes like these cannot have it both ways and call for additional spending, additional support on energy bills and the rest.

More generally, it is important that we all consider the effectiveness of tax reliefs in the system, which cost a cumulative £500 billion a year. If we defend the status quo, even in the face of tax reliefs, which are hard to justify and whose costs are rising significantly, that means that higher taxes for everybody else. We are not prepared to see that happen.

Indeed, I am sure that in their hearts the Opposition parties also believe that these reforms are necessary. As a test of that, I invite the shadow Minister to stand up and commit to reversing the changes if—though it is very unlikely—the Conservatives ever happen to form a Government again. I am 100% sure that he will not do that, because he knows that these changes need to be made. On the basis of what should be cross-party support, I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The Pensions Minister is absolutely right that there is an awful lot that we agree on. It is always a great pleasure to spar with him and agree on certain things, but this Bill is not one of them. Let me be clear why we disagree with the Minister.

First, the contributors to the research done by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs were absolutely against this Bill. The report, which was published last year and which the Minister mentioned on Second Reading, concluded that all the hypothetical scenarios explored in the research, including the £2,000 cap, were viewed negatively. It also pointed out that the £2,000 cap was the most complicated option presented. Given that the Government tabled no amendments to address the genuine concerns of savers and industry, it seems that the Minister is still apparently chuffed that he is implementing a policy that is, at best, the least worst option for everybody who was asked to comment.

Secondly, the Government are voting for a Bill that will add to the administrative burden on businesses. The pensions system is already incredibly complex for experts to navigate, let alone the general public. That is why salary sacrifice arrangements have been such a popular savings tool for both employees and employers. The principles are easy to understand, with the only real piece of admin being on the employer to ensure that the employee does not fall below the national living wage. But what are the Government doing? They are going for the option that the report considered to be the most complicated.

The Government are choosing to confuse with complications a system that is currently the simplest to deliver. The changes will add an estimated £30 million each year in administrative costs to employers—and this comes at a time when businesses and the wider economy already pay an estimated £15.4 billion just to comply with the tax system. What about the effects on businesses, which see a 15% employer national insurance bonus through helping people to save? The changes will mean that employers will be hit with a 15% increase on the costs of employment.

The savings that employers achieve through salary sacrifice arrangements are often invested back into their employees and their businesses, including through increased pension contributions to all employees, higher wages, or more investment into plant and machinery for growth. That is a good thing. The Government are now taking money away from the productive part of the economy and putting it into other parts. No wonder businesses think that this is a nonsensical policy delivered by a directionless Government, who forget that businesses are the ones that create wealth in our economy, add value to it and drive growth.

Thirdly, the Government are supporting a Bill that will not actually raise the stated revenue. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) pointed out when winding up on Second Reading, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029-30: the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rules. That is £4.8 billion to fill the Chancellor’s black hole—she will have one by then—in order to make a cynical attempt to stick to a fiscal rule. This is a cynical measure that destroys a lifetime of savings opportunities for just one year of revenue. Frankly, it is also likely that the Government will not raise anywhere near the £4.8 billion budgeted for, as higher earners max out the benefits of the scheme before it comes into force in 2029; and, in any event, people are figuring out a workaround.

Fourthly, the Government are voting for a Bill that harms lower earners the most. As I pointed out earlier, the Society of Pension Professionals estimates that over 850,000 basic rate taxpayers who use salary sacrifice will be affected by the changes, and those 850,000 people will be taxed at a higher rate than their wealthier colleagues—something that the Government apparently seek to target with this policy. And I always thought that Labour Governments were meant to be on the side of working people, Madam Deputy Speaker!

Fifthly, and finally, the Government are voting for a Bill that will make the impending pension adequacy crisis worse. As I said in my introduction, there is widespread agreement that people are not saving enough, so why make the second largest revenue-raising measure of last year’s Budget one that goes after people’s savings for later life? It goes against that basic, important and agreed objective of people planning for their futures. More importantly, it goes against the Government’s own financial inclusion strategy.

As the Economic Secretary to the Treasury set out in November,

“Our aim is to create a culture in which everyone is supported to build a savings habit, building their financial resilience in the long term.”

How does the Bill accomplish that reasonable ambition? It won’t, because it disincentivises employees from saving more in their pensions and it disincentivises employers from providing it as an option in the first place.

Altogether, it is the wrong policy that sends the wrong message at the wrong time. We gave the Government a chance to address some of those concerns earlier, and they did not take it. We hear all those concerns loud and clear from businesses, savers and all the rest of them, which is why we want the Government to think again on this issue and why we will vote against this Bill on Third Reading.

People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. Rather than restricting the options, we should be encouraging the creation of new incentives that encourage people to save more. Instead, the Government are pushing through a Bill that will do the opposite. It is unbelievably unpopular because it punishes 3.3 million people who actively try to save for retirement by punishing the 290,000 employers who incentivise their employees to save. Worst of all, it breaks another of Labour’s manifesto promises: that it will not increase taxes on working people. It remains the wrong policy to pursue, and that is why we will vote against it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard]

I will let it pass from here.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

Indeed—our report, though it was published in May this year. It is a weighty tome. Even its title is pretty dry: “Understanding the attitudes and behaviours of employers towards salary sacrifice for pensions”. The Minister proudly told us that this document underscored the rationale for—[Interruption.] Oh—because it is important stuff. He told us that it underscored the rationale for capping salary sacrifice. However, having read the report, I can tell the House that it actually concludes that:

“All the hypothetical scenarios explored in this research”,

including the £2,000 cap, “were viewed negatively” by those interviewed. The changes would cause confusion, reduce benefits to employees and disincentivise pension savings. The report the Minister is using tells him not to do this.

The report also goes into why salary sacrifice for pensions is used by employers in addition to the incentive of paying into a pension, stating that extra benefits include: savings for employees, so that they have more to spend on essentials, tackling the cost of living crisis; savings for employers, which they can then invest back into their business and staff; and incentives for recruitment and retention. These are all good things—this is the stuff of delivering growth and the basis of creating a savings and investment culture. Why would this Government want to take it away?

The report came to the conclusion that of the three proposed options for change, the £2,000 cap is no more than the least terrible option. [Interruption.] The Minister talks about it being a secret plan—it is a published document. What is he talking about? It is the most extraordinary thing. He refers to it in terms that none of us recognises. But he has brought this in—this is the point. Is the Minister chuffed that his choice comes down to the least worst option for everyone? Here is the truth: it was the Chancellor’s choice to introduce this policy, and this Government are the ones implementing it—they are the ones who are in government.

Let us get to the measures and the impact of the Bill. To be fair, it is a very even Bill; there is something in it for everybody to hate. Take middle-income earners, who are typically in their 30s, and who earn on average a touch under £42,000 a year. This is the target area where the attack on savings starts. This is right at the point in life where people should be doing their very best for their future retirement. It is a perfect target market for the Government’s savings ambitions. However, it does not stop there. In total, at least 3.3 million savers will be affected, which is 44% of all people who use salary sacrifice for their pension. These are all people who work hard—people on whom the Chancellor promised not to raise taxes.

In fact, middle-income employees will be affected more than higher earners. According to the Financial Times, under the Bill, an employee who earns £50,000 and sacrifices 5% of that will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £80,000. If the contribution rate is doubled to 10% of their salary, the disparity grows even further, meaning that an employee earning £50,000 will pay the same amount in national insurance contributions as an employee on £140,000. How is that fair? The Government keep telling us that this policy will affect top earners, but the reality is that those on middle incomes will be disproportionately hit—the very people we should be encouraging to save more.

The Bill will also potentially hit low earners. Somebody who is lucky enough to get a Christmas bonus will not be able to add it to their salary sacrifice, taking advantage of any headroom, because the accounting looks at regular payments, not one-offs. [Interruption.] I am slightly worried, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the pairing Whip has a rather bad cough; I hope he gets better. This will potentially hit the 75% of basic rate taxpayers the cap supposedly protects.

Finally, the Bill hits employers. In the previous Budget, the Government absolutely hammered business. They increased employer national insurance contributions to 15% and, at the same time, reduced the starting threshold to £5,000. Businesses reacted and adapted. They were reassured by the Chancellor’s promise that she would not come back for more, yet here we are discussing further tax rises on businesses.

Let us look at the actual impact this raid on pensions will have on employers. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will hit 290,000 employers. A business highlighted in the 2025 report that

“If salary sacrifice were to go away, it would be additional cost of £600,000 to £700,000 per annum to the company in national insurance”.

While the Government are not abolishing it altogether, 44% of people currently using salary sacrifice—[Interruption.] I am worried; the pairing Whip is coughing. Anyway, there is going to be a cost, and that money will be taken away from businesses. This is going to be—[Interruption.] The Minister is chuntering from a sedentary position; he is obviously proud of what he is doing to the pensions industry.

Furthermore, the change will create administrative burdens for employers. With the current system, there are few administrative issues; the only thing that businesses have to bear in mind is ensuring that their employees’ pay does not fall below the national living wage—that is it. So what do the Government do? They go for the most complicated option that the report considered. That was explicitly stated by those involved in the research. As a pensions administration manager for a large manufacturing employer said,

“We’d have to reconfigure all our payroll systems and all our documentation. It would be a big job.”

The National Audit Office estimates that the annual cost on business just to comply with this Government’s tax system is £15.4 billion, yet the Government feel that the time is right to put more costs on businesses. I have to ask, what happened to the Chancellor’s pledge to cut red tape by a quarter?

I think I will move on to my conclusion in order to save people. [Laughter.] There was some great stuff in this speech, but I understand that people want to get away and wrap their Christmas stockings—particularly the Pensions Minister who, like the Grinch, is taking a lot of money away. To conclude, the Government should think again on this policy. People are simply not saving enough for their retirement. We need to do more to encourage them to save for their retirement. I know that the Minister would agree with that, so I hope that he hears the genuine concerns I have raised on behalf of a lot of people. Many people and businesses and are very worried about this policy, and he needs to take it away and think carefully about it.

Fundamentally, we are taking away something that is beneficial to the individual while also being tax efficient for business. Instead of encouraging the creation of incentives such as salary sacrifice or pensions, we are reducing the number. It is the wrong policy, and it sends the wrong message at the wrong time. All it does is add to the ongoing narrative that, “If you work hard to make a decent income, you will lose out. If you work hard as an employer to grow your business, you will lose out. If you try to save towards dignity and retirement, you will lose out.” It is the wrong policy to pursue and we will definitely vote against it tonight.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I remind Members that the knife will fall at 7 o’clock.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

The Chancellor’s Budget, delivered at the end of November, enables the Government to deliver on the priorities that we set out clearly in our manifesto last year. I pay tribute to the work that the Chancellor and the Ministers on the Front Bench tonight and across the Treasury team have done on that.

As the Minister said, this is a very straightforward Bill. It means that from April 2029, there will be limits to NICs relief that higher earners can take advantage of through salary sacrifice. Importantly, it protects lower earners with a £2,000 threshold. It is always a challenge for any Government to find the right balance in their policies. This change ensures fairness in a system where we could otherwise have seen the costs of salary sacrifice schemes triple between 2017 and the end of the decade. That would undermine vital public service and investment priorities, such as the armed services, the NHS, SEND, our prison system and a vast number of other public services that everyone in this House would want to see properly funded.

The greatest burden in this change is therefore being borne by those with the broadest shoulders. It is right that we have kept our manifesto pledges on tax, and it should only be in the most challenging of circumstances that we step back from those commitments. This change has enabled us to keep those pledges. It is good to see the Government getting on with delivering the change we promised, with inflation coming down; a sixth cut in interest rates coming soon, we hope; gilt prices moving in the right direction; and growth forecast to rise next year.

As a Member of the Treasury Committee, I have not had a chance to speak in the Chamber since the Budget. With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to welcome the lifting of the two-child benefit cap. It was clear from the evidence we heard on the Committee that this change will transform thousands of young lives—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I will make exactly the same point I made yesterday. Yesterday’s debate was about the Finance Bill, and this debate is on the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill. It is not on the two-child cap or on spending commitments.

[Jim Dickson]

Thank you for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will conclude simply by saying that when the Chancellor appeared before our Committee last week, she was clear that this was a Budget of necessary and fair choices on tax—of which the Bill is one—so that we can deliver on the public’s priorities of rebuilt public services and fair growth. This change enables us to do that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

While businesses are still reeling from last year’s national insurance increase, with this Bill the Labour Government are set to increase tax again by making salary sacrifice pension contribution schemes worse for workers.

What has the Labour party said previously? In its 2024 manifesto, on page 79, it stated:

“Our system of state, private, and workplace pensions provide the basis for security in retirement…We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners.”

It gets even more ridiculous when we see that the same manifesto also stated on page 21:

“Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why we will not increase National Insurance”.

That is exactly what the Bill does.

Recent survey data from the Confederation of British Industry showed that three in four employers will have to decrease pension contributions as a result of the measures in the Bill. As the CBI has said, it is

“‘a tax on doing the right thing’”.

It goes on to state:

“Ultimately, this unwise move will only damage growth, investment and pension saving rates.”

It is not just the CBI that has voiced alarm at the Bill. The Association of British Insurers stated:

“Capping salary sacrifice for pension saving is a short-sighted tax grab which will lower pension saving and undermine people’s retirement security.”

The Minister said in his introduction that

“everyone who has thought about this”

will come to the same conclusion. He might not wish to refer to the CBI and ABI coming to different conclusions, but they have clearly thought about it.

It is not even clear that the measure will raise the money that the Chancellor expects. A former pensions Minister from the coalition era has said that he expects it to raise “a fraction” of the intended amount, as firms will restructure payments to evade it. In addition to the likelihood of payments being restructured, even the OBR has made it clear to the Chancellor that it expects employers simply to pass the cost on to employees through lower wages and less generous schemes. It will be working people who ultimately pay for this short-term thinking, with a lower standard of living and less spending power in their retirement.

As we have seen with the maladministration of pension changes for 1950s-born women, politicians cannot and must not change the goalposts on retirement planning without giving significant advance notice. Any approach otherwise, such as in the Bill, is deeply unfair to savers. This move will land businesses with yet more administrative costs, disproportionately hitting small to medium-sized employers who are still absorbing the increased NIC costs from last year’s Budget. Is this muddled policy really from a Government who stood on a pledge of growing the economy? This is yet again another Budget with another rise in national insurance by Labour.

There are numerous unanswered questions, but the following are top of the list. What assessment has the Minister made of likely behavioural changes to pension savings as a result of this policy? What is the estimated increased cost to businesses as a result of this policy? Does the Minister anticipate lower pensions for workers as a result of this policy, and if so, how much would the decrease be? Can the Labour Government seriously make a commitment in this Chamber not to increase national insurance in next year’s Budget, given the rises in both their Budgets since coming into power? This Bill is deeply flawed and the SNP will not support it today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

As there are no further Back-Bench contributions, I call the shadow Minister.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

For a Bill that proposes to raise taxation on working people by such a large amount, this has been a remarkably brief debate. But I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst), who correctly said that this was yet another anti-aspiration measure from this Government, and the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter), who made it clear that this was yet another example of Labour breaking its manifesto pledge not to raise taxes on working people. He also asked one of the key questions, which I hope the Minister will address in his reply: as this measure is due to come into force in three years’ time, what assessment have the Government made of behavioural changes, and can the Minister be assured that the amount in the OBR forecast is robust on a dynamic accounting basis?

This is the final economic Bill of the year to be voted on in the House of Commons, and it is another Bill that targets people who are trying to do the right thing. The Bill is a bad measure. It is an anti-savings measure and it is an attack on prudence, so of course the Conservative party will oppose it. This final Bill, at the end of this full-on year of Labour government, leaves me with one fundamental question: why do the Labour Government hate the private sector so much? If you are a family farmer, the Labour Government will snatch your farm away from your children when you die. If you believe in private education, the Labour Government will put up a barrier at the school gate. If you save for your retirement, Labour will tax your every effort to achieve security in retirement. Why do the Labour Government take every opportunity to punish people who are trying to do the right thing?

The Bill makes a mockery of the Government’s own Pensions Commission, set up in July this year, when it wrote:

“Put bluntly, private pension income for individuals retiring in 2050 could be 8% lower than those retiring in 2025—undermining a central measure of societal progress.”

Back in June, the Government recognised the problem of a secure retirement. Now, they are adding to the problem.

I have a question about the numbers. It is interesting that this measure is scored by the OBR in that crucial year of 2029-30 at £4.845 billion, falling the following year to £2.585 billion. That is an important year, because that is when the Chancellor says she has put in all this headroom—how interesting. Does the Minister agree with the director of Willis Towers Watson, one of the world’s biggest advisers on pensions, when he said:

“While earlier introduction would be unwelcome, the change appears to have been timed to maximise revenue in 2029/30—the year that counts for the Chancellor’s fiscal rule. £1.6 billion of revenue in that year is a temporary gain which will be returned to taxpayers who pay employee contributions instead and claim back part of their tax relief”?

On the £4.845 billion—the full amount—is any of that actually a fiction that will be returned the following year, as experts suggest it will be?

The Bill makes it less attractive for employers to contribute to private sector pensions. We all know that there is less certainty in the private sector, because that is where defined contribution schemes predominate, whereas in the public sector, greater certainty is given by a defined benefit scheme. In the public sector, there is also benefit because the contribution from the employer to employee pensions is much higher than in the private sector. In the public sector, employer contributions are equivalent to 27% of earnings, on average, according to research by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, but in the private sector the average contribution is only 8%. Why are the Government proposing to make it harder for private sector employers to contribute to the pensions of their employees? The Bill actively exacerbates the differences. By the way, it does nothing to tackle the unfunded £1.5 trillion liability of unfunded public sector pensions, which will fall on taxpayers.

The Bill is yet another example of the lack of private sector experience on the Government Front Bench. This Government are the least business aware Government in our country’s history. They are taxing and regulating growth out of our economy. Labour Ministers are punishing workers who want to save more for their retirement, and making it harder for their employers to help them to do so. While they can rely on their cushy, gold-plated public sector pensions, private sector workers are worse off.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, I want to put on the record that the behaviour I have seen on both Front Benches this evening has been about the worst I have ever witnessed. The debate should take place across the Dispatch Box, not from a sedentary position. [Interruption.] No—not “He started it!” This is not a classroom.