Debates between Charlie Maynard and Judith Cummins during the 2024 Parliament

Wed 11th Mar 2026

Pension Schemes

Debate between Charlie Maynard and Judith Cummins
Wednesday 22nd April 2026

(2 weeks, 3 days ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Judith Cummins Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

I thank the Minister for his statement. We have learned today that this contract was awarded two and a half years ago. Capita had two and a half years to prepare for taking on the administration of the civil service scheme. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee warned in October that Capita was not ready, yet it took on the contract regardless on 1 December. Today we learned also that the Government have terminated another Capita contract, for the Royal Mail pension scheme.

My constituents would like answers to the following questions. How many people on the civil service pension scheme, as of now, have not received payments that they should have had? Why should taxpayers be paying for the surge in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff? A hundred and forty staff have come in to sort this out. Surely Capita should be paying for its incompetence. What is the timeline for Capita to clear up all inherited arrears, and is it prioritising hardship and bereavement cases? With regard to the Royal Mail pension scheme, now that Capita has been terminated, what is the plan?

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Debate between Charlie Maynard and Judith Cummins
Judith Cummins Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The Liberal Democrats have been clear throughout the Bill’s stages that we think the Government would be misguided to make this change. While it may raise some tax revenue in the medium term, in the longer term it discourages pension saving. It also puts an extra cost and admin burden on small businesses at the worst possible time. For that reason, we support Lords amendments 6 and 12, which would exempt small and medium-sized businesses and charities.

I would like to note again, as I did on Second Reading, that I am sceptical of the timing of this change. It will, very conveniently for the Government, only kick in during the likely election year of 2029-30, and not in 2026-27 or 2027-28. It seems as if the Government are motivated more by a wish to fix their numbers nominally to meet their fiscal rules than by a genuine belief that this change is the right thing to do. [Interruption.] I am asking the Minister to give us a reason why it is deferred and to explain that logic.

Lords amendment 5, tabled by my colleague Baroness Kramer, would raise the proposed threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 on NICs-exempt savings. That would at least mitigate the impact on many lower and middle earners. This would be a sensible way to ensure that it is genuinely those who can afford to pay more who are impacted by this change. The proposed threshold of £2,000 will undoubtedly hit people on relatively modest incomes who are simply trying to do the right and sensible thing and plan for their future. The CBI has also expressed its strong support for a threshold at £5,000.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Charlie Maynard and Judith Cummins
Judith Cummins Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Charlie Maynard Portrait Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

The Bill, and the Budget it derives from, demonstrates clearly that the Chancellor has implemented stealth tax grabs that will hit some of the lowest paid the hardest, through extending a freeze on income tax thresholds and the national insurance contributions increases which suppress employment and wages. It is full of short-sighted harmful decisions that the Liberal Democrats cannot support. Our amendments aim to highlight and reduce some of its more harmful impacts.

I will focus on four particular areas, the first of which is the impact of frozen income tax thresholds. New clauses 15 to 17 would secure additional information and analysis about their impact. As the worrying figures from the OBR suggest, continuing to freeze income tax thresholds will drag an extra 1 million pensioners into paying income tax for the first time by 2030-31, unless the Government act.