Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

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

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak for the next hour, while there is no time limit. [Laughter.] Buckle in!

I want to start today’s speech by first addressing what the Conservatives said and why we need state support to help end child poverty in the technological era we are in. I also want to make clear why we are ending the two-child limit. In the economic sense, yes, it is a pounds and pence issue—we save more money by feeding kids today—but far more importantly, morally no child in this country should be going hungry.

Before I get to that, I would like to share with the House where I spent two years of my life between 2016 and 2018, when I was the economist working in Somaliland’s Ministry of Finance. I was there during what was then its worst drought in living memory. When drought came to Somaliland—one of the poorest nations on earth—it meant failing harvests, dying livestock and rising hunger. I will never forget what that hunger looked like and what it felt like for a whole nation.

I could understand what was happening in Somaliland, even if it was incredibly difficult, but I was shocked and appalled on returning to this country to see children going hungry here—in the fifth richest nation on earth. Those children went hungry after the introduction of the two-child limit. Poverty went up in the largest families, who were affected by the two-child limit, and child hunger went up. Food bank parcels were unknown in my childhood; there were a million handed out in 2017, and three million by the time the Conservatives left office. Most shamefully of all, child malnutrition has doubled over the past decade. That is the shameful legacy of the two-child limit and what it meant for child hunger in this country.

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

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Trussell Trust was founded in this country in 2000, under a Labour Government, and that the Department for Work and Pensions did not recommend that it be offered as a solution to families in need at the time? It is one thing to talk about food banks, but it is important to ensure that we acknowledge when they were first set up in this country.

[Dr Sandher]

Did the guidance change between 2016 and 2024? Could the hon. Lady explain to me from the Opposition Front Bench why the number of food bank parcels tripled from the introduction of the two-child limit to 2024? I will give way if so.

[Rebecca Smith]

Well, without having the statistics in front of me right this second—[Interruption.] No, let me finish. We had the global pandemic, when there was a huge need for food banks. In fact, it was the Conservative Government who invested hundreds of thousands of pounds in food banks to ensure that nobody went without. The council for which I was a cabinet member at the time used the funding from the Conservative Government directly to ensure that poverty did not increase over the covid pandemic. If numbers went up, we have to ensure that that fact is reflected.

[Dr Sandher]

The rise happened before covid; it happened after the two-child limit was introduced. I agree with the hon. Lady on one point: she is not across the statistics.

Opposition Members have advanced an argument that I think is fair. They ask why we do not just create lots of jobs, which is the way to get out of poverty. The way to get out of poverty is through work, right? I want to take that argument head-on. We are living in a different technological era. In the post-war era, we had the advance and expansion of mass-production manufacturing, which meant there were good jobs for people as they left school. They left school, went to the local factory and earned a decent wage, meaning that they could buy a house and support a family.

Then, in the 1980s, in this country and indeed across high-income nations, we saw deindustrialisation and automation, bringing the replacement of those mechanical jobs with machines. Like other high-income nations across the world, we have been left with those who can use computers effectively—high-paid graduate workers—and lots of low-paid jobs everywhere else. It is not just us confronting that problem, although it is worse here because of decisions made in the 1980s; we are seeing it across high-income nations. As a result, state support is needed to ensure that those on low pay can afford a decent life.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I first put on record my thanks to my Deep Heat patch; three hours of bobbing with a bad back has been a very special introduction to this debate. I welcome the opportunity to highlight an issue that is the driving mission of so many of us and the reason why we are in this House.

Like many Members, I had the opportunity over December to attend services at some of the wonderful churches across Peterborough. That was not just Christmas spirit; there is nothing more majestic than the raising of voices “to the newborn King” by a packed congregation in a 900-year-old cathedral. At every service, I met congregations dedicated to helping others in my city. Child poverty was at the heart of those conversations—the impact of child poverty on the children themselves, but also its corrosive impact on parents and on all of us in society. Nothing goes to the heart of Labour’s values more than addressing the corrosion that poverty causes in young lives, and I am deeply proud to speak in this Second Reading debate on one of the most important pieces of legislation that this Government are bringing forward.

I would like to use this opportunity to thank the Peterborough food bank volunteers and our Care Zone furniture volunteers, whom I have met consistently since being elected, for the incredible work they have done to support and help families and children in need. I also thank the volunteers at KingsGate community church, who do so much to help families in need with food and debt advice, and to navigate the still-too-clunky networks of the DWP and the state.

That help is needed; we all know the national statistics. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) mentioned the Trussell Trust, and I looked up the figures in preparing my contribution: in 2010, the last year of the Labour Government, the Trussell Trust reported that just over 43,000 emergency food parcels were handed out; in the last year of the Conservative Government, more than 3 million food parcels were handed out.

[Rebecca Smith]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Andrew Pakes]

I would adore it.

[Rebecca Smith]

No one has ever told me that they would adore to hear me speak in this place! I completely appreciate the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but I too have been doing some research while this debate has been going on. It is worth noting that those food bank numbers have increased because they only count Trussell Trust food banks, so the more food banks join the Trussell Trust network, the more those numbers go up.

In my city, where, as I may have mentioned, I held the cost of living portfolio during the pandemic—[Interruption.] There’s no need to yawn! My city did not need the additional food bank that was set up, and it ended up having to send food away. If that food bank had joined the Trussell Trust, it would have added to those numbers and distorted the figures. While I am not saying that there might not have been an increase, I believe it is worth recognising that particular point.

[Andrew Pakes]

It is a very unusual way to defend food bank use to say that it is because poverty is now being counted in a better way. The Trussell Trust is very clear that when Labour was last in government, food banks existed as an emergency provision for when people fell through the cracks of the welfare system. The industrialisation of food banks is shocking, as is the justification of it by the Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will start by repeating something that the Secretary of State said at the start of the debate. He made much of the need to set against anger and division, so I am going to appeal to everyone’s better nature. Ultimately, the removal of the two-child limit was not in the Labour party’s manifesto, so until recently it was not something to which the Government had committed—in fact, it was ruled out by the Chancellor. I have sat through the entire debate and I have to say that it is a bit rich of Government Members to lecture us today, when in 2024 the limit was clearly good enough for the Labour party, including the current Prime Minister and the Chancellor. It is also worth pointing out that we keep hearing the figures 4.5 million and half a million. It seems that the removal of the two-child limit will reduce the 4.5 million people who the Government say are in poverty by just half a million. It will be interesting to hear the Minister comment on that.

The debate has been caricatured as being rich Conservatives versus everyone else, but nothing could be further from the truth. We believe in a safety net, but we also believe in personal responsibility. Many of us on the Opposition Benches grew up on benefits. I am one of those people, and I was in fact worse off when the Labour Government came into power in 1997; they scrapped the child benefit and replaced it with working tax credit, and my mum supported by dad’s business and did not go to work in her own right while she raised her four children. When I am asked why I am a Conservative, that is what I say—and I have checked that this afternoon to ensure that I am factually accurate. We are speaking up for those who work hard and have high bills, as well as housing and food costs, but who are paying tax because they do not qualify for universal credit.

I want to make one final point before I come to the body of my speech. Lots has been said about free school meals this afternoon, but when I recently questioned the Department for Education on whether it has any record of the number of councils making the most of the auto-enrolment for free school meals, I was told that the Government do not have the figure. They might wish to go away and look at that. I absolutely appreciate that auto-enrolment helps the most vulnerable, but if the Government are not taking account of the levers in their hands to improve that system, then they need to do some work.

Having done my bit of ad-libbing, I will make some progress with my speech. Fundamentally, maintaining the two-child limit is about fairness—fairness to working parents who do the right thing, fairness to working parents who make difficult choices and fairness for families who live within their means.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I am going to make some progress.

We are talking about men and women who are working long hours in shops, schools, offices, construction sites and care homes right across the country. Why should families in receipt of universal credit have to avoid the difficult decisions about how many children they can afford, unlike those who are not in receipt of it?

Compassion is often framed in terms of supporting the most vulnerable, and rightly so—indeed, I have highlighted my own personal conviction on this in previous debates—but as one a colleague in my previous council career told me, “The left has no monopoly on compassion, Rebecca.”

Compassion cuts both ways. We must remember the millions of hard-working families across the UK who are not on large salaries yet fall outside any thresholds for universal credit—the families who earn the same for going to work as their neighbours do on universal credit. It is unfair to these parents to make them bear a double cost: raising their own children and subsidising other people’s.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Rebecca Smith]

No, I will not give way; I am going to make some progress.

These mums and dads are the backbone of our economy, and we cannot afford to let them down. Scrapping the cap reduces incentives for parents to look for a job or work longer hours. Why would they bother going to work, or working more, when they could get more in benefits? A strong economy must provide incentive structures that help people to do the right thing, and we tamper with these fundamental structures at our own peril.

[Gareth Snell]

On the point of doing the right thing, the data suggests that in the shadow Minister’s own constituency there are 1,160 children living in a household that does not currently receive universal credit support for the additional children. Some of them will be listening this evening, and some will be teenagers. What would she say to them? Would she tell them that she could do something this evening, but she is choosing not to? What is her justification to those children?

[Rebecca Smith]

I also speak for the 60% of the population who do not think we should be scrapping the cap. No doubt a large proportion of those people are also in my constituency.

As Conservatives, we believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. Our welfare system should be a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has argued so powerfully. As I have alluded to, it seems that we are not alone; that principle of fairness is echoed across the country, with a recent YouGov poll finding that 57% of respondents believe that the cap should be retained.

The situation is particularly stark for self-employed mothers, who can only access statutory maternity allowance —a flat rate that falls far below what their peers can receive via their employer. I recently met one self-employed mother who told me that she is seriously weighing up whether to have a second child because she and her husband simply cannot afford it right now. This is a deeply personal dilemma, fraught with conflicting emotions. Equally, those not on benefits who have more children do not get paid more wages—they just have to absorb the extra costs within their budgets—so this idea that we need to give people more money because they have more children does not always make sense. However, this Government are determined to give families on universal credit a free pass; as a result, those families will not have to make those kinds of hard choices.

According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for 70% of the poorest households currently subject to the two-child limit, any money they stand to gain from the scrapping of the limit will get partially or fully wiped out by the household benefit cap. How do the Government square that circle when they have been quoting the headline figures for poverty? As has been raised numerous times today by Opposition Members, if Labour truly followed its own logic on child poverty, it would also need to scrap the household benefit cap, at even greater cost to the taxpayer.

Conversely, 40% of those affected by the two-child limit will be exempt from the overall household benefit cap, because they have at least one claimant or child receiving health and disability benefits. This means that households with six children will get an additional £14,000 every single year. For larger families in particular, the financial gap between going to work and being out of work will shrink significantly. We are trapping good people in a bad system. Shockingly, one in four full-time workers would be better off on benefits than in work—that is 6 million workers across the UK whose neighbours on combined benefits are receiving more income than they are. It is no wonder that every day 5,000 people sign on to long-term sickness benefits. According to the Centre for Social Justice, a claimant who is receiving universal credit for ill health plus the average housing element and personal independence payment could receive the equivalent of a pre-tax salary of £30,100, and a family with three children receiving full benefits could get the equivalent of £71,000 pre-tax. How is this fairness?

At best, scrapping the cap is a sticking plaster that does not tackle the root causes of poverty. We know that work is the best route out of poverty—in fact, if this Government hit their ambitious target of increasing employment rates by 80%, that could lift approximately the same number of children out of poverty as scrapping the two-child limit. Instead, this Bill will be yet another strain on our ballooning benefits budget. If it had been retained, the two-child limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31. Instead, the bill is being passed on to all those families I have spoken about already.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

No, because I believe the hon. Gentleman’s Minister will want to have a fair share of time as well.

When it comes to reforming welfare spending, the Prime Minister has shown extraordinary weakness of resolve. Scrapping the two-child cap is simply a political decision to placate his Back Benchers, costing taxpayers billions. It is unaffordable for a welfare system that is already on its knees, and damaging to the very work incentives his party promotes. Indeed, no one voted for it at the general election. As the Leader of the Opposition has said,

“28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others. The rider is as big as the horse.”

Let us look at this through the eyes of hard-working parents and individuals. Many of their businesses and workplaces are already being hit by Labour’s damaging tax rises. These are people with a work ethic—they willingly shoulder the burden of supporting their families without relying on the state—but their commitment to doing the right thing is being thrown back in their face. The Conservatives are the only party truly standing by hard-working families. We are the only party serious about bringing the welfare bill under control and protecting taxpayers from yet more unavoidable costs. Keeping the cap is about fairness, responsibility and respect for the sacrifices that parents make every single day. To scrap it flies in the face of that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It strikes me as odd that rather than extolling the virtues of the Government’s flagship youth guarantee, we have had a number of Labour MPs asking about youth hubs. Is that because it is easier to defend the setting up of some youth hubs than feeding back on the roll-out of the youth guarantee? Since the Labour Government came into power, businesses have stopped hiring young people in roles where they could be paying someone more experienced the same amount of money. That has meant that youth employment has gone up since July 2024, with the most recent figures showing a 103,000 increase in unemployed young people.

Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than Back Bench-pleasing schemes tinkering around the edges of the youth unemployment crisis, what we need is a strong economy with confident businesses actively seeking to employ the hundreds of thousands of talented yet unemployed young people across the country?

[Pat McFadden]

It is very nice to see the Conservative Front Bench here—you can never be sure these days who is going to be turning up on the opposite side, Mr Speaker. I take it from the shadow Minister’s question that she is against youth hubs, but I have to remind her that the initiative began under her Government; we have expanded it. It also seems that she is for a cut in wages, but the Government do not think that is the way to go. I remind her that more people are in work than there were a year ago; the economic inactivity figures are down; real wages are rising; and as for unemployment, it was going up for the past few years, including while the shadow Minister’s party was in power.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, it has come to light that benefits have been extended for the parents of teenagers with disabilities or illnesses. Although on the face of it that may seem kind and compassionate, it is also contradictory. Parents and carers are no longer required to ensure that their teenagers are attending an educational setting at all to receive additional child benefit, which means that young people living with neurodivergent conditions such as ADHD are being enabled to stay at home and out of education, training or even work. This flies directly in the face of the Prime Minister’s words after the Budget:

“if you’re not given the support you need…or if you are simply written off because you’re neurodivergent or disabled, then it can trap you in a cycle of worklessness and dependency for decades.”

May I ask the Secretary of State how extending access to benefits for conditions such as ADHD in teenagers before coming up with a plan to ensure that young people remain in full-time education and training delivers on the Prime Minister’s point?

[Pat McFadden]

I hate to sound repetitive, but the rates of absence from school rocketed when the Conservatives were in power. Again, this is something that we have begun to address, because children cannot achieve unless they are attending school. That is why absence from school really matters, and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has rightly made attendance such a high priority for herself and her Department.

Pension Investment in UK Equities

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on securing this important debate. Given his experience as a Treasury Minister for many years, it has been a pleasure to hear his thoughts on this issue.

My right hon. Friend could not have chosen a better time for this debate, given tomorrow’s Budget. Let us hope that private pension holders are not penalised in comparison with public sector pension holders. Amid all the drama of the Budget, let us not forget that the Pension Schemes Bill comes back on Report next week. Having sat on that Bill Committee, I concur with my right hon. Friend’s point about the need for pension education. That came up many times during the debate, as did the vast majority of what he spoke about. It is really important to expand people’s imagination about where they can invest. It is not just about educating young people; it is about educating people in their 30s, 40s and 50s about where they can invest their money, particularly given what we are likely to hear in the Budget tomorrow. I would potentially be interested in having a conversation about where I can invest my money. Anyway, I do not have that much, so let us crack on with the debate.

Having listened to the speeches this afternoon and during our consideration of the Pension Schemes Bill, I know that there is an obvious consensus across the House on this issue. For one reason or another, pension schemes do not feel confident to invest directly into the UK equity market. The facts do not lie. Over the past 10 years, the proportion of private sector defined contribution assets being invested in the UK equity market has fallen from around 30% to 6%. In 2006, around 32% of defined benefit assets were invested in UK equities; by 2023, that had fallen below 2% in favour of UK gilts. As the Financial Times reported, even the Financial Conduct Authority’s own pension scheme invests only around 4% in UK equities.

These statistics are all the more stark when one considers that, from 2012, total global investment in equities from UK private sector workplace DC schemes has increased from 70% to 76%. It is not that pension schemes do not want to invest in equities, but something has changed that has made the UK equity market less attractive than others, and we need to figure out what has happened. I know that everyone in this Chamber agrees on that; indeed, we have heard some solutions during the debate.

The pensions investment review was a welcome first step in looking at this, and we are glad that many of the recommendations are now in the Pension Schemes Bill. I want to be clear that we support the spirit of the Mansion House accord, which expands on the Mansion House compact that the right hon. Member for Salisbury helped to introduce in 2023. It seeks to persuade those in charge of DC schemes to invest in UK equities, and we think that is reasonable.

However, the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we still do not support the reserve mandation powers in the Pension Schemes Bill. While we are behind the spirit of the measure, we cannot support something that goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties. As the Minister has said many times, better returns for members are what is most important, and we agree wholeheartedly with that. However, does forcing pension funds to invest in what the Government wants them to invest in yield the best returns for members? The answer is probably not. It is no wonder that the industry is so heavily opposed to these powers, and that we are yet to hear a convincing argument for their implementation. Perhaps the Minister will be able to provide a more convincing one.

It seems counterintuitive for the Government to secure the commitment that they did in the Mansion House accord, and only months later bring in this measure. What makes it more confusing is that the Minister said in a recent interview on the “Making Money” podcast,

“I don’t think I’m going to need to use that power…because I see the industry changing.”

What is the point, if industry is changing in the way the Government want? Would it not be better to work with industry and give it a chance to reach the target, instead of holding the sword of Damocles over its head?

Instead, we need to engage with the industry and acquire a better understanding of the barriers it faces. For example, has legislation created an unattractive environment? Have we been too willing to legislate following the Maxwell scandal? Have the UK’s regulators gone too far and over-interpreted legislation? Are they getting rid of reasonable risk in the market in the pursuit of perfection? What has changed in the market that has contributed to that decline? Do the unbundling rules in the markets in financial instruments directive mean that the UK has not got the necessary equity research or data capabilities to attract investment? These are the kinds of questions that need answering before we give the Government such sweeping powers. A doctor would not operate on a patient if they had not properly diagnosed their symptoms—that would be considered malpractice—so why are we trying to solve an important problem without really knowing what is causing it in the first place?

For those reasons, the Conservatives will be tabling an amendment to the Pension Schemes Bill to ask just that question. Our amendment will simply ask the Government to include in their report an analysis of the barriers that pension funds are facing from legislation, regulation and market behaviour. We think that it is essential to obtain, understand and resolve this information before even considering the introduction of mandation powers. We hope the Minister agrees and will see our proposal in the constructive manner in which it is intended. I would welcome his thoughts on it.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, there is much agreement on this wider issue and on the need to create an environment that will incentivise investment into the UK. I know the Minister understands that, and we want to work with him to improve the attractiveness of the UK’s equity market and reinvigorate pension funds’ appetite to invest in it. If we get this right, we could really make a difference. Now is the time to do the hard graft, to work together while this Government last and to make the UK the place to invest in again.

[Graham Stringer (in the Chair)]

We have caught up a lot of time. I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes for the Member in charge to wind up.

Autistic Adults: Employment

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) on securing this afternoon’s very important debate, and I likewise welcome her constituents to the Chamber.

It is clear that we all have the privilege of representing autistic adults and children. The debate has brought to mind one particular gentleman in my constituency, Alistair, who I have known for a couple of years. He likes to tell me that he enjoys campaigning for the Labour party, which is fine—I am still very kind to him, obviously—and he sends me little tweet messages every so often, asking me very direct questions, to which I give very direct answers. He is brilliant.

Alistair had been volunteering at the Box—for those hon. Members who have not been, that is Plymouth’s award-winning art gallery and museum. The other day, I bumped into him at work in the Grayson Perry exhibition, and I said, “Oh, are you still volunteering, then?”. He said, “No, I’m actually now working here.” That was a really great example, bumping into him a couple of Saturdays ago and seeing what he is doing.

As Conservatives, we believe that meaningful work is the surest route to success. We believe in the power of aspiration and are committed to ensuring that everyone in this country gets a chance to pursue purposeful employment. Having a job means more than earning a wage; it means that we have somewhere to belong, a place where our contribution matters and a route to financial self-sufficiency. I am proud of our Conservative record of supporting people into work. We oversaw the creation of millions more apprenticeships and cut youth unemployment by nearly 44% between 2010 and 2023, but right now autistic people continue to face especially high barriers to entering and staying in work, leaving them unable to fulfil their potential, as we have heard time and again this afternoon.

Concerningly, only 16% of autistic adults in the UK are in full-time employment, compared with 31% of neurodiverse people and 55% of disabled people overall, according to the National Autistic Society. That is despite the fact that three in four unemployed autistic people would like to be employed, according to Autistica. An estimated 40,000 people with autism said that they were looking for full-time employment in 2024-25.

We have already heard about the Buckland review of autism employment, published under the Conservative Government in February last year, which painted a sobering picture of the daily challenges that autistic people face in seeking to access and thrive in work. It found that autistic people face the largest pay gap of all disability groups, receiving on average a third less than non-disabled people. Autistic graduates are twice as likely to be unemployed after 15 months as non-disabled graduates, with only 36% finding full-time work during that period. When they do find employment, autistic graduates are most likely to be over-qualified for the job they have, most likely to be on zero-hours contracts, and least likely to be in a permanent role.

Many of those problems stem from employers’ misunderstandings about autism and neurodivergence more generally. Sadly, 59% of line managers did not know how to make a reasonable adjustment to support a neurodivergent employee, according to ACAS. One in five neurodivergent employees have experienced harassment or discrimination at work. The possibility of such discrimination is one reason why around only 35% of autistic employees are even fully open about being autistic. As the Buckland review highlighted, during many interview processes, where the focus is on social rather than job skills, autistic people

“feel they must mask their autistic traits to succeed.”

To complicate matters further, many people with autism do not have a formal diagnosis, due to a fear of negative reaction from others, long NHS waiting times and so on. The current situation means that everyone loses out. Autistic jobseekers are being denied the opportunity to contribute their valuable skills to the workplace. When they do find a job, they often feel unable to bring their whole selves to work. Employers, on the other hand, are missing out on that wider talent pool we have discussed this afternoon, which comes from creating an inclusive environment for autistic employees.

Autism remains an untapped asset in the UK workforce. Autistic people often have remarkable cognitive abilities, including pattern recognition, sustained concentration and exceptional attention to detail. When matched with suitable roles, autistic employees can deliver productivity improvements ranging from 45% to 145%. As the Buckland review notes, many reasonable adjustments intended for autistic staff tend to benefit the wider team, such as noise-cancelling headphones and a designated quiet space if a co-working area becomes too noisy.

The number of autistic people out of work is also contributing to the overall unemployment rate, which is set to reach 5% by 2026, at a time when the Chancellor is facing immense financial pressure in the upcoming Budget. Obviously, getting as many people as possible into work at this point will help with the growth challenges she faces.

As has been mentioned, the Buckland review identified 19 key recommendations for ensuring that autistic people receive the support they need at work. Those include creating autism-friendly workplaces, via design guides for a range of industries; improving recruitment processes and career advice for autistic jobseekers; encouraging employers to join the autistic and neurodiversity employers’ index; and enhancing IT systems to meet autistic employees’ needs. I welcome the bipartisan nature of this challenge. I do not think anyone here would disagree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that it is about the individuality of each individual. I do not think that is just a Liberal thing; I think it is something we could all agree on.

In the Government’s response to the Public Services Committee’s October 2024 report on transitions to work for disabled young people, many of the successes listed included work that had already been started under the previous Government. For example, this Government are on track to double the number of supported internships, originally a Conservative Government initiative announced in 2023. It is good to see that almost 800 employment ambassadors have now been recruited to advocate for supported internships within businesses.

I look forward to scrutinising the findings of the Government’s independent panel on neurodiversity in the workplace, to ensure that it adequately addresses autism specifically. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already confirmed that the panel’s conclusions will build on the Buckland review, which is encouraging. However, I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how she plans to take forward the Buckland review more fully.

I finish by paying tribute to programmes that serve my constituents, providing a vital bridge into work for many autistic people across Devon. Project SEARCH Derriford is an award-winning scheme, enabling young people with autism or learning disabilities to complete work placements at the University Hospitals NHS trust’s Plymouth sites over the course of an academic year. Nationally, Project SEARCH has seen more than 60% of its interns enter full-time employment after completing the scheme, creating a win-win situation: the interns gain real-life employability skills and an enormous confidence boost, while employers gain committed, well trained staff, helping to reduce hiring costs and improving retention.

More broadly, Pluss in Plymouth and elsewhere across the country delivers specialist employment support for people with autism or learning difficulties, including work trials and ongoing mentoring, something I have been able to witness over the past 10 years or so. These organisations are brilliant examples of how effective job coaching can be.

To conclude, we must ensure that autistic people are not sidelined from the workplace. They are disproportionately out of work. Most of them want to be in work, yet many employers are poorly equipped to create inclusive environments. The Buckland review was a much-needed start in identifying areas for improvement, and I look forward to hearing how things might progress over the coming weeks and months. We must continue breaking down barriers to opportunity. Every individual deserves the chance to contribute their talents; when we unlock their potential, workplaces become richer in every sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Diana Johnson]

Then I will carry on, because there are a few other issues that it might be helpful for hon. Members to be aware of.

Since August this year, there have been the full-time equivalent of more than 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers in our jobcentres across England, Scotland and Wales. I wanted to highlight that because the DWP and Jobcentre Plus committed to making sure that the personalised work advice that we talked about earlier is available to individuals. We also have 700 disability employment advisers and 90 disability employment adviser leaders supporting work coaches, or customers directly, to deliver that holistic and tailored support.

[Rebecca Smith]

I seek clarification on those numbers. When I have heard them in the main Chamber during questions and statements, I have wondered whether those people are new members of staff or existing members of staff who have moved into a slightly different role. When we say that there are 1,000—or the other numbers that the Minister has just read out—are they brand-new members of staff, who previously did not work for the DWP, or are they members of staff who have changed jobs?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I am happy to provide the hon. Lady with the details about that, but what is happening is that we are realigning the needs of individuals who come to jobcentres to ensure that they get a much more personalised, tailored approach. That is why the work that people do has shifted around. Some of those posts will of course be new, but other people will have been moved in. I am happy to get the details of that, but I want to recognise how important it is to have that personalised approach and specialist support.

We are going further by reforming, as I said, the employment support service into the new jobs and careers service, with much more personalised support. We have a pathfinder in Wakefield that is testing what that personalised offer would look like. Of course, the findings from the academic panel that I talked about will be a valuable addition to the evidence base available when we are looking at how we reshape the jobs and careers service for people whom we want to ensure get the support that they need.

I want to make some comments about young people, because we know that tailored support is equally important for them. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, work or training—that is more than one in eight of all young people in this country—and we expect that a significant number of those young people may be neurodivergent.

It is important that there is an effective careers education approach and programme during school and college for all young people, including those who are neurodivergent. That should particularly ensure that autistic young people gain the necessary employability skills and learn about themselves, while accessing tailored opportunities to prepare for adulthood and move into the workplace. Some excellent work is already going on in some of our special schools. In my constituency, Northcott in Hull North is an outstanding special school and does amazing work with young people in Hull and the East Riding.

We are testing and delivering eight youth guarantee trailblazers around the country for localised, tailored support for 18 to 21-year-olds. They will have the flexibility to tailor support and interventions to meet the specific needs and address the barriers faced by young people in those areas. The Chancellor announced that every eligible young person who has been on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be offered guaranteed paid work. That forms part of the Government’s youth guarantee, and further details will be announced in the Budget.

To conclude, I hope I have made the case that getting more autistic adults into work is the right thing to do economically in reducing the disability employment gap and helping us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate. Fulfilling that ambition would be a major driver for economic growth, but of course it is also the moral and right thing to do. We should never lose sight of how much this matters to every single neurodivergent person who is denied the opportunity to fulfil their potential. We all want that chance in life, and that is no different for neurodivergent people.

We have a huge challenge on our hands, but it is a great opportunity. By pressing on with the work we have begun—and by working with employers and autistic people—I have every faith we will be able to grasp it.

I will also add that many of the 1,000 individuals who I talked about earlier in my speech are existing staff but there will be additional funding to create new roles, so it will be a combination of both. The key thing is those staff are offering personalised support to groups for whom the one-size-fits-all approach of the past that I referenced at the beginning did not work.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I begin by echoing the thanks expressed to Members in all parts of the House and in the other place who have contributed to the Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to the excellent work of Baroness Finn, Viscount Younger and Lord Vaux, whose detailed and constructive engagement made the Bill stronger, more balanced and more effective.

This Bill is about protecting taxpayers’ money, ensuring fairness for those who play by the rules, and giving our public bodies the powers that they need to tackle fraud and error wherever they occur. Every pound lost to fraud is a pound taken from taxpayers, public services and the people who rely on them. Tackling fraud and error and sending a clear message to fraudsters that they will not succeed is vital, and this Bill took an important step towards doing that, but there was more to be done, and our colleagues in the other place have done a brilliant job of scrutinising the legislation. I acknowledge that the Government have been incredibly constructive in their approach. Thanks to the determination of Conservative and Cross-Bench peers, a number of important concessions have been made, improving the Bill.

I will touch on several of the Lords amendments. Lords amendment 1 concerns the power of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to conduct proactive investigations. When the Bill was introduced, the PSFA could act only when invited in by another authority. That risked preventing it from acting, even when there was credible intelligence that fraud was taking place. Our Conservative colleagues in the Lords rightly identified that gap, and brought forward an amendment that would empower the PSFA to act proactively where there were reasonable grounds to suspect fraud, without waiting for a formal request. That ability to act swiftly and decisively is essential if we are to stop fraud before more money is lost. The Government’s amendment in lieu reflects the principles in Lords amendment 1, ensuring that the PSFA’s new powers operate in a clear and accountable framework. This is an important issue, so we welcome that concession, which strengthens the PSFA’s ability to intervene early and protect taxpayers’ money.

Lords amendments 30 and 31 relate to oversight and accountability, and would ensure that with new powers came clear lines of ministerial responsibility. Conservative peers raised legitimate questions about how serious investigative powers in the Bill would be authorised, particularly those based on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The principle is simple: when Government officials are to exercise significant powers, Ministers must remain accountable to Parliament for how those powers are used. Following discussions, the Government have tabled amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 30 and 31, which we have accepted as a compromise, on the basis that the initial guidance is subject to a “take note” debate in Grand Committee. That would allow Parliament to consider and scrutinise the guidance in full. I would be grateful if the Minister could, in his closing remarks, confirm that this remains the Government’s position. I apologise if he said so already and I did not quite catch it.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 84. Modern fraud prevention increasingly relies on technology, including artificial intelligence and data-driven eligibility checks. Used well, those tools can help to identify patterns and protect public funds, but they must be used responsibly and transparently. Lord Vaux, Viscount Younger and Baroness Finn raised fair concerns; they said that the use of AI or automated eligibility indicators should never amount to reasonable grounds for suspicion on their own. Technology might inform decisions, but it must not replace human judgment, so it is welcome that the Government have listened. Their amendment in lieu makes it explicit that before any intrusive action is taken, such as amending a benefit or launching an investigation, the information must be reviewed by a suitably qualified human officer. We believe that ensures that we get the best of both worlds; we harness innovation to protect the taxpayer, while retaining human judgment to safeguard individuals.

Lords amendment 43 concerns the eligibility verification mechanism and its impact on vulnerable people and financial institutions. The amendment would task the independent reviewer of the mechanism with assessing how the system takes into account the additional needs of vulnerable people, whether it risks benefits claimants being prematurely de-banked, and the cost to banks and financial institutions of complying. Throughout the passage of this Bill, Members—including Conservative Members—have emphasised the need to protect those who may be more vulnerable, including people facing financial hardship and those with disabilities.

We are disappointed that the Government are not backing Lords amendment 43, but it is reassuring that they have committed to ensuring that all the points made in both Houses are fed directly into the work of the independent reviewer. We understand that a meeting will be set up between Members and the independent reviewer after Royal Assent so that these issues can be explored in detail. We will continue to push to ensure that Ministers deliver on those promises, but we hope that this engagement will ensure that the review proceeds with a full understanding of Parliament’s concerns about proportionality, cost and fairness.

As the Minister rightly said, Government amendment (a) to Lords amendment 75 is essentially a technical correction. We have no issue with it, because it tidies up the text but does not alter the substance of the Bill.

Finally, I turn to Lords amendment 97, which concerns the issue of reasonable force by Department for Work and Pensions investigators. We do not believe that it was the Government’s intention that DWP investigators should use force against individuals—that power rightly rests with the police, who are trained in its use and accountable for it. However, that was not clear in the legislation as originally drafted. The explanatory note stated that

“This power will be limited to using reasonable force against things not people”,

but that was not specified in the Bill. After we raised this issue in Committee in the Commons, Lords amendment 97 sought to clarify that DWP officers may use reasonable force only against property, not against people. The Government’s amendments in lieu are a compromise, but the Bill does now distinguish between the use of force against people, and the use of force against property for investigators who are not constables, which was the clarification we were looking for.

In summary, thanks to the thorough work of colleagues in both Houses, the Bill today is better than when it was first introduced. It gives the Public Sector Fraud Authority the power to act proactively, embeds ministerial accountability, ensures the responsible use of technology, protects vulnerable people, and provides clarity on how enforcement powers may be used. There remain areas in which we think the Bill could be further strengthened—there is still nothing in it to tackle sickfluencers, nor were amendments requiring the Government to review the whistleblowing procedures in the civil service accepted. It is regrettable that the Minister missed those opportunities, but it is welcome that the Government were at least willing to listen in other areas, and we had some very good debates on the bits that the Government have not accepted.

Although we will not oppose the amendments that the Government have tabled in response to the Lords’ amendments, this Bill must not be the limit of their ambition. It is the latest step in cracking down on fraud and error, but we need to see continued effort, action and enforcement from this Government, because the message must be clear that fraudsters must not, and will not, succeed. Every pound stolen through fraud is a pound lost to the taxpayer, our public services and those who do the right thing. That is why we will keep pressing for vigilance, transparency and fairness as this Bill becomes law.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Ind)]

The Minister may remember that on Report, I tabled a number of amendments in the hope of safeguarding the public from seeing their bank become an arm of the state. Today, I will speak about Lords amendment 43, which deals with the scope of the eligibility verification measure. The EVM would give the DWP power to give certain financial organisations an eligibility verification notice. That notice would require the receiver to identify relevant accounts that specified benefits are paid into, assess those accounts against eligibility indicators and, where there is indication that incorrect payments have been or may be made, share specified details of those accounts with the Department.

The Bill includes provision for an independent reviewer to conduct an annual review of the Secretary of State’s powers under the EVM. Lords amendment 43 seeks to expand the scope of that review to ensure that the costs to banks are proportionate, and that any unintended adverse consequences to benefit recipients are identified. At the moment, the independent review of the EVM need only consider the extent to which the Secretary of State and the financial institutions in receipt of a notice have complied with the requirements when exercising the measure, and whether the EVM has been effective in assisting in identifying incorrect benefit payments. It does not require the independent reviewer to also consider whether the EVM is being used proportionately, which is the key to Lords amendment 43. It is essential that any consideration of the proportionality of the EVM takes into account the potential harm to individuals.

In Committee, several witnesses warned that the EVM could result in serious harm to benefit recipients. For example, there is the possibility of an algorithmic error when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated.

Welfare Spending

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I want to start the debate by acknowledging the fact that many Members here do not know that much about me. The debate so far, with this caricature of Conservatives who do not care, has saddened me. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who is no longer in his place, I am entirely motivated by social justice and care for the most vulnerable, as are many colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Indeed, it was my right hon. Friend who founded the Centre for Social Justice, which I know feeds in a huge amount of work to what the Labour party is doing. So I just want to set the record straight. We just differ in how we help. We are also that voice for the voiceless, the hard-working individuals and families who want the system to be fair for them, as well as for the most vulnerable. That is why I believe that reforming Britain’s welfare system is a moral imperative.

As Conservatives, we believe in the dignity of work. We believe that work provides purpose, independence and, ultimately, a path from poverty to prosperity. We want to empower people to take control of their own lives, not abandon them to a lifetime on benefits. But right now, as we have heard multiple times this afternoon, work simply does not pay. A person on sickness benefits can get between £2,500 and £5,000 more per year than a worker on the minimum wage, which is something that my constituents have been at pains to ensure that I am aware of. They are hard-working business owners who cannot believe that those figures mean that somebody working is often less well-off than somebody who is not. Faced with such a disparity, it is easy to understand why living off welfare is a more attractive option for many.

I am a Conservative because I believe in personal responsibility and living within our means. I see our welfare system as a safety net for the most vulnerable, not a lifestyle choice, as has been mentioned several times in the debate. However, that safety net has reached its breaking point. By 2030, around £1 in every £4 of income tax will be spent on health and disability benefits. That is nearly £100 billion—an eyewatering sum that surpasses our entire defence budget. Only the Conservatives have a realistic and sustainable plan for reforming the welfare system. We will get more people into work, while providing support for those facing genuine need.

When our Government left office, over 4 million more people were in work than in 2010.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I am going to make some progress, if I may.

Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.

So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.

To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.

First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.

Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

[Dr Luke Evans]

One of the concerns I have when we discuss mental health in this place is the confusion between mental health and mental wellbeing. Everyone has mental wellbeing challenges—we saw that in the pandemic—but not everyone has a mental health issue. It is absolutely normal, for example, to get very anxious going to a driving test; it is not normal to have that response going to the supermarket. Those two things need different responses and different treatment; some might need support and help into the workforce, while medical support is needed for those with serious mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we acknowledge this discrepancy when we debate the issue, to ensure that we get the policies right for both the patient and the taxpayer?

[Rebecca Smith]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.

Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.

Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.

Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

Sorry; I am going to continue.

Motability is a lifeline for those with serious mobility issues, yet under Labour, Motability costs have surged by almost 10%.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I am going to continue because I am running out of time.

We will stop taxpayers subsidising new cars for people with ADHD and tennis elbow, and will ensure that the scheme is targeted at those with genuine mobility issues. It is not compassionate to pretend that our welfare system can solve everyone’s problems. If we continue turning a blind eye to misuses of the system, it will not be robust enough to help those who need it most.

Lastly, we must keep the two-child benefit cap in order to encourage people into work and to strengthen our economy. Having parents with a stable job is the best foundation from which a child can better their prospects in life. Of course we want children and families to thrive, but fairness requires that families on benefits should face the same decisions as those in work about whether they can afford another child. The Conservatives are the only party that believes in keeping the cap and living within our means; Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats would all scrap it, costing £3.5 billion by the end of this decade. As I have said before, scrapping the two-child benefit cap, like rolling out universal free school breakfasts, is a sticking plaster at best that will not tackle the root causes of poverty—something that I believe we all want to do.

By returning to sustainable levels of welfare spending, a Conservative Government will build a stronger economy. These welfare savings will enable us to axe stamp duty on primary residences, helping first-time buyers to get on to the property ladder. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for the retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, enabling a quarter of a million businesses to invest in better premises, more staff and lower prices. We will deliver a £5,000 first jobs bonus, giving a boost to young people’s savings or home deposit.

The Conservatives are the party that backs ordinary working people who play by the rules, while Labour seems bent on making our country into a welfare state with an economy attached. We urge the Government to reform the welfare system. They must continue to provide support for those who need it, while refusing to consign people to a lifetime on benefits.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for so competently introducing the debate, with an excellent speech, and I thank everyone else who has contributed to it.

I was particularly struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about Hugh’s law and the need for further work on bereavement support. That reminded me of one of my constituents, Clara Gilley, who has a very unusual brain cancer. The real-life issues that she faced, and which I was dealing with as her MP, were the travel costs to Bristol—that is a long way to go from Devon—and the costs of adaptations. I recognise the calls for us to consider how we can help parents whose children are sick and unwell with the costs of that, and I hope that the Minister heard them. I have seen it at first hand, and I am sure lots of other Members will have seen similar issues.

The Conservatives are proud to be the party that champions family life. We recognise that strong families are the bedrock of a healthy society—that is something else that has come up this afternoon. Britain is one of the best places to have a child and raise a family, following measures introduced by Conservative Governments to extend free childcare, support flexible working and enable shared parental leave.

[Alex McIntyre]

As the hon. Lady is so proudly championing her party’s record, will she stand by the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that maternity pay is “excessive”, and by a donor to the Leader of the Opposition, Luke Johnson, who told the Employment Rights Bill Committee that the worst thing about the Bill is its further extension of paternity rights?

[Rebecca Smith]

On what the Leader of the Opposition said, I am not 100% sure of the quote, so I am not going to comment on that. I think it was taken quite significantly out of context. On the Bill Committee, I will continue saying it—[Interruption.] At the end of the day, I am the one here speaking this afternoon, so I am at least interested in this debate—let’s keep talking.

We understand the challenges facing families, which is why we updated the system to enable greater flexibility in how parental leave is taken. We wanted to ensure that parents are supported to spend the precious first few weeks and months bonding with their newborn, promoting healthy attachment that sets their child up for a successful future.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I will keep making progress, if I may. [Interruption.] It is not because I do not want to take the intervention, but because I am on a time limit.

We introduced the biggest expansion of childcare in England’s history—it is heartening to see that Labour has continued our roll-out, despite its criticisms at the time. We backed new legislation to provide additional paid leave to parents whose baby requires neonatal care, allowing them to spend more time with their baby in hospital instead of worrying about returning to work or having to take unpaid leave. We strengthened protections for pregnant women and new parents against redundancy, removing workplace discrimination and improving job security. We introduced shared parental leave for new parents, allowing parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay after the birth or adoption of a child.

However, more needs to be done to encourage uptake of shared parental leave. We know that of fathers who did not take shared parental leave, 45% were not even aware that it existed, according to a 2023 review under the previous Government. Awareness is particularly lacking among smaller businesses: 94% of managers in workplaces with 250 or more employees were aware of the provision; that dropped to 71% in workplaces with fewer than 50 employees.

Importantly, our Government brought statutory adoption leave and pay in line with statutory parental leave, ensuring that adoptive parents had the same rights as birth parents. Adoptive parents also became eligible for paid time off for up to five adoption appointments—something that I personally think is entirely welcome.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I will keep going, because I have quite a lot to say.

Those measures rightly honour the contributions of parents who open their heart and home to children in need of a loving family; 4,500 people claimed statutory adoption pay in 2024-25. In England alone, 2,940 children were waiting for adoption as of September this year, so statutory adoption leave and pay are vital for increasing the number of adoptive parents.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) noted, we need to do more to support adoptive parents who are self-employed—that has come up loud and clear this afternoon. Statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments, equivalent to statutory adoption pay. However, as we heard from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the charity Home for Good discovered that 34% of local authorities have no policy in place for those discretionary payments. Worse still, according to a 2022 survey by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, 90% of self-employed adopters are not informed about them by their social worker.

Of course we acknowledge the calls to go further with parental leave, and I am sure that the Minister heard the pleas to include kinship carers in the review. We will scrutinise the Government’s review of parental leave, launched in July this year, to ensure that it strikes an appropriate balance between supporting families and backing businesses. It is worth noting that the UK’s parental leave policies rank comparatively well against countries around the world. The UK offers the fourth longest statutory maternity leave, topped only by Estonia, Croatia and Bulgaria, and it ranks 13th globally for length of statutory paternity leave; 90 countries have no statutory paternity leave at all.

However, there is a fine balance between supporting parents to spend precious time with their child and protecting businesses from burdensome regulations. In our current economic climate, increasing statutory maternity and paternity pay would be counterproductive for businesses —small and medium-sized enterprises especially—at a time when Labour is already saddling them with extra costs. Small business owners are facing enormous pressure: 17,000 high street businesses are expected to close this year alone, and retail businesses in my constituency tell me that they now face a doubling of their business rates. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill as a whole is projected to cost businesses up to £4.5 billion annually and it could increase the number of strikes by 53%. Increased parental pay will be no help at all if people have lost their job. In this context, it is our view that significant increases in statutory maternity and paternity pay are simply unaffordable for businesses or the public sector right now. It is also not clear how the state itself would afford the change. I am sure that the Minister will address that.

We need to protect jobs for the long term. A stable household income is one of the most important factors in ensuring healthy, happy children who will grow into bold and ambitious adults. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill stifles small businesses when they are already gasping for oxygen. It overreaches, snatching choice out of the hands of business owners, who are best placed to balance the interests of their staff members with the viability of their business overall.

When it is practical and affordable, many businesses already offer enhanced maternity and paternity pay in order to retain talent—something that has been stressed this afternoon. A survey of 460 organisations by Brightmine in June 2024 found that 75% of private sector organisations and 97% of public sector organisations already offer enhanced maternity pay. Any changes to statutory maternity and paternity pay must be done after consulting businesses. We must avoid saddling them with yet more unaffordable costs at a time when they are facing immense pressure. Flourishing businesses provide stable income for families, leading to a strong economy and a brighter future for the next generation. The Conservatives’ record demonstrates our support for parents and families, but that must be done sustainably, in a way that backs businesses rather than stifling them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Every Member in this Chamber shares a commitment to lifting people out of poverty, especially children; we just have different views on how to go about it. Children in workless households are nearly four times more likely to live in poverty than those in households where adults work. We know that work pays, yet we on the Conservative Benches find ourselves surrounded by parties that are just itching to scrap the two-child benefit cap, resorting to yet more sticking plasters, like universal breakfast clubs, to reduce uncomfortable figures without putting in the hard work to tackle their causes. Does the Minister share my concern that lifting the two-child benefit cap will increase worklessness, and can he guarantee that taxes will not go up in next month’s Budget for adults who work hard and make careful decisions about family size in order to pay for the £3.6 billion it will cost to lift that cap?

[Andrew Western]

I am stunned to hear that the fight that the Opposition Front Benchers are choosing to pick on this occasion is opposing universal free breakfast clubs, when we know that well-fed children have hungry minds. [Interruption.] For those chirping from a sedentary position, that is exactly what the shadow Minister. What I find even more staggering are the lectures from an Opposition who left almost 3 million people in this country economically inactive and around 1 million young people out of work. They dragged 900,000 children into poverty, when the last Labour Government lifted 600,000 out. It is the last Labour Government who we will be taking lessons from, not the last Tory one.

Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Kirsty Blackman]

Mr Speaker and previous Speakers have encouraged us as Members not to worry about repetition. Generally, the more we can talk about and highlight issues the better. Part of the point of the new clause is to ensure that the Minister recognises and says from the Front Bench that this is an important issue. Whether or not there is an actual consultation taking place, if we can have that commitment—we will probably ask him for that commitment again and again, given the nature of this place—we would be very happy to receive it.

I agree with the hon. Member for Horsham that the balance is really important. When it comes to guided retirement products, it is key that companies do not worry that the privacy and electronic communications regulations, or any legislation, is going to get in the way of proper communications, but that people are also protected from potential scam communications, and that we are able to crack down on anyone undertaking scams and looking to take significant amounts of money—these are the largest amounts of savings that the vast majority of us will ever have in our lives.

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

I have a query off the back of the comments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North.

We heard in the evidence sessions that there is a danger that overdoing the requirements for marketing will get in the way of providing guidance. That came up directly in the response to some of our questions, I think specifically from Legal and General and Aviva. Companies are already in a position where, if they are not careful, offering guidance is considered marketing. Therefore, they do have their hands tied by existing legislation.

I am slightly intrigued why this new clause has been tabled, given that Liberal Democrat colleagues will have also heard that evidence. More work is needed on this issue than just adding a new clause to the Bill; I heard from the hon. Member for Hendon that there is a consultation.

Although I understand the point about protecting vulnerable customers from scamming, I feel the evidence we heard demonstrates that more work is needed, work that is not included in the Bill, to make sure that pension companies are able to advertise in such a way that they can play their part in the guidance process that we have debated at length, and in how people get that financial education.

I understand the premise of the new clause, but we have many more questions to answer on this. If anything, I think we need to be making it easier for pension companies, the legitimate people in the room, to be able to communicate. There could be unintended consequential issues; we are trying to deal with scammers, but we might inadvertently stop people accessing information that we are trying to help them to receive.

[Torsten Bell]

Let me attempt to offer some words of clarification and then come to what the Government are doing on this issue.

To clarify, pension schemes are covered by the rules on direct marketing already. I think the new clause as drafted would probably have the opposite effect to what the hon. Member for Horsham intends, by carving out pension schemes from the limitations on direct marketing. That would be a loosening of the direct marketing restrictions for pension schemes. There are people in the industry that have been calling for exactly that, so that may be where the new clause is coming from, but I clarify that they are covered; the direct marketing rules prevent pension schemes from behaving in those kinds of ways.

What is the context here? We are obviously aware of concerns that the existing direct marketing rules, which apply to pension schemes, may limit providers’ ability to deliver the new targeted support regime that is being developed by the Government, exactly as the hon. Member for South West Devon has just set out. Under targeted support, FCA-authorised firms will be able to proactively suggest appropriate products or courses of action to customers. That could help people to make decisions about access to their pension, but it obviously needs to be done in the right way.

We have heard the feedback from stakeholders on the interaction between that wish for targeted support and direct marketing rules, which is where most of the debate on this area has been. Because targeted support involves recommending specific courses of action, it could be considered direct marketing. That is the cause of the tension.

There are particular issues for pension providers who administer auto-enrolled members, where the individual has not chosen the pension scheme or engaged with them. As a result of that, they cannot generally satisfy the requirements of what is called the soft opt-in, because the provider has not collected the information from the individual at the point at which they were enrolled—it has gone through the employer.

What are we doing about that? We are examining quite a range of policy options at the moment. That includes legislative change, which can probably be done via secondary legislation. I think that is the right way for us to proceed. When we do that, we need to get the balance between enabling targeted support and making sure that we do not have inappropriate direct marketing within the pension space. I definitely would not want to see a carve-out from all direct marketing rules for the pension sector as a whole, as there are risks that come with that. I hope that gives Members some clarity and an explanation of what the Government are doing to take this issue forward.