Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a marathon runner—five hours and 20 minutes—Chris Vince.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not lie, Mr Speaker: bobbing is slightly more difficult than normal this morning.

Can the Minister detail what the ombudsman found about the financial loss women suffered as a result of the delay in sending out letters? On a more general point, can he say what this Government are doing to support women in retirement in my constituency of Harlow?

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend makes a large effort not only when it comes to pounding the streets, but in raising his constituents’ cases and, in this case, those of female pensioners. He is absolutely right to say that there is a distinction between the communication of state pension age increases and the increase in the state pension age, and it is the latter that has had such an effect on millions of women, particularly the speed of the increase in 2011. I think there are lessons for this House and for all Governments about what would happen in future, and we certainly would not be bringing forward such short-notice changes.

My hon. Friend is also right to say that what matters more generally is what we are doing to support pensioners, and making sure they have dignity and support in retirement. On that front, just this month we are increasing the state pension, and we will be continuing to do that over the course of this Parliament via the triple lock, which is set to increase it by up to £2,100. We are also making sure that £26 billion of investment is going into our NHS, bringing down waiting lists month on month, because this Government came into office with one in five of those aged over 75 on NHS waiting lists, and we cannot allow that to continue.

Pension Schemes Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I share my right hon. Friend’s frustration about developments in the Lords on those matters, not least because some of those who voted against amendments that would have introduced statutory guidance, as he says, have spent years calling for exactly that—but that is a matter for them. The Government will proceed on work to draft that guidance. The technical working group is well under way and is doing good work to provide clarity to the industry. We will come forward with proposals to put the guidance on a statutory footing in the months and years ahead.

As I was saying, the timeline tightly matches that of the accord. I hope that everybody can see that the framework is a long way from the characterisation of this power that we have occasionally heard. I understand that some Members of this House and the other place would prefer it if the power did not exist at all. I respect that view, but I do not share it. The evidence for the collective action problem is clear—we have lived it—and I have listened but heard no alternative proposal to address it. The consequences of not addressing it fall on pension savers—the people who rely on their defined-contribution savings for a comfortable retirement. That is not a risk that the Government are prepared to take.

The elected House has now considered this question twice. On both occasions, it has overwhelmingly endorsed the case for the reserve power to deliver our manifesto commitments in this area. The Government have listened to the concerns raised in the other place, and have responded not with warm words but with real concessions, through changes to primary legislation that directly address the arguments made. I hope that MPs and peers will now accept that the Government have moved significantly and provided the assurance they have been seeking.

Lords amendment 35B would require the Secretary of State, when making regulations across the scale measures and those for default arrangements, to have regard to

“the benefits of competition among providers of pension schemes”.

The Government of course support the importance of competition as the market moves towards scale, and have done so in the Bill’s provisions. The market is already highly competitive, and the new entrant pathway is designed to ensure that it remains so. The same goal is reflected in a scheme’s ability to open new default arrangements.

However, we have heard the arguments that have been made during debates, and I recognise the desire in the other place to see that commitment in the Bill. This is why I have tabled amendment (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 35B. It sets out that the Secretary of State, in setting regulations in respect of both the scale measures and those relating to default arrangements, must have regard to the importance of competition and innovation. The amendment in lieu delivers on the proposals from the other place, but with an appropriately holistic approach to the issues to which a Secretary of State will need to have regard in the years ahead. That reflects that our ultimate focus is, of course, on delivering the best outcomes for members, of which competition in the market is one important driver. Under the Government’s amendment, regulations must have regard not just to scale, but to competition and innovation, alongside effective governance. The explanatory notes will make that clear.

On Lords amendment 37B, the case for scale has been made, and both Houses have broadly agreed with the benefits that it brings. Indeed, all main parties are on the record as recognising the key role of scale in delivering better outcomes for savers. We all made those arguments, recognising that moves towards scale would always mean some schemes exiting the market because we collectively prioritise the need to deliver for those who work hard to save for retirement, and we must ensure that they are saving into schemes that can deliver better outcomes.

Scale drives lower costs, better governance, investment expertise and a balance sheet that can provide a more diverse portfolio for savers, improving overall outcomes for them in the longer term. That focus on scale was explicitly laid out in our manifesto, and the evidence for the approach we are taking was detailed in the pensions investment review. The Lords amendment pays too little regard to that evidence and that manifesto. It would also be unworkable in practice, as it would enmesh regulators in years of legal proceedings while leaving providers and savers in limbo.

However, I have listened to the argument made in this House and the other place that the innovation some smaller schemes offer members should not be dismissed. I absolutely agree, which is a key reason our approach to ensuring that scale is achieved has been so pragmatic.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not claim to be a huge expert on pensions, which may be why, rather than focusing on the point last week, I made comments about the hair of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). I will not do so again—but it is fantastic hair.

Pensioners in my constituency are passionate about ensuring that they get the best return on their savings—that is hugely important—and that their pensions are secure, as the Paymaster General said in his statement. What reassurance can the Minister give them that the provisions he has set out today and last week will give them the best returns and security?

[Torsten Bell]

As always, my hon. Friend asks an important question. As I have said, the entire focus of the Bill is on ensuring that we drive up returns for savers. I am sure that he has already read all 200-odd pages of the extensive impact assessment, which sets out clearly that we would expect an average earner who saves over their lifetime, in line with auto-enrolment levels, to see higher returns of around £29,000 to their pension pot when they head towards retirement. That is not an inconsequential amount when we want to ensure that future generations can trust the system to deliver them a comfortable retirement in the years ahead.

As I was saying, the Lords amendments in this area are unworkable, but we must recognise the importance of innovation. That is why we have taken our pragmatic approach. The evidence suggests that the benefits of scale are achieved once a threshold ranging from £25 billion to £50 billion of assets is reached. The scale requirements in the Bill not only target the bottom end of that range—£25 billion—but provide a long timeline for schemes to reach it, especially given that this is a fast-growing market. Smaller schemes require only £10 billion of assets in 2030 to qualify for the transition pathway.

To provide further reassurance, I have tabled amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 37B to require the Secretary of State to publish a report about the effects of pension schemes consolidation and the extent to which innovative product designs are adopted or maintained following consolidation activity, as well as any barriers that may exist to preserving those features. The timing of the report, which is required to be published within 12 months, will ensure that the Government are then able to take necessary action in advance of the scale measures being commenced in 2030.

On Lords amendments 77 and 85, the Government agree with the points made during the Bill’s passage regarding the importance of transparency around, and clear accounting for, public service pensions. I discussed those issues yesterday with Baroness Neville-Rolfe, who tabled the amendments. I completely agree with her that it is crucial that the future cost of payments from unfunded pension schemes is understood and taken into account in Government decision making. That applies to the Treasury in aggregate, as well as to individual organisations making decisions about the nature and level of staffing. We will continue to ensure that accounting and budgetary processes support this.

The Government invite the House to accept our amendment (a) in lieu, which recognises the important principle that Parliament, policymakers and the public should be able to see clearly the long-term cost of unfunded public service pension schemes. The amendment requires the Government Actuary to produce within 12 months a document setting out its analysis of the long-term impacts of public sector pensions, covering both expenditure on benefits and income from member contributions. The document must be provided to the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the former is required to make it available to Parliament. That approach is focused on the evidence base, using the Government Actuary to produce impartial numbers to aid understanding and debates on this issue.

I hope that Members will have heard our serious engagement with the issues raised by peers and by Opposition parties in this House. We are committed to delivering the policy intent in the Bill, given its crucial role in driving better outcomes for savers and the important place given to these pension reforms in our 2024 manifesto. We have tabled significant amendments to address the specific issues raised, aiming to further reinforce the consensus on the Bill that has been evident since its Second Reading in this House. On that basis, I hope that Members will be happy to support our amendments.

Pension Schemes Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately)—my constituency neighbour—has repeatedly and effectively highlighted, the mandation power in this Bill is a shocking power grab. She is also right to say that, regardless of the apparent guardrails that the Government have now introduced, it is still totally indefensible. Those in the other place are absolutely right to return the Bill to us to reconsider, and it is in support of Lords amendment 15 that I will speak today.

The power to direct investments is not just flawed in its implementation; it is wrong in principle. When people put aside money for their retirement and entrust it to a company to manage, they very reasonably expect their savings to be invested by whatever company they have chosen, and in line with whatever instructions they have given about their preferences and risk tolerance. Shockingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this Government do not agree. Instead, they think that Government Ministers should have the power to direct pension investments. They want to give themselves the right to direct private pension providers to make decisions that are not in the best interests of their clients.

If Ministers think that people’s money should be invested in British assets, even if doing so will leave them with less money in their retirement, this Bill will give them the right to force private companies to invest accordingly. You can work hard for a lifetime and save a little at the end of every month, but at the stroke of a pen, Ministers will be able to decide where that money goes, even if that means that you will end up with less. The Government are right to identify that British assets are not always the most attractive investments, but the solution is not to force people to invest in them anyway; it is to make the British economy a better place to operate and grow, to allow people to take risks and to allow businesses to do what they are good at, so that people choose of their own free will to invest here.

The money that people earn belongs to them, and it is theirs to do with as they wish. It is not simply a tool that this Government or any Government can use to achieve their ideological aims, and that should be true of every pound that people earn. It is a complete farce to suggest that, by limiting the extent to which Ministers can mandate how people’s money is invested, the Government have addressed concerns about this mandation power. These so-called guardrails will be cold comfort to people across the country who are worried about whether they will have enough money to retire comfortably, and who are worried that their efforts will be frustrated by Ministers pursuing ideological aims.

I hope that Members across the House will reject this power grab altogether. It cannot be right to punish those who work hard and save what they can.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), for opening this debate. I was not expecting it to be quite so lively, so I will try to add a bit of animation to what was initially going to be quite a dry speech from me. [Interruption.] That is hard to believe, I know, but I promise that I will mention pensioners in Harlow at least half a dozen times to make up for it.

I rise to speak in opposition to Lords amendments 6 and 77, but before I do so, I would like to say that I welcome this Bill, which will boost the income of pensioners receiving minimum pensions through a workplace scheme by the largest possible amount. It is one of the many things this Labour Government are doing to support pensioners in my constituency of Harlow—that is one mention—with rising living costs. That can be coupled with fixing our NHS after years of austerity, protecting the triple lock pension—that means the new state pension is increasing by £575 this year and the basic state pension by about £440—and launching the largest pension credit drive in history, which I think we will all agree is hugely important.

Lords amendment 6, which I am sure is well-intentioned, would require the Government to carry out an interim review of employer contribution rates and for the Secretary of State to publish guidance. However, as the Minister said in his opening speech, this Lords amendment is redundant, because the Government have already committed to that and will do so later in the year.

I am going to make the next bit, about Lords amendment 77, a little more racy just to entertain Members. Let me take them back, if I may, to the summer of 2010, when I was in a pub with a friend of mine—I will not mention his name—who turned around and said to me, “You’ve got gold-plated pensions, you teachers.” I am not saying this is necessarily the intention of the amendment, but it is something it could do, and it always frustrates me when we create a divide between people receiving public sector pensions and people receiving private sector pensions. I would say that public sector workers, including teachers, and I used to be a teacher—the Chris Vince bingo card is going well today—work incredibly hard and contribute a huge amount to their pensions.

This does not mean that it is not right to review public sector pensions—we have to do that as a Government, as the right and proper thing to do—but it is worth bearing in mind, going back to what I said about Lords amendment 6, that we are already doing so. I am sure Lords amendment 77 is well-intentioned, but again it is redundant. In general, I say to people tempted to criticise those receiving public sector pensions that the duty of a Government should not be to make public sector pensions worse, but to make private pensions better, so that everybody has the opportunity to save and be successful in their retirement.

I want to make a few cheeky requests of the Minister while he is in his place. [Interruption.] The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), is chuntering, but I am going to be nice to him because he has fantastic hair. The last time I spoke in this place, he kindly said that I had made a really good point, which was incredibly kind of him. It must have been by mistake, but who knows?

I have two requests for the Minister. The first is that he will continue to work with the Secretary of State for Health. The No. 1 thing pensioners in my constituency of Harlow talk to me about—I think I have mentioned them only twice in this speech—is the importance of our NHS. Given the wait times that pensioners have had to face at the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow, I am delighted that we are seeing those wait times coming down, because we want our pensioners not only to have saved and be financially stable in their retirement, but to be healthy.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

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

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I like to think I represent my constituents as well as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) does his, if anyone could. My constituents are really concerned about the pension gap, because the reality for many of them is that they do not earn enough money to begin to think about saving for a pension. Those are actually the things this Government should focus on, not tax reliefs for higher earners who can afford an additional small bit of tax. Personally, as a resident of Harlow, where a number of young people are in poverty, I will not have sleepless nights over this tax change.

[Torsten Bell]

As always, I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He was pretending that the competition is about who is the better MP, but we know it is really about the volume of speaking in this Chamber. The two of them are running it close, but never testing the patience of this House. It is amazing that you have allowed them both in this early in the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker, because that is what the closing minutes of every debate in this House should be about. It is important to have traditions, and they both deliver admirably, but I will make some progress before we get sidetracked entirely.

I was talking about the pragmatic approach we are taking to this change. As I have said, there will be no change until 2029, and the £2,000 cap means that salary sacrifice contributions can continue. That recognises the fact that that has become an established process in several companies and for individuals, so we are giving people time to adjust. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised that, and I have responded by saying that this is pragmatic because pension tax relief continues in its entirety. It is important to remember that relief is available to all savers, not just to the minority who have salary sacrifice available to them.

With that in mind—and I am sure that the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) for the Conservatives will have decided to support the Bill in its entirety having listened to those powerful arguments—I turn first to Lords amendments 1 and 7, which would exempt basic rate taxpayers from the operation of the Bill, and Lords amendments 5 and 11, which would increase the contributions limit to £5,000. The Government’s balanced and pragmatic approach, with the £2,000 cap, means that 74% of basic taxpayers using salary sacrifice will be entirely unaffected. The small proportion of basic rate taxpayers with contributions above the cap will still be getting the national insurance contributions relief on the first £2,000 of contributions made via salary sacrifice, in addition to the full income tax relief that is available to all employee pension contributions.

Exempting basic rate taxpayers in the manner proposed would be incredibly difficult to operate. An individual’s tax band is not knowable until the end of the tax year, which means employers would be required to carry out complicated calculations at the end of the year to reconcile the figures, and they would need to know their employees’ other sources of income, which I do not think anyone would believe is a good idea.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

What it will mean for young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and many others, is intensive work coach training, and the chance of training or work experience. If that does not get them into a job, ultimately it will mean a subsidised job, where they get six months of work experience, paid at the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week. The last thing we want is people leaving education and going on to a life on benefits.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State will know that the level of young people not in education, employment or training in Harlow has gone down, due to the hard work of Harlow College, working in partnership with local schools such as Passmores Academy and Burnt Mill Academy, which I visited this morning. Businesses and the local chamber of commerce are telling me that the No.1 challenge for getting young people into employment is the skills they have upon leaving school. What work is the Secretary of State doing with the Department for Education to ensure that we have a curriculum that incorporates the skills that employers so desperately need?

[Pat McFadden]

I am relieved to hear that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is dropping in Harlow. The number of such people rose by a quarter of a million in the last few years of the Conservative party’s time in government, and they did absolutely nothing about it. Bringing skills into the Department for Work and Pensions gives us the chance to bring skills policy and labour market policy closer together, to help young people get that vital chance of a first job.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

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

[Andrew Pakes]

I wholeheartedly agree. There is something wrong with society when Members of Opposition parties, including my Liberal Democrat colleagues, do not mention the long-lasting impacts of austerity on our public services, our welfare provision and the support given to families.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for recently welcoming me to the Peterborough museum and art gallery, where we went to a “Dr Who” exhibit and discovered that Davros was considering defecting to Reform. I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech. I recently talked to the chief executive officer of the food bank in Harlow, and he spoke of the big difference that this policy will make. Does my hon. Friend agree that the people who work for food banks want them not to be needed any longer, and that this Government should try to achieve that?

[Andrew Pakes]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I put on the record my tribute to all food bank volunteers, not just for holding me to account and making sure that I am here today to support policies like this, but for making the case that he so powerfully makes: they want food banks to no longer exist. Whenever I speak to Christians Against Poverty, churches, mosques, temples and so many of the faith communities that are important to the social infrastructure that holds poverty at bay for so many families, they all say to me that they wish that they did not have to provide food banks and that they could spend more time doing other things. It is our job, starting today with this Bill, to put that into practice for them.

Youth Unemployment

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for opening the debate on this important issue. It is hugely important that hon. Members have the opportunity to speak on this subject. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) suggested that Labour Members were risk averse, but I am going to take a risk: I will attempt to make a speech in which I will not make any political points. If I do at any time make a political point, I will allow the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) to intervene. I think that is very fair.

I start by taking the House back to lockdown in March 2020. I made the decision to leave my job as a teacher; I will not go into why, because I do not want to make any political points. I went to see my headteacher and said, “I want to resign,” but he convinced me to stay until September, the start of the next academic year, so I handed in my notice on 22 March 2020. If hon. Members know anything about recent history, they will know that resigning on 22 March 2020 was quite a gamble, because the following day the country changed and we went into lockdown. I found myself working from home, giving online lessons and that sort of thing, and thinking to myself, “Now I’ve got to find a new job during lockdown.” I was not worried about it April, May or June, but when we got to August, I started to think, “Oh my gosh, in a couple of weeks’ time I will be unemployed.”

I will not pretend that I was particularly young in March 2020—I am not trying to claim that I am a young person—but I wanted to tell that story because for me, the idea of being unemployed was terrifying. I recognised the huge impact that being unemployed, for any length of time, would have on my mental health. Members across the House will agree that for people who suffer from mental health issues, which we recognise affect people to different degrees, work can be the solution, because it can provide an opportunity to give back to society and provide self-worth, which is really important.

Most of my contribution will be about the work of Harlow college. I was about to make a political comment, but I stopped myself. I came to this House not to be negative, or to talk down the country, but to talk up Harlow. Over the past year, the number of young people in Harlow not in education, employment or training has gone down, mainly because of the work being done by Harlow college. I pay tribute to the college’s principal, Karen Spencer, who has written a few points for me—it is not too long, and certainly not as long as what my mother would write, so hon. Members should not worry—about the work of Harlow college, and schools in my constituency, to get the NEET rate down in Harlow. I thank the college and those schools for their work.

Karen Spencer writes:

“Harlow college has developed a targeted NEET programme that recognises the complex barriers many young people face. Through flexible entry routes, small group provision and strong pastoral support, learners are helped to rebuild confidence, re-engage with education and progress into further study or employment. Importantly, these students are fully integrated into college life, including English and maths, enrichment activities and digital support. Harlow College also recognises that preventing young people from becoming NEET must begin earlier.”

That is a really important point that we can all understand. I know young people in Harlow who have been out of employment for a number of years, and whose parents have perhaps been out of work for a number of years, and we have to change that culture. She goes on:

“The college works closely with local schools, including Passmores Co-operative Learning Community.”

It is a community co-operative—“co-operative” is, technically, a political term, but it is in the title of the multi-academy trust.

I pay tribute to Vic Goddard, the executive head of Passmores Co-operative Learning Community, for his work with the college, because this must work both ways. Karen says that Harlow college works

“with college staff going directly into schools to discuss careers, support applications and help prepare young people for interviews. This early, collaborative approach reduces the risk of young people falling through the gaps at key transition points and demonstrates the vital role that further education colleges play in tackling NEETs and supporting social mobility.”

The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness has not intervened on me, so I do not think I have made any political points.

Let me finish by saying that I am absolutely determined for young people in my constituency to have the best opportunity moving forward. I am delighted that this Labour Government are investing in my town, and that the UK Health Security Agency will have its permanent home in Harlow. That will mean high-tech, high-skilled jobs for young people in Harlow.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Vince Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I know that many of our sympathies would be with Miriam. Many Members have constituents who face challenges in the years running up to the state pension age and who are, for whatever reason, unable to work.

The hon. Lady has rather made the point that I just set out, though. She talks about losses of £50,000 or £60,000, which I also see in letters from constituents, but that does not relate to the issue of communication of the state pension age. What she is referring to—the increase and acceleration in the state pension age—was put in place by a Liberal Democrat Government, and not a single Liberal Democrat MP voted against it. It is important to be clear about what is and is not part of the PHSO’s investigation. As I say, it is very important that we take these issues seriously. We should not have seen an acceleration of the state pension age where some women were only given five years’ notice, but that was put in place by the coalition Government. We will not be making those mistakes.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Mr Speaker, can I offer my deepest sympathies for your recent injury?

I pay tribute to the WASPI women in my constituency for their tireless campaigning on this issue. Will the Minister outline the difference that his Department and this Labour Government are making to all pensioners in Harlow?

[Torsten Bell]

Mr Speaker will not be on camera right now since I am speaking, but I can reassure the whole world that he is very much still with us. We all hope that that will be the case for some time to come, but when he does decide to become a pensioner, he will, like all pensioners, have the full support of the Government. We are bringing down waiting lists, which is benefiting pensioners right across the country. The biggest single disgrace facing older generations across the UK today is the state of our NHS, and that is why this Government are investing in bringing down waiting lists month after month after month.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Chris Vince Excerpts

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

[Mark Garnier]

I thank the Minister very much.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), challenged Labour MPs to champion their constituencies. One of the biggest concerns I have about pensions in my constituency of Harlow is the number of people who are not paying into any pension at all, particularly those who are self-employed or lower earners. Does the Liberal Democrat spokesperson agree that the real conversation that we in this place need to be having about pensions is how we encourage people in my constituency and beyond to save for their futures, which I think is what he is suggesting?

[Charlie Maynard]

I absolutely agree—well said.

The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run.

Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response:

“At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Vince]

The Minister has said that the cost to the Exchequer of the salary sacrifice scheme is going to triple by the end of this decade. Does he agree that that is unsustainable for the Treasury, and also that we in this Chamber have to get real? The reason why people in my constituency of Harlow cannot even begin to think about pensions or savings is that they are living day to day. What this Government need to do is tackle the cost of living crisis, and that is what they are doing.

[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—

Neurodiversity in the Workplace

Chris Vince Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Hall]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I absolutely agree. I echo his comments about the fantastic work that is being done in Northern Ireland on inclusion, and I am sure that the Minister will address the points he made in her closing remarks.

It is also important to say this clearly: not all neurodivergent people have a diagnosis, and many are diagnosed far later in life. In some parts of the country, people wait years for assessment. During that time, they are still expected to work, cope and perform, often without any understanding of why things feel harder than they should. We cannot design workplace support around a system that is already overstretched and inconsistent. Support has to be based on need and not on paperwork.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate and for her very personal testimony. Does she agree with me and PACT for Autism, which is based in my constituency, that we should not only support people in work, but support people into work? The application process for some roles is often so complicated that people who are neurodiverse are put off even applying for them, which means that they cannot realise their potential.

[Sarah Hall]

I could not agree more. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

Research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has found that one in five neurodivergent workers have experienced harassment or discrimination at work because of their neurodivergence.