Pensions and Social Security

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The question of how the tax system operates is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me. However, the hon. Gentleman might take some comfort from the reassurance provided by the Chancellor that those whose only income is the basic or new state pension, without any increments, will not have to pay any income tax in the course of this Parliament. Of course, those who have additional income beyond the state pension often do have a tax liability. The mechanism for how that is applied is a matter for my hon. Friends in His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me, but I can certainly ensure that his point is passed on to them.

Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.8%. That means that it will increase from £227.10 to £238 per week for single pensioners, and from £346.60 to £363.25 per week for couples. The maximum amount of pension credit savings credit will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices.

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

One of the first acts of this Government was to remove the winter fuel payment, before their subsequent partial U-turn. The Prime Minister himself promised assistance for WASPI women, which is manifestly not happening. Both things affect pensioners significantly. When it comes to uprating, the gap between new and old pensions is widening all the time, because although they are going up by the same percentage, they start from different baselines. What are the Government doing to equalise pension levels to prevent that situation from worsening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend may not know this, but the Minister and I were on the Work and Pensions Committee when the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust presented the case for the essentials. I think there is overwhelming support for such measures, but it is a question of how we do it in a sustainable way. If I may go on and develop my argument a little, he will see that I am moving in his direction.

As we have heard, the new state pension will also increase by 4.8% in April to £241.30 per week, which is in line with the annual increase in the average wage earnings index from last May to September. Briefly, I will explain why it is important that the increase in UC should be above CPI and inflation. Although state support for working-age people and pensioners was fairly similar when annual uprating was first introduced in 1972, the uprating or increase in working-age social security support such as UC in line with inflation has not always happened. In the last 15 years, social security support for working-aged people increased by only 1% between 2013 and 2016, and it was frozen between 2016 and 2020. If anyone wants to look at the changes to inflation over the past 15 years, it makes interesting reading, particularly in 2022-23 and 2023-24, and the increase was far below inflation. As a result, since 2012 benefit levels for working-aged people and their families have lost 8.8% of their value.

The UK’s social protection levels are among the least generous in the OECD. In 2021, the New Economics Foundation estimated that the actual loss in cash terms was equivalent to £14 billion. It also estimated that if spending had been maintained, there would have been 1.5 million fewer people living in poverty. People are often surprised to hear that over the last 20 years or so, the amount of DWP spending as a percentage of GDP—that is acknowledged as the only way we can fairly compare spending—has changed very little: it was 10% in 2005 and 11% in 2025, with the slight increase being accounted for by an increase in spending on pensioners. I think we would all agree that that is the right thing to do. What is alarming is that although poverty levels have been stabilised and will start coming down this year as a result of, for example, the removal of the two-child limit for social security support and the increase in the living wage, the depth of poverty is increasing.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Many things can be done to tackle child poverty. One thing the Scottish Government have done, which has massive backing from the third sector, is introduce a universal child payment. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is potentially the way forward?

[Debbie Abrahams]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is exactly what the Bill does.

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

“‘a tax on doing the right thing’”.

It goes on to state:

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

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

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

The Minister said in his introduction that

“everyone who has thought about this”

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.

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

9. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on reducing poverty.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

We are determined to drive down child poverty in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and right across Scotland and the rest of the UK. Our child poverty strategy will look at every lever at our disposal to drive up family incomes, to drive down family costs and to give every child the best start in life. I discuss such issues regularly with the Chancellor and Ministers across Government, because we will leave no stone unturned to ensure that every child can fulfil their potential—they deserve it and our country needs it.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Two million pensioners in the UK are in poverty, and the British state pension is among the worst in north-west Europe. During the independence referendum, Better Together claimed that our pensions are more affordable when Scotland is part of the UK. Eleven years on, will the Minister tell me exactly what the Union is doing for Scottish pensioners, other than impoverishing them?

[Liz Kendall]

Investing an additional £31 billion in the triple lock over this Parliament is delivering huge benefits to pensioners in Scotland, as are our measures to drive up the uptake of pension credit in order to help the very poorest pensioners; our measures to stabilise the economy; and our investment in the NHS, on which many pensioners rely. I am proud of the action that we are taking. Given that this Government have agreed and are giving Scotland its biggest ever funding settlement, the hon. Gentleman should ask some challenging questions of his Government, to ensure that they deliver for Scotland’s pensioners, too.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.

The latest figures suggest there are over 6,000 WASPI women in the Moray and Highland region, and they are an active and vociferous group. Of the 650 constituencies, my Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey constituency is in the top 25 for signatures on the petition. Women from my constituency regularly travel the many hundreds of miles to London to demonstrate and demand fair recompense from this Government and from previous Governments. Sadly, they are being thwarted at every turn.

All the while, every day over 100 WASPI women die having seen no justice. WASPI women have proven that the communication with them was dire—the ombudsman’s report made that very clear, after very thorough investigation —yet not even a hint of recompense has been given. It is an utterly appalling situation.

Let us be clear: the millions of women affected are of a generation of women who have been discriminated against throughout their working lives. They have been victims of getting lower pay than their male counterparts doing the same job, as has been well evidenced by equal pay settlements with numerous bodies. They have been victims of the glass ceiling, victims of both casual and overt sexism in the workplace, and victims of a patriarchal society that, although much diminished, still creates a major imbalance today. Women are far more likely to be worse off as pensioners than men and have, on average, much smaller pension pots when they come to retirement age.

Ministers continually refer to the £22 billion black hole left by the previous Government. I accept that the financial legacy they have been left is pretty grim, but let us be clear: that refers to recurring spend and absolutely not to what would be a one-off compensatory spend. Financial experts, professionals and auditors take a very different view on one-off spend compared with recurring spend. We need to keep that in context, and I hope the Minister will reflect on that. Justice is justice, and it must not depend on budgets for it to be served.

It is in that context that the vast majority of Labour MPs refused to vote in the recent Division on this issue that was forced by my party. I commend the small number who stuck to their principles and voted with us, and I urge the large majority who did not to consider their position on this matter seriously, and get back behind the campaigners they were happy to pose with for campaign photos in the run-up to last year’s election.

I am humbled by the determination and drive of those campaigners, as well as the dignified way in which they continue to make their point. Campaigners from throughout the UK are once again here in numbers, and I commend and fully support their efforts to get the fair and just compensation they deserve.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. As we get older, many of us are working while caring for our elderly loved ones or for children—sometimes both—and those family carers need support. I have already set out the action we have taken, including the biggest ever boost to the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance and a serious, independent review of carers’ overpayments, but we can and should be doing more to support family carers. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk through her ideas that she thinks would benefit her constituents, if she would like.

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

I do not think I have ever seen quite so many glum faces on the Labour Benches, not for the two-child benefit cap or the winter fuel payment—this is beyond the pale. A handful of Labour Members have stood up and spoken their mind on this issue, and I commend them on that, but the Secretary of State has not answered the question of whether this House will be given a debate and a vote, which should happen in Government time. It is not just Scottish MPs who are asking for this; other MPs from other parties have done so. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider.

[Liz Kendall]

Back Benchers can put forward proposals for debates, as can Opposition parties. If the main Opposition party wants to do so, it would be perfectly at liberty to do so.

Food Banks

Graham Leadbitter Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Seamus Logan]

Yes, I completely agree—I suspect that the hon. Member might have seen a copy of my speech beforehand.

The Aberdeenshire North food bank also operates on the Peterhead community market garden—in partnership with Stella’s Voice—which is a community food-growing space open for all to enjoy. It aims to provide healthy produce, to build confidence and to provide valuable training opportunities. It is incredible to see the grassroots enthusiasm for the project, which I am sure will go from strength to strength over the coming years. As many of my colleagues know, it is not just food that is provided at food banks, but a powerful sense of community and much-needed support. I also pay tribute to other support services locally, notably the Food Larder in Fraserburgh, which is run under the auspices of the local community council.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In my constituency, food banks operate in every major town, including Moray Food Plus and the Badenoch & Strathspey Food Hub. Over and above that, we have community halls offering food hubs and a clothing bank for school clothing, and they provide cross-referral to the other organisations. There are many churches and other organisations all providing a basic food service to literally thousands of people in a single constituency, and this is replicated throughout the UK. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is basically about choices? In Scotland, the Scottish Government have chosen to provide the child payment for every child, and that is a substantial amount of money every single week, but the choices that have been made here in Westminster include removing the winter fuel payment from so many people.

[Seamus Logan]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Poverty can be an incredibly isolating experience, with people becoming more and more withdrawn as money weighs heavily on their mind in all waking hours.