Timms Review: Interim Report

James Naish Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of language. This is a topic that the organisation Turn2us has been thinking about lately. One of the things that I am pleased about is that my job title is Minister for Social Security. I think that I am the first Minister to have “Social Security” in their job title since the abolition of the old Department of Social Security at the end of the 1990s. I think “social security” is a good term, and this review is about delivering that.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all the work that he has done, especially on the co-production front, which has been so important to disabled communities. One of my constituents had his PIP disallowed on renewal over a late form. He was reassessed, with no change to his condition, and scored zero points, which was upheld on review. It was only at tribunal, where my team represented him, that he finally won the highest rate of daily living support, having gone two whole years without any help. What reassurances can the Minister give me that this type of dehumanising failure will not be seen under the new system?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is certainly our objective that the dehumanising aspects of the current system—he describes an example very well—should not be a feature of the future system. That is the clear aim of this review. The case to which he refers is not unusual, and many hon. Members will have similar examples from their own constituencies. The fact that we are now recording assessments by default could help us to find out why that assessment went so badly wrong. I really hope that we can improve things and rebuild confidence among disabled people and taxpayers that the system is doing the job we need it to do.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

James Naish Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to the exact point that the hon. Gentleman raises. The main answer to his question is that we are introducing this change with a very long implementation period—it will not come in until 2029—in order to give businesses and others time to adjust. Businesses have welcomed that across the board, but I will come on to it shortly.

It is always important to keep the effectiveness and value for money of tax reliefs under review; after all, their cost is estimated to be over £500 billion a year. That is always true, but it is especially true when we see the cost explode. That is why we acted in the Budget to reform employee ownership trust capital gains tax relief, because the cost was set to reach more than 20 times what was intended at its introduction.

That is what we see happening in the case of pension salary sacrifice: its cost is on course to almost treble between 2017 and the end of this decade. That would take it to £8 billion a year. For some context, that is the equivalent of the cost of the Royal Air Force. I will repeat that: the cost of pension salary sacrifice was due to rise to the equivalent of our spending, in real terms, on the Royal Air Force. The growth has been fastest among higher earners, with additional rate payers tripling their pension salary sacrifice contributions since 2017. While those on higher salaries are most likely to take part, many others are unable to do so at all.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I understand the justification for making changes to the salary sacrifice arrangements. The Minister mentions higher earners. Can he explain a bit more about the breakdown of those who are benefiting under the current system as a percentage of the whole? I do not know whether he has that data with him.

[Torsten Bell]

I will come on to some statistics that might answer my hon. Friend’s question.

While those on the highest salaries are most likely to take part in salary sacrifice, others are completely excluded. This goes to the question from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

James Naish Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jacob Collier]

I agree. It is quite stark that lots of parties are represented here today, but apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is not one Member of the official Opposition here.

Ultimately, this issue is about the country that we choose to be. The first months of a child’s life are not a private indulgence; they are a public good. When parents are able to be present, children flourish, mothers recover, fathers bond and families become the firm foundation of a stronger, healthier society. When that support is absent, we all pay the price—not immediately, but inevitably. This issue is not merely a question of fairness; it is a matter of foresight and basic national good.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am not quite sure how to contribute to this debate: I am married to a doctor who is an obstetrician and gynaecologist; I am a triplet; and I have an 18-month-old daughter, who was born just three weeks before the general election was called last year. I am never sure which way to pivot. I want to make the macro argument, which is that our birth rate as a country is between 1.41 and 1.56, depending on what is being looked at. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a pure and very simple economic argument to making sure that our country is growing its population from the grass roots? If we fail to do that, the cost in the long run will be considerable.

[Jacob Collier]

Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in his own family to bring to this debate, and I wonder if his daughter is watching it. A parental leave system that works for every family, for employers and freelancers, and for single parents and kinship carers alike is not a cost to be endured but an investment in our shared future. It is in that spirit that I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate tonight.