National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that at times like these, we want the Government to be encouraging those on low and medium incomes to invest in their pensions and their futures—and increasing the threshold would help people to do that—rather than disincentivising people from doing so, as they seem to be doing at the moment?

[Charlie Maynard]

I completely agree. It sends the wrong message and puts in place the wrong incentives, and that is a real problem.

Ministers will have seen the analysis produced by the Office for Budget Responsibility in response to the former Lib Dem Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, highlighting the flaws in the Government’s claim that these changes will not impact most lower and middle earners—that is, those not saving more than the £2,000 threshold in any case. The OBR’s new analysis highlights three main ways that the Bill could affect the wider workforce. First, employers may move away from salary sacrifice altogether by increasing ordinary employer pension contributions in place of wage growth, all by reducing contractual pay in exchange for higher contributions. The OBR’s analysis makes it clear that any change of this kind would necessarily have to be applied across all of the workforce and could not be limited to higher earners, so the impact of these changes could indeed see lower pay rises or reduce base pay for employees who contribute less than £2,000.

Secondly, the new analysis spells out that some employees may move to make standard pension contributions, including through relief at source schemes, thereby losing the NICs advantages of salary sacrifice and increasing their NICs bill, even if they contribute small amounts. Thirdly, OBR modelling shows that employers would pass down around three quarters of the additional NICs cost to employees, mainly through lower wages, which again would likely hit all workers regardless of the amount they save through salary sacrifice.

Not only does this OBR analysis indicate that the Government have been wrong to frame these changes as something that will impact only those with broader shoulders, but, crucially, when the OBR assumed a significant behavioural response from employers and employees, the estimated amount this policy will raise fell by almost half, from £4.7 billion in 2029-30 to £2.6 billion in 2030-31, as these impacts feed through. I am interested to understand whether or not the Minister agrees with that point. Raising the threshold from £2,000 to £5,000 will not solve these issues entirely, but it would mitigate them by exempting a larger number of people on lower and middle incomes from the key change in the Bill. That would, in turn, reduce the number of employees impacted.

Lords amendment 2 relates to the repayment of student loans. This issue was also explored in the Lords, but I think it should be reiterated here, because although it is probably an inadvertent effect, it is none the less a significant issue. I appreciate the Minister’s words, but the fact remains that for any graduate who saves above the threshold, not only will their NICs payments go up, but so will their student loan repayments. This Bill is a double whammy on a group who are already struggling with high interest payments, escalating debt and a very challenging jobs market.

To conclude, with four in 10 people in the country, whether in my Witney constituency or any other Member’s, already not saving enough for retirement, and with the pressures on the state pension and social care system well known, it is counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to do so to save towards their retirement. Once again, the measures in the Bill are short-sighted, and the Government’s justifications for them do not add up. I support the Lords amendments, which seek to iron out problems and mitigate the negative impacts. Overall, my party and I cannot support the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

We are all going to have busy diaries after this session. I pay tribute to the Cornish hospitality sector. My hon. Friend is right that those are great opportunities for young people, and I will make sure she gets a meeting with someone.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

T9. British pensioners living in the European Economic Area, the United States and up to 20 other countries get their pensions uprated, but those living in Canada, Australia and New Zealand do not. Campaigners know that the Government will not uprate frozen pensions retrospectively, but will they commit to a review of uprating frozen pensions for British pensioners going forward?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the policy on overseas uprating is long standing under Governments of all parties, including the Liberal Democrat coalition Government. I am not going to make promises that will not be delivered. We will not be changing that policy in the near future.

Work and Pensions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from Work and Pensions questions on 8 December 2025.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It took the Government a year and a half to confirm that they were going to scrap the two-child benefit cap. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of children who, during that time, were unnecessarily kept in poverty because of it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

…The statistic the hon. Gentleman perhaps wants me to give is that I understand 100 children a week were pushed into child poverty through the two-child limit that the previous Government introduced in 2017.

[Official Report, 8 December 2025; Vol. 777, c. 9.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson):

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

That is obviously a very important question, and the Government are looking at the whole issue of SEND. I have been in the House long enough to know that the regime currently operating, which is not working for parents and children, was introduced by the previous Government—if I recall correctly, it was the Conservative Government rather than the coalition one—and we clearly need to look at how we can have a system that works, that supports families and children, and that helps parents get back into work.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It took the Government a year and a half to confirm that they were going to scrap the two-child benefit cap. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of children who, during that time, were unnecessarily kept in poverty because of it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I think it is absolutely right and proper that this Government have the child poverty taskforce to look at not just the issue of the two-child limit, which is obviously very important, but all the other measures we need to have in place to support families. As the Employment Minister, I am particularly pleased that we have measures in the strategy to help parents into work—[Interruption.]

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ann Davies]

I am just coming to the end of my remarks, if the hon. Member does not mind. I am keeping to my four-minute time limit.

The Bill should be scrapped. It is neither fair nor compassionate welfare reform. It is not fit for our constituents.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman that more needs to be done; what we differ on is the need for specific legislation in that regard. Where we are falling down at present is in the scale of the activity we are undertaking. We could be doing significantly more at the moment, but as I said in response to the previous intervention, I have commissioned work to ensure that that happens. We already routinely contact social media companies to ask them to take down specific posts that could help people to commit fraud against the welfare system. I am very happy to consider practical points, but I am convinced that we have the legislative weaponry required to take the necessary action to deal with people who are encouraging others to commit fraud, both online and elsewhere.

Government amendments 23, 24, 39 and 40 bring into scope the kind of information necessary for fraud investigations and enable the PSFA and DWP to compel certain types of special procedure material, including banking records or records of employment, in line with the policy intent. Requesting this type of information is not new for DWP and occurs under its existing powers. The amendments ensure that the PSFA and DWP can compel this information to support fraud investigations, while also ensuring that important exemptions are in place, such as those for excluded material and journalistic material.

Government amendments 30 and 31 seek to address two separate issues in respect of clause 67. Government amendment 30 includes a provision in the Bill so that the powers granted to the PSFA under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984—or PACE—by clause 7 of the Bill are exempt from the application of clause 67(5). This will ensure that the clause does not interfere with existing PACE provisions in relation to legal professional privilege, enabling the Bill’s PACE measures to function as intended.

Government amendment 31 removes subsection (6) in clause 67, which currently overrides existing self-incrimination protections on the PSFA’s information-gathering powers and PACE powers. This allows the common law principle of the privilege against self-incrimination to apply in the usual way—under the information-gathering powers—and ensures that the proposed PACE powers align with established PACE practices. The amendments ensure that clause 67 provides essential safeguards for the PSFA powers in the Bill related to the processing of information.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister will accept that there is growing concern about issues of automated decision making, artificial intelligence and algorithms. While wanting to ensure that we get the best results, is the Minister able to commit to the transparency we need when it comes to AI and algorithms in relation to the Bill to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not unfairly hit?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Member will be pleased to know that I can give him that assurance and that we comply with all the Government’s required standards around the publication of such information.

Government amendments 25 and 26 relate to clause 9, which amends the Police Reform Act 2002 to extend the Independent Office for Police Conduct director general’s functions to include oversight of public sector fraud investigators, enabling them to consider PSFA’s use of PACE powers and associated investigations. Clause 9 also enables the Minister for the Cabinet Office to issue regulations conferring functions on the director general in relation to these investigations. Section 105 of the Police Reform Act 2002 sets out requirements for such regulations made under that Act.

However, section 105 only applies to regulations made by a Secretary of State. As the Cabinet Office has no Secretary of State, this section would not include the regulations that the Minister for the Cabinet Office can make under clause 9. Government amendment 26 corrects that technicality so that section 105 also applies to that Minister. In addition, Government amendment 25 simply removes reference to part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 within clause 9(1), as the Bill will refer to the Act more widely, rather than just part 2.

Government amendments 48 and 72 provide a clear legislative framework for how the DWP and the PSFA will handle and transfer seized evidence to the most appropriate law enforcement agency, including the National Crime Agency and the Serious Fraud Office. The amendments will ensure that evidence is handled by the organisation best equipped to deal with the specific nature of the alleged crime, fostering inter-agency collaboration and reducing delays to investigations.

Winter Fuel Payment

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress, because otherwise we will be here for several days.

I take this opportunity to thank each and every organisation that supported the pension credit take-up campaign, as well as the many friends, neighbours and family members who looked out for pensioners and helped them to claim. A few weeks ago, we released the first data on the impact that the campaign has had. We have seen 235,000 pension credit applications in the 30 weeks since July, which is an 81% increase on the comparable period in 2022-23. On the question about processing rates, with over 500 additional staff allocated directly for that, we have seen a similar rise in the number of claims processed. Most importantly, that has led to almost 50,000 extra awards compared with the same period last year.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

What would the Minister say to residents in Maidenhead who have told me that they are not eligible for pension credit? He talks about responsible choices, but the choice those residents now have to make is whether to dip into their savings to pay for their energy bills or to turn off their heating at night. A Labour voter contacted me who had had to make exactly that decision, and she said that she will never vote Labour again. Is that really the change that the Government were elected to introduce?

[Torsten Bell]

No, the change that we were elected to introduce was to save our NHS and to return our economy to growth so that we can raise living standards for pensioners and for workers right across the country. That is the change that we were elected to deliver and that is what we are going to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Conservative Members had no plan. Even their own former Chancellor admitted that the numbers were made up. The only thing they put forward were proposals on the work capability assessment, which have recently been ruled illegal by the courts. They had no plan, but they had a clear record: leaving people behind, writing them off and putting them on the scrapheap. This Labour Government will turn that around and get people, and our country, on the pathway to success.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

3. What assessment her Department has made of the potential merits of removing the two-child benefit cap.

[The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)]

The two-child benefit cap was introduced by the Conservative party 10 years ago. Its period in office saw child poverty rise to over 4 million and one in three of our children arriving at primary school not ready to learn. As soon as the Secretary of State and I were appointed, we got to work to establish our child poverty taskforce, as promised in Labour’s manifesto, and those efforts are ongoing.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

A BMJ study found that people in food poverty have diets with worse health outcomes including more fat, sugar and salt, so what conversations has the Minister had with the Health Secretary about how lifting the two-child benefit cap could improve diet and reduce costs for the NHS?

[Alison McGovern]

The Health Secretary and I talked about child poverty many times as we sat on the Opposition Benches watching the situation for our kids get worse and worse every year. The Member makes a very serious and important point about the wide-ranging consequences of poverty and, if I may, I would encourage him to submit the evidence he mentioned to the child poverty taskforce so that we can take full account of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, I do commit to that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on the issue. With almost 1,000 young people unemployed in his constituency, or almost one in 10, I know what an important issue it is. His area is part of one of our youth guarantee trailblazers, meaning that every young person is earning or learning. I commit that the whole Government will continue to work with him and partners in his constituency to make sure that no young person is left behind.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Jamie from my constituency is a full-time carer, but he is also in full-time education and is therefore not entitled to carer’s allowance. Will the Government confirm that they will extend carer’s allowance to those in full-time education?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I recently met a very impressive group of young people who have managed to navigate their way through education while also having very heavy caring responsibilities. We are working closely with the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Carers Trust and the Learning and Work Institute to make sure that we are providing the support young carers need.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I know that a number of women expected to be able to retire earlier than they could, but the decision to increase the state pension age has been taken. It was taken by Parliament, agreed by subsequent Parliaments, and deemed legal by the courts in 2020—that issue is settled. This is about the communication of it. As I say, we have accepted the finding of maladministration, but we do not accept the approach to injustice or compensation for all the reasons that I have set out. The Government are taking difficult decisions so that we can invest in the pension triple lock and the NHS, build homes, and get people the jobs that they need—many 1950s-born women are very concerned about those things, not just for themselves but for their families. On this specific issue, I know that many people will be disappointed and angry, but we believe that it is the right and fair decision for all the reasons that I have set out.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

WASPI women across the UK have been let down time and again, including by this statement. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £20 billion of additional borrowing this year, and an average of £32 billion over the next five years. How does the Secretary of State expect WASPI women to believe that the Government cannot afford a single penny of compensation?

[Liz Kendall]

Given that sending out letters earlier, which we should have done, would not have made the difference that the ombudsman claims it would, and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.