Pension Schemes Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88A and 88C to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendment 88B to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motions:

That this House disagrees with Lords amendments 37B and 37C but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 35B but proposes amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendments 77 and 85 but proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank Members and peers for the continued scrutiny of the Bill before us. Our task today is to focus on the limited outstanding areas of disagreement, although that should not detract from the consensus behind this Bill—behind the case for a better pension landscape that sees bigger, better pension schemes focused on delivering stronger returns for savers. On the issues that remain before us, I hope that Members and peers will see that we have listened to the points they have raised and brought forward amendments that directly address what we have heard, while of course holding to the core principles of delivering against the Labour manifesto, which was clear on our policy intent around scale and productive investment.

First, I turn to the reserve power on asset allocation. Last week I set out the Government’s case for such a power at some length, and I will spare the House a full repetition today—[Interruption.] I know, I know, but there is so much more to discuss. We will not have time to discuss the hair of the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) if I offer a full statement.

In brief, since hon. Members have asked, there is a well-evidenced collective action problem in the defined-contribution pensions market. Providers want to diversify their asset allocations in their members’ long-term interests and in the interests of better pensions for savers, but they are clear publicly—and even more emphatically in private—that market dynamics, which focus on minimising cost rather than maximising long-term value for savers, are the single biggest barrier to doing so. That is not a theoretical risk; it is exactly why so little progress was made against the Mansion House compact under the last Government. The reserve power exists for the sole purpose of solving this problem.

Last week, we brought forward changes to make that absolutely explicit by writing the industry-set Mansion House accord targets into primary legislation through the 10% and 5% caps, and requiring any regulations to operate neutrally across asset classes. These were designed to make it clear in the Bill that the power can be used only in line with what the industry itself has committed to. The cap prohibits any move beyond the accord targets and the neutrality requirement rules out the possibility that any Government could direct investments into a particular asset or asset class.

As is plain, however, we have not yet reached agreement across the two Houses. Rather than simply restating our position today, the Government are bringing forward a further package of changes.

First, we are bringing forward the current sunset date for the reserve power from 2035 to 2032. The Mansion House accord commits the industry to reaching its targets by 2030, and bringing forward the sunset clause aligns the power more closely with that timeline. If the power has not been exercised by the end of 2032, it falls away entirely. Secondly, because the power has only one purpose, we are providing that it may be exercised only once.

Thirdly—I want the House to understand the significance of this—we are providing for not just the power but any effects of it to fully fall away at the end of 2035. That goes beyond the sunset clause I have just described and means that even if the power has been used, the entire framework and any requirements on schemes will fall away at the end of 2035. This timeline reflects the fact that once the cultural shift has occurred and the impacts of the Mansion House accord are embedded, the collective action problem falls away. At that point, other elements of the Bill—greater scale and the impacts of the value for money framework—will help to sustain the change.

I want to return to a point made by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) in our previous debate. She observed correctly that the Bill referred to assets held in default funds as a whole, whereas the Mansion House accord applies only to main default funds. As the policy is intended to reflect the accord, the legislation would ideally use the same language, so we have tabled amendments to ensure that that is the case throughout the relevant provisions and have retabled the percentage cap with the same wording. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pressing that point last week.

Let me be clear that the House today is being asked to consider a reserve power that is highly constrained and narrowly focused on solving a very specific problem. It is capped at the accord targets and provides for absolute neutrality among private asset classes. The Government cannot direct investments. The power explicitly applies only to main default funds, more explicitly matching the language used in the accord. The power’s timeline also matches tightly that of the accord. It can be used only once and lapses entirely in 2035 if not used; even if used, which is unlikely, the entire regime is repealed at the end of 2035. On top of all that, it remains subject to the savers’ interest test, the affirmative procedure and the statutory reporting requirements, both before and after any regulations are made.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

This is an extraordinary hill for the Minister to choose to die on. Mandation was never put to voters, it never had the backing of industry, and it should not be forced through Parliament now. I urge the Minister to think again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I will now announce the result of today’s deferred Division on the draft Energy Prices Act 2022 (Extension of Time Limit) Regulations 2026. The Ayes were 380 and the Noes were seven, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Liam Byrne]

I rise to say a couple of things in support of the Minister, who not only has done a heroic job in laying out the intellectual architecture for the legislation before he got to the House, but is so expertly steering it through the House. I wish him all the very best this afternoon in finishing the job.

I want to make three points. First, the measures that the Minister has set out are essential if we are to pursue the long-term interests of pension savers in this country. It is in their fundamental interests that they live and retire in an economy that is growing faster in the years to come. The only way in which we can collectively achieve that is by raising the investment rate in this country. For a long time, our investment rate was the lowest in the G7; it is improving and is now the second-lowest in the G7. It is for exactly that purpose that hon. Members on both sides of the House made the argument that we need to repatriate investment saving.

The fact is, we have got to resolve the paradox that, on the one hand, we have £3 trillion-worth of pension savings and, on the other hand, while we have some of the world’s best life science, best universities and best entrepreneurs, we do not have the investment institutions and systems that connect long-term savings to that brilliant tradition of entrepreneurial genius. Unless we fix that long-standing paradox, this country will not grow faster. That is not a Labour analysis; it is an analysis that was first advanced by the former Conservative Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt).

If we manage to get that right, the investment rate in the country will go up and the economy will grow faster in the years to come. Therefore, there is not a cost to the savings of Britain’s pension savers—it will actually be to their advantage.

--- Later in debate ---

My last point, as I mentioned in my intervention, is that I was heartened to hear the Minister’s commitment at the Dispatch Box that we will proceed with reform of that clarification of fiduciary duties. Too many pension fund trustees today lack the legal certainty that they can make strategic, long-term investments that are in the best interests of their pension savers and will create a higher return on investment in this country by investing in things such as net zero infrastructure and other virtuous investments that are good for the long-term growth of the economy. It is disappointing that Lib Dem peers and others voted against the provision in the other place and prevented the Government from bringing in the necessary amendments. However, I am reassured by the Minister’s commitment that he will seek a further legislative opportunity at the earliest point in the next Session. With that, I add my support to the Minister’s ambitions.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats broadly support the proposals before us in the Bill as a whole. I know from conversations with residents in Torbay that there are some challenges within the pensions market, and the Bill as a whole addresses an awful lot of them. However, I suggest that the Minister has been studying his Greek history, assumed the position of Odysseus and developed a Trojan horse, which he has sneaked into the Bill. The Trojan horse is, of course, mandation.

While the Minister may have cut off a couple of the Trojan horse’s legs, it remains a Trojan horse before us. Clearly, as Liberal Democrats, we welcome that as a step in the right direction, but the Government should be shaping the market appropriately through policy so that there is a pipeline of opportunities for investments—that goes across to the Mansion House accord—so that the market has those opportunities and can invest in them appropriately.

There is an element that we need to touch on. Since 2008, there has been risk aversion in the market, which stifles profits; we need to be alive to that. Risk is a good thing when investing, but investments should be sensible and with appropriate spreads. The Bill does elements of that, but I fear that some of the monitoring could stifle risk and therefore stifle returns.

The Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure opportunities. The Government should be ensuring that there are baskets of opportunities to invest in things that matter to our communities, whether regenerating our town centres or social rented housing. We know that people such as Legal & General lead the market in those investments; we need to think about how we can enhance those opportunities. We must also ensure that we are investing in net zero, which is close to the heart of several parties. Again, the Government should be shaping the market in that way rather than dictating. While the Minister alludes to this as a one-shot opportunity, other colleagues are fearful that mandation is the thin end of the wedge.

Finally, I would like to reflect on the changes that the Minister has proposed. We welcome the changes allowing greater innovation and greater development of the market, which are significant steps in the right direction. However, as Liberal Democrats we are not prepared to see the dead hand of Government directing here. We continue to oppose mandation in whatever form it may take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The last Division we voted on was on a motion proposed by the Government that grouped a series of amendments with which we agreed, alongside amendments on mandation, with which we had strong disagreements. What steps can be taken to bring about a separate Division on the mandation clauses, with which we disagree?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. The content of the motions is a matter for the Government. I can reassure her that they would not have appeared on the Order Paper unless they were in order. Those on the Government Front Bench have heard what she has said. If she would like any further advice on procedure, I recommend that she contact the Public Bill Office.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank you for granting my point of order and apologise for not giving you due notice of it. Given the events of recent days and some of the debates that have been called, when can we get an update from the Intelligence and Security Committee on the work it is undertaking and on its findings regarding the Mandelson papers?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. That is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the Committee.

Pension Schemes Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform the House that Lords amendments 68 to 76, 78, 80, 84 and 86 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 2

Asset management

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

Lords amendments 5, 6, 13, 15 to 24, 26, 27, 30 to 43, 77 to 79, 83, 85 to 88, and Government motions to disagree.

Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88.

Lords amendments 2 to 4, 7 to 12, 14, 25, 28, 29, 44 to 76, 80 to 82, 84 and 89.

[Torsten Bell]

Let me start by thanking Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of the Bill before us today. I thank Members of the other place for their amendments, which we are considering today; in particular, I thank Baroness Sherlock and Lord Katz for their steering of the Bill in recent months.

This is a complex Bill, but it is one with a simple goal: higher returns for pension savers. As I noted on Second Reading, this is a particular responsibility of this House, because it is legislative action, in the form of auto-enrolment, that has got Britain back into the habit of workplace pension savings. We must ensure that those savings deliver, overcoming the challenges of a system that is too fragmented and where there is insufficient focus on how hard people’s savings work to support them in retirement.

A complex Bill means something else: amendments. As is normal, the Government brought forward changes in the other place that we today ask this House to endorse. The vast majority of them are technical, ensuring that the legislation works as intended. Of the more substantive changes, I will highlight three.

First, the Government tabled amendments in the other place that will help to ensure that superfunds will not be forced to wind up when they still provide a high level of security to their members. Secondly, on the Atomic Weapons Establishment pension scheme, we are reflecting the reality that since 2021, AWE has been wholly owned by the Ministry of Defence. Its closely defined benefit pension scheme is backed by a Crown guarantee. These Government amendments therefore move it on to the same basis as other central Government pension schemes; the accrued rights of members are of course fully protected. Finally, on the value for money measures, the Government amendments provide for provisions to be commenced via regulations, to allow decisions about the introduction of elements of the VFM framework to reflect detailed design work and consultation.

Peers in the other place have, as always, provided useful scrutiny of the Bill, so let me turn to doing justice to their amendments. First, there are the Lords amendments to the local government pension scheme. Lords amendment 1 understandably tries to introduce an explicit prohibition on regulations about investment in specific assets or asset classes, or about the location of investments. That is duplicative, because a 2020 Supreme Court ruling effectively means that LGPS regulations cannot provide such direction without a specific basis from Parliament, and there are no new provisions in the Bill that would allow it to be provided.

Lords amendments 5 and 6 relate to worries about excessive prudence in the valuations of the local government pension scheme. I recognise the intent behind these Lords amendments, given the importance of those valuations for decisions about contribution levels, and I can offer hon. Members some reassurance on that front. The 2025 valuations look set to see the average employer contribution rate in England and Wales reduce by slightly less than 5% on average, which is a substantial reduction. Lords amendment 5 would introduce specific benchmarks for the next valuation in 2028, but the right way to learn lessons from this valuation is via the statutory review by the Government Actuary’s Department, which will begin shortly.

Lords amendment 6 focuses not on the LGPS valuations themselves, but on facilitating employers seeking interim reviews between valuations. I have heard calls for that from several Members over the last few months. However, the Government have already committed to consulting on regulations governing interim contribution reviews, reflecting the requirement in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 to consult on changes to regulations—something that this Lords amendment would breach.

Let me turn to small pots. I am pleased to see that there remains a strong consensus on the need to act here, given the costs to individuals and to the pension system as a whole of the proliferation of small pots. This is an area where work begun under the Conservatives. Lords amendment 13 probes the case for extending the dormancy period for automatic consolidation from 12 months to 36 months. I recognise the intent, but that would be a mistake. It would significantly prolong the period during which a pot remains both small and dormant, with members facing multiple sets of charges and the wider scheme membership continuing to subsidise scheme losses on such pots, which might total around £50 million per year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

If I have understood the hon. Member’s question, we are ruling out the ability for the power to be used for any purpose other than for the broad private asset class. That would include questions of specific asset classes, but it would also include questions of geography. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is looking for.

It is also in the interests of savers to tackle the UK’s fragmented pensions landscape. Scale matters: it reduces costs, opens up a wider range of investment strategies and enables more active asset ownership. Those arguments, I think, have cross-party consensus, and they lie behind the measures in the Bill to require pension schemes to operate at scale in the years ahead. Unfortunately, that policy objective, motivated by a desire to ensure that savers get the best returns, would be undermined by Lords amendments 26 and 37, which seek to create more exemptions from the scale requirements for small schemes. They would do so in a way that would create ongoing uncertainty for years as schemes, regulators and likely courts debate whether or not the conditions for such exemptions have been met, a process that itself would impose significant costs on savers. Both regulators have expressed their concern that, as a result, these amendments would be inoperable.

I do, however, recognise the case that has been made, in this House and in the other place, for the importance of both competition and innovation in the market. That is what lies behind the pragmatic approach we have taken to achieving scale: not only have we set a pragmatic £25 billion starting point, but smaller schemes will be given time to reach that point, with the transition pathway lasting until 2035. The new entrant pathway will also provide a route for truly new and innovative disruptors to enter the market. This supports the policy intent of Lords amendments 35 and 43, which require the Secretary of State to have regard to innovation and competition when making regulations that support scale. Those amendments are, however, largely duplicative, given that the Bill already sets out that regulations made under the clauses in chapter 4 must take into account the conclusions of the review of non-scale default arrangements, and that review will consider innovation and competition.

Turning from private to public pension schemes, Lords amendments 77 and 85 seek a review of the long-term affordability of public service pension schemes, a matter that I am sure many Members are interested in. The content of the proposed review, however, overlaps almost entirely with existing mechanisms through which public service pension details are reported, not least the Office for Budget Responsibility and its reports and the whole of Government accounts. Reflecting major reforms over recent years, those mechanisms provide important reassurance that the cost of public sector pensions as a share of GDP is set to fall significantly in the years ahead.

Lords amendments 78 and 86 deal with the Pension Protection Fund and the potential for that fund to discharge its existing liabilities to members through a lump sum payment. I understand the sentiments of those in the other place who brought forward those amendments, in recognition of the absence of pre-1997 increases in PPF compensation, but the amendments would not achieve their intended objective of changing the level of compensation to which members are entitled. Instead, the Government are acting to improve the PPF safety net, with the Bill providing for prospective pre-1997 indexation of compensation for members whose former schemes provided for those increases.

Turning back to today’s savers, we all want to see more engagement with pension savings. I am an optimist on this front: as DC pots grow, so will engagement with those savings. Lords amendment 79 seeks to support that engagement from the perspective of providers, instigating a review of marketing and member communication rules, but instead of another review, the Government favour acting to make it easier for pension schemes to give high-quality support to their members. That is the purpose of the new targeted support regime, allowing schemes—for example—to suggest appropriate contribution and drawdown rates. In developing that policy, we have considered the interaction with the direct marketing rules contained in the privacy and electronic communications regulations. As a result, the Government have committed to take forward secondary legislation to amend those regulations, and we will also return to this issue as we develop default pension regulations through consultation later this year.

I close by thanking peers for their scrutiny of the Bill, and for the discussions I have had with many of them about it. I have endeavoured to do justice to the amendments retuned to us, and particularly to the motivations behind them. In aggregate, despite the divisions that the Lobbies of the House and of the other place exist to facilitate, we all want to see a flourishing pensions system that delivers for savers. This Bill will play a major part in making that happen, supporting a landscape of bigger, better pension schemes that are focused on the returns they deliver for members and, ultimately, the comfortable and hopefully long retirements that we all want our constituents to enjoy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.

Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.

National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I inform the House that Lords amendments 1 to 12 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If any of these Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.

Clause 1

Employer pensions contributions pursuant to optional remuneration arrangements: Great Britain

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 2 to 12, and Government motions to disagree.

[Torsten Bell]

I welcome the opportunity to consider the Lords amendments to the Bill. I thank Members of both Houses for their careful scrutiny of it, and I particularly thank the Financial Secretary, Lord Livermore, for leading the Bill so expertly through the other place. Before addressing the amendments directly and explaining the Government’s decision not to support them—I know that will be shocking—I turn briefly to the need for these reforms.

As the Chancellor set out at the Budget, we are taking action to make the tax system fairer and fit for the 21st century. That requires us to keep the effectiveness and value for money of the £500 billion of tax reliefs under review, and it is especially important to do so when costs are expected to increase significantly. The cost of national insurance contributions relief on salary sacrifice into pension schemes was due to almost treble, from £2.8 billion in 2017 to £8 billion by 2031, without reform, which would be equivalent to the cost of the Royal Air Force. This is not only an expensive tax relief, but one with a very uneven impact. The majority of employers do not offer salary sacrifice at all. The vast majority of salary sacrifice contributions are made by higher and additional-rate taxpayers. Salary sacrifice is unavailable entirely to those earning at or near the national living wage, or to the UK’s 4.4 million self-employed workers, and we know that both groups are more likely to be under-saving for retirement.

On this basis, the status quo is indefensible. Change was inevitable, but we have chosen to take a pragmatic approach, with no change until 2029, and a £2,000 cap to allow pension contributions via salary sacrifice to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I would also like to start by thanking the Lords for their very hard work. I do not think the Government won a single vote during the Bill’s passage in the other place.

Over the past few months, we have seen how enthusiastic the Government are to raid savings. In particular, they are very keen to raid pension pots. Whether by taking powers to mandate private pension funds to invest in Government white elephants or through the Bill we are debating tonight, the Government have established beyond any doubt that they have no interest whatsoever in savers and strivers.

Pensions are important. They provide for security in retirement. The pact that has been established between the state and the pension saver, which goes back to the 1920s, is all about not just helping savers but taking the strain off the state: encourage saving now and there will not be a burden on the state of an impoverished pension in the future. Under the previous Government, we saw the roll-out of auto-enrolment, bringing 10 million people into the savings culture, and we introduced the triple lock to reverse the decline in the value of the state pension under the previous Labour Government.

Despite those positive steps, we recognise that people are still not saving enough for their retirement. As the Government’s own analysis shows, 50% of savers are projected to miss their retirement income targets set by the 2005 Pensions Commission, so we need to do better. I know there is cross-party consensus on that point, if nothing else, so let us be honest: the changes to salary sacrifice arrangements will do the complete opposite. As the Association of British Insurers and Pensions UK have outlined, we should be improving our current offering and providing new opportunities. Instead, the Government are making the situation worse in a desperate attempt to balance the Government’s books, conveniently in three years’ time. Frankly, it makes little sense and that is why we oppose this legislation.

The point of salary sacrifice arrangements is that they incentivise certain behaviours. That is why people are allowed to use these schemes to put money towards not just pensions but workplace nurseries, childcare vouchers and cycle-to-work schemes. Those are all good things. However, in this case the Government have singled out pensions and are attacking one of the most important things that people should be saving towards—their pensions. This is hard-earned taxpayers’ money that could be going towards a good thing. Instead, the Bill will remove an avenue that 7.7 million employees are currently using. The Bill will add even more cost to the 290,000 businesses and charities that use it. It will pile more cost on to students already saddled with student loans. It will harm pensions adequacy and force more people to rely on the state, pushing more costs on to the next generation. I am proud that my colleagues in the Lords, as well as Liberal Democrat and Cross-Bench peers, understand those concerns. The Opposition remain opposed to the Bill, but the amendments do go some way to address those issues and support the stated objectives of this policy, even though we disagree with the fundamental policy.

Lords amendments 1 and 7 would make basic rate taxpayers exempt from this policy. That would protect a group who typically under-save and allow them to continue to put savings into their pensions. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) may be interested in listening to this, because he raised a very important point about lower rate taxpayers. The amendments are identical to the amendment we tabled in the Commons and that Labour MPs decided to vote down. As the Government’s own impact assessment clearly states, they are trying to target higher earners or those making larger contributions. While that might be the stated purpose and the political justification, in reality that is not the case for two reasons.

First, the cap will still affect 858,000 basic rate taxpayers, according to the Society of Pension Professionals. In fact, reporting from the Financial Times has highlighted how the Bill will disproportionately affect those people, compared to those on a higher rate of tax. Those on the basic rate of tax pay 8% national insurance contributions, while those on the higher rate of tax pay 2% NICs. That means that on national insurance contributions alone, lower earners are being hit four times as hard by this policy—four times. On Second Reading, I asked the Minister how that could be fair. He did not answer my question then, but I hope he will be able to answer it when he winds up. Maybe he can tell us how the policy is fair for those hard-working people, or whether they are just casualties of rushed policymaking.

Secondly, a behavioural outcome may be that employers will remove salary sacrifice as an option for all their employees. We already recognise that salary sacrifice is mutually beneficial for employees and employers. It is also more attractive to both sides, as it is simple to understand. By enforcing the cap, it will change not only the viability of salary sacrifice arrangements, but employers’ perception of them.This may result in many employers removing them as an option altogether, meaning that 4.4 million people who are supposedly protected may be affected. If this Government were really serious about their policy objective, they would exempt basic rate taxpayers altogether. These amendments give them the chance to do just that and to back hard-working people.

--- Later in debate ---

The amendments the Lords have sent us are not about making the policy unworkable, but about making it practical. Voting for these amendments will allow Labour MPs to back their rhetoric with their actions, to back their constituents and to say, “I back hard-working people. I back small businesses. I back local charities. I back graduates. I back people who save responsibly.” By voting against these amendments, Labour MPs will send a different message to their constituents: “If you work hard to make a decent income, we will tax you more. If you work hard to grow your business, we will tax you more. If you save towards dignity in retirement, we will tax you more.” There is a clear choice tonight, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that Labour MPs will make the right one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

Student Loans

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I am now imposing an immediate four-minute time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex McIntyre]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about how, when the Opposition say they are going to cut funding for certain courses, they really mean that those courses will be available for wealthier students who can afford to pay for them without a Government subsidy. Does he agree that that will lead to a decrease in students from working-class backgrounds being able to access arts degrees?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Members are being very generous with their time, but I remind them that I will be starting the Front-Bench speeches at about 6.40 pm, and we still have four more Back Benchers left to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

What I say is that students, like everybody else, benefit from an improved NHS and from a range of interventions that this Government are making, but we cannot change everything overnight.

The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) commented that young people not in employment has rocketed under this Government, which is an interesting take given that the number of NEETs is 14,000 lower now than it was at this point last year, but it increased by 250,000 in the Conservatives’ final few years in office.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). I simply reiterate the comments made in the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) about the rubbishing of the Conservatives’ proposal already done by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

The hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) mentioned youth unemployment figures, and I absolutely agree that these are a concern. We are not complacent on this issue, so he will welcome the youth guarantee, the jobs guarantee, the increase to apprenticeship funding, the shift to more apprenticeships for young people, the revised target of two thirds of young people either in an apprenticeship or at university, and the update to our approach to encourage technical learning while earning. He will also be pleased to know that, unlike him, I do have a history degree, so I have no problem looking at the Conservatives’ record of the past 10 years. I absolutely appreciate that they do not want to be held to account for the mess they left, but sadly they devastated this system, and it falls to us to resolve the problems they left.

We then heard from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who said that all forms of education have intrinsic value, which leaves me somewhat confused given the Conservatives have made a compelling argument today for scrapping a number of degree courses and they ran down the number of apprenticeships available to young people.

I want to briefly come to the contribution of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), because he is always considered in this area and, indeed, I consider him an expert on this subject. I cannot pretend to be familiar with the Brown and Cable plans, but it is important to pick up a point he made around the vast majority of apprenticeships being taken by people over 25. I believe that that is a problem in the system. That is why we are creating foundation apprenticeships and that is why—[Interruption.] I am not suggesting—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I want to hear what the Minister has to say.

[Andrew Western]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I did not attribute a time period to the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am simply stating that it is a fixed intention of this Government to seek to address that and to ensure that more young people under the age of 25 can access apprenticeships.

Yet again in these Opposition day debates, we see a Conservative party that continues to run away from its record and that brings forward overnight solutions that, in this case, have already been discredited. It is not fit to govern and would never solve this problem for young people.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

Youth Unemployment

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

This package can make a big contribution towards that. As I have said, there are 50,000 vacancies in manufacturing in the UK today. That is partly because of the difficulty that people have in finding skilled workers. With today’s extra help for apprenticeships for young people, we can begin to change that. That is why it is such an important part of this package.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Chris Bloore for the final question.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I am always happy to be last on an announcement such as this. The businesses and young people in my constituency strongly welcome what the Secretary of State has announced today. As I listened to those on the Opposition Front Bench, I was reminded of the statement by Senator Moynihan of New York:

“you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts”.

Sadly, the Opposition have failed to mention that for over a decade, the UK has fallen behind other OECD countries when it comes to reducing the number of young people not in education, employment or training. That is because of structural failings in both education and public health, which the previous Government did nothing to solve. How can young people and businesses in my constituency of Redditch take part in this scheme, which will finally start addressing the tragedy of NEETs in our constituencies?

Oral Answers to Questions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

When this Government came into office, unemployment stood at 4.2%. After a brutal 18 months of job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth policies, it now stands at 5.2%, with young people bearing the brunt—1 million of them are not in employment, education or training. We Conservatives believe in being in work and off welfare, and that is the best path to eradicating poverty. Will the Secretary of State break with the mistakes of all previous Labour Governments and commit that unemployment will be lower at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start?

[Pat McFadden]

I believe this may be the first time that the hon. Member has appeared at the Dispatch Box in his capacity as shadow Minister—if I am wrong about that, I am sorry; but if I am right, I welcome him to his position. He asks about the forecast for the future. It was published alongside the spring statement a couple of weeks ago, and in it the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast employment to rise in every year of the forecast period.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Politics is all about choices. Last week, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box with a choice: she could have chosen to reverse the jobs tax that is costing thousands of jobs for young people up and down the United Kingdom. Why she did she not make that choice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman may be unaware that the proportion of foreign nationals claiming universal credit who are in work is one third higher than the proportion for people who are British or Irish claiming—[Interruption.] If he prefers to put the figures into the context that he has just suggested from a sedentary position, the figure is 10% lower in terms of people who are not in work. It is often difficult to extrapolate a specific number because universal credit figures, such as these, are calculated on a per household basis rather than on an individual basis. If I am able to provide the specific number, I will follow up with him in writing.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The working-age benefits bill is set to reach £171 billion by the end of this Parliament, yet the Government are doing nothing to get it under control. In fact, by scrapping the two-child cap, they have added another £3 billion. It is time to stop spending and get saving. The Conservatives would stop benefits for foreign nationals and save £7 billion a year. Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. With war in Ukraine and now in the middle east, we must boost our national security, so why are the Government continuing to bankroll benefits for migrants rather than investing in defence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

We have a lot of dialogue with businesses about the nature of the growth and skills levy and how it is used. I have to say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that we are making a choice to prioritise young people. It is precisely because the previous Government did not prioritise young people that we saw a 40% decline in apprenticeship starts. I do not think that is an argument for the status quo; it is an argument for change. That is the slogan upon which we were elected, and it is change to the system that we will bring.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

When the Secretary of State and I last met like this, he lauded the roll-out of youth hubs and the introduction of the youth guarantee as the solution to tackling the scale of young people not in education, employment or training. Since then, however, apprenticeship figures have been updated. The latest figures show that apprenticeship vacancies and adverts have significantly decreased since the Labour Government took office. If we compare the latest figures from this academic year with the same period in 2024-25, apprenticeship adverts have fallen by 27% and the number of vacancies has fallen by 22%. How can the Secretary of State make the promise of a youth guarantee with this alarming reduction in the number of available apprenticeships?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question—and for the shocking news of his age. He is absolutely right to highlight both these issues. Pensioner poverty halved under the last Labour Government, but it has risen more recently. That is why it is so important that, as well as increasing the state pension, we have put in place the biggest-ever take-up campaign for pension credit and focused on the cost of essentials—most importantly, energy, where new measures will come into place in the next few weeks.

My hon. Friend is also right to focus not just on poverty, but on isolation. I am sure that all Members of the House, when we are out knocking on doors at the weekend, meet some younger, but also some older, constituents who are too isolated. They might not be happy to see the Member who comes to knock on their door, but they might be. Whatever people think about politicians knocking on their doors, we all have organisations and charities in our constituencies—such as Age Cymru in Wales and, I am sure, many in my hon. Friend’s constituency—that do important work in tackling isolation among all our communities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I declare a similar interest to that of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). I read this weekend that if we grapple with the increase in pensions and benefits, we might be able to afford 15 new frigates. It is easy for Opposition Members to attack in-work benefits; it is more difficult to question the state pension. Has the Minister seen the paper from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says we should consider moving to a smoothed earnings link for state pensions, which would ensure that they never fall in real terms but, in the long term, always rise with earnings? He will not give me an answer now, but perhaps he can write to me about how we are going to buttress the long-term sustainability of the state pension.

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member is right to recognise the challenge. We have around 12 million pensioners at the moment, but that will rise to 18 million over the next 50 years. Our view is that having the triple lock drive above-inflation increases, on average, among pensioners is the right thing to do for this Parliament. That is why we set it out in our manifesto, and that is what is driving the increases in the state pension. When it comes to affording the cost of frigates, I merely point him to the fact that defence spending under this Government is higher in every year than it was in a single year under the Conservative party.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Helping millions of people ensure financial security in their retirement is a cornerstone of the Minister’s Department, but in the Government’s first 18 months, they have disincentivised pension savings by introducing inheritance tax on pensions, removing pensions from their lifetime ISA reforms, forcing pension trustees into mandation and, most recently, introducing a cap on salary sacrifice savings incentives. Through their actions, this Government are pushing people to be more reliant on the state pension, rather than encouraging people to take control of their own financial future. Which will be the next Government U-turn: cancelling mandation, or abandoning salary sacrifice caps?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Dame Diana Johnson)]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. This is why we need to ensure that jobcentres have really good engagement with local employers, including manufacturers. She will be pleased to know that there will be an employer roundtable at the Manufacturing Centre in West Bromwich on 17 March, with Sandwell college and manufacturing employers. There will also be an employer breakfast on 29 April, again at Sandwell college, about jobcentres and what they can offer, particularly around SWAPS—sector-based work academy programmes—and manufacturing SWAPS, which are so important.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are no doubt familiar with the dramatic principle of Chekhov’s gun: if there is a gun on the wall in the first act, it will be fired by the final scene. Ministers say that the mandation power in the Pension Schemes Bill is merely a backstop that they do not intend to use, but once they have a power in law like a gun on the wall, how long will that intention last? Will the Secretary of State make a commitment to the House that the mandation gun will never be fired at the expense of UK pension savers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Lady is going to be absolutely furious when she finds out what those on the Opposition Front Bench did when the Pensions Schemes Bill came through this House. There is all this sound and fury now, but, when it came to choosing whether to vote against the very power she now says is incredibly dangerous, she went for a snooze on both Second and Third Reading. She is going to be even angrier when she finds out what her right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) have called for, which is the mandation of pensions schemes in the UK to invest—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I remind Members and Ministers that this is topical questions—we should have short questions and short answers.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

T8. I was pleased to see that the schools White Paper outlines significant reforms to support children with special educational needs and disabilities. Will the Minister outline how the Department is working with colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure that efforts to tackle the NEETS crisis—those not in education, employment or training—including the new apprenticeships and youth guarantees, will be inclusive and accessible to young people with SEND, ensuring that they have the opportunity to progress into fulfilling careers?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

With the Minister for Skills now working jointly across the DFE and DWP, we have very clear collaboration. We have already launched eight youth guarantee trailblazers, which are testing innovative approaches to localised support for young people who are NEET or at risk of becoming NEET, including targeted SEND support. We also have the Milburn review into young people and work and how better to support them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Last week, Citizens Advice shared a report into Access to Work which confirmed many things that we know from our own postbags relating to disturbing delays in the system on both processing applications and reimbursement. Will the Minister share with us what recovery plan he has in place and when the Government will get up to a 28-day turnaround for these important issues?

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

I beg to move,

That the Charter for Budget Responsibility: Autumn 2025, which was laid before this House on 23 February, be approved.

The motion relates to the UK’s fiscal framework. It is a framework that matters: it guides fiscal policy and provides both transparency and accountability. Since coming into office, this Government have reformed the fiscal framework and, more broadly, set the public finances on a sustainable footing. At the autumn Budget, that included doubling the buffer against our fiscal rules, providing more certainty and stability for taxpayers and businesses. This is a core part of a wider economic strategy that includes Budget measures to reduce inflation, pushing down on the cost of living. All this helps to push down on interest rates and give businesses the confidence to invest. This is the right plan, and things are moving in the right direction. Just last week, we learned that January saw a £30.4 billion public finance surplus, the highest monthly surplus on record.

This is all supported by our reforms to the fiscal framework. We have reset the fiscal rules to reprioritise public investment and introduced a fiscal lock to ensure that Governments cannot sideline the Office for Budget Responsibility, as we sadly saw in the last Parliament. We are also committed to delivering one fiscal event a year, delivering on our manifesto and bringing the UK in line with the vast majority of advanced economies. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced plans to strengthen that commitment. We are doing so by drawing on recommendations from the International Monetary Fund’s article IV report last summer. The IMF made the case that fiscal policy stability would be aided by ensuring that the fiscal rules would only be assessed once a year. We agree, so this Government are legislating to ensure that this is the case.

To deliver this change, we are updating the two core parts of the fiscal framework. First, we are updating the primary legislation, the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, via the Finance (No. 2) Bill. Clause 251 of that Bill provides for one fiscal rules assessment per financial year. We are also updating the secondary legislation, the charter for Budget responsibility, which is the subject of today’s debate. The updated charter reinforces the change in the Finance (No. 2) Bill. It makes no changes to the fiscal rules, but ensures that those rules should only be assessed once per financial year. Specifically, it removes the requirement in chapter 4 of the charter for the OBR to conduct a fiscal rules assessment alongside any forecast. This will ensure that we can reduce the number of fiscal rules assessments per year without any reduction in fiscal transparency.

This Government are absolutely committed to the OBR’s independence, and to its vital role in providing regular assessments of the economy and the public finances. The OBR will continue to publish a second five-year forecast in the spring, which will aid transparency and inform the Debt Management Office’s financing remit, but the Government will not normally respond with fiscal policy. I look forward to seeing a few more Members of this House at the next of these forecasts, the spring forecast, a week today. I recommend that this House approves the updated charter, and I commend the motion to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I think his issue with the Barnett consequentials is one for the Minister to reply to, but the Conservative and Unionist party, as he knows, has very strong support for and kinship with our citizens in Northern Ireland. On his comment about the revenues that the Government received in January, I would just point out that that in large part was due to self-assessment returns and capital gains returns filed in that year. When we tease through the data, we will see that a lot of that came from people making economic decisions that, in the long run, were not in their interest, because of the uncertainty brought into the economy by the Chancellor, who has confused people for an entire year.

To illustrate the chaos of the last year, let me remind the House what the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), said in the equivalent debate on the charter last year:

“Growth is the primary mission of this Government.”—[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 344.]

But since then, comparing the OBR forecast from 2024 and 2025, growth is down in each year of the forecast period. In 2026, it is down to 1.3% from 1.8%. It is down in 2027, 2028 and 2029.

The then Chief Secretary also said that the autumn 2024 Budget

“put the public finances back on track, and we will keep them there.” —[Official Report, 29 January 2025; Vol. 761, c. 345.]

But since that statement the Chancellor has brought forward proposals to cut £5 billion from welfare. Then she reversed them. She said that she would stick to the two-child benefit cap, but then she caved in to Labour Back Benchers. The Chancellor has been forced to U-turn on her removal of winter fuel payments to pensioners. She has U-turned on her plans to tax our pubs out of existence, and she has U-turned on her damaging plans on the family farm tax and family business tax. After having said that she would not be coming back for more taxes, she did indeed come back to whack the British people again with tax increases amounting to over £26 billion.

When this Government came into office, the forecast was that they would need to borrow £77 billion this fiscal year. But under this Chancellor, that level of borrowing has ballooned to £112 billion so far and is forecast to reach £138 billion by the end of the year. According to the OBR in November 2025, public sector net debt will continue to rise over the forecast period, despite Labour raising taxes to record levels, and debt will rise from 93.6% of GDP to 97% by the time of the next general election in 2028-29—if the Government last that long.

Given the wreckage that they have caused in the general economy, Labour’s spin doctors have started to claim that the Government have the fastest deficit reduction plan in the G7. But that is only because this Government have spent so recklessly in their first years. Achieving this remarkable reduction rests on the credibility of the Government’s plans to raise taxes ahead of a general election and on their ability to rein in public spending in the out years—plans which, surely, their skittish Back Benchers will stymie, if the Government last that long.

There are two changes in this revised charter that I would like to note. The first is the decision to change the definition of the current Budget being “in balance”. Paragraph 3.6 of the previous charter said that

“balance is defined as a range: in surplus, or in deficit of no more than 0.5% GDP.”

The current charter does not include that condition. Can the Minister tell us why the decision has been made to remove that flexibility? I would also be interested in what he thinks of the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ recent report, which stated:

“The UK’s fiscal framework is based around a set of pass-fail, numerical fiscal rules. The fiscal debate is overly fixated on the amount of ‘headroom’ the government has against the most binding of those rules. The system incentivises the government to operate with the smallest amount of ‘headroom’ possible, with policy often fine-tuned according to the central point estimate of a highly uncertain forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility.”

The IFS report recommended that

“the UK would be better served by a new framework based around a set of ‘fiscal traffic lights’”.

The Government appear to have gone in the opposite direction to the recommendations by stressing the importance of pinpoint accuracy, and I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that.

I turn to the most significant change: the removal of what was paragraph 4.27 in the previous charter, which said:

“At the same time as the forecasts, the OBR will produce its assessment of the extent to which fiscal policy has delivered, or is likely to deliver, the fiscal mandate.”

The Government have, at a stroke, removed the opportunity for an independent assessment by the OBR ahead of the Government’s spring statement, yet last year the OBR significantly revised many of its previous assessments ahead of the spring statement. The OBR wrote that it was expecting GDP growth of 1%—half the rate of the October forecast—and that

“CPI inflation is forecast to rise from 2.5 per cent in 2024 to 3.2 per cent in 2025, 0.6 percentage points higher than forecast in October.”

[Interruption.] I have not been called “kiddo” for a while. I hope the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), understands that this is an important point to make. It may have taken me some time to get there, but this is an important point.

The issue here is: why make this change now? The Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011 is clear that the OBR must prepare fiscal and economic forecasts and assessments at least twice a year. Clause 251 of the Finance (No. 2) Bill retains the requirement for the OBR to prepare forecasts twice a year, but it seeks to remove the requirement in the 2011 Act for the OBR to provide its assessment twice a year. Perhaps the Minister—the wannabe Chancellor—can confirm that the reason we are today debating a revised charter, which now excludes an OBR forecast just ahead of the spring statement, is specifically to preclude the OBR from doing its own assessment on the imminent spring statement.

We support tonight’s measure, but not with any confidence in this Government’s handling of the economy. In lacking that confidence, we are not alone. According to the latest Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales survey, business confidence fell again in the last quarter of 2025, with record concerns about the tax burden on business. In its December 2025 survey, YouGov found that 80% of the British people thought the Government were handling the economy badly. It is a sorry, sorry state for our great country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and I understand what he says, but it is also important to consider exactly what is at issue here. Many people are unhappy with the rise in the state pension age and the decision to equalise it, and this decision does not deal with that. The decision deals with the specific issue of how it was communicated over a specific period of time. It is really important to separate those two things. I believe that, on that ground, we have considered it very carefully—not just once but twice—and given it due and proper process. It is right to apologise for the maladministration, but I believe the decision we have taken on remedy and compensation is the correct one.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I met the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, and we reflected on his being a fan of Celtic and Bruce Springsteen, but I was not aware that he is also a member of the Magic Circle. He is clearly trying to set up a number of illusions by saying that this is to do with particular issues and comments, but it is actually about whether these women were communicated with adequately.

I reflect on what other colleagues have said, and it is about injustice. Being elected as an MP—though, as a Liberal Democrat, I was somewhat disappointed not to be a member of the Government—is about seeking out and tackling injustice, yet the Secretary of State is putting this in the “too hard to do” file. The more than 3.6 million WASPI women across the UK will feel this as if it were a punch in the stomach. They will feel utterly betrayed, because false hope was given to them in the autumn. That hope has been dashed.

I thank the more than 100 MPs from across the United Kingdom who supported the letter I co-ordinated calling for justice for WASPI women, but sadly it fell on stony ground. What engagement did the Secretary of State have with the ombudsman before coming to his final conclusions, and will he please explain further why he has chosen to ignore the ombudsman’s recommendation to give justice to WASPI women and pay compensation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The timing of statements is a matter for the Government. However, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard his point of order. There is also the avenue open to him of applying for a Backbench Business debate.

Youth Unemployment

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Another campaign I have been articulating is on financial education. That is also key to unlocking opportunity for many of our young people.

Only us Conservatives believe in young people. We are on the side of hard-pressed taxpayers, we are on the side of small businesses, and now more than ever we are on the side of young people. I am a Conservative because I believe that economic freedom comes through hard work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Budget Resolutions

Judith Cummins Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

I have already set out the fact that this Government’s ruinous taxation policy, including in the Budget yesterday, is to load up taxes on people who are in work, many of them not high earners. The impact of that tax is the reason why the OBR has concluded that for every year of this forecast, real household disposable income—in other words, the cost of living issues people are facing—will deteriorate compared with the forecast back in spring. The Labour party is making poverty worse by making sure that work does not pay to the degree that it should.

The other point to make is about inflation. If the Government run a policy of borrowing vast amounts of money and spending half a trillion pounds over and above the plans that they inherited across this Parliament— that was added to by more than £100 billion just yesterday—we should not be surprised if inflation is the highest in the G7, or if the International Monetary Fund says that it will be the highest in the G7 next year. What does high inflation, particularly on food, do to poverty? It drives poverty up, and therein lie the answers that the Government need to think about.

There is an alternative, which is to get on top of and control Government spending and to do the responsible thing. Our golden rules is that at least half of those savings should go towards driving down the deficit and the debt, but we would then have capacity to drive down taxes as well. That is exactly what we set out at our conference: £49 billion of savings, and £23 billion of savings on welfare. Thanks to the solid commendable work of my hon. Friend the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, we have found those savings, and it is a tragedy that the Government—[Interruption.] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury says, “What are the savings?” The savings are £23 billion on welfare—[Interruption.] It is a number. As a member of the Treasury team, he should be familiar with numbers, but clearly he is not.

We will be bringing down the welfare bill, and the savings are clear. I direct the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury to the paper from the Centre for Social Justice, which makes it clear—[Interruption.] Well, it is rather better than the Resolution Foundation stuff that he produced, I have to say. The paper from the Centre for Social Justice makes it clear that by changing the gateways into longer-term sickness and health benefits, which we did when we were in office—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman stops jabbering and starts listening, he might actually learn something, and that might be for the good of his party and this country.

When we were in office, we made reforms to the work capability assessment that, according to the OBR’s own scoring, would have seen 450,000 fewer people going on to those benefits. We were making a real difference in arresting the rise of the welfare bill. What did the Government do on coming to office? They scrapped those measures on day one. They then came forward with their own proposals—[Interruption.] I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury gets to his feet later he will address this, and talk us through what happened to his Government’s attempt to control the welfare bill. It got smashed into a million pieces on the rocks of his own Back Benchers—that is what happened. That is the tragedy of much of this Budget: the economics are being driven by the internal politics of the Labour party. We have a Prime Minister and a Chancellor whose position is now so precarious that they have to bob up and down like a cork on the tide when it comes to making policy at the whims of Labour Back Benchers.

There is a certain melancholy about this Budget. It is like groundhog day; an old song, with the words seared into the collective mind. A socialist anthem for all time:

“That for he who has, then that must be taken away.

For he who has not, then to him must be given.”

That is not on the basis of any measure of fairness, as suggested in the topic for debate today, but rather on a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics. Economics is about resources, of course, but it is also about incentives. To he who has, I say this: if you work hard we applaud you, and we will incentivise you to work harder still, recognising your contribution to the common good. To the vulnerable we say this: we are there for you. But to others who have not we say this: here is not a hand out, but the means for improvement.

For the socialist, Madam Deputy Speaker, distribution is all, and the means are never sufficiently willed. The eternal lesson—also the lesson of this Budget—is that that path leads all to be diminished. An economy laden with debt, with Government spending spiralling still and taxation touching skyward, will never burn bright. The whole will never grow. It is not enough—it will languish. That is how the dreams of millions perish. Yesterday, the lingering flickers of hope died.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I note the right hon. Gentleman’s request for more public expenditure and I am coming on to the growth and skills levy in a moment. What we will do with that is tilt it more towards young people and towards more short courses, and this Budget puts a further £725 million into that, which will enable the full funding of apprenticeships for the under 25s for small businesses. That is good for young people and good for employers. It is important, because no matter where they are from, what their background is or who their parents are, every young person should have the chance to make the most of their life. I want the country’s young people to know that through our youth guarantee, the apprenticeship support and the other measures outlined in the Budget and outside it, we will support them, we believe in them and we want them to succeed.

Even after that, I know that we need to go further, and that is why I have asked former Health Secretary Alan Milburn to report in the new year on the issues of young people, work and inactivity, looking across departmental boundaries and recommending policy responses that will offer young people more opportunity and a better chance in life.

After the Conservatives either neglected all that or opposed that which they did not neglect, what have they got left? Arguing that instead of our approach, people’s wages should be lower. We saw where that led during the last Parliament. The shadow Chancellor talked about living standards—during the last Parliament, living standards declined more than at any time in living memory. Now living standards are rising in this Parliament and wages have risen more in a matter of months than they did in 10 years when the shadow Chancellor’s party was in office.

As people sometimes remind me, I have been around for quite a while. I am proud to have served in the last Labour Government, which lifted 600,000 children out of poverty—and almost all the measures delivered were opposed by the Conservative party. In fact, the Conservatives’ record was a rise in child poverty of 900,000. Their argument was that the two-child limit would force people to make different choices about the number of children that they would have, but that is not what happened; it simply forced more children into poverty.

The real indictment goes deeper, because, as the right hon. Member for Central Devon knows, the two-child limit was not really a welfare policy at all. In the end, it was not even about saving the money. The truth is that it was about political dividing lines. It was a device used by the Conservative Government, in which children were the weapon of choice. That is what it was about, but not any more. Tackling child poverty is an investment in the future of those children and in the country, because children who do not grow up living in poverty will have a better life. This policy is not just about the distribution of money; it is an investment in opportunity. That is why the Chancellor announced the abolition of the two-child limit in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) said, the clear majority of households that will gain from this measure already have someone in work. The policy will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, and that number will rise, thanks to other measures, such as the expansion of free school meals, help with energy bills, and the expansion of free childcare so that more parents can take up work.

This will be the largest reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began. As the Chancellor spelled out, it can be funded by a combination of tackling fraud and error in the system, the Motability and other changes, and the changes to online gambling taxation that she announced yesterday.

We understand that the health and welfare systems are deeply connected, so we will continue to get waiting lists down, and to treat more patients. We announced 250 new neighbourhood health centres in the Budget. Waiting lists and waiting times rocketed when the Conservatives were in office, and that was not just a health issue; it was an economic and benefits issue. A system that treats people more quickly, rather than having them wait in pain, is good for the economy, too. Through the reforms that we are making on incentives and support in the system, and on opportunity and tackling poverty, we are beginning to change the welfare state from a passive distributor of benefits to a platform of opportunities to get people back into work. However, we need to go further, and we will.

No one on the Labour Benches underestimates the scale of the challenges we face. There is no escaping the fact that the OBR’s decision to downgrade its assessment of productivity is the official verdict on the Conservatives’ years in office. They left this Chancellor with a £16 billion hole to fill. That hole is not because of the decisions she took, but because of the scarring effects of the Conservatives’ time in power. A botched Brexit deal, austerity that impoverished the public realm, and cuts to capital investment—the OBR is clear that they all caused long-term damage to the UK’s productivity and economic growth. That has to be owned by the Conservatives.

The shadow Chancellor attacked the Budget in the strongest terms, and he is right that it is a contrast with the Conservatives’ record, because they took the country to the very precipice of economic disaster. They used the British public as a test bed for a giant ideological experiment that saw mortgages go through the roof. The Bank of England had to launch an emergency rescue package for the country’s pension system. The Conservatives shook international confidence in the UK economy and destroyed whatever economic credibility they had by their own hand. There is a difference in our approaches—a very welcome one.

We have trade agreements with the world’s biggest economic powers—agreements that eluded the Conservatives. We have a reformed planning system, which will get the country building. Public investment is at its highest level for four decades, and inflation is coming down faster, as a result of the measures that we are taking. It will come down by a full 0.4 percentage points next year, according to the OBR. Borrowing is down in every year of the forecast. We are keeping corporation tax at the lowest level of any G7 country. We have help for high streets, and permanently lower tax rates for 750,000 businesses. We are doubling eligibility for our enterprise tax incentives, so that new businesses can not only be created, but can grow and scale up here in the United Kingdom.

We are cutting energy costs for 7,000 businesses to make manufacturing more competitive. We are providing help with the cost of living through the first rail fare freeze for 30 years. We are freezing prescription charges. Energy bills are being cut by £150 per year. We are raising the national minimum wage for millions of workers, as recommended by the independent Low Pay Commission. We are expanding free breakfast clubs, and there are free school meals for all children in families on universal credit.

This is a Budget for the whole country. It helps with living standards and helps people to meet their monthly bills. It fixes some of the problems of the past, and gives the country strong foundations for the future. It is a Budget that believes in maintaining the public square, and it continues the progress that we have made on the NHS. That progress is, for us, not just a social goal, but an economic goal. It is a Budget that protects the state pension and raises its value by £575 next year. It is a Budget that continues with welfare reforms, reduces child poverty and offers hope to young people for the future. That is the difference, and that is why we should support the Budget today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Andrew Lewin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

I came to this House determined to speak up for the people I represent, particularly those who feel under pressure, children whose life chances are held back, and 1,500 former mineworkers. In my maiden speech, I spoke about our proud mining heritage. When I made that speech, this Labour Government had just delivered justice for members of the Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme and, just over a year later, I am immensely proud that the same has been done for the British Coal staff superannuation scheme. These former mineworkers, who built the communities that I am proud to represent and helped to power our nation, had to wait far too long to even be heard, so I commend this Government on righting this historical wrong, but even more so all those campaigners on never giving up. The action taken by this Government will mean a 41% boost to the pensions of 40,000 former mineworkers.

Turning to the cost of living, we have taken action to reduce energy bills by taking 75% of the renewables obligation off bills, and the energy company obligation will be scrapped as well, saving my constituents an average of £150 a year. That saving will be added to by the first freeze to rail fares in 30 years, the continued freeze on prescription charges and the £89 that they will not have to pay on fuel duty.

As the Chancellor said, one policy above all has supressed the life chances of children in the most deprived households and neighbourhoods in our country: the two-child benefit cap. Scrapping it will lift 2,430 children in my constituency out of poverty. Contrary to the stereotypes often peddled by Opposition Members, almost 60% of the families who will benefit from this change are in work. While the cost of scrapping the limit is £3.5 billion, the cost of child poverty is £39 billion. Behind that staggering sum are life chances blighted and immense talent that our country is missing out on. Along with expanding free school meals, increasing the minimum wage, introducing Best Start family hubs and introducing apprenticeships that do not cost small businesses, these changes will ensure that all children and young people have the best start in life.

Finally, another matter close to the hearts of many in my constituency and county is growth in rural communities. Many people in rural towns and villages have felt left behind by successive Governments, and that is particularly true in the world of farming, which often feels far removed from the corridors of Whitehall. This Government deserve great credit for the biggest farming budget in history and for getting money out of the door, something that the Conservative party failed to do.

However, while visiting farms in my constituency, I have heard repeatedly that changes to agricultural property relief are hanging over many farmers and their families, and supressing confidence. The personal impact of that was brought home to me when I sat down with a couple in their mid-80s, 15th generation livestock farmers in my constituency, who told me about farming families that they know being affected by mental ill health, particularly among elderly farmers. They told me that they feel paralysed in the face of these changes, not knowing if there is a way to ensure that their farm has a 16th generation.

The changes are holding back growth in the agricultural sector, as many are not investing in new machinery or rapidly advancing technologies. However, following concerted efforts by many Labour Members, we have the change that will enable spouses to transfer their allowance to a surviving partner. That will take some farmers out of inheritance tax and will reduce the bills of many others, so it is welcome.

Looking ahead, I am encouraged by the Government’s relentless focus on farm profitability and changes to the planning system, which will free up farmers to get on with the things that help their businesses and infrastructure and the environment. Baroness Batters’ review, due to be published next month, will be critical in charting a path to more profitable farming, and I and many Labour Members will engage with it keenly. Rural Britain is ready and willing to make a greater contribution to the vital mission of growing the economy and ensuring that the benefits are felt in every corner of our country.

Yesterday’s Budget made it clear that there will be no return to austerity or short-termism. It rectifies the injustices of the past for members of the BCSSS. It acts right now, in the present, to cut the cost of living, and it safeguards Britain’s future. This is a Budget that keeps us on the path to renew Britain and improve life for people in the towns and villages I represent in Cannock Chase, so I very much welcome it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I will start speeches by the Front Benchers at 4.40 pm. With the remaining time, I call Phil Brickell.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Chancellor’s Budget. It will improve the lives of my constituents by putting £150 back into the pockets of working people through removing levies on energy bills and by lifting 2,570 children out of poverty. This is a Budget with fairness at its core; it reduces child poverty, has more funding for the NHS and has more investment in school libraries. After the chaos of the 2022 Truss mini-Budget, the Chancellor has shown what real fiscal discipline looks like: inflation falling, growth prioritised and proper headroom restored.

I am particularly pleased that the Chancellor has stared down the sloganeers at both extremes. She has rejected the failed trickle-down instincts of the populist right, which bequeathed this Government with a legacy of failed austerity and profligate wasting of taxpayers’ money on dodgy PPE contracts during the pandemic. She has also dismissed unevidenced calls from the left-wing populists for a wealth tax, when it has no answers to the hard questions about capital flight, offshore assets or our overburdened enforcement agencies. All the while, she has increased the burden on those with the broadest shoulders, including via the new high-value council tax surcharge on homes valued at more than £2 million, ensuring that homeowners in mansions are not paying less in council tax than someone living in a mid-terrace in Blackrod.

I thank the Chancellor for heeding my calls by introducing new measures to tackle high street tax dodging and organised crime. The National Crime Agency estimates that some £12 billion in criminal cash is generated in the UK every year, including in the suspicious vape shops we have all clocked while walking round our constituencies. Those suspect enterprises not only erode the civic pride we have in our high streets, but undercut genuine businesses looking to provide a service and make ends meet. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to a cross-Government taskforce to tackle tax abuse and money laundering on our high streets, backed by £50 million every year over the next three years, which is funded by an increase in the economic crime levy paid for by the banks and other professional services firms. That is despite the platitudes from Lib Dem Members saying that banks are not being asked to pay more, when actually they are.

I will bring the issue of tax dodging on our high streets to life with an example of just how egregious some of these wheezes truly are. In the brief time that I have, let me talk a little about the world of snails—snail fornication, snail gestation, snail feed and snail cannibalism. London Centric’s Jim Waterson recently published an investigative report on this topic. It details how former Lancashire shoe salesman, Terry Ball, runs elaborate snail-based tax avoidance schemes that are costing councils millions of pounds simply by placing boxes of snails in vacant office buildings in an attempt to exempt them from business rates.

The scheme, perfected over many years to prevent the snails from eating one another and stop mass snail fornication, allows unscrupulous individuals to claim that empty warehouses are being used for agricultural purposes. In turn, landlords are granted a business rates exemption. If the firms in question are challenged by the local council, they are simply liquidated. They hold no assets, so no business rates can be claimed back, and they magically reappear under the guise of another mollusc-based enterprise registered at Companies House—it is taking shell companies to the extreme.

One local council has reported a loss of £370,000 in tax receipts just because of this specific mollusc-based wheeze. This is not just a quirky anecdote; it is a hard-edged example of how loopholes in our system are being exploited, made all the easier by the Tories’ decision in the last Parliament to abolish the Office of Tax Simplification. Indeed, the very same council is reporting losses of £10 million a year due to non-payment of business rates.

I welcome the further steps announced by the Chancellor yesterday, such as rewards for informants of high-value tax fraud, extra funding for trading standards, enhancing tax transparency on real estate, 350 new criminal investigators to tackle fraud and illicit tobacco and vapes, and a boost to HMRC to go after tax dodgers and their unscrupulous advisers. We need to do a lot more, but I commend the Chancellor. I urge her to continue in the same vein by reforming reliefs, strengthening enforcement and sending a message that Britain no longer tolerates tax gimmicks—whether involving snails, shell companies, or slimy advisers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.