Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Caroline Nokes

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I will speak in part to amendments 1 and 2, although we will not vote on them this evening. Essentially, I am speaking because we do not believe that scrapping the two-child limit and lifting it in this way is the way to tackle child poverty.

When the Conservatives introduced the two-child limit in 2017, we did so for one simple reason: fairness. We believed then, as we do now, that people on benefits should face the same financial choices about having children as those supporting themselves solely through work. Nine years later, we stand by that principle.

The welfare state should be a safety net for people in genuine need, yet too many people feel that the welfare system has drifted from its original purpose. They see a system that rewards dependency while working families and individuals shoulder the tax burden. The two-child limit is a way of saying that work should pay, that taking responsibility should matter and that the system should stand with those who pull their weight.

Pensions and Social Security

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Caroline Nokes

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I wish to reassure the Minister about something that I said in last week’s debate on the two-child benefit cap. I shared something of my story, and said that we had lost child benefit as a result of the Labour Government coming into office in 1997. I was convinced I had said “family credit”, which was what I was supposed to say. When I read back over Hansard, I realised that, in my haste to get my point across, I had said the wrong thing, which explains why I caught sight of the Minister’s perplexed face from across the Dispatch Box. I have also corrected the record through Hansard.

I can confirm that the Opposition support the usual increase in the guaranteed minimum pension, and the uprating of social security benefits. However, given that this debate is largely a formality and there will be no vote on the motions, it is a good opportunity to take a step back and reflect on the pensions and benefits system more broadly—in the context of the motions before us, of course.

First, let me highlight what I call the “benefits barbell”. At one end is the working-age welfare bill, which keeps getting heavier; at the other is the eye-watering cost of public sector defined-benefit pensions. In the middle of those two heavy weights is the hard-working taxpayer, straining under the load. Welfare and pensions both matter—they are pillars of a decent society—but it is Britain’s taxpayers who do the heavy lifting. They are the ones who get up before dawn, commute in all weathers and keep the economy moving. Without their efforts or even more Government borrowing, there would be no welfare state at all, and we cannot pile more weight on to their shoulders indefinitely.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has already admitted that the long-awaited Timms review will not involve making welfare savings and is not likely to be published before 2027. It seems that this Government are shunning any attempts at reform over the coming year, and yet again, it is taxpayers who bear the cost of this delay. Right now, the UK is on the verge of becoming a welfare state with an economy attached. Over 40,000 people were signed off work every day by GPs over the last year, according to the Centre for Social Justice. Over 5 million people are claiming benefits with no work requirements, which is equivalent to over half of London’s population.

Concerningly, that number includes more than 300,000 people aged 16 to 24—young people with promising lives ahead of them whose ambitions are being stifled by a benefits system that would rather write them off. Labour is presiding over a youth unemployment crisis and seems unable to offer long-term solutions. There are already nearly 1 million young people in the UK who are not in education, employment or training. Over 700,000 university graduates are out of work and on benefits. One and a half years after taking office, this Government are still failing to tame the runaway benefits bill and rising unemployment rates. By contrast, the Conservative plan to get Britain working again will tackle youth unemployment by offering young people a first jobs bonus, which they can use to save for their first home.

Living within our means is one of those sensible, mundane things that gives the Conservative party its reputation as a safe pair of hands for the economy. Of course, making welfare savings is far less likely to grab headlines—scrapping the two-child benefit cap or rolling out more free school meals is a far easier win—but getting the deficit under control is crucial to a healthy economy. When the Conservatives took office in 2010, the Government were running a deficit of 9%. By the time covid struck, we had brought it down to under 1%. That, in turn, enabled us to provide generous support to individuals and businesses during lockdowns.

As I said in the debate on the two-child benefit cap last week, keeping the limit would have saved the taxpayer £2.4 billion in 2026-27, rising to £3.2 billion in 2030-31, yet our current Prime Minister would rather throw some red meat to his Back Benchers than exercise fiscal discipline. He has caved in to their demands, even though scrapping the two-child benefit limit was previously ruled out by the Chancellor and was conspicuously absent from Labour’s manifesto.

Conservatives believe in fairness for the working parents who make difficult choices about whether they can afford another child. Many working families do not have incomes much higher than the threshold for universal credit but are paying for others through their taxes. Why should we make those parents bear the double burden of supporting their own children and subsidising other people’s? A fair system should not simply exempt families on benefits from making tough choices.

Speaking of fairness, the issue of passported benefits desperately needs investigating. Last week, I highlighted the shocking statistic that one in four full-time UK workers would be better off on benefits than in work, but something that often gets overlooked is that people on universal credit also gain access to a raft of discounts and additional benefits such as free prescriptions, discounted broadband, healthy food cards and special savings accounts. There are over 20 of these schemes sprinkled across multiple Government Departments. Taken together, passported benefits give some families who are already on universal credit over £10,000 a year in extra support, costing the taxpayer over £10 billion, according to a new report from the think-tank Onward. These benefits need rationalising and streamlining within universal credit. Otherwise, we will continue to face three serious problems.

First, passported benefits disincentivise people from entering employment. Any sensible person would think twice about starting a job if they faced a cliff-edge denial of additional benefits worth thousands of pounds once their universal credit tapers away. Secondly, we have a two-tier system. As a result of these linked benefits, individuals just outside the universal credit threshold often face greater financial hardship than benefit claimants. Thirdly, for those who really do need these extra schemes, there is a labyrinth of bureaucracy that slows down the process of getting help. These piecemeal entitlements distort the system. From a quantitative perspective, it is harder to see which poverty interventions are actually having a positive effect. It is also incredibly difficult for everyone to see whether this Government are succeeding at reducing poverty.

I welcome the Government’s new emphasis on deep material poverty as a headline poverty metric, which is a far more holistic measure that captures how poverty impacts people’s daily lives and whether they can afford necessities. Last week, we heard endlessly that the Government’s child poverty strategy and the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap will bring half a million children out of poverty, but it is worth noting that we are talking about relative poverty. That can never be eradicated, because it refers to a household income below 60% of the median household income. The only way to reduce relative poverty is to raise the incomes of the poorest faster than the middle or compress the income distribution. An overemphasis on relative poverty has underpinned a misleading left-wing argument that exaggerates the need for income redistribution. I worry that we will end up paying people to be so-called middle-class if we continue as we are.

At the heart of Conservative philosophy is a belief in personal responsibility—taking control of our future through hard work and aspiration. If we are serious about tackling child poverty in the long term, it is vital to deal with the effects of intergenerational worklessness and not just rely on social security. Children in long-term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived and 10% more likely to end up workless themselves. For every parent who does not go out to work, there is a child who misses seeing a positive example of work modelled to them—the early alarm clock, the daily routine, the reward for an honest day’s work and the ability to save up to buy important things. That is not to say that there are not those in dire circumstances for a vast number of reasons, but ultimately, when we are looking at people in general, that is the reality we need to deal with. Under our watch, the number of children in workless households fell consistently. Under Labour, the number has reached a nine-year high, with 1.2 million children now living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year.

Turning to the topic of personal independence payments, I would like to ask the Minister about a disabled constituent I caught up with at the weekend. She is a veteran who served in the Royal Navy for 19 years and is now an unpaid carer for her elderly father. She works full time, mainly from home, and commutes to London a few times a month. She had a Motability scooter, which enabled her to get to the office and around London when required, but after her last PIP review, which took place over the phone, she lost her higher rate of PIP and thus her scooter. She then received a puzzling letter from the Department for Work and Pensions, which wrongly claimed that full-time work indicated she had reasonable mobility, despite the fact that her entire home is adapted for her accessibility requirements.

My constituent is a highly capable woman who is skilled at advocating for herself as well as her father and, indeed, her fellow veterans, but she admitted that she felt too stressed to open the letter for a few weeks, meaning that the reconsideration window had timed out by the time she fully processed the DWP’s decision. For context, she has also been diagnosed with complex post-traumatic stress disorder following a traumatic experience in the military and is currently on a long waiting list for treatment. Statistically, she is unusual; fewer than one in six PIP claimants are in employment.

It seems bizarre that the DWP assessors are happy to downgrade someone in this situation, who is in work and genuinely needs the higher rate of PIP to help her carry out that work, yet the Department seems reluctant to stem the tide of benefits claims from people with less severe mental health issues. That is why a Conservative Government will end sickness benefits for low-level mental health problems, to ensure that support is targeted at people who need it most. I welcome the Government’s commitment to increase the number of face-to-face PIP assessments to 30%, up from the very low rate of 5% in 2024, but I urge them to be even more ambitious with their target, to ensure that constituents like mine are accurately assessed and receive the help they need.

In conclusion, as I return to the image I began with, the barbell is getting heavier by the year, with welfare on one side and pensions on the other, and still the hard-working taxpayer stands in the middle doing all the heavy lifting. The Government are doing far too little to ease that pressure. Working families are paying the price for a system that grows ever more expensive, while true reform moves at a crawl. It is time for a welfare system that is fair to those who need support and fair to those who pay for it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

Pension Schemes Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Caroline Nokes

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

It has been a privilege to hear so many well-informed and considered speeches this evening. I am sure we would all agree that there is clearly significant expertise in the Chamber.

The heart of this Bill is people doing the right thing by preparing for their future and saving into their pension pots. With auto-enrolment having been introduced by the Conservatives in 2012, there are now over 20 million employees saving into a workplace pension. That is 88% of eligible employees saving into a pension and preparing for later in life, which is a great achievement that I hope everyone in this House can celebrate. However, while the number of people who are saving has increased significantly, engagement has remained low, as we have heard this evening. Less than half of savers have reviewed how much their pension is worth in the past 12 months, while over 94% of pension savers are invested in a pension scheme’s default investment strategy. With people taking the right steps and starting to save for their retirement early thanks to our action, we must now ensure that the pensions market is working for them, so that they get the best returns on their savings and ultimately have the comfortable and secure retirement for which they were planning.

We have heard many contributions this evening. I will briefly mention the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), both of whom gave us lengthy and very detailed speeches presenting both sides of the argument. [Interruption.] They were very enjoyable speeches—that was not a criticism, just an observation of the way things have gone this evening. Both the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend clearly showed the expertise that they garnered earlier on in their careers and expressed some legitimate concerns, particularly about the consensus that there has perhaps been in the Chamber this evening. Some points have been made showing that that consensus is not entirely guaranteed, certainly among Conservative Members. We support the principles behind the Bill—indeed, much of what we have heard builds on the work that the Conservatives were doing while we were in government. We want to ensure that poorly performing pension schemes are challenged, excessive administration costs are removed, and savers receive the best returns on their investments. Ultimately, that is how we will ensure more people have a comfortable retirement.

However, we have concerns about some specific measures in the Bill, which we will scrutinise further as it progresses. In particular, we have significant concerns about the reserve powers that allow the Government to set percentage targets for asset allocation in core defaults offered by defined-contribution providers. In other words, a future Government could tell pension schemes where they must invest their funds, regardless of whether it delivers good returns for savers. This potentially conflicts with their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their members. While I know the Minister will stress that the Government do not intend to use those reserve powers, that neither addresses concerns about what a different future Government could do nor explains why those powers are being brought in. It could be asked why the reserve powers are being created at all.

We want to see more investment in the UK market. While this country is one of the largest pension markets in the world, only around 20% of DC assets are invested in the UK. However, the solution should be to make domestic investment more attractive—to create opportunities that deliver better returns for savers—not simply to mandate investment in assets that deliver lower returns. During our last term in office, we worked with the industry to introduce the Mansion House reforms as a voluntary agreement to boost investment in the UK, but this Bill goes further—it could mandate such investment against the wishes of the industry. Similarly, the local government pension scheme will have a new duty to invest in the local economy. While that is understandable at face value, it raises concerns about returns on investments if there are not suitable local opportunities.

We also have questions about some of the Government’s assumptions, and would like to understand more about how they were reached and the evidence used. For example, why is the minimum value for megafunds just £25 billion? Why is having fewer and larger pension providers better? We recognise the benefits of economies of scale, but what about competition and innovation? It has also been raised by the industry that a significant number of details are unknown, as they will come later in the form of regulations. Can the Minister set out some more details on when the various sets of regulations will be published, and whether that will be before the Bill has passed through Parliament?

Finally, the Bill fails to cover a number of areas, and we would like to understand why. Concerns about pension adequacy have been touched on this evening and whether people are saving enough to have the security and dignity in retirement they deserve. Auto-enrolment was a good start, but it will not be the only solution. Indeed, lots of people are still not eligible. When we passed the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023, the then Conservative Government confirmed their intention to reduce the lower age limit to 18, as has been mentioned this evening. As yet, the current Labour Government have not done so. Auto-enrolment does not apply to self-employed people, despite just 16% of self-employed people actively saving into a workplace or personal pension. The Bill does not look at whether people are saving enough and early enough, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether that is deliberate and whether further action will be taken.

I briefly draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor, but I hasten to add that unfortunately I am not a member of the local government pension scheme. Sadly, I was elected after that provision was scrapped, but an entire chapter is given over to the local government pension scheme in this Bill. Indeed, it is a key element, enabling local authorities to use pension schemes to invest in their local economy. However, as with much of the legislation being taken through Parliament at the moment, the who, what and when remain unanswered. Without the English devolution Bill before us, for example, we are not entirely clear on what form local government will take, nor entirely clear on how compatible this Bill is with that forthcoming local government legislation.

We are in effect being asked to legislate on a moveable feast. Indeed, there is likely to be a considerable transition timetable for local government changes, which all raises questions about how the local government reorganisation transition fits in with the plans in the Bill. Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), how will asset pools work under local government reorganisation? Who gets the potential investment benefits or spending power, and where does all that investment take place?

The Bill also fails to mention any reforms to the local government pension scheme, which reached a record surplus of £45 billion in June 2024. One reason for that might be that it is being used to offset Government debt under the Chancellor’s current fiscal rule, which uses public sector net financial liabilities to measure that debt. That is a huge amount of money in local government terms, and it is not going towards local services, business support or regional projects. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to reform the local government pension scheme beyond the measures outlined in the Bill? Finally on the local government pension scheme, I look forward to seeing more detail as to how newly created asset pools will work in practice with the local government pension scheme.

Local government treasury management over recent years has seen local authorities taking advantage of the investment opportunities available to them to acquire properties and the like, but often some distance from their local authority. That is something to tease out in Committee, but when the Government state that they wish local authorities to have finance available to invest locally to bring economic growth, what does “local” look like?

Finally, can the Minister confirm that fiduciary rules regarding investments and how they are assessed will prevail going forward? Overall, we will support a Bill that reduces administration costs, removes complexity for savers and maximises value for members, ultimately helping people who took the right action to save for their retirement to live in comfort and dignity. While this Bill makes the start, there is more to do to get it right, and we look forward to working with the Government to achieve that. There is plenty of food for thought for amendments to take us forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Rebecca Smith and Caroline Nokes

Report stage
Tuesday 17th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am imposing an immediate four-minute time limit. Members will see that many colleagues wish to get in this evening.

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

I rise to speak for new clause 106 and against new clauses 1 and 20.

I am grateful for this opportunity to place on the record my grave concerns about this hurried attempt to significantly alter our nation’s abortion laws. It is my view that by doing so we risk creating a series of unintended consequences that could endanger women, rather than protect and empower them. We need more time.

This is not a pro-choice versus pro-life debate. We already have the most inclusive abortion laws in Europe: medical abortion is available up to 24 weeks, which is double the European average, and we have the option of full-term abortion on medical grounds. Instead, today’s debate is about ensuring that legislation as significant as this—seeking to introduce a wholesale change to abortion laws affecting England, Scotland and Wales—is not rushed through without the chance for significant scrutiny. Indeed, 90 minutes of Back-Bench debate does not cut it, in my opinion.

We should, of course, treat women seeking an abortion with compassion and dignity—that goes without saying. As a councillor on Plymouth city council, I chaired the commission on violence against women and girls. Defending the voiceless is my guiding principle in politics, and it is with those women and unborn babies in mind that I make this speech.

As over 1000 medical professionals said in an open letter cited in The Telegraph today,

“If offences that make it illegal for a woman to administer her own abortion at any gestation were repealed, such abortions would, de facto, become possible up to birth for any reason including abortions for sex-selective purposes, as women could, mistakenly, knowingly or under coercion, mislead abortion providers about their gestational age. If either of these amendments were to become law, it would also likely lead to serious risks to women’s health because of the dangers involved with self-administered late abortions.”

They continue,

“Quite aside from the increased number of viable babies’ lives being ended beyond the 24-week time limit, there would likely be a significant increase in such complications if”

new clause 1 or 20

“were to pass, as they would remove any legal deterrent against women administering their own abortions late in pregnancy. The current law permits flexibility and compassion where necessary but, for these reasons, we believe a legal deterrent remains important.”

Many supporters of new clauses 1 and 20 claim that the 24-week time limit for abortions would not change, but that is misleading. Any time limit is meaningless if abortions are legalised all the way up to birth, for any reason, without a legal deterrent. My concern is that, once decriminalisation has taken place, further steps will be taken to expand abortion time limits. Indeed, many of the campaigners mentioned this afternoon are on record saying as much. It is important that we are realistic about that.