Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The Liberal Democrats have said clearly that we think it is both wrong and unfair that the Government have implemented a stealth tax grab that will hit some of the lowest-paid and most vulnerable the hardest, by maintaining a freeze on income tax thresholds that hits ordinary families, people on low incomes and the group we are discussing today: pensioners. An estimated 600,000 people were dragged into paying income tax for the first time this April, while a further 580,000 were pulled into the higher 40p rate. Raising tax thresholds is the best and fairest way to cut taxes. Liberal Democrats would advocate that as a way to reduce income tax for everyone at every stage of life, taking the lowest-paid, including state pensioners, out of income tax altogether when public finances allow. When we were in government, we raised the personal allowance, taking millions of people out of income tax, putting money back into people’s pockets and helping ensure that work and hard-earned state pensions would pay. By contrast, the Conservatives and Labour have frozen it again and again. That has left us in a position in which the state pension is nearly equal to the threshold. The full rate of the new state pension for 2026-27 is £240.30 a week, or £12,547.60 a year, while the standard personal allowance is £12,570 a year. It is an absolutely tiny gap. The Chancellor has said that state pensioners will be exempt from paying income tax. We support that exemption, which is all well and good, but we need the Government to publish more information on how they are going to guarantee it if they continue their policy of freezing the tax threshold. With less than a year to go, people will understandably be worried. They urgently need clarity about which specific process they will have to follow and a cast-iron reassurance that they will not fall through the cracks. Ultimately, stealth tax rises are not only dishonest with voters, but a completely inadequate and ineffective way for the Government to paper over the cracks in their economic plan. There is no better way to get the economy growing than to make everybody feel better off; the best way to balance the books is to grow our economy, and the quickest way to do that is to repair the damage of the terrible Brexit deal by negotiating a new UK-EU customs deal. A better trade deal would be a huge boost to our public finances, and the best and fairest way to end the crisis in the NHS, boost our defence capabilities and look to reduce the unfair tax burden that people have shouldered for the last few years. The Liberal Democrats are clear that everyone deserves a chance to enjoy a decent retirement where they can live comfortably, whether in my Witney constituency or anywhere else in the country. We strongly opposed the Government’s decision to remove the winter fuel payments. We welcomed the Chancellor’s U-turn in that case, restoring payments to pensioners with incomes of £35,000 or less, but we continue to call on the Government to backdate payments to those who lost out and to confirm that the £35,000 threshold will be uprated with inflation each year. We were proud when in government to introduce the triple lock. It was desperately needed after years of the real value of the state pension falling, as was set out very well by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). We will always fight to guarantee that pensions keep pace with the cost of living. We want to develop measures to end the gender pension gap in private pensions and ensure that working-age carers can save properly for retirement. We would also like to see improvement to the state pension system by investing in helplines to ensure quicker resolution of underpayments, and an end to the scandal of lost top-up payments through an overhaul of the processing system and provision of proper receipts. In summary, I urge the Government once again to reconsider the freeze on tax thresholds, which has dragged millions of people into paying more tax at a time when cost of living pressures are hitting people at all stages of life really hard. Raising the thresholds would ensure that pensioners, as well as working-age households, got a fairer deal. The Government should stop using stealth tax grabs to paper over the bigger issues in the economy and boost trade to get the economy moving, making everyone feel better off. Finally, I ask the Minister to spell out how he will ensure that people on the state pension are not dragged into paying income tax on it, so that we can give peace of mind to older people on low incomes.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. We have learned today that this contract was awarded two and a half years ago. Capita had two and a half years to prepare for taking on the administration of the civil service scheme. As has been mentioned, the Public Accounts Committee warned in October that Capita was not ready, yet it took on the contract regardless on 1 December. Today we learned also that the Government have terminated another Capita contract, for the Royal Mail pension scheme. My constituents would like answers to the following questions. How many people on the civil service pension scheme, as of now, have not received payments that they should have had? Why should taxpayers be paying for the surge in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff? A hundred and forty staff have come in to sort this out. Surely Capita should be paying for its incompetence. What is the timeline for Capita to clear up all inherited arrears, and is it prioritising hardship and bereavement cases? With regard to the Royal Mail pension scheme, now that Capita has been terminated, what is the plan?

• 23 Mar 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree. The stress of that is horrific, so the more it can function effectively would be appreciated. The Government have said that people whose only source of income is the state pension will not pay any income tax over this Parliament, but no details have been provided on how they will be protected. I ask the Government to put an end to the uncertainty and set out plans in full explaining exactly how they intend to shield pensioners from that unfair tax hit. We would love a timeline for when they will do that. More broadly, extending the stealth tax by two more years will drag an estimated 1.3 million people into a higher tax band by 2029-30: just over 600,000 into the basic rate of tax and just under 700,000 into the higher rate. Those are big numbers. We would really appreciate it if the Government explained to each of the 1.3 million people who will be impacted what it will do to them, because I do not think they are aware of it right now. That disproportionately impacts those on low incomes who will be dragged into income tax for the first time. At the very least, please provide that information. Next is the impact of the Government’s actions and inactions on youth unemployment, which is building to a real crisis point. Some 16% of all 16 to 24-year-olds are out of work, or almost 740,000 people, which is 100,000 up in the last year—I repeat, 100,000 up in the last year—so something is going wrong with the Government’s policies and we need to get to the bottom of that. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 14, which requires the Chancellor to review and report on the impact of the Bill on unemployment, with particular regard to young people aged 16 to 24. It is worth noting that this legislation, which dampens growth and hits jobs, comes at a time of broader disruption in the labour market. AI is already having a particular impact on entry level so-called white-collar jobs, but it is also having an impact in pubs. All our local pubs are hiring fewer young people because there is no incentive to do so any more. The creation of a new employers’ national insurance contribution band between £5,000 and £9,100, with a lower rate to incentivise employers to hire often younger, part-time workers, would really help. In new clause 13, we highlight the complexity of the tax system and the cost of administering it. There is a green brick sitting here masquerading as a Bill. With such a big majority in this Parliament, the Government have a real opportunity to do some serious thinking about how to simplify, root and branch, our tax code. It is disappointing that we see no sign of that actually happening. With this size of legislation being added each time, the tax system is getting bigger and more complex, and that puts a real burden on business. The Treasury Committee, the Public Accounts Committee and the Business and Trade Committee have all spoken out about how much damage our over-complex tax system is doing to our businesses. We would really appreciate anything that the Government can do and if they could get more serious about that.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up on this matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) feels very strongly about it as well. We do not really understand why the Government have decided to go with those fixed static thresholds. Everybody recognises that agricultural land values go up and that the cost of living goes up. We would really appreciate it if the Government could explain why they have decided not to index that. We will therefore be pushing new clause 11 to a vote, because we really want to see that fixed.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a very painful path to get to this point, but I simply want to welcome what the Government are bringing in. Reversing the decision on the two-child limit will lift 540,000 children out of absolute poverty, and it is unquestionably the right thing to do—certainly for those children and for their families, but also for our economy, our public services and our society as a whole. Children growing up in poverty face worse educational outcomes, poorer physical and mental health, and fewer opportunities in adulthood. As the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) pointed out, this has a huge economic cost on our society, and investing a relatively small amount now for great gains later is very sensible. This change will be worth up to £5,000 per year for each of the more than 500 families in my constituency who have been impacted by the cap. I have had heartbreaking emails from and surgeries with constituents impacted by this cap, as I am sure we all have. They have had to skip meals to ensure their children do not go without, because each month their money simply does not stretch far enough. Our food banks help enormously, but relying on them is obviously not the solution. Too many children and families have been trapped in poverty because of the previous decision to impose the cap and this Government’s stubborn decision to keep it until now. I wish this change had happened a year ago, which would have saved a lot of trouble and stress for families and children involved, as well as for a few Members in this Chamber. I commend the Labour MPs who lost the Whip for fighting to end this policy for their courage. I am sure that their voices and actions have played a large part in the Government now bringing forward this Bill. However, the Bill is very narrow in scope, and we should recognise that it is only one step towards tackling child poverty. There is much more we need to do, as highlighted by new clause 3, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). Ministers will no doubt have seen the report published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation that, while welcoming the decision to lift the cap, warned that progress on tackling child poverty as a result of removing the two-child benefit cap is likely to stall after April—two months away—unless it is supported by further follow-up measures. The headline from that report was that the number of people living in very deep poverty is at the highest level in more than 30 years, based on 2023-24 figures. The Government must now make it an absolute priority to address that, which is why we are calling on them to look at the much wider issues of overall levels of child poverty, destitution and deep poverty among households with children, as well as at educational outcomes and physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty. They need to thoroughly assess those a year after the passage of this Bill and report back to the House on its impact.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I am. I congratulate the Chair and members of the Work and Pensions Committee on doing all that good work; many thanks to them. Assessing the wider issues may encourage the Government to take steps beyond this welcome but narrow Bill to support children and their families who are struggling to get by from week to week. Those include auto-enrolment of all those eligible for free school meals, so that children are automatically considered eligible when their parents apply for relevant benefits or financial support, and giving people the ability to juggle caring responsibilities alongside work without falling into hardship by increasing the value of carer benefits, particularly for those on low incomes.

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree—well said. The Government may well say that the Bill will not affect low earners, who are likely not to be saving £2,000 in a given year, as the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) has just said. However, that is too simplistic a way to look at this issue. The impact assessment by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs found that an estimated 7.7 million employees currently use salary sacrifice to make pension contributions—that is around 25% of all employees. Of these, 3.3 million sacrifice more than £2,000 of salary or bonuses. That leaves millions of middle earners who are already feeling a significant squeeze as a result of myriad other cost of living pressures, who have had their taxes raised by the previous Conservative Government, and who are now facing an even greater hit due to this Government’s jobs tax and the extension of frozen income tax thresholds. If this Bill discourages those people from putting money away for their safety net in later life, the Treasury will pay the price in the long run. Before the Budget, the Association of British Insurers warned that two in five Brits will save less in their pension if a cap on salary sacrifice schemes is introduced. With social care budgets also stretched to breaking point, we should be doing everything we can to incentivise people who are able to put money aside for a comfortable and supported retirement to do so. As the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales pointed out in its response: “At a time when there is a pensions commission considering the adequacy of pension saving, this demonstrates a lack of joined-up thinking from the government.”

• 21 Jan 2026 · National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My chief concern with this Bill is that, like a lot of the measures that the Chancellor announced in the Budget, it looks like it may be a route to some medium-term increased tax revenues, but it gives no thought to longer-term consequences. That will help the Chancellor meet her fiscal rules, but I say “may” because the Bill does not kick in this year, next year, the year after or the year after that; rather conveniently, it will kick in during the election year of 2029-30. That is pretty useful if you are fighting an election and want to meet your fiscal rules, but it is not very useful if you are trying to be fiscally prudent, so that leads to some scepticism about what is actually going on here. Given the pressures on the state pension and the social care system, it seems extremely counterproductive to reduce the incentives for those who can afford to save more towards their retirement. Let us look at the impact that small businesses have warned about. Pensions UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have jointly expressed their concern that these changes will increase costs for businesses that rely on salary sacrifice to support staff retention and reward. They state: “Higher National Insurance costs and operational disruption would make it harder to offer competitive benefits, invest in growth, or plan effectively.” We need to remember the wider context that small businesses are operating in. Even before this Bill, they were battling the sharply rising costs of everything from rents to energy bills, supplies, business rates, the costs of Brexit and so on, and they also have to adjust to the changes in their NICs bills that the Chancellor announced a year ago. One can imagine how that must feel for small business owners—the additional burden heaped on them feels unsustainable. This Bill is a double whammy on last year’s national insurance hikes—the NICs burden went up last year due to the rate increase, and now this measure is raising their NICs bills for a second time. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment the Government have made of the impact of these changes on businesses, and on small businesses in particular. That is why the Liberal Democrats have tabled amendments requiring the Government to publish full assessments of the impact of the Bill on the recruitment and retention and the tax liabilities of businesses. Let us now consider the potential damage that this choice will do further down the road by disincentivising saving. Earlier this year, research by Scottish Widows found that 39% of people in the UK are not on track for a minimum lifestyle in retirement, which is a 4% increase since 2023. Research showed that people were actually saving more towards their pension in the last year, but projected retirement income was still failing to keep pace, given the rising cost of living.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Fuel Duty Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) for securing this important debate and everybody who has spoken in it. There is a very strong message coming through about how much rural communities need this relief and how much they suffer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned, rural life is more expensive, and that is because of the friction of distance and the scale of distance. This relief goes a long way to offsetting that expense, and it has been a huge help to communities, but it is becoming less and less of a help because it has not gone up with inflation or anything else, and that sits on top of all the additional pressures that our communities are under that are really stretching household budgets and causing a lot of trouble. That is the root cause, so we ask the Minister, in responding to this debate, to address whether the Government will consider uprating the scheme in line with inflation. Secondly, if we look at the state of public transport infrastructure in this country after years of under-investment by the last Conservative Government, it is quite clear that there are many more areas, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, where people have no real alternative but to use cars for day-to-day journeys. That is far more widespread than just the 21 areas that currently benefit from the scheme. Research published by the County Councils Network in 2024 found that the frequency of rural bus services in England had reached a historic low, with more than a quarter of rural routes having been lost in the preceding decade. In remote areas of Scotland, some of which benefit from the rural fuel duty relief scheme, low connectivity is having a clear negative impact on the population, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald) mentioned earlier today in this debate and in the Chamber. National Records of Scotland’s “Population estimates by urban rural classification”, which covered 2001 to 2021, showed a population decrease by 1% between 2011 and 2020, compared with increases of 3.1% nationwide and 8.4% in accessible rural areas. The population of rural small towns decreased by 3.6% over the same period. The implication is that the lack of connectivity and affordable transport is hollowing out those communities, and the reduction in real-terms value of the relief scheme is playing a part in that. The Government’s Bus Services Act 2025 will make some positive change, and I support the aim of revitalising rural bus services, but with the best will in the world we cannot turn this situation around overnight. New transport infrastructure takes months and years to create—my colleagues and I are trying to bring back a rail link in west Oxfordshire—and rural drivers up and down the country are struggling with this problem now. To address the problem, the Liberal Democrats have called for the number of areas covered by the scheme to be doubled, so an additional 21 areas across the UK would benefit from the relief. That expansion should be supported by a clear consultation and evidence base to determine the areas that could receive the new relief: perhaps Devon, Cornwall, Cumbria, East Anglia, Yorkshire and Shropshire could benefit, alongside rural Wales, more of rural Scotland and, of course, Northern Ireland.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Free School Meals: Auto-enrolment · Hansard source

  More

  19. What assessment the child poverty unit has made of the potential merits of auto-enrolling eligible children for free school meals.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This is a Budget driven far more by political calculation than by the economic realities that the country faces. The Chancellor has an enormous majority—on paper, at least—and the country desperately needs change, but we now have a second Budget in which the Government have failed to demonstrate that they have any big ideas to get the economy moving. However, before I go into that, I want to focus on some positives. I welcome some of the announcements that the Chancellor made last week, which will help households that have been struggling with the cost of living. Lifting the two-child benefit cap will be worth up to £5,000 a year to each of the more than 500 families in my constituency who have been impacted by the cap. Too many children and families have been trapped in poverty because of the decision to impose it and the Government’s previous stubborn decision to keep it. I just wish that this had been done a year ago, and I give my commiserations to the brave Labour Members who lost the Whip after standing up for a policy that their party now finally accepts. I also welcome the Government’s action to cut energy bills by removing the renewables levy, which is something that we Liberal Democrats had been calling on the Chancellor to do. It will make a difference to families struggling with sky-high fuel bills. However, I wish that the Government had gone further, rather than removing just 75% of the levy and only for three years. We were proposing to fund the renewables obligation instead from a windfall tax on the excess profits in the banking sector that have resulted from quantitative tightening—something that would have happened now, unlike the deferred taxation that the Chancellor is proposing, which may or may not happen. Both those changes will make struggling families’ lives a little easier, and are very much welcomed. Similarly, doubling remote gaming duty—something we have also been calling for—is clearly a sensible move. It is one way to raise much-needed revenue without increasing the burden on hard-working families, but it is comparatively small, raising only £1 billion a year. The sad truth is that these are all small wins in the context of the huge challenges we face.

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this excellent debate. I want to seek the Minister’s help with the case of my Witney constituent, Bill Maddocks. Bill was an on-call firefighter at Witney for 22 years and contracted covid at work, while seconded on a whole-time contract to assist the ambulance service during the pandemic. This became long covid and, as a result, he was retired from the fire service due to ill health. During this process, he was assured by senior managers that a pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter would be his, and he was independently medically assessed as having a tier 1 level and 100% disability, entitling him to a compensation pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter wage. There has been a long-standing dispute about his disablement and the apportionment. Even though it was independently assessed and agreed by Oxfordshire fire and rescue service as legally binding, the amount awarded was equivalent only to on-call pay rather than the full-time wage. As a result, the Pensions Ombudsman became involved, as well as the Fire Brigades Union. There has continued to be a Byzantine maze and the Pensions Ombudsman has walked away saying that the case lies outside its brief. Four years on, Bill remains incredibly debilitated and suffering deeply, supported wonderfully by his wife, Nikki. I would like your help in finding a way through this situation monetarily, but the man also deserves an award, exactly as we have named here today.