Welfare Spending

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Poverty robs children of their future: it limits their life chances; impacts their long-term health; and reduces their ability to participate in the bits of childhood that widen their experience, build resilience and teach new skills.

We may live in a beautiful part of the world, but the children in South Devon who go to school hungry, who live in overcrowded and unsuitable accommodation, and whose parents are working two or three low-paid jobs just to make ends meet—they are the children whose lives have already been limited by the situation they are growing up in. Emma Hopkins, from the Mother’s Manifesto group in Totnes, told me that they had heard from mothers who were regularly skipping meals so that they could feed their children, living on the brink and racked with anxiety. The mental health impact of that is enormous. One mum of two, filling up on tea, was worried that her eldest child just does not believe her any more when she says she has already eaten.

That is not something we should hear in 2025. It sounds like something from a Dickens novel, but over 5,300 children in South Devon were living poverty in 2023, facing daily challenges that no child should have to endure. If the Government lifted the two-child limit today, families across my constituency and everywhere else would feel the difference immediately. Surely, if we want to reduce the welfare bill in the long term, we must lift children out of poverty now to give them the best chance to grow up healthy, with the best opportunities to go on to have meaningful work.

Some 4.5 million children across the UK are living in poverty, and the two-child limit is one of the biggest drivers of rising deep poverty among children. Alongside that, the benefit cap disproportionately harms some of the most vulnerable in our society. Single parents, disabled households and families struggling with high housing costs are penalised regardless of their actual needs. And in an area where the ratio of income-to-housing cost is one of the highest in the country, families in South Devon are particularly hard hit. That is not just unfair; it is a failed policy that is causing real harm to children and their families.

The Liberal Democrats believe that these arbitrary limits must be removed. We would replace them with an evidence-led approach to social security, one that recognises the complexity of family life and the genuine needs of children. Investing in children is not only right; it makes economic sense. Supporting families now reduces future strain on healthcare, social services and the justice system. It strengthens community and saves public money. The Government must end the two-child limit and the benefit cap. That is the most effective way to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, and we owe it to our children to do better.

Pension Schemes Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

The Bill represents a timely attempt to create a system whereby fewer and bigger pension funds can provide better value for members and do more to support the UK economy. Key to this, though, will be ensuring that pensioners get a decent income in retirement, alongside creating the conditions that allow pension funds to invest in ways that benefit the UK, support good jobs and finance a just transition to a low-carbon economy.

The Bill needs to acknowledge, in the direction it takes, the scale of the task that we face. One in six pensioners today lives in poverty. Only 62% of pensioners receive an occupational pension of any kind, and those who do get an average of just £210 a week. Half of defined-contribution savers—around 14 million people—are not on track for the income they expect, and the 2017 auto-enrolment review recommendations have still not been implemented. Those challenges need to be addressed, along with the unfairness of the current rules around tax relief, which benefit higher earners and need reform.

As has been mentioned this evening, the Bill does not consider the specific issue of adequacy, and how the state pension interacts with defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes. Given that the aim of a pension is to provide an income in retirement, it is vital that we look at pensions in the round, not just those associated with occupational or private schemes. A statutory review into retirement incomes every five years would give this and future Governments the oversight needed to regularly assess the adequacy of our pension system, including the opportunity to look at contribution rates for employers and employees. I am aware that the second stage of the pensions review will consider those points, but I would be grateful if the Minister gave a little more clarity on when that is likely to begin.

The Bill needs to be strengthened on the issue of climate change and the destruction of nature. UK pension schemes continue to hold around £88 billion in fossil fuel companies, including those involved in new coal, oil and gas exploration, and have investments in companies linked to deforestation around the globe. Over 85% of leading schemes lack a credible climate action plan. Consolidating smaller pension pots into larger megafunds provides the ability to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, but that must not be at the expense of the environment.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is an opportunity here to do something transformational for our local communities by enabling funds, particularly local government pension funds, to invest in much-needed infrastructure like care homes, special schools or even our high streets, which would provide a secure long-term return and could be transformational for local communities that need investment?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I think that what the hon. Member raises is the creativity that we need on this issue, so that we look beyond the obvious investments towards some that perhaps have more social worth. I hope that the Bill will allow for that.

For pension savers to have a secure future, we will need to phase out investments in fossil fuels. As the Chancellor has recognised, all financial sector regulation and legislation should integrate climate and nature. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore address whether there will be legislative action, not just voluntary commitments, to phase out the destructive environmental investments that pension funds currently make, and to introduce an element of the Bill that acknowledges the connection between green investments, environmental protection and decent pensions.

Turning to the local government pension scheme, governance structures vary widely across the existing pools, and reporting has been inconsistent. Pooling arrangements have not always provided the power to influence investments, which is why the TUC, for example, is calling for a thorough review of the performance of existing pools to identify best practice in the relationship between funds and pools, as well as in governance arrangements, and for the introduction of clear and consistent reporting requirements before any acceleration and further consolidation takes place.

It is also important to point to the democratic deficit that exists within the scheme as a whole. While the role of member representatives within the LGPS is a great strength, they are largely absent from pool governance structures at present, and this legislation does not specify a role for those people. Given that pension funds are the deferred wages of the workforce, we must ensure that there is greater member engagement and democratic oversight by those involved in the scheme. Not only should this stretch to having guaranteed places on boards with full voting rights, but it must ensure that scheme members can have their say as to where their money is invested. There will undoubtedly be occasions when members are concerned about investments in particular industries, or, I would add, in particular countries, and they should have a mechanism by which those views can be expressed.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Morrison]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.

As I have said, many of my constituents have raised their fears, worries and anxieties about these plans. As they have been unable to provide their own stories directly because of the Government’s lack of consultation, I want to use my time to be their voice. Amy from Bramhall suffers from ME, and her illness can fluctuate hour to hour and day to day, making it hard to pass assessments for support. Amy recently appealed to me for assistance after the DWP withdrew her PIP, despite the fact that her illness was getting worse. Amy said:

“It is astounding how I can be reduced to zero points from receiving higher levels for mobility and daily care when I have not been cured nor had any improvement in how my conditions affect my life. In 2018 when my PIP was downgraded, following appeal it was rewarded back to me. Yet, now, without improvements to how I am affected it has been completely stopped.”

Those who have had to face mandatory reconsideration will know the extent of the documents needed and the stress involved, but to cope with this when someone is ill and suffering every single day is simply not sustainable. Amy has been advised that the mandatory reconsideration will take 15 weeks, which is almost four months, so where will Amy get the support she needs during this wait? This situation highlights the barriers that people with chronic illnesses and disabilities face when trying to get support.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these changes risk devastating consequences for people living with complex mental health conditions? They may not score four points on a single activity, but experience persistent moderate challenges across many areas, and this could in fact lead to financial hardship and worsening mental health, which will put more pressure on other services and negate the point of the exercise in the first place.

[Mr Morrison]

I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. Whether it is motor neurone disease, blindness, ME, arthritis, mental illness or cancer, these barriers will only be further entrenched should the Bill be passed.

Disability Stockport is a local charity that specialises in autism and mental health. It has told me that it is deeply opposed to the changes the Government are proposing:

“Such cuts would exacerbate poverty, worsen mental health issues, and further reduce the already limited support available to the most vulnerable and marginalised people across Greater Manchester. We believe this would pose a serious risk of harm.”

While Disability Stockport welcomes the Government’s investment in employment support, it is clear that much more is needed, because of people such as Joan.

Joan lives in Cheadle Hulme and worked in financial services before falling very ill. She explained to me the persistent and defeating barriers that disabled and ill people face when trying to secure employment. She faces a six-month wait for an assessment for Access to Work. How can this Government expect more disabled people to work if they have to wait six months just for an assessment? Joan told me that it is a degrading process to have to work without adjustments. She has to push herself through pain and fatigue, because she does not receive sick leave during her probationary period. If Joan moves jobs, she will have to start over again, despite a registered record of her need adjustments. This is just one example of the lack of full and effective investment in supporting disabled and chronically ill people into work.

The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has told me it is concerned about those using PIP to pay rent and bills. It also expressed the view that this rushed legislation does not truly apply more pressure on or give more support to employers to make accommodations for disabled people. Instead, the Bill will protect the status quo, and the onus to get support will be on the individual, not the employer. It asked:

“What will happen to 16-22 year olds who no longer get Disability Living Allowance and don’t quality for PIP?”

These young people will fall through the cracks and be pushed into poverty.

By bringing forward this Bill, which could amount to the biggest cut to sickness and disability benefits in a generation, it is clear that there is no sense of the real-life impact it will have on hundreds of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people across the constituencies represented by Members of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are listening. We are consulting precisely on how best to deploy the additional £1 billion a year for employment support that we have committed to in the Green Paper. However, the assessment of those measures needs to take account of the significant impact that supporting many more people into work will have on reducing poverty.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My constituents are extremely concerned about changes to the PIP assessment system, and particularly how they will affect people with mental health issues and fluctuating long-term conditions. Those people may not be able to show the required evidence of how their ability to function is impacted, since their experiences do not always fit within the daily living and mobility assessment criteria. Can the Minister assure me that the assessment system will be updated to take those genuine challenges into account?

[Liz Kendall]

As I said earlier, we are reviewing the PIP assessment process to ensure that it is fit for the future. That starts this week, with stakeholders having been invited in to discuss the scope of the review and its terms of reference. However, it is important to bear in mind that by the end of the Parliament we will still be spending £8 billion more on personal independence payments, and there will be 750,000 more people on PIP than there are now. We are making changes to focus PIP on those in greatest need, while looking at the underlying assessment process to ensure that it is fit for the future, but there will be more spending and more people on PIP by the time of the next election.

Income Tax (Charge)

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is an honour to speak in this debate in response to the first ever Budget delivered by a female Chancellor.

There is no doubt that the Government had some tough decisions to make after inheriting a mess caused by the reckless economic mismanagement of the previous Government, but we are also still reeling from the economic disaster into which that Government pushed us with their Brexit fantasy. Yesterday’s OBR report estimates that Brexit will cost the UK 4% of GDP per year, with imports and exports down by 15%. The predicted GDP growth of 2% next year pales in comparison. If we are serious about economic growth, we absolutely must improve our trading relationship with Europe, and we in this House need to be brave enough to have that conversation—but back to the Budget.

Along with my Liberal Democrat colleagues, I am glad that the Chancellor has listened to our calls for investment and support for the NHS, and promised a cash injection to start repairing the damage done to local health services. I also welcome the £1 billion of capital investment. My local hospital in Torbay represents the ultimate Liberal Democrat case study of despair, with sewage leaking inside the hospital—more than 700 times at the last count. Investment to deal with rotting and broken buildings is vital, and will ultimately help to put our creaking country back on its feet.

The lack of discussion about social care is a gaping hole, and Liberal Democrats have been calling loudly for a cross-party conversation. Free personal care could deliver annual savings for the NHS of up to £3.3 billion by 2031. Yes, it will cost money, but it is this kind of investment that we need to repair our health service.

In the spirit of offering constructive opposition to the new Government, I want to highlight two issues that will affect my constituency considerably. The first is agricultural property relief. Having seen the front pages, I am sure that the Chancellor is well aware of the distress and fury that this has caused in rural communities such as my constituency. It is simply tin-eared to say, “We cannot afford farmers to die tax-free.” We cannot afford to lose more farms: they are the backbone of our rural economy, and they are fundamentally important for national food supply.

The second issue is the tax relief offered to the hospitality, leisure and tourism sector. Those businesses have struggled to recover since the pandemic, while carrying the burden of rising energy prices, interest rates and staff shortages. We urge the Government to go further on business rates reform by fundamentally overhauling a system that is destroying our high streets and town centres. The Liberal Democrats believe that there are much fairer ways to raise the money needed than by hitting small businesses. Our manifesto sets out our calls for a fairer tax system, including raising money by reversing the Conservatives’ tax cuts for the big banks, all by asking the tech companies and the oil and gas companies to pay more. The Government could also have gone further on capital gains tax for the top 0.1%.