Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

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

[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.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am excited to hear that the hon. Member thinks work should pay. Can she tell us why, under the last Government, we went from one in three children in poverty having a parent in work to two in three children in poverty having a parent in work?

[Rebecca Smith]

We know that poverty decreased under the last Government; I will make some progress.

True compassion for families in poverty means offering sustainable solutions, not just sticking plasters. We need to tackle the root causes of poverty, rather than masking the symptoms. That means dealing with structural issues that damage children’s life chances, rather than simply handing out more cash to families.

It is worth noting that the two-child limit has had no significant negative effects on school readiness for third and subsequent children in England. School readiness is the cornerstone metric of the Government’s opportunity mission. Labour and other opponents may criticise the cap for all sorts of reasons, but scrapping it will not be a cost-effective way of improving children’s educational development.

In terms of holistic solutions, we know that work is the single most transformative route out of poverty. Work provides stability, self-respect and the crucial stepping stones to a better future. We should be doing everything we can to ensure that families on universal credit can access meaningful employment. As I have said before, children in long-term workless households are four times more likely to be materially deprived, and they are 10% more likely to end up workless themselves.

When we were in government, Conservatives oversaw a consistent reduction in the number of children in workless households, yet under Labour that number has reached a nine-year high: there are now 1.2 million children living in homes where no parent has worked for over a year. Without a working parent at home, children miss out on seeing the rhythms and rewards of working life—the morning alarm, the daily routine, the pride of earning a wage and the discipline of saving up for things that matter. This Government seem bent on disincentivising work and destroying jobs.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

2nd reading & Money resolution
Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that salient point, and I will come to that wider package of measures.

Of course, we have heard straw-man arguments, saying, “Well, this one thing will not solve child poverty.” No one is claiming that it will solve child poverty; it is one piece in the jigsaw of the wider work that this Government are doing. But I am glad that this punitive, arbitrary cap, which only made life worse for so many, is being scrapped. That will lift up to 2,500 children in Southampton Itchen out of poverty.

If I were to credit the Conservative Opposition with one thing in this debate, it would be their consistency.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Consistently wrong.

[Darren Paffey]

Consistently wrong, and they have made a consistent and desperate attempt to be divisive. They are trying to split the country into those who pay tax and those who receive welfare. These generalisations around the “deserving” and the “undeserving” poor are not only crass but factually wrong. Many contribute through work for years. They fall on hard times and rely on the safety net that they have paid into—my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) made that point eloquently. The Conservatives ignore the fact that many receive universal credit while they are working. That is the state topping up poverty wages. The Conservatives might be happy to ignore that, but Labour is taking action on the minimum wage—what a contrast.

This Bill removing the two-child limit is a vital step, but—to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda)—it is not a stand-alone measure. It sits alongside this Labour Government’s wider work, such as opening free breakfast clubs, which will transform life chances, with early adopters in St John’s, St Patrick’s and Hightown primary schools in my constituency. It also sits alongside the £20 million Pride in Place investment in the Weston estate and the expansion of free school meals. A third of pupils in my state-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, and more are set to get that support, making a material difference to their lives and breaking down some of the barriers to learning that still exist.

Labour is investing in more childcare to help those parents who face barriers to getting into work. We are strengthening some of the universal credit work allowances, and delivering a comprehensive child poverty strategy aimed at giving every single child a fair start. I commend the Secretaries of State for Education and for Work and Pensions for the work they have done on leading that vital change.

We all dream of a future where these kinds of benefits might not be as necessary as they are now. We dream of, and Labour is working towards, a world where work pays well and pays better, which our Employment Rights Act 2025 moves us closer to achieving. We dream of a world where the cost of living crisis is less acute, as our action on warm homes and freezing rail fares, VAT rates, income tax rates and fuel duty will help to achieve. Add to that the creation of opportunities through the youth guarantee scheme and more apprenticeships, and we can see that a lot is happening, but that there is still much more to do.

The Bill recognises a very simple truth: children do not choose the circumstances into which they are born. Supporting the Bill and scrapping the arbitrary failed cap is not only the right economic decision; it is the right moral decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

You’re in trouble now, Madam Deputy Speaker!

The Bill will be remembered as one of the proudest moments of this Government’s first term. Before entering this place, I worked on policy around poverty, and it is something that motivates me every day. A constant theme that I have found, when looking at the evidence, is that the simple solutions are often the best. Indeed, it is interesting that Opposition Members often argue for a simplified tax system for the wealthy, but when it comes to benefits, they have done nothing but buttress the system with more and more complex rules.

Poverty ruins lives. We know that growing up in poverty leads to worse life outcomes, including poorer educational outcomes. Being in poverty as children leaves us three times more likely to be in poverty as adults, and the longer the period of deprivation a child goes through, the worse their chances will be as an adult. It is clear that the impacts of child poverty are deep-rooted. Lifting the two-child benefit cap is one of the single most effective ways to change that trajectory and give people a better outcome for the rest of their lives. If someone is constantly hungry, cold or in damp housing without repairs, the effects on their health, self-esteem and chances are long-lasting.

When kids grow up in poverty, the economy loses out too. Even if Members choose not to care about worse outcomes for children—something I think we have a moral imperative to care about—it is a question of cold economic logic. In 2023, my old employer, the Child Poverty Action Group, estimated that the cost of child poverty was £39 billion a year, and that investing to solve the issue

“would bring similarly large gains to the economy”.

The lifting of this cap alone will ultimately save £3.2 billion a year.

This is the first piece of legislation passed on child poverty since the Child Poverty Act 2010. I remember working on the passage of that Act, and how the now Lord Cameron committing to halving and then ending child poverty. Indeed, he accepted the evidence-based view that relative poverty is appropriate for measuring child poverty, because children with less money are less able to take part in the society to which their friends belong, and are less able to achieve in the same way. It was a bold way to face the electorate in 2010, but it was not matched at all by the Conservatives’ record in power of abject failure. The two-child limit pushed hundreds of thousands more children into poverty. This Bill is shot through with the needs created by the last Government’s 14 years of failure. UNICEF found that between 2013 and 2023, the UK saw the largest increase in relative poverty out of the 37 high-income countries that it measured—an increase of a third. That is a larger increase than across the EU.

We have heard a lot from Members across the House about people in work. When I was working at the Child Poverty Action Group, we had a killer stat. We used to say, “One third of children in poverty have a parent in work.” By the time that lot left government, two thirds of children in poverty had a parent in work. Even if a child does not have a parent in work, I do not believe that the sins of the parents are visited on the children. I do not believe that children have control over where they are born. We hear about choices; should children choose to be born to a different family? The two-child benefit cap is social and economic vandalism that we will reverse when this Bill becomes law. The removal of that cap will lift 450,000 children out of poverty, with 2 million children set to benefit overall. Think about what that means—the lives changed and the futures opened up. If nothing else moves Members, think about the savings to the public purse from fewer children growing up facing the barriers that poverty causes, which follow them into adulthood.

There is more to do. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench will know that I am likely to be very annoying about the further things we have to do, but I welcome the Government’s support for free breakfast clubs, expanding childcare, family hubs and getting more young people into work. I look forward to reviewing how those programmes bring children out of deprivation. Today, I could not be prouder that I will walk through the Division Lobby to give millions of children a fairer start.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

When the Labour Government came to office, 4.5 million children were living in poverty, and I believe that that is a moral stain on our nation. It has been a central mission of this Labour Government to tackle child poverty in all its forms. They are taking a range of measures, like introducing breakfast clubs. We have had some fantastic pilots of those in my constituency, and we have heard from schools that provide them that attendance is improving as a result. That is yet another impact of tackling childhood shortages. The Government are also extending free school meals to more children, while family hubs will help families who are struggling to get the support they need, and of course, there is more childcare support for working parents, who are too often kept out of work by the high costs of childcare.

Today, though, we are talking about ending the two-child limit on universal credit. This measure alone will lift nearly half a million children out of poverty, and in my constituency of Morecambe and Lunesdale about 1,900 kids will benefit. It is not just the right thing to do, in and of itself; the evidence shows that tackling poverty in childhood is more cost-effective than mopping up the damage later—the damage of poverty that was outlined so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). The fact is that poverty kills. It is as simple as that.

Some will say that poverty is caused by fecklessness or laziness, ignoring the 70% of children affected by this limit who live in working households; ignoring the fact that 15% of those affected by the cap are mothers with really young babies—mothers who we would normally not expect to work; ignoring the significant number of people affected who are in ill health or have caring responsibilities; and ignoring the fact that the cost of living crisis, which was brought upon us by the Conservatives and by reliance on foreign gas, means that people who could afford their children when they had them are now struggling to put food on the table.

About six months after the election, I knocked on a door in Morecambe, and it was opened by a lady who was really distressed. Once I got talking to her, it turned out that she had five kids. She said to me, “I could afford those children when I had them. I would never have had these children had I not been able to afford them.” She worked days, her husband worked nights, and she was on the minimum wage. They were struggling to prevent their children from finding out just how difficult a financial situation they were in. I was able to tell that lady that in a few months’ time, thanks to the Labour Government, she would receive a pay rise, because we were putting the minimum wage up—yet another measure that we are taking to tackle child poverty.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

One of the most distressing things that I discovered when I was working at Church Action on Poverty and talking to parents of children in poverty was how often mothers went without food. My hon. Friend has talked about families struggling so that their children did not find out. Does she agree that that is what we are changing today, and that that is the reality of this policy?

[Lizzi Collinge]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Parents, in my experience, will do anything to protect their children from the harsh realities of life. It is parents who go without food. It is parents who have to go to the food bank. I remember the first time I met the people running the food bank in Morecambe, in 2017. I walked up to them and said, “One day, I will put you out of business.” And they said, “Thank you”, because their strategic aim is not to exist. Food banks should not exist.

Some of the people who oppose the lifting of this limit are also willing to ignore the fact that the policy itself did not work on its own terms. It did not limit the number of children born, but merely condemned them to living in poverty. They are also willing to ignore the evidence that dealing with poverty in childhood is much more cost-effective than mopping up later. It prevents huge costs later down the line in terms of education, health or indeed the criminal justice system.

I am not saying that there are no feckless parents. Of course there are feckless parents, and there have always been feckless parents. I remember my great-grandma telling the story of having to go to the pub on a Friday night to try to get the housekeeping money off her drunkard father. She used to tell it as a funny story with a smile on her face, but it was not funny then and it is not funny now. I was really quite shocked at Reform saying that it would keep the two-child limit on universal credit and instead put that money into reducing the cost of beer. I love a drink—do not get me wrong—but I cannot help but think that, if Reform Members were around 100 years ago, they would have been standing with my drunkard ancestor, rather than with the little girl with her hand out for the housekeeping money. Do we condemn hundreds of thousands of children to poverty because there are a few feckless parents?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

That is indeed the statistic that I was reaching for in my notes, and I thank my hon. Friend.

Even now, Opposition Members would undo progress. They would reintroduce the limit; they would make things worse. And as for Reform UK— [Hon. Members: “Where are they?”] Exactly! Where are they? We have seen populist policy hokey-cokey already today. It was probably taking place while the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) was speaking.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

The Reform policy really is quite something, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. In fact, if someone lost their child benefit because of the Reform policy, it would take 345 pints a week to make a saving. So it does not really help anyone, but it does hurt those in the most poverty. Will my hon. Friend recommend that people do not listen to the easy answers of Reform and actually work to make people’s lives better?

[John Slinger]

I thank my hon. Friend. I was very moved by his speech, which he delivered from a position of great knowledge and great concern built up over a very impressive career. He is absolutely right. I, of course, would not recommend people to take too seriously policies that are, as I said, populist policy hokey-cokey. To scrap or to reinstate? It is hard to tell. What we have seen from Reform UK is the concept of political triangulation being stretched absolutely to breaking point. In fact, it has broken, with some of the populist nonsense that Reform has spoken about in recent days.

Budget Resolutions

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is precisely right. I have set out the iniquitous impacts of the reduction of the national insurance threshold on younger people, as well as the impact that the Employment Rights Bill will have by increasing the risks of employing younger people. That is self-evident and obvious, and businesses are saying it over and over again. If an employer is put in a position where he is faced with a young person who has no career track record, and the Government’s legislation says that on day one the employee can take that employer to a tribunal for unfair dismissal—a claim that may get clogged up for two years, and for which the lawyers advising the employer will probably conclude that he should give in and pay out, even if the merits of the case do not warrant it—that is a recipe for higher youth unemployment. It is simple; it is basic economics.

Look at the taxes in the Budget placed on rental income. Do Labour Members not realise that that will lead to higher rents and fewer properties on the market? Do they not understand that if the family home is taxed, we will catch a lot of people who may be asset rich but are income poor? I suppose the solution will be to allow that liability to roll up and be paid on death—yet another death tax at the hands of this Government.

What is all this pain and taxation paying for? In large part, it is paying for more welfare—it is as simple as that. Scrapping the two-child cap is a mistake and it is unfair, because those who are paying taxes, working hard and doing the right thing have to take tough choices as to whether they can afford a larger family or not. It is quite right and proper that those who are on benefits should face similar choices.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the majority of people impacted by this uplift, and two-thirds of children in poverty, have a parent in work. The false dichotomy of those in work and out of work is simply incorrect, and as a former Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, he should know that.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

This Budget comes at a crucial time for the country and this Government. I say that because I am not blind to the public mood. It is a mood that calls for more change and, fundamentally, I think that only the Labour party can deliver the change that we need.

To understand the decisions we made in the Budget, Members must bear in mind what we inherited. The economy was a cupboard left not only bare by Liz Truss, but with broken hinges and no remaining shelves because of the decade and a half of austerity that preceded her. This Labour Government were not elected because the last lot had done a good job; we were elected because there was a mess. Throughout our whole electoral mandate at the last election was the message that we should make things better: we should improve the cost of living, support poorer children, and fix our public services, from roads to the health service. Changing Government takes time. I am one of the many alumni of local government in this place, and I never thought I would dream of the speed of action and the immediacy of decision making that we can get in a townhall.

I will speak briefly about supporting businesses such as those in Calder Valley, and lifting children out of poverty. I welcome the Government’s work to transform business rates relief and protect our high streets. Retail, hospitality and leisure are central to our communities in Calder Valley. In Calderdale, 3,200 businesses will benefit from lower rates. When we talk about this change, we are talking about the clothes shop in Brighouse, the café in Hebden Bridge, the pub in Todmorden and the curry house in Elland. They are places that keep our towns alive and bring people together.

Just as our high streets are vital to our community life, our manufacturing is vital to so much else in our nation and our national security. In Calder Valley we are proud of our manufacturing—we are known to some across the country as “valve valley”, and I promise I will make that name stick in this place. Those businesses are ready to contribute to Britain’s national interest and security. The Chancellor’s commitment to changing procurement laws, so that when national security is at stake we support skilled jobs in our country, is common sense.

SMEs in Calder Valley also welcome the fact that apprenticeships will now be free, which will help them to secure the next generation of British manufacturing. However, apprenticeships are not just jobs; they are opportunities and a sense of pride for so many families.

I have talked about business, but I will also talk about the heart of the Budget. I thank the Chancellor for removing the two-child benefit cap. I know from my time working at the Child Poverty Action Group, at Oxfam on UK poverty, and at Church Action on Poverty that this change is one of the most significant steps we can take to reduce child poverty. Measures in this Budget will lift half a million children out of poverty. Children growing up poor are less likely to succeed at school, twice as likely to be obese, and more likely to suffer from poor health throughout their life. As adults, they earn less. The vandalism of the rapacious rise in child poverty under the last Government will echo through generations. This country had the largest rise in child poverty among high-income countries between 2013 and 2023, with deep poverty rising by 67%. That is the legacy of Conservative Members.

The need could not be clearer. In Calder Valley, 5,624 children were living in poverty in 2023-24, compared with 4,317 in 2014-15. That is a rise of more than 1,000 on the Tories’ watch, and behind every one of those numbers is a kid who deserves a fair chance, and a parent fighting to get it for them. Nearly 2,000 children in Calder Valley will have their lives made better because of this Budget, but it is not just one measure; it is a strategy—free breakfast clubs in schools, the expansion of subsidised childcare, and a higher minimum wage. That will make our country stronger into the future, but there is more work ahead. Families need certainty that support will continue, and businesses need confidence that investment in British industry will be matched by action, skills and infrastructure.

This Budget is a turning point, and a signal that Britain is ready to move beyond austerity and neglect towards fairness, opportunity and prosperity. Above all, it is about trust—trust that the Government will stand for families when times are hard, trust that investment in British industry will mean real opportunities for towns such as mine, and trust that fairness, not austerity, will guide our decisions. That will build confidence in our system, our Government, and in our country as a place to live, invest and prosper.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

rose—

Welfare Spending

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bedford]

When the Conservatives left office, there were just 2 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons. Today, that number stands at 3 million—a remarkable increase that highlights the sheer lack of action by this Government to get welfare under control. It tells the younger generation that aspiration is no longer the British way and that it is easier to depend on the state than to strive.

While the Government continue to spend, it is our constituents—hard-pressed taxpayers—who are footing the bill. We in this House would be wise to remember that there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately, taxpayers are getting a rough deal. Our approach is different. Only the Conservative party is on the side of the taxpayer. The Government published proposals to save £5 billion in welfare spending.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Conservative Members talking about what they would do in government is like me talking about having the ability to take a penalty in a world cup final. The Conservatives left us with 1.4 million PIP claimants for mental health reasons and 1.2 million on mental health waiting lists—that is 217,000 people in the midlands, where the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is.

[Mr Bedford]

Anyway, to go back to the £5 billion of welfare savings the Government proposed, that was a small but important step in the right direction that we on the Conservative Benches would have supported. Embarrassingly, they conceded to the hard left in the Labour party, so we are now in the perverse position that their welfare changes will invariably end up costing the taxpayer more and not achieve even the smallest of savings they intended. Other parties that claim to be fiscally conservative are now openly supporting the removal of the two-child benefit cap—a move that undermines the very principle of personal responsibility.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey]

rose—

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Liz Kendall]

I will give way to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I welcome the improvements made to the Bill so far, but I think we still need more details about the co-productive element of the Timms review. Will she confirm that the review will guarantee that disabled people and their organisations are the key voice in developing this policy? Will the review change and revolutionise the view in Whitehall, so that future policies that impact disabled people will always have their voices central to the discussion?

[Liz Kendall]

I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend about that. Many hon. Members have asked for precise details about how this process will work, and it is extremely important for us—we are beginning the process—to discuss this with disabled people, their organisations and other experts. It is not for me—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) would let me finish my sentence I will, of course, give way. It is important that we do not come up with—it would be completely wrong if we in Whitehall came up with a process and imposed it on other people. We have to do this properly.

Welfare Reform

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The Minister for Social Security and Disability and I have met many disabled organisations. In fact, he has spoken to many already about the review. We will continue to discuss with them precisely how the system of co-production will work, but I want to assure my hon. Friend that it is serious. We want to make sure people’s views and voices are heard, and I encourage him, as a Member of Parliament, to get involved in the process too.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

As a signatory to the reasoned amendment, I welcome the listening that has gone on, because a lot of people with disabilities will sleep more soundly in their beds knowing that their benefits are protected. However, on a specific point, if someone currently receives PIP but their condition is getting worse and they ask for a reassessment of the level of their PIP, will they be assessed under the current system or under the new one?

[Liz Kendall]

They are an existing claimant and they will be assessed—let me be really clear about this—under the existing rules.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s condolences. The figures were certainly not snuck out yesterday; I do not think anyone can accuse the Office for Budget Responsibility of sneaking them out. They were published on the day of the spring statement, as they always are and always have to be. Let me make it clear that spending on the personal independence payment will continue to increase above inflation. It will not increase as fast as it would have done if we had done nothing, but the advantage is that the funding for that benefit will be sustainable, and that is vital because so many people depend on it. It is not going to be means-tested and it is not going to be frozen. It will be there for the long term.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

There is real fear among many of my Calder Valley constituents with disabilities and with caring responsibilities about the proposed changes to PIP, and that fear has been exacerbated by some of the reporting. Can the Minister please give me a categorical assurance that the consultation on these measures is genuine, and that the Government will ensure that the responses of disabled people and of disability rights campaigns such as Scope will be given the weight they deserve?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those points. I can give him the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, I spoke to Scope yesterday, and to other disability charities. Yes, this will be a proper consultation, and we will listen very carefully to what people say to us in response.

Child Maintenance Service

Josh Fenton-Glynn Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom]

I will come to the national statistics later in my speech, but those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman absolutely speak to the need for reform.

The constituent I mentioned is far from alone, and it is not all one way, with paying parents often finding themselves let down by the CMS too. Another constituent has spent months battling the service after experiencing a genuine drop in income. Despite providing every piece of documentation that he has been asked for, he has been left waiting and waiting for an adjustment to his payment schedule. He said:

“I received a letter that said my request was not valid. No explanation was given. The letter said I would be referred to an unnamed team that could help me. Almost two months later, I have received no contact.”

That is just another story that embodies the failures at the CMS.

I recently attended the parliamentary event hosted by Gingerbread, the charity for single-parent families, and the all-party parliamentary group on single-parent families. The testimony shared that day echoed many of the fundamental problems: enforcement failures, dehumanising customer service, the resulting financial hardship and, in too many cases, continued abuse.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. I note that I am an officer of the APPG on single-parent families. The recent excellent report from Gingerbread on fixing the CMS noted that where child maintenance is paid, child poverty is 25% lower in those families. Does he agree that Gingerbread’s work is absolutely vital, but that it is also vital, as an important step towards solving the problem of child poverty, that we fix the Child Maintenance Service?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Member will have heard me say that we are looking at all available levers across those four areas. We rule nothing in and nothing out, but I understand his point.

We are aware of the challenges that the CMS faces and recognise that there is scope for improvement. The ministerial team as a whole is committed to making those improvements. On what we are doing about those issues, I will turn to the recent direct pay consultation, which the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire referred to, and offer some background to the proposed reforms. My party has long called for reforms to the direct pay service, stating that it does not work for all parents. For that reason, this Government extended the direct pay consultation launched by the previous Government, with the express purpose of gathering as much feedback from stakeholders as possible. We are looking closely at the feedback received and will publish the Government response in due course. I appreciate that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire would ask for a more specific timeline, but I hope he will appreciate that in what is an incredibly delicate area—dealing with vulnerable children, vulnerable families and strained relationships—we want to take our time and ensure that we get the changes right.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

My hon. Friend will know that getting it right for the most vulnerable children is important, but we are increasingly seeing post-separation abuse and post-separation financial abuse coming to light. Indeed, the report from Gingerbread that I cited earlier said that 45% of people who report post-separation financial abuse say that it gets worse when the CMS is involved. I hope that any report into the work of the CMS and supporting vulnerable families will look at that question and help us get some answers on that issue.

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He has a long history of working not just on CMS issues but on child poverty more broadly, and his expertise is of great value to the House. I will say a little more about domestic abuse and financial abuse later in my contribution, but I reassure him that the focus we had in the consultation on the proposed abolition of direct pay was intended as a specific response to that issue. I have seen appalling examples in cases that have crossed my desk as a Minister of people who can message their former partner in the form of a comment on a bank transaction. They will transfer a penny—they have a direct payment in place—along with an abusive term or some form of triggering harassment of a former victim of theirs. That shows that while a parent may have moved away from that unsafe and dangerous environment, they are never fully away when direct pay is engaged.