Pension Schemes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 15 to 24, 27, 30 to 34, 36, 38 to 42, 83 and 88, insists on its amendments 88C, 88E to 88P, 88R, 88S and 88W to the words restored to the Bill by that disagreement, does not insist on its amendments 88A, 88T, 88U and 88V to the words so restored to the Bill, but proposes further amendments (a) to (j) to the words so restored to the Bill.

It is obviously disappointing to see that not every Member in this Chamber wishes to stay for a detailed discussion of the Pension Schemes Bill, but it is not the biggest disappointment ever. It is good to see our regular engagers on this Bill in their place. I thank in particular those Members for helpful discussions on the Bill in recent days.

I do not intend to detain the House for long. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is the reaction we are always looking for. Members will be aware that there is one outstanding issue between this House and the other place when it comes to the Bill, and it relates to the reserve power on asset allocation. Today the Government return to their previous amendments on this issue. They spell out the intended purpose of the reserve power to underpin the industry’s own commitments in the Mansion House accord and to rule out other uses, such as a focus on any specific asset or asset class.

We are also bringing forward a final set of changes that aim to do justice to the points made in this House and the other place, while retaining the original policy intent. They have three elements. First, there is a new requirement on regulators—in this case, the Pensions Regulator and the Financial Conduct Authority—to make an assessment of barriers to the delivery of private asset investment, including the extent to which those barriers reflect the collective action problem, which we have discussed extensively in our exchanges on the Bill. That assessment would be required to be incorporated into the ex-ante report that the Secretary of State must produce before any use of the reserve power that the Bill provides for.

Importantly, our amendments also place on the Government a duty to have regard to this regulatory assessment before any use of the power. That will ensure that a Secretary of State behaving reasonably—as they are required to do—must place weight on the assessment of the regulators on this matter. It was always the Government’s intention to evaluate progress against the Mansion House accord commitments in terms of the broad direction of travel over a substantial period of time, rather than looking at short-term movements in private asset exposure. To reinforce that, we propose to add to the Bill that the power cannot be exercised any earlier than 2028.

Our second set of changes builds on the savers’ interest test to reinforce the central role of trustees and providers. Our amendments in lieu would change the bar required to engage the savers’ interest test. Rather than having to demonstrate that meeting the asset allocation requirements would be likely to cause material financial detriment, a scheme would instead have to show that meeting the requirements is

“likely not to be in the best interests of members”.

That reflects language regularly used when considering trustees’ duties. In addition, we have more tightly specified the regulators’ role, confining it to ensuring that the trustee or provider’s own assessment of what is in the best interests of members is “reasonable”, rather than replacing that assessment with their own.

Thirdly, our amendments address worries about the differential treatment of particular investment vehicles by allowing for consideration of direct or indirect holdings in the six asset classes named in the Mansion House accord.

I remind the House that the Bill has its roots in much work that was under way for some time in Government, but also in the commitment in the Labour party manifesto to ensure that workplace pension schemes take advantage of scale and invest in a wider range of productive assets. That is why one of the first things that the Government did on taking office was to launch a comprehensive review of pensions investment. That review found clear evidence that the defined-contribution pensions market is operating with an excessively narrow focus on costs, to the detriment of saver outcomes. That is where the reserve power comes from. It exists because the review found—and the industry itself has told us this, publicly and privately—that competitive pressure focused on cost minimisation is the single biggest barrier to diversifying in savers’ long-term interests.

However, things can of course change over time, and a range of other factors may come into play. We have discussed them with, in particular, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier). The changes that we propose today address directly that worry and others. They require regulators to assess whether these competitive pressures remain a material barrier to more diverse private asset investment before any use of the power, and they put trustees’ or providers’ own assessments of savers’ best interests centre stage.

On that basis, I commend the Government’s position to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Let me begin by welcoming the Minister back to his place—we missed him last night, and it is good to see him back in the Chamber.

Throughout our many debates, we have broadly agreed on the policy intent behind most of the Bill, but as I have said time and again, agreement on the principles of a Bill is not the same as offering the Minister unqualified support for every measure in it, particularly the power contained in clause 40, the power of mandation—or the reserve power, as the Chief Secretary calls it—which enables Ministers to instruct pension funds where to invest. When the Bill was first introduced, that mandation power was truly breathtaking in its scope. It was extraordinary—an unconstrained power that would have allowed the Secretary of State access to 100% of at least £400 billion-worth of auto-enrolment default pension funds. It would have allowed Ministers to direct their investment in whatever way they saw fit.

What happened the moment that became clear to people? Members sitting opposite and, indeed, behind me—not least those in Reform UK—were already queuing up with pet projects and struggling sectors. They thought that savers’ money should be used for net zero schemes, steel and renationalising water. They were not proposing those measures on the grounds of the return on investment for savers, and the income that they would generate for people’s later life; that much is obvious. But we said no—no to politicians having that power, no to Ministers directing pension savings into their pet projects, and no to overriding the interests of savers in favour of politicians desperate for access to capital.

I was clear from the outset that the power was dangerous and had no place in the Bill. After sustained pressure from the industry, from the other place and from this side of the House, the Government have, very slowly, been forced to row back. They have rowed back from a power grab that threatened trust in auto-enrolment pensions and risked damaging savers’ retirement incomes. Let us be clear about what those concessions amount to. First, on allocation limits, the original Bill contained no cap whatsoever on how much of a saver’s pension could be mandated into specified assets. Now, after pressure, the Government have imposed hard limits. No more than 10% of a default fund may be directed into qualifying assets, and no more than 5% may be directed specifically into UK assets. That is a major retreat from the original proposal.

Secondly, on sunset and single-use restrictions, the Government have brought forward the expiry date of the reserve power to 2032, if unused. They will repeal the whole regime by 2035 unless it is renewed by fresh primary legislation, and have limited the core mandation power so that it can be exercised only once—another retreat. Thirdly, the scope has been narrowed. Mandation can now apply only to the main default auto-enrolment fund, not the entire pension scheme or every pot—again, another retreat.

Today we have had further concessions. The Government now accept that before this power can be exercised, regulators must conduct an independent assessment of whether a genuine collective action problem exists—whereby no one wants to be the first mover—and whether that problem is inhibiting investment in private markets. We have been consistent in our view that mandation is not the right solution, but we accept that requiring independent assessment before the power can be exercised is a safeguard against ministerial overreach, and I appreciate the Pensions Minister’s assurances from the Dispatch Box on the weight of evidence required. The Government have also accepted that the reserve power cannot be used before 2028—again, another retreat.

The Government have further strengthened the savers’ interest test following yesterday’s amendment. Schemes will no longer have to prove that compliance would likely cause “material financial detriment”. Instead, they need only demonstrate that compliance is likely not to be in the best interests of members, thereby aligning the test with trustees’ existing fiduciary duties. That matters, because fiduciary duty is sacrosanct and must be protected. Nothing is more important in a modern pension system than the duty to act solely in the best interests of savers. That duty is the foundation on which trust in our pension system rests. This amendment means that in a conflict between mandation and fiduciary duty, fiduciary duty wins—again, another important retreat. Finally, the Government have agreed to remove discrimination between investment vehicles by clarifying that both direct and indirect holdings in the relevant asset classes count towards compliance—the final retreat.

Every one of those changes tells the same story: the Government introduced a power that was too broad, too vague and too dangerous. Step by step, and under pressure, they have been forced to narrow it, constrain it and hedge it with safeguards. Why? Because the original power was indefensible, and because the Government knew that the concerns were real. The work that we have done has obliterated the Government’s original proposal. As it stands now, the mandation power looks nothing like how it was first imagined. What began as a sweeping ministerial power grab has been stripped back, pared down and boxed in on all sides. Only now, after our intervention, has it become at least palatable. It is a vestige of its former overmighty self—a shrivelled husk.

Let me be clear: we do not believe that the Government should direct private capital, or that Ministers should interfere in investment decisions that are properly left to trustees and markets. Here we have Labour doing what it always does: thinking that the Government are the answer, with the state going where it has no place to go. When the Conservatives return to government, we will remove mandation from the statute book entirely, because at the heart of this policy lies a dangerous assumption that Ministers in Whitehall know better than trustees, fund managers and markets on how to invest the public’s pension savings. I have yet to meet anyone who wants a politician managing their pension, and pensions belong to the people who earn them, not Government Ministers. It is as simple as that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have opposed mandation from day one, and we have continued to oppose it throughout the passage of this Bill. The challenge is that once we cross the Rubicon, we change the dynamics of pensions significantly. Crucially, people need to have confidence that contributing to pensions is a good way of saving for their retirement. If we undermine that through Government interference, it will reduce people’s confidence in saving for their pensions. That would be a complete reversal of what this Bill is all about, because it is mostly about making sure that our pension system is fit for the future and fit to serve those who are looking to have a good retirement. That is to be celebrated, and the vast majority of this Bill is to be welcomed. However, although the Liberal Democrats welcome the significant concessions—those steps in the right direction—the Rubicon has still been crossed. We continue to have grave concerns.

Pension Schemes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords message

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the items in the Lords message relating to the Bill.

Clause 40

Certain schemes providing money purchase benefits: scale and asset allocation

Pension Schemes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

There is a simple question running through what we are debating today: who is ultimately in control of people’s pension savings? When I speak to residents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, they assume that the answer is straightforward. They assume that their pension exists to deliver the best possible outcome for them, not to serve a wider policy aim and not to be steered from the centre. That is why Lords amendment 1 matters. It would do something very simple. It would remove the ability for Ministers, through regulations, to require schemes to invest in particular assets, particular sectors, or in particular places. It would set a clear boundary. It would say that those decisions sit with trustees, acting in the best interests of savers. If the Government believe in the strength of their growth agenda, they should make the case for it. They should create the conditions for investment, and they should not need a reserve power to lean on pension funds if that case does not land.

The same concern sits at the heart of the Lords amendments to clause 40. Those amendments would strip out what is known as the “asset allocation requirement”. In plain terms, they would remove the mechanism in the Bill that would allow Ministers to set conditions on how pension schemes invest their assets as part of the approval framework. We are told those are only backstop powers that may never be used, but if that is true, why fight so hard to keep them? Why remove amendments that simply take that power off the table?

The Government have, in effect, acknowledged the issue by proposing limits in lieu—caps on how far they might go—but that does not answer the underlying question. It just manages it. Because this is not about whether the number is 5% or 10%. It is about whether that power should exist at all. There is a broader point here: bigger schemes and consolidation can bring benefits, but only if they improve outcomes, not if they are driven by a single model applied from the top down and not if well-performing schemes are pushed into structures that do not suit them.

Lords amendment 77 would require the Government to publish a full review of public service pension schemes within 12 months, and not just their cost, but their long-term affordability, their sustainability, and whether they are fair across generations—a point made so well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat). That is not a controversial ask. It is basic due diligence. People in my constituency are thinking about their own retirement, about what they can afford to save and about the pressures on public finances. They expect us to do the same at national level.

Taken together, the Lords amendments would do something quite straightforward.

They would protect savers from unnecessary interference, they would keep decision making where it belongs, and they would ask the Government to be transparent about the long-term picture. I do not think those are unreasonable tests, and the Government are wrong to strip them out.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister, if he is ready.

[Torsten Bell]

I am always ready to engage in exciting debates about pensions. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) is right to say that far more Members should be enthused enough to come and talk for as long as possible about pensions. I hope not to speak for two hours, but somewhere close to that, and I thank Members on both sides of the House and from the other place for their thoughtful contributions to an important debate. I will avoid trying the House’s patience by reiterating the reasons why the Government do not think it right to accept amendments that are unnecessary or that undermine policy intent, but I will respond in detail to the important points that hon. Members have made.

The Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) asked specifically about what the international evidence on asset allocation tells us. Two things stand out. The first is that the UK defined contribution market has an unusually low allocation to private assets, for example compared with similar schemes in Australia. The second is the point she raised that they have lower home bias—a point also partially raised by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge. Those two are related. We tend to see higher levels of home bias in investments that are in private assets than investments in public assets, for all the obvious reasons to do with the comparative advantage that comes from knowing more about the home market.

I recognise the argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth made about the PPF and the FAS. Her powerful campaigning on this issue, including raising it through the Work and Pensions Committee, is one of the reasons why we have acted in a way that previous Governments and Pensions Ministers have not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

Yes, basically I recognise the risks that the right hon. Member raises.

I think that I should now turn to the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). [Interruption.] It is not that I was confused; I was worried, because she used to be a calm and reasonable person, but something weird has happened. I fear that she has been infected by the existential angst of the modern Conservative party, and a leader whose entire political strategy is to focus on being rude rather than being right. This infection has left the shadow Secretary of State desperately trying to tell anyone who will listen—that is not many—that pensions are being raided and that there is a war on savers. Wow—those are strong words.

There are just two problems with those words. First, they are nonsense on stilts, designed to scaremonger good savers. I am afraid that the hon. Member has confused a conspiracy theory with a pensions policy, which is disappointing. The second problem is the lack of consistency and self-respect. If you really thought the Bill was as dangerous as we have been told today, you would have fought it in the trenches. You would have opposed it every single step of the way—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Minister, you are making a very passionate speech, but you said “you” and I do not think I was involved in fighting with you in any trenches at any point.

[Torsten Bell]

As a point of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker, I never fight with you—it would end badly for everyone and I would lose every time.

The Conservatives would have opposed the Bill every step of the way. They would have not just been on the barricades but built them, which is the exact opposite of what the shadow Secretary of State did. What did the hon. Member for Wyre Forest tell the House on Second Reading? He said that

“the Minister will be pleased to hear that there is cross-party consensus on many of the planned changes.”—[Official Report, 7 July 2025; Vol. 770, c. 722.]

Well, that was nice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

No, I am going to finish.

Let us be reasonable. Maybe Conservative Front Benchers just needed some time to think about it. What happened at Third Reading? On that occasion we had the pleasure of the shadow Secretary of State—she had not quite got to the frothing phase of her development—saying that

“there is a lot in it that we do welcome”,

as it will

“help people to manage their pension savings and get better returns.”

She went on,

“so we will not be voting against the Bill”—[Official Report, 3 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 1130-1131.]

We are now told it is an Armageddon Bill.

The shadow Secretary of State was right then, and she is ludicrously over the top now. The Bill puts savers’ interests first, as she well knows. She knows something else, which makes this faux crusading all the more embarrassing. Who are the politicians who have lobbied me to mandate pension scheme investment decisions? Tories. That has been mainly in private, so I will spare their blushes, but one ventured out into the open. The Leader of the Opposition’s Parliamentary Private Secretary, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), called me and others to a Westminster Hall debate just a few months ago. Why? Because he was worried about what he called my

“effort to hold back from mandation”.—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 110WH.]

What was he worried about? That we were not doing enough to push pension savers into UK investments. That is the truth behind all the froth today. The Bill supports savers and focuses on driving up the returns on their savings, and even the most over-excited Opposition Members know that is the right thing to do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Minister gave a very passionate speech, but when one mentions colleagues in the Chamber, one is meant to give prior notice. I assume that has happened.

[Torsten Bell]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall contact the right hon. Member for Salisbury. The comments in the Westminster Hall debate are on the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The appropriate thing to do will be to drop him a note very quickly.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.—(Torsten Bell.)

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the winding-up speech on the Pension Schemes Bill, I understand that the Minister for Pensions made specific reference to me. I was elsewhere at the Treasury Committee, but I am told that he referred to a Westminster Hall debate on 25 November, and depicted me as arguing for the mandation of pension investments. In that debate, I explicitly said that mandation would be an “overreach”. I went on to say:

“I hope that the Minister will reflect a little more on the need to empower pension holders to take decisions in the interest of investing more in UK equities.”—[Official Report, 25 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 122WH.]

I would be grateful if you could advise me on how I could avoid being inadvertently misquoted by the Minister in future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the right hon. Member for notice of his point of order. The Chair is not responsible for the content of Ministers’ speeches in the Chamber—if only we were. However, the Minister is in his place and will have heard what the right hon. Member has said. If an error has been made, I am sure that the Minister will seek to correct it as quickly as possible.

[Torsten Bell]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his point of order. As I have already said to him, I apologise for not giving him advance notice that I would raise the comments that he made in that Westminster Hall debate. The point that I made in my closing speech, which unfortunately he missed out on—but I know that his hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench enjoyed every minute of it—is that he has made the case that there is a challenge, in that there is not enough investment in UK equities, and he has called for measures to push in that direction.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We do not want to prolong the debate any further. Both the Back-Bench Member and the Minister have put their points on the record.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing with certain of their amendments.

That Torsten Bell, Gen Kitchen, Natalie Fleet, David Pinto-Duschinsky, John Slinger, Helen Whately and Mr Will Forster be members of the Committee;

That Torsten Bell be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee;

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Deirdre Costigan.)

Question agreed to.

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Programme) (No. 4)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provision shall apply to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 8 January 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme), as varied by the Orders of 17 March 2025 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 2)) and 9 March 2026 (Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: Programme (No. 3)):

Consideration of Lords Message on 15 April 2026

The Lords Amendments and Reasons shall be considered in the following order: 17B, 38, 41B, 102, 106 and 105B.

Question agreed to.

Fuel Duty

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

We will continue to be responsive to a changing world, be responsible in the national interest and with the public finances, and take the necessary decisions to help families with the cost of living. That is this Government’s promise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Well, it was clear that the Minister was not giving way. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

I completely understand what you are saying about public transport, but in rural communities, such as mine in Somerset, there is no public transport, so how can someone get to college? How can someone get to work? How can apprentices actually get a job? What you are saying is great, but that is a 10-year plan. We need action now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Start again.

[Adam Dance]

I apologise for saying “you”, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the hon. Member agree that that plan is for the next 10 years? We need change now. We need fuel duty sorted out now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

As the hon. Lady rightly points out, if someone is using alternative transport, such as buses, they are still affected by fuel duty—even more so. On top of that, the Government have already increased the cost of a bus ticket by 50%, so her argument does not hold water.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. If multiple Members are seeking to intervene, please indicate whose intervention you are taking. It makes it easier for the Chair to know whose name to call.

[Siân Berry]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I confess that I am not used to being intervened on in this fashion as I am such a minority in the Chamber, but someone has to make these points and I will continue to do so. The point about buses is well made. We need bus services and we need controls on bus fares, which we did not have until recent years. These are ongoing injustices that have compounded over the years, while people buying fuel from the pumps have been somewhat protected. But I am not saying there are easy answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

I am grateful—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Is the Member taking the intervention?

[Siân Berry]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Has the hon. Lady finished her intervention?

[Melanie Ward]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A point of order in the middle of an intervention, Dr Evans? I assume this point must be very pertinent and very urgent, but I will let the hon. Lady finish her intervention first.

[Melanie Ward]

Does the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) agree that investing in clean, green, home-grown energy is the way to ensure that we have energy security for our country in the future?

[Dr Evans]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to make a point of order about the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She labelled the Conservative Benches “the manosphere”. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that it is suitable to use sex as a pejorative just because there happen to be only male Members sitting on the Conservatives Benches at this point in the debate? I would envisage it being a problem if I used such a term the opposite way to label only females sitting on the Labour Benches.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Dr Luke Evans, you have most definitely got your point on the record. Unfortunately, the Chair is not responsible for the language used by Members—if only we were—but you have made your point and it is most definitely on the record. Siân Berry may wish to respond to that or to continue with her speech.

[Siân Berry]

I would very much like to continue with my speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I agree with the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). We will never truly protect the families who are struggling with daily living costs, driven by fossil fuel dependence, if we do not get our economy and our transport system completely off the addiction to oil and gas that they suffer from.

I remind the House that every £1 invested in achieving climate targets is estimated by the Climate Change Committee to generate between £2 and £4 in wider economic benefits. These include major public health improvements and NHS savings that could reach another £130 billion by 2050. These are all excellent investments that have been resisted for years and years by people who should know better.

Finally, I would like to quote the Social Market Foundation. It has said that Government policy to keep freezing fuel duty has “inadvertently” hurt drivers,

“with policies that end up encouraging car use arguing that the bigger issue is a lack of investment in alternatives to driving, keeping people reliant on costly cars.”

The Conservatives should consider that if they wanted to carry out the measures that they ask for without corresponding consequences for public services, health and wellbeing, they might have considered that air travellers pay no fuel duty at all in this country. Air travel demand is driven by the most wealthy passengers, with the broadest shoulders, including those in the private jets owned by Conservative party donors and other owners of private jets. The Conservative motion could have gone further, and been more practical and less short term in its thinking altogether. Green MPs will not be supporting the Conservative motion and I am grateful for the time that the House has given me to explain why.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

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

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee and Work and Pensions Committee on 10 September and 20 May 2025, on Child Poverty Taskforce, HC 894.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me into responding. I served in the previous Conservative Government, and I was involved in all those decisions. There was a clear principle behind them: will people take responsibility for their own actions? There are thousands—millions—of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, rather than the state doing so. With this change, the Government are saying to those people, “Not only will the state take responsibility, but you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes.” That is the principle at stake here, and the Government are reversing a clear principled position taken by the last Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that there are many colleagues in the Chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let us try to keep the noise down when colleagues are contributing.

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman has set out the previous Government’s justification. I am about to explain why that did not stack up at the time, and why it certainly does not stack up after the experience of the policy.

We should begin by considering why no other neighbouring country has this two-child limit. Given that the policy was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children to have, but that did not happen. The family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I remind the hon. Lady that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without undermining incentives to work.

The Bill removes the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause, which is a feature that we inherited from the Conservative regime. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child. For the families who will benefit, this measure will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. My understanding is that it is the current position of the Conservative party to bring back the limit, and therefore to bring back that provision. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps Reform Members can clarify their position when they contribute to the debate.

The policy change made by this Bill is not just about the redistribution of money—it is not just about placing children on the right side of an income line in a spreadsheet. It is about changing the story of children’s lives. That is an investment worth making for the whole country. It is about giving children a genuine shot at life, so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to their country and community as an adult. That is harder when children grow up poor, as they are less likely to do well at school, with less than a quarter of children in the lowest-income households getting five good GCSEs.

By the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and for the benefits bill that we are seeing in today’s system. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training—those numbers grew rapidly in the final years of the Conservatives’ time in power, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are reforming the system by changing the incentives of universal credit, ending a situation in which the sick have been signed off and written off, and increasing support to get disabled people into work. As Sir Charlie Mayfield estimated in his recent “Keep Britain Working” report,

“Someone leaving the workforce in their 20s can lose out on over £1 million in lifetime earnings—with the state incurring a similar cost”

to support them. These are the kinds of consequences that were not thought through when the Conservatives’ policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it.

Investing in children’s potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health and a better chance of a decent job. The most radical thing that a Government can do is enable people to change their own story. Our ambitions should go well beyond providing financially for people; they should be about providing the platform for that change, so there is a direct link between this Bill and the other things we are doing. We are providing more help with childcare for working parents in order to make work pay and to ease the choice between looking after children and taking up a job. That is in their interests and in the national interest—why should we lose the talents of those who have children?

The youth guarantee will help the young unemployed with training, work experience and ultimately a subsidised job, so that they know the pride and purpose that comes with having work. That is in their interests and in the national interest. We have more apprenticeships for young people, stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade. That is in their interests and in the national interest. Better life chances are part of the battle against the human and social cost of more and more young people being signed off sick and declared unfit for work. All these things will become more urgent as the population ages and we need more young workers to support the country. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest.

This debate is part of a wider one in politics. In this debate and in others, we have seen a politics of division in this country that wants to set person against person and group against group, and I believe we are only in the foothills of it. We will see more of this division, both home-grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. That is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but much more widely—and I want to make it clear today that we set ourselves against that politics, and make a clear and explicit choice to reject it.

Anger and division are not the fuel upon which this country’s future must be built. They will produce nothing. They will solve nothing. Indeed, they will only perpetuate the chaos in the country that people are so tired of. Instead, we embrace the mantle of hope to offer a chance and not a grievance—a society where we help each other up, rather than try to tear each other down, and where we say to those born into poor circumstances, “We will help you be the best you can be, not through altruism, but because we need you, we believe in you and we want your contribution.” That is in our interests and in the national interest. This is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics; that is what the change in this Bill is all about, and it is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am about to say about the back and forth on this policy on his side of the House, he will see that he should think a bit harder before talking about “consistency”.

So what is this Bill really about? If Labour truly believes that lifting the two-child limit is essential to tackling poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it? Years ago he called the cap “punitive” and promised to scrap it, but then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party, he changed that tune. He said that Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. His Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, said that it was unaffordable. Just six months ago, the Government even suspended the whip from MPs who voted to lift the cap, but now that the Prime Minister’s leadership is under threat, it is the end for the cap. How long will it be before he goes the same way? That is the real reason we are debating the Bill today: we have a weak Prime Minister, running scared from his left-wing Back Benchers.

Talking of the left wing, I expect that Labour will be joined in the Division Lobby later by some of the Opposition Members sitting to the left of me. No doubt the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will also be competing to see who can be the most generous with other people’s money. Reform UK has jumped on the welfare spending bandwagon too. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have not tabled a reasoned amendment today, not because we think that the Bill is perfect—I hope that is clear—but because any amendment would still leave us with a watered-down version of the cap. Other parties have got in a right muddle on this—one in particular—but to us it is clear and simple: the cap should stay. Anything else is a worse policy. Amending the Bill is not the right answer; the House should just vote it down.

First and foremost, I have argued against the Bill on the grounds of fairness, but there is another reason to vote against it. More than 50% of households now receive more from the state than they pay in. The benefits bill is ballooning. Health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade—more than we spend on defence, education or policing. The benefits bill is a ticking time bomb. We have to start living within our means. Other parties are simply in denial about the situation that we face in our country. The Conservatives are the only party that recognises how serious this is. We would not be spending more on benefits; in fact, we have explained how we would be saving £23 billion. We would stop giving benefits to foreign nationals, stop giving benefits for lower-level mental health problems and milder neurodiversity, stop the abuse of Motability, and bring back face-to-face assessments. We would get the benefits bill under control, and back people to work.

Labour claims to be compassionate, but there is nothing compassionate about making welfare the rational choice, nothing compassionate about rewarding dependency over work, and nothing compassionate about saddling working families with higher taxes to fund political U-turns. Outside this place, people can see what is happening. They know when a system is unfair. They know when a Government have lost their way. They know when a Prime Minister’s time is up. Members should not be enticed by his final throws. They should step back and do what is right for the country. They should back people who do the right thing, back jobs and work and lower taxes, and back living within our means and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than backing a policy that will add billions to the benefits bill and trap parents in a downward spiral of dependency. This Bill does not end poverty. It entrenches it, so we oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit, which will start at five and a half minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is opposing the policy before us today. So you actually do not want to take the measure that we are going to take—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “You”, Mr Slinger—I have mentioned this to you so many times. Let us start again.

[John Slinger]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will reduce child poverty by an enormous number.

Conservative Members have not really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible. Their decisions were not accidents; they were choices. The consequences were known, the damage was predictable and the outcome is now painfully clear. Years of ignoring child poverty have left this country with many problems, including the number of children not in education, employment or training. That is an inheritance that this Government are now tackling, not least through the excellent work of Alan Milburn and his investigation into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary.

Children are being condemned to a lifetime of economic inactivity, which is bad for them and their future wealth. As the “Keep Britain Working” report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose up to £1 million in earnings. It is also bad for their health. Having four more years in education on average relates to a 16% reduction in mortality rates and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also bad for the country—all that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

In November, I informed the House that the Government would make a new decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced by my predecessor in December 2024. We have now concluded the process to make a new decision and are placing copies of the Government’s full response in the Libraries of both Houses.

Before I turn to the substance, I think it is important to be clear what this decision and statement is about, and what it is not about. There are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the state pension age, and in particular whether the decision taken in 2011 by the coalition Government to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do. But the issue we are discussing today is not the merits or otherwise of past policy decisions about the state pension age. What the ombudsman investigated was how changes to the state pension age were communicated and whether within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice—and if so, whether that warrants compensation.

In March 2024, the ombudsman published its final report. As with so many other issues, the previous Government left the report on their desks, issued no response, took no decision, and left it to this Government to respond. In December 2024, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), set out the Government’s response, having considered all the information provided to her.

However, given that relevant research from 2007 about the effectiveness of sending letters subsequently emerged that had not been provided to my right hon. Friend, I wanted to ensure that the right and proper process was followed to take account of this alongside the information previously considered. Of course, I asked the Department not just to consider the 2007 report, but to undertake new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents to help inform the new decision.

We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For that, I want to repeat the apology that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West gave on behalf of the Government. I am sorry those letters were not sent sooner. We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.

However, the question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. The evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions—the very women who most needed to engage with a letter, and for whom it might have made a difference—were the least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the Department stopped sending them.

The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide-range of public information, including leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, and information on TV and radio, in cinemas and online. To specifically compensate only the women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women, including whether someone genuinely did not know that their state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess the answers to those questions conclusively.

A flat-rate scheme would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would also be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. I have heard calls for compensation aimed at lower-income pensioners, and we have focused in the past 12 months on raising pension credit uptake, but in the context of this decision, a scheme focused on any single income group still would not specify who may or may not have suffered injustice. That is why, in taking this new decision, we have come to the same conclusion on compensation as that announced by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State in December 2024.

I know that many people feel that the state pension age should not have gone up in the way that it did; indeed, Labour argued against the 2011 policy decision put in place by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that accelerated the increase. However, I repeat what I said at the start of my statement: that is a different issue to the one the ombudsman investigated and that I am responding to today, which relates to the communication of changes in the state pension age and, narrowly, to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period.

The changes from 2011 underline the importance that decisions on the state pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives, and I take seriously the need to weigh carefully any future changes. That is why, together with the ombudsman, the Department has been developing an action plan for the future. Work on that had stopped pending today’s decision, but I can confirm that it will now resume.

It also underlines why we are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, have a better life in retirement, just as Labour has done in the past—from the Wilson Government, who first formally linked the uprating of pensions to the higher of earnings or prices, to the previous Labour Government, who lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty. Labour introduced pension credit, which is vital in topping up the incomes of the poorest pensioners, with women consistently making up the majority of those benefiting since we first introduced it in 2003. This Government are ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up, which saw tens of thousands more pension credit awards in the year up to November than in the previous year.

In addition, our commitment to the triple lock for this Parliament means that women will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the state pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. We are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists. This is the positive difference our Government are making.

I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.

In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that

“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]

She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:

“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]

Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was

“fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption:

“MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.”

It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them.

If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing.

That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women.

I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes?

This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap?

Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.

Welfare Spending

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is not the only person who worries about it, and I will receive his intervention as a submission to the child poverty taskforce.

The child poverty taskforce is looking at all the levers we can pull—across income, costs, debt and local support—to prevent poverty, including social security reform. Our universal credit review is considering ways that the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances and provide roots into good work.

On the two-child limit specifically, the consequences of the Conservative choices made over the past decade and a half are clear for all to see. We have rightly said many times that we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it. Taxpayers in this country—who include many parents, grandparents and those who care deeply about the fortunes of the next generation—have the right to know that they have a Government who will help grow our country and our economy. Poverty creates stony ground for that growth. It robs people of the dignity of being able to look after themselves and the choices about how to live their own lives. It robs children of what should be a worry-free time and makes them less able to take risks and try new things as they grow up.

This makes bad beginnings for a country that needs its next generation to be innovators, to be inventors and to build our future. I say this as one of three in a family with hard-working parents where money was tight. We knew every day in those years when I was growing up that the Tory Government at the helm did not give a stuff about people like us—we knew that every single day. Families in this country who are struggling should know that this Labour Government think about them every day. We have taken action to improve life for our kids, and we will keep fighting for that every single day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have two Opposition day debates that are both heavily subscribed, so we will start with a speaking limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I want to finish my speech.

Poverty is, of course, a matter for Government. It is about policies and about incomes, but there is another important side to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about: child maintenance and the absence of payments made in single-parent families. Research by the single-parent advocacy organisation Gingerbread found that 43% of children in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty, compared with 26% in couple families. We know that poverty has many causes and there is no single solution, but there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full, it has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty. Research shows that where it is received, child maintenance cuts the child poverty rate by 25%.

Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report found that 57% of parents who care for a child and had a child maintenance arrangement in place reported that they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. At the end of September 2024, total cumulative arrears of payments that were formally expected stood at £682.1 million, and that figure is due to reach £1 billion by the end of the decade. That is just a fraction of the story, because those figures are based only on the sometimes quite pitiful amounts that non-custodial parents have to pay, either because they earn little or because they hide what they earn. Those figures also do not include parents who are not pursued for money by the custodial parent.

Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money than the official figures suggest, and there is a deep unfairness to that. If a custodial parent simply chose not to provide any more resources to the child they care for, they would face criminal sanction for neglect. A non-custodial parent who does not give money for the upkeep of their child faces no similar ramifications. I have no idea why we do not place an expectation on a non-custodial parent to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do with out-of-work people on benefits, as they are also creating a burden on the taxpayer.

As the Minister may know, there is legislation that allows steps to be taken to place non-paying parents in home detention. I urge her and the Government to look closely at that. If people cannot be bothered to go out, work and pay for their children when they do not live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night to drink beers with their mates. That would help to drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents who are simply not paying for them—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The speaking limit has now been reduced to three minutes.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Sometimes politics seems complicated. Sometimes the passage of a Bill through Parliament, especially with antics and shenanigans like those we saw last week, may confuse people. But actually, the issue before all of us when we vote tonight is very simple. Today, Wednesday 9 July 2025, are Labour MPs going to vote through cuts to universal credit that will take £2 billion from 750,000 sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes—people who will have been judged not fit to work? Will we put our name to a Bill that will, on average, take £3,000 off every single one of those 750,000 people? I think that if we had not had the complications with the Bill the week before, Labour MPs would find it very easy. They would see a Bill that asks us to take billions of pounds from low-income people in our constituencies across the country and find it very easy to vote no.

I ask my friends on the Labour Benches to cast their minds back to when they were first selected and first elected. None of us got into politics to take £3,000 a year off low-income people who are sick and disabled and on universal credit. It has been said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. People outside this Chamber see the issue before us very clearly indeed. The Bill is being railroaded through, disabled people’s voices are being excluded, and when colleagues say, “Don’t listen to those who say we shouldn’t press on,” that means, “Don’t listen to disabled people.” I think we should listen to disabled people, and not one disabled people’s organisation supports the changes.

The reason the Bill is being rushed through a Committee of the whole House, rather than a Committee where disabled people and their organisations—people with lived experience—could talk to the MPs on the Committee, is because of a politically imposed artificial deadline that is there to save face. I welcome the changes made last week as a result of pressure from disabled people and Back-Bench MPs, but we are voting tonight on taking money off people on low incomes. We are voting tonight on whether we think, after saying last week that it was wrong to have a two-tier PIP system, that it is right to have a two-tier universal credit system.

The reality is that people will remember how we vote tonight. It has been said before, but I will say it again: some votes define us. They define us as politicians and they define how we view our time in Parliament. Disabled people who come to see us in our constituency surgeries will not understand if we, as Labour people, vote for this cut to universal credit tonight or abstain. We will live with that vote in every single constituency surgery between now and the next general election.

Let us take a step back and imagine that we did not have a Whip system in this House. Of course, all of us agree on 99% of things all the time. That is the reality, but if this were not a whipped vote, I think the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote with their conscience and with their disabled constituents against cutting universal credit. All the rest is sophistry. We will live with this vote. It is often said that the longer the statement on Twitter from an MP after a vote, the worse the decision they must have made. You start at the first sentence and by the time you get to the end, the constituents are thinking, “Did they? Did they really vote for that after all they said on the TV, in their tweets and in the Chamber?”

We are Labour people. This is not a left and right issue in the Labour party; this is a right and wrong issue. I say this: any Labour MP who votes against these cuts to low-income people on universal credit tonight will sleep soundly, knowing that they did all they could, on £90,000-odd a year, to stand up for their disabled constituents. That is what we got into politics to do. We should not plough ahead. We should vote this out.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against amendment (a) to amendment 2, amendments 45 and 52, and new clause 12.

The creation of the modern welfare state by the 1945 Labour Government remains one of our proudest legacies. At its heart was the powerful idea that people should be protected from hardship and supported to realise their full potential. Underpinning that vision was a clear principle: everyone who can work should work, not just for the dignity and agency work brings, but because it is the most effective route out of poverty. Children in workless households are five times more likely to grow up poor than those in households where every adult works.

That principle holds true today, but it is under strain. One in 10 working-age people is out of the labour market; among young people, that figure is one in eight. This is not a global trend, but a challenge unique to the UK, rooted in the welfare system’s design. Too often, that system locks people with health conditions and disabilities out of work; too often, it penalises attempts to get ahead and fails to offer real support; too often, it writes people off.

Disabled people in the UK have an employment rate 29% lower than those without disabilities and face a wider unemployment gap than many of their international peers. Their poverty rate is 10% higher. This is not compassion. We owe it to these individuals and to the welfare state’s founding principles to fix this problem. We cannot avoid change or fall back on impractical slogans—to do so would be to abandon those who most need help.

Yet that is what these amendments and new clauses do. I shall start with amendments 45 and 52 and new clause 12, tabled by the Opposition, whose Benches are empty. These measures reveal a lack of seriousness and of a plan. The Tories presided over this crisis of opportunity and soaring claimancy. They failed to reform the system, to address the disability employment gap or to tackle fraud, which tripled on their watch. Throughout this debate, they have been unable to explain their alternative—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), whom it is good to see in his place, recently admitted as much, saying that he could not say exactly what he would do—so they resort to gimmicks.

Amendment 45 demands that all assessments be face-to-face, forgetting that it was the Conservatives who cut face-to-face assessments by 90%. If there were an Olympic event for brass neck, they would win the gold medal every time. This proposal is unworkable, denying frontline managers discretion—a fact the Conservatives essentially admit in the small print. It is also unnecessary; unlike the Conservatives in government, this Government are restoring most assessments back to being face-to-face.

The same applies to amendment 52 and new clause 12. PIP already has strict residency and qualification rules and is needs based. These proposals would not effect meaningful change, but would slow down reform. Once again, this is gesture politics—the Conservatives do not have a plan.

While the Opposition admit a problem but offer no plan, amendment (a) to amendment 2 seems, I fear, to deny that there is a problem at all, proposing simply to remove all changes to the LCWRA. The changes those behind the amendment want to scrap are vital to rebalancing the system, which will not just remove disincentives to work but enable the largest above-inflation increase in basic jobseeker benefits since the 1970s. These benefits will rise £725 a year for 6.5 million people by 2029, helping 15,000 people in my constituency. Removing these changes risks losing measures that would lift 50,000 children out of poverty.

None of this is easy. We are talking about real lives, not abstract policies. I understand the anxiety this debate causes, but freezing the system in aspic and ignoring its failings would lock in current injustices and create future problems. We should start reform by reaffirming the system’s basic purpose: to protect and treat all with dignity, but also to empower people and give them true agency. That means recognising that some cannot work, ensuring protection for the vulnerable, and listening to and co-producing with disabled people. However, it also means ensuring that those who can work do so, offering support and holding employers to account. I believe that the Government’s proposals do so.

Just as Attlee’s Government reimagined the role of the state after the war, so we must reimagine it now after the upheavals of the pandemic, economic change and rising ill health. The world has changed, and our welfare system must do so too. We must reform the system—not in spite of Labour values, but because of them.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Colleagues have described the events surrounding this Bill as “chaotic” and “shambolic”, and they were right to do so. Sadly, by failing to consult on key elements, the Government were setting up the Bill to fail. Moreover, the Government’s impact assessment is, I fear, somewhat misleading, because it bakes in cuts that the previous Government had planned, but not actually implemented. As a result, I am somewhat cautious of some of the Government’s figures.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, the Bill has been irresponsibly rushed through. If we are serious about helping some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, the best way to do so is to engage with them, take time, and get the right results for them. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I wish to highlight amendment 12, which would provide that engagement and, most of all, the due diligence that we deserve. If the amendment falls, I would encourage colleagues to vote against the Bill tonight.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

So here we are. Labour has had 15 years, including 14 years spent complaining about welfare reform while the Conservative Government fixed the catastrophic mess of unemployment benefits that we inherited—the alphabetti spaghetti of welfare that we had in 2010, if any of their Members can remember it. We fixed all those benefit traps, introducing universal credit, making work pay and supporting people off welfare and into jobs. In the first decade of our time in government, 100,000 fewer people were economically inactive every single year of the 2010s. In 2019 we had the lowest number of workless households since records began. Then covid hit, and Labour were clamouring for more welfare throughout that period. After the covid incident, as we left office we were introducing reforms to fix the health and disability benefits system. All of that was opposed every step of the way by Labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to give way.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?

[Olivia Blake]

I want to pull up the shadow Minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years and thus there is a backlog of women now accessing their right to benefits relating to ADHD? Many women like me were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders instead of ADHD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Pension Schemes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member invites me to skip quite a long way forward in my speech, and it is a long speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ah.

[Torsten Bell]

That was not the support I was hoping for from the Chair—understandable, but harsh. I will come to some of the points that the right hon. Member raises. I think he is referring particularly to pre-1997 indexation, which I shall come to.

As I said, the Bill includes a reserved power that will allow the Government to require larger auto-enrolment schemes to invest a set percentage into wider assets. That reflects the wider calls that have been made for this change but have not led to its taking place. What pension providers are saying is that they face a collective action problem, where employers focus too narrowly on the lowest charges, not what matters most to savers: the highest returns. I do not currently intend to use the power in the Bill, but its existence gives clarity to the industry that, this time, change will actually come.

Some argue—I will come to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier)—that this somehow undermines the duty that pension providers have to savers. That is simply wrong. First, the Bill includes clear safeguards to prioritise savers’ interests and is entirely consistent with the core principle of trustees’ fiduciary duties. Clause 38 includes an explicit mechanism, which I have discussed with Members from the main three parties in this House, to allow providers to opt out if complying risks material detriment to savers. Secondly—this is the key point that motivates a lot of the Bill—savers are being let down by the status quo. There is a reason major pension schemes across the rest of the world are already investing in this more diverse range of assets.

Fragmentation within the pensions industry happens within providers, not just between them. Some insurers have thousands of legacy funds, so clause 41 extends to contract schemes the ability that trust-based schemes already have to address that. Providers will be able to transfer savers to another arrangement without proactive individual consent if, and only if, it is independently certified as being in the member’s best interest.

Another point that I hope is of common ground across the House is that we need to do more to realise the untapped potential of the local government pension scheme in England and Wales. We need scale to get the most out of the LGPS’s £400 billion-worth of assets. Again, the Bill will turn that consensus into concrete action. It provides for LGPS assets spread across 86 administering authorities to be fully consolidated into six pools. That will ensure that the assets used to provide pensions to its more than 6 million members—predominantly low-paid women—are managed effectively and at scale. Each authority will continue to set its investment strategy, including how much local investment it expects to see. In fact, these reforms will build on the LGPS’s strong track record of investing in local economic growth, requiring pension pools to work with the likes of mayoral combined authorities. In time, bigger and more visible LGPS pools will help to crowd private pension funds and other institutional investors into growth assets across the country.

Our measures will build scale, support investment and deliver for savers, but the Bill does more to ensure that working people get the maximum bang for every buck saved. To reinforce the shift away from an excessively narrow focus on costs, clause 5 provides for a new value-for-money framework. For the first time, we will require pension schemes to prove that they provide value for money, with standardised metrics. That will help savers to compare schemes more easily, and drive schemes themselves to focus on the value that they deliver. For persistently poor performers, regulators will have the power to enforce consolidation. That will protect savers from getting stuck in poorly performing schemes—something that can knock thousands of pounds off their pension pots.

We are also at last addressing the small pension pots issue. I was out door-knocking in Swansea earlier this spring, and a woman in her mid-30s told me that something was really winding her up—and it was not me knocking on the door. [Laughter.] This is a very unsupportive audience. It was trying to keep track of small amounts of pension savings that she had from old jobs; the only thing that was worse was that her husband kept going on about it. There are now 13 million small pension pots that hold £1,000 or less floating around. Another million are being added each year. That increases hassle, which is what she was complaining about, with over £31 billion-worth of pension pots estimated to currently be lost. It costs the pensions industry around £240 million each year to administer. Clause 20 provides powers for those pots to be automatically brought together into one pension scheme that has been certified as delivering good value. Anyone who wants to can of course opt out, but this change alone could boost the pension pot of an average earner by around £1,000.

Of course, once you have a pension pot, the question is: what do you do with it? We often talk about pension freedoms, but there is nothing liberating about the complexity currently involved in turning a pension pot into a retirement income. You have to consolidate those pots, choose between annuities, lump sums, drawdowns or cashing out. You have to analyse different providers and countless products. Choice can be a good thing, but this overwhelming complexity is not—77% of DC savers yet to access their pension have no clear plan about how to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The earlier people start putting money in, the better. As a result of compound interest, over many years they will end up with a bigger pension pot, even if at the beginning the contribution is quite small; the amount aggregates over a long period. We will discuss that in Committee.

We are concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill. Too much is left to the discretion of regulators and to secondary legislation. Parliament deserves to have proper oversight of these reforms. From my discussions with the industry, it seems there is tentative support for many of the reforms in the Bill. However, the message that keeps coming back is that the devil will be in the detail, so I hope that as this Bill makes progress through the House, the Minister will be able to fill in more of the blanks—and I am sure he will; he is a diligent individual.

I move on to the most important thing that this Bill hopes to achieve: growth. We want to support Labour Members on the growth agenda, but too often they go about it in slightly the wrong way. Surpluses in defined-benefit pension schemes are a great example. Interest rates have risen post-covid, and that has pushed many schemes into surplus. In principle, we support greater flexibility when it comes to the extraction of these surpluses, but there need to be robust safeguards; that is certainly the message coming back from the industry.

Under the legislation, there is nothing to stop these surpluses being used for share buy-backs or dividend payments from the host employer, for instance. Neither of these outcomes necessarily help the Government’s growth agenda. We would welcome a strengthening of the Bill to prevent trustees from facing undue pressure from host employers to release funds for non-growth purposes. In addition, to provide stability, the Government should carefully consider whether low dependency, rather than buy-out levels, will future-proof the funds, so that they do not fall back into deficit.

Although the Government are keen to extract surpluses from the private sector, there is not the same gusto shown in the Bill when it comes to local government pensions. The House has discussed in detail the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, not least earlier today. Under the revised rules introduced by the Chancellor, the measure of public debt has shifted from public sector net debt to public sector net financial liabilities. As a consequence, the local government pension scheme’s record £45 billion surplus is now counted as an asset that offsets Government debt. This gives the Chancellor greater headroom to meet her fiscal targets—headroom that, dare I say it, is shrinking week by week. I do not wish to sound cynical, but perhaps that is the reason why the Bill is largely silent on better using these surpluses. This may be a convenient accounting trick for the Chancellor, but the surpluses could have been used, for instance, to give councils pension scheme payment holidays. The Government could make it easier to follow the example set by Kensington and Chelsea, which has suspended employer pension contributions for a year to fund support to victims and survivors of the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy. These revenue windfalls could be redirected towards a range of initiatives, from local growth opportunities such as business incubators to improving our high streets. We could even leave more money in council tax payers’ pockets.

I turn to the part of the Bill on which we have our most fundamental disagreement: the provisions on mandation. The Bill reserves the power to mandate pension funds to invest in Government priorities. That not only goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties—although I appreciate and recognise the point the Minister made earlier—but means potentially worse outcomes for savers. Pensions are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent a lifetime of work, sacrifice, and hope for a secure future. The people who manage these funds and their trustees are under a legal duty to prioritise the financial wellbeing of savers. Their job is not to obey political whims, but to invest prudently, grow pension pots and uphold the trust placed in them by millions of ordinary people.

That fiduciary duty is not a technicality; it is the bedrock of confidence that the entire pension system rests on. These pension fund managers find the safest and best investments for our pensions, no matter where in the world they might be. If things go wrong, we can hold them to account. But if this reserve power becomes law, we have to ask the question: if investments go wrong, who carries the can? Will it be the pension fund manager and the trustees, or the Government, who did the mandation?

Likewise, while the reserve power in the Bill focuses on the defined-contribution market, the shift in emphasis has potentially profound impacts across the sector. UK pension funds, along with insurance companies, hold approximately 30% of the UK Government’s debt or gilt market. If mature defined-benefit schemes move from the gilt market to equities, that potentially has a profound impact on the Government’s debt management, or ability to manage debt, and therefore interest rates and mortgage rates. For that reason, we would welcome the Minister confirming whether any concerns have been raised by the Debt Management Office, and possibly the Bank of England. There is widespread opposition from across the industry to this power—I am approaching the end of my speech, you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are better ways for the Government to deliver growth, such as changing obsolete rules and removing restrictions.

In the annuity market, solvency rules prevent insurers from owning equity in productive UK assets. Wind farms, for example, deliver stable returns through contracts for difference and contribute to the Government’s green agenda. They could be an ideal match for long-term annuity investments, while also delivering clean energy. Releasing the limits on the ability of insurers to fully deploy annuity capital has the potential to unlock as much as £700 billion by 2035, according to research by Aviva. Rather than imposing top-down mandates, we want the Government to maximise growth opportunities from our pension industry by turning over every stone and seeking out the unintended consequences of old regulations, not imposing new ones.

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will be delighted to hear. [Interruption.] Yes, I have taken a lot of interventions. We reaffirm our commitment to working constructively with the Government. Stability in the markets is of paramount importance, and we recognise the need for a collaborative approach as the Bill progresses through the House. We will bring forward amendments where we believe improvements can be made, and we will engage in good faith with Ministers and officials to get the detail right.

We want to go with, not against, the grain of what the Government are seeking to achieve through this Bill, and I look forward to working with the Minister in the weeks and months ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chair of the Select Committee, Debbie Abrahams, after whom I will call Steve Darling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I understand what my hon. Friend says. There is always a balance to be found with long-term financial decisions, but this is partly a political decision, so I point to the Pensions Minister to come up with a response.

Do the Government propose to consult on the design of the mandation power and how to mitigate against unintended consequences? Do the Government think that there is a case for changing the law on fiduciary duty to make clear that trustees can take account of wider issues, such as the impact of pension scheme investments on the economy and the environment? What would be the pros and cons of doing that?

Briefly, I would like to touch on the LGPS. I slightly disagree with some of the shadow Pensions Minister’s points. Since 2015, the 86 funds have been formed into eight groups. If the Pensions Minister is proposing to reduce that still further, will he set out the reasons behind that? What is the problem that merging them even further is trying to fix? Will he let me know about that in his closing remarks?

Finally, I would like to touch on the pre-1997 indexation, as the Pensions Minister knew that I would. At the end of March 2024, the Pension Protection Fund had a surplus of £13.2 billion. The PPF has taken steps to reduce the levy from £620 million in 2020 to £100 million in 2025. However, under current rules, if it made the decision to reduce the levy to zero, it would then be unable to increase it again. The 2022 departmental review by the Department for Work and Pensions recommended that the PPF and the DWP work together to introduce changes to the levy, so that the PPF would have more flexibility in reducing and increasing the levy level.

There is another issue, which the Pensions Minister will know about. PPF and financial assistance scheme members, particularly those in their later years, are really struggling. I came across a piece—I think it was in The Daily Telegraph—that said that one of the key supporters of the Pension Action Group and a FAS member, Jacquie Humphrey died a few days ago, just 11 weeks after the death of her husband. They were both employed by Dexion, which folded, and, like hundreds of others, refused to leave it there. Is there any comfort that we can provide? I understand and recognise what the Minister says about the PPF surplus being on the public sector’s balance sheet, but given that these people, who are in their 70s and 80s, are unable to live in dignity, what can we do to provide that for them in their later years?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Jennie seems to have captured the mood of the House, but I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

It is safe to say that the topic of today’s debate has been my overriding focus in recent months. I thank my constituents and all organisations for their input, as well as the Secretary of State and the wider DWP team for listening to concerns, and indeed for acting on them with recent amendments.

The Bill will raise the universal credit standard allowance by the largest increase since the 1970s. It will help 3.9 million families with an average gain of £265 a year, bringing us closer, finally, to ensuring that every family can afford the essentials without relying on charity or community support. I wholeheartedly welcome this as part of the Government’s wider efforts to rebalance universal credit to better reward work and improve basic adequacy, along with an end to reassessment for those with the most severe conditions and an end to work capability assessments, as well as the right to try work without the risk of losing existing entitlements and crucial increased investment in health and into work pathways.

However, the undeniable focus of the Bill has been changes to the personal independence payment. I truly thank my Clwyd North constituents for their time and their trust in sharing their stories so openly. To them, I say: I hear you, and will continue to represent you. So many of my constituents have been desperately worried about what the eligibility changes mean for them; this concern is real, and it must be taken seriously. One constituent said to me:

“Every time I turn on the news, it’s there. I’ve looked at the changes and I know they won’t affect my payments, but I keep wondering if I’ve got it right…and it’s causing me real anxiety.”

That level of fear is hugely regrettable, and is a responsibility we all share.

Thanks to the incredible support of advice organisations in Clwyd North, many of my constituents have navigated the complex PIP system—one, by the way, that is too reliant on appeals and outside agencies—and now have some stability in meeting daily costs, which remain far too high for far too many. It is right that the Government have listened to these concerns, and I welcome the Government’s amendments to protect existing claimants and the accelerated review of PIP assessments with a stronger commitment to co-production with disabled people.

However, it is also right to recognise that the system is not working as it should be. It is right that we recognise that too many believe that they have nothing to offer and that their health, and particularly their mental health, defines what they can do. It is also right that we stop that belief being passed on to the next generation—something I have seen far too often as a teacher—and stop too many young people feeling that they do not belong in the social networks and financial independence that good work provides.

The expected soaring reliance on PIP reflects the woeful lack of health and local support that has been offered until now. Areas such as mine have sought to fill this gap, with services that create bespoke pathways to work—like the pathway trod by my constituent whose life changed forever when he was helped out of his bedroom, which he had stayed in for years while struggling with his mental health, and into stable work in our local hospitality sector. There are many more like him. We must turbocharge that support, working closely with health services to provide the wraparound care that people need. And, as an inactivity trailblazer area, Clwyd North is determined to lead this effort.

Reform is endlessly challenging, but it is necessary as the system we inherited is not working. It is a hugely ambitious challenge and requires us to be bold and determined. I came into politics to be bold, and I will work tirelessly to make real change happen. And it is with that belief that I support this Bill today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Steve Witherden—not here. I call Ian Byrne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have run out of time. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the shambles this afternoon, with the Bill being ripped apart literally before our eyes in this Chamber and the Minister unable even to tell us how much it will now save, can you please advise me whether it should still be rushed through to be debated next week in Committee of the whole House, or whether the Government should in fact withdraw it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

Programming committee

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act;

(b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing—

(i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit;

(ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.