Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Debate between Pat McFadden and Nusrat Ghani

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

[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.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Debate between Pat McFadden and Nusrat Ghani

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.

Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

Debate between Pat McFadden and Nusrat Ghani

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Given the mood in the House, I do not intend to detain people for long. By now we know the purpose of the Bill: to allow Catholics to be appointed to the role of Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. That is the Bill in a nutshell. Today’s debates have demonstrated that there is wide support for the Bill across the House.

I thank the Church of Scotland, the Catholic Church and the Scottish Government for their engagement and collaboration in the development of the legislation. I also thank all those who spoke in our debates, including the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson), the hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara), my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Cabinet Office. I am grateful to all of them.

As we have said, at the signing of the St Margaret’s declaration at Dunfermline abbey in 2022, both the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland declared that what they hold in common is far greater than what divides them, and that they would commit to continue working towards greater unity. I hope that this Bill, in its small way, will continue in that spirit.

The hon. Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber referred to 1923 and asked if I was there. I was not there, but in the same year W. B. Yeats wrote that “peace comes dropping slow”. Maybe equality sometimes comes dropping slow too, but today we have taken a small and important step, and I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Income tax (charge)

Debate between Pat McFadden and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, although I have to say that his television viewing choices are a little bit different from mine. With regard to education, we have always said that we support aspiration for all children in every type of school.

Our growth plans are about far more than this Budget. They are about planning reform to get Britain building, a challenge that was ducked by the Conservative party year after year. They are about more clean energy for energy security. They are about private investment, with £63 billion of investment announced at our investment summit just a few weeks ago—investors are finally appreciating the stability that has come to the country after the chaos wrought by the Conservative party—and they are about reform of business rates to support our neglected high streets.

This is a big moment for the country. In July, the public did not vote to carry on as we are—they did not vote to continue with the plans of the Conservative party. They voted for change, and this is a Budget for change: not just change in policy, but facing up to the reality of what the Conservative party left behind. It is a Budget to stabilise the public finances, to help people with the cost of living, to begin to turn our public services around, and to start to rebuild Britain. It is a choice between investment and decline—a turning of the page after 14 years. It is a Budget that launches a new chapter for Britain, and we will be proud to vote for it in the Lobby next week.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.