Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

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

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

It is a privilege to bring this Bill back before the House. This Government believe that everybody should have opportunity in life: opportunity to achieve their potential and their ambitions, whatever their background. However, at the moment too many children are held back by the scourge of poverty, which affects their wellbeing, how well they do at school and their prospects in their adult working lives as well. No child should have to face lifelong consequences like those, and neither should the country have to bear the huge cost of so much wasted talent and potential.

Lifting the two-child limit in universal credit is the single most cost effective lever that we can pull to reduce substantially the number of children growing up in poverty. In doing so, we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives, supporting their families and investing in their future success. It is this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, to change the course of children’s lives for the better and to build a more hopeful future. The Bill makes a big contribution, delivering more security, more opportunity and more respect for families and communities across the UK.

Clause 1 removes the universal credit two-child limit in Great Britain from April this year. By doing so, we will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. That means that for assessment periods starting on or after 6 April, the universal credit child element will be included for all children in the household, increasing the amount of social security support available to families on universal credit with three or more children. All the associated exceptions will be removed at the same time, including the notorious rape clause.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Specifically on that point, does the Department have good enough data on subsequent children? Have people provided the information that the Department needs to ensure that the extra payments can be made timeously?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are confident that we can do that from April onwards. Reinstating support for all children in universal credit is a key step to tackling the structural drivers of child poverty. This Bill, combined with other measures in our child poverty strategy, will lift over half a million children out of poverty.

Clause 2 removes the two-child limit from universal credit in Northern Ireland from April. We are including Northern Ireland in the Bill at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, who are bringing forward a legislative consent motion in the usual way. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. On Second Reading, he made the point that 50,000 children in Northern Ireland will be lifted out of child poverty. He rightly said:

“If anyone is against that, there is something wrong with them.”—[Official Report, 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 168.]

I agree with him on that point and I am grateful to him for making it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I very much welcome what the Government are bringing forward. It is good news and, as the Minister says, if anyone is against that, there is certainly something wrong with them. I cannot see how the measure will not be welcomed. The fertility rate in Northern Ireland is 1.71 children per woman, but for the population level to be stable it needs to be 2.1 children per woman. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the measures in the Bill will encourage more people to have children? If they do, then that is good news as well.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not sure what the effect will be. It is often said that a Labour Government has the effect of increasing the birth rate, but whether that will prove to be the case this time, I do not know.

Child poverty is a big challenge. Reducing it over the next 10 years will require commitment and collaboration across all four nations. The strategy, including removing the two-child limit, builds on plans under way across Government and devolved Governments. We will continue to collaborate with devolved Governments on the issue, particularly through the implementation phase that will now follow.

Clause 3 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, the commencement dates for each of the sections, delegated powers and the short title of the Act.

The Government recognise the consequences of child poverty and the damage that it does to a child’s life chances. In the poorest 10% of areas, babies are twice as likely to die before they turn one as those in the wealthiest 10% of areas. Poorer children are more likely to have mental health difficulties by the age of 11, to be unemployed later and to earn less as adults. We estimate that the Bill will increase the universal credit award for 560,000 families, who will gain on average £5,310 per year. That is a much-needed change from the choices of the previous Government—they chose austerity, and children paid the price. Tackling child poverty is an investment in our economy and a downpayment on Britain’s future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the House are four new clauses to the legislation. They set out a pathway through which we can generate data, particularly around the welfare cap, which we know holds back 141,000 children. In the assessments that the Government make, will the Minister draw out particularly the impact of the welfare cap on those children? Will he look to remove it to ensure that those children are not held back in poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that we will turn to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a few moments, but I reassure her that we will undertake a thorough evaluation of the impacts of the strategy. We will publish regular updates, and I think she will find there the information that she is interested in.

We cannot leave millions of children to succumb to the damaging impacts of poverty. The Government want instead to invest in children and in Britain’s future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Minister.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Interventions in the child poverty strategy will lead to the biggest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. I well understand the concerns of those saying we should go further, and it is certainly right to urge the Government to do that, but let us recognise how big a change this will be. Removing the two-child limit is the key step. It will help children to live better lives, fulfil their potential, have better mental health, do better at school, and thrive in the future. That change is in the national interest.

The amendments propose a number of reports on different topics, and I am grateful that everybody who has spoken to them has indicated that they support the Bill. New clauses 1 and 4 ask the Secretary of State to report on the effect on children in households subject to the benefit cap. Indeed, new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), fulfils a commitment that he made on Second Reading to devise an amendment that would have that effect. It is an important point, and something we need to monitor carefully, but it is in the best interests of children to be in working households—and keeping the benefit cap in place protects the incentive to work. Work incentives are important. Under the policies of the last Government, far too many people gave up on work and concluded that it was not worth their while. We want it to be clear to everyone that it is worthwhile to be in work, and the Universal Credit Act 2025, enacted last summer, made an important step in that direction.

Removing the two-child limit does not undermine work incentives. From time to time, the Conservatives suggest that it does, but actually it does not. Removing the two-child limit increases the income of many families in work and increases the reward for work, and it does not undermine work incentives.

[John McDonnell]

There is an element of contradiction in what the Minister has said. Until now, the Government’s argument has been that one of the most disastrous disincentives to work is low wages, so they have rightly concentrated on raising the minimum wage and aiming for a proper living wage. Our argument has never been that lifting people out of poverty is a disincentive to work—it has always been about low wages.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend is right that raising wages has been a crucial part of the Government’s strategy, but removing the benefit cap would reduce work incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said that there is no evidence that that is the case, but actually there is such evidence—from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example. It is not a huge amount of evidence but nevertheless there is evidence that the benefit cap provides a modest but significant incentive for work. Our view, for the time being at least, is that that should be maintained.

We have published an impact assessment as part of the Bill. It sets out the number of households that will not gain in full or will only partially gain from this measure because of the benefit cap. The Department publishes quarterly statistics on the benefit cap, which includes the number of households that are capped and how that changes over time. The most recent quarterly statistics show that of 119,000 households capped at the start of the quarter that ended in August last year, 40,000—about one third—were no longer capped by the end of the quarter, although others were newly capped, so there is a lot of churn in the cohort of capped households. The 40,000 households that left that cohort included 2,900 who had ceased to be capped because their earnings exceeded the threshold of full-time earnings at the national living wage. We want to encourage more people to make that transition.

We also publish statistics on the number of households affected by both the two-child limit and the benefit cap, with the next annual statistics to be published in the summer. After that, the quarterly benefit cap statistics will show how the number of capped households has changed after the two-child limit has been removed.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Those statistics will show the number of households that are capped, but they will not show how many have come into the benefit cap as a result of the removal of the two-child limit. Will the Minister be able to show a link between how many new families are being capped as a result of the two-child limit, meaning that those households are now disadvantaged again, even though the two-child limit has been removed?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have set out estimates of the effects that we think will result from the removal of the two-child limit, and there will be more information in the baseline evaluation report that we will publish in the summer.

My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made some important points. I particularly agree with her about the importance of scrapping the rape clause, which had been a feature of the legislation since the two-child limit was introduced. She is right that we need to understand properly the impacts of policy interventions. We have published a monitoring and evaluation framework alongside the child poverty strategy that sets out how we will track and evaluate progress, reflecting our commitment to transparency, accountability and continuing to learn from what is effective. The baseline report will be published in the summer, as I have said, and set out details on plans alongside the latest statistics and evidence, and we will report annually on progress after that.

The information that we are committed to publish will provide the information looked for in these new clauses. I very much look forward to the report from the Work and Pensions Committee, which was referred to in an intervention by the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister tackle the point that I made in my speech? There is a possibility of people being denied disability benefits, as the result of separate work for which he is responsible, and potentially falling into the cap by losing the exemptions. That worries me greatly with respect to my own constituents.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

One of the new clauses touches specifically on disabled people. That new clause was not moved, but, as the hon. Lady knows, we are undertaking a review of personal independence payments, which I am co-chairing with others. We will see what the outcome of that is, but if there are to be changes in eligibility we will certainly set out details on the effects on the benefit cap and other things as those things progress.

I ask my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) to place an order on my behalf for Kate Pickett’s latest book, which I am very keen to have a look at.

New clause 2 is specifically about households in poverty with a disabled family member. I agree that monitoring and evaluation of that and other things is very important, but we should not have an assessment that sits in isolation from the impact assessment that I have described, which we are committed to delivering alongside the wider child poverty strategy.

New clause 3 asks that we review the impact of child poverty on destitution and wider social and economic outcomes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for his support for the Bill. We have set out a second headline metric; we will measure deep material poverty in the child poverty strategy in the monitoring and evaluation framework. In that evaluation, we will track progress against two headline metrics. The first metric is relative low income—a metric embraced by David Cameron when he was the leader of the Conservative party but sadly not now recognised by the Conservatives. The second metric is deep material poverty, which will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.

[Rebecca Smith]

I have been wanting to mention this point throughout the debate, but I have not had the right opportunity. Obviously a large number of these new clauses look at reporting back. I appreciate that the child poverty strategy involves a lot of reporting back, but is the Minister aware that the Department for Education does not yet have the records of which local councils have taken up auto-enrolment for free school meals? While the child poverty strategy has introduced universal breakfast clubs, there is no matrix to be able to decipher whether auto-enrolment for free school meals is working. In some cases, such as in the county that I represent, that has meant a significant amount of money for those local authorities deliberately to try to tackle poverty. Will he look into tackling that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will raise that matter with the Department for Education. That is a very important point.

We are extending free school meals to all children in families claiming universal credit; that is an important additional element of the child poverty strategy. There will be a comprehensive programme of analysis of the drivers of child poverty and the impact of specific interventions so that we can better learn what works and assess what further steps are needed. We will continue to gather evidence for further interventions beyond those that we have announced so far.

For too long, the tide of child poverty was allowed simply to rise. It is high time to turn that tide. This Bill is the centrepiece of our child poverty strategy. It will deliver the most substantial reduction in child poverty of any Parliament since records began and make a decisive break from the inaction and indifference of the past. Government can make a difference: we can help children and their families to lead better lives now and in the future for the benefit of all. It is for all those reasons that I hope the Committee will support the Bill and reject the new clauses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 3

Review of the impact of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, review the effect of this Act on—

(a) overall levels of child poverty in the UK;

(b) levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children;

(c) households in receipt of Universal Credit which include children;

(d) educational outcomes for children in households affected by poverty;

(e) physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; and

(f) longer-term impacts on economic participation, workforce skills, and demand on health and welfare services arising from child poverty and destitution.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”—(Charlie Maynard.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the effects of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

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

Scrapping the two-child limit is an investment in the future of children and of the country. Two million children will benefit from this Bill. We will be held to account on progress through the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we have put in place to ensure that the change we are making is genuinely lasting. I want to thank every Member who has contributed to these debates. Removing the two-child limit from universal credit will help more children to fulfil their potential, to grow up make a positive contribution and to be part of a fairer, stronger country. I hope that the whole House will now support this vital measure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Work and Pensions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the debate on Pensions and Social Security on 10 February 2026.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

For 2026-27, the standard allowance in universal credit will be uprated by September’s consumer prices index plus an additional 2.3%. That represents the first ever permanent above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance, and I believe that it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline benefit rate since the 1970s.

[Official Report, 10 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 732.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):

[Sir Stephen Timms]

For 2026-27, the standard allowance in universal credit will be uprated by September’s consumer prices index plus an additional 2.3%. That represents the first ever permanent above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance, and I believe that it is the highest permanent real-terms increase in the headline benefit rate since the 1970s.

Pensions and Social Security

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

In my view, the provisions in the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.8%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2025. It will increase most other benefit rates by 3.8%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025, so the regular formula has been used.

The order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in 2026-27, of which £6 billion will be from state pensions and pensioner benefits, £2 billion from disability and carers benefits, and £1 billion from other working-age benefits. A further £2 billion of expenditure on working-age benefits will be incurred in 2026 as a result of uprating decisions made under separate legal powers in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will set new rates for universal credit and income-related employment and support allowance.

Let me say a little more about each of the benefits being uprated in turn. First, on pensions, the Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices or 2.5%. That means that the uprating will be by 4.8% for 2026-27. As a result, from April the basic state pension will increase from £176.45 per week to £184.90, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £230.25 at the moment to £241.30 per week.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

I suppose I ought to declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker. [Laughter.]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that we welcome the adherence to the triple lock that my party introduced. He will also know that there are tens of thousands of expatriate United Kingdom citizens whose pensions have been, and remain, frozen at the point at which they left the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that they have paid their full taxes and national insurance contributions throughout their working lives in the UK. The last Government, to our shame, failed to address this issue. Do this Government have any plans to do so?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point. It might be of some comfort to him to know that it was not only the last Government who failed to do anything about this, and that previous Governments also failed. Indeed, in my previous tenures of the office of Pensions Minister, this issue was raised with me. However, it was the case that when those people left the UK, the rules were then as they are today. They were quite clear when people left. Of course, it depends on which country they went to, but in the countries where uprating has not been applied, it has always been the case that uprating has not been applied there, so it should not have come as a surprise to those who left that their pensions were not uprated. We are not looking at any proposals to change the situation at the moment, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter consistently over a long period and I pay tribute to him for that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

We very much welcome the triple lock and the extra moneys coming to our pensioners, but an issue has come to my attention recently. I had an 84-year-old pensioner in my office just last week who said, “Jim, I’ve got a demand from the HMRC for hundreds of pounds, but I’ve never been in debt in all my life.” When it comes to those pensioners who now find themselves being taxed when they were never taxed before, is it not possible to have a different system where the money could be taxed at source, rather than asking pensioners who are financially, mentally and emotionally under pressure to fill in an online form, which they just cannot do? There must be a simpler way of doing it.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The question of how the tax system operates is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me. However, the hon. Gentleman might take some comfort from the reassurance provided by the Chancellor that those whose only income is the basic or new state pension, without any increments, will not have to pay any income tax in the course of this Parliament. Of course, those who have additional income beyond the state pension often do have a tax liability. The mechanism for how that is applied is a matter for my hon. Friends in His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me, but I can certainly ensure that his point is passed on to them.

Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.8%. That means that it will increase from £227.10 to £238 per week for single pensioners, and from £346.60 to £363.25 per week for couples. The maximum amount of pension credit savings credit will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

One of the first acts of this Government was to remove the winter fuel payment, before their subsequent partial U-turn. The Prime Minister himself promised assistance for WASPI women, which is manifestly not happening. Both things affect pensioners significantly. When it comes to uprating, the gap between new and old pensions is widening all the time, because although they are going up by the same percentage, they start from different baselines. What are the Government doing to equalise pension levels to prevent that situation from worsening?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are not proposing any change in those arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman will know, those arrangements were introduced by the previous Government. In fact, the coalition Government put in place the current arrangements for the new state pension, which were introduced with commitments to future uprating. We are committed to delivering the triple lock, but we are not planning to change the relativities between those two arrangements.

Most working-age benefits and other benefits for people below state pension age will also increase by 3.8%. They includes statutory payments such as statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, the personal allowances of income support, housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, and contributory employment and support allowance. The order will also increase by 3.8% the child amounts, the carer amounts, transitional severe disability premiums in universal credit, and pensioner and carer premiums in income-related employment and support allowance.

As I mentioned earlier, the Universal Credit Act 2025 included important changes to rebalance universal credit. For 2026-27, the standard allowance in universal credit will be uprated by September’s consumer prices index plus an additional 2.3%. That represents the first ever permanent above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance, and I believe that it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline benefit rate since the 1970s. That is not part of the order that we are debating, but all these increases will apply across Great Britain.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I very much appreciate the action that the Government have taken to uprate UC—for the first time in its history, as the Minister says—but does he accept that it still will not cover the cost of basic essentials such as food, heating and rent for many of our most put-upon constituents?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think perhaps the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that it does not fulfil the aspirations of the essentials guarantee campaign, with which he and I are familiar, and that is true. However, April’s above-inflation uprating will be the first of four such upratings, so there will be a similar over-inflation uprating in each of the following three Aprils. It will not end up at the level on which the essentials guarantee campaign has focused, but let us see what happens beyond the period for which we have made these announcements. As he said, it is an historic change of direction for public policy.

Benefits for people in England and Wales who have additional costs as a result of disability or ill health will also increase by 3.8%. These include disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The increase will also apply to carer’s allowance.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 sets out the yearly amount by which the guaranteed minimum pension part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension, earned between 1988 and April 1997, must be increased when it is being paid. The increase is paid by occupational pension schemes, and helps to provide a measure of inflation protection for people in receipt of contracted-out occupational pensions earned between 1988 and 1997. The law requires that GMPs earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices measured the previous September, capped at 3%. The September 2025 inflation figure— or CPI—was 3.8%, so the increase for the financial year 2026-27 will be 3%.

The 3% cap provides pension schemes with more certainty, allowing them to forecast their future liabilities more reliably. That is important when they are considering their funding commitments. The measure strikes a balance between, on one hand, protecting members against the effects of inflation, and on the other, not increasing scheme costs beyond what schemes and sponsoring employers can reasonably afford.

The draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2026 will, if Parliament approves it, commit the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in the next financial year. Changes will mainly come into effect from 6 April this year and apply for the tax year 2026-27. The order maintains the triple lock—which benefits pensioners in receipt of both the basic and new state pensions—raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices, increases the rates of benefit for those in the labour market, and increases the rates of carers benefits and benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formally contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMPs in pensions earned between April 1988 and April 1997, giving a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by the scheme. I commend the orders to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate. I thank everyone who has taken part for their constructive and helpful contributions, and I want to make a number of points in response.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for clarifying what happened in 1997—she read my facial expression correctly. I was perplexed when she told us that child benefit had been abolished. I have done a little bit of checking since she made that clarification, and it was in 1999 that family credit was replaced with the much better and stronger tax credit system. I do not know whether her family decided not to apply for that, but the introduction of working tax credits and the wider tax credit system made big progress, particularly in reducing child poverty across the country.

The hon. Lady was absolutely right to draw attention to the scale of the challenge that the country faces in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, as nearly 1 million were left behind by the previous Conservative Government. We are energetically on the case now to address that problem, which should have been addressed long ago. It is encouraging that the proportion of young people out of education, employment or training has fallen over the last year, but we do not want anybody to be left behind.

We are investing £820 million in the youth guarantee over the next three years to ensure that every single young person can access the support that they need to earn or to learn. Nearly 900,000 young people will receive intensive one-to-one support, and we are expanding youth hubs to every area in the country, creating around 300,000 additional opportunities to gain valuable workplace experience and training. Additionally, the youth guarantee will guarantee jobs for some 55,000 young people aged 18 to 21. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a great deal to be done on this issue, and we are finally doing it. I look forward to reporting back to the House on progress as it develops.

The hon. Lady referred to the Conservative party’s reputation for being “a safe pair of hands for the economy.” Well, following the Liz Truss debacle, that reputation has sadly been destroyed, and it will take a long time to rebuild. People have a long memory, and remember the awful turbulence that the country was plunged into during that period, and that alleged reputation is sadly long gone.

The hon. Lady made the point that families have a choice about whether they can afford another child. Of course, one of the points that emerged from our debate on the two-child limit was that most families on universal credit with more than two children were not on universal credit when they had them. That was not an issue in their minds when they made that choice, so the Conservative response in that debate did not reflect the realities of what families are facing.

The hon. Lady made an interesting point about passported benefits, and I have seen the publicity on what the think-tank Onward has said on this matter. It is understandable that service providers use an existing means test to target their provision. That is what the last Government did on the cost of living payment during the pandemic, for example. I notice that the head of Onward is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so one would have thought that he would have had a chance to do something about this over his years in office, but it is an interesting topic. I think the arrangements we have for passported benefits make sense, but if there are proposals for alternative arrangements, we will be interested to look at them.

The hon. Lady was critical of the use of the relative poverty measure for assessing the number of children growing up in poverty, as was the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) last week. The relative poverty measure is the international standard measure; it is widely respected, and is used for all international comparisons on this metric. I think the reason why the Conservative party has always been so reluctant to refer to relative poverty is that its performance on that measure in government—I am talking about the Government who left office in 2024, but Governments before that as well—has been so consistently dreadful. During the debate on the two-child limit Bill, the point was rightly made that an important part of David Cameron’s work to bring the Conservative party up to date was embracing relative poverty as a valuable measure that ought to be taken into account. We now seem to have moved back to the pre-Cameron era in the Conservative party, and it may take some time for the party to recognise the scale of the change in its thinking that is needed if it is to reflect the country’s current situation.

I was interested in what the hon. Member for South West Devon said about her constituent who is on PIP. I would very much like to see the letter that she referred to, because she is absolutely right that PIP is an in-work benefit as well as an out-of-work benefit, and I would be extremely concerned if people were being told, “You’re in work, so you can’t have PIP any more.” There are disincentives of that kind in the system that need to be addressed, so I would love to have a look at that letter. As the hon. Lady knows, I am co-chairing a review of PIP that will conclude by the autumn of this year; she said that she did not think that the review would happen until 2027, but it will conclude by the autumn of this year.

The hon. Lady is right that we need to increase the proportion of face-to-face assessments for benefits. Face-to-face assessments are such a small proportion of total assessments at the moment because of the contracts that the Conservative Government entered into towards the end of their term in office, which contained no requirements for an adequate number of face-to-face assessments. Indeed, the Conservative Government sold off most of the premises where those assessments were undertaken, so of course it is taking some time to build up again the capacity to deliver those assessments, but we are doing so. We are putting right the mistakes that the previous Government made, and we are seeing a steady increase in the proportion of both work capability assessments and PIP assessments that are undertaken face-to-face.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Accuracy and fairness are really important, so I think the face-to-face assessments are vital. There has been talk of a 30% increase, which is a little bit less than what I would like to see. Can the Minister give this House assurances that the increase will not sit at 30%, and that the Government will strive for more face-to-face assessments? Nothing beats seeing the white of a person’s eye.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We would certainly like to do so. Let us get up to the level that we have set, which will be a dramatic improvement on the situation we inherited. Once we have done so, we will learn the lessons and see what more we can do.

I very much welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee. I commend her and the Committee for their work. She referred to the research—published, I think, towards the end of last year—showing that children who suffer poverty and adversity in childhood are, as she said, five times more likely to be NEET as young adults. I looked at that interesting paper, and I think I am right in saying that it found that children who had grown up just below the poverty line, but without childhood adversity as well, were three times more likely to be NEET as young adults, so just poverty on its own leads to a big increase in the likelihood of being NEET. In order to tackle this big NEET problem—the shadow Minister was right to say that it needs tackling—we have to tackle child poverty, as we are doing with the scrapping of the two-child limit in universal credit.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about those two figures. The fact is that more than half of the current NEET cohort—52.9%—have experienced not just child poverty, but family adversity. That is the five times more likely figure.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is an interesting paper, and I very much welcome research along those lines, as I know my hon. Friend does. She is right to make the point that spending on social security is not rocketing. It is not out of control as one sometimes reads, but is between 10% and 11% of GDP. Working-age benefits are 4% to 5% and pretty consistent. It is not changing rapidly at the moment. She makes an interesting point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), about the current depth of poverty. That is an important part of the picture that we need to address in our work.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that the social security system has an important job to do. We cannot just freeze it for a year and under-uprate it for another year, because that inflicts harm. We have seen that harm inflicted and the consequences of it. She is also right that we need a properly functioning health service again. We also need support for good employment. I was pleased to hear from her and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) that the Work and Pensions Committee has been listening to Sir Charlie Mayfield and his excellent “Keep Britain Working” review, from which he is continuing to develop work.

The hon. Member for Torbay rightly referred to the practice of shuffling people off the books. Too often, people have run into a health problem in the course of their work, had to take time off and then, by accident really, lost touch with work and the workplace and become unemployed and inactive. If there had just been a bit of flexibility and a bit of continuing communication, that outcome could have been avoided. I welcome the work that Sir Charlie Mayfield is doing with more than 100 vanguard employers looking at how best to put those lessons into practice.

The hon. Member for Torbay also referred to the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. We appointed Liz Sayce OBE to conduct an independent review of how overpayments occurred, how affected carers could be supported and how to prevent future problems with overpayments arising. The review made 40 recommendations, and the Government have accepted or partially accepted 38 of them. We have taken action to raise the earnings limit in carer’s allowance by the largest amount it has ever increased by. In future, we will uprate the earnings threshold annually in line with the increase in the national living wage, so that accidental exceeding of the earnings threshold will be less common.

The hon. Member for Torbay also drew attention to the difficulties with the current cliff edge arrangements for the carer’s allowance earnings threshold. In the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor announced that we were considering the introduction of an earnings taper to replace that cliff edge, and we may well conclude that that would do a better job.

I do not think I ever expected there to be a Labour Member of Parliament for Poole, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend was successful in being elected to that role, and long may he serve there. He was right to highlight the continuing scale of the challenge of pensioner poverty. If we look at the record of the former Labour Government, we see that there were dramatic reductions in both child poverty and pensioner poverty. In respect of child poverty, those reductions were reversed under the coalition and the Conservative Government, and towards the end of the term of the Conservative Government the number of pensioners in poverty was rising again, but it rose much less dramatically than the number of children growing up below the poverty line. Our priority has therefore been to tackle child poverty, and that is the reason for the strategy that we have published and the changes to universal credit that we debated in the House last week.

However, I recognise that there are continuing challenges for pensioners as well. The Government are increasing the basic state pension and the full rate of the new state pension, in line with earnings growth, by 4.8%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings, by 4.8%, to support pensioners on the lowest incomes. We are increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carers’ benefits, in line with prices, by 3.8%. We are increasing a number of working-age benefits, statutory payments and disability benefits in line with prices by the same amount, 3.8%. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formerly contracted out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMP—for the reasons I gave earlier—in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997, to give a measure of protection against inflation for those pensioners which is paid for by their scheme.

I commend both orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

Social Security

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved. —(Sir Stephen Timms.)

Construction Industry Training Board: Funding

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Steve Race) on securing this debate and welcoming the interest in it. I also welcome the opportunity for the House to consider the reforms that the Construction Industry Training Board is making with the aim of strengthening the skills pipeline for the construction sector. As my hon. Friend rightly said, we need a skilled construction workforce in order to deliver the Government’s plan for change and our industrial strategy. That is the reason the Government are making a big investment in construction skills. We need, at scale over the next few years, a large volume of products from the construction industry. At the same time, as he said, we want to realise the good opportunity that the sector presents to provide many people with great careers, not least young people who are not on track for a rewarding career at the moment. There are a lot of possibilities in this sector.

Last March, the Government announced a £625 million construction support package to address the current acute shortage of skilled workers in UK construction. That package includes: a £100 million expansion in skills bootcamps, offering flexible short-term pathways into the construction sector for new entrants and for those looking to upskill; £90 million in additional funding for construction courses for 16 to 18-year-olds; a further £75 million for courses for those aged over 19 and either not in work or earning less than £25,750 a year; another £38 million for foundation apprenticeships; and £98 million to support industry placements for level 2 and level 3 learners undertaking an eligible construction qualification.

There is, in addition, a £140 million investment funded by the CITB and the National House Building Council, which could make available 8,000 more construction apprenticeship and job starts by 2029. A different £140 million has been committed by the Government to pilot, with mayoral strategic authorities, new approaches to connecting young people aged 16 to 24—particularly those who are not in education, employment or training—to local apprenticeships. That is not specific to construction, but we expect construction to be one of its major beneficiaries.

[Rebecca Smith]

I welcome the funding that the Minister has just outlined. Reference has been made to mayoral strategic authorities, but vast parts of the country do not have one yet and are unlikely to have one for some time. Indeed, my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) are in one of those regions. I am interested in how the funding will be delivered to where it is really needed in those smaller communities. At the moment, we have 124 training groups doing that, and ultimately they are best placed to know the workforce in their local areas. In those smaller communities that have not yet seen that devolution, how can we ensure that we do not see those skills just drop out of the bottom of the sector?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think on this topic there will be less difference across the Dispatch Boxes than was the case with the topic we debated yesterday. The pilots with the mayoral strategic authorities will try out new approaches, and the idea is that the successful approaches can be rolled out wherever appropriate, not just in areas with mayoral strategic authorities. I will come to the point about the training groups in a moment.

Similarly, we expect the construction sector to benefit from the expansion of the youth guarantee, backed by £820 million of investment over the next three years to reach almost 900,000 young people and support them to earn and learn. A great deal of investment is going into this area, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter that it is vital that we make the most of that for creating opportunities in local areas in every part of the country, including the south-west.

The CITB plays a central role in developing construction workforce capability and investing in skills training across England, Scotland and Wales. As we have been reminded, there is a separate arrangement in Northern Ireland. CITB is a registered charity and a non-departmental public body established in statute in 1964—apparently in July. It is sponsored now—following the transfer of responsibility for adult skills policy from the Department for Education—by the Department for Work and Pensions, with the purpose of improving training for people over school age who are working in the construction industry.

The Government set the strategic framework for the board. The board remains accountable to Parliament, but it operates at arm’s length, maintaining operational independence over how it meets industry needs. Its chair is Sir Peter Lauener, a distinguished former civil servant, but its board comprises by statute mainly representatives of construction employers. It is funded not by taxpayers but, as my hon. Friend said, through a levy on registered construction employers based on their payroll size.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Exeter (Steve Race) for calling the debate. I appreciate that CITB is at arm’s length from Government, but of course, 946,000 young people were registered as NEET last summer. Does the Minister share my view that money is better spent on organisations such as CITB than it is on welfare payments to young people?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Certainly, it is absolutely right that the construction sector has a lot of promising opportunities for exactly those young people, and we need to ensure that they have the support to take them up. We also need to provide a social security safety net—I do not think it is one or the other—but I agree that the work of the CITB is vital in this area.

The CITB provides a wide range of services and training initiatives. It sets occupational standards, funds strategic industry initiatives to support Government missions, and pays allowances and direct grants to employers, as we have heard, that carry out training to approved standards.

In the five years since 2021, employer demand for CITB services has increased by 36%. Levy rates have deliberately been held steady to support construction businesses, given the very sharp cost increases that we are all familiar with that have arisen from global challenges that the industry has had to grapple with. As a result, the costs of CITB services now exceed levy income. In response, the CITB has announced the changes to keep the funding as tightly focused as possible on the industry’s core priorities, in particular on bringing apprentices and new entrants into the workforce to address skills gaps. There has been no cut in CITB funding, but there has been a reprioritisation to ensure that the available funding is used where it has the greatest impact. The CITB board has understandably identified an urgent need for efficiency improvements, to spend less money on bureaucracy in order to be able to spend more on training.

For many years, CITB training groups have supported businesses by securing cost-effective training through collective bargaining, and by helping firms with grant applications, facilitating workforce planning and sharing best practice along the lines set out by my hon. Friend. I put on record the Government’s thanks to all group training chairs and officers—not least my hon. Friend’s constituent, Peter Lucas, the chair of the Devon construction training group and, since 2023, the national chair of training groups. He and his counterparts have undertaken a great deal of important and dedicated work to meet employers’ skills needs. There are currently 80 training groups across England, Wales and Scotland—there was one other but it closed last year. I think perhaps the figure my hon. Friend gave was just for England.

[Steve Race]

indicated assent.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The CITB has concluded that the training group model has significant limitations. It is quite expensive to run; each group receives an annual £35,000 support grant, as my hon. Friend said. Groups often operate on a closed-membership basis, and many groups charge employers annual fees. Groups do not have direct access to skills funding—employers must apply for grants. That limits scalability, diverts levy funding away from actual training into administration, and burdens employers, especially SMEs. My hon. Friend raised that important point.

The CITB has confirmed that funding for training groups will end on 31 March this year, so those £35,000 support grants will not be paid in the coming financial year. However, as my hon. Friend said, the CITB is replacing training groups with a newer model, with employer networks, which are designed to offer a more responsive, efficient and employer-led system. There are now 33 employer networks, which, between them, cover the whole of the UK—25 in England, five in Scotland and three in Wales. The decision to move in that direction has been made by the board of CITB, with its majority construction industry membership, following its consideration of how best to meet evolving industry needs and deliver best value for employers in return for their levy payments. It is not a decision for Government; it is a matter for the CITB board. It seems to me that the CITB has thought about this quite carefully, and I will set out the arguments that it makes.

The employer networks model was piloted in 2022, and the CITB board has concluded that it is effective. It argues that the model gives employers a simpler route to identify training needs and secure funding, avoiding the navigation of complex grant processes or funding applications. Networks are open to all levy-registered employers at no additional cost. They provide direct support from CITB advisers, significant funding contributions toward training and a dedicated training booking team. Instead of lengthy grant applications, employers work with a CITB adviser who helps to identify skill needs, arranges training and secures funding up front to cover a portion of the training costs. It is argued that that reduces the administration burden and makes training more accessible to employers. The idea is for networks to be designed around local need. Employers in each area collectively identify their priority skills needs—be they in traditional trades, digital skills, net zero capabilities or broader workforce development—and funding is directed accordingly.

The decision to replace training groups with employer networks is an operational decision for the CITB, which points out that its pilot has provided evidence that the employer network model is better. In 2025-26, networks have already supported 56,000 learners and 4,400 employers —up from 51,000 learners in the previous year. Training groups, by contrast, supported around 1,800 employers per year—less than half the number supported by networks—and growth was very limited. The average network supports 122 employers, while only five training groups supported more than 50 employers in 2024-25. Training groups cost £2.87 million in 2024-25, which is twice as much as the cost of networks, even though networks seem to support far more employers.

[Steve Race]

The figures quoted relate to networks and local training groups operating at the same time. Does the Minister accept there might be a risk that the people and organisations supported by the local groups are a different group from those supported by employer networks?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but CITB’s view is that most employers that are members of training groups now access support through employer networks. He raised an important point about SME participation, which CITB reports is improving under the network model, reflecting the easier access and more direct influence that businesses have over local training priorities. CITB thinks that helps to reduce regional disparities, and provides more agile support for smaller firms. Indeed, it recently surveyed employers that had accessed support via employer networks, 87% of which were micro, small, or medium-sized organisations. Of those, 81% said that they were satisfied, and 54% said that they were likely to do more training in future because of employer network support.

My hon. Friend will readily acknowledge that meeting the current and future skills needs of construction employers is extremely important for delivering the Government’s aims, and important for opening up opportunities for the large number of young people, and others, left economically inactive over the past few years. The CITB’s view is that the employer network model is simpler, faster, more cost effective, and more flexible. In its view, it better supports SMEs—those employers that need the most support—and it allows the industry to respond quickly to emerging skills challenges, including digital and net zero construction skills.

Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House, and for his interest in it, and that of other Members. I understand that the chief executive of CITB, Tim Balcon, has written to my hon. Friend and invited him to make contact if he would like to discuss the matter further. I do not know whether he has taken up that opportunity yet, but if he does take up that offer and has further reflections in the wake of the subsequent discussions, I would be pleased to hear from him about that.

Question put and agreed to.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

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

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Like the shadow Minister, I will start by quoting my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. At the start of the debate, he said that this Government have chosen to reject the politics of division and of rage. Instead, we have chosen to seek to bring the country together and to open up a hopeful way forward. That is the choice that underpins this Bill.

It was my great privilege to take through this House the Child Poverty Act 2010, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). That Bill, as he pointed out, had all-party support. George Osborne spoke in favour of it. A few months later, George Osborne was the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Government took the opposite stance. The four separate child poverty targets were scrapped. The headline rate of benefits was over time cut to the lowest real-terms level for 40 years. The Child Poverty Commission set up by the Act was replaced by the Social Mobility Commission, and child poverty eventually rocketed by 900,000 to 4.5 million. That is what Tory policies did. Their claim of wanting to tackle child poverty proved to be hollow, and we discovered the authentic voice of the Tory party, which we have heard again this afternoon.

We should not forget the contribution of the Tories’ coalition partners in the 2010 to 2015 Government. I warmly welcome the Lib Dem support that we have heard today. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) made a thoughtful speech on behalf of his party, and we also heard from the hon. Members for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) and for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray). Their party leader was in the Cabinet when much of the damage was done, and he did nothing to stop it when it came to the crunch. In the battle against child poverty, the Lib Dems were nowhere to be seen.

[Steve Darling]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will not just at the moment. Poverty does immense harm, as we have heard, to children and their future prospects. In the classroom, children eligible for free school meals are on the wrong end of an education gap that reaches 19 months by age 16. They earn around 25% less at age 30. Recent research by Liverpool University has shown that children growing up below the poverty line are three times more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. To tackle the NEET problem—as we must, with almost a million young people left NEET by the last Government—we have to tackle child poverty, too.

We have heard arguments in this debate that we are piling up costs for the future. Actually, it is the failures of the past that have piled up those costs, and we are now having to address that. The costs of child poverty play out throughout the lives of those affected. They play out in our social security system, in the NHS and in other public services, too. The Tories claim that by making those cuts, they were saving money. What they were doing, in fact, was heaping up massive costs of future failure, which we are all now having to pick up.

The Bill will deliver a better future for our children and for the country. Removing the two-child limit in universal credit will lift 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this decade, and that figure rises to more than half a million children alongside other measures in our child poverty strategy. That is a generation less likely to struggle with their mental health, more likely to do well at school and more likely to be in work as young adults and to thrive in their future working lives. That is a generation with the capacity to thrive. That is the future we are choosing to build.

[Siân Berry]

The Government narrowed the scope of the last benefits Bill, and it could widen this Bill to take in the wider benefit cap, too. The Chancellor who could find the money for that is right next to the Minister. Can the Minister explain why, despite the interest in lifting the overall benefit cap in the Chamber today, according to the impact assessment the only options assessed were doing nothing or this very narrow measure?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The change for which I think the hon. Lady is arguing would make a relatively modest alteration to the figures. There is a real advantage in the benefit cap, in terms of the incentive to work. We are not proposing to change that, and in the changes that we are making we are maintaining that incentive very robustly. This is a change from the choices of the last Government, which left us with a third of primary schools running food banks.

I echo the tribute paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) to the work of the End Child Poverty Coalition. Members including my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) rightly referred to the Child Poverty Action Group, and others mentioned the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned, successfully, for the change that we are making.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said in her opening speech that her party did not accept the relative poverty definition. As we were reminded during the debate, her party embraced that definition in 2010—it was part of the change that was made at the time—but between 2010-11 and 2023-24, even absolute poverty rose. It was higher at the end of that period than it had been at the beginning. That was an extraordinary feature of her party’s record in government.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for her contribution to the debate and for the work of her Work and Pensions Committee, alongside that of the Education Committee, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), in scrutinising our child poverty strategy. The points that she made were absolutely right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) was, I think, the first to draw attention to the struggle that teachers are having in supporting children in classes. According to survey evidence, in 38% of schools staff are currently paying out of their own pockets to provide essentials for their pupils because their parents cannot afford to buy them. They have full-time roles tackling hardship, taking away funds that ought to be spent on education.

The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) made a thoughtful speech, as he often does, but he was wrong. He said that the extra money would be for people because they were not working. It was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister), my hon. Friend the Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron)—in a spirited contribution—and my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Jack Abbott), for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) and for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) that the great majority of the beneficiaries of this measure are people in work, and as a result the hon. Gentleman’s argument crumbled away.

[Dr Evans]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, I will not be giving way.

It was very interesting to hear the arguments of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin). Her party is looking more and more like a cut-price Boris Johnson reunion party, with all the old faces turning up on the Reform Benches. Now they are even starting to sing some of the old songs. The leader of their party has been talking for years about opposing the two-child limit, and just a few weeks ago, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham and Waterlooville (Suella Braverman) wrote an article in which she said that she opposed it. Today they are voting with the Tories in favour of the cap. Those old policies would cause the same damage if they were brought in again in the future.

I remember a time when there seemed to be at least some degree of consensus in the House on the importance of tackling child poverty. Well, there was not much sign of that among Conservative Members this afternoon, and I am sorry that we have lost it. Scrapping the two-child limit on universal credit is the single most effective lever that we can pull to reduce the number of children growing up poor, and in pulling that lever we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives now, and to have real grounds for hope for their futures. We are supporting their families, the majority of whom are working families, and by enabling the next generation to fulfil its potential we are investing in our country’s success in the years to come.

The Bill is the key to delivering the biggest fall in child poverty in any Parliament on record, and in doing so it will make a very big contribution to the missions of this Government. Our manifesto was summed up in one word—“change”—and this is what change looks like: ambition for families, and for the country.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Will the Serjeant at Arms investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby?

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy 2025-26

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Written Statements

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy, based on their relative market share, for the purpose of meeting the costs of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. This is in line with the insurance industry’s commitment to fund a scheme of last resort for persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.

Today I can announce that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2025-26, the 12th year of the DMPS, is £24 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2026.

Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their share of the levy, together with how the amount was calculated and the payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.

I am pleased that the DMPS has seen 11 successful years of operation, assisting many hundreds of people who have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. The 11th annual report for the scheme, along with the annual statistics were published on 27 November 2025 and is available on gov.uk. I hope that Members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.

[HCWS1287]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

My review of the personal independence payment will be co-produced with disabled people, and its 12-person steering group will meet with me and my two co-chairs face to face for the first time later this week. I cannot pre-empt the choice of priorities and recommendations, but the review will draw on the full range of voices to build a system that is fair to everybody.

[Mr Quigley]

I thank the Minister for his response. Many cancer patients receiving PIP and universal credit were alarmed by proposals put forward last summer suggesting that individuals undergoing active cancer treatment might be required to complete a work capability assessment before accessing those benefits. What assurances can the Department give that people in the midst of cancer treatment will not be burdened with these assessments at such a vulnerable and challenging time?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a good point. However, on the work capability assessment, people claiming universal credit can be treated as having limited capability for work and work-related activity—LCWRA—if they are being treated for cancer, if they are likely to be treated within six months, or are recovering from treatment. I hope that will reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to support people with health conditions into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

8. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of trends in the number of claimants of the personal independence payment.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

There were 2 million working-age personal independence payment claimants before the pandemic. That number is now over 3 million and is set to exceed 4 million by the end of the decade. My review will aim to make sure that PIP is fair and fit for the future.

[Mr Mohindra]

One of my constituents in Abbots Langley, Darren, suffers from a very complicated congenital heart condition, which, alongside his hyperthyroidism and obstructive sleep apnoea, significantly restricts his ability to perform everyday tasks including work. Despite that, Darren has recently had his entitlement to personal independence payment withdrawn. As Darren now awaits a heart transplant, can the Minister outline what steps his Department will take to ensure that Darren and his family receive the necessary financial support during this stressful time?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, I have not seen the details of that particular case, but I would be happy to have a look at it if he would like me to. There is, of course, the opportunity for mandatory reconsideration and in due course for appeal, but I would be happy to look at those details.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

When the data is segmented, there is a strong correlation between NHS waiting lists and the number of claimants of personal independence payments, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that those people who are unable to work because they are on an NHS waiting list are having their health optimised so that they can engage with employment and be fast-tracked through the system?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend will welcome, as I do, the dramatic record fall in waiting lists that has been recently reported, but of course we need to make further progress in reducing waiting lists and we are determined that the assessment for PIP will be fair to everybody. As I have mentioned, the steering group will meet for the first time over two days at the end of this week, and I know that everyone on that group will be focused on ensuring that we can deliver a fair system for those who need it.

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

Since the right hon. Gentleman became Disability Minister, half a million more people have gone on to PIP, and the sickness benefits bill is heading up to £100 billion a year by the end of this decade. We know that his review is not due to serve up any savings, but there must come a point where even he would say that the country cannot afford this. Does he have any ambition to make welfare savings?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have already made some important changes. For example, we have removed a serious disincentive to work that was created in the universal credit system by the last Government. That has gone, thanks to the changes in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which finished its passage last summer. Those changes will take effect in April. We do have a broken system—the hon. Lady is absolutely right about that—but it is the system that was left behind by the last Government; and, yes, we are determined to fix it.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to help ensure that post-16 education provides the necessary skills to support the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

12. What recent progress his Department has made on the Timms review of personal independence payment.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

My two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed in October. We have appointed a firm to facilitate the co-production of the review, and, drawing on an open expression of interest, we have appointed a steering group of 12, which will come together for the first time this week.

[Mr Perkins]

It is clear that the number of people with conditions that make them eligible for personal independence payment support has in recent years expanded far beyond what was initially intended, and that reform is needed. It is also clear from conversations with my constituents that many disabled people desperately need that support. What reassurance can my right hon. Friend give us that, after his review, we will have a system that considers the individual, rather than the check-box approach that has brought the personal independence payment regime into such disrepute?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The steering group that we have appointed is made up overwhelmingly of disabled people, many of whom currently claim PIP or have done so in the past, so the perspective that my hon. Friend rightly asks about will be at the heart of the review. The review is co-produced, and effective co-production needs transparency and openness—the co-chairs and I are publishing monthly letters. I hope that he and everyone who follows this with interest will see the progress we are making and the determination we are expressing.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

Could one of the Ministers please explain to me and the people of Ashfield why the UK has one of the highest rates of disability in Europe?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not sure which figures the hon. Gentleman is drawing attention to. There certainly has been an increase in the incidence of disability. The incidence of benefit claiming has been greater than the increase in the incidence of disability, though. That is one reason that we are undertaking this review. We must ensure that the system is fair, because PIP is a vital benefit for many, and that it is fit for the future.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)]

13. What steps he is taking to help support employers to keep people healthy at work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

14. What steps he is taking to ensure that the Timms review of personal independence payment considers the needs of people with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

As I have said, the review will be co-produced with disabled people to put lived experience at its heart. It will engage widely to bring together the full range of voices, including those of people with arthritis and musculoskeletal conditions.

[Jim Shannon]

I wish you well, Mr Speaker, and I hope you are being spoiled by the staff around you, and obviously at home as well. You deserve it.

I thank the Minister for that positive answer. As he will appreciate, people living with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions make up one of the largest groups of PIP claimants, and should the previous PIP proposals have continued, more than 77% of claimants living with arthritis and other musculoskeletal conditions would have lost their claims. The Minister is a good man. Would he please agree to a roundtable with me, Arthritis UK, and people living with arthritis, organised at his convenience, so that he can hear directly from those impacted?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting suggestion, and I will be happy to have the roundtable he has called for.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Sayce review investigated the carers’ allowance scandal and identified that almost 87,000 carers were affected. The Government are planning to write off the debts of 26,000 carers, but does that mean that the Minister believes that 60,000 carers are guilty of fraud?

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that Liz Sayce did a superb job. We commissioned her review straight after the general election, and we have accepted all but two of the recommendations that she made in her report. We are working through the detail of how to implement those recommendations, and we will set out the proposals and the details as soon as we are able to do so. We are also working with carer organisations on communications with the carers affected to ensure that they are right. I look forward to giving the hon. Gentleman more details as soon as they are available.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

T3. In the light of the Government’s commitment to delivering employment and opportunities for young people of all backgrounds, will the Secretary of State set out what recent progress has been made on establishing the youth guarantee scheme in Scotland?

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

T4. One of my constituents is a disabled Royal Navy veteran. Their migration to universal credit has been a nightmare, involving incorrect payments, long delays to identity verification and a lack of help with accessibility. I have received no response to their case since 13 November last year. Does the Minister agree that that falls short of what people should expect from the DWP? Will he help me to get this matter resolved?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sorry to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s experience. We are in the most difficult part of the transition, as people who were previously on employment and support allowance move over to universal credit. We have introduced an enhanced support journey to try to simplify it, and I am keeping a very close eye on how it is going. If he sends me the details of that case, I will certainly look at them.

[Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)]

T8. This week has been an incredibly good one for jobs, investment and opportunity in Ipswich. Halo, one of the biggest tech firms in the UK, is moving its global HQ into the centre of town and creating 1,000 jobs, many of them for graduates. Sizewell C has unveiled plans for a new bus depot, which will create 400 jobs, some 75% of which will be from the local area. It has been a brilliant week, but there is much more to be done. Will the Secretary of State outline what extra steps he is taking to get young people back into training and employment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

T6. I have two constituents who have been awaiting work capability reassessments since July and September 2024. That is more than a year that they have been stuck in limbo, rather than preparing to get back to work. Will the Minister confirm what my team has been told—that extreme waiting times are now normal in the Department? Will he set out what it is doing to break that backlog?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are certainly addressing the backlog, but if the hon. Lady would like to send me the details of those two cases, I will certainly investigate.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

My constituent Stephen Sherwood has complex needs and learning difficulties. He could not understand changes to universal credit, needed guidance that never came, and so lost financial support that he badly needed. Stephen and his mum, Nicola, rightly want to know whether the DWP involves people with complex needs and learning difficulties in the design of system changes, and whether the Government will do more to ensure that such people have these changes explained to them in ways that they can understand.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. As I have said, the process of migration that we are going through is the most difficult part, as people move from employment and support allowance to universal credit. We have introduced an enhanced support journey to assist people such as my hon. Friend’s constituent who are going through this process, but I look forward to meeting him in a couple of weeks’ time to discuss lessons from this particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine disclosed full details of her change in circumstances to the Department, but although the Department admitted it was its mistake—it had received that information and had repeatedly failed to update its records—it still sent her a very threatening letter. Although I fully support the need to protect the public purse, would the appropriate Minister agree to meet me to discuss how the Department could improve its updating procedures, reduce the occurrence of overpayments, and treat claimants more considerately when they have received overpayments through no fault of their own?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend for that discussion.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

People who come to this country and make it their home are welcome to work and pay their taxes. However, Ministers may have seen reports over the weekend of foreign career criminals who have been spared prison now claiming universal credit. Taxpayers are going to be outraged by this fact, so what action will the Minister take to ensure that only people who are entitled to receive universal credit do so, and that career criminals do not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

My constituent Harry has a learning disability, and he is so brilliant that he has not one but two jobs. His mum, Helen, is his appointee, and she is not allowed to access his Access to Work paperwork online. This means she has to print out 24 bits of paper, get it manually signed and pay to post it. That is crackers in 2026. Will the Minister undertake to look at Harry’s case and ensure that appointees, such as Helen, do not find it too hard to access Access to Work, so that we can keep brilliant people like Harry in work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady makes a good point, and it is one of the reasons we are reforming Access to Work. We consulted on reform in the Green Paper last year, and I think she is right that we need a less bureaucratic system for access, not least for appointees.

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

I wish you a speedy recovery, Mr Speaker—as I understand it, the other fellow came off much worse.

On the Isle of Wight, our NHS trust takes students who would otherwise have ended up NEET—not in education, employment or training—and puts them through a pre-apprenticeship scheme that gives them not only the skills but, more importantly, the confidence needed to start an apprenticeship and then go into work. I encourage the Secretary of State to visit the Isle of Wight to see the great work that the trust does. Will he encourage other employers to do the same thing?

Window Cleaning Industry: Workplace Safety

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for securing this debate on this important subject, and for his very thoughtful speech. The Government place a great deal of importance on workplace safety, and I want to seek to reassure him and the House that we have an effective regulatory framework in place to secure the health, safety and wellbeing of those who work in window cleaning. Let me also offer my sympathies to his constituent, who suffered those life-changing injuries that he described while cleaning windows at a regular customer’s home last year. I do hope he is receiving the support that he needs.

Health and safety in window cleaning is covered by the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and a number of regulations, such as the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, the Work at Height Regulations 2005, the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 and the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989. Section 6 of the 1974 Act places duties on the manufacturers of articles for use at work, including ensuring the equipment is designed and constructed so that it is, so far as reasonably practicable, safe when being set up and used; doing adequate research and testing to prove the safety of the equipment; and providing users with adequate information so that they can use the equipment safely.

Under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the associated regulations, all employers undertaking window cleaning are required to identify risks to their workers and to the public from those activities, and to take action to manage those risks. Those who are self-employed, which, as the right hon. Member said, is most of the industry, are subject to these duties only where their activities place others at risk. Where self-employed window cleaners are not subject to the regulations, they nevertheless should obviously look after their own health and safety. They should check work locations for hazards such as overhead power lines and/or use safe equipment. One way of doing that is to carry out a fit-for-purpose assessment of the risks. The areas of focus in the legislation are those that self-employed people should give particular attention to when considering how to work safely.

The Work at Height Regulations 2005 cover one of the most significant risks to people cleaning windows, because the vast majority of window cleaning obviously takes place above ground level. Working at height is always high risk. Whenever somebody leaves the ground to carry out an activity—up a ladder, on a platform, in a cradle—there is the potential for harm, most likely from a fall. The HSE’s recently published health and safety at work statistics reported that falls from a height continue to be the biggest type of fatal workplace accident, accounting for over a quarter of fatal injuries to people at work in 2024-25. Over the last five years, falls from a height have caused 28% of all deaths at work, while contact with electricity or electrical discharge accounts for 5%—a significant proportion, but a good deal smaller.

The HSE records for the last five years include eight incidents involving falls from height in which window cleaning was the main activity, and five of those resulted in fatal injuries, so the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that the use of poles has made this activity safer. Employers and self-employed people can eliminate the risk of a fall by removing the need to work at height, and here is the advantage of water-fed poles for cleaning windows.

Poles can be designed to reach up to 25 metres in height and can be made from a variety of lightweight materials—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of them. Depending on the material and weight of the pole, they can cause back and shoulder injuries through continued use. There is often a balance to be struck between weight, reach and cost. Prices start at around £100 for a very basic, budget, short-reach pole but can be over £700 for high-reach ones, while mid-range poles cost around £200.

I cannot comment on the efficacy of these poles for cleaning, but there obviously are safety benefits from using poles from the stable footing of a ground-level position, and certainly the view of the HSE is that they are safer than ladders. However, there are risks, and using a pole to carry out an activity at elevation in the presence of overhead power lines does carry the risk of electric shock, as the tragic experience that we have heard about underlines. If there are overhead power lines close to a property, the Electricity at Work Regulations 1989 would require a risk assessment to be carried out. If there is a danger of electrocution, the HSE advice is not to carry out the work on that part of the building or to find another method that reduces the risk, particularly one that does not involve water-fed poles.

Other risks associated with water-fed poles, and window cleaning in general, include musculoskeletal injury from the handling of the pole, slips or trips, injury from falling poles, and the spread of Legionella from water systems. It is a legal duty under health and safety law for employers to identify and manage all those risks and, in doing so, to protect their workers and the public from harm. As I have said, the self-employed are subject to those duties only where their activities place others at risk, but it is nevertheless a good idea to observe them.

I understand that in the tragic accident we have heard about, as the right hon. Member has said, the power line was compliant with statutory clearance distances and those set out in industry guidance but the pole manufacturer’s guidance was to avoid touching overhead power lines, including by having a warning marked on the pole itself. From the account the right hon. Gentleman has given, my understanding is that the pole did not in this instance touch the overhead cable but got quite close to it without touching it.

Enforcement of the duties in law is carried out by the HSE and by local authorities, which have powers to inspect workplaces, to investigate accidents and to take action to address non-compliance up to and including prosecution. To help employers comply with these duties, the HSE produces general guidance on a range of topics relevant to window cleaning, such as manual handling, control of hazardous substances, and slips and trips. In addition, guidance specific to working safely when cleaning windows is available from the window cleaning industry itself. That includes two pieces of guidance on the safe use of water-fed poles, produced in collaboration with the HSE, and guidance on the use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines, produced in collaboration with the Energy Networks Association. The latter is called “Safe use of window cleaning equipment near overhead power lines” and it is jointly branded by the Energy Networks Association and the Federation of Window Cleaners.

I just want to read part of what it says. I appreciate that this is no comfort to the right hon. Member’s constituent, but it may be helpful to others to quote from it:

“Be aware of the dangers of working near or underneath Overhead Power Lines (OHPLs). Always assume they are live and beware that electricity can jump gaps. Plan ahead and note the location of OHPLs. Consider your position at ground and the extent of your equipment (i.e. Telescopic devices) and ensure that when extended it will not encroach or breach the exclusion zone as a minimum. Generally remain 5 metres away to be safe. If you are in any doubt about whether the lines in question are power or telephone (this is a very common mistake) always assume that they are power lines and are live.”

It goes on:

“It is not normally practical for electricity companies to shroud high voltage conductors and even when low voltage conductors are shrouded, the shrouding is not designed to protect against contact by Tools or Equipment—again, Keep your Distance! If unsure, always contact your local electricity network operators”.

That is available on the website of the Federation of Window Cleaners. In the specific case of a 33 kV line, which the right hon. Member told us was the case here, the Energy Networks Association advises a clearance distance of 3 metres to be maintained. I should perhaps also point out that the federation provides a training course on “Using water-fed poles and portable ladders”, which is approved by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. It is a one-day course, and it costs £175 plus VAT per person for members.

The right hon. Member referred to the product introduced by Ionic Systems of Swindon. I know that Ionic Systems, in pursuing the case the right hon. Member set out this evening, met the relevant British Standards Institution committee, PEL/78, on 22 July this year to discuss including water-fed poles in standard BS8020 on tools for live working. The idea was to include fully insulated water-fed poles to avoid an incident like that which befell Jason Knight. As the right hon. Member said, the system uses de-ionised water, which will not conduct electricity.

The committee concluded that the standard on tools for live working is just not suitable for water-fed cleaning, because it is intended to cover tools used by people who have been trained in working on, or near, live electrical conductors in the electrical industry. Industry training is generally three to four years to become competent to work on live conductors. The committee’s view was that a water-fed pole is not a tool for live working, and that window cleaners should not be encouraged to carry out live working near a live electrical cable. On that basis, the industry experts on the committee and the BSI rejected the application.

I note from the what the right hon. Gentleman has told us that the BSI may be looking at making a change to another standard. The BSI is independent of Government and makes its own decisions, so I will certainly follow with interest the outcome of the work he has referred to.

I should also make the point that British standards are not routinely made mandatory. If they are followed, they can be used to demonstrate compliance with the law; however, as they are set independently, legislating for them to be mandatory would introduce the risk of falling behind technical advancements. I think there are consumer uses where there is some mandation, but in an instance such as the one we have been talking about this evening, BSI standards are not generally made mandatory. The right hon. Gentleman may wish to correspond with me on that.

To conclude, the Government continue to take the health and safety of people cleaning windows very seriously. We have heard this evening of serious accidents—in some cases fatal—that can befall people engaged in this work. I hope I have been able to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the House that we have a regulatory regime and framework in place that are sufficiently robust to protect the health and safety of those workers, as we must. I will certainly follow with great interest the developments he has indicated to the House, and the thinking that is under way at the moment, and see where that gets us in the coming months.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to improve the Motability scheme.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Changes announced at the Budget will improve value for money for taxpayers while ensuring that the Motability scheme continues to provide outstanding support for disabled people.

[Shaun Davies]

The Motability scheme stems from the vital principle that people with disabilities should be able to live a dignified and independent life. I have heard from several constituents about how accessible cars can help them into work and healthcare, which I welcome, but I have also heard from a number of others about those with questionable conditions being provided with cars that, quite simply, the average working family could not afford. In many cases the cars are not even made in Britain. Does the Minister agree that, in order to keep faith and confidence in the scheme, it is really important that the scheme addresses real need across the country and in my constituency? Will he meet me to discuss some of the extreme cases that I am hearing about in Telford?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I would be happy to meet him. Motability is an important scheme that does an important job. Some tax reliefs will be removed in July. Existing leases will not be affected, and neither will wheelchair-adapted vehicles. There will still be vehicles, with no up-front payment, that are affordable solely through the mobility component of personal independence payment, so the scheme will continue to do a great job but will give better value for money for taxpayers.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

The shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions recently stated that

“millions are getting benefits for anxiety or ADHD along with a free Motability car.”

That is clearly nonsense, because only 200,000 claimants—at most—would be eligible to apply in the first place, and many of them also have a physical disability, which is the real reason for the car. Does the Minister agree that this must rank as one of the least accurate claims ever made by a politician, despite the strong competition?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Well, choosing the most misleading claim is a tough contest, but the hon. Gentleman is right. The shadow Secretary of State’s colleagues introduced PIP, with the current criteria, in 2013. They then had 11 years to change it if they thought doing so was necessary, but they did absolutely nothing. My review will look at the eligibility criteria for the mobility component of PIP.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to reduce the number of children in poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

Liz Sayce did an outstanding forensic job in getting to the bottom of the carer’s allowance overpayment problems. We have accepted or partially accepted 38 of her 40 recommendations. The Department will reassess overpayments incurred between 2015 and last summer where fluctuating earnings were an issue, and we will set out detailed plans in the new year.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for his response. As he well knows, over the last decade, around 185,000 unpaid family carers have been pursued by the Department for Work and Pensions to return overpayments in their carer’s allowance. Through no fault of their own, many working carers have faced bills that have often run into thousands of pounds. It is incredibly positive that, after years of inaction from the Tories, this Government have acted. Does the Minister share my hope that trust might now be rebuilt between the state and the near 6 million unpaid family carers in this country?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for carers on this issue and others. She is absolutely right: this is a very serious problem that was ignored for 10 years, despite there being quite a lot of publicity about it. I hope, as she says, that trust will now be rebuilt as we fix these problems in the coming months.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Cumbria has a much higher than average number of unpaid carers, largely due to the much higher than average number of people who are older, and the situation is exacerbated by rural isolation. It is a community with a significant amount of seasonal and variable work. What is the Minister doing to ensure that carers can take flexible seasonal work without fear of losing all support?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the carer’s allowance has an earnings threshold, which we have increased very significantly—the biggest increase in the earnings threshold that there has ever been. We are also looking, in the longer term, at introducing a taper to carer’s allowance, instead of the cliff-edge earnings threshold that is still there at the moment. That will not be a quick fix, but once it is in place, I think it will help with the concern he raises.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the findings of the Sayce review into carer’s allowance overpayments, but what assurances can the Minister give that the Government will stop hounding carers about overpayments? Will the Government also apologise?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am very sorry about what happened to many carers. For example, only about half of the alerts that came into the Department from HMRC were checked, so overpayments that the Department had been notified of carried on for months and months. Of course, genuine overpayments do still need recovery and that work will continue. If people run into difficulties, it is always worth talking to the DWP debt management service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to support people with health conditions into work.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North and Cottingham (Dame Diana Johnson), just mentioned our Pathways to Work guarantee, which will offer everybody with health impairments on out-of-work benefits a support conversation to work out best next steps, one-to-one caseworker support for those ready to move towards work, specialist longer-term support for those who can benefit from that, and periodic engagement for those not yet ready to move towards work.

[Paulette Hamilton]

A constituent of mine with severe health needs recently told me that she gained employment only after she was able to learn to drive and then secure a car through the Motability scheme. Can the Minister set out what further steps the Department is taking to ensure that disabled people with health needs receive the support they need to gain access to work and to take part fully in the things they enjoy?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There is a great deal of work to be done: the disability employment gap has been stuck at around 30 percentage points ever since 2010. We have talked already today about Motability, which is key for enabling many disabled people to get to work. After the changes next July, there will still be a wide range of vehicles available in exchange solely for mobility benefit. Access to Work is also extremely important. We consulted earlier in the year through our Green Paper on reform to Access to Work, so that we can help and support more people, and we will be bringing forward proposals along those lines in the new year.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I have been assisting several constituents who are deaf and need the support of British Sign Language interpreters and face-to-face appointments. There are only five BSL interpreters available to cover the whole of Dorset, and as a result people are waiting extremely long periods not only to get appointments but to get access to help them get to work. Can the Minister explain what is being done to provide more such services?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that the hon. Lady will be interested in the recent report published by the BSL Advisory Board, which works with the Government specifically on BSL. I met members of the board last week. They produced a report recently on access to health and care support, specifically highlighting some of these issues. For example, how do BSL users make GP appointments? The other steps that I have outlined today will also be important for deaf and disabled people, and we will continue to work closely with BSL Advisory Board on these issues.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

T2.   A constituent of mine who is in his mid-50s wrote to me about the flagrant and extensive age discrimination he faces looking for work, citing a job advert seeking applicants with under 15 years’ experience. His case reflects the Women and Equalities Committee’s “The rights of older people” report, which calls for stronger legal protection and a cross-Government strategy. Age discrimination is already unlawful, so how will the Minister ensure that people are properly protected?

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

As my hon. Friend says, it is against the law to impose age restrictions on jobs unless they can be objectively justified. The Equality Act 2010 provides legal redress. There is also practical help available through the Equality Advisory and Support Service, which his constituent should certainly give a call, and we have 50PLUS champions working across the whole of our jobcentre network.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Disability News Service has stated that both the Treasury and the DWP have refused to clarify the £1.9 billion of cuts to disability benefits set to take place over the next five years that were quietly sneaked into the Budget the other week. Will the Minister now set the record straight and advise us on how those cuts, which amount to almost £2 billion, will occur and on what impacts they will have on people with disabilities?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I will happily look into the report he has spoken of. There will be no changes at all to eligibility for personal independence payments until the conclusion of my review, which will be in the autumn of next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We all know that disabled people often face higher energy bills. In my constituency, that is exacerbated by higher standing charges. The Government have now abolished the energy company obligation. Can the Minister tell me what support with bills will be available for disabled people this winter?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

In April, there will be a permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for the first time, I think, since the 1970s. We are taking £150 on average off household energy bills, expanding the £150 warm home discount to 6 million lower-income households, and freezing NHS prescription charges for a year.

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

T9.   Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss the role that allied health professionals, such as physios, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and others, can play in helping NEETs to overcome barriers and secure meaningful and lasting work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

A lady came to my surgery the other week to tell me that she had been assessed at only the basic level of PIP and as fit to work. I was staggered, because she could barely walk and could barely breathe. Will the Minister meet me to see how we can rectify this crazy situation in which somebody who can barely walk to a surgery has been told that they are fit to work as a cleaner?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Whether people get PIP is not about whether they can work—they may be working or not. The limited capability for work-related activity part of universal credit is about whether or not a person can work, but I will be very happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady about what has happened.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Some 1,750 kids in Falkirk, most of whom have a parent in work, will be lifted from poverty and its lifelong economic consequences by the fully funded lifting of the two-child cap. Does the Minister agree that the cost of this poverty-alleviation policy is far less than the long-term cost of leaving those parents in poverty?

[Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)]

Since Maximus began the contract to provide work capability assessments in September last year, nearly 1,000 people have had their assessment appointments cancelled. However, a whistleblower has been in touch with me to state that cancellations are a regular occurrence largely because of IT services provided by the DWP. Shockingly, one of my constituents had their assessment cancelled five times in my city of Dundee. What action is the Minister taking to monitor and improve the service provided by Maximus so that no one has to suffer the distress of such cancellations?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be happy to look into the details. I was not aware of that whistleblowing report, but I would be happy to look at it.

[Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)]

The youth guarantee scheme represents a clear statement of intent from this Labour Government. Unlike the Conservatives, we will not abandon our young people to a lifetime on benefits, or allow the mental health toll of long-term unemployment to define their futures. Will my right hon. Friend outline how this policy will deliver for those young people by providing skills, confidence and meaningful work, and deliver for the wider economy by turning potential into productivity and reducing the cost of economic inactivity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

The Injury Time campaign wants to classify brain injuries in football, such as dementia, as an industrial injury. The campaign wants former players to receive Government support and benefits and wants an increase in funding for research. Will the relevant Minister meet me and PFA Scotland to discuss this important topic?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Carer's Allowance Overpayments Review

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Written Statements

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The Government have today published the report from the independent review into overpayments of carer’s allowance linked to earnings and the Government’s response to its recommendations. These are available on gov.uk and copies will be placed in the Library of the House.

Finding out what went wrong with carer’s allowance

The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, have found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of carer’s allowance. This only affected some of the relatively small number of carer’s allowance claimants who also do paid work, but the impact on some of these unpaid carers has been significant.

Liz Sayce OBE was asked to lead an independent review into the matter. The review’s report has been invaluable in helping us assess how these overpayments have arisen; what we can do to support unpaid carers who have incurred debts in the past; and how we can minimise further overpayments in future.

For those who receive carer’s allowance, 92% say they have a positive experience, and most find the rules easy to understand. However, the review has shown that some mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcome the report and are accepting or partially accepting 38 of the 40 recommendations. In some cases, we have already made the changes the report is asking for. Others will take more time to put in place.

The review finds that some carers could not have known that they were building up overpayments because it was not clear how their earnings would affect their entitlement, and this lack of clarity was due to issues with operational guidance. The Government accept this and we will act to put it right.

Averaging earnings and putting things right

The earnings limit in carer’s allowance is a weekly one, but in some cases, earnings can be averaged over a number of weeks. The review found issues with departmental guidance. And we accept that, between 2015 and summer 2025, the guidance on whether and how to average earnings did not accurately reflect the statutory position.

The Department will, therefore, be reassessing carer’s allowance cases with an earnings-related overpayment in England and Wales between 2015 and summer 2025 where the treatment of fluctuating earnings may have given rise to an incorrect overpayment. If that was the case, the Department will reduce the outstanding overpayment accordingly, and pay back any debts it should not have pursued in the first place. We will set out plans in the new year.

The independent review went beyond averaging earnings though and made recommendations in a number of other areas which we are accepting—for example, rebuilding trust with carers; improving communications and processes; and appointing a senior responsible owner, who will be responsible for taking forward the agreed recommendations and reporting on progress.

Modernising for the future

Carer’s allowance was introduced in 1976 and—unlike universal credit, which is the other main benefit to support unpaid carers—it has not kept up with changes in how people work or modern patterns of unpaid care. Many carers now want the flexibility to combine more paid work with their caring responsibilities.

The Government acknowledge this and have taken action to:

Increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit to match 16 hours work at national living wage levels. This change from April this year resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit to £196 net earnings a week and the highest percentage increase since 2001. It means more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30;

put in extra resources to process the earnings information we receive from HMRC through the verify earnings and pensions system. This allows us to contact people if it looks like they may have exceeded the earnings limit, meaning we can take action to prevent overpayments from building up;

correct and improve our guidance so carers and our own staff are clearer about what the benefit rules are and what information needs to be provided; and

begin scoping work to explore potential solutions to reduce the impact of the cliff edge, and automating the handling of earnings where possible using data collected by HMRC.

[HCWS1092]