Work and Pensions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Westminster Hall debate on Work Capability Assessment Timescales on 4 March 2026.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

…Looking back, that worked rather better than people might have anticipated, but it meant that in 2021, only 5% of work capability assessments were carried out face to face. After the pandemic, there was a very slow return to face to face: in 2024, only 13% of work capability assessments were face to face.

[Official Report, 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 397WH.]

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

[Sir Stephen Timms]

…Looking back, that worked rather better than people might have anticipated, but it meant that in 2021, only 5% of work capability assessments were carried out face to face. After the pandemic, there was a very slow return to face to face: in 2024, only 12% of work capability assessments were face to face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

14. What steps he is taking to improve the protection of workers against exposure to potentially hazardous medicinal products.

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

The Health and Safety Executive is working to ensure that employers know their duties under COSHH—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2022, as amended. Those regulations require a risk assessment and the prevention of, or adequate control of, exposure of employees to hazardous medicinal products.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the Minister consider developing a clear statutory definition of “hazardous medicinal products” and subsequently mandate the development, publication and ongoing maintenance of a comprehensive UK list of hazardous medicinal products?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend make an interesting suggestion, and I know there has been some campaigning around this issue. The Health and Safety Executive has not seen evidence that the current arrangements are inadequate. They appear to be robust and well established, and they seem to be doing the job that is needed. If there is evidence of a problem to which my hon. Friend is able to draw attention, the HSE will certainly look at that very seriously. For now, though, the focus is on making sure that NHS trusts and others know their obligations under the current regulations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers. I do not know whether he had a chance to see in the paper last week some figures for poisonings of those over 50 years of age on a number of occasions, although whether those were the unexpected effects of medicinal products or arose from lifestyle is not yet known. As a result of the uncertainty and the rising number of such poisonings, will the Minister look into this issue and come back to the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), me and the House on whether there is a connection? I think there may well be one.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I do not think I have seen the report the hon. Gentleman refers to. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of a problem with the current arrangements. There may be some pointers in the information he referred to, and if there are, I would be keen to have a look at them.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

15. What assessment he has made of recent trends in levels of unemployment in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

16. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of work capability assessment clearance times of over two years on claimants.

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

The hon. Lady’s hon. Friend, the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) raised this important concern in a Westminster Hall debate last week. A backlog of reassessments for the work capability assessment did build up during 2024. I am pleased to say that that backlog will have been almost entirely cleared by the end of this month.

[Manuela Perteghella]

Research from Scope found that, in 2025, only 7% of work capability assessments carried out were reassessments for existing claimants, compared with 19% the previous year. One of my constituents has experienced a significant deterioration in their health and urgently requires reassessment to determine whether they should now receive the limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit. What further urgent actions will the Minister take to reduce waiting times and ensure that disabled people are not left without financial support?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Lady is right to raise this matter. She is also right that the Department prioritises initial assessments, so that people without any support at all get it as soon as possible. Reassessments are then carried out when there is capacity. As I said, the backlog that built up towards the end of 2024 will have been almost entirely cleared by the end of this month. If there is still a problem in the case of her constituent, I would be grateful if she dropped me a line.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Last week, Citizens Advice shared a report into Access to Work which confirmed many things that we know from our own postbags relating to disturbing delays in the system on both processing applications and reimbursement. Will the Minister share with us what recovery plan he has in place and when the Government will get up to a 28-day turnaround for these important issues?

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

The new disability advisory panel—chaired by Zara Todd, whom the hon. Gentleman may know—will be working with us on reform of Access to Work. We have increased the number of staff working on this from 500 to 650 in the past couple of years, which is reducing some of the delays that we saw as a result of the big surge in applications. I would be glad to keep the hon. Gentleman posted on further progress, including our proposals for reform, which we will bring forward as soon as we are able to do so.

[Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)]

I recently met my constituent Dean, who is in his 60s and wants to return to full-time work after a bit of ill health. With more than 15 years’ experience in human resources, he is struggling to get over the line and get that next job. He feels he is being turned away not just because of his age, but because of his medical condition, which means he needs a cane to walk. What is the Minister doing to support people with health conditions, such as Dean, back into work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this matter. She might know of the Connect to Work service we have introduced, which will be available across the whole country by summer. The methodology for it has been designed centrally, but it is being commissioned entirely locally. The feedback we are seeing so far is that it is doing a very good job in supporting people in exactly the kind of circumstances that my hon. Friend describes.

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

T4. Does the Minister think it is reasonable that my constituents did not receive a penny of carer’s allowance for the entirety of last year while caring for their daughter living at home with them and that whenever they phone the Department they are simply told, “Case awaiting update”?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would drop me a line about that case so that I can look into what has happened.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

I know that the Minister has been making progress with the review of the personal independence payment assessment. I hear from many people who struggle with the complexity and mistakes in the current system, including one lady with severe spinal and nerve conditions who had her payments reduced after the DWP did not receive the medical evidence that she had sent. Does the Minister agree that any changes to the system must be humane and fair, and that it must become easier to navigate and easier for people to trust?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I do agree. As my hon. Friend will know, we have set up a review of personal independence payment, which is under way at the moment. We have a steering group of 12 individuals, almost all of whom are disabled people, plus me and two other co-chairs, and we had our third full-day, in-person meeting last week. The issues that my hon. Friend raises are exactly the ones that we want to work through in the course of the review, which will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the autumn.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

T5. With nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training, the growth and skills levy is due to launch in less than a month, but as few as eight courses have been confirmed, with no funding rates, no duration and no assessment detail published. How is anyone—a young person planning their future, a college planning its provision or an employer planning its workforce—supposed to act on a blank page?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituent Michael, who is autistic, lost his personal independence payment in January when he was moved to employment and support allowance without explanation. He is attempting to appeal that decision. Given warnings from the National Autistic Society about barriers that autistic people face in navigating the benefits system, what steps is the Department taking to improve communication and staff training to better support neurodiverse claimants?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that matter. It is fair to say that the PIP application process is old-fashioned, clunky and difficult for many. I mentioned earlier the review of PIP that is being undertaken. Members of the steering group have described applying for PIP as “dehumanising”. The health transformation programme is under way, and we are improving the process, including by making claims fully online in a trial number of postcode areas. I hope that a broadly much better approach will come out of the review.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

An important component of the Government’s drive to reduce the number of NEETs is encouraging Jobcentre Plus to work innovatively in constituencies such as mine. Will the Secretary of State join me in commending its work in organising with me a jobs fair on 16 April from 10 am till 1 pm at the Indian community centre in Rugby? Of course, he or his Ministers would be very welcome to come and see that innovation in practice.

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

Emma from Abbots Langley in my constituency has to comply with strict timeframes for her job as a frontline worker within a local government adult care service. Despite that, the video relay service allowance that she receives as a deaf person has been reduced by over 75%, meaning that it is significantly below her working hours. Given that the waiting period for Access to Work reconsideration cases can span up to several months, how can the Minister assure my constituent that the delay will not undermine her ability to work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There is a serious problem with Access to Work delays—on 16 February, the application backlog was 66,699—which is why we have substantially increased the number of staff working on it. Those who have a job in the offing are prioritised for applications. If the hon. Member would like to drop me a line about the particular case he has in mind, I will gladly look into it.

Work Capability Assessment Timescales

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate.

I welcome the opportunity to consider journey times in the work capability assessment, both for initial assessments and reassessments. I take the point that it is the latter group in which the hon. Lady is particularly interested. I echo her tribute to MPs’ caseworkers, which was very well made. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that people claiming health and disability-related benefits have their entitlement assessed as quickly as possible, so that they get the support they need.

Let me set out the Government’s policy on the work capability assessment. It was introduced in 2008 as the gateway to the employment and support allowance, which was the then new benefit to replace incapacity benefit. As it happens, I was the Minister responsible at the time. I remember being told that the WCA had been devised across Alan Johnson’s kitchen table in the period when he was Secretary of State. Since 2013, it has also been the gateway to the additional health-related sum in universal credit.

Two people with the same condition can be affected in different ways, so they can have different outcome decisions from their WCA. The three possible outcomes for a UC applicant are: fit for work, where the individual is not entitled to the additional health element of universal credit; limited capability for work, where the individual gains access to the work allowance in universal credit, but gets no increased rate of benefit; and limited capability for work and work-related activity, so-called LCWRA, which gives access to a higher rate of benefit with no requirement to take part in work-related activity.

The WCA links capacity to work to additional financial support. In our Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we outlined our plan—and the hon. Lady touched on this matter—to abolish the WCA and end the binary categorisation of people as “can work” or “cannot work”. We do not think that black and white categorisation works. One of the problems with it has been that although people deemed not capable of work are still offered help to look for work, there is no requirement to take it up and, in practice, they rarely do. The system has given up on them, but we are now changing that. Work coaches with a new specific brief to support people classified as LCWRA say they are getting a positive response from the people they are contacting.

In future, eligibility for additional health-related financial support in universal credit will be assessed in England and Wales via the personal independence payment assessment. It will be based on the impact of disability on daily living, rather than on capacity to work. The hon. Lady is right to make the point about how arrangements might work in Scotland and we are already discussing that with the Scottish Government.

Our ambition is a system that is simple to navigate, can be trusted by those who use it, provides a good experience and, generally, obtains the right decision the first time. Due to its link with the PIP assessment, the WCA abolition will not proceed until after the conclusion of the review into PIP that I am currently co-chairing. The co-chairs have recruited a steering group of a dozen people to oversee the co-produced review of PIP. Almost all of the steering group have lived experience of a disability or long-term health condition. We are going to have a full day together tomorrow, considering how to secure external input to our consideration of how the system should work in the future. The review’s recommendations will be submitted to the Secretary of State in the autumn.

In the meantime, the WCA process, as the hon. Lady rightly highlighted, needs to be as efficient and supportive as possible. WCA waiting times can vary depending on individual circumstance, including the complexity of the case, the need for further medical evidence, and customers’ availability and assessment capacity. The latest reported median end-to-end journey time for new employment and support allowance work capability assessments is 87 working days. That is broadly comparable with what it was before the pandemic. It includes the four weeks that people applying for the benefit have to complete and return their WCA50 questionnaire, as well as time for the providers to request and receive further medical evidence from a GP or another healthcare professional.

New benefit applications are primarily for universal credit rather than for ESA. Clearance times for WCAs in universal credit are not yet published, but they will be in phase 6 of the proposed development of universal credit statistics. There is a big plan for how those are going to be rolled out.

As the hon. Lady explained, she has a particular interest in claimant-led WCA reassessments—when somebody already in receipt of benefit reports that their condition has worsened. She has made representations to me on behalf of constituents about that. I think I have now replied to all the letters she has written to me about that, although one of them was just earlier this week, so we have only just managed that.

As the hon. Lady said, the Department prioritises initial assessments for new benefit customers. The reason for that is to make sure that people receive the correct entitlement and employment-related support as early as possible. It is right to prioritise for those assessments people who have not got any help at all yet, ahead of those wanting a fresh look at the amount they are receiving in benefit. Reassessments are carried out when there is capacity in the system to do them.

The background to the backlog that the hon. Lady referred to is that, in late 2024, after the general election, there was a surge of new benefit claims, so there was a need for a lot of new WCAs. Handling that surge led to a backlog of claimant-led reassessments, which built up from September 2024 until May 2025. When I was advised that we had a backlog of 35,000 claimant-led reassessments, I told officials to prioritise that group, and I am pleased that most of that backlog was cleared by the start of this calendar year. The vast majority of it will be cleared altogether by the end of this month. That should mean that the problems quite rightly highlighted by the hon. Lady will be behind us.

Alongside claimant-led reassessments, there are Department-led reassessments, where the Department decides that a reassessment is needed to check that the benefit being paid is correct. They are often carried out after a benefit award has been in payment for a specified period. Those Department-led reassessments stopped altogether for a period in the pandemic and for some time after, while the backlog of new claims left by the pandemic was processed.

In the Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we said that we would turn on scheduled WCA reassessments as we build up capacity in our assessment providers. We are prioritising scheduled reassessments for people who are most likely to have had a change in their circumstances—for example, those with a short-term prognosis, for whom we can reasonably anticipate that a change in their health condition has occurred. That includes those with risks from pregnancy complications, or those who have recovered following cancer treatment.

We intend to do that while simultaneously reducing delays and improving timescales for those awaiting a reassessment—the group that the hon. Lady highlighted. That will mean that people who have asked for a review of their capability for work due to worsening health can be seen and receive an outcome as quickly as possible.

To do that, we will continue to increase assessment capacity significantly, through accelerated recruitment of healthcare professionals. Our providers have also expanded appointment availability, including some evening and weekend slots, and improved triage processes to identify cases that are suitable for paper-based or remote assessment, which can be dealt with particularly quickly. Those steps will continue to help improve the overall experience and ensure timely access to assessments for those who need them.

However, ensuring that people are assessed and get the support they are entitled to as quickly as possible is not everything. The hon. Lady rightly made the point, as she said in her most recent letter, that we need to “avoid cutting corners which could lead to wrong decisions being made”. She is absolutely right on that.

One important factor is whether assessments are carried out face to face. Before the pandemic, face-to-face assessments were the standard. Those stopped in lockdown and, for obvious reasons, assessments were carried out by telephone or by video call—mostly by telephone. Looking back, that worked rather better than people might have anticipated, but it meant that in 2021, only 5% of work capability assessments were carried out face to face. After the pandemic, there was a very slow return to face to face: in 2024, only 13% of work capability assessments were face to face. We think it is very important for accuracy and fairness that many more of them should be carried out face to face, so we have committed to increasing that proportion to 30%. We are making good progress in that direction; the statistics will be published in due course.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) rightly asked about a trauma-informed approach to assessment. Assessment providers adhere to a comprehensive quality and clinical governance assurance framework that aligns with the Department’s contractual and professional standards. All healthcare professionals conducting work capability assessments have to be fully qualified and appropriately registered, and have completed the necessary specialist training, before carrying out any assessments. Once they are in the role, they also have a full programme of continuing professional development to support them.

To maintain consistent standards of accuracy, justification and clarity, providers carry out regular audit sampling of their assessment reports, which helps them to identify areas for improvement. Alongside that, the Department conducts a programme of independent assessment quality audits. Where those identify problems, the Department makes sure that providers put things right through enhanced training, additional coaching or whatever is needed. Providers maintain a collaborative relationship with the Department, taking part in performance reviews to ensure that expectations are met and improvements are embedded.

Where performance falls below contractual quality thresholds, providers have to act promptly, perhaps with detailed improvement plans, strengthened audit processes, increased supervision or further training. The Department monitors progress closely and, if there is a significant or persistent problem of underperformance, is able to apply contractual remedies to address the problem.

Having said all of that, there are of course times when things go wrong. Earlier this week, I met with a Member who expressed concern about the outcome of a PIP assessment. I raised the case with officials in the Department who had a look at it. The assessment had been carried out by one of the assessment providers and, when the provider checked it, it agreed that the assessment was wrong; I think the individual who carried out the assessment was suspended. Things do sometimes go wrong, and it is absolutely right that Members raise these things with me so that we can address them.

One of the main reasons why maintaining quality is so important is that, as the hon. Member for North East Fife said, some of those going through the WCA are among the most vulnerable people due to the nature or severity of their disability or health condition, or for some other reason. We have in place a range of measures to identify, prioritise and safeguard vulnerable customers from the earliest stage, including helping them to complete the WCA50 questionnaire, encouraging people to have someone with them when attending an assessment and the provision of home visits, if that is needed.

We know that some people need more support than that. The hon. Lady raised that with me in a letter last October. We are not planning a triage system for prioritising such cases, because we are really focused on getting all the cases cleared as quickly as possible, but the Department has committed to a new safeguarding approach, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined in a written ministerial statement in December, and a lot of work is going into that.

I am most grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife for drawing this matter to the attention of the House, for her long-standing interest in this very important subject and for the contributions of others who have intervened in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Work and Pensions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from Committee of the whole House on the Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill on 23 February 2026.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

…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.

[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 140.]

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

[Sir Stephen Timms]

…Removing the two-child limit does not substantially 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, in some cases, increases the reward for work, and it does not substantially undermine work incentives.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

…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.

[Official Report, 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 141.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham:

[Sir Stephen Timms]

…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 119,000 households were capped at the start of the quarter that ended in August last year and 40,000 households were no longer capped in the quarter, although others were newly capped, so there is a lot of churn in the cohort of capped households. The 40,000 households included 2,900 who had ceased to be capped because their earnings met or exceeded the earnings threshold. We want to encourage more people to make that transition.

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]