Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome all Members to the Committee. I am very pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 24 February.

The draft regulations are important to keep our post-Brexit chemicals regime robust, proportionate and fit for the long term. They amend three pieces of chemicals legislation that we assimilated from the European Union, putting right things that could not be put right at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available then under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The draft regulations maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment, making sure that the regulatory system works efficiently for businesses, and supporting economic growth. In combination with the commitment of the Health and Safety Executive to aligning with the European Union’s regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the draft regulations create a framework for adopting EU chemical hazard classifications more quickly in Great Britain. Chemicals stakeholder groups across the board broadly share the wish to stay as aligned with the European Union as possible, to support trade and to maintain the high standards of protection that we share with our closest trading partners, and this statutory instrument reflects those wishes.

It is very important that this legislation has been laid now, because the powers provided for in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June, and no other suitable powers are available. The changes being made here are about keeping on the market things that are currently available. New things that are not currently available will still be subject to existing classification and approval requirements, and will be permitted in Great Britain only if the HSE has undertaken an evaluation of them, as is the case at present. There will be a fast track for classification evaluations, but only if the substance has already been subject to classification by a regime that adopts the United Nations globally harmonised system on the same basis as the UK—which means, at present, only the European Union’s. Substances approved elsewhere will not be eligible for fast-tracked evaluation in the UK.

The measures strike an important balance, giving more certainty and flexibility, with a more proportionate system for chemicals suppliers and the regulator, while protecting the natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution, protecting people who use and work with hazardous chemical substances, and retaining the benefits of important biocidal products, such as those used to provide clean drinking water.

The Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals supply framework is overseen through three regimes. First, there is the Great Britain biocidal products regulation, BPR, which controls the placing on the market and use of biocidal products—disinfectants, insecticides, and so on. Secondly, there is the Great Britain classification, labelling and packaging—CLP—regulation, which provides for the identification and communication of chemical hazards, adopting the UN globally harmonised system of classification and labelling. Thirdly, there is the GB prior informed consent—PIC—regulation, which governs the export and import of some hazardous chemicals.

Those regulations were carried over from EU law under the 2023 Act, which enables sensible amendments to keep those regimes operating effectively. The regulations before the Committee apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. In Northern Ireland, EU chemicals legislation continues to apply under the Windsor framework.

The chemicals supply framework that we inherited from the European Union provided a high level of protection, but there are some structural and operational problems in applying it in a single country. We used, for example, to share access to the testing resources of all European Union countries; now we just have access to our own. Without these regulations, we would very quickly run into serious problems. Up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would very soon lose approval and have to be removed from the market.

Those products include insecticides used to remove disease vectors from aircraft, disinfectants for infection control in hospitals, anti-fouling coatings needed by ships at sea, wood preservatives that protect businesses and homes, and other biocides that are important for public health. There would also be inadequate powers to issue temporary permits for critical products, so that it would no longer be possible for essential products such as aviation fuel preservatives and chemicals used to disinfect public drinking water supplies permitted under those powers to be supplied and used legally.

Businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens such as notification requirements that no longer serve any purpose, and the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to prioritise more quickly and flexibly chemical hazard assessments relevant to the Great Britain market would remain limited. At the moment, the HSE has by law to consider EU risk assessment committee classification proposals, including those that are irrelevant to this country. Exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to have to carry out pointless tasks such as obtaining a special reference identification number that customs authorities do not use. I also want to make clear that there would be no corresponding benefits at all to health or to the environment.

Taking them one by one, the BRP extends the expiry date for the up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. That will prevent them from lapsing through no fault of the suppliers and will avoid very severe disruption. It also reforms emergency provision so that essential biocidal products such as aviation fuel preservatives and drinking water disinfectants can remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term. Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen between now and June, because then they would become non-available.

The regulation clarifies and extends data protection rules to ensure that businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes. On 9 March, the Government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK-European Union sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement as part of the reset negotiations for the relationship between us and the European Union. We do not know the outcome of those negotiations, but the direction of travel, as the Government have made clear, is that the UK will follow a model of dynamic alignment with the European Union for biocide products.

The measures maintain important disease prevention and public health protections while enabling SPS agreement negotiations to conclude and any agreement to be implemented. The changes do not allow the introduction of new biocidal products that have not been evaluated and approved under the rigorous biocides regulatory framework, but rather maintain the availability of existing biocidal active substances and products that are already permitted under the current rules. The changes deliver certainty and continuity, not deregulation.

The regulation on classification, labelling and packaging introduces a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved Governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling list—the MCL list—by removing duplicative actions. It removes the obligation to automatically consider all initial EU hazard classification proposals—even those for products that nobody is interested in using in the UK—so that the HSE can prioritise what matters for this country and introduce a bespoke GB work plan, setting out the classification priorities for the HSE over a three-year period. The plan will be subject to annual review and agreed following consultation with the devolved Governments.

The regulation will also allow the Health and Safety Executive to respond to changes resulting from later European Union decisions; flexibility that the current regime does not allow. It creates a faster evaluation pathway for adopting EU classification proposals other than in exceptional circumstances. It relocates technical notes to the HSE website so that updates will no longer require legislation, making technical guidance more up-to-date and accessible, and revokes unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data that is no longer needed.

The changes simplify regulation and introduce greater flexibility to direct limited resources to hazard classification evaluations that are relevant in Britain. They maintain high standards of protection, and do not in any way change the legal requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of their being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. It will also be possible to legally require the assessment of other types of hazards, such as those in the new EU hazard classes, on a case-by-case basis, until the future legislation is introduced. That allows us to adopt EU measures if we need to and maintain coherent trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The regulation on the export and import of hazardous chemicals removes the redundant requirement for exports of small quantities of chemicals for use in research, analysis or emergency situations from Great Britain to have special reference identification numbers. It harmonises conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests, removing a barrier to legitimate trade. It makes the Health and Safety Executive, as the designated national authority, responsible for reviewing and updating the GB list, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. It also aligns our updates more closely with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving exporters greater clarity on prohibited substances. All those changes will streamline export procedures and maintain our strong commitment to our international obligations. They will not affect the import of chemicals to this country.

I want to comment on the situation regarding the UK internal market. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market is important. The more efficient regulatory process and the more timely decision making, which enable alignment with decisions made in the European Union, are expected to have minimal impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK internal market. There may be exceptional circumstances in which a different regulatory decision is made in Great Britain, but the potential impact on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a consideration in making such decisions.

Regulatory divergence has been a big concern following EU exit. In December 2024, the Northern Ireland Assembly applied to trigger the Stormont brake to ask the UK Government to prevent the application of new measures adopted into EU classification, labelling and packaging legislation. It was decided that the conditions for application of the brake were not met, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has committed to addressing the impact of regulatory divergence and to consider how to apply a consistent classification, labelling and packaging regime across the United Kingdom.

The powers in the 2023 Act, to which I have referred a couple of times, have not permitted us to make changes to introduce a consistent regime for classification, labelling and packaging now, in this statutory instrument. However, the HSE has committed to further work, throughout this year and next, on how to make updates to deliver a consistent classification and labelling regime in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within the UK internal market, using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for the Committee’s support for this statutory instrument. I will have a go at answering the questions raised. Is there a possibility that any of these 173 substances will be banned at some point? Did I understand that correctly?

[Daisy Cooper]

I had two separate questions. The first was whether any of the 173 active substances have faced sustained calls to be banned already. I recognise that none are banned, but have any of them faced calls to be banned because of potential damage to biodiversity or human health?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June. However, science is developing our understanding of the impacts of these substances on the environment and our health, and there may be a case to make about some of them. As I said, I do not have the information for the 173, but it would not surprise me if there were significant calls for some of them to be considered for removal. The point is that we do not want that to happen by accident because we did not have the powers to enable them to continue being used.

In terms of the exports that we are addressing in the third of these measures, the UK is a very responsible supplier, and those who supply from the UK are well regulated and behave conscientiously. As I set out earlier, the SI makes sure that if something is ordered to be exported from the UK, and there is no problem with it and there is no response when one has been requested from authorities, the export can continue. That is if there is no response. Clearly, if the response is, “No, this is not approved here”, or something similar, that product would not be supplied. We just want to ensure that what could be an impediment to legitimate trade is not imposed.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) has had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, given her a long-standing interest in this area. I did not catch all six of the questions, so perhaps she and I should correspond separately about some of them. She asked why all six new EU classes are not covered here. The question is what will happen at UN level, because our commitment is to align properly with the UN globally harmonised system. There is a question about how the six EU classes will relate to the UN system, and I do not think that we quite know the answer yet. Perhaps I can send my hon. Friend a fuller response on that point.

[Ruth Jones]

I would very much welcome that opportunity to talk to the Minister outside this Committee. In terms of the UN alignment, that is fine, but what happens when the UN has countries that have lower and weaker chemical regulations than the EU and the UK? What happens with the alignment then? Do we align down or up?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, we are only aligning with the very highest standards worldwide. The question is: what is the framework for that? We are adopting the UN framework, and we think that is the right one. There is still a question about what the EU will do in relation to the UN classification, but I would be very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend. It is not the case that, as she was concerned about, we might permit some things because it is a good idea on industrial production grounds, even if it is not a good idea in terms of human health, animal health or the environment. We are maintaining in these regulations—and indeed in future regulations in this area we are determined to maintain—the very highest standards of protection for human health and for the environment. There is no weakening there at all.

On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should be aligning more closely, as I have indicated, it is our view that our chemicals regulatory arrangements should be aligned with EU arrangements in the future. This instrument is a step in that direction. There will no doubt need to be further debate and discussion once the current negotiations are concluded, but it is interesting to me that across the whole spectrum, from those whose primary focus is on maintaining human health and safety and the environment to those who are concerned about how much we can export from the UK and how much we can manufacture here and sell elsewhere, pretty much everybody agrees that we should be very closely aligned with the EU.

There are, as I said earlier, some areas where, given that we have quite constrained testing resources, we do not want to be required to test every product that is tested in Europe, if it is a product that is of no use or interest in the UK. There will therefore be instances in which our arrangements are not absolutely identical to the EU arrangements, but we want to align for very good commercial and also environmental and health reasons.

The regulations that the Committee is considering are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health; they reduce unnecessary burdens on business while keeping protections in place; they enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter to Great Britain; they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of the chemicals regulatory system; they maintain the protection to human health, animal health and the environment; and they make the regulatory process more efficient by delivering a proportionate regulatory environment aligned with the country’s needs. I commend them to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.

Legacy Benefits: Abolition

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Written Statements

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

Transforming the way the Department for Work and Pensions delivers its services is key to ensuring that we improve the customer experience while delivering value for money for taxpayers.

The purpose of the “move to universal credit” programme was to modernise and simplify the benefits system by replacing older legacy benefits with a single, monthly payment. Completing the implementation of universal credit is critical to that outcome. Universal credit is now claimed by more than 8 million people and therefore plays a hugely significant role in the fabric of our society.

On 31 March 2026, we completed the transition of customers receiving income support and income-based jobseekers allowance to universal credit, allowing the Department to close these outdated systems. In addition, I am setting out my intention to close income-related employment and support allowance and applicable housing benefit on 30 June 2026. Giving sufficient notice and support to some of our most vulnerable customers was important in enabling everyone who wanted to transition to universal credit the time needed to make the move.

The DWP recognises that, for many people, engaging with universal credit is a very different experience from ESA, with the transition process highlighting changes to appointees for customers as well. I am therefore further setting out that the DWP intends to exempt customers who require time to find an appointee from the initial abolition date. The DWP will provide customers with the additional time needed while a personal appointee is found, or a corporate appointee is agreed, finalising a later date for final closure when it is safe to do so.

The DWP will proactively engage with customers and their representatives to support them in making the move to universal credit.

The Department’s “move to universal credit” official statistics, published in February 2026, show that—as of 31 December 2025—2.4 million individuals across 1.8 million households have been notified of the need to make the transition to universal credit across all legacy benefits, with over 1.5 million households going on to make a claim to UC.

The continued engagement and collaboration of our external stakeholder network has been invaluable in ensuring that we continue to move those who remain on legacy benefits across safely.

It is right that we now continue to review carefully the support that universal credit provides, that we make sure we understand our customers fully, and that universal credit remains fit for the next decade and beyond.

Leading the UC review, I have engaged with a wide range of organisations and people, including those with first-hand experience of claiming universal credit, those who support them, and those with expertise in the system and how it works. The DWP has hosted workshops, roundtables and focus groups, and undertaken research, including a survey of nearly 10,000 customers. This insight has proved invaluable and I thank those whose time has gone into fulfilling our manifesto commitment.

[HCWS1524]

Carer’s Allowance Overpayments

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this extremely timely debate, which is a welcome opportunity to set out some of the work that the Government have been doing in response to the concerns that she has raised. She is a very strong advocate for unpaid carers; she was before entering Parliament, as she said, and she is now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I echo her remarks about the significance of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of carer’s allowance by Harold Wilson’s Government. It is right to mark and celebrate that.

My hon. Friend has spoken previously of how her mother cared for her grandmother for nearly 30 years. I think all of us can grasp how important and valuable the heroic scale of the contribution made by unpaid carers is, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) is right to draw our attention to the economic value of that contribution. The contributions of unpaid carers are vital to the family members, friends and neighbours they look after, but also to our communities, our country and our economy.

We inherited a dreadful situation in which some very busy, hard-pressed carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with large, unexpected debts due to alleged overpayments of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a particularly clear example of the problem that arose, and I will comment on it a moment.

The Work and Pensions Committee, among others, including the Public Accounts Committee, looked at this problem when I was the Chair, and I am pleased to now be a part of a Government who are able and willing to do something about it. We made a very early move after we were elected—I think that it was in the first Budget after the general election—to increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit, as my hon. Friend said, to match 16 hours of work at national living wage levels.

As my hon. Friend said, that change from April 2025 resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit. It means that more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30, but it is also important to note, particularly in the context we are discussing, that the chance of inadvertently slipping above the earnings limit is greatly reduced, because the limit will keep track with increases in the national living wage in the future. As my hon. Friend said, the earnings limit rose again to £204 per week from the beginning of this month.

People had a real problem in the past when the national living wage was increased, because their earnings that had been below the earnings limit went above it, and there was nothing to alert them to that; they had to monitor it themselves. Quite a lot of people were tipped inadvertently above the earnings limit, leading to an overpayment of carer’s allowance. I am very confident that the change we have made to keep the earnings limit in line with the national living wage will be a big step forward in reducing the incidence of overpayments in the future.

[Anna Dixon]

I had understood that we were also looking into opportunities to alert carers of potentially having breached the earnings limit. Is there anything in place to help communicate information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP to carers?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come on to that, because there is some progress in that area.

As my hon. Friend said, having made the change to the earnings limit, we commissioned the independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK and a well-respected and widely recognised expert in disability benefits. Her review was published in November and, in my view, she did a brilliant job. She really got to grips with what had gone wrong, and I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to her. The report found that many carers had faced unexpected debts because of errors in the way that the DWP had applied averaging rules on fluctuating earnings. The guidance used by DWP staff since 2015 had not properly reflected the law, which permits averaging over a period when assessing whether earnings are above or below the earnings limit.

The case that my hon. Friend mentioned of somebody who was receiving income once every six months is a clear example of the problem. I do not know what the figures were in that case, but it may well be that if Helen’s earnings had been averaged over six months instead of being taken into account in one month, they would have been below the limit. That is exactly the sort of instance that we will examine in the reassessment exercise, which I will say more about in a moment.

We accepted 38 of Liz Sayce’s 40 recommendations in full or in part, and we have already made progress on more than half of them. I will set out those recommendations and what we have done in response, and I will pick up on a couple of my hon. Friend’s questions. The review recommended putting right historical overpayments caused by flawed guidance on the averaging of earnings. I am pleased to say that new and correct guidance has now been in place since the start of September 2025, but it was wrong from 2015 for 10 years.

We are now delivering the reassessment exercise that Liz Sayce recommended: reclassifying affected overpayments as “not recoverable”, refunding carers where appropriate, and applying a fair approach where records are no longer held by the Department. The reassessment exercise began yesterday, so this debate is particularly well timed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured it.

As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set aside £75 million of funding for refunds under the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a three-year period; we are hoping we can complete the exercise in two, but just to be sure, we have allowed three years to ensure we can complete it properly. We are expecting to review more than 200,000 cases, so it is a major undertaking. As she said, we estimate that we will be reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for perhaps some 25,000 carers in the course of the exercise.

[Rushanara Ali]

I draw the Minister’s attention to a point about reassessment made in yesterday’s Guardian:

“the government has admitted its existing ‘business as usual’ overpayment recovery policies will be maintained while a full overhaul of the benefit is completed, in effect ensuring that carer’s allowance penalties will continue to be imposed.”

Can the Minister assure us that that is not the case and that these penalties will not continue to be imposed?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me come to that point in a moment. I saw the article that my hon. Friend refers to. It is an important point, and I will address it in a couple of minutes.

My hon. Friends have quite rightly raised questions about accountability for the review’s delivery. We have appointed a senior responsible officer, and we have committed to update both the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on progress every six months. The review highlighted the need for clearer guidance and better communication with carers, particularly on earnings averaging, overpayments and reporting responsibilities, so we have revised the decision letters so that carers are clearer on how their earnings have been averaged and on exactly what changes they need to report and when.

We have also redesigned the overpayment communications to be clearer and to show more empathy, I hope, than was shown in communications previously. We have strengthened the signposting to independent advice and debt support, including to charities and free money guidance, and we have made it clearer how carers can ask questions, challenge decisions or agree affordable repayment plans. We are continuing to test and develop the letters and the guidance, and there has been recent user research to assess clarity, understanding and impact.

We are planning further improvements. I want to express my appreciation for the carers organisations, particularly Carers UK and the Carers Trust, that we have been working with. They have put a good deal of work into this, together with the Department, to try to ensure we get these communications right. I hope that is going to be a significant improvement.

The Sayce review pointed to the lack of awareness and take-up of carers’ national insurance credits. We want to make sure that carers understand what they are entitled to, so we have been reviewing our letters and guidance to increase awareness. The review recommended reducing the impact of the earnings cliff edge while longer-term reform is developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quite rightly pointed out, if someone is a penny over the earnings limit, they are not entitled to any carer’s allowance; that has been the case ever since 1976.

We have commissioned research on the impact of the higher earnings limit, which is now being regularly updated, unlike in the past, and commissioned behavioural research to inform future policy decisions, including changes to regulations, short-term mitigations and longer-term reform, including a taper. In the end, I think that will be the answer: instead of an earnings cliff edge or cut-off limit, there should be an arrangement so that the carer’s allowance reduces in a tapered way. It will take some time to develop that and put the IT in place and so on, so we are looking at what we can do in the meantime.

As my hon. Friend touched on, the review recommended better join-up between carer’s allowance, universal credit and other benefits. We are aware that a considerable burden is placed on carers, requiring them to resolve offsetting issues themselves. We have accepted Liz Sayce’s recommendation, and we will put in place an automated solution. While we develop that—again, that will take a while—we will put in place a manual workaround.

The review recommended tackling backlogs and identifying overpayments earlier. We have reduced the backlog of automated earnings notifications from HMRC. We now process those alerts much faster, allowing issues to be identified more quickly—another point raised by my hon. Friend. In future, we want to follow up on all those alerts, not just about half of them as we did in the past, so that we can draw people’s attention to problems as they arise. Taken together, those actions are about listening to carers, fixing what went wrong, supporting people better and modernising carer’s allowance in the future.

In response to the review’s recommendations on faulty averaging guidance, we will reassess carer’s allowance cases that might have been affected. A number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, have raised the question of why we did not pause all carer’s allowance earnings overpayments action pending the review’s outcome. My answer is that we have been clear about our approach all along: we have to balance fairness for carers with our duty to taxpayers. If money has been paid out incorrectly, it needs to be recovered. We have retained that position as the review was under way.

In most cases, the Department already holds enough information to carry out the reassessment, and affected carers will not need to take action unless the DWP asks for additional details. For older overpayment cases, dating back to 2015 or perhaps a few years after that, the DWP may no longer hold the relevant data and information: we are required to retain data only as long as it is needed for the purpose for which it was collected. The Department will open a simple online form to allow people to submit the relevant information. We are aiming to do that in November this year.

The Department will work closely with organisations supporting carers who think they may have been affected to register for reassessment on gov.uk. Everybody whose case is reviewed will be notified of the outcome, including whether their overpayment has been confirmed or changed. Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is, or might be, involved in the reassessment exercise will be available, at no cost, from the Department or trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust—I thank them again.

Hon. Members have asked how progress will be tracked. The reassessment exercise is part of our broader response to the independent review and, as I have said, we have committed to updating the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on our progress every six months. Those updates will include statistics on progress, and they will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. We will also put some information in our annual report and accounts.

Rebuilding trust requires honesty, accountability and action, and that is the approach we have aimed to take throughout this process. We have to fix the problems and correct the mistakes; the work of unpaid carers is too important and too valuable not to do so. More broadly, we want to improve and modernise carer’s allowance to make it easier for unpaid carers to combine their caring responsibilities with paid work where they are able to, and better reward them for doing so. We will also ensure that those receiving carer’s allowance and universal credit receive a more joined-up service than they have in the past. We owe that to those who provide such a vital service to our fellow citizens.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the all-party parliamentary group and the Committees represented in the debate will scrutinise how we deliver on those aims very closely. They are absolutely right to do so.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments: Progress on Response

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Written Statements

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

The Government published the report of the Independent Review of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance linked to earnings, and the Government’s response to its recommendations, on 25 November 2025—the review can be found on gov.uk. Today I am providing an update on progress in responding to those recommendations, including more detail on our plans to reassess cases that may have been subject to faulty guidance on the averaging of fluctuating earnings.

The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of carer’s allowance. The independent review, undertaken by Liz Sayce, showed that mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcomed the report and accepted, or partially accepted, 38 of the 40 recommendations. We have already made around half of the changes that the report recommended. Work has begun on the others, but some changes will take more time to put in place.

As part of their response, the Government committed to reassessing carer’s allowance cases that may have been affected by faulty guidance on the averaging of irregularly fluctuating earnings. This guidance, which was in place between April 2015 and September 2025, did not accurately reflect the statutory position. I am pleased to announce that the reassessment exercise will begin today, 13 April 2026. Funding of £75 million has been provided for the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29.

The Department for Work and Pensions expects to review over 200,000 cases, potentially reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for around 25,000 carers.

For the vast majority of cases, the Department has all the information it needs to reassess the case, so there will be no need for most people to do anything. The Department will contact them by SMS and letter if it needs any further information in order to conduct the reassessment.

For other, older cases, the Department may no longer hold information because GDPR rules state that personal data must be kept only for as long as necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. For these cases, the Department will open access to a straightforward online form for people to complete. We aim to do this in late 2026, building on learned lessons from the reassessment of cases for which we already hold the relevant data. The Department will work with organisations supporting carers to encourage people who think they may have been affected to register via the online form for a reassessment.

We will also let people know once their cases have been reassessed and whether any overpayment has been reduced as a result of the reassessment.

Although the independent review covered England and Wales, at the request of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, the reassessment exercise will include relevant carer’s allowance cases in Scotland, including those that were administered by the Department on behalf of Scottish Ministers between September 2018 and September 2025.

Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is or might be involved in the reassessment exercise will be available—at no cost—from the Department or from trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust.

The Department has committed to update the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee every six months on progress in the implementation of the Government’s response to the independent review. This will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. Information will also be included in the Department’s annual report and accounts.

[HCWS1488]

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.

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.

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.