Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point about crossing the Rubicon, given that the Government are taking mandation powers to interfere in people’s savings and assets. We are talking about pension funds here, but once that Rubicon is crossed, there is no reason why the Government would not feel that they could start mandating how investment trusts or other types of savings schemes invest. This issue is not just about pensions; it is about the fundamental relationship between the state and private individuals.

[Steve Darling]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point; I am sure that the Minister will reflect on it when winding up. The Liberal Democrats continue to oppose mandation, and we plan to vote against the motion tonight.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and the shadow Secretary of State for her kind words.

I will be brief. The Government have continued to insist on the inclusion of the reserve power in the Bill in all rounds of discussions in this place because we have not heard a convincing alternative approach to solving the collective action problem that we have discussed. However, we have heard convincing arguments about how this part of the Bill can be strengthened, and we have acted on each of them. That is why the amended power is necessary but also constrained. It is capped, time limited, single-use, sunsetted and subject to a savers’ interest test that has been materially strengthened, as the shadow Secretary of State laid out.

The elected House has now been clear on many occasions, and has had large majorities. Given that, it is clear that this is the time to resolve the issue and get the Bill passed; that is what the industry and the groups supporting workers and pensioners have repeatedly called for. The Government have not only listened to the arguments from the Opposition and those in the other place, but acted on them. The elected House has also made its position overwhelmingly plain. Given both those points, both of which are important, it is clearly time for the unelected House to bring to an end attempts to frustrate the clearly expressed will of this Chamber. With that entirely reasonable expectation, I commend the Government’s amendments and the Bill to the House.

Question put.

Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As the shadow Secretary of State has said, there is a lot to be welcomed in the Bill. In considering the Bill, we have looked to Australia and Canada, and at best practice throughout the world, and there is much we have drawn from. For the Liberal Democrats, the pensions world that we are looking to enter with this Bill is greatly to be welcomed. Up and down the United Kingdom—from Tobermory in Mull to Torbay in Devon—we desperately need greater investment in our economy. We must make sure that we have a productive economy, but mandation is not the way to achieve that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

A recent Guardian report highlighted how young people from more deprived communities are facing discrimination through the apprenticeship system. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) alluded to, there is a penalty if someone’s family also receives child benefit. How can the Minister intervene to support the most vulnerable families?

[Pat McFadden]

It is important to remember that apprenticeships are paid and that the people undergoing them get a wage. When we are considering the overall economic impact on a family’s income, we have to take that into account. Frankly, if the hon. Member pushes me and asks me whether it is better for that income to come from benefits or the constructive work of an apprenticeship, I know which one I would pick.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Department for Work and Pensions is currently reviewing over 200,000 cases of overpayments for carers, some of whom have accrued up to £20,000 through a situation not of their own making. In the light of this, will the Secretary of State stop applying carers penalties until the Department has completed this review?

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

As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we have now started reviewing those 200,000 cases. We anticipate that there will probably be 25,000 people among the 200,000 who could have debts cancelled, or could possibly be refunded. If carer’s allowance has been overpaid and should not have been, we will of course need to recover the money. The problem has been that the previous Government’s guidance in the Department was wrong. We have now corrected that, so I am hopeful that that particular kind of mistake will not occur again.

Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats broadly support the proposals before us in the Bill as a whole. I know from conversations with residents in Torbay that there are some challenges within the pensions market, and the Bill as a whole addresses an awful lot of them. However, I suggest that the Minister has been studying his Greek history, assumed the position of Odysseus and developed a Trojan horse, which he has sneaked into the Bill. The Trojan horse is, of course, mandation.

While the Minister may have cut off a couple of the Trojan horse’s legs, it remains a Trojan horse before us. Clearly, as Liberal Democrats, we welcome that as a step in the right direction, but the Government should be shaping the market appropriately through policy so that there is a pipeline of opportunities for investments—that goes across to the Mansion House accord—so that the market has those opportunities and can invest in them appropriately.

There is an element that we need to touch on. Since 2008, there has been risk aversion in the market, which stifles profits; we need to be alive to that. Risk is a good thing when investing, but investments should be sensible and with appropriate spreads. The Bill does elements of that, but I fear that some of the monitoring could stifle risk and therefore stifle returns.

The Liberal Democrats are keen to ensure opportunities. The Government should be ensuring that there are baskets of opportunities to invest in things that matter to our communities, whether regenerating our town centres or social rented housing. We know that people such as Legal & General lead the market in those investments; we need to think about how we can enhance those opportunities. We must also ensure that we are investing in net zero, which is close to the heart of several parties. Again, the Government should be shaping the market in that way rather than dictating. While the Minister alludes to this as a one-shot opportunity, other colleagues are fearful that mandation is the thin end of the wedge.

Finally, I would like to reflect on the changes that the Minister has proposed. We welcome the changes allowing greater innovation and greater development of the market, which are significant steps in the right direction. However, as Liberal Democrats we are not prepared to see the dead hand of Government directing here. We continue to oppose mandation in whatever form it may take.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the Members from across the House who have contributed to the debate today. Let me respond directly to a few of their comments. I welcome much of the shadow Secretary of State’s remarks. I am glad that she welcomed many of the Government’s amendments, including those on public sector pensions and around innovation and competition—I appreciate that. I hope, when those issues are debated in the Lords in the near future, that there will be similar consensus across that House.

The shadow Secretary of State raised the question of scale. Again, I am glad that she has welcomed the review that will happen within 12 months of the Bill’s commencement. On scale, I am a bit more confident than she is on the role of small schemes to grow, because we can see significant growth right across the market, including among small schemes, partly because the market itself is growing so fast in the current climate. However, I offer no comment on her pessimism about Tottenham Hotspur; that is for others to speak on.

To be fair, as the shadow Secretary of State set out, the main area of disagreement that remains is around the reserve power. She raised the question of the accord and whether it applied to the whole industry. She is correct; it does not apply to the whole industry, but it does cover 90% of defined contribution assets held within the industry. We are therefore talking about not just a majority but the overwhelming majority of the industry.

The hon. Lady mentioned the Labour manifesto, which set out two focuses on pensions. One was around the question of scale, on which we have just touched and which I think is a matter of cross-party consensus; the second, which, again, I think is a matter of cross-party consensus, is on the importance of delivering change in terms of investment in productive assets in private assets. That is exactly the focus of both the Mansion House accord and the reserve power.

The hon. Lady said the power was about directing specific outcomes. As I have been setting out, it absolutely does not do that. It will not allow any direction of savers into particular assets or particular asset classes, and it offers no ability for Government to take control of pension savers’ pensions. Indeed, I think it is actually dangerous to have members of the public hearing remarks like that when that is categorically not the case.

The shadow Secretary of State is right to say, though, and this maybe gets to the crux of where we are, that the money belongs to savers. That is what this is about and that is what we all agree about; we want to see higher returns to savers. The industry is telling us that diversifying their range of assets is in their savers’ interest and it is admitting that it has not done so to date. [Interruption.] No, that is what the industry is saying. Savers are not saying that, because savers do not have that choice and they are intermediated by providers, some of which have trustees and some of which do not. That is the underlying point: they need to see that change happen, that it has not happened and that we have seen it not happen. Implicitly, what that is saying is that members are losing out from the status quo, and what I am not hearing from the Conservatives is a serious engagement with that reality that has let down savers. [Interruption.] I will come to the point about the previous amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) shortly.

I now come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), not least because he admirably set out the big challenge facing Britain, which is to turn this country back into a country that invests in its own future once again. That means higher investment. It is not acceptable that Britain saw both the second-lowest public investment in the G7 and by far the lowest business investment in the G7 under the last Government—and not for some years but for almost every single year. That is the challenge that I think we all want to see addressed. Part of the issue being raised about whether this is about UK assets or private finance is overdone, because what we see around the world is a higher home bias among private asset investments than among public asset investments, for all the obvious reasons about the comparative advantage of different investors in those situations.

My right hon. Friend also rightly says—I think this is, again, part of a cross-party consensus—that moving to that high-investment world is overwhelmingly not about pensions, but much wider changes and about making sure that actual investment happens so firms can actually get things built. That is why this Government have come in and provided the go-ahead for solar farms, wind farms, national grid investments and nuclear power stations that have been held up for too long. That is what a higher-investment country looks like and that is what we need to be getting on with, and I have a nugget of good news to bring my right hon. Friend on that. If hon. Members go and look at the investment levels in the national accounts—I know everybody in this room spends their time doing that—they will see that, since the election, Britain has seen the fastest investment growth of any country in the G7. That is what we are starting to deliver against what we set out as our core objective, which is turning Britain back into a higher-investment country.

The hon. Member for Wyre Forest mentioned his previous amendment, which asked for the reasons why schemes say the change would be in savers’ interest but have not done it. The problem is that we have had a lot of reviews. The Association of British Insurers has written some and published them, explaining why the previous Government’s attempt with the Mansion House compact did not work. We have the answer; I am afraid the hon. Gentleman just does not want to engage with what he is being told.

Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I must say that I am slightly surprised by the shadow Minister’s speech. I understand that Pensions UK agrees with the asset allocation, and has welcomed the change that has been announced, which is in line with the amounts prescribed in the Mansion House accord. The accusations about the Government stealing pensioners’ money are just scaremongering. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Minister wishes to intervene to point out how ludicrous that is, I am happy to give way to him. This is dangerous scaremongering, and given that the last Government presided over a doubling of pensioner poverty, they should be ashamed of themselves.

I hope that, in his closing remarks, my hon. Friend will make clear where the UK stands on pension providers’ investments in UK assets. It seems that we are quite low in the rankings. Like Canada and Norway, I believe, we are in the 5% range, whereas Sweden and Switzerland are investing 10% in their countries’ investable assets. At the high end, Australia, Hong Kong and Japan are investing 20% or more. [Interruption.] I think it is my turn to speak. Perhaps we should reflect on how we are disadvantaged by that. I will support the Government today, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can clarify those points.

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I want to briefly mention pre-1997 indexation. I know that it is not covered by the amendments that have been selected today, but it was debated in the other place. I know that he has already done a huge amount on providing indexation, but members of the financial assistance scheme are a very elderly group; they were particularly disadvantaged by the changes that were introduced, and there are fewer and fewer of them. I know it is difficult, given the appalling financial circumstances that this Government inherited and the difficulties that we face internationally, but I hope that when opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend will do the right thing by those FAS members.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

For many people, a pension is their second largest investment, after their home, but we must bear in mind that many others can only dream of having a private pension, as they face the challenges of the cost of living crisis. We Liberal Democrats want to make sure that pensions work effectively for those who invest in them, and there is much to be welcomed in the Bill.

I want to share a personal reflection with the House. My father, who was a lorry driver, feared poverty in his pensionable age, and saved massively because he had seen that poverty with his own father, but sadly he was perhaps not as financially literate as some other people. He kept his savings in shares; then the stock market crashed in 2008, and his savings for his pension were virtually wiped out. With today’s greater safeguards, that might not have happened; there might not have been the mis-selling that he felt had taken place, or the poor advice that he received from advisers. In that regard, the Bill takes significant steps in the right direction.

We Liberal Democrats, however, want to see our economy working well, and that means a lack of state interference, in the form of direction of investment. It is right that the state should encourage investors, suggest where they should go, and have appropriate schemes to guide them, but the idea of direction is anathema to us. We have repeatedly seen what is almost a nervous twitch, whether through the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025 or the introduction of facial ID on our streets, as the Government give more and more powers to Ministers, and that disturbs us. We Liberal Democrats plan to vote against the Government amendments relating to Lords amendments 1 and 15 and specifically to mandation, because mandation is the dead hand of Government on growth, particularly when it comes to people’s pensions, and it goes against our free-economy approach.

The Minister may be a reasonable individual—who knows?—but we have spent many hours on this, and the clock is ticking for the Government. In two or three years’ time, we may have a new Government, and we need only look at the other side of the Atlantic to see what democracy can throw up. We could be giving a future Government whose colour we do not know a challenging approach to mandation. Any reassurances that the Minister gives would not be worth the candle then. We fear that going ahead with mandation would be feckless, and dangerous for our pensioners.

Another area, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) will touch on later, is pension scandals. The Government missed an opportunity to address pension scandals as part of this behemoth of a Bill, but Lords amendment 78, which they are sadly opposing, applies to the AEA Technology pensioners. That is a small step in the right direction to address the injustice that these pensioners have suffered. I remind the House that the Public Accounts Committee drew on a report by the National Audit Office that highlighted that civil servants were poorly advised by the Government on transferring the scheme to the private sector. Many of the AEAT pensioners have significantly lost out financially. I call on the Government to reflect on that and to take a small step in the right direction. We will vote against the Government motion to disagree to Lords amendment 78.

Youth Unemployment

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Secretary of State is correct to suggest that the Government inherited a crisis around youth unemployment. However, by introducing the hikes in national insurance contributions, the Government made that crisis into a catastrophe for young people, and supercharged the pressure on our youth across the United Kingdom. Rather than tackling what is now the root of the problem—the NIC hikes—these proposals are just papering over the cracks.

Young people’s childhoods are massively different from those that many of us experienced, especially hon. Members who grew up some years ago, so I pay tribute to the organisations that get young people to the right place, including Eat That Frog, Doorstep Arts, Sound Communities and South Devon college, who do incredible work. They help young people who have come through the pandemic, those who feel as though they are in a pressure cooker because of social media, which is gnawing away at their life, and who face a cost of living crisis.

The Liberal Democrats are concerned about an element of the Government’s policy: we do not understand why the Government are removing funding for apprenticeships for management. Surely managers are the people who support young people in their hour of need, as they go into work. Young people aspire to move into those positions eventually, so will the Secretary of State think again about the impact of the national insurance contributions hike on hospitality, retail and tourism industries in areas like Torbay?

I was interested to hear the Secretary of State speaking on the “Today” programme on Monday. The presenter challenged him by suggesting that the NIC hike had jacked up youth unemployment, and the Secretary of State appeared to agree with that. Finally, an article in The Times suggested that the Government are thinking about making young people second-class citizens through their changes to disability benefits; I would welcome comments from the Secretary of State about that.

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Gentleman opposes the changes that we made to national insurance, but he neglects to mention that employer national insurance contributions are not required for employees under the age of 21, unless they are earning more than £50,000 a year. He opposes those changes while supporting extra expenditure on the NHS. As I have said to him a few times, if his party supports extra expenditure, it really has to support revenue-raising measures to fund it.

Young people will have heard the hon. Gentleman dismiss the changes that I have set out today; in fact, they will have heard him say that if he was asked to choose between management courses and young people, he would choose management courses—that is now the established position of the Liberal Democrats. I think that many people would be surprised to hear that in some years, most apprenticeship expenditure has gone on those over the age of 25 who are already in work. We have made a choice; we have chosen young people, and for good reasons. We have chosen them because of the scarring effects of youth unemployment, which I mentioned in my statement, and we now have on record that both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are opposed to our prioritisation of young people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Politics is all about choices. Last week, the Chancellor stood at the Dispatch Box with a choice: she could have chosen to reverse the jobs tax that is costing thousands of jobs for young people up and down the United Kingdom. Why she did she not make that choice?

[Pat McFadden]

Whatever Department I am in, I hear the same question from the Liberal Democrats. They support all the extra spending that is funded by revenue-raising measures, but they oppose all the revenue-raising measures themselves. If the hon. Gentleman wants NHS waiting lists to fall and if he calls for more spending every week, then he has to support the revenue-raising measures that make that possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

Work Capability Assessment Timescales

Steve Darling Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wendy Chamberlain]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. I will go on to talk about my own caseworkers’ experience. It is right that we recognise that they are the people dealing with the brunt of this. I am going to outline some of the challenges and what I hope the Minister might tell us he is doing to address those.

There are different assessment providers across the UK. Maximus serves my constituency of North East Fife, whereas other assessment contracts sit with Capita, Serco and Ingeus. I would be grateful for more staffing near North East Fife, but the Department for Work and Pensions seems to have no knowledge of whether the problems are greater in Scotland or Skegness. When I talk about delays, I am not talking about a service standard being missed by a few weeks or even a few months. Like the hon. Member for Strangford, I have cases where wait times are 18 months or more.

I want to talk about the impact of such delays on people on the waiting list. I hope the Minister and you, Mr Western, will understand that for the security and wellbeing of my constituents, I am not going to share individual details. There are common denominators across the cases that can paint a picture but, as most MPs know, the people we support are often vulnerable and have suffered considerably in their lifetimes, and it is important that we safeguard their welfare.

The common denominators are backgrounds of serious abuse, sometimes back to childhood—abuse that is hard to imagine and has a serious impact on adult mental health and wellbeing; severe anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder; physical symptoms and pain, sometimes linked to external factors like car accidents and other times linked to past and ongoing trauma. I also have at least one case waiting for a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In general, there is extreme vulnerability across the board.

Summer 2024 seems like a long time ago. There were 243 happy and optimistic newly elected Labour MPs filling the Palace, the Paris Olympics were just kicking off, London was full of Swifties for the Eras tour, and my constituents were taking the difficult decision that their health struggles were too much to manage to hold down a job and starting the process of requesting support from the DWP. That illustrates how long they have been waiting. These extended waits are absolutely debilitating. The not knowing is incredibly difficult. I think all MPs know from experience that these people worry to the point of obsessive hyper-fixation that their existing benefits will be taken away. That is added to by the stigma people feel for not being able to support themselves or their children, relying on the food bank and not being able to meet their basic needs for energy or clothes, and the anxiety of being judged by those around them.

The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned his caseworkers. I spoke with my caseworkers in the run-up to this debate. I want to take a moment to appreciate our caseworkers, because we need to remember that they are not trained as benefit advisers, counsellors or welfare specialists, but they are the ones picking up the phones day in, day out, trying to unpick what has gone wrong and providing back-up to constituents who find themselves in crisis with nowhere else to go. That is true of all MPs’ offices.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As a former caseworker, I can reflect on how it can impact you as an individual. I used to play ABBA after hearing about particularly traumatic events on the phone with constituents of the MP I used to work for. We need culture change, and to make sure that those who undertake this service to the public, whether it is Capita or other providers, use a trauma-informed approach. Have you seen such a culture change within these organisations? I hope the Minister will reflect on that in his remarks later.

[Matt Western (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to refer to each other as hon. Members, as opposed to “you”, which is, of course, me.

Pensions and Social Security

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). It is almost as if she has been cribbing off my speech—maybe it is because we are both on the Work and Pensions Committee.

The reality is that our welfare state is part of a society that should be at ease with itself. Let me reflect that the old age pension was first introduced by Asquith in 1908 for 70-year-olds. That demonstrates that the Liberals were there at the foundation of our welfare state. If we fast-forward a few decades, we find that Margaret Thatcher broke the link between earnings and pensions, which had a devastating effect on pensioner poverty and increased it significantly over many years.

It is really heartening that when the Liberal Democrats were back in government as part of the coalition, we were part of the Government who introduced the triple lock. We have seen pensioner poverty being driven down, but there is still too much of it. I am concerned that the current Conservative leader, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has mused about means-testing the triple lock, which is disturbing. Would she put it back to the five shillings a week for those of good character that we had under Asquith? We will look for the white smoke to appear from the Conservative party on that.

Let me reflect on pensioner poverty. As the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth reflected, we have done a lot of work as part of the Work and Pensions Committee around this issue. It has been interesting to hear from people, particularly those who have given us evidence in recent weeks, on how workers—particularly manual workers—find it harder to continue to do the jobs that they are in as they get older, as well as how we need to ensure that there is a whole-system approach.

We need to ensure that employers are more flexible, and the Mayfield report is important in that. Rather than just shuffling people off the books, we need to ensure that employers see what reasonable adaptations they can make to keep them on the books, as our continental friends do.

We need to drive forward with work on pensioner poverty. I reflect on my own constituency, where I have had people heading towards their pension who still want to work but are unable to because they have a dodgy hip and are awaiting an operation. Sadly, improvements at Torbay hospital have been delayed by many years. Again, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth alluded to, this is about ensuring that we sort out our national health service across the country as a whole so that people are in a fit state to work. Another thing that causes Liberal Democrats concern is the way in which social care has been kicked down the line and is not being resolved sooner rather than later.

Let me move on to a key element of these proposals. I welcome more generally the uprating that we have heard about from the Minister today, but what about carer’s allowance? The fact is that unpaid carers in the United Kingdom undertake work equivalent to the value of the whole of our NHS, which is absolutely mind-blowing. The Sayce review investigated overpayments to carers, and people needed to earn only £1 or so over the limit in a week for them to lose thousands of pounds from their carer’s allowance and end up having a liability.

Last February, the Sayce review found that nearly 87,000 people had that liability from the overpayment of carer’s allowance. The Government have committed to writing off the debts of 26,000, which means that debts remain outstanding for 61,000. That causes grave concerns for lots of people who have that hanging over them like the sword of Damocles. I would be really grateful if the Minister could reflect on that area in his winding-up speech.

Finally, the last benefit that I will reflect on is what was originally known as DLA but is now known as PIP. At the time when this benefit was a hot potato, some Ministers described it as pocket money for people with disabilities. However, it is there to support people with basic living needs, whether it is being able to get out and about and live a normal life, which many people would take for granted, preparing food or the simple dignity of being clean, able to wash and having help with that. This benefit supports those people, so it is disturbing that last July, the Minister had to almost rip up the speech in front of him and go in to bat with a rubber chicken in his hand, effectively. We welcome the upgrade to these benefits, but does it truly reflect the increase in earnings that we have seen, and give people on the personal independence payment the ability to take people on to support them?

The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth was right to mention the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, because its report, published last week, shows that poverty has flatlined since 2005, and if we look at deprivation and deep poverty, we see that the situation is really disturbing. I hear from church leaders in Torbay that they are seeing much higher levels of destitution than they have done historically, which is shocking. It is disappointing that the Government have not driven hard to make the positive reforms to the welfare state that would tackle the deep poverty suffered by many in our communities. The Government should ensure that we reform the welfare state, with those who use it, so that they can live their best life.

Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

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

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a society that is free, open and fair, and a society in which no one is enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. That is why it is in our DNA to be against the two-child limit. There are 4.5 million children living in poverty in the UK. As somebody with a passion for the future of our children—looked-after children, adopted children and so forth—I know they are the responsibility of us all, and we should have a passion for supporting our youngsters, because children are 20% of our population, but 100% of our future.

We must reflect on the fact that this Dickensian policy of judging families was brought in by the Conservatives. It is judging because, as we have heard, a parent may find themselves in a position beyond their control—when a family member or the other parent is suddenly taken ill or, even worse, dies—and they are left alone to provide for their youngsters in really difficult circumstances. Equally, why should we decide as a society that, because they are the third or fourth child, we value them less? Such a belief seems morally bankrupt. It is so important that we value our children because they are our future. It is also very sad that seven Labour Members had the Whip suspended for doing the right thing and backing the end of the two-child limit.

I want to reflect a little more on what this means in Torbay. I represent one of the most deprived constituencies in the south-west of England. When I visited a school in Paignton, the headteacher told me how children turn up cold, tired and hungry. It has to provide warm clothes for the youngsters, because parents cannot afford them. It has to provide food for the youngsters. The headteacher was taking on the incredible altruism of being a foster carer, so that if a child did need support, she would have the qualifications to step in and support the family in need.

Jennie and I love going to schools, Jennie in particular—the kids enjoy Jennie more than me, I am sure. Having a chat with youngsters about what they like and do not like about living in their town is a special thing to do, whether as a councillor or a Member of Parliament. Usually, one hears about litter, the environment, graffiti, older kids swearing and so on. In Torquay, in Barton Hill academy, what I found really disturbing was how the nine and 10-year-olds were talking about the cost of living crisis. They were worried about mum, who could not quite afford to put enough petrol in the car, and utility bills were worrying their parents. They told me they were not doing so many of the nice things they used to do a couple of years ago, because mum and dad said they could not afford it any more.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It was, of course, his party, in coalition, that delivered austerity and delivered this policy. Does he have anything to say to the British public about that period of his party’s history?

[Steve Darling]

I thank the hon. Member for her non-partisan intervention. The Liberal Democrats opposed the two-child limit. We are on the record as doing that and I am delighted we did so. A Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published last week highlights how tackling poverty has flatlined since 2005, so the Liberal Democrats welcome this step forward in ending the two-child limit.

This measure is not just about children; it is about the future of our country and investing in people and believing in them. The Secretary of State alluded to the fact that youngsters have worse education outcomes, higher levels of mental health challenges later in life, and are unable to contribute to society as strongly as they could. The taxman takes less from them later in life, because their jobs are not so profitable.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman is claiming that less is taken off them. Student loans, which could have received this £3 billion that this change will cost, are effectively taxing young people at 70% or 71%. Does he not think that that tax rate is high enough?

[Steve Darling]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on that. I remind my colleague that shortly after the coalition Government, the Conservatives stripped away an awful lot of the safeguards around student loans, and that continues. It is not a happy situation for many students up and down the country that the Tories robbed them of those safeguards.

On a visit to Torbay hospital, I spoke to one of its senior directors. She sees her role as extremely important, because it is not just about treating people but tackling deprivation in Torbay. She comes across some patients who believe that a lifespan of up to around 60-something is adequate. That reflects the levels of deprivation in my community, which this measure will help to tackle. It will lift 2,000 children out of poverty in Torbay. We should have high ambitions for our country. As Liberal Democrats, we believe the best days of our country are ahead of us. By lifting the two-child limit, we include more people in a brighter future.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.