Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

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

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Fairness matters, not only to those receiving the support but to those making the difficult choices without it. During the short time I have, I will talk about the principles and then the context.

I come to this subject thinking about the publican in my constituency who has two children and who wakes up in the morning, leaves their house in Barwell and goes to their business. They have seen their national insurance contributions rise, their valuation has changed and the tax has gone up on that, the rate relief has been withdrawn from them and they have seen the minimum wage go up. Those are all costs that they are having to consider. What about the independent pharmacist on the high street, who gets up and goes to work in Hinckley, having to face the fact that national insurance contribution costs are going up?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions the local pharmacist. The local pharmacist in my constituency is my twin sister. She put herself through a degree in pharmacy while on universal credit as a single parent of three children. That was not her choice; it was a position that was thrust upon her. What would the hon. Member say to people like her?

[Dr Evans]

I would credit her. She is a credit to the hon. Gentleman’s family for what she has managed to achieve.

The key point I am trying to get to is that, when those people leave their doorstep, is it fair that the choice they have made to have only two children is simply thrown out the window, because an extra £3,650 is now being given to the parent of the third and fourth child next door, simply for not going to work? That is not fair, and that is the heart of the principle.

At the end of the day, the welfare state works best when it is a bridge to work and not a substitute for it. We have often heard about the working poor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It is not me who is being referred to; it is the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Evans]

That is far from the truth. I am simply arguing that we need to be fair to those who need the system to support them and those who contribute to it. I worry that we are pulling at the fabric here.

It is interesting that the debate in the House is slanted towards the Labour view, because they have the numbers. If we look at the public polling, however, we know that, consistently, 60% of the public support the cap and only 30% want it to be taken away. Why is that? Fundamentally, they understand that there has to be give and take. The worry here is that someone will suddenly get £3,650 with no contractual change within society to better themselves.

The money could be better spent. To take an example from the last Government, in 2021 they changed the UC slider from 63% to 55% to encourage work. That cost about £2.5 billion; we are talking about £3 billion today. We have heard from the Government how this will be paid for. It is not hypothecated. The pharmacist I was talking about and the sister of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) will pay for this, as will the publican who goes out to work. They will see their taxes rise. That is the contract that I am worried about.

[Joy Morrissey]

It is an issue of fairness. The people of Beaconsfield, Marlow and the south Bucks villages have seen their taxes go up and they are seeing those taxes being given to people who are not working. It is unfair.

[Dr Evans]

That is exactly right. The public will stand for a generous safety net, but they will not stand for people not trying to take things forward. I worry that, despite this Government’s talk of employment rights, the chances for employment and the working poor, more people are out of work under this very Government due to the choices they are making. That is fundamental to today’s debate, and trying to leverage morality into it misses the reality of responsibility. Every family in this country make fiscal choices and expect to behave responsibly, and so should the Government who lead them. That is the crux of the matter.

In the time I have left, I will move on to the context. If this were a moral crusade, as we have heard the Prime Minister say, he would have done it in his very first Budget; he would have made that choice. However, as we have heard from other Members, when this policy was put forward after the new Government came in, 40-odd MPs did not vote and seven Labour Members had the Whip removed.

If we are talking about poverty, one thing that has not been raised in the debate so far is the winter fuel payments policy. The Government’s own analysis said that it would put 50,000 pensioners into absolute poverty and 100,000 into relative poverty. So there is a dichotomy here, and it is about choices. Government Members seem to say that if we are going to solve poverty, we need to focus on one area, yet they all voted to take the fuel payments away—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the other side about means-testing, but that did not happen until later when there was a climbdown.

The key thing is that these are difficult choices that have to be made. I worry that the public see straight through what is going on. They need fairness in the system. They do not need a vote to be held to try to placate the Back Benchers of a failing Prime Minister. If this truly was the mission of the Prime Minister at the start, he would have done it straightaway.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

Let us be clear: this Government came in with a plan to tackle child poverty, but quite rightly set up a taskforce to deal with it under two excellent Secretaries of State, and now with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability at the helm as well. That is why this policy has happened now and did not happen immediately. It would have been a bad mistake to have dealt with this in a piecemeal fashion. Instead, we now have a whole strategy, of which this is a part, as is helping parents into work.

[Dr Evans]

Why, in that case, was the Whip removed from Labour Members? Why is there no contingency in the Bill to ensure that someone is progressing through the system? We have heard time and again from Members on both sides of the House that it is not only a safety net but a springboard. I come back to my point that if the Government want to make a difference, they could change the rating on universal credit to encourage more people into work, but that is not happening. That would help to support people who are in work but who are impoverished. The last Government brought in the household support fund to ensure that there was immediate support. I am pleased that the Government are bringing forward some form of contingency, but we still have not seen what that looks like. That will be a concern for people.

I shall end where I began. This system has to be fair to those who are getting the support, but also to those who are paying for it. At the end of the day, a family lives within its constraints and so should a country. This Bill does nothing but the opposite, and that is my concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I will touch briefly on the Conservatives’ position and then turn to the Bill itself.

The Conservatives have at least been consistent on this policy—consistently cruel. I would point out the level of detachment with the reality faced by so many families in my constituency. The reality for such a high percentage of families is they do not choose whether to have children. They do not sit down and work out whether the money adds up. The reason that the rape clause is in place is because so many people are not able to make those choices. People do not set out with an intention to have a certain number of children; it is about what happens in the circumstances that are created.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will not.

The reality is that the Conservatives’ position is a very entitled, privileged one, and it does not reflect the majority of our constituents.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I said I would not give way.

Let me turn to where we are today. The Labour party is being a bit smug about the position we are in. The SNP has been absolutely consistent in calling for the removal of the two-child cap. Alison Thewliss stood in this Chamber and highlighted the rape clause at every possible opportunity; I think people got fed up with her talking about it so much, but she was one of the people leading the charge. On that note, I thank those Labour Members who did back removing the two-child cap at the earliest opportunity. I understand how difficult it is to do that, and I appreciate that they were willing to put their principles first.

Today is a good day because the two-child cap is being cancelled. I am sad, though, that the Secretary of State said that he does not regret anything he has said before on this. That means he does not regret saying that it is “open to debate” whether the two-child cap causes harm, despite the fact that he is now saying absolutely the opposite.

I am glad that the Government are finally scrapping this policy. Children should not be at the sharp end of Government decisions, just as older people whose winter fuel payment was scrapped should not be at the sharp end. None of them is able to take these decisions on their finances. None of them can work a few more hours: a six-year-old cannot do that; a pensioner cannot just work a few more hours, because they may be significantly over the pension age and unable to work.

We need to recognise what has been said by a significant number of Members today, which is that so many of these families are in work. People are working hard; it is just that work does not pay—it does not pay enough. If we look at the stats, we see that people feel that the social security system should provide enough support for people to be able to live. We know that people living on universal credit—particularly large families—cannot afford the essentials, even if they are working. That is what this debate is about: giving people the best chance in life.

The Government, however, are not going far enough yet. The strategy that came out of their child poverty taskforce was simply a reiteration of many things that had already been announced. It was a summary: “Here we are. Here are all the things we have announced already as a Government.” It does not have the ambition we need in order to see child poverty tackled. If we look at the stats, we see that the rate of children in poverty by the end of this Parliament will be exactly the same as it is now. This measure will not reduce child poverty over the piece; the same percentage of children will be in poverty as are in poverty now, because the Government are failing to have ambition.

The UK Government should look at the Scottish child payment, as I asked them to do the other day. They should look at the amount of additional money being provided, particularly as of next year, to families with children under one, in recognition of the difficulty and importance of those first 1,000 days. They should look at those uplifts to ensure that people are taken out of poverty, at the baby box, at the Best Start grants being provided to families, and at the tackling child poverty delivery plan that the Scottish Government will bring out in March. Unlike the UK Government’s paper, which simply lays out a number of great things that the Government say they are doing, we have targets in our plan; We are looking at the actual difference that each of our policies make. I urge the UK Government to look at what is being done in Scotland and at the fact that child poverty is lower in Scotland than in any other part of the UK, and to consider what can be done to ensure that children have the best possible start in life, whether they live in England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is true to say that the Conservative party has been right about one thing today: this is about choices, and I am incredibly proud to be making the one that we are making.

The Conservative party did untold damage to our country, whether it was in hollowing out the criminal justice system, crumbling school buildings and hospitals, record NHS waiting lists or Liz Truss, but the most egregious part of its record was the harm it inflicted on our nation’s children. An entire generation was plunged into poverty.

Poverty is not inevitable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children out of poverty, but the Conservatives’ scorched-earth programme of austerity reversed that trend. Over their 14 years in power, the number of those in child poverty rose by 900,000, and 4.5 million children now live in poverty. In my constituency, thousands of children are growing up in poverty, which is around one in three. Those are not simply abstract statistics; they are the children and families I meet every week.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that families have difficult conversations around the kitchen table, and she is absolutely right. Parents are worried about whether they will be turning the heating on or skipping a meal; kids already feel the weight of the world on their shoulders before their 10th birthday; and—as was mentioned just a moment ago—parents working two jobs are still unable to make ends meet. It is cold bedrooms, missed meals and two small, patched-together school uniforms—these are scars that last a lifetime.

Much of that hardship and suffering can be directly attributed to the two-child benefit limit. It is a failed, cruel policy experiment and—leaving aside the fact-free nonsense that we have heard previously from the Conservative party—it makes no difference to family sizes, and it does not drive up employment. Indeed, as has already been mentioned, almost 60% of affected families are in work. The two-child limit does not achieve the so-called goals that Tory ideologues pretend to lay out. Instead, it punishes children; all it does is make children poorer, and it is the single biggest driver of child poverty. Perhaps that is why there are so few Opposition Members prepared to sit and defend this morally, socially and economically bankrupt policy.

[Dr Evans]

There are not many on the Opposition Benches—the hon. Gentleman’s party won the last election—but we know that the public support keeping this cap in place. Any poll conducted in the last few years has suggested that, on average, 60% of people think that the cap should remain. Why does the hon. Gentleman think the British public back the cap staying in place?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I could not have put it better, particularly the point my hon. Friend made about enjoying a pint. I too enjoy a pint, but linking something as serious as tackling child poverty to the price of a pint in our pubs is trivialising an incredibly serious topic—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) is speaking from a sedentary position. Would he like to intervene?

[Dr Evans]

I just see the irony of the hon. Member talking about linking this to alcohol, which is a serious problem. Gambling is a serious problem as well, and his party has directly linked this to gambling, even though this is not a hypothecated tax. Could he explain the dichotomy between the two?

[John Slinger]

It is perfectly acceptable and reasonable for a Government such as ours to take measures in Budgets to provide the resources necessary to enact a policy, as this Bill would do, that will lift so many children out of poverty. I think the hon. Member makes a fairly fatuous point, if I may say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am wearing a deep heat patch for my bad back, so there would be no fight from me today. I apologise to the House for the passion I have for British values and the hard work of people in my community, who I will stand up for every day against the plastic patriots and others who seek to attack them.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Pakes]

I will try to make some progress.

We have inherited an economic and moral failure by the previous Government, and this Bill will start to put that right by injecting money into the pockets of families and supporting children. It is also why I welcome the youth guarantee and the focus on earning and learning for this Government. The DWP has described Peterborough as a national youth unemployment hotspot, and it is a national hotspot for child poverty, too. Through the work of this Government to address the needs of children in poverty—the expansion of family hubs, the support for breakfast clubs, the investment in schools and early years alongside the investment in further education and apprenticeships—we are beginning to turn the tide.

What matters to the people of my constituency is having the chance to get on in life, to support their children and to have pride in their community and their families. Today, with this Bill, which I hope all Members will vote for, we begin to restore pride in our community by giving dignity back to parents in difficult situations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Lady talks about speaking for the public, but consistently, in all polling, 60% of Brits want to see this policy stay in place. What does she say to them?

[Antonia Bance]

I say to the people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised questions with me about this policy that in order to will the ends, you have to will the means. Save the Children published this morning some polling showing that 78% of the country want to see child poverty cut. The fastest and most effective way to cut child poverty is to get rid of this punitive, gross policy that artificially inflates the number of children in poverty and creates an escalator to get more into poverty every day, with every child born.

To the Opposition parties, I would say this. I hear you say to these families, “Go out and get a job.” Most of them are already in work. Are you telling those five and six-year-olds—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dr Evans]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, I will not be giving way.

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

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

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

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

The House proceeded to a Division.

Youth Unemployment

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

No, I will make some progress. Put simply, the Conservatives cut off opportunity for young people. They wrote them off, and then they blamed young people for the position they were in. On the Government Benches, we know that young people are this country’s future and that their success is Britain’s success. We are not prepared to sit on our hands and let all that talent and potential go unused. That is not good enough for those young people, and it is not good enough for this country, which needs the contribution they can offer more than ever and not just now, but for the next 40 years.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

No, I am going to make some progress. We are investing in young people to turn around the dire legacy that the Conservatives left behind. We are supporting young people so that they can fulfil their potential, breaking the cycle of wasted talent cascading down generations. We are starting already to see some signs of progress. We have got record levels of employment and youth employment is up by 153,000 in the past year, but the scale of the crisis brewed up by the Conservatives requires much more than that. The number of young people neither learning nor earning is equivalent to three cities the size of Hull, so we know that there is more to do.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I will later on, but I want to get this on the record. We know that if someone falls out of the workforce—[Interruption.] The Conservative MPs chuntering from a sedentary position might just want to listen to this, because it is about the future of our country. We know that if someone falls out of the workforce when they are young, they can lose out on £1 million in earnings, and it costs the state a similar amount to support them, but if we can ensure that they get the right opportunities and support early on, we can change their life stories for the better. That is why we are helping more young people into work, and it is why youth employment is a priority for us in the DWP.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about apprenticeships, and I will say more about them in due course.

In years past, those who went to university and attained a good degree could reasonably expect an entry-level job in the field in which they wanted to work, but now the experience for so many young people is that they enter a job market that is not open to hiring inexperienced people; employers are less willing or able to take a risk on training individuals just out of university. When I spoke to business students from Roehampton University earlier this month, they explained to me their fears that they will be unable to work in the field of their choosing. One student told me that they had even seen an advertisement for a volunteering position that required three years of experience. The job market is so crowded and competitive that the reality for more and more graduates is that they must return to living with their parents after university, with no serious prospect of gaining even an entry-level job.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Does the hon. Member share my concern about the graduate market? We are talking about youth unemployment, but we know from the Office for National Statistics that 257,000 Brits have emigrated, of whom 70% were under the age of 35. We are losing a lot of talent, but that is not being picked up in the figures for youth unemployment, so it is likely that youth unemployment is actually significantly worse, and that is because of the Government’s changes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

T7. In the Budget, the Chancellor froze thresholds, which brings state pensioners into paying tax. This was raised with the Chancellor, who said that she did not want that to happen and that she would create a workaround. However, only two weeks ago we voted on the Finance Bill, which the Labour party pushed through, and as it stands that means that pensioners will pay tax on their state pension. What is the DWP doing to ensure that they will not pay tax on their state pension or have to submit a tax return?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

It has been confirmed that those whose income is only the basic level of the basic state pension or the new state pension will not be required to pay tax next year, because the level of personal allowance has been set above the level of the new state pension. What the Chancellor said at the Budget was that in future years we will make sure that no pensioner will be required to fill in a self-assessment form, or indeed a simple self-assessment form, for any tax that is due because the new state pension level is above that of the personal allowance.

Welfare Spending

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman makes another interesting reflection on the state of the system left behind by 14 years of Tory government. We are going to be making progress, as I said.

Our plan will help deliver our ambition not just for jobs but for national renewal by building new homes, making the NHS fit for the future and powering the shift to green energy. Among people of working age, those with low or no qualifications are some 2.5 times more likely to be out of work than those who are better qualified. Just closing that gap would mean a million extra people in work.

But skills are not the only barrier; for many, it is ill health, and we are determined to get people back to work and back to good health. We will open up more opportunities for people who have been out of work because of ill health in the past with WorkWell employment advisers embedded directly in healthcare teams, from GP surgeries to mental health services.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will make a bit more headway first.

Connect to Work will go to the end of the decade to support 300,000 disabled people and people with health and other complex barriers to employment to get into and get on in work. Our Pathways to Work guarantee, backed by an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the decade, will bring all that together with personalised work, health and skills support for anybody on out-of-work benefits with a health condition or disability who wants that support.

We already have 1,000 new Pathways to Work advisers in place, working in jobcentres across the country to help disabled people. A few weeks ago I met a couple of them in Edinburgh, and they told me of the positive reactions from the people they ring up. The system gave up on those people years ago, but we have not given up on them.

[Dr Evans]

The Minister mentioned WorkWell, which is a fantastic scheme introduced in 2023 that dealt with 59,000 people through £64 million of Conservative Government investment. I am glad that the Government are taking that forward and looking to expand it. My concern as a GP is about trying to get more people on the premises. Where will the work coaches go when premises do not have the space? That delivery is really important. Will he explain what has happened from the pilots to where we are now and how this will be taken forward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is a welcome and much-needed step.

The early years are crucial to somebody’s life chances. Ensuring that children grow up happy, healthy and able to fulfil their potential is certainly, to borrow a phrase from the motion, “a moral mission”. However, it is also about reducing demand on social security, instead of sitting on our hands like the last Government and leaving the system to pick up higher costs further down the line.

The child poverty strategy will build on our cross-Government approach to lifting people out of poverty through rolling out free breakfast clubs, raising the national minimum wage and, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) points out, expanding free childcare and free school meals to all families on universal credit. It will be an ambitious strategy and in developing it we will consider all the levers available to give every child the best start in life.

To make work pay: that was what universal credit was intended to do. Yet it was left with perverse disincentives to work in the system, forcing people, as many did, to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment. We have addressed that by rebalancing the payments in universal credit, alongside other reforms. The system should not force people to aspire to be classified as sick; it should promote and encourage work and provide support to make work feasible.

As the shadow Secretary of State kindly mentioned, we are progressing the review, which I am responsible for.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will make a little more headway. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, to ensure that the system supports disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence, including through work. We will also carry out more face-to-face assessments over the next year, boosting the number of health professionals working in assessment centres. Face-to-face assessments were stopped for understandable reasons during the pandemic, but they were never really brought back. The places where they were carried out were sold off and we are having to reinstate and rebuild that service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is important that the House, first of all, reflects on where the Conservatives left our community when they left power. We should reflect on the fact that the number of people who are economically inactive has gone up from 2.1 million in 2019 to 2.8 million. The fact that the bill for incapacity benefits has gone up from £34 billion to £51 billion is quite shocking. It is interesting that the Conservatives feel able to share their pearls of wisdom with the Chamber after leaving the world in such a sorry state. The Conservatives have climbed into the gutter to produce the proposals before us this evening; Disraeli and Peel must be turning in their graves.

There are some real challenges. We need a true culture change, both in the benefit system and in the employment world, to help people get into work. That culture change should involve us taking a trauma-informed approach, in the DWP, in our civil service and in our society, so that we can help people who can work into work.

I would also like to reflect on the sorry state in which the Conservatives left our NHS after they starved it of cash and failed to invest in it for many years. It is a great pity that so many residents came to me in my first year as MP for Torbay to tell me that they were unable to have the operations they required, due to the Conservatives’ lack of investment over many years. They bled money out of the capital system to cover the costs of revenue. That is utterly shameful. Torbay hospital continues to crumble and, sadly, under the new Labour Government, we still see £250 million of in-year cuts to our NHS services. While the Conservatives undermine those with mental health challenges, Devon partnership NHS trust is set for £21 million in cuts.

[Dr Evans]

It was the Conservative Government who brought in the mental health investment standard to ensure parity for mental health. It is this Government who made the capital cut the hon. Gentleman mentions, and who are not meeting the standard. I am intrigued; why does he think that there is so much difficulty understanding that, and why are the Labour Government making cuts to mental health payments?

[Steve Darling]

I thank the hon. Member. I reflect on the savage cuts made to public health spending. I would particularly mention the number of people who sleep rough on our streets. I campaigned on the issue as a young Liberal, more than 30 years ago. Sadly, those rough sleepers are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the challenges in our society. The cuts faced by the Devon partnership trust are a real challenge.

I want to move on to Access to Work. Ministers have said on the record that it is one of the Government’s best kept secrets, but I fear that it has not performed as strongly as it could in driving people into work. In fact, I and others have real concerns that changes to the system could undermine it. Someone with a disability is 50% more likely to be out of work. A quarter of people who are registered blind are in work. That clearly means that 75% are out of work—those are shocking figures.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Charlie Mayfield report on how we can engage appropriately with the employment world, and on the positive lessons that can be learned from our nearby colleagues in Europe. I look forward to that coming forward, but perhaps the Government put the cart before the horse; the report should have been undertaken before the Employment Rights Bill was progressed.

Finally, I come to a policy that Liberal Democrats have voted against on three occasions in this Parliament: the two-child limit and the benefits cap. What choice was there for the widow and her children? I am shocked that the Conservatives have such heartlessness that they are turning their backs on those individuals. Some 4.5 million children—that is, every third child—live in poverty in the United Kingdom. In a visit that I made to Barton Hill academy in recent years, I asked the kids what they liked and did not like about Torbay. Their answers were not so much about things like litter; they were more about mum and dad not being able to make ends meet. I wonder how many of those youngsters were impacted by the two-child limit.

In conclusion, there are elements of the Bill that we Liberal Democrats welcome, such as the ability that it will give us to manage the benefits bill, and a return to face-to-face assessments where possible, but others are totally derisible. We see the benefit system as being akin to our NHS: it should be there to support people in living their best life. We will therefore not support the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Smith]

I am going to make some progress, if I may.

Youth unemployment had fallen by nearly 380,000, giving far more young people the security of a meaningful career. However, under this Government, the unemployment rate is set to reach 5% by next year, compared with 4.1% a year ago. We have already heard that graduate jobs have gone down by a third since last year, and we have 1 million young people not in education, employment or training.

So far, Labour has shown little appetite for making tough decisions. As we have already seen, the Prime Minister’s plan to reduce welfare spending ended with a U-turn, with key measures being ditched in a last-minute attempt to win over his own MPs. I do not think I will ever forget the day the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Bill became simply the Universal Credit Bill mid debate—a parliamentary pantomime, or even a farce, that encapsulates the Labour party’s inability to take welfare reform seriously.

The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has admitted that his much-anticipated review being conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), the Timms review, will not involve any welfare cuts. That means that our public spending will continue to rise, running out of control, and taxes will inevitably rise at the next Budget. Labour is now staring at a £9.3 billion welfare black hole. Scrapping the personal independence payment reforms alone will cost £4.5 billion by 2030.

To truly encourage people into work, we need to look at long-term solutions. It is easy to dish out sickness benefits. It is harder to provide the right combination of physical and psychological support to ensure that people facing challenges can keep or find meaningful employment. Yet these are the solutions we owe it to people to deliver, offering them a chance at a better future, one that is not entirely reliant on the state. That is why the Conservatives have set out a clear plan that will reduce the welfare bill by £23 billion. We urge the Government to consider our proposals.

First, we must prioritise British citizens in our welfare system. That means making the system fairer and preventing non-UK citizens from claiming benefits such as universal credit, the personal independence payment and the carer’s allowance.

Secondly, we must stop benefits for those with lower-level mental health conditions. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed off work sick every single day. This figure has ballooned to twice the size it was last year, mainly because thousands of people are signing up to benefits for less severe mental health issues, including anxiety and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

[Dr Luke Evans]

One of the concerns I have when we discuss mental health in this place is the confusion between mental health and mental wellbeing. Everyone has mental wellbeing challenges—we saw that in the pandemic—but not everyone has a mental health issue. It is absolutely normal, for example, to get very anxious going to a driving test; it is not normal to have that response going to the supermarket. Those two things need different responses and different treatment; some might need support and help into the workforce, while medical support is needed for those with serious mental health issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we acknowledge this discrepancy when we debate the issue, to ensure that we get the policies right for both the patient and the taxpayer?

[Rebecca Smith]

I bow to my hon. Friend’s medical wisdom. I agree that we need to give people hope and ensure that our policies tackle the most severe mental health problems. However, if is mental wellbeing that we are talking about, we need to do more to ensure that people have the skills and tools to stay in work, so that they can enjoy the future that they can have.

Given the right support, many people benefit enormously from the social interaction and sense of achievement that comes from regular employment. Holding down a job provides a sense of agency, and breaks the cycle of dependency. Enabling access to benefits for those whom we should be encouraging to work feels perverse and is a dereliction of duty.

Thirdly, we must increase face-to-face assessments for disability benefits. Since the covid-19 restrictions, the number of face-to-face assessments has tanked, with 90% now happening over the phone. This is unacceptable, and has opened the door to so-called sickfluencers, who are coaching people online on the right words to say to get the maximum amount of benefit. Insisting on in-person appointments will mitigate this issue. With the Chancellor now beginning to blame covid for the economic challenges she faces, other Departments should be free to acknowledge the same and crack on with changing things back—in this case, to in-person assessments.

Fourthly, we must reform the Motability scheme so that only those with serious disabilities qualify for a vehicle.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

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

This Bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the broken benefits system that we inherited from the Conservatives and deliver a better life for millions of people across our country. Our plans are rooted in principles and values that I know many in this House share: compassion for those who need our help most, a belief in equality and social justice, that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential no matter where they are born or what their parents did, and responsibility for our constituents and our country as a whole, so that we ensure the welfare state is sustainable and lasts for generations to come. But the system we inherited is failing on all those counts.

Conservative Members left us with a system that incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. They then wrote people off without any help or support, then blamed them to grab a cheap headline. The result is 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and one in eight of all our young people not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings for their future job prospects, earnings and health. The number of people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade, with awards for personal independence payments increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards a day—the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I will make a tiny bit of progress, and then I will give way.

As I set out to the House yesterday, we have listened carefully to concerns that there would not be enough employment support in place quickly enough by the time the benefit changes come in. We are bringing forward an additional £300 million of employment support for sick and disabled people, delivering a total of £600 million next year, £800 million the year after and £1 billion in 2028-29—increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8 billion over this Parliament—to ensure that anyone who is affected by this Bill will be offered personalised work, health and skills support, including access to a specially trained adviser by the time the legislation comes in.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?

[Liz Kendall]

Joining up work and health support is essential. I have been to visit some of the projects in place, and they are making a really big difference. We are building on that with additional investment, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservative party. Joining up work and health support is very important, because good health and good work are two sides of the same coin, but this needs to be available widely across the country.

Let me turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 begin to tackle the perverse incentives left by the Conservative party, which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work by rebalancing the universal credit standard allowance and health top-up. I am very proud that we are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s. Some 6.7 million households—the lowest-income households—will benefit from the increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and it will deliver a £725-a-year increase in cash terms by 2029-30 for a single person aged 25 and over.

Having listened seriously to concerns about our original proposals on the UC health top-up for existing claimants and future claimants with severe conditions and those at the end of their lives, we will ensure that for these groups, the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these vital benefits in real terms every year for the rest of the Parliament.

Alongside those changes, schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable stress and anxiety this brings, so that they have the dignity and security they deserve. Yesterday we published draft regulations on our new right to try, which will guarantee that, in and of itself, work will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to try work—something many people have called for for years.

I turn to clause 5 of the Bill, on personal independence payments. Yesterday I told the House that we have listened to the concerns raised by many Members, disabled people and their organisations about the impact of the new requirement for existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component. Even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point these changes come in would be unaffected by the end of the Parliament, I know this has caused deep and widespread anxiety and stress, so we have changed our original proposals. The new four-point eligibility requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026. This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this Bill, and anyone who currently receives any passported benefits, such as carer’s allowance, will also be unaffected by this change.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Luke Evans Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance and, indeed, that all of our legal obligations have been satisfied as part of the consideration of this Bill. The imperative thing for me as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions is that we are supporting those who need the social security safety net, not the fraudsters who pick holes in it.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

One concern that we have is the change in the way that people conduct benefit fraud. Through the use of key buzzwords, they help people to navigate the system so that they are able to take out of it what is not theirs. Does he think that there is scope in the Bill, particularly in some of the new clauses, to include specific legislation to prevent people from using words and buzzwords, or from teaching other people how to cheat the benefit system?

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans]

In their response to my question about sickfluencers, the Government said that relevant legislation is already in place. If that is the case, how many convictions have there been under that legislation? We could infer from that number whether or not the system is working and what we need to do. My suspicion is that we need these measures to be able to hold people to account.

[Rebecca Smith]

I echo my hon. Friend’s concern that the existing powers are not being used enough. I ask the Minister to give us further information on how those powers are being used and an assurance that they will be used further should our new clauses be unsuccessful.

We believe that creating a specific offence to target such online fraud would send the clear message to sickfluencers that what they are doing is not only morally wrong but illegal—something that clear gives them no alternative than to realise that they will be caught. If the Government continue to oppose our amendments because they believe the powers already exist to tackle such crime, I would be grateful if the Minister set out, at the very least, how the Government will ensure that that legislation is used to the fullest, particularly with regard to the DWP, given that Government amendments 75 and 76 refer to the PFSA specifically. We are keen to see how those powers can be used fully used as the deterrent we need to tackle DWP claims. I want to know that, after today’s debate and vote, sickfluencers will be left in no doubt that the full weight of the law will be used against them, as they actively defraud the state.

Our new clause 9 is on powers of arrest. We welcome measures in the Bill—first announced by the previous Government—to give DWP investigators greater powers to aid with their investigations, such as search and seizure, and there must be appropriate safeguards around that. This will bring benefit fraud investigations into line with tax fraud investigations in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is very welcome, but we want to go further and address other shortfalls in the DWP powers. New clause 9 would add the power of arrest to the powers given to DWP investigators and resolve the seemingly illogical current position: the Government want to give DWP investigators the power to enter and search a premises, seize, retain and dispose of material, obtain sensible material and use reasonable force, but not to arrest someone if the evidence shows that it is necessary.

In Committee, the Minister highlighted that the police would be able to carry out the arrest function on behalf of the DWP should it ever be necessary, but we question whether that is a sustainable position and believe that our new clause would ensure we do not place an additional burden on the police. This is not without precedent and would bring the DWP into line with the approach taken to serious and organised crime across Government, such as at HMRC and the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority.

Our new clause 10 is on liability orders, because we are concerned about the seizure of assets. We want to ensure that the DWP does everything it can to recover funds fraudulently claimed, even when that money is no longer sitting in a bank account. It cannot be right that someone can use that money to buy expensive cars, flat-screen TVs or other luxury assets, which the state cannot then recover from them. Our new clause 10 would give the Secretary of State powers to apply to the courts to seize assets where someone has been found guilty of fraud and the funds have not been recovered in order to repay the state. In a similar vein to our sickfluencers new clause, we believe these additions are needed to send the strongest message to those who are knowingly defrauding the system that they will be caught and will have to pay.

New clause 10 does not just give powers to seize assets to the Secretary of State; it says that she must use them. The DWP has said that it can already do this, but we know through written parliamentary questions that those powers have not been used in the last five years, albeit the DWP could make use of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. We believe there must be an explicit expectation that assets will be seized, and we need new clause 10 to ensure this is achieved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, as I am short of time. New clause 1 would prevent recovery of carer’s allowance overpayments via the new recovery powers in this Bill, but the DWP would still be able to recover carer’s allowance overpayments through deductions from benefits or through deductions from PAYE earnings. This would place carers in an unequal position in regard to overpayment recovery, with recovery depending on whether they were in receipt of benefits or in PAYE employment. Even if I believed that that was what the amendment intended, suspending recovery of all carer’s allowance overpayments until the independent review has concluded would be disproport-ionate. There are safeguards and protections for those with overpayments, including appeal rights, affordable repayment plans and, in exceptional circumstances, the option to waive the debt.

I turn to new clause 21, which the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon, spoke to, and I will refer to new clause 8, which proposes to introduce a new offence of fraud against a public authority. In my view, that is already covered by existing offences, making the amendment duplicative and unnecessary. Fraud is already an offence under the Fraud Act 2006, and the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regardless of whether the fraud is against public authorities or anyone else, is already in existence.

The Government amendments to clause 70 bring together the offences in sections 6 and 7 of the Fraud Act 2006 of

“possessing, making or supplying articles for use in frauds”,

with the offences of “assisting and encouraging” that are found in sections 44 to 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. That allows us to tackle the issue that Committee members were concerned about—influencer-style offences, in which a person provides the knowledge needed to commit a fraudulent act through internet videos or manuals.

[Dr Luke Evans]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will not. I took an intervention from the hon. Gentleman on this subject earlier, but I am short of time. [Interruption.] Had he stayed for the whole debate, I might have been more willing to do so, but I responded to his earlier invention.

In my view, we simply need to enforce existing law. Similarly, new clause 21 seeks to amend the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to introduce an offence of encouraging or assisting fraud. Again, in my view this is unnecessary, because that is covered by the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007. The hon. Member for South West Devon asked for assurance that we would use the powers that we already have. As I said in response to interventions, I have commissioned work in the Department to look at how we can further use the powers that we have; in my view, historically, we have not taken best advantage of them.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Luke Evans Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we will not withdraw the policy. We will certainly reflect on it, and we will consult properly on the content of the Green Paper. The figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday showed that the benefit changes, on their own, will take 250,000 people, including 200,000 adults, below the poverty line, but that is before any consideration of the impact of the big commitment that we are making to employment support —up to £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. That will clearly have a very positive effect in reducing poverty. The Office for Budget Responsibility will look at all of this over the summer and then update its figures in the autumn. We will see what it concludes, but I think the balance of this package will be very positive for reducing poverty in the UK.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

To help families, the last Government put in place the household support fund, which this Government have continued. However, it is due to run out in 2026, when the Minister’s changes are coming in. What hope is there for households who need emergency support if the household support fund will be dropped when his changes come in?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have retained the household support fund, as the hon. Member rightly points out, and the future arrangements will be set out in due course. However, I can reassure him of the absolute commitment of this Government to supporting families who need our support. The child poverty taskforce is working on this issue at the moment, and will bring forward a strategy to address the problem of child poverty. The figures published this morning on households below average income show just what a huge challenge there is, given the very high level of child poverty left by the previous Government. We will be addressing that.

Winter Fuel Payment

Luke Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Helen Whately]

One of the things we would very much like to see is a full set of figures from the Government, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. The Government said they wanted everyone who was eligible to sign up for pension credit and therefore be able to access the winter fuel payment, but if everyone had actually signed up for pension credit, the Government would not have saved the money they set out that the policy would save.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

The Department for Work and Pensions states that it works to a planned timescale of 50 working days for processing applications. However, on 9 December, in response to my written question, it turned out that, at its peak just before the coldest period, it was 87 working days. Even now, the answer is that it takes on average 56 working days to get pension credit sorted. That is a problem, because the Government directed people to pension credit who cannot then get access to it when they need it, at the coldest time of the year. Is that not a despicable decision?

[Helen Whately]

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. He has been every effective in his use of parliamentary questions to scrutinise the Government and get data from them—they do not like to give it willingly. He identifies the long delays for pension credit approvals and therefore access to winter fuel payment. Some will have applied before the deadline for pension credit and got the whole way through winter without getting money, or even knowing whether they were going to get any money. We know well from charities such as Age UK, which represents pensioners, that pensioners are very reluctant to get themselves into debt. If they did not know whether they were getting the payment, they would have been very reluctant to spend money in the hope that they might.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

I was indeed extremely shocked by that statistic; that is one reason why we need to have this debate today and try to get some of the data out of the Government. They were at the time, and continue to be, incredibly reluctant to share whatever they know about the impact of this cut on people, including the terminally ill.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Going back to data, this policy does not just impact pensioners, because the Government seconded 500 extra staff to try to deal with pension credit. We know, from another written answer, that those staff came from the services handling child maintenance, counter fraud, compliance and debt, so there is going to be an ongoing impact. Do the Government not need to be transparent about the impact on the Departments that have had to move staff across to try to deal with their own policy?

[Helen Whately]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about transparency, and he recognises that this policy has had an impact not only on pensioners, but on other parts of Government, and therefore on other constituents. It is another thing that I hope the Government Back Benchers in the Chamber are taking note of, to pass on to their colleagues who, for some reason, have chosen not to be present to discuss this topic this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress, and then I will give way further.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way on the data processing point?

[Torsten Bell]

Go ahead.

[Dr Evans]

I am terribly grateful to the Minister. He made the point about there being 235,000 applications, which was great. In my written question, I asked about that and he came back and said 117,800 claims were awarded, but 114,500 were not. Those were clearly people who felt they were entitled to pension credit but who will now struggle. What support is available for those people, who are clearly right on the cusp and are now not eligible and do not have pension credit?

[Torsten Bell]

The hon. Member makes an important point. We should encourage people to apply, even if a percentage of those will always not qualify. The criteria under which people have been assessed are those put in place by the previous Administration for pension credit. However, he is right; we want as many people as possible to apply, even if some of them are not successful, for exactly the reason raised by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton)—we need awareness of pension credit to be higher and we need to encourage claims, because a lot of people who are entitled are missing out. It is not always absolutely clear whether someone is entitled, for example if they are in receipt of attendance allowance.

All the progress since September that I have spoken about is a real achievement, but I am the first to say very clearly that it is far from job done. Far too many people are still missing out on pension credit. We are already building on this winter’s campaign, and that includes writing to all pensioners who make a new claim for housing benefit and who appear to be entitled to pension credit. In the longer term, this Government are committed to bringing together the administration of pension credit and housing benefit, making it easier for pensioners to get support. That was also a policy of previous Administrations at different times, even if delivering it was not prioritised.

We will also undertake new research on what helps boost take-up—that goes to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. There is a slight misunderstanding about people wanting to apply but being reluctant—the evidence does not support that significantly. The key problem is awareness of the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joy Morrissey]

I think our record speaks for itself—we had 14 years. It is very interesting that the Labour party talks about tough choices. For pensioners, turning off the heat—being made to choose between heating and eating—is a tough choice. That is a choice that this Labour Government have made for the most vulnerable.

[Dr Luke Evans]

My hon. Friend is correct that this is about actions, not words. Labour’s decision on the winter fuel payment was not in their manifesto; it was brought in with a piece of legislation that was voted on without an impact assessment and then put into place. Yesterday, we heard an announcement about disabilities that was also not mentioned in Labour’s manifesto. It was brought forward with a gap before the impact assessment—we will see that in a couple of weeks’ time—and it will then be taken through. Does my hon. Friend agree that the British public are being taken for fools? These are not transparent policies or policies that were put forward in a manifesto; they are being brought forward later on, under the guise of trying to do something better.

[Joy Morrissey]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about transparency and keeping our promises to the British public, and it lays bare the truth about this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me a few more minutes, I will come to the exact question of the threshold at which pension credit is awarded and at which, therefore, someone is eligible for the winter fuel payment.

In order to reach the most vulnerable people, who are often the hardest to reach because they are not on Facebook and are not coming to my coffee mornings, I wrote to more than 5,000 pensioners to ensure that they received the support they deserved.

Let me end by making a broader point. Today’s debate has underscored a simple truth about Conservative Members. Theirs is no longer the party with the strength and courage to lead, whether in asserting the sovereignty of this place or in making arguments with principle.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Josh Simons]

I will not.

The Conservatives knew that the winter fuel payment needed to change—they said so in their manifesto in 2017—but they did nothing about it. They knew that NHS England was duplicating, wasting taxpayers’ money and failing to drive up standards, but they did nothing about it. They knew that flooding was getting worse in places such as Platt Bridge, Ashton and Abram in my constituency, but they did nothing about it.

Let me give an even more egregious example from this week. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has stomped his feet and shaken his head about new guidance issued by the Sentencing Council. The Lord Chancellor has been clear that independent agencies should not make policy; this Chamber should. However, what the shadow Secretary of State for Justice is unwilling to confront is the fact that his party welcomed that guidance. The unequal treatment in the guidance has not changed, and he knows that. The shadow Secretary of State for Justice typifies what the Conservative party has become, and that has been exemplified in this debate. Conservative Members come to this Chamber shaking with outrage and spoiling for a spat, but they forget that they have been in charge.

Welfare Reform

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes. We will not get this right unless we draw on the huge strengths of our voluntary and community organisations. I have never believed that there are hard-to-reach groups; it is just that we need to change what we do. There is a lot we can learn from groups like those my hon. Friend mentions, because it really is a pathway to work. We have got to end this false divide between those who can and cannot work, and instead understand that there are steps towards a better life. That is what this Government want to deliver.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

I have two practical questions. First, the Secretary of State said she is joining jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance; what is that time limit? Secondly, she said there would be an expectation on people to look for work; what happens when they do not meet that expectation and what discipline is faced if they do not take that up?

[Liz Kendall]

The time limit is one of the things we are consulting on in the Green Paper and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views on that. On the expectation to engage, it is interesting that when we have started to free up our work coach time and offer support on the phone and in person, many people have come forward, because we are trying to change the culture. The Conservatives always leap straight to a position where people refuse to get involved. We have got to change that culture; that is the way that we will get more people on to that pathway to success.

Social Security Benefits

Luke Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

In my view, the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.1%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2024. It will increase most other benefit rates by 1.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2024. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by whichever is highest out of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices, or 2.5%. That will mean 4.1% for 2025-26. From April this year, the basic state pension will increase from £169.50 per week to £176.45, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £221.20 to £230.25.

We are fully committed to maintaining the pension triple lock. There is some confusion about the position of the Conservative party, and I hope that the shadow Minister will clarify the position when he speaks.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

On clarification, can the Minister clarify for how much longer the state pension will be taxed? The Conservative Government stood for election on a commitment to the triple lock plus. We lost the election, but we were going to take out that fiscal drag. Can the Minister explain how long that tax will stay in place?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My understanding, from what the Leader of the Opposition has said, is that the Conservative party is no longer committed to the triple lock, let alone the triple lock plus. I can tell the hon. Member that we do not have any plans to do what he suggests.

[Dr Evans]

I believe that under the Budget, the Government are not looking to review the position until 2028, so those on the state pension have to submit a tax return, because the state pension is being taxed.

[Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) (Lab)]

It was what you did.

[Dr Evans]

Agreed. That was brought in by a previous Government, and we in the Conservative party campaigned to remove it. Can the Minister confirm that the situation will remain in place until 2028?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party appears to no longer be committed to the triple lock. We look forward to clarification on that point from the shadow Minister.

Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 1.7% in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.1%. For single pensioners, that means an increase from £218.15 to £227.10 per week; for couples, the increase is from £332.95 to £346.60 per week. We want everybody entitled to that support to receive it, which is why we launched the national pension credit campaign. We received around 150,000 pension credit applications in the 16 weeks after the winter fuel payment announcement.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Evans]

I am very grateful. We do indeed want more people to take up pension credit. However, one of the biggest problems is the processing time. The response to a written question that I tabled before Christmas showed that there was a 75% success rate in getting that done within 50 days, which means that that did not happen for one in four. I later re-tabled the same question, and it turned out that the standard had got worse. What work are the Government doing to make sure that applications are processed within 50 days? Especially when it is cold and people have had their winter fuel payment taken away, it is important that those who need that support get it as soon as they can.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; it is important that applications are processed speedily, and I am pleased with the number of applications. I can confirm—I think he knows this—that everybody who applied before 21 December will receive, if they are successful, their winter fuel payment. We have also moved extra staff on to pension credit processing. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that point.

Universal credit and the legacy means-tested benefits that it replaces provide support for people of working age. We have committed in our manifesto to reviewing universal credit, so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we will set out shortly how we plan to fulfil that commitment. For those below state pension age, the order increases the personal and standard allowances of working-age benefits, including universal credit, by 1.7%, in line with the increase in prices in the year to September 2024. In the Budget last November, the Chancellor announced that the maximum repayment deduction from universal credit payments will be reduced from April, from 25% of the universal credit standard allowance to 15%—the fair repayment rate—and 1.2 million households are expected to benefit from that change by an average of £420 per year.

In addition, the order increases statutory payments by 1.7%. That includes statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory sick pay. Benefits for those who have additional costs as a result of disability or health impairments will also increase by 1.7%. That includes disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The order will also increase carer’s allowance by 1.7%. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that, from April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings threshold will be pegged to the level of 16 hours’ work at the national living wage. That means that, from April, unpaid carers will be able to earn up to £196 per week net earnings and still receive carer’s allowance, compared with £151 now. I am pleased to say that that move has been very widely welcomed, and we expect it to bring an additional 60,000 unpaid carers into eligibility for the benefit, and, crucially, to reduce the likelihood that carers who manage to combine some work with their caring responsibilities will inadvertently fall foul of the earnings limit, because, in future, that threshold will keep up with changes in the national living wage.

On disability and carer’s benefits, we will continue to ensure that carers, and people who face additional costs because of disability or health impairment, get the support that they need, and we will set out proposals for reform of health and disability benefits in a Green Paper in the spring.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend replied, “No”, to the interviewer. We are not looking at means-testing the triple lock. She was talking more generally about the challenge of means-testing in our social security system, which is a legitimate question for us all to consider, as I shall go on to discuss.

I did not want to get too partisan in this debate, but—[Interruption.] Here we go! No, I won’t, genuinely, because the challenge of our welfare system is a shared problem that we face across the House. I will note in passing that our party’s record on welfare is a good one. We introduced universal credit, rationalising the spaghetti web of benefits that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman when he was last in office. We made work pay and helped people off welfare and into work, and we succeeded in that, with 4 million more people in employment in 2024 than in 2010.

Let me point out that we had another mess to sort out in the public finances. When we took office, the Government were running a deficit of 9% and the Treasury was spending way more than it was earning. By the time the pandemic struck, the deficit was down to less than 1%. We were living within our means and were able to afford the generous uplifts made to benefits and pensions in the last Parliament, as well as the huge package of support that we provided during the pandemic.

I want to be fair and admit that, as the Minister suggested, the welfare system is not working properly at the moment. Too many people are being consigned to a life of inactivity and dependency, especially via the categories of sickness benefit. It is bad for those people, their communities and the country as a whole, including the taxpayer, who spends £65 billion a year on incapacity and disability benefits, rising to £100 billion a year unless reforms are made by the end of this Parliament.

So what is going on? Those terrible figures reflect the fact that we have bad rates of physical ill health, including obesity and, as is strongly evidenced in the statistics, bad backs because we simply do not move around enough in the day. The figures also reflect a rise in mental ill health, which we see in alarming rates in schools and among young people. We have to do more on those issues through all sorts of interventions that lie more with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care than with the Department for Work and Pensions. However, as the Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last week, the rise in welfare claims cannot be attributed to worsening health or longer NHS waiting lists; the problem is growing far faster than that.

Perhaps the problem is low wages that do not attract people into employment, and that is certainly a reality. Low wages have driven demand for the immigration that we have seen get so out of control in recent years. Profound changes are under way in the world of work, away from secure employment towards a more precarious jobs market. Labour is destroying jobs, taxing employment and discouraging new hires with its new Employment Rights Bill. However, the fact is that wages have risen sharply above inflation in recent years, which is why pensions are going up by earnings this year. Employers are offering good wages but are not filling vacancies.

The issue is not health, although we have problems in health; the issue is not work, although we have big problems there—the issue is welfare. People are not being incentivised to take jobs because the offer from the welfare system is better. When I say welfare, I do not mean unemployment support. Thanks to universal credit and the last Government’s reforms, we saw record numbers of people move off unemployment benefit and into work. That is because we offered support to people to find work and imposed strict conditions that meant people had to actively look for a job. If they did not, they lost the benefit. That worked for a lot of people, but we found—here is the issue—that for a lot of other people, the incentives made them go the other way, further away from work into the sickness category, because that is where the good money is. In some cases, the money is double what they can get on unemployment benefit, and sometimes £3,000 more than the minimum wage. People almost certainly get it because the approval rates are high at over 90% for the limited capacity for work category.

This is big and unconditional money. There is no expectation to do anything about the health conditions that mean someone is signed off sick. There is no expectation of being reassessed any time soon or, indeed, ever. That is the challenge, and I hope the Government will rise to it in the same way that we rose to the crisis in unemployment benefit in the last decade.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

One of the ways the last Government helped to deal with this issue was by dealing with the taper. It was at 63% and it went down to 55%, so people who were working got more of their own money back. Does my hon. Friend believe that this is one way we could incentivise people to step back into the workplace—by having more of their money as they earn it?

[Danny Kruger]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That was a key part of the reforms brought in towards the last part of the last decade, enabled by universal credit—a much simpler system. I am glad to say that we managed to reduce that taper significantly and to incentivise work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention on the same important topic raised by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon). I know that the Government are looking at this issue and at how we can reform the welfare system to support people to get the money they need and have the incentives and the right approach to welfare to help more people get into employment. That is the long-term sustainable route to reducing poverty and I hope we can do more to achieve it.

[Dr Luke Evans]

rose—

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am happy to give way, although I perhaps should make some progress.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member makes a fantastic point about the family unit. The last Government were looking at introducing a measure on household income, particularly with child benefit, to try to make sure that we see people not as individuals, but as a group. That could stop such things as the child benefit cliff edge. However, the new Government took that measure away in the Budget. Would he make the argument to his Front Benchers that looking at household units—the family unit—is a positive way of seeing how we can support people?

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is important in some respects. One of the challenges with the policy that the hon. Member identifies is that we tax people on an individual basis and the benefits he refers to are often linked to the tax system. He raises an important point, and I am sure it is being considered.

I will make some progress and conclude my remarks. I am supportive of the increase in the state pension and of the triple lock. I know we have already had a little ding-dong about it, but it is the case that the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) said that the triple lock was unsustainable. Perhaps he was referring to the long term, but that still concerns me, not least given what I have said about young people benefiting most from increases in the state pension over time.

I am glad that in April the 20,000 pensioners in my constituency will receive either a £470 uplift if they are on the new state pension or, I believe, a £360 uplift if they are on the basic rate of state pension. That is incredibly important for living standards. I spent many years living with my grandparents part-time. They taught me a lot, and many of my values have come from them. We know how much care older people can provide to family and to their communities, and I see that in Chipping Barnet. At almost every community event, whether that is a local church, an institution or a charity doing good in the community, there are so many retired people giving their time and care, making Barnet—my corner of north London that I have the pleasure of representing—a better place to live. Providing that security in retirement is so very important.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have already spoken in the debate about the two-child cap, and we will be coming forward with the report and strategy proposed by the child poverty taskforce. On pensioner poverty, I think that substantial measures will be needed, and we will come forward with those in due course.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. He talked about planning for the future and people understanding what is going on with their pensions. We have the WASPI example where that was not seen to be the case. The new Government are making changes to inheritance tax and where pensions fall, but much of the public do not realise that that will have big implications for them as their pensions will be subject to tax and inheritance tax. Would he consider a campaign to let people know that that change is coming in the next year or so?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not quite sure what change the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I certainly agree that people need to be confident about what the arrangements will be in the future so that they can plan accordingly. That is the one of the reasons why the pensions triple lock is important, as it gives people confidence about how things will be in the future.

We are: increasing the basic state pension and the new state pension in line with earnings growth by 4.1%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock; increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings growth by 4.1%; increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carers’ benefits in line with prices; and increasing working-age benefits in line with prices as well, at 1.7%. This year, GMPs accrued between 1988 and 1997 must by law be increased by 1.7%, which is the increase in the consumer prices index in the year up to September 2024. The GMP is important in giving people assurance about a level below which their scheme pension cannot fall. I commend both orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

Pensions

Resolved,

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.—(Martin McCluskey.)