Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee and Work and Pensions Committee on 10 September and 20 May 2025, on Child Poverty Taskforce, HC 894.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The reasoned amendment on the Order Paper has not been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Dowden (Hertsmere) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman has provoked me into responding. I served in the previous Conservative Government, and I was involved in all those decisions. There was a clear principle behind them: will people take responsibility for their own actions? There are thousands—millions—of people who choose not to have more children because they want to take responsibility for their lives, rather than the state doing so. With this change, the Government are saying to those people, “Not only will the state take responsibility, but you as the individual will have to pay for it through higher taxes.” That is the principle at stake here, and the Government are reversing a clear principled position taken by the last Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, let me say that there are many colleagues in the Chamber and I can understand how passionate this debate is, but let us try to keep the noise down when colleagues are contributing.

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman has set out the previous Government’s justification. I am about to explain why that did not stack up at the time, and why it certainly does not stack up after the experience of the policy.

We should begin by considering why no other neighbouring country has this two-child limit. Given that the policy was always primarily about politics, it is no surprise that it did not achieve the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman just tried to set out. The Tories claimed that this would lead to people making different choices about the number of children to have, but that did not happen. The family size premise was itself based on the fundamental misconception that there is a static group of people who are always on universal credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pat McFadden]

I remind the hon. Lady that the benefit cap does not apply to families who are in work or who have a disabled child. It is in place, and that approach balances support and fairness without undermining incentives to work.

The Bill removes the need for the vile policy known as the rape clause, which is a feature that we inherited from the Conservative regime. Women will no longer have to relive terrible experiences to get support for their child. For the families who will benefit, this measure will help all children, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. My understanding is that it is the current position of the Conservative party to bring back the limit, and therefore to bring back that provision. Perhaps the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), can clarify that when she comes to speak, and perhaps Reform Members can clarify their position when they contribute to the debate.

The policy change made by this Bill is not just about the redistribution of money—it is not just about placing children on the right side of an income line in a spreadsheet. It is about changing the story of children’s lives. That is an investment worth making for the whole country. It is about giving children a genuine shot at life, so that they can do well at school, stay healthy, and contribute to their country and community as an adult. That is harder when children grow up poor, as they are less likely to do well at school, with less than a quarter of children in the lowest-income households getting five good GCSEs.

By the age of 30, those who grew up poor are likely to be earning about 25% less than their peers. They are four times more likely to experience mental health problems, with growing consequences for worklessness and for the benefits bill that we are seeing in today’s system. They are more likely not to be in education, employment or training—those numbers grew rapidly in the final years of the Conservatives’ time in power, and they did nothing about it. That is why we are reforming the system by changing the incentives of universal credit, ending a situation in which the sick have been signed off and written off, and increasing support to get disabled people into work. As Sir Charlie Mayfield estimated in his recent “Keep Britain Working” report,

“Someone leaving the workforce in their 20s can lose out on over £1 million in lifetime earnings—with the state incurring a similar cost”

to support them. These are the kinds of consequences that were not thought through when the Conservatives’ policy was introduced, but it is essential that they are part of our debate about changing it.

Investing in children’s potential today is about changing lives through better educational attainment, improved health and a better chance of a decent job. The most radical thing that a Government can do is enable people to change their own story. Our ambitions should go well beyond providing financially for people; they should be about providing the platform for that change, so there is a direct link between this Bill and the other things we are doing. We are providing more help with childcare for working parents in order to make work pay and to ease the choice between looking after children and taking up a job. That is in their interests and in the national interest—why should we lose the talents of those who have children?

The youth guarantee will help the young unemployed with training, work experience and ultimately a subsidised job, so that they know the pride and purpose that comes with having work. That is in their interests and in the national interest. We have more apprenticeships for young people, stopping the 40% decline in youth apprenticeship starts over the last decade. That is in their interests and in the national interest. Better life chances are part of the battle against the human and social cost of more and more young people being signed off sick and declared unfit for work. All these things will become more urgent as the population ages and we need more young workers to support the country. A better start in life is a bond between the generations. A good childhood is in all our interests and in the national interest.

This debate is part of a wider one in politics. In this debate and in others, we have seen a politics of division in this country that wants to set person against person and group against group, and I believe we are only in the foothills of it. We will see more of this division, both home-grown and imported from overseas, becoming ever harsher as it seeks to use rage to fuel itself and to win support. That is the battle to come, not just on this issue, but much more widely—and I want to make it clear today that we set ourselves against that politics, and make a clear and explicit choice to reject it.

Anger and division are not the fuel upon which this country’s future must be built. They will produce nothing. They will solve nothing. Indeed, they will only perpetuate the chaos in the country that people are so tired of. Instead, we embrace the mantle of hope to offer a chance and not a grievance—a society where we help each other up, rather than try to tear each other down, and where we say to those born into poor circumstances, “We will help you be the best you can be, not through altruism, but because we need you, we believe in you and we want your contribution.” That is in our interests and in the national interest. This is the fight to come between these two kinds of politics; that is what the change in this Bill is all about, and it is why I commend the Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately]

If the hon. Gentleman listens to what I am about to say about the back and forth on this policy on his side of the House, he will see that he should think a bit harder before talking about “consistency”.

So what is this Bill really about? If Labour truly believes that lifting the two-child limit is essential to tackling poverty, why did it take the Prime Minister 18 months to do it? Years ago he called the cap “punitive” and promised to scrap it, but then, once he had secured the leadership of the Labour party, he changed that tune. He said that Labour was not going to abolish the two-child limit. His Chancellor, who is sitting on the Front Bench, said that it was unaffordable. Just six months ago, the Government even suspended the whip from MPs who voted to lift the cap, but now that the Prime Minister’s leadership is under threat, it is the end for the cap. How long will it be before he goes the same way? That is the real reason we are debating the Bill today: we have a weak Prime Minister, running scared from his left-wing Back Benchers.

Talking of the left wing, I expect that Labour will be joined in the Division Lobby later by some of the Opposition Members sitting to the left of me. No doubt the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru will also be competing to see who can be the most generous with other people’s money. Reform UK has jumped on the welfare spending bandwagon too. You will have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we have not tabled a reasoned amendment today, not because we think that the Bill is perfect—I hope that is clear—but because any amendment would still leave us with a watered-down version of the cap. Other parties have got in a right muddle on this—one in particular—but to us it is clear and simple: the cap should stay. Anything else is a worse policy. Amending the Bill is not the right answer; the House should just vote it down.

First and foremost, I have argued against the Bill on the grounds of fairness, but there is another reason to vote against it. More than 50% of households now receive more from the state than they pay in. The benefits bill is ballooning. Health and disability benefits alone are set to reach £100 billion by the end of the decade—more than we spend on defence, education or policing. The benefits bill is a ticking time bomb. We have to start living within our means. Other parties are simply in denial about the situation that we face in our country. The Conservatives are the only party that recognises how serious this is. We would not be spending more on benefits; in fact, we have explained how we would be saving £23 billion. We would stop giving benefits to foreign nationals, stop giving benefits for lower-level mental health problems and milder neurodiversity, stop the abuse of Motability, and bring back face-to-face assessments. We would get the benefits bill under control, and back people to work.

Labour claims to be compassionate, but there is nothing compassionate about making welfare the rational choice, nothing compassionate about rewarding dependency over work, and nothing compassionate about saddling working families with higher taxes to fund political U-turns. Outside this place, people can see what is happening. They know when a system is unfair. They know when a Government have lost their way. They know when a Prime Minister’s time is up. Members should not be enticed by his final throws. They should step back and do what is right for the country. They should back people who do the right thing, back jobs and work and lower taxes, and back living within our means and raising the standard of living for everyone, rather than backing a policy that will add billions to the benefits bill and trap parents in a downward spiral of dependency. This Bill does not end poverty. It entrenches it, so we oppose it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. As so many Members wish to contribute, Back Benchers will be on a speaking limit, which will start at five and a half minutes. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger]

I am assuming that the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth is opposing the policy before us today. So you actually do not want to take the measure that we are going to take—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “You”, Mr Slinger—I have mentioned this to you so many times. Let us start again.

[John Slinger]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is opposing the policy that will reduce child poverty by an enormous number.

Conservative Members have not really even tried to defend their record. Perhaps that is because it is indefensible. Their decisions were not accidents; they were choices. The consequences were known, the damage was predictable and the outcome is now painfully clear. Years of ignoring child poverty have left this country with many problems, including the number of children not in education, employment or training. That is an inheritance that this Government are now tackling, not least through the excellent work of Alan Milburn and his investigation into work and child poverty that was commissioned by my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary.

Children are being condemned to a lifetime of economic inactivity, which is bad for them and their future wealth. As the “Keep Britain Working” report found, someone leaving the workforce in their 20s would lose up to £1 million in earnings. It is also bad for their health. Having four more years in education on average relates to a 16% reduction in mortality rates and reduces the risk of heart disease and diabetes. It is also bad for the country—all that untapped potential and all that unnecessary benefit spend.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)]

In November, I informed the House that the Government would make a new decision in response to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report into the way changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. This followed relevant evidence coming to light as part of legal proceedings challenging the original decision announced by my predecessor in December 2024. We have now concluded the process to make a new decision and are placing copies of the Government’s full response in the Libraries of both Houses.

Before I turn to the substance, I think it is important to be clear what this decision and statement is about, and what it is not about. There are legitimate and sincerely held views about whether it was wise to increase the state pension age, and in particular whether the decision taken in 2011 by the coalition Government to accelerate equalisation and the rise to the age of 66 was the right thing to do. But the issue we are discussing today is not the merits or otherwise of past policy decisions about the state pension age. What the ombudsman investigated was how changes to the state pension age were communicated and whether within a specific and narrow time period there was maladministration and injustice—and if so, whether that warrants compensation.

In March 2024, the ombudsman published its final report. As with so many other issues, the previous Government left the report on their desks, issued no response, took no decision, and left it to this Government to respond. In December 2024, the then Work and Pensions Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), set out the Government’s response, having considered all the information provided to her.

However, given that relevant research from 2007 about the effectiveness of sending letters subsequently emerged that had not been provided to my right hon. Friend, I wanted to ensure that the right and proper process was followed to take account of this alongside the information previously considered. Of course, I asked the Department not just to consider the 2007 report, but to undertake new searches as part of an extensive review of relevant historical documents to help inform the new decision.

We accept that individual letters about changes to the state pension age could have been sent earlier. For that, I want to repeat the apology that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West gave on behalf of the Government. I am sorry those letters were not sent sooner. We also agree with the ombudsman that women did not suffer any direct financial loss from the delay.

However, the question is about the impact of the delay in sending those letters. The evidence taken as a whole, including that from 2007, suggests that the majority of 1950s-born women would not have read and recalled the contents of an unsolicited pensions letter, even if it had been sent earlier. Furthermore, the evidence also suggests that those less knowledgeable about pensions—the very women who most needed to engage with a letter, and for whom it might have made a difference—were the least likely to read it. An earlier letter would therefore have been unlikely to make a difference to what the majority of women knew about their own state pension age. Indeed, the 2007 report concluded that automatic pension forecast letters had only a negligible impact on pensions knowledge and planning, and the Department stopped sending them.

The evidence shows that the vast majority of 1950s-born women already knew that the state pension age was increasing thanks to a wide-range of public information, including leaflets, education campaigns, information in GP surgeries, and information on TV and radio, in cinemas and online. To specifically compensate only the women who suffered injustice would require a scheme that could reliably verify the individual circumstances of millions of women, including whether someone genuinely did not know that their state pension age was changing and whether they would have read and remembered a letter from many years ago and acted differently. It would not be practical to set up a compensation scheme to assess the answers to those questions conclusively.

A flat-rate scheme would cost up to £10.3 billion and would simply not be right or fair, given that it would also be paid to the vast majority who were aware of the changes. I have heard calls for compensation aimed at lower-income pensioners, and we have focused in the past 12 months on raising pension credit uptake, but in the context of this decision, a scheme focused on any single income group still would not specify who may or may not have suffered injustice. That is why, in taking this new decision, we have come to the same conclusion on compensation as that announced by my right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State in December 2024.

I know that many people feel that the state pension age should not have gone up in the way that it did; indeed, Labour argued against the 2011 policy decision put in place by the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that accelerated the increase. However, I repeat what I said at the start of my statement: that is a different issue to the one the ombudsman investigated and that I am responding to today, which relates to the communication of changes in the state pension age and, narrowly, to a delay in sending letters over a relatively short period.

The changes from 2011 underline the importance that decisions on the state pension age carry and the impact they have on people’s lives, and I take seriously the need to weigh carefully any future changes. That is why, together with the ombudsman, the Department has been developing an action plan for the future. Work on that had stopped pending today’s decision, but I can confirm that it will now resume.

It also underlines why we are determined to ensure that all pensioners on lower incomes, the majority of whom are women, have a better life in retirement, just as Labour has done in the past—from the Wilson Government, who first formally linked the uprating of pensions to the higher of earnings or prices, to the previous Labour Government, who lifted 1 million pensioners out of poverty. Labour introduced pension credit, which is vital in topping up the incomes of the poorest pensioners, with women consistently making up the majority of those benefiting since we first introduced it in 2003. This Government are ensuring that more pensioners get that extra income with the biggest ever campaign to increase take-up, which saw tens of thousands more pension credit awards in the year up to November than in the previous year.

In addition, our commitment to the triple lock for this Parliament means that women will see their state pension rise by up to £575 this year, with incomes up to £2,100 a year higher by the end of the Parliament. Indeed, overall spending on the state pension is set to be more than £30 billion higher a year by the end of this Parliament than in 2024-25. We are also putting record investment into the NHS, meaning that thousands more pensioners are getting the operations and treatment that they need, rather than being left in pain on waiting lists. This is the positive difference our Government are making.

I believe it was right to review the evidence and that, having done so, we have made the right decision based on due process and the body of evidence. At the same time, looking to the future, we are taking important steps to support women in retirement and help them to build a better life for themselves and their families. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

As constituency MPs, we will all have met many campaigners from the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign group—the WASPI women. I am sure that many Members will have received a large amount of correspondence on this matter recently. If they are anything like me—I have had 150 emails recently about it—they will really feel the strength of opinion out there. It is safe to say that both our constituents and us as Members of Parliament have been left wanting by this Government.

In December 2024, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), told this House that the Government would not compensate these women. Let me remind colleagues what her rationale was. She said that

“the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 168.]

She also tried to argue that they could not afford it because of holes in the Government finances. However, as my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly said:

“Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.”—[Official Report, 17 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 170.]

Before getting into government, it seems that Labour MPs did think that an injustice had been done. Let us remind our colleagues of what members of this Government have said in the past. The Prime Minister himself called this situation “a huge injustice”. The Deputy Prime Minister and Justice Secretary slammed the “cliff edge” that he said faced WASPI women. The Foreign Secretary said that she was

“fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”

The Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed to “want justice for WASPI women”. Even the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions got in on the action, putting out a social media post with the caption:

“MPs campaigning for a better deal for WASPI women.”

It is therefore no wonder that the WASPI women, who were promised so much, are so angry; the people who used to stand beside them have now turned against them.

If the Government really believed that these women had faced a great injustice, they would have found a way to compensate them. They could have avoided a deal with Mauritius that will cost us all £35 billion, but they chose not to. They could have found savings on our country’s benefits bill, but they chose not to. They had 14 years to prepare for government and are messing up by doing nothing.

That brings us to the statement from the Secretary of State today. Is it not convenient that he should choose a sitting day when most MPs are not here? It is almost as if he does not want to hear the criticism from his own Back Benchers. In reality, all that the Secretary of State is doing is announcing that nothing has changed and that the Government will not be compensating WASPI women.

I have a few questions. Given that the Secretary of State previously campaigned for a better deal for WASPI women, does he think that today’s announcement provides that better deal? In his statement, he tried to argue that this issue is somehow the Conservatives’ fault. However, he forgets that the maladministration that the previous Secretary of State apologised for was committed under the last Labour Government, before 2010—the ombudsman’s report made that explicit. Can the Secretary of State hold up his hands and take accountability for those mistakes?

This is a really interesting point. The Secretary of State chose to mention the triple lock in his statement and to say that the state pension will go up by up to £575 this year, with incomes expected to rise by up to £2,100 a year by the end of this Parliament. We all know that there is no cap on the triple lock. [Interruption.] There is no cap on it, but he made the point that that would rise by “up to” £2,100 a year. Is he implying that the triple lock is about to be capped? Will he confirm that he is apparently U-turning on the Government’s policy on the triple lock by imposing a cap?

Is it not just a fact that, frankly, this Government resemble a bunch of joyriders pulling handbrake turns in a Tesco car park, when Labour should be a serious party of government? Their Back Benchers keep being marched up the hill, only to be told to march down again. The Government even take the Whip away from them for having a conscience, only to tell them later that Ministers are proud to support policies for which support was only recently a sackable offence. Does the Secretary of State really think that this constant back and forth is fair on WASPI women? I look forward to his comments.

Welfare Spending

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments. I call the shadow Secretary of State to move the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman is not the only person who worries about it, and I will receive his intervention as a submission to the child poverty taskforce.

The child poverty taskforce is looking at all the levers we can pull—across income, costs, debt and local support—to prevent poverty, including social security reform. Our universal credit review is considering ways that the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances and provide roots into good work.

On the two-child limit specifically, the consequences of the Conservative choices made over the past decade and a half are clear for all to see. We have rightly said many times that we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we will pay for it. Taxpayers in this country—who include many parents, grandparents and those who care deeply about the fortunes of the next generation—have the right to know that they have a Government who will help grow our country and our economy. Poverty creates stony ground for that growth. It robs people of the dignity of being able to look after themselves and the choices about how to live their own lives. It robs children of what should be a worry-free time and makes them less able to take risks and try new things as they grow up.

This makes bad beginnings for a country that needs its next generation to be innovators, to be inventors and to build our future. I say this as one of three in a family with hard-working parents where money was tight. We knew every day in those years when I was growing up that the Tory Government at the helm did not give a stuff about people like us—we knew that every single day. Families in this country who are struggling should know that this Labour Government think about them every day. We have taken action to improve life for our kids, and we will keep fighting for that every single day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have two Opposition day debates that are both heavily subscribed, so we will start with a speaking limit of four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I want to finish my speech.

Poverty is, of course, a matter for Government. It is about policies and about incomes, but there is another important side to child poverty in this country that people are too uncomfortable to talk about: child maintenance and the absence of payments made in single-parent families. Research by the single-parent advocacy organisation Gingerbread found that 43% of children in single-parent families in the UK are living in poverty, compared with 26% in couple families. We know that poverty has many causes and there is no single solution, but there is clear evidence that when child maintenance is paid in full, it has a significant impact in lifting children out of poverty. Research shows that where it is received, child maintenance cuts the child poverty rate by 25%.

Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report found that 57% of parents who care for a child and had a child maintenance arrangement in place reported that they did not receive the full amount. The amounts involved are significant. At the end of September 2024, total cumulative arrears of payments that were formally expected stood at £682.1 million, and that figure is due to reach £1 billion by the end of the decade. That is just a fraction of the story, because those figures are based only on the sometimes quite pitiful amounts that non-custodial parents have to pay, either because they earn little or because they hide what they earn. Those figures also do not include parents who are not pursued for money by the custodial parent.

Absent parents are denying children much higher amounts of money than the official figures suggest, and there is a deep unfairness to that. If a custodial parent simply chose not to provide any more resources to the child they care for, they would face criminal sanction for neglect. A non-custodial parent who does not give money for the upkeep of their child faces no similar ramifications. I have no idea why we do not place an expectation on a non-custodial parent to make the same efforts to find work and earn money as we do with out-of-work people on benefits, as they are also creating a burden on the taxpayer.

As the Minister may know, there is legislation that allows steps to be taken to place non-paying parents in home detention. I urge her and the Government to look closely at that. If people cannot be bothered to go out, work and pay for their children when they do not live with them, they should not be allowed out on a Saturday night to drink beers with their mates. That would help to drive down the huge amount of money that is owed to children by parents who are simply not paying for them—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The speaking limit has now been reduced to three minutes.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Sometimes politics seems complicated. Sometimes the passage of a Bill through Parliament, especially with antics and shenanigans like those we saw last week, may confuse people. But actually, the issue before all of us when we vote tonight is very simple. Today, Wednesday 9 July 2025, are Labour MPs going to vote through cuts to universal credit that will take £2 billion from 750,000 sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes—people who will have been judged not fit to work? Will we put our name to a Bill that will, on average, take £3,000 off every single one of those 750,000 people? I think that if we had not had the complications with the Bill the week before, Labour MPs would find it very easy. They would see a Bill that asks us to take billions of pounds from low-income people in our constituencies across the country and find it very easy to vote no.

I ask my friends on the Labour Benches to cast their minds back to when they were first selected and first elected. None of us got into politics to take £3,000 a year off low-income people who are sick and disabled and on universal credit. It has been said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. People outside this Chamber see the issue before us very clearly indeed. The Bill is being railroaded through, disabled people’s voices are being excluded, and when colleagues say, “Don’t listen to those who say we shouldn’t press on,” that means, “Don’t listen to disabled people.” I think we should listen to disabled people, and not one disabled people’s organisation supports the changes.

The reason the Bill is being rushed through a Committee of the whole House, rather than a Committee where disabled people and their organisations—people with lived experience—could talk to the MPs on the Committee, is because of a politically imposed artificial deadline that is there to save face. I welcome the changes made last week as a result of pressure from disabled people and Back-Bench MPs, but we are voting tonight on taking money off people on low incomes. We are voting tonight on whether we think, after saying last week that it was wrong to have a two-tier PIP system, that it is right to have a two-tier universal credit system.

The reality is that people will remember how we vote tonight. It has been said before, but I will say it again: some votes define us. They define us as politicians and they define how we view our time in Parliament. Disabled people who come to see us in our constituency surgeries will not understand if we, as Labour people, vote for this cut to universal credit tonight or abstain. We will live with that vote in every single constituency surgery between now and the next general election.

Let us take a step back and imagine that we did not have a Whip system in this House. Of course, all of us agree on 99% of things all the time. That is the reality, but if this were not a whipped vote, I think the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote with their conscience and with their disabled constituents against cutting universal credit. All the rest is sophistry. We will live with this vote. It is often said that the longer the statement on Twitter from an MP after a vote, the worse the decision they must have made. You start at the first sentence and by the time you get to the end, the constituents are thinking, “Did they? Did they really vote for that after all they said on the TV, in their tweets and in the Chamber?”

We are Labour people. This is not a left and right issue in the Labour party; this is a right and wrong issue. I say this: any Labour MP who votes against these cuts to low-income people on universal credit tonight will sleep soundly, knowing that they did all they could, on £90,000-odd a year, to stand up for their disabled constituents. That is what we got into politics to do. We should not plough ahead. We should vote this out.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against amendment (a) to amendment 2, amendments 45 and 52, and new clause 12.

The creation of the modern welfare state by the 1945 Labour Government remains one of our proudest legacies. At its heart was the powerful idea that people should be protected from hardship and supported to realise their full potential. Underpinning that vision was a clear principle: everyone who can work should work, not just for the dignity and agency work brings, but because it is the most effective route out of poverty. Children in workless households are five times more likely to grow up poor than those in households where every adult works.

That principle holds true today, but it is under strain. One in 10 working-age people is out of the labour market; among young people, that figure is one in eight. This is not a global trend, but a challenge unique to the UK, rooted in the welfare system’s design. Too often, that system locks people with health conditions and disabilities out of work; too often, it penalises attempts to get ahead and fails to offer real support; too often, it writes people off.

Disabled people in the UK have an employment rate 29% lower than those without disabilities and face a wider unemployment gap than many of their international peers. Their poverty rate is 10% higher. This is not compassion. We owe it to these individuals and to the welfare state’s founding principles to fix this problem. We cannot avoid change or fall back on impractical slogans—to do so would be to abandon those who most need help.

Yet that is what these amendments and new clauses do. I shall start with amendments 45 and 52 and new clause 12, tabled by the Opposition, whose Benches are empty. These measures reveal a lack of seriousness and of a plan. The Tories presided over this crisis of opportunity and soaring claimancy. They failed to reform the system, to address the disability employment gap or to tackle fraud, which tripled on their watch. Throughout this debate, they have been unable to explain their alternative—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), whom it is good to see in his place, recently admitted as much, saying that he could not say exactly what he would do—so they resort to gimmicks.

Amendment 45 demands that all assessments be face-to-face, forgetting that it was the Conservatives who cut face-to-face assessments by 90%. If there were an Olympic event for brass neck, they would win the gold medal every time. This proposal is unworkable, denying frontline managers discretion—a fact the Conservatives essentially admit in the small print. It is also unnecessary; unlike the Conservatives in government, this Government are restoring most assessments back to being face-to-face.

The same applies to amendment 52 and new clause 12. PIP already has strict residency and qualification rules and is needs based. These proposals would not effect meaningful change, but would slow down reform. Once again, this is gesture politics—the Conservatives do not have a plan.

While the Opposition admit a problem but offer no plan, amendment (a) to amendment 2 seems, I fear, to deny that there is a problem at all, proposing simply to remove all changes to the LCWRA. The changes those behind the amendment want to scrap are vital to rebalancing the system, which will not just remove disincentives to work but enable the largest above-inflation increase in basic jobseeker benefits since the 1970s. These benefits will rise £725 a year for 6.5 million people by 2029, helping 15,000 people in my constituency. Removing these changes risks losing measures that would lift 50,000 children out of poverty.

None of this is easy. We are talking about real lives, not abstract policies. I understand the anxiety this debate causes, but freezing the system in aspic and ignoring its failings would lock in current injustices and create future problems. We should start reform by reaffirming the system’s basic purpose: to protect and treat all with dignity, but also to empower people and give them true agency. That means recognising that some cannot work, ensuring protection for the vulnerable, and listening to and co-producing with disabled people. However, it also means ensuring that those who can work do so, offering support and holding employers to account. I believe that the Government’s proposals do so.

Just as Attlee’s Government reimagined the role of the state after the war, so we must reimagine it now after the upheavals of the pandemic, economic change and rising ill health. The world has changed, and our welfare system must do so too. We must reform the system—not in spite of Labour values, but because of them.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Colleagues have described the events surrounding this Bill as “chaotic” and “shambolic”, and they were right to do so. Sadly, by failing to consult on key elements, the Government were setting up the Bill to fail. Moreover, the Government’s impact assessment is, I fear, somewhat misleading, because it bakes in cuts that the previous Government had planned, but not actually implemented. As a result, I am somewhat cautious of some of the Government’s figures.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, the Bill has been irresponsibly rushed through. If we are serious about helping some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, the best way to do so is to engage with them, take time, and get the right results for them. As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I wish to highlight amendment 12, which would provide that engagement and, most of all, the due diligence that we deserve. If the amendment falls, I would encourage colleagues to vote against the Bill tonight.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

So here we are. Labour has had 15 years, including 14 years spent complaining about welfare reform while the Conservative Government fixed the catastrophic mess of unemployment benefits that we inherited—the alphabetti spaghetti of welfare that we had in 2010, if any of their Members can remember it. We fixed all those benefit traps, introducing universal credit, making work pay and supporting people off welfare and into jobs. In the first decade of our time in government, 100,000 fewer people were economically inactive every single year of the 2010s. In 2019 we had the lowest number of workless households since records began. Then covid hit, and Labour were clamouring for more welfare throughout that period. After the covid incident, as we left office we were introducing reforms to fix the health and disability benefits system. All of that was opposed every step of the way by Labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I am happy to give way.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?

[Olivia Blake]

I want to pull up the shadow Minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years and thus there is a backlog of women now accessing their right to benefits relating to ADHD? Many women like me were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders instead of ADHD.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Pension Schemes Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

The right hon. Member invites me to skip quite a long way forward in my speech, and it is a long speech.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Ah.

[Torsten Bell]

That was not the support I was hoping for from the Chair—understandable, but harsh. I will come to some of the points that the right hon. Member raises. I think he is referring particularly to pre-1997 indexation, which I shall come to.

As I said, the Bill includes a reserved power that will allow the Government to require larger auto-enrolment schemes to invest a set percentage into wider assets. That reflects the wider calls that have been made for this change but have not led to its taking place. What pension providers are saying is that they face a collective action problem, where employers focus too narrowly on the lowest charges, not what matters most to savers: the highest returns. I do not currently intend to use the power in the Bill, but its existence gives clarity to the industry that, this time, change will actually come.

Some argue—I will come to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier)—that this somehow undermines the duty that pension providers have to savers. That is simply wrong. First, the Bill includes clear safeguards to prioritise savers’ interests and is entirely consistent with the core principle of trustees’ fiduciary duties. Clause 38 includes an explicit mechanism, which I have discussed with Members from the main three parties in this House, to allow providers to opt out if complying risks material detriment to savers. Secondly—this is the key point that motivates a lot of the Bill—savers are being let down by the status quo. There is a reason major pension schemes across the rest of the world are already investing in this more diverse range of assets.

Fragmentation within the pensions industry happens within providers, not just between them. Some insurers have thousands of legacy funds, so clause 41 extends to contract schemes the ability that trust-based schemes already have to address that. Providers will be able to transfer savers to another arrangement without proactive individual consent if, and only if, it is independently certified as being in the member’s best interest.

Another point that I hope is of common ground across the House is that we need to do more to realise the untapped potential of the local government pension scheme in England and Wales. We need scale to get the most out of the LGPS’s £400 billion-worth of assets. Again, the Bill will turn that consensus into concrete action. It provides for LGPS assets spread across 86 administering authorities to be fully consolidated into six pools. That will ensure that the assets used to provide pensions to its more than 6 million members—predominantly low-paid women—are managed effectively and at scale. Each authority will continue to set its investment strategy, including how much local investment it expects to see. In fact, these reforms will build on the LGPS’s strong track record of investing in local economic growth, requiring pension pools to work with the likes of mayoral combined authorities. In time, bigger and more visible LGPS pools will help to crowd private pension funds and other institutional investors into growth assets across the country.

Our measures will build scale, support investment and deliver for savers, but the Bill does more to ensure that working people get the maximum bang for every buck saved. To reinforce the shift away from an excessively narrow focus on costs, clause 5 provides for a new value-for-money framework. For the first time, we will require pension schemes to prove that they provide value for money, with standardised metrics. That will help savers to compare schemes more easily, and drive schemes themselves to focus on the value that they deliver. For persistently poor performers, regulators will have the power to enforce consolidation. That will protect savers from getting stuck in poorly performing schemes—something that can knock thousands of pounds off their pension pots.

We are also at last addressing the small pension pots issue. I was out door-knocking in Swansea earlier this spring, and a woman in her mid-30s told me that something was really winding her up—and it was not me knocking on the door. [Laughter.] This is a very unsupportive audience. It was trying to keep track of small amounts of pension savings that she had from old jobs; the only thing that was worse was that her husband kept going on about it. There are now 13 million small pension pots that hold £1,000 or less floating around. Another million are being added each year. That increases hassle, which is what she was complaining about, with over £31 billion-worth of pension pots estimated to currently be lost. It costs the pensions industry around £240 million each year to administer. Clause 20 provides powers for those pots to be automatically brought together into one pension scheme that has been certified as delivering good value. Anyone who wants to can of course opt out, but this change alone could boost the pension pot of an average earner by around £1,000.

Of course, once you have a pension pot, the question is: what do you do with it? We often talk about pension freedoms, but there is nothing liberating about the complexity currently involved in turning a pension pot into a retirement income. You have to consolidate those pots, choose between annuities, lump sums, drawdowns or cashing out. You have to analyse different providers and countless products. Choice can be a good thing, but this overwhelming complexity is not—77% of DC savers yet to access their pension have no clear plan about how to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The earlier people start putting money in, the better. As a result of compound interest, over many years they will end up with a bigger pension pot, even if at the beginning the contribution is quite small; the amount aggregates over a long period. We will discuss that in Committee.

We are concerned about the lack of detail in the Bill. Too much is left to the discretion of regulators and to secondary legislation. Parliament deserves to have proper oversight of these reforms. From my discussions with the industry, it seems there is tentative support for many of the reforms in the Bill. However, the message that keeps coming back is that the devil will be in the detail, so I hope that as this Bill makes progress through the House, the Minister will be able to fill in more of the blanks—and I am sure he will; he is a diligent individual.

I move on to the most important thing that this Bill hopes to achieve: growth. We want to support Labour Members on the growth agenda, but too often they go about it in slightly the wrong way. Surpluses in defined-benefit pension schemes are a great example. Interest rates have risen post-covid, and that has pushed many schemes into surplus. In principle, we support greater flexibility when it comes to the extraction of these surpluses, but there need to be robust safeguards; that is certainly the message coming back from the industry.

Under the legislation, there is nothing to stop these surpluses being used for share buy-backs or dividend payments from the host employer, for instance. Neither of these outcomes necessarily help the Government’s growth agenda. We would welcome a strengthening of the Bill to prevent trustees from facing undue pressure from host employers to release funds for non-growth purposes. In addition, to provide stability, the Government should carefully consider whether low dependency, rather than buy-out levels, will future-proof the funds, so that they do not fall back into deficit.

Although the Government are keen to extract surpluses from the private sector, there is not the same gusto shown in the Bill when it comes to local government pensions. The House has discussed in detail the Chancellor’s fiscal rules, not least earlier today. Under the revised rules introduced by the Chancellor, the measure of public debt has shifted from public sector net debt to public sector net financial liabilities. As a consequence, the local government pension scheme’s record £45 billion surplus is now counted as an asset that offsets Government debt. This gives the Chancellor greater headroom to meet her fiscal targets—headroom that, dare I say it, is shrinking week by week. I do not wish to sound cynical, but perhaps that is the reason why the Bill is largely silent on better using these surpluses. This may be a convenient accounting trick for the Chancellor, but the surpluses could have been used, for instance, to give councils pension scheme payment holidays. The Government could make it easier to follow the example set by Kensington and Chelsea, which has suspended employer pension contributions for a year to fund support to victims and survivors of the 2017 Grenfell Tower tragedy. These revenue windfalls could be redirected towards a range of initiatives, from local growth opportunities such as business incubators to improving our high streets. We could even leave more money in council tax payers’ pockets.

I turn to the part of the Bill on which we have our most fundamental disagreement: the provisions on mandation. The Bill reserves the power to mandate pension funds to invest in Government priorities. That not only goes against trustees’ fiduciary duties—although I appreciate and recognise the point the Minister made earlier—but means potentially worse outcomes for savers. Pensions are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they represent a lifetime of work, sacrifice, and hope for a secure future. The people who manage these funds and their trustees are under a legal duty to prioritise the financial wellbeing of savers. Their job is not to obey political whims, but to invest prudently, grow pension pots and uphold the trust placed in them by millions of ordinary people.

That fiduciary duty is not a technicality; it is the bedrock of confidence that the entire pension system rests on. These pension fund managers find the safest and best investments for our pensions, no matter where in the world they might be. If things go wrong, we can hold them to account. But if this reserve power becomes law, we have to ask the question: if investments go wrong, who carries the can? Will it be the pension fund manager and the trustees, or the Government, who did the mandation?

Likewise, while the reserve power in the Bill focuses on the defined-contribution market, the shift in emphasis has potentially profound impacts across the sector. UK pension funds, along with insurance companies, hold approximately 30% of the UK Government’s debt or gilt market. If mature defined-benefit schemes move from the gilt market to equities, that potentially has a profound impact on the Government’s debt management, or ability to manage debt, and therefore interest rates and mortgage rates. For that reason, we would welcome the Minister confirming whether any concerns have been raised by the Debt Management Office, and possibly the Bank of England. There is widespread opposition from across the industry to this power—I am approaching the end of my speech, you will be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker. There are better ways for the Government to deliver growth, such as changing obsolete rules and removing restrictions.

In the annuity market, solvency rules prevent insurers from owning equity in productive UK assets. Wind farms, for example, deliver stable returns through contracts for difference and contribute to the Government’s green agenda. They could be an ideal match for long-term annuity investments, while also delivering clean energy. Releasing the limits on the ability of insurers to fully deploy annuity capital has the potential to unlock as much as £700 billion by 2035, according to research by Aviva. Rather than imposing top-down mandates, we want the Government to maximise growth opportunities from our pension industry by turning over every stone and seeking out the unintended consequences of old regulations, not imposing new ones.

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you will be delighted to hear. [Interruption.] Yes, I have taken a lot of interventions. We reaffirm our commitment to working constructively with the Government. Stability in the markets is of paramount importance, and we recognise the need for a collaborative approach as the Bill progresses through the House. We will bring forward amendments where we believe improvements can be made, and we will engage in good faith with Ministers and officials to get the detail right.

We want to go with, not against, the grain of what the Government are seeking to achieve through this Bill, and I look forward to working with the Minister in the weeks and months ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Chair of the Select Committee, Debbie Abrahams, after whom I will call Steve Darling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

I understand what my hon. Friend says. There is always a balance to be found with long-term financial decisions, but this is partly a political decision, so I point to the Pensions Minister to come up with a response.

Do the Government propose to consult on the design of the mandation power and how to mitigate against unintended consequences? Do the Government think that there is a case for changing the law on fiduciary duty to make clear that trustees can take account of wider issues, such as the impact of pension scheme investments on the economy and the environment? What would be the pros and cons of doing that?

Briefly, I would like to touch on the LGPS. I slightly disagree with some of the shadow Pensions Minister’s points. Since 2015, the 86 funds have been formed into eight groups. If the Pensions Minister is proposing to reduce that still further, will he set out the reasons behind that? What is the problem that merging them even further is trying to fix? Will he let me know about that in his closing remarks?

Finally, I would like to touch on the pre-1997 indexation, as the Pensions Minister knew that I would. At the end of March 2024, the Pension Protection Fund had a surplus of £13.2 billion. The PPF has taken steps to reduce the levy from £620 million in 2020 to £100 million in 2025. However, under current rules, if it made the decision to reduce the levy to zero, it would then be unable to increase it again. The 2022 departmental review by the Department for Work and Pensions recommended that the PPF and the DWP work together to introduce changes to the levy, so that the PPF would have more flexibility in reducing and increasing the levy level.

There is another issue, which the Pensions Minister will know about. PPF and financial assistance scheme members, particularly those in their later years, are really struggling. I came across a piece—I think it was in The Daily Telegraph—that said that one of the key supporters of the Pension Action Group and a FAS member, Jacquie Humphrey died a few days ago, just 11 weeks after the death of her husband. They were both employed by Dexion, which folded, and, like hundreds of others, refused to leave it there. Is there any comfort that we can provide? I understand and recognise what the Minister says about the PPF surplus being on the public sector’s balance sheet, but given that these people, who are in their 70s and 80s, are unable to live in dignity, what can we do to provide that for them in their later years?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Jennie seems to have captured the mood of the House, but I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

It is safe to say that the topic of today’s debate has been my overriding focus in recent months. I thank my constituents and all organisations for their input, as well as the Secretary of State and the wider DWP team for listening to concerns, and indeed for acting on them with recent amendments.

The Bill will raise the universal credit standard allowance by the largest increase since the 1970s. It will help 3.9 million families with an average gain of £265 a year, bringing us closer, finally, to ensuring that every family can afford the essentials without relying on charity or community support. I wholeheartedly welcome this as part of the Government’s wider efforts to rebalance universal credit to better reward work and improve basic adequacy, along with an end to reassessment for those with the most severe conditions and an end to work capability assessments, as well as the right to try work without the risk of losing existing entitlements and crucial increased investment in health and into work pathways.

However, the undeniable focus of the Bill has been changes to the personal independence payment. I truly thank my Clwyd North constituents for their time and their trust in sharing their stories so openly. To them, I say: I hear you, and will continue to represent you. So many of my constituents have been desperately worried about what the eligibility changes mean for them; this concern is real, and it must be taken seriously. One constituent said to me:

“Every time I turn on the news, it’s there. I’ve looked at the changes and I know they won’t affect my payments, but I keep wondering if I’ve got it right…and it’s causing me real anxiety.”

That level of fear is hugely regrettable, and is a responsibility we all share.

Thanks to the incredible support of advice organisations in Clwyd North, many of my constituents have navigated the complex PIP system—one, by the way, that is too reliant on appeals and outside agencies—and now have some stability in meeting daily costs, which remain far too high for far too many. It is right that the Government have listened to these concerns, and I welcome the Government’s amendments to protect existing claimants and the accelerated review of PIP assessments with a stronger commitment to co-production with disabled people.

However, it is also right to recognise that the system is not working as it should be. It is right that we recognise that too many believe that they have nothing to offer and that their health, and particularly their mental health, defines what they can do. It is also right that we stop that belief being passed on to the next generation—something I have seen far too often as a teacher—and stop too many young people feeling that they do not belong in the social networks and financial independence that good work provides.

The expected soaring reliance on PIP reflects the woeful lack of health and local support that has been offered until now. Areas such as mine have sought to fill this gap, with services that create bespoke pathways to work—like the pathway trod by my constituent whose life changed forever when he was helped out of his bedroom, which he had stayed in for years while struggling with his mental health, and into stable work in our local hospitality sector. There are many more like him. We must turbocharge that support, working closely with health services to provide the wraparound care that people need. And, as an inactivity trailblazer area, Clwyd North is determined to lead this effort.

Reform is endlessly challenging, but it is necessary as the system we inherited is not working. It is a hugely ambitious challenge and requires us to be bold and determined. I came into politics to be bold, and I will work tirelessly to make real change happen. And it is with that belief that I support this Bill today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Steve Witherden—not here. I call Ian Byrne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have run out of time. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the shambles this afternoon, with the Bill being ripped apart literally before our eyes in this Chamber and the Minister unable even to tell us how much it will now save, can you please advise me whether it should still be rushed through to be debated next week in Committee of the whole House, or whether the Government should in fact withdraw it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

Programming committee

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act;

(b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing—

(i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit;

(ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

That was a powerful and long question, and I am glad that Conservative Members listened to every word of it, because they left us 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—that is what a disgrace looks like. What is happening now? We have seen falling numbers of NEETs over the past quarter and the past year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

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

Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane]

Over 4,500 people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire claim PIP, and they are not just anxious, as you put it; they are seriously worried that they are going to lose the payments and, with them, their independence. Contrary to what you said—sorry, contrary to what the Minister said—the Government’s own data suggests that 85% of people getting standard payments and 11.5% of those getting enhanced payments will lose support under the proposed changes. What steps is the Minister taking to support those who will be affected, including to make sure that their health and eligible care needs are met and, most importantly, that they can maintain their independence?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is really important for claimants of PIP that its funding should be sustainable into the future. The trajectory of the past few years has been unsustainable. We are taking action to put that right. The hon. Member is wrong to say that because people did not get four points last time, they will not keep their PIP. As I said, the view of the OBR, which I think is correct, is that most of them will. We are consulting on how to support those who will lose their PIP as a result of the changes that we have announced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No. Members will be voting for reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far too long. We are putting that right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not sure whether the shadow Minister wants me to go further or not so far—he seems to be facing both ways. He is right that we are not at this point proposing any changes to the Motability scheme.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I congratulate, through my hon. Friend, those in his constituency on the fantastic work that he has described. I recently visited an incredible supported internship programme that helps young people with learning disabilities to get work and stay in work, including in our local NHS and with our local hotel voco in the heart of Leicester. This Government are determined to tackle the disability employment gap, which fell under the last Labour Government, although movement stalled under the Tories. We are going to turn this around with the biggest ever investment in employment support, introducing mandatory disability pay gap reporting and looking at what more we can do to support brilliant employers, like the one my hon. Friend described, to recruit and retain more disabled people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call shadow Secretary of State.

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

More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing to improve mental health support for people in this country and to make sure that it is treated with equal importance to physical health: we have made significant progress towards recruiting the additional 8,500 mental health workers we said we would recruit in our manifesto to reduce delays and provide support; we have confirmed funding to help an extra 380,000 patients get access to talking therapies; and we are investing the biggest ever amount in employment support for sick and disabled people. I say to the hon. Lady, who left 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, that it is about time she apologised to the country and made up her mind about whether she will back our reforms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I remind Members that topical questions and answers should be brief.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T2. My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I commend my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, including his seminal 2022 independent review. He is right that care leavers need support as they move to independent living. The Department for Work and Pensions at the moment exempts care leavers from the shared accommodation rate, and provides support toward sustained employment and career progression. We will certainly consider if there is more that we can do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Andrew Rosindell—not here.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

T7. Emma from Tring is one of my constituents who has said that these changes to disability benefits will mean that they will have to come out of a career in the NHS. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those who are terrified about losing their work after changes to disability allowance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I am very sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Member’s constituent. If she would like a meeting with me, I am very happy to give her that, and I am also happy to look into the matter, as she suggests.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

Previous changes in eligibility for disability benefits have resulted in significant adverse health impacts, including an additional 600 suicides in 2010 and 130,000 more people with new onset mental health conditions in 2017. What estimates have the Government undertaken of the impacts on health of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading next week?

Winter Fuel Payment

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

On 21 May, the Prime Minister told this House that the Government wanted to extend eligibility for winter fuel payments to a wider range of pensioners in England and Wales. Today we are setting out how this will happen for the coming winter and the years ahead. This will provide certainty for pensioners and ensure that payments can be made swiftly and automatically, which is our priority. I hope this statement will also answer many of the questions that hon. Members have raised with me and others in recent weeks.

Let me set out for the House how this system will work. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from support, as will all those on pension credit and other income-related benefits. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone aged over 80, will be made to all pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered via His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs without the need for them to take any action. This will be via PAYE for the majority, or in their self-assessment tax return for those who already complete one. No one will be brought into tax or into self-assessment just to repay their winter fuel payment. Those that prefer not to receive a payment can opt out of receiving it. As was previously the case before July 2024, where the household is not getting an income-related benefit and there is more than one pensioner in the household, shared payments split across the recipients will be made.

This Government have had to make tough decisions. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment—[Interruption.] I thought the Conservative party supported means-testing the winter fuel payment. We will find out in this debate shortly. We have had to make take tough decisions because of the disaster left by the Conservative party. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment on grounds of fairness and fiscal sustainability. Most people accept that it makes no sense to pay hundreds of pounds to pensioners irrespective of their incomes. Those on the highest incomes do not need it, and there are many other calls on public spending.

The Government have, however, listened to concerns about the level of the means test. We are acting to ensure that all lower-income pensioners receive support. The new individual £35,000 threshold is significantly above the income of pensioners in poverty, and broadly in line with average earnings. It will mean that the vast majority—over three quarters, or 9 million pensioners—will benefit from a winter fuel payment. This change ensures that the means-testing of winter fuel payments has no effect on pensioner poverty.

Means-testing the winter fuel payment in England and Wales like this will save around £450 million a year, subject to certification by the Office for Budget Responsibility, compared with the system of universal payments. It will cost around £1.25 billion in England and Wales, compared with the position last winter. Decisions about the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland remain for their devolved Administrations in the usual way. As the Prime Minister has previously set out, these are changes that will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, the autumn Budget. That will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside the latest forecast from the OBR. We will ensure that the Government’s non-negotiable fiscal rules are met.

We are setting out these changes before the summer to ensure that more pensioners receive support this winter. Regulations will be laid in the coming months to ensure that the payments are made, and tax changes will be legislated for in the Finance Bill.

I want to spell out clearly today that pensioners do not need to do anything. Winter fuel payments will be paid automatically this winter to all pensioners who receive the state pension, pension credit or anyone who has previously received a winter fuel payment. Similarly, payments will be recovered automatically through the tax system for those with an income of over £35,000.

Pensioners will also continue to receive wider support. Our pension credit take-up campaign has seen almost 60,000 awards made. I thank hon. Members on both sides of this House, local authorities and charities for their work on that campaign. Over 12 million pensioners right across the UK are also benefiting from the triple lock. The full new state pension is set to increase by up to £1,900 a year over this Parliament as a result. I commend that support for pensioners, and this statement, to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend sets out the principle case for means-testing the winter fuel payment very well indeed. I do not think that anybody with common sense thinks it right that millionaires receive each year from the Exchequer hundreds of pounds towards their winter fuel payments—people have recognised that for years. The Government are making the tough choice of saying that that we will no longer pay the winter fuel payment in that way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Our country needs stability. I fear that this policy is from the book on how to botch running the country. Although last year’s decision was wrong and this change is right—the Liberal Democrats had long campaigned against those proposals, and it is important to acknowledge Independent Age, Silver Voices and Age UK, which have all driven the change—a Government who wobble do not give us the stability we need for our economy.

Some 300,000 pensioners in Devon and Cornwall have been worried sick about the proposals, so why did the Government not implement this approach 12 months ago? The Government comms have not been clear on single pensioner households, about which there are grave concerns, so will the Minister provide clarity on that matter? What about households in which there are pensioners on higher and lower rates—how will they be treated? Finally, may I have assurances that the Government will continue to push hard on pension credit? For the poorest pensioners, it can offer a boost of £11,000 a year to their income, which is the real way to tackle pensioner poverty in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

This is why I am confused. What is the position of the Conservative party? Is it to support means-testing of the winter fuel payment—yes or no? Are you going to send out the shadow Chancellor to give a speech—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “Are you going to send?” I do not think the Minister is speaking to the Chair.

[Torsten Bell]

Is the Conservative party going to send out the shadow Chancellor to give a speech in which I cannot tell whether he is apologising for Liz Truss, then come to this House the very next week and call for universal winter fuel payments? If the Conservatives are calling for universal winter fuel payments, they need to set out how that will be funded. This is a Government who have made their choice. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment, because millionaires should not receive it. If the Conservatives do not know what their policy is on that, they will not know their policy on anything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

I welcome the decision today, and I am delighted to hear the announcement from the Minister. Let us be crystal clear: this is a direct result of the progress that this Labour Government are making in turning around our economy. For my constituents, however, the future of the winter fuel payment—or its equivalent—lies in the hands of the Scottish Government. Can the Minister confirm that the Barnett consequentials to Scotland resulting from today’s announcement will exceed what the Scottish Government are already planning to spend on their equivalent of the winter fuel allowance? [Hon. Members: “Will the hon. Lady give way?”] Will he join me in urging the Scottish Government to follow suit and ensure that the additional funds that are provided due to today’s decision will restore the full winter fuel payment to all those who need it in—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Please be seated. I do not need any help with managing the Chamber, but questions need to be short. Minister, let us have a short, sharp answer.

[Torsten Bell]

My short, sharp answer is that wages have grown in the first 10 months of this Government faster than in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government. Interest rates have been cut four times. My hon. Friend is right to say that progress is being made, and that needs to continue. We need to ensure that more people feel the benefits of that growth in their pockets. The changes we are making to winter fuel payments today are one of those benefits. I can confirm that there will be a block grant adjustment exactly as she sets out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I give another reminder to colleagues that questions must be short, as must answers. Otherwise, many colleagues will be disappointed.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I share the deep concerns of my constituents about the loss of the winter fuel payment, which the Minister will know I relayed to the Department. I am glad that the Government have acted on those concerns and reviewed the threshold so that the majority of pensioners will receive the payment this winter. Does the Minister agree that in stabilising the economy we are now in a better position to do what Labour Governments have always done best: protecting the vulnerable in our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, which I know will be greatly welcomed by my constituents. Over 14 years, we became used to a Government who did not listen and did not change course when circumstances changed, so I for one am grateful for a Labour Government who do so.

While there was an uptick in pension credit—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Question!

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Will the Minister commit himself again to working with local government and devolved Administrations to increase the number of people receiving pension credit, so that pensioners on the lowest incomes do not lose out but receive the support that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We could have gone faster in the past hour and 10 minutes if the Minister was faster with his answers.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I have worked hard with Citizens Advice Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole in my constituency to get pensioners on to pension credit. However, on the doorstep, I have met far too many people, especially single women, who are £10—or even £1—over the threshold for pension credit. I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for listening to my constituents’ concerns about the threshold. Does he agree that this policy shows the difference between this Government and the previous one? This Government are doing what is necessary to get stability in our economy, what is fair to get money back into our public services, and what is right to protect the vulnerable in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the statement. I will allow the Front Benchers a moment to shuffle over.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 18—Consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.

Government new clause 19—Devolved benefits.

Government new clause 20—Powers of Scottish Ministers.

New clause 1—Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance—

“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—

(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;

(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and

(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”

This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

New clause 2—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—

“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.

(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—

(a) prepare a report on the review, and

(b) submit the report to the Minister.

(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—

(a) publish it, and

(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”

This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.

New clause 3—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—

“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.

(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—

(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or

(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.

(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and

(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.

(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—

(a) published;

(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and

(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.

(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”

This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

New clause 4—Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—

“(1) For the purposes of this section, “system” means—

(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and

(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning;

provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—

(a) commenced;

(b) amended; or

(c) discontinued;

the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.”

This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.

New clause 5—Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to account holders—

“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person who—

(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or

(b) the Minister reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.

(2) In this section “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

New clause 6—Review of whistle blowing processes in relation to public sector fraud—

“(1) Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of whistle blowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector.

(2) A review conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistle blowing processes;

(b) barriers to reporting fraud and reasons for under reporting of fraud; and

(c) recommendations for change.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing—

(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and

(b) a timetable for the delivery of any recommendations for change within six months of the completion of the review.”

New clause 7—Overpayments made as a result of official error—

“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””

This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

New clause 8—Offence of fraud against a public authority—

“(1) A person who-

(a) commits,

(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or

(c) encourages the committal of,

fraud against a public authority commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”

New clause 9—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.

(2) The powers to be applied must include–

(a) the power of arrest;

(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”

New clause 10—Liability orders—

“(1) Where a person–

(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,

(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and

(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,

the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.

(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—

(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;

(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and

(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

New clause 11—Publication of results of pilot schemes—

“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2.”

New clause 12—Report on cost implications for banks—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”

New clause 13—Annual reporting of amounts recovered—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.

(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”

New clause 14—Impact of Act on vulnerable customers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”

New clause 15—Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.

(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out–

(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and

(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);

(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;

(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.

(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—

(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,

(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and

(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—

(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and

(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”

New clause 21—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—

“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”

(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””

New clause 22—Impact of Act on people with protected characteristics—

“The Secretary of State must, prior to making regulations under section 103 to bring into force any provision of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on people with protected characteristics who are in receipt of social security benefits.”

This new clause would ensure any impact of the Bill on people with protected characteristics in receipt of social security benefits was examined prior to the Act’s implementation.

New clause 23—Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic—

“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,

(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—

(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and

(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions,

may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,

(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and

(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.

(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—

(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or

(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,

the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out “10” and insert “28.”

Government amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 33, after “notice” insert

“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.

Amendment 80, page 3, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “28”.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, after “notice” insert

“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.

Amendment 19, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 81, page 4, line 10, at end insert—

“(7) Where a person has applied for a review of an information notice, the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) is to be treated as beginning on the day after which the outcome of the review is notified to the person to whom the information notice was given.”

Government amendments 25 to 29.

Amendment 1, in clause 64, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 30, 31, 76, 75, 32 and 33.

Amendment 2, page 40, line 36, leave out clause 74.

This amendment removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 3, in clause 75, page 41, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 34 to 43.

Amendment 8, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—

“(a) the liable person agrees, or

(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”

This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 10, page 56, line 16, leave out clause 91.

Government amendments 79, 78, 77, 74, 73 and 44.

Amendment 4, in clause 103, page 63, line 29, leave out from start to “following” in line 32 and insert—

“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.

(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.

(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”

This amendment which would delay the implementation of the whole Act until the findings of the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

Amendment 20, page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.

(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”

Government amendments 72 and 45.

Amendment 5, page 73, line 6, leave out schedule 3.

This amendment is related to Amendment 2 and removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—

“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”

This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.

Amendment 22, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit.”

Amendment 6, page 84, leave out line 12

This amendment would remove pension credit from being a “relevant benefit” for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 71, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert—

“remove types of benefit from the definition of”.

This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.

Amendment 7, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.

This amendment ensure that the bill can only be used in relation to benefits listed in the Bill.

Amendment 21, page 84, line 25, after “money” insert

“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”

Government amendments 46 to 67.

Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.

This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.

Government amendments 68 and 69.

Amendment 12, page 111, line 18, leave out schedule 6.

Government amendment 70.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.

This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Just for the record, in case Hansard did not pick that up, that was Jenny the dog crossing the Floor, not a Member of Parliament.

[Andrew Western]

I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) is grateful to you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if I am not, as Jenny would always be most welcome on this side of the House.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we do have the legislation required to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Over the past few months, it has been one thing after another for the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people. The recently announced cuts to welfare will affect 6% of the population in Wales, according to Policy in Practice, punishing the sick and disabled. This Bill adds to that punishment by increasing state financial surveillance of welfare recipients. It is full of intrusive measures, from granting access to three months of bank statements, to allowing direct deductions from bank accounts without court orders and providing police with powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter and search a property. That is not just my opinion: numerous charities and organisations from Age UK to the Child Poverty Action Group support Big Brother Watch’s recommendation to oppose eligibility verification powers under clause 74, for example.

Similar powers were proposed by the previous Conservative Government and considered a potential breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Labour MPs at that time were among critics of those powers. It is disappointing to see so few Labour MPs here today, but I thank those who have once again spoken up. I am glad to see amendments, including amendments 8 and 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), that seek to address such concerns, including by limiting or removing powers to compel banks to provide sensitive financial information.

Even the thought of this provision is causing real anxiety and distress, such as for my constituent Simon Mead and his family. Mr Mead’s daughter, who receives PIP due to the long-term effects of brain cancer as a child, and his son, who suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, are extremely worried about the Government accessing their private financial decisions. It is already affecting their day-to-day life and decisions. When I wrote to the Government outlining Mr Mead’s concerns before the Bill was published, I was told that the Bill is

“not designed to cause distress or to undertake covert surveillance of disabled people, or any benefit claimant”.

Well, that is obviously not the case, is it?

Combined with restricting winter fuel payments, the refusal to abolish the two-child cap and the sweeping welfare cuts, many vulnerable and disabled people genuinely feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. This is a reality that the Labour Government must accept and address. The Bill further stigmatises people who we are supposed to protect—those who are entitled to state support—who are already suffering following recent UK Government decisions. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to better people’s lives and ensure that everyone in our community feels supported. We are here to serve and to serve all our constituents, which includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. We are not here to cause further distress and hardship. We need to ensure that constituents have access to the help and services they need. Sadly, this Bill does the opposite.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. We come to the Front Benches and first the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith]

With the leave of the House, I will make a few additional comments. This is the perfect opportunity to respond to some of the points made about Conservative amendments and new clauses.

The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was on a short time limit and was not able to take any interventions, but I want to speak to the points he made on including our new clauses—for example, new clause 12. He rattled off the other amendment numbers quickly, so I hope he will forgive me if I did not hear them all, but I believe that new clauses 12 and 15 were included. His implication was that the new clauses we tabled would delay the Bill being put into law. That would not be the case, because each of them is worded for after the Act comes into force. The new clauses would be additional safeguards on the cost implications for banks, annual reporting and the publication of an antifraud and error technology strategy that would make the Bill even better, rather than essentially being wrecking amendments. Regardless of the other amendments included in the hon. Member’s list, ours are certainly not in that vein.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she was slightly unhappy about new clause 21 because those who genuinely help benefit claimants get what they are entitled to may inadvertently be caught by it. That is not our intention. We want only those who push people towards committing fraud to be caught. Citizens Advice and Improving Lives Plymouth, for example, which help people claim what they are entitled to, would not be caught by the new clause, because they would be involved in error only if a mistake were made, rather than through fraud. I appreciate what she said, but that was not our intention. The wording of our new clause covers that.

Concern was raised in Committee about the extent of bank account searches. In our view, other bank accounts used by those who commit fraud would not be checked under the Bill, so we probably need to go further to ensure that fraud is properly tackled. To be more light-hearted for a moment, if I may, anybody reading the report of the debate will see plenty of references to cheesecake, and I think I should explain why. Concern was raised in Committee about the fact that, under the Bill, an account’s individual transactions could be assessed and judged, so everybody would feel terrible if they bought a cheesecake from Waitrose—other shops are available—and that would be a problem in future. If anybody was wondering why we were talking about cheesecake, it related to concern about transactions being checked. At the time, the Minister kindly reassured us that the Bill would not provide for individual transactions to be checked; it would deal just with benefit payments and whether someone has capital that they should not have while claiming benefits. I hope that that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

This Labour Government were elected on a mandate for change—to create more good jobs in every corner of the country, to drive up living standards for working people and to get our vital public services back on their feet. Delivering our plan for change means ensuring that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is wisely spent and goes to those in genuine need. That is what this legislation will help to deliver, with the biggest-ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse.

It is unacceptable that the Conservative Government allowed fraud against the public sector to spiral to £55 billion a year. That includes a staggering £7.4 billion a year of benefit fraud alone. It is unforgiveable that they failed to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority was fit for purpose, or to properly update the DWP’s anti-fraud powers for 14 long years. When we think of all the new ways in which fraudsters and scam artists rip people off, including by using data and technology, that simply beggars belief. Today we say: no more.

Our Bill updates the powers of the Public Sector Fraud Authority so that it can effectively fight fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public authorities. It also makes vital upgrades to the DWP’s fraud powers and sets out new powers to investigate fraud, so that for the first time, our serious and organised crime investigators can apply to the court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters, and can seize evidence such as computers and phones. There are updated powers to gather information, so that we can compel third parties such as airlines to give us information, and can require it to be delivered electronically, so that we can tackle fraud as quick as possible. Our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to get crucial data from banks and financial institutions to check if people are getting money they are not entitled to, and if they have more savings than the rules allow, or are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK.

The Bill extends financial penalties to people who have fraudulently claimed any type of DWP payment, including grants and loans, not just benefits, and it gives us new powers to get money back from people who can pay but who have repeatedly failed to do so, bringing our powers in line with those of other parts of Government, such as the Child Maintenance Service and HMRC. All this is being done in a fair and proportionate way; the measures are tightly defined in the legislation, and there are strong safeguards and independent oversight, including through annual reports to Parliament and codes of practice, which we will bring forward in Committee in the other place.

I thank the Minister for Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, for steering the Bill through its Committee and Report stages, supported by excellent civil servants and House of Commons staff. I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee from right across the House for their detailed questions and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill. They have done this country a good service, because this Bill provides us with the tools we need to tackle modern fraud in the benefit system and across the public sector, helping to save £1.5 billion over the next five years as part of the DWP’s wider action to save a total of £9.6 billion from benefit fraud and error.

People who work hard and play by the rules, and people who depend on our public services and vital benefits, deserve to have trust and faith in the system, and they are rightly angry when they see people abuse it. Our message is clear: if you knowingly defraud the benefit system or cheat our public services, whether you are a large or small company, a criminal gang or an individual, we will find you; we will stop you; and we will get our money back. This Labour Government will restore trust and fairness in the system and ensure that every pound of public money delivers for the British people and our country. I commend this legislation to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members will need to move a little faster, as will the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Minister agree that the role of young carers is critical not only to those who are cared for, but to the economy? Although young carers under 16 do not receive carer’s allowance, will he consider the impact of any plans on young carers and how we might better support them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind the hon. Member that this is an urgent question, not a statement.