Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the findings of the Sayce review into carer’s allowance overpayments, but what assurances can the Minister give that the Government will stop hounding carers about overpayments? Will the Government also apologise?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am very sorry about what happened to many carers. For example, only about half of the alerts that came into the Department from HMRC were checked, so overpayments that the Department had been notified of carried on for months and months. Of course, genuine overpayments do still need recovery and that work will continue. If people run into difficulties, it is always worth talking to the DWP debt management service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Disability News Service has stated that both the Treasury and the DWP have refused to clarify the £1.9 billion of cuts to disability benefits set to take place over the next five years that were quietly sneaked into the Budget the other week. Will the Minister now set the record straight and advise us on how those cuts, which amount to almost £2 billion, will occur and on what impacts they will have on people with disabilities?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. I will happily look into the report he has spoken of. There will be no changes at all to eligibility for personal independence payments until the conclusion of my review, which will be in the autumn of next year.

Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

Having discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend, I agree that more clarity about the ability of trustees to take into account such factors would help. But rather than hardwiring that into primary legislation, there are advantages to consulting more fully and retaining an ability to be responsive to future developments. I can therefore announce today that I intend to bring forward legislation that will allow the Government to develop statutory guidance for the trust-based private pensions sector. The guidance will encapsulate those wider factors set out in his new clause, with the goal being to provide practical support to trustees about how to comply with their existing duties in considering these factors, including what we mean by systemic risks and standards of living. There is good support in the industry for providing that clarity, giving added confidence to trustees that they can invest in the long-term interests of their members and our society. We will set out more details on our guidance plans in due course.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Would the Minister be kind enough to share the timescale he is working to for these proposals?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member, who was one of the contributors to our debates on this matter in Committee. I hope to bring forward clarity on the next steps in a matter of months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling]

For people who are lucky in the lottery of life, their pension can be one of their biggest assets, but, sadly, we know that 12 million people across the United Kingdom are not saving enough. That is around the population of Belgium. Talking more broadly, there is much about the legislation to be welcomed. I am sure the Minister had his best birthday ever by spending it in the Bill Committee. I am sure that as a 14-year-old, he dreamed of that day, on Committee corridor—sadly I am not joking.

[Torsten Bell]

indicated assent.

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

The Minister is nodding!

[Steve Darling]

Thank you for the audio description!

There is much to be welcomed in the Bill, and the way that we rattled through it in Committee demonstrated that there is lots of good within it. However, as a constructive Opposition and a critical friend, I will spend most of my time reflecting on where there could be improvement.

We Liberal Democrats still feel that there are chances to ensure a mid-life MOT on investment opportunities, including five years before retirement. We think that that could be strengthened significantly. I come from an area of sadness in respect of my father, who saw the poverty of his father, a lorry driver, and threw significant amounts of his income into his personal pension just before the 1998 stock market crash. He saw the value of his investment halved. Nobody would expect a lorry driver to understand the full ins and outs of investing in the appropriate manner. It is important to reflect the fact that people live their lives without really understanding financial markets, and further strengthening that part of the Bill would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I applaud what the hon. Gentleman has said about the AEAT pensioners’ difficulties. It is quite shocking that, despite the fact that a previous Conservative pensions Minister, Paul Maynard, said that he would instruct his civil servants to work on a redress scheme, changes of Minister and Government have meant that the machine has carried on as before, even though a parliamentary Committee did an investigation, found in favour of the pensioners and said that they should get redress.

[Steve Darling]

The right hon. Member makes a powerful point. I am sure that the Minister will take note and reflect on it further.

I would like to reflect on the proposals to enhance pre-1997 pensions by up to 2.5%, which the Chancellor announced last week. Amendments providing for those measures have now been tabled. We know that there is significant surplus in the Pension Protection Fund. We question whether it is right for the Government to balance their financial books on the backs of that pension pot. I understand that their argument is that, because those billions are taken into account as far as Government finances are concerned, it is not possible to release as much as could be released from that pot to support pensioners with the cost of living crisis, but I urge Ministers to reflect on that.

Colleagues have also highlighted new clause 22 and pensioners who worked at American Express, Esso and Hewlett Packard. Those companies—strangely enough, it seems to be overseas companies—have left pensioners out in the cold. I hope that that consultation is able to pick up on that and give clear guidance to trustees on how they ought to support those members.

Surplus funds is another area that the Bill addresses. It is about getting the balance right. In winding up, will the Minister reflect on how surplus funds could support members and oil the wheels of the economy? That is important. Pensions should be about driving the economy. They are a big beast that should be an engine for change. In fact, the last area that I will touch on is how pensions should be the engine for change. As colleagues have alluded to, mandation feels a bit like the cold hand of Big Brother on the economy. I trust the Minister implicitly in respect of mandation, when he says, “Honestly, guv, it’s not really something I want to do,” but who knows who will walk in his footsteps? We need only look to the other side of the Atlantic, and at the gentleman in the Oval Office, to see the extraordinary things happening there.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, although it is certainly advantageous to encourage pension funds to invest in the UK, mandation creates the risk of reducing returns on investments? Would it not be better to incentivise pension funds to invest more productively—in housing and social care—through the creation of appropriate investment vehicles, and to encourage investment in British start-ups to allow them to scale up and create an attractive environment for investment?

[Steve Darling]

It is almost as if my hon. Friend had just seen the next section of my speech. We see such investment as an opportunity to drive social rented housing, our high streets and other investment in our communities. We need to ensure that UK institutions are the first, second and third investors in opportunities in the UK so that overseas investors see that we are backing ourselves and then pile in after us. That is essential.

We will vote against mandation. There is much to welcome in the Bill, but the devil is in the detail.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

My hon. Friend speaks well about what is good in the Bill, but there is room for improvement. A number of my Gloucestershire constituents were employees of Gulf Oil before its merger with Chevron. Following the merger, they were moved on to the Chevron pension scheme. Between them, they have hundreds of years of service, but they are not protected against inflation, and over years of inflation, the value of their pensions has been eroded significantly. Does my hon. Friend agree that his new clause 7 is a genuine opportunity for pension justice—one that we hope the Labour Government support?

[Steve Darling]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Pensions Minister is listening. Politics is all about calling out injustice, and my hon. Friend does a good job of that for his constituents.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I will speak to a number of amendments tabled in my name. I thank the Pensions Minister for discussing them with me yesterday. I look forward to his comments later in the debate.

I spent a number of years as a regional trade union official with responsibility for the local government pension scheme, and I think it is important that we see pensions as a force for social good. My amendments aim therefore to make our occupational pensions more progressive. We should remember that such funds represent the deferred wages of millions of workers, and directing pension funds toward socially beneficial projects is one way in which the Government can rewire our economic model, so that it delivers for ordinary people.

In my view, workers’ money should be invested in sectors such as green technology and social housing—stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. Whether this is done through an expanded National Wealth Fund, which could direct investment into socially useful projects, or some other mechanism, it would clearly boost much-needed growth and GDP. What could be more progressive than using workers’ pension funds to build the council houses we so desperately need? That would be a tremendous step forward which not only ensured a solid investment for the funds, but provided decent homes at affordable rents. I designed new clause 5 to address this issue, and I hope the Minister will do more to encourage schemes to redirect their investments in that way.

Likewise, amendment 3 recognises that the voluntary approach to disinvestment in fossil fuels has not worked. The LGPS currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, while 85% of all pension schemes lack a credible climate action plan. The environmental crisis is the great challenge facing us all. Workers’ wages should not be fuelling the climate catastrophe. Fundamentally, there is no retirement without our environment, and I hope the Government will emphasise that position to trustees more forcefully. We need a commitment from all LGPS schemes and pools to having a five-year plan to end their relationship with these harmful investments.

The overwhelming majority of the public would also be horrified to learn that their savings were invested in illegal wars abroad, such as the genocide in Gaza. We know that over £12 billion of LGPS funds are invested in companies that support the illegal settlements in some way, or produce arms or fuel for fighter jets used in the war. We must ensure that pension funds are not complicit in war crimes and human rights violation, whether in Gaza or elsewhere in the world.

The Minister will have noticed the strong cross-party support for my amendment 2, and I urge him to give a statement in the strongest possible terms that the LGPS should not be involved in funding breaches of international law in any form. I understand that many of the pools have money in tracker funds that are connected to arms companies, but that needs to be challenged. If that means disinvesting from arms manufacturers implicated in these breaches, so be it.

That brings me to the important matter of worker representation. Having a seat at the table is one way in which we can influence how money is invested. That is why it is important that we ensure trade unions have a voice on all future pension boards and committees, as outlined in my amendment 1. There is currently no requirement for worker representation on the boards of LGPS pools; the Government reducing the number of pools to six gives us an ideal opportunity in law to guarantee proper worker representation. Fundamentally, it is vital that the workers who pay into the funds have a fair voice in decisions on how their money is invested. I hope the Minister will begin talks with local government trade unions to see how we can bring that about.

Last week’s budget announcement on the pre-1997 pension indexation was welcome, and many have already quoted that this afternoon, but only those whose schemes were eligible for indexation and are members of the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme will see the benefit. Hundreds of thousands of retired workers whose pension funds were taken over by other companies, such as Hewlett Packard in the case of some of my constituents, and are still in operation will not be protected as was intended in the Budget for that other group; and the money they put into their company pensions before 1997 will continue to be frozen. I know the Minister recognises that over this period their pensions have become virtually worthless. That is why the Government must put pressure on trustees of all schemes to pay some of their surplus funds and ensure that their former staff get the pensions they deserve.

The Pension Schemes Bill offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help the environment and society more generally by the way we invest. The £3 trillion in UK pension funds could be used to address the historical transfer of wealth away from ordinary working people toward the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our society. Given that pensions account for 40% of wealth in this country, change must include consideration of how this vast pool can be used to improve the lives of those whose payslips created it. The call to use our money and make pensions more progressive is therefore overwhelming. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out in the strongest possible terms the commitments the Government are making to bring that about.

Young People not in Education, Employment or Training

Steve Darling Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing this debate on such an auspicious day: it gives the Minister a chance to truly unpack what the Chancellor has been able to share with us—and consequently amaze us. We are here aghast, waiting for that a little later on. I look forward to it because this debate is a real opportunity.

I am still a councillor on Torbay unitary authority and as a local authority we have the highest level of deprivation in the south-west, so I hear about the issues that we are discussing when I go out and visit some of the local schools. Not that long ago, for example, I visited a school in Torquay and engaged with eight and nine-year-olds. Their real concerns were about the cost of living crisis and their parents being unable to make ends meet. At a school in Paignton, elsewhere in Torbay, the headteacher told me that a number of her children regularly came into school cold, tired, hungry and unable to learn. Given the challenges facing youngsters in an arena where they should be learning, it is not surprising that they leave school facing real issues.

Covid has had a massive impact on the mental health of youngsters, and that cannot be overestimated. A couple of colleagues from around the Chamber have already talked about care-experienced youngsters. It is shocking that a care-experienced youngster is three to 10 times more likely to be a NEET. Youngsters who have had an adverse childhood experience could be left scarred with challenges for significant parts of their lives, unless there is significant wraparound support for them.

This is not just about the individual; the other side of the penny we need to reflect on is the change to our economy. Colleagues have alluded to how the world of work has changed significantly. Brexit has had a significant impact, with a 6% shrinkage of our projected GDP and a massive reduction in opportunities. In the Work and Pensions Committee this morning, we heard that opportunities in retail over the last 10 years have shrunk by 70%. We have also seen significant shrinkage in our hospitality industry. Whether or not one wishes to blame it on the national insurance hike, this summer saw an 85,000 reduction in the number of places in hospitality—often an area where youngsters begin their working lives. There is also the issue of automatisation, as supermarket self-checkouts and being able to order without a waiter are ways in which the job market is shrinking for youngsters. We really need to be alive to that.

I would welcome comment from the Minister on findings from the Resolution Foundation, which suggested that the significant increase in the minimum wage for younger workers, although welcome in principle, could result in fewer jobs. There are other areas I would welcome the Minister being alive to, in addition to the interesting announcements from the Chancellor this afternoon, which I hope he is able to unpack a bit more. In recent weeks, Ministers have had a particular focus on universal credit and health conditions, and the impact on youngsters. Could the Minister talk about how that will be explored? There is concern that some youngsters could be demonised. Furthermore, how can we give long-term sustainable support to youngsters, rather than here today, gone tomorrow schemes?

Finally, I want to talk about something close to home —the shared prosperity fund that we benefited from in Torbay. There is an outstanding organisation called Sound Communities that helps youngsters on the edge of our communities, who may have had adverse childhood experiences such as a parent dying, to access support in getting into work. They have helped dozens of youngsters across Torbay, but their funding is due to fall off a cliff in March. We do not have an elected mayor in our Devon community, while the shared prosperity funding is due to end in March. What hope can the Minister offer to Sound Communities for future funding?

Pension Investment in UK Equities

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) on obtaining the debate, which has been quite enlightening; his liberal views on the way forward for pensions are very welcome. The Liberal Democrats are keen to see investment in our British economy, and we are particularly exercised about the need for investment in social rented housing, our high streets and climate change. From my own patch, I reflect on the conversations I have had with our high-tech cluster in Torbay, which often faces challenges in getting investment and getting the right vehicles to support it.

Reflecting on key areas for us, one can understand the principles behind mandation, but there is also the law of unintended consequences, and we have grave concerns about it. A power of mandation might be seen as a reserve power. I am sure, or at least I hope, that all Ministers in power at the moment are reasonable people, but who knows what might happen in the future? Giving the power of mandation to a future Government who may not be run by reasonable people is a significant risk. One only has to look at the other side of the Atlantic and see who now dwells in the Oval Office to realise that some curious decisions have been made there. For many of us on this side of the Atlantic, if the power of mandation was given to similar people here, that would cause us grave concern.

[Kit Malthouse]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s views about mandation, as the Minister knows, but would he care to comment on its impact on the appetite for risk? We have learned from my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) that since the change in taxation, the general trend in pension funds has been for managers to de-risk and to go into passive funds. If they do so, no one can complain, they are not taking any risk, they do not have to outperform or underperform the market and they get what they want. If they can pass off yet more risk to the Government and effectively sit there and get paid to be told by the Government what to invest in, they will bite the Government’s hand off, will they not?

[Steve Darling]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. One can go back to the significant crash of 2008. I suggest, and I am sure many people would agree, that that has left a scarring on the system and a fear of risk. For many of us who know about the system, risk is a good thing, because it can result in growth. If we do not embrace risk, we will not embrace growth. One minimises growth by failing to go for those risks. I agree that mandation potentially allows people to shy away from risk.

As Liberal Democrats, we are really keen to make sure that there are vehicles for investment, whether in social rented housing, in cleaner energy, in our high streets or in our high-tech industries. However, such vehicles should be designed so that people become aware of them and can make a choice themselves, rather than being dictated to by the state.

Pensions

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I apologise for inadvertently using the word “you” the last time that I spoke, Mr Speaker.

Clearly, the clock is ticking for WASPI women. There are 3.6 million WASPI women across the United Kingdom, which is half a million more than the population of Wales. Sadly, a WASPI woman dies every 13 minutes.

I welcome the statement from the Secretary of State. When we have explored this subject in recent months, I have found it extremely disturbing how the ombudsman failed to engage with the previous Conservative Government because they knew that there would not be a deal to make around what the relevant approach would be on compensation for WASPI women. I plead with the Secretary of State to revisit that; after all, Government Members are on record as supporting WASPI women for many years. Will he look to meet with them and ensure that there is a fair deal? There is due to be a High Court hearing next month, and I implore him to engage positively and to get a fair deal for WASPI women.

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member is right; this issue has gone on for a long time. I took the view that, in the light of the evidence being cited, the right thing to do was to look again at it and at the decision in the round. I cannot speak for the previous Government’s failure to engage with the ombudsman—that is a matter for them—but I can tell the hon. Member that this Government are engaged with the ombudsman on the action plan discussed earlier, and we will continue to be engaged. As I said, I will come to a conclusion and report to the House as soon as possible.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I thank the Government for the steps taken to improve the Bill since it was debated in Committee. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns about elements of the Bill, but it is in a much better place, and I thank all colleagues for working together collaboratively to drive for improvements.

Clearly, fraud is wrong. Some people believe that fraud against large organisations such as supermarkets and the Government is a victimless crime, but if we do not have that money, because it has been fraudulently claimed, we have to apply larger taxes or choose not to spend money on things such as tackling climate change. It is therefore important that it is tackled, but we need to ensure that we have two words guiding us: proportionality and fairness. We as Liberal Democrats still have grave concerns that elements of the Bill are not as proportionate as one would wish.

I will focus my remarks on Lords amendment 43. We Liberal Democrats feel that more responsibility should be given to the independent reviewer in relation to proportionality and fairness. We still have concerns about the blanket approach, where mass fishing will effectively occur with the proposals before us. One does not have to look that far back in recent IT history to see where things have gone wrong. I believe it was only last week that child benefit was frozen for 23,500 households across the United Kingdom, because those families left the country and were not accounted for when they returned. That error was made on a computer system, and that affected just a small proportion of those to whom this Bill is set to be applied.

The reasonableness of Ministers was debated repeatedly in Committee. I am not questioning the reasonableness of the current Minister, or multiple Ministers who preceded him, but I question what we are seeing on the other side of the Atlantic and the person who has the levers of power in the Oval Office. What may be seen as “reasonable” in politics in the United Kingdom is sadly a distant memory in the United States of America. We must ensure that we guard against that future in the legislation we are putting forward now.

On the use of force, the Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have taken a step in the right direction in their amendment, although we feel that it could be stronger. We would encourage colleagues to vote against the Government’s proposals, because we strongly support Lords amendment 43.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I must say that I do get a bit edgy when Front Benchers agree so much.

In respect of Lords amendment 84, I want to be absolutely clear about what the Minister has said. As far as I am aware, it will now be a human being making the decisions: an authorising officer. The authorising officers will be able to draw upon all other information—that is what the Minister said—but it is still not clear to me whether a decision can be made simply on the basis of the EVM information. It would therefore be useful if the Government’s intention were read into the record more clearly.

As for Lords amendment 43, I want to follow up on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan). We have received representations with regard to, in particular, people suffering from mental health issues, some of whom would be leading chaotic lives. The Minister is right to say that it is not for Ministers to engage in the process of making individual decisions because that is for the authorising officers to do, but the one occasion on which the Minister can be held to account is when the annual independent review takes place.

According to my understanding, the Minister said that the reviewer would not be prevented from exploring the issue of the exercise of powers and the impact on vulnerable people. May I suggest that that could be strengthened? Perhaps he will tell us when he responds to the debate. It is not just about prevention; it is appropriate for the independent review to consider that issue, largely because of the representations that we have received consistently throughout our debates on the Bill, and from a wide range of organisations that represent people with disabilities and, in particular, mental health challenges. A statement to that effect would be more reassuring than the words that we have heard so far.

I do not really understand why the Government would resist this, because it is just a basic element of accountability in an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poole has said, could affect so many people and could have such a significant adverse effect. I do not want to exaggerate, but I was in the House throughout our discussions of the introduction of the work capability assessment, and, although the last Government refused to accept it, we now know that it resulted in a large number of suicides. In this instance, I would not want us to enter into a reform of the processes specified in the Bill without a regular review of the harms that could be caused, which would enable us subsequently to adjust the legislation if necessary.

I would welcome a clarification from the Minister, or perhaps a strengthening of the words that he has used so far.

Welfare Spending

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

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

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

[Dr Evans]

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

[Steve Darling]

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

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

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

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

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I note that last year the new Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that it is open to debate as to whether the two-child limit is harmful. I note also that this policy has been the most impactful in driving children—more than 730,000 of them—into poverty. Will the Minister acknowledge that the two-child limit is harmful and work with Treasury colleagues to overturn it?

[Andrew Western]

I am happy to acknowledge the findings of the Child Poverty Action Group, which I think has put forward the statistics that the hon. Gentleman sets out. I remind him and all Members of this House that this is not the only lever available to us and that all levers are under active consideration. I also remind him, as I have reminded other colleagues, of the steps that this Government have already taken, including the roll-out of free school meals to all families in receipt of universal credit, which alone will lift 100,000 children out of poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Government have made a promise that those transferring from legacy benefits to universal credit will find themselves no worse off, yet Liberal Democrat colleagues from all over the country are finding that people are worse off. Will the Minister share evidence of how the Government are supporting the most vulnerable where they find themselves worse off?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Transitional protection is available for people making the transition across, and I spoke earlier about the support being provided through the enhanced support journey to people for whom the transition may be particularly difficult. I am thinking, for example, about some people on employment and support allowance. If the hon. Member is worried about particular cases and would like to send me the details, I am very happy to look at them.

Pension Schemes Bill (Seventh sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Mark Garnier]

I will be incredibly brief. We have heard a number of details from the Minister. Clauses 93 to 96 contain what we believe are sensible and welcome amendments that reflect current market and scheme conditions. In particular, the changes related to the Pension Protection Fund are positive. With a strong funding position in many defined benefit schemes recently and the PPF’s healthy reserves exceeding £14 billion, these legislative changes are timely. The industry strongly supports the option for a zero levy, which reduces financial pressure on well-funded schemes. The Opposition wholeheartedly support these clauses.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome the direction of travel. As the shadow Minister identified, the industry has demanded some elements of the clauses, but they are mostly about supporting consumers. The end users of these services should be a key element of what the Bill is about.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with the point that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson just made. The clauses represent good decisions both for those who work in the industry and for members of the public—people paying into pension schemes and hoping to get an adequate pension when they retire.

I want to comment on a few things included in the clauses. The Work and Pensions Committee report that was published a couple of years ago asked for several of the changes that are being made here, and I appreciate that the Government are now moving towards making a significant number of them in what is the most major piece of pensions legislation we have seen in years. I do appreciate the changes being made.

I am incredibly supportive of the changes to the terminal illness criteria, which create consistency with other Government legislation on the definition of terminal illness. As the Minister said, if this allows more people to access payments earlier and can improve their quality of life when they know how very short their remaining time is, it will be incredibly helpful. It will enable those individuals to access additional payments and funding more easily and quickly, so that they can make the most of the short time they have left. I appreciate that change.

The pensions dashboard changes are sensible, because people will be able to see the widest possible range of things when they log into the dashboard. It will do what it says on the tin, which is to bring everything together in one place, rather than people having to go somewhere else.

Lastly, I do not disagree on the PPF levy changes; I think this is the right decision. However, there is a significant surplus, and there are other things that could have been done with it; we will discuss new clauses 18 and 19 later. I thought the Government’s response to the Work and Pensions Committee report that I mentioned was sensible when it came to the PPF levy changes: “Yes, we agree this needs to be changed and we will look into it.” The response on the pre-1997 lack of uplift for members in the PPF and the FAS was not so helpful. It was more like, “Well, this is an impact on the Government’s balance sheet.” That is genuinely what the Government’s response says.

I am concerned that there are two very different ways of looking at the answers to those questions. In both cases, the answer could have been: “There is a significant surplus. We agree we should do something about it.” Changes could then have been made to support people who are in some cases really struggling to make ends meet, as was mentioned in last Tuesday’s witness session. That could have made a significant difference to their lives. If the Government had committed to allowing or encouraging the PPF to apply an inflationary uplift and provide support—even if they did so in a particularly progressive way, to support folk with the lowest earnings—that would have made the biggest possible difference to people who are genuinely struggling right now.

Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

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

New clause 2 is about market consolidation, and ensuring that the Minister undertakes to report back so we can see how it is progressing. Clearly, market consolidation will have positive impacts, but there is a law of unforeseen consequences, so it is important to ensure that there is a regular health check on what is happening in the market. It is not only about that law of unintended consequences, but about checking out the opportunity for new entrants to come into the system, and making sure that there are no unexpected barriers. To our mind, it is good practice that one would hope would be undertaken.

The new clause is a probing amendment; we will not be pressing it to a vote, but I look forward to reassurances from the Minister. We are keen to get on the public record what he says in this area, because we know from conversations with the industry that there is some interest in the matter.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I highlight again that the Regulatory Policy Committee considered the monitoring and evaluation plan in the impact assessment to be weak. It said that although everything would be reviewed around 2030, there were not many other points that the Government had committed to reviewing.

In the new clause, I probably would not have picked a timescale of 12 months after Royal Assent, given the length of the road map and the timings for the introduction of a significant number of things. I appreciate that as the new clause is crafted, it can pick up on problems before they occur. If things are moving towards consolidation in advance of the timelines, the Government should be able to analyse where the prospective issues are. However, the Minister could commit to providing Parliament with a review, and either giving information to the Work and Pensions Committee or making information and statistics publicly available.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

The first thing to say is that this is focused on scale. We appreciate that the Bill would lead to major changes to the pensions market—the hon. Member for Torbay is absolutely right—and we want to understand and monitor the consolidation and scale process over the coming years. To state the obvious, market changes such the scale measures we are talking about take time, and many of the measures in the Bill will not even be implemented within the 12 months. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not push the amendment to a vote.

I agree on the wider point about the Bill as a whole and the need for strong monitoring and evaluation. I would probably take a slightly different approach from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. The Bill contains a large number of measures, and the right way to monitor their implementation will be different for different parts of the Bill. When it comes to the questions of scale, which are the focus of this amendment, the monitoring—[Interruption.] That is not the response I was looking for. The monitoring is slightly more visible because we are talking about the number of workplace schemes, or at least workplace defaults, that exist.

Let me lay out a bit of what we have in place to monitor. We will be able to monitor scale, charges and, because of the interaction with the value for money regime, returns and asset allocation. Lots of the key success metrics that are meant to come with the scale changes, as well as the delivery of scale itself, will be visible. My honest view is that it is on all of us—obviously, it is particularly on the Government—to pay attention to that as we go.

On the wider question of whether we will consider further, I have already committed to do that and to come back and reflect on Report on how we do that. I put on the record my view that that is a reasonable thing to do, and I will do it, but we need to think about it differently for different parts of the Bill.

[Steve Darling]

I thank the Minister for putting his thoughts on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Report on fiduciary duty and discretionary indexation of pre-1997 benefits

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows.

(2) The report must consider—

(a) the impact of current fiduciary obligations on trustees’ ability to award discretionary increases to pre-1997 pension benefits;

(b) the potential benefits of permitting such discretionary indexation for affected pensioners;

(c) the funding conditions and thresholds under which discretionary indexation could be considered sustainable;

(d) the appropriate level of regulatory oversight and guidance required to ensure that discretionary increases are granted in a fair, transparent, and financially responsible manner;

(e) international approaches to indexation of legacy pension benefits;

(f) the legal and actuarial implications of amending fiduciary duties in this context.

(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) the Pensions Regulator,

(b) the Financial Conduct Authority,

(c) representatives of pension scheme trustees, members, and sponsoring employers, and

(d) such other experts or bodies as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Steve Darling.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to report on whether the fiduciary duties of trustees of occupational pension schemes should be amended to permit discretionary indexation of pre-1997 accrued rights, where scheme funding allows.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 18—Indexation of pre-1997 benefits—

“(1) Schedule 7 (pension compensation provisions) of the Pensions Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 28(3) leave out ‘so much of’ and ‘as is attributable to post-1997 service’ in each place they occur.

(3) Leave out paragraphs 28(5)(b) and (d), 28(5A) and 28(7).

(4) In paragraph 28(6) leave out definitions of ‘post-1997 service’ and ‘pre-1997 service’.”

This new clause would make indexation of compensation provided through the Financial Assistance Scheme and Personal Protection Funds applicable to both pre-1997 and post-1997 service.

New clause 19—Indexation of pre-1997 benefits for Financial Assistance Scheme members—

“(1) Schedule 2 (determination of annual and initial payments) of the Financial Assistance Scheme Regulations 2005 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph 9(2) leave out the first occurrence of ‘so much of the expected pension as is attributable to post-1997 service’ and insert ‘the expected pension’.

(3) In paragraph 9(2) leave out the second occurrence of ‘so much of the expected pension as is, proportionately, attributable to post-1997 service’ and insert ‘the expected pension’.

(4) In paragraph 9(2) leave out the definition of ‘post-1997 service’.

(5) Leave out paragraph 9(3) and insert—

‘Where the qualifying member has pensionable service prior to 6th April 1997 which has not been included in the underlying rate but which their scheme provided for, the scheme manager must determine the annual increase attributable to that service for each year since the date on which the annual payment was first payable and, if that increase has not been paid to the member, reimburse the member for that amount.’”

This new clause would make indexation of compensation provided through the Financial Assistance Scheme applicable to pre-1997 service and reimburse members for the annual increases in payments they should have received in light of this change.

[Steve Darling]

[Interruption.] I am not quite used to getting interrupted by thunder. Perhaps I should get used to it, with Jennie winning Westminster Dog of the Year, or at least the popular vote. Clearly, it was rigged—I jest.

On a more serious note, we are looking at a cohort of pensioners, the pre-’97 pensioners, who have been left behind without indexation. We heard moving evidence from two gentlemen who shared the challenges that many of those pensioners face, living in higher levels of poverty because of the failure to index.

Our proposal is to ensure that there is a responsibility to explore the possibility of amending the fiduciary duties—something I was not even aware of until I started exploring the Bill—to support the possibility of indexation. I am aware that a more prescriptive new clause has also been tabled. As Liberal Democrats, we sympathise with the aims, but we feel that we need to have confidence that the system has the capacity to pay out. Our proposal is a steady hand on the tiller approach. It is about sense checking and ensuring that there is an ability to support the appropriate levels of indexation. I hope that the Minister will look kindly upon the proposal, as it is the more level-headed approach, with all due respect to Plaid and the SNP.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I rise to speak in support of the new clause tabled by the Liberal Democrats and new clauses 18 and 19, which were tabled by my wonderful colleague from Plaid, the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies).

The witnesses who came before us last week to speak about the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions made an incredibly passionate and powerful case for changing the system. We mentioned earlier the Work and Pensions Committee’s report, which suggested that the Government need to look at this issue seriously. I was quite disappointed by the Government’s response, which did not actually say very much. All it said was that changing the system would have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet. Well, yes, it might have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it would have a significant impact for people who are in this situation through absolutely no fault of their own. They did the right thing all the way along, but the company they were with collapsed and the Pension Protection Fund or the financial assistance scheme has not given them the uplift.

The group of people we are talking about are getting older. They are not young any more. We know that older pensioners are the most likely to be in fuel poverty and to be struggling with the cost of living crisis. They are the ones making the choice about whether to switch on the heating. Given the rate of inflation that we have had in recent years, there is a real argument for utilising a small amount of the PPF’s surplus to provide a level of indexation. The cut-off is very arbitrary; it is just a date that happened to be put in legislation at that time. Were the Government setting up the PPF today, and the compensation schemes for people who lost their pension through no fault of their own, I do not think they would be arguing for not indexing pensions accrued before 1997. That would not be a justifiable position for today’s Government to take.

I am not sure whether the Bill is the right place to do this, but my understanding is that it needs to be done in primary legislation; it cannot be done in secondary legislation. Given what I mentioned earlier about the significant length of time between pieces of primary pension legislation, if the Government do not use the Pension Schemes Bill to address this problem today, on Report or in the House of Lords, when will they? How many more of the pensioners who are suffering from the lack of indexation will have passed away or be pushed into further financial hardship by the time the Government make a decision on this, if they ever intend to?

As I have said, I cannot see a justification for not providing the indexation. We know the PPF levy changes have been put in place because of that surplus, and there is recognition that the surplus exists and has not been invented—the money is there. I understand that the situation is different for the two funds, but particularly with the PPF, I do not understand how any Member of this House, let alone the Government, could argue against making this change to protect pensioners.

It may have an impact on the Government’s balance sheet, but it does not have an impact on the Government’s income, outgoings and ability to spend today. The PPF money cannot be used for anything other than reducing the levy or paying pensions. It is very unusual to have such ringfenced, hypothecated money within the Government’s balance sheet, but this money is ringfenced. The Government cannot decide to spend it on building a new school or funding the NHS. It can be used only for paying the pensions of people whose companies have gone under.

I very much appreciate the hard work of my colleagues in Plaid Cymru on this issue in supporting their constituents, as well as people such as Terry Monk, who gave evidence to us last week along with Mr Sainsbury. Now is the time for the Government to change this to ensure fairness and drag some pensioners out of poverty, so that they have enough money to live on right now during this cost of living crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Steve Darling]

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

I am afraid I have a difficulty, Ms Lewell: I am appearing soon in a Westminster Hall debate as a spokesperson, so I will have to go part-way through this debate—accept my sincere apologies for that.

New clause 7 is the beginning of a series of new clauses on pensions injustices. It is intended to probe. I know from fellow MPs that there are significant amounts of casework about people who fall short of being acknowledged as receiving benefits from pensions, such as spouses or partners of different descriptions.

Our world is complicated. I am adopted, and went from having one sibling to nine siblings in total; I have a complicated family. We all have complicated families. Equally, historically, pensions may not have taken account of how people’s lives might have become more complicated, such as with partners and the way that life moves on. We ask the Minister to reflect on that, and see how he may be able to tackle this injustice. I apologise for leaving before we complete the debate on the new clause, Ms Lewell.

[Kirsty Blackman]

If the new clause is pressed to a vote, I will not take part because it does not impact pensions in Scotland. However, I want to relay to the Committee and the Minister that I have heard a number of heartbreaking stories on this subject; I am aware that it is not the Minister’s fault that such situations have occurred. What has most impacted me is when I have heard the stories of people having to choose not to live with their partners if they are to continue to receive pensions.

Someone’s deceased police officer partner may have died a significant time ago. Finding happiness in a new relationship is a lovely thing, but that person might have to choose between getting the survivor’s pension and living with their new partner. That is a horrific decision that nobody should ever have to make. It would be great if the Minister recognised the issue: that people are being pushed into making difficult choices because of how the schemes have been written. I do not necessarily want the Minister to commit to changing the legislation, as I do not know whether it is within his gift to fix this, but will he recognise that the current situation is unfair? I think that would be a step in the right direction.