Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting)

Steve Darling Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 2nd September 2025 Public Bill Committees

[John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Q This question is for Ms Alexander. A lot of my constituents are driven mad by small pots; they have worked in different jobs and have no idea how much money they have saved for a pension, so please could you outline the benefits of the small pots reforms to people in my constituency, and the practical steps needed to make the small pots regime work—for example, by way of IT?

Zoe Alexander: The small pots reforms are absolutely critical. The problem of small pots was foreseen by the Pensions Commission years ago. We all knew we would face that problem with automatic enrolment, and I think people would agree that it has taken too long to grasp the nettle. We at Pensions UK are really delighted to see the measures in the Bill to deliver the multi-consolidator model. It is really important that the pot size is kept low, as is proposed in the Bill, at least initially, to solve the problem of the smallest pots in the market. Pensions UK has undertaken a feasibility study, working with Government, to look at how that small pots system might be delivered in practice. That work is publicly available. It gets quite technical quite quickly, so I will not go into the details of it, but we believe there is a feasible model of delivering the small pots solution at low cost—one that should not involve Government in a major IT build.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Q We have already had some exploration of mandation and other opportunities around getting greater investment within the United Kingdom. I would welcome some more drawing out of how investing in UK opportunities could be amplified without the need for mandation.

Rob Yuille: We have both mentioned the Mansion House accord already. In addition to the ambition to which providers committed, there were a series of critical enablers. Several of those are in the Bill already—thank you for that—including value for money and the drive to consolidation. But there were other things in there as well, including the need for alignment by the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority of their rules and guidance in relation to the charge cap pipeline of infrastructure projects, which I know the Government are proceeding with separately; and the need to ensure that the whole market buys into the value-for-money framework. In the pension investment review, Government did not take forward regulation of intermediaries—employee benefit consultants and so on—and we think that they could keep that under review.

The Government are seeking to take other steps that will evolve over time, such as crowding in investments. There are examples such as the British Growth Partnership and the LIFTS scheme, where the Government are either convening or investing alongside providers, which we would like to see more of. Outside of DC, as has been mentioned already, it is about working with annuity providers on eligibility for certain assets.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Q There is a question around surplus release, and the power of trustees in relation to surplus release. It makes sense that there should be surplus release, but trustees may feel under pressure from employers to release the surplus when it might not be the right thing for scheme members. Do you think the Bill has got that balance right? How can that be monitored to ensure that trustees are not pressured when it is not the right thing for scheme members?

Rob Yuille: The most important thing is that trustees do have the power that is in the Bill—that power should stay there. Conflicts of interest were mentioned earlier; it is interesting what surplus release could do to make occupational schemes more like commercial schemes. With master trusts, commercial schemes and superfunds, if pension schemes could be run for the benefit of the employer by taking surplus, that gives rise to a different relationship and potential conflicts. The Pensions Regulator needs to be alive to that. In any case, TPR is becoming more like the FCA and the Prudential Regulation Authority as a regulator, and I think that needs to continue.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling]

Q We have heard a little about value for money from the previous witnesses. I would welcome some reflections from you on how that could be shaped appropriately to allow risk taking without dumbing down the returns for members, because the crucial thing is driving maximum return without too much risk taking. I would welcome some reflections on how the proposed value for money terms could be tweaked in the best interest of investors, because it could force down returns significantly if people are playing it too safe.

Charlotte Clark: I will talk a little about the value for money framework and then specifically about your concern on risk. The value for money framework, which is an area we are working on very closely, will have three aspects to it. One is costs. One is, as you say, investment performance and investment allocation, and one is service. All of those will be important aspects of getting the value for money assessment right.

On the investment side, I hear the opposite charge, actually, rather than dumbing down. There is a sense that a scheme could take too much risk so that it looked like value for money, but there is a trade-off between risk and return. If you are going to do that, and if you have high-risk assets in a downturn, there is a possibility of volatility. Within all these schemes, you still have trustees, independent governance committees and professional advisers who make sure that the investment allocation is right for the saver. That is almost the first part before you get to the value for money assessment. I do not think there should be a dumbing down of investment.

One of the other challenges, which links to the move into private assets that has been raised a couple of times, is the possibility of pension schemes getting more involved in things such as infrastructure. One thing that the industry has asked us to consider is whether, when you invest in those sorts of assets, there is a J-curve in terms of the returns; there might be a suppression at the beginning as projects get up and running. We have been looking at the Australian examples and we do not really see that happening in their data, but it is something we are considering and we are talking to the industry about how to get it right. We do not want the value for money assessment to stop people being able to invest in those sorts of assets.

Patrick Coyne: Just to add that the competitive pressure on the marketplace at the moment is on cost, and cost is not value. To illustrate that point, for the average saver, a 1% increase annually in investment returns would generate a pot that is 20% bigger at the end of a lifetime of saving. We have to move the competitive dynamic, but implementation, as Charlotte said, is critical.

[Steve Darling]

Q The other element I just want to touch on briefly is whether you have any thoughts on educating firms’ trustees about what value for money really is? Quite often, as you have alluded to, it is the cheapest investment, rather than the one that gives the maximum return, that they might be seeing from the HR department of a company, rather than getting a broader perspective. That would be really helpful. Any thoughts around that world?

Patrick Coyne: I think bringing consistent comparable metrics that matter to the marketplace in a format that people can trust can start to drive competitive pressures on what matters, which is holistic value. Trustees—and across the Bill—want to do the right thing. They want to act in members’ best interests, but they do not have the tools for the job. The starting point is to provide them with quality information to act on that intent.

[John Grady]

Q With DC—defined contribution—schemes, as you know, savers themselves have discretion about where they put their money. The issue we face, illustrated by Dimson, Marsh and Staunton’s regular review of asset returns, is that people are not saving in things that will get them a long-term return, are they? The other issue we face is that there has been a real shift from public markets to private markets over the past 25 years or so. If you are not investing in those, you are missing out on returns that mean more money when you retire. I was just wondering, Ms Clark, if you could just put into context the work you are doing on the advice guidance boundary review and wider advice to savers, and how that will help pension savers and, therefore, help these reforms succeed?

Charlotte Clark: It is important to say that most people who are saving in a pension are probably saving in the default. When you say that they are choosing their investment, most of them are not. Whether it is the trustees of that scheme or whether it is the independent governance committee of that scheme, most people are going into that default, so the importance of the default is really crucial. While it is important to really think about engagement and talk about the advice guidance boundary review and some of the work that is happening there, it is also important that some people will not want to make those decisions. It is only people like us who seem to care about these sorts of things. Getting other people engaged in their investment is quite a challenge.

You are right that we are doing quite a lot of work, largely around the ISA area and the at-retirement area. One of the challenges at the moment is people taking money out of their pension and then putting it in cash. That may seem like a really wise decision if you are 55, but if you do not need that money for 20 years, it may keep track with inflation but you are going to miss out on asset returns, equity returns or other aspects of investment. So, we are really thinking about how we engage with people about those sorts of discussions. How can we make sure they are getting the right support? It comes back to the targeted support programme, which goes live in spring next year. So, working with providers at the moment on how they can support people when they are making these sorts of decisions, and just think about whether, if it is not full financial advice—I understand that can be very, very costly—are there other areas where we can give people help that is not as kind of extreme as that but allows people to think about those decisions in the round?

Patrick Coyne: I would just add that one of the reforms in the Bill around guided retirement is reflective of that default conundrum we face. We have a brilliant system—11 million more savers—but nobody making an active choice. That means that when people approach retirement, only one in five has a plan to access and when they do, as Charlotte said, half are taking it as cash. That cannot be the right outcome. Within the Bill, introducing a guided retirement duty enables those institutional investors to start to guide individuals or cohorts of members into the right kind of products for them, with clear opt-outs for them to choose a different way. As Charlotte said, the type of support and new form of regulated advice could really help inform savers and make good choices at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling]

Q Thank you both for coming. My questions are for Christopher Brooks. From your perspective at Age UK, what are the three wicked issues that the Bill could help tackle—the ones that come most often across your desk at Age UK, which people find a challenge in later life?

Christopher Brooks: That is a really good question. I think that first, I would flag the decumulation provisions, which are a really excellent idea. They are exactly what should be happening at the moment. Because it is a new regime, there are lots of challenges around designing and implementing it, which probably need quite a bit of thinking through, just to make sure we can get it right for members.

There are some tensions in that process: if you are defaulted into something at, say, 65, there would be some tensions around the point at which you should do certain things. I think the general consensus is that it will result in people purchasing an annuity further down the line—probably around, say, age 75 or 80. We have seen for many years, pre-freedom and choice, big issues with the annuity market, with people shopping around, or failing to shop around, to get a better deal. If you are encouraging people to do that at age 80, that is potentially a recipe for disaster. First, because people will be taking a decision that they are not familiar with, and it is alien to them. Secondly, at age 80, a number of people are experiencing cognitive decline, so it is going to be even more challenging than it would have been at 65. That kind of thing, exactly how it works, needs thinking through in more detail.

On that point, I still think that ultimately, if you are going to force people into the open market, you probably need some kind of clearing house, so that it removes the risk, because there will be scammers out there, listening to this session, I am sure, and rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of lots of people taking those decisions.

The second point is about the contractual overrides, which are clearly crucial to make the whole system work. I think we need to make sure that the best interests test is working for members. When I read the Bill initially, the thing that stood out most for me was that there seemed to be a lack of consumer protection at that point. When the provider undertakes the best interests test, if they are making an external comparison, they only have to compare with one other situation, one other scenario. That is what it says in the Bill. I do not think it is sufficient. I think the Bill should be amended, at least to say, “Make two comparisons,” or possibly to be a bit vaguer and say, “Make a reasonable number of comparisons,” so that it can be left open-ended and give a bit more scope for flexibility. That seems to be one area.

I think the best interests test needs to consider different classes of members as well. At the moment, it just looks at members as a whole, but there are different people in different situations within any scheme. For example, people approaching retirement are in a completely different position from people in their 20s or 30s, so any decisions about transfers need to make sure that all those interests are considered.

Probably the main point is about the independent assessor, who will then look at the best interests test and how it has been conducted and rubber-stamp it according to some FCA regulations yet to be written. We think quite strongly that the independent assessor should have some kind of fiduciary duty applied to them. I do not think there is any reason why this could not work, but at the moment they do not seem to be fully incentivised to act in the members’ interests or prioritise members’ interests above those of the scheme.

That is another really clear addition to the Bill that we think should take place. I think that would make the system so much more robust. There are potentially some really negative outcomes for members if they are transferred into inferior arrangements. I am sure it is not the intention of the Bill to do that, and it is probably not the intention of most providers, but it could still happen. I think putting some kind of fiduciary duty on the independent person would give this a lot more strength and make it fairly watertight for members.

[Damien Egan]

Q Christopher, a number of us are on the Work and Pensions Committee and we know that one of many big issues is people coming up to retirement and being prepared—even knowing how much they have got to take into retirement. How do you see this Bill—you have talked through some of the challenges—helping people to prepare for their future, know how much money they will have and make decisions at a better time?

Christopher Brooks: How the Bill tackles that is probably through the governance structures that will be put in place. When there is a fiduciary duty, the governance is reasonably strong. I believe it is stronger under a fiduciary duty than under the contract-based system. For example, the trustees are better placed than IGCs—independent governance committees. I think we will see IGCs potentially play a greater role in some of the transfers. That is an opportunity to make sure that IGCs can do their job more effectively and have better access to the necessary data, which was flagged previously by the FCA as not always being the case. Clearly they need to be independent, so it will not be appropriate to have employees of the firm sitting on them any longer. I believe a number of them do at the moment, but I do not think getting employees taken off will be an issue.

Once you are in retirement, you have a separate issue. Because the decumulation part of the Bill leaves a lot to the regulators to decide in the future, it has not been clearly specified how the governance will work, so there is an issue about making sure, when those regulations are written, that it does work well for people. There is clearly going to be a gap around information as well. We recently did some research with Aviva, and one of the recommendations was that we need some kind of intervention for people in their mid-70s about how they look after the rest of their lives and how they manage their pension. That kind of support is going to be crucial if people are expected to take a decision in their late 70s or early 80s with regard to annuitisation or how they draw down the rest of their money. There is a big gap there as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Steve Darling.

[Steve Darling]

Q Thank you both for coming. Reflecting on pensions systems around the world, what one silver bullet would you both say would help drive positive change through this Bill and strengthen it if applied to it?

Colin Clarke: That is a good question. Both our companies have recently been on various trips, to Australia, in particular, and there are various references in the Bill impact assessment to measures that are being or have been done there. One of the key learnings is around improving adequacy. In the round, there are lots of measures in the Bill that will help achieve that—for example, the introduction of the value for money test and the potential for better returns. One of the learnings we took away was around Australia’s “Your Future, Your Super” test, how they define value for money and how appropriate it is to set certain benchmarks. What are the risks if you do set those benchmarks, like the risk of investment herding and things like that? I think the value for money framework, if it is done right, has the potential to improve outcomes for members.

Contributions, obviously, is one big thing—I know that is not in the Bill. The Pensions Commission is going to be looking at that for adequacy in the round. I think that the measures around performance and value, and ensuring that the focus shifts away from cost to value, are among the key things that the Bill will seek to deliver.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q My question is related to that. Aviva, in your written evidence, you spoke quite a lot about the value for money framework. Could you expand on what you think the benefits and challenges are? You also referred to the Australian regulator’s model, in terms of learning. You have already covered a bit of it, but if there anything you could add on what we could learn from that model about incentivising investments in the right areas, that would be great.

Dale Critchley: What we have heard from Australia is that the thing to avoid is regulator-defined targets, which will probably lead to herding, and can lead to schemes avoiding certain investments. For example, in Australia, property includes social housing and commercial property, but there is one benchmark for everything. So pension schemes do not invest in social housing, because they cannot achieve the benchmark through investing in social housing, as the benchmark is common across all property. Those are things to watch out for.

The other piece is that if you have set benchmarks, people will look to achieve the benchmark and not exceed it—they do not want to be the white chicken among all the brown chickens. Those are the things to avoid, in terms of the value for money benchmarks.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Around a year ago, the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government around 3 million pensioners in poverty. Sadly, last winter’s cuts to the winter fuel payment saw many pensioners pushed into hardship. In the light of winter fuel price hikes, will the Minister reconsider the Government’s proposals and ensure that moneys are paid to pensioners who missed out on the winter fuel payment last winter?

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his question, but would gently say that every time he opposes every single tax rise or any difficult choice in this House, he is saying that the Liberal Democrats are not a party that could deliver on commitments, for example, to the triple lock, which will increase in cost, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, by £31 billion by the end of this Parliament. There are things called “choices”, which are necessary if we are to provide for our top priorities—and for Labour Members, the top priorities, when it comes to pensioners, are making sure that we can increase the state pension, the bedrock of most pensioners’ living standards, and saving the NHS, and that is exactly what we will continue to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Government are right to want to see more people with disabilities and long-term sickness get into work. Sadly, this was used to justify the savage cuts to benefits that were proposed earlier this year. My colleagues and I are hearing reports of cuts to current awards through Access to Work, and to new payments, being done by the back door. Can the Minister cast any light on whether guidance has been given to civil servants on such cuts?

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

There has been no change at all to policy on Access to Work. As the hon. Member knows, we did consult, in the Green Paper earlier in the year, on reform to Access to Work. There has been a big increase in demand for it, and reform is needed. We are looking at the consultation responses at the moment. There may have been instances in the past where the published guidance was not always properly applied. It is being applied now, and that may give rise to some of the issues that have been drawn to his attention, but there has been no change at all in the policy.

Welfare Spending

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Children are 20% of our population in the United Kingdom but 100% of our future, and it is shocking that almost a third of those children are growing up in poverty. That is why the Liberal Democrats believe the two-child limit should be lifted, as well as the benefit cap.

There are 4.5 million children living in poverty in the United Kingdom. That is almost a million and a half more than the population of Wales, which is shocking in the 21st century. Some 44% of children live in a family where someone has a disability, which relates back to the conversations we have had about universal credit and PIP in recent weeks. The figure I have is slightly different from that of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh): 72% of children living in poverty live in a family where an individual is in work—people are in work, and yet their children are in poverty.

I reflect on a visit I made to a primary school in Paignton in the winter, where the headteacher said, “We have children who are coming into school cold, hungry and tired.” The impact of this on children is shocking. I represent the most deprived constituency that has a Liberal Democrat MP. The fact of the matter is that children do not choose to be born into large families, so having a benefits system that punishes those children is perverse in the extreme. This has been exacerbated by the cost of living crisis. Whether it is skyrocketing rents or utility bills, those are all significant challenges that have an impact on these youngsters.

The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said that people have choices. What about a couple who choose to have three or four children, and everything is going well, but suddenly one of them is in an accident or contracts a significant disease that debilitates them, and their partner has to give up work to look after them and the rest of the family? That is not a choice; it is a sad circumstance for that family. We as a society need to make sure that the safety net is there to support them.

The Liberal Democrats have made a manifesto commitment to lift the two-child limit and the benefit cap, and it is not just us who believe this is the right way forward. The big four children’s charities believe this is the best, most cost-effective way to tackle child poverty. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation—a much loved organisation of mine—also believes this is the best way to tackle child poverty.

Childhood is a very short period of our lives. It is sad that the child poverty strategy has been delayed, but I hope it will emerge in the autumn. When I was the leader of Torbay council, we turned round children’s services from failing to good within two years. Part of that was ensuring that we used the whole of our orchestra of Torbay to support children: the Government’s biggest instrument is lifting the two-child limit and the benefit cap, because we desperately need to lift these children out of poverty.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

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

[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 ---

[Steve Darling]

I really welcome the fact that disabled groups are going to be meaningfully engaged, according to the Minister’s proposal, and I look forward to seeing the full details of that, but how will carers’ groups be engaged as well? I would welcome some assurance on that.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raised that point very reasonably in the debate, and it is certainly something we need to consider as well.

Pension Schemes Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I will not disappoint the Minister: I assure him that broadly agree with an awful lot in the Bill. However, as we touched on in our meeting earlier today, there are some areas where we have concerns that are similar to those expressed by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), in more ways than one.

As Liberal Democrats, we want individuals to have confidence and be given the ability to invest in pension schemes that they know all about. We also want businesses to be supported to get their pensions out, supporting their employees. Elements of the Bill are about re-engineering to drive better outcomes for those who have pensions, which is to be very much welcomed, and about investment. We want to ensure that the individuals are front and centre of that support.

As others have said, we know that there are 12 million people who are not saving enough. In my own constituency of Torbay, some people have challenges just to get enough money to put bread on the table and cover their bills, and to save for a pension is beyond their wildest dreams. Reflecting on how we can drive that agenda of supporting people to make those changes around how they can save is absolutely essential.

My father was a haulage contractor—more commonly, a lorry driver—and self-employed. He saw the poverty that his father lived in, and in the 1980s he chose to save for a private pension, as Mrs Thatcher suggested. He put probably more than half of his income at times into savings, but because he was poorly advised, the stock market crashed and he was left with less money than he put in. That was horrific for him. Fortunately, the systems are now more protective of people who put into pensions, but that is a cautionary tale of what can go wrong. Ensuring that we support those individuals is absolutely essential.

As Liberal Democrats, we really welcome the development of larger pots, which will hopefully drive better outcomes for individuals. We know that in our more complex world of employment, many people will have small pots. While we welcome the idea of drawing these together in certain pots, we are not convinced that the pots should follow the pensioner rather than having certain pots that the Government would manage, but that is to be discussed elsewhere as part of the proposals before us.

The final area I will explore is investing in our economy, because growth is clearly absolutely essential. If our pension industry can be part of what oils the wheels of growth, that is to be welcomed. As Liberal Democrats, ensuring that we drive the social rented housing that is desperately needed and our high streets and see if those can be areas that benefit from investment is absolutely essential. However, we have concerns around mandation—colleagues have already raised this point, and I agree with them. The Minister has said positive things around mandation, and we look forward to unpicking that in Committee with him, but we believe that part of that is about ensuring transparency. As Liberal Democrats, we would like to ensure that there is clear evidence of how pensions are helping us to prepare for and tackle climate change in a positive way.

As Liberal Democrats, we want to ensure that the pensioner themselves is front and centre. We welcome the reorganisation, but driving that positive growth in our economy is absolutely essential as part of these proposals. We look forward to working with the Minister and his colleagues in getting this positive legislation through.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Steve Darling Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I associate myself with the speech just made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The Liberal Democrats will be supporting the reasoned amendment that we are now debating.

Over the past few weeks that the Green Paper has been under debate, some of the comments from Labour high command, such as describing Labour Back Benchers as “noises off”, have been disturbing in the extreme. People who should know better within the leadership of the Labour party described PIP as “pocket money”, which is utterly shameful. The way the Bill is being dashed through is equally shameful, and it decreases the credibility of Ministers. If the Bill is fine, it should have appropriate levels of scrutiny. We all know that rushed Bills are poor Bills, and the law of unintended consequences will come to haunt the Government if this Bill goes through.

As has been alluded to, this two-tier approach to the system is wrong. I and the Liberal Democrats have grave concerns that it is un-British, unjust and not the way of our world. We have heard the Minister saying that it has been done before, but that does not make it right. It is almost Orwellian that we will have a system where in our law we say that all disabled people are equal, but some are more equal than others.

[Neil Coyle]

Is the hon. Member saying that he regrets the Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition establishing PIP and abolishing disability living allowance? The Leader of the Opposition gave the example of someone with Parkinson’s. Someone with Parkinson’s who is over 65 could be on DLA, PIP and attendance allowance. Does he regret that decision? Should that situation not exist?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution—his contributions are always good value.

What message does this Bill send to disabled children? We will be saying that those who have gone down the path of their disability degenerating to the extent that they can claim PIP will be over the line, but those youngsters who know they have a degenerative condition can look forward to no PIP under the Bill.

I reflect to the Chamber that PIP is often a passport to other levels of support, such as blue badges or rail cards, which give people the opportunity of getting out and living their best lives. Perhaps the most important passported benefit from PIP is carer’s allowance. We have grave concerns about this Bill’s impact on those families who will no longer benefit from carer’s allowance. They will be robbed of up to £12,000 a year.

Do not get me wrong; we as Liberal Democrats recognise that the benefits system is broken and needs resolving, but it needs, as we had in our manifesto, co-design with disabled groups and carers groups to make sure that we get it right for our people.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Secretary of State has claimed that she is listening. Does the hon. Member agree that she is certainly not listening to many of her Back Benchers, nor the 86 disability charities that have said this Bill will harm disabled people? We all know that reform is needed, but when we talk about reform, there is no mention of the fraud that goes on within the system that is costing our country billions. Surely we should start with that and not impact on and affect the most vulnerable in our society. We will be voting against this Bill today for that reason.

[Steve Darling]

I agree with the hon. Member.

Let me return to the reasons why people are not in work—the root causes, and some of the challenges. People have come to my constituency surgery and said, “I have a long-term illness, but I cannot be fixed by the NHS because it is broken.” Until we have sorted out the national health service and the social care system, people will be trapped in long-term ill health, and that needs to be resolved as a matter of urgency. I have already banged on about this, but while we acknowledge that PIP is not an out-of-work benefit but a benefit that helps people to lead lives that many of us would take for granted, the reality is that the Access to Work scheme is massively broken, and that too needs to be resolved. While there are warm words—

[Ms Billington]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Darling]

I am happy to give way.

[Ms Billington]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but may I remind him that although the Access to Work scheme may well be broken, measures in the Bill and the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper deal specifically with how we should improve it for our constituents, many of whom rely on it as a way of ensuring that they can become fully able people, and able to work? If the hon. Gentleman votes against the Bill, the risk will be that that goes too.

[Steve Darling]

The Access to Work system has been here for years, and it continues to be broken. The Government could easily fix it, but they are choosing not to roll up their sleeves and engage in sorting it out now. Constituents have told me that they have almost lost their jobs because of what is going on here and now. We also need answers from the carers allowance review. Many pieces of the jigsaw must be in place before we push forward with these proposals.

Let me emphasise that this is a broken system, and we should not proceed until we have heard from that Timms review. We should not be abandoning some of the most vulnerable members of society. The Liberal Democrats will vote for the amendment, and if that is lost, we will vote against the second motion. We cannot help those who are already broken by breaking a system.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Welfare Reform

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Prime Minister and many Ministers have identified that the benefits system is broken and its cost is skyrocketing, but balancing the books on the backs of the poor is wrong-headed in the extreme. The proposals today are a leap into the dark. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are really concerned that they are rushed proposals. Legislation that is rushed is often wrong, with unintended consequences. As the Member of Parliament for Torbay, I am concerned, as my Liberal Democrat colleagues are, about the disabled and long-term sick, their children, their families and carers.

There are some root causes. Our broken NHS and social care system needs to be resolved so that support is there for those most in need. Our Access to Work scheme is broken and needs resolving as a matter of urgency. There are some real challenges, so I hope that the Secretary of State will give some genuine answers. What consultation has she undertaken with carers? What cost shunting for our care and social needs system has she identified in the proposals? Finally, will she consider withdrawing these proposals so that there is adequate consultation and scrutiny to avoid any bystanders being hit?

[Liz Kendall]

I know that the hon. Gentleman cares passionately about these issues. He raises the urgent need to ensure that our NHS is back on its feet. We are beginning to make a difference, with waiting lists down for the first time in two years and with 4 million appointments—more than double we promised—created in our first year.

The hon. Gentleman talks about the failings of Access to Work. I absolutely agree: that is why, as part of the Green Paper, we are looking to reform it so that it is available to more people in future. We care passionately about family carers. As I said in my statement, existing PIP claimants will be protected as a result of the changes announced today, as will those carers whose carer’s allowance is a passported benefit.

We are also looking at the future of social care with the review by Louise Casey. We are bringing these changes forward because we do not think it acceptable that the UK has one of the widest disability employment gaps in western Europe, at 28%, which is much higher than Germany, France and Sweden. We think that is unacceptable and we want to change it. That is why we are making these reforms.

Disabled People in Poverty

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) on securing this extremely important debate. PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, as many Members have alluded to, or a benefit that gives people their best lives; it helps them to live lives that are bearable—that is the reality of it. It allows people to get through what many of us in the Chamber would think of as a challenging life, rather than actually living their best life.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I spoke to Jacqueline from Street, who is unable to work and is absolutely desperate. Heartbreakingly, she told me that if her PIP is removed, she is prepared to take her own life. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the vital support that PIP payments provide to the most vulnerable in society is not a luxury, but a lifeline?

[Steve Darling]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that. I have received, as I am sure many colleagues have, disturbing commentary from constituents, where people are already desperately worried, 18 months ahead of any reductions.

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted some key barriers around poverty. Members have already alluded to the extra cost of living, but one barrier that I am particularly alive to, as a disabled person who went to a special educational needs school myself, is the lack of ambition for youngsters. It was an exception in my school if someone did an O-level; the highest we were expected to do was CSEs. There is a significantly lower level of educational attainment for people with disabilities.

Hon. Members have already alluded to the barriers to getting into work. Those may be simple misunderstandings, because people with disabilities can do things; they may just have to do them a little differently. It was with great pleasure that I met earlier this week with Turning Heads, a community interest company run by Alan Tilley for people with learning disabilities—appropriately, since it is Learning Disability Week. Alan shared with us that 75% of people with learning disabilities are out of work and that 86% of those people want to work.

[Rachel Gilmour]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a remarkable institution in my Tiverton and Minehead constituency called Foxes Hotel, which trains people with mental disabilities to become employed in hotels and hospitality centres across the country. In fact, one young lady from Foxes works in our kitchens in the House of Commons. It is not all doom and gloom, but suffice it to say that Foxes is known within the disabled community as the Oxbridge of training—it is unique, and is not the norm. Did my hon. Friend know that?

[Steve Darling]

I am reminded of the gentleman who won “Strictly Come Dancing” last year, who said that what people with disability need is “opportunity, support and determination”. My hon. Friend’s example demonstrates that in spades.

I will not spend too much time discussing Access to Work, but it is a broken system. It should be there to support people, but it undermines them through massive delays in assessments. In south Devon, businesses that support people have closed down because they are owed so much money. The No Limits café in Newton Abbot closed because of a lack of money, due to the arrears owed to it by Access to Work.

I am concerned that Ministers are getting confused—I will be extremely upset if they do so today—about employment and PIP. They should not be confused. PIP is purely about ensuring that people can live what many of us would see as normal lives. I represent the most deprived community with a Liberal Democrat representative, Torbay, and I am concerned that the cuts to PIP will see cash sucked out of some of our most deprived communities across the country. That is money that would go to people doing support work such as cleaning, helping people to go shopping, taxis and so on being sucked out of what are already our most impoverished communities. There are some real challenges there. The real killer is that 150,000 carers could lose support funding—£12,000 per household. That will push people deeper into poverty and further into destitution.

[Neil Coyle]

Can the hon. Gentleman remind us whether the disability employment gap and the disability poverty gap rose or fell when his party was in government?

[Steve Darling]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention—I always look forward with great relish to his interventions.

I am concerned at the lack of consultation around the cuts. That is perverse. I am also concerned that the Government may be rushing the proposals through, perhaps even without a Bill Committee, but rather a Committee of the whole House. Will the Minister assure us that the Bill will receive appropriate scrutiny?

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Steve Darling Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) not just on obtaining this debate here today, but on the extremely important campaign that he has led the charge on. When we get elected as an MP we think, “What am I here for?”. It is about agency, and it is about seeking justice for our communities. The community of 13,000 women across the United Kingdom deserve that justice.

I will reflect on what we have heard in the debate and the forced adoption that was inflicted on those youngsters. I was not aware that Philomena had had her son Tony for three years before being forced to give up her child.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

The new finish time will be 4.12 pm.

[Steve Darling]

Just before the Division, I was looking to talk about trauma and the significant impact that it has had on those young women’s lives. We know it may have impacted them for their whole lives, and as Liberal Democrats we feel that justice must be served, and without delay. I look forward to the Minister giving some hope to those who could benefit from this system concerning how it could be put into action—hopefully in a matter of months, rather than years.

I have an admission to make: I have never seen the film “Philomena”—probably because I would find it too upsetting, having been adopted myself. Between 1949 and 1976, 185,000 children went through a system within the UK where a culture of adoption existed around certain mother and baby units up and down England and Wales. Jon Holmes, who many of us will know from Radio 4 comedy, did a very good “File on 4” programme on the impact on those individuals, particularly the mothers. Although he was adopted, he never found his birth mother.

I was very fortunate: although I was adopted in Birmingham, my parents, Eric and Penny, who were outstanding adoptive parents, moved down to Torquay. About 15 years ago I found my birth mother, Pam, living only nine miles from Torquay. We meet regularly and have had Christmas dinner together, but it is evident how what she went through with losing me has left her with trauma and an emotional scar throughout her life. I am sure that that was also the case, if not amplified to a large extent, in the mother and baby units in Ireland, where there were significantly more state-sponsored institutions involved in the forced adoption and forced labour, and a sense of shame on individuals.

We need to see that justice is brought to bear on this situation. We need to see Philomena’s law enacted. Capital disregard was applied in relation to the 7/7 terrorist attacks and the institutional sexual abuse of children. In recent months, the same principle has been applied in respect of tainted blood; that measure has only recently gone through the Commons. I implore the Minister to ensure that we drive Philomena’s law, as a matter of urgency, and let it take flight.

Winter Fuel Payment

Steve Darling Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the hon. Member for his comments and his welcome for this change; he called it the right change. He asked about different treatment of single and couple households; I can explain that in a bit more detail. Single households will receive the entire household’s winter fuel payment to the one individual, whether that is £200 or £300. If the individual’s income is below £35,000, they will keep that in full, and if the individual’s income is above £35,000, that will be recouped by HMRC unless they choose to opt out. With couples, the situation for those not receiving means-tested benefits will be as it was before July 2024, which is split payments, half to each member of the household, and then they will be individually tested against the tax system.

I thank the hon. Member for giving me the chance to clarify that point. I also entirely endorse his statement about pension credit. The reason we want to see higher rates of pension credit take-up is not because of winter fuel payment per se, because that is small relative to the financial gains that come from people who are entitled to a pension credit receiving it. We absolutely must maintain the progress on pension credit take-up in the months and years ahead. As I said in my statement, I welcome the work of MPs in their constituencies, and of local authorities and charities, in driving up those rates.