Stephen Timms MP: speeches

Speeches

• 9 Mar 2026 · Work Capability Assessments · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is right to raise this matter. She is also right that the Department prioritises initial assessments, so that people without any support at all get it as soon as possible. Reassessments are then carried out when there is capacity. As I said, the backlog that built up towards the end of 2024 will have been almost entirely cleared by the end of this month. If there is still a problem in the case of her constituent, I would be grateful if she dropped me a line.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Worker Protection: Hazardous Medicinal Products · Hansard source

  More

  The Health and Safety Executive is working to ensure that employers know their duties under COSHH—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2022, as amended. Those regulations require a risk assessment and the prevention of, or adequate control of, exposure of employees to hazardous medicinal products.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Worker Protection: Hazardous Medicinal Products · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think I have seen the report the hon. Gentleman refers to. From what I have seen, there is no evidence of a problem with the current arrangements. There may be some pointers in the information he referred to, and if there are, I would be keen to have a look at them.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Worker Protection: Hazardous Medicinal Products · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend make an interesting suggestion, and I know there has been some campaigning around this issue. The Health and Safety Executive has not seen evidence that the current arrangements are inadequate. They appear to be robust and well established, and they seem to be doing the job that is needed. If there is evidence of a problem to which my hon. Friend is able to draw attention, the HSE will certainly look at that very seriously. For now, though, the focus is on making sure that NHS trusts and others know their obligations under the current regulations.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Work Capability Assessment Timescales · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this debate. I welcome the opportunity to consider journey times in the work capability assessment, both for initial assessments and reassessments. I take the point that it is the latter group in which the hon. Lady is particularly interested. I echo her tribute to MPs’ caseworkers, which was very well made. I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that people claiming health and disability-related benefits have their entitlement assessed as quickly as possible, so that they get the support they need. Let me set out the Government’s policy on the work capability assessment. It was introduced in 2008 as the gateway to the employment and support allowance, which was the then new benefit to replace incapacity benefit. As it happens, I was the Minister responsible at the time. I remember being told that the WCA had been devised across Alan Johnson’s kitchen table in the period when he was Secretary of State. Since 2013, it has also been the gateway to the additional health-related sum in universal credit. Two people with the same condition can be affected in different ways, so they can have different outcome decisions from their WCA. The three possible outcomes for a UC applicant are: fit for work, where the individual is not entitled to the additional health element of universal credit; limited capability for work, where the individual gains access to the work allowance in universal credit, but gets no increased rate of benefit; and limited capability for work and work-related activity, so-called LCWRA, which gives access to a higher rate of benefit with no requirement to take part in work-related activity. The WCA links capacity to work to additional financial support. In our Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we outlined our plan—and the hon. Lady touched on this matter—to abolish the WCA and end the binary categorisation of people as “can work” or “cannot work”. We do not think that black and white categorisation works. One of the problems with it has been that although people deemed not capable of work are still offered help to look for work, there is no requirement to take it up and, in practice, they rarely do. The system has given up on them, but we are now changing that. Work coaches with a new specific brief to support people classified as LCWRA say they are getting a positive response from the people they are contacting. In future, eligibility for additional health-related financial support in universal credit will be assessed in England and Wales via the personal independence payment assessment. It will be based on the impact of disability on daily living, rather than on capacity to work. The hon. Lady is right to make the point about how arrangements might work in Scotland and we are already discussing that with the Scottish Government. Our ambition is a system that is simple to navigate, can be trusted by those who use it, provides a good experience and, generally, obtains the right decision the first time. Due to its link with the PIP assessment, the WCA abolition will not proceed until after the conclusion of the review into PIP that I am currently co-chairing. The co-chairs have recruited a steering group of a dozen people to oversee the co-produced review of PIP. Almost all of the steering group have lived experience of a disability or long-term health condition. We are going to have a full day together tomorrow, considering how to secure external input to our consideration of how the system should work in the future. The review’s recommendations will be submitted to the Secretary of State in the autumn. In the meantime, the WCA process, as the hon. Lady rightly highlighted, needs to be as efficient and supportive as possible. WCA waiting times can vary depending on individual circumstance, including the complexity of the case, the need for further medical evidence, and customers’ availability and assessment capacity. The latest reported median end-to-end journey time for new employment and support allowance work capability assessments is 87 working days. That is broadly comparable with what it was before the pandemic. It includes the four weeks that people applying for the benefit have to complete and return their WCA50 questionnaire, as well as time for the providers to request and receive further medical evidence from a GP or another healthcare professional. New benefit applications are primarily for universal credit rather than for ESA. Clearance times for WCAs in universal credit are not yet published, but they will be in phase 6 of the proposed development of universal credit statistics. There is a big plan for how those are going to be rolled out. As the hon. Lady explained, she has a particular interest in claimant-led WCA reassessments—when somebody already in receipt of benefit reports that their condition has worsened. She has made representations to me on behalf of constituents about that. I think I have now replied to all the letters she has written to me about that, although one of them was just earlier this week, so we have only just managed that. As the hon. Lady said, the Department prioritises initial assessments for new benefit customers. The reason for that is to make sure that people receive the correct entitlement and employment-related support as early as possible. It is right to prioritise for those assessments people who have not got any help at all yet, ahead of those wanting a fresh look at the amount they are receiving in benefit. Reassessments are carried out when there is capacity in the system to do them. The background to the backlog that the hon. Lady referred to is that, in late 2024, after the general election, there was a surge of new benefit claims, so there was a need for a lot of new WCAs. Handling that surge led to a backlog of claimant-led reassessments, which built up from September 2024 until May 2025. When I was advised that we had a backlog of 35,000 claimant-led reassessments, I told officials to prioritise that group, and I am pleased that most of that backlog was cleared by the start of this calendar year. The vast majority of it will be cleared altogether by the end of this month. That should mean that the problems quite rightly highlighted by the hon. Lady will be behind us. Alongside claimant-led reassessments, there are Department-led reassessments, where the Department decides that a reassessment is needed to check that the benefit being paid is correct. They are often carried out after a benefit award has been in payment for a specified period. Those Department-led reassessments stopped altogether for a period in the pandemic and for some time after, while the backlog of new claims left by the pandemic was processed. In the Pathways to Work Green Paper last year, we said that we would turn on scheduled WCA reassessments as we build up capacity in our assessment providers. We are prioritising scheduled reassessments for people who are most likely to have had a change in their circumstances—for example, those with a short-term prognosis, for whom we can reasonably anticipate that a change in their health condition has occurred. That includes those with risks from pregnancy complications, or those who have recovered following cancer treatment. We intend to do that while simultaneously reducing delays and improving timescales for those awaiting a reassessment—the group that the hon. Lady highlighted. That will mean that people who have asked for a review of their capability for work due to worsening health can be seen and receive an outcome as quickly as possible. To do that, we will continue to increase assessment capacity significantly, through accelerated recruitment of healthcare professionals. Our providers have also expanded appointment availability, including some evening and weekend slots, and improved triage processes to identify cases that are suitable for paper-based or remote assessment, which can be dealt with particularly quickly. Those steps will continue to help improve the overall experience and ensure timely access to assessments for those who need them. However, ensuring that people are assessed and get the support they are entitled to as quickly as possible is not everything. The hon. Lady rightly made the point, as she said in her most recent letter, that we need to “avoid cutting corners which could lead to wrong decisions being made”. She is absolutely right on that. One important factor is whether assessments are carried out face to face. Before the pandemic, face-to-face assessments were the standard. Those stopped in lockdown and, for obvious reasons, assessments were carried out by telephone or by video call—mostly by telephone. Looking back, that worked rather better than people might have anticipated, but it meant that in 2021, only 5% of work capability assessments were carried out face to face. After the pandemic, there was a very slow return to face to face: in 2024, only 13% of work capability assessments were face to face. [ Official Report, 11 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 2WC.] (Correction) We think it is very important for accuracy and fairness that many more of them should be carried out face to face, so we have committed to increasing that proportion to 30%. We are making good progress in that direction; the statistics will be published in due course. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) rightly asked about a trauma-informed approach to assessment. Assessment providers adhere to a comprehensive quality and clinical governance assurance framework that aligns with the Department’s contractual and professional standards. All healthcare professionals conducting work capability assessments have to be fully qualified and appropriately registered, and have completed the necessary specialist training, before carrying out any assessments. Once they are in the role, they also have a full programme of continuing professional development to support them. To maintain consistent standards of accuracy, justification and clarity, providers carry out regular audit sampling of their assessment reports, which helps them to identify areas for improvement. Alongside that, the Department conducts a programme of independent assessment quality audits. Where those identify problems, the Department makes sure that providers put things right through enhanced training, additional coaching or whatever is needed. Providers maintain a collaborative relationship with the Department, taking part in performance reviews to ensure that expectations are met and improvements are embedded. Where performance falls below contractual quality thresholds, providers have to act promptly, perhaps with detailed improvement plans, strengthened audit processes, increased supervision or further training. The Department monitors progress closely and, if there is a significant or persistent problem of underperformance, is able to apply contractual remedies to address the problem. Having said all of that, there are of course times when things go wrong. Earlier this week, I met with a Member who expressed concern about the outcome of a PIP assessment. I raised the case with officials in the Department who had a look at it. The assessment had been carried out by one of the assessment providers and, when the provider checked it, it agreed that the assessment was wrong; I think the individual who carried out the assessment was suspended. Things do sometimes go wrong, and it is absolutely right that Members raise these things with me so that we can address them. One of the main reasons why maintaining quality is so important is that, as the hon. Member for North East Fife said, some of those going through the WCA are among the most vulnerable people due to the nature or severity of their disability or health condition, or for some other reason. We have in place a range of measures to identify, prioritise and safeguard vulnerable customers from the earliest stage, including helping them to complete the WCA50 questionnaire, encouraging people to have someone with them when attending an assessment and the provision of home visits, if that is needed. We know that some people need more support than that. The hon. Lady raised that with me in a letter last October. We are not planning a triage system for prioritising such cases, because we are really focused on getting all the cases cleared as quickly as possible, but the Department has committed to a new safeguarding approach, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State outlined in a written ministerial statement in December, and a lot of work is going into that. I am most grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife for drawing this matter to the attention of the House, for her long-standing interest in this very important subject and for the contributions of others who have intervened in this debate. Question put and agreed to.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have set out estimates of the effects that we think will result from the removal of the two-child limit, and there will be more information in the baseline evaluation report that we will publish in the summer. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) made some important points. I particularly agree with her about the importance of scrapping the rape clause, which had been a feature of the legislation since the two-child limit was introduced. She is right that we need to understand properly the impacts of policy interventions. We have published a monitoring and evaluation framework alongside the child poverty strategy that sets out how we will track and evaluate progress, reflecting our commitment to transparency, accountability and continuing to learn from what is effective. The baseline report will be published in the summer, as I have said, and set out details on plans alongside the latest statistics and evidence, and we will report annually on progress after that. The information that we are committed to publish will provide the information looked for in these new clauses. I very much look forward to the report from the Work and Pensions Committee, which was referred to in an intervention by the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure what the effect will be. It is often said that a Labour Government has the effect of increasing the birth rate, but whether that will prove to be the case this time, I do not know. Child poverty is a big challenge. Reducing it over the next 10 years will require commitment and collaboration across all four nations. The strategy, including removing the two-child limit, builds on plans under way across Government and devolved Governments. We will continue to collaborate with devolved Governments on the issue, particularly through the implementation phase that will now follow. Clause 3 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill, the commencement dates for each of the sections, delegated powers and the short title of the Act. The Government recognise the consequences of child poverty and the damage that it does to a child’s life chances. In the poorest 10% of areas, babies are twice as likely to die before they turn one as those in the wealthiest 10% of areas. Poorer children are more likely to have mental health difficulties by the age of 11, to be unemployed later and to earn less as adults. We estimate that the Bill will increase the universal credit award for 560,000 families, who will gain on average £5,310 per year. That is a much-needed change from the choices of the previous Government—they chose austerity, and children paid the price. Tackling child poverty is an investment in our economy and a downpayment on Britain’s future.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. Interventions in the child poverty strategy will lead to the biggest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since comparable records began. I well understand the concerns of those saying we should go further, and it is certainly right to urge the Government to do that, but let us recognise how big a change this will be. Removing the two-child limit is the key step. It will help children to live better lives, fulfil their potential, have better mental health, do better at school, and thrive in the future. That change is in the national interest. The amendments propose a number of reports on different topics, and I am grateful that everybody who has spoken to them has indicated that they support the Bill. New clauses 1 and 4 ask the Secretary of State to report on the effect on children in households subject to the benefit cap. Indeed, new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), fulfils a commitment that he made on Second Reading to devise an amendment that would have that effect. It is an important point, and something we need to monitor carefully, but it is in the best interests of children to be in working households—and keeping the benefit cap in place protects the incentive to work. Work incentives are important. Under the policies of the last Government, far too many people gave up on work and concluded that it was not worth their while. We want it to be clear to everyone that it is worthwhile to be in work, and the Universal Credit Act 2025, enacted last summer, made an important step in that direction. Removing the two-child limit does not undermine work incentives. From time to time, the Conservatives suggest that it does, but actually it does not. Removing the two-child limit increases the income of many families in work and increases the reward for work, and it does not undermine work incentives. [ Official Report , 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 5WC.] (Correction)

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that we will turn to the points that my hon. Friend makes in a few moments, but I reassure her that we will undertake a thorough evaluation of the impacts of the strategy. We will publish regular updates, and I think she will find there the information that she is interested in. We cannot leave millions of children to succumb to the damaging impacts of poverty. The Government want instead to invest in children and in Britain’s future.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that the hon. Lady will raise that matter with the Department for Education. That is a very important point. We are extending free school meals to all children in families claiming universal credit; that is an important additional element of the child poverty strategy. There will be a comprehensive programme of analysis of the drivers of child poverty and the impact of specific interventions so that we can better learn what works and assess what further steps are needed. We will continue to gather evidence for further interventions beyond those that we have announced so far. For too long, the tide of child poverty was allowed simply to rise. It is high time to turn that tide. This Bill is the centrepiece of our child poverty strategy. It will deliver the most substantial reduction in child poverty of any Parliament since records began and make a decisive break from the inaction and indifference of the past. Government can make a difference: we can help children and their families to lead better lives now and in the future for the benefit of all. It is for all those reasons that I hope the Committee will support the Bill and reject the new clauses. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill. New Clause 3 Review of the impact of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of this Act coming into force, review the effect of this Act on— (a) overall levels of child poverty in the UK; (b) levels of destitution and deep poverty among households with children; (c) households in receipt of Universal Credit which include children; (d) educational outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; (e) physical and mental health outcomes for children in households affected by poverty; and (f) longer-term impacts on economic participation, workforce skills, and demand on health and welfare services arising from child poverty and destitution. (2) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the conclusions of the review.”— (Charlie Maynard.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to undertake a review of the effects of the Act on child poverty, destitution, and wider social and economic outcomes. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  One of the new clauses touches specifically on disabled people. That new clause was not moved, but, as the hon. Lady knows, we are undertaking a review of personal independence payments, which I am co-chairing with others. We will see what the outcome of that is, but if there are to be changes in eligibility we will certainly set out details on the effects on the benefit cap and other things as those things progress. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) to place an order on my behalf for Kate Pickett’s latest book, which I am very keen to have a look at. New clause 2 is specifically about households in poverty with a disabled family member. I agree that monitoring and evaluation of that and other things is very important, but we should not have an assessment that sits in isolation from the impact assessment that I have described, which we are committed to delivering alongside the wider child poverty strategy. New clause 3 asks that we review the impact of child poverty on destitution and wider social and economic outcomes. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for his support for the Bill. We have set out a second headline metric; we will measure deep material poverty in the child poverty strategy in the monitoring and evaluation framework. In that evaluation, we will track progress against two headline metrics. The first metric is relative low income—a metric embraced by David Cameron when he was the leader of the Conservative party but sadly not now recognised by the Conservatives. The second metric is deep material poverty, which will pick up on the concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to bring this Bill back before the House. This Government believe that everybody should have opportunity in life: opportunity to achieve their potential and their ambitions, whatever their background. However, at the moment too many children are held back by the scourge of poverty, which affects their wellbeing, how well they do at school and their prospects in their adult working lives as well. No child should have to face lifelong consequences like those, and neither should the country have to bear the huge cost of so much wasted talent and potential. Lifting the two-child limit in universal credit is the single most cost effective lever that we can pull to reduce substantially the number of children growing up in poverty. In doing so, we are helping hundreds of thousands of children to live better lives, supporting their families and investing in their future success. It is this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, to change the course of children’s lives for the better and to build a more hopeful future. The Bill makes a big contribution, delivering more security, more opportunity and more respect for families and communities across the UK. Clause 1 removes the universal credit two-child limit in Great Britain from April this year. By doing so, we will lift 450,000 children out of poverty. That means that for assessment periods starting on or after 6 April, the universal credit child element will be included for all children in the household, increasing the amount of social security support available to families on universal credit with three or more children. All the associated exceptions will be removed at the same time, including the notorious rape clause.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are confident that we can do that from April onwards. Reinstating support for all children in universal credit is a key step to tackling the structural drivers of child poverty. This Bill, combined with other measures in our child poverty strategy, will lift over half a million children out of poverty. Clause 2 removes the two-child limit from universal credit in Northern Ireland from April. We are including Northern Ireland in the Bill at the request of the Northern Ireland Executive, who are bringing forward a legislative consent motion in the usual way. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in his place. On Second Reading, he made the point that 50,000 children in Northern Ireland will be lifted out of child poverty. He rightly said: “If anyone is against that, there is something wrong with them.” —[ Official Report , 3 February 2026; Vol. 780, c. 168.] I agree with him on that point and I am grateful to him for making it.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. Scrapping the two-child limit is an investment in the future of children and of the country. Two million children will benefit from this Bill. We will be held to account on progress through the monitoring and evaluation arrangements we have put in place to ensure that the change we are making is genuinely lasting. I want to thank every Member who has contributed to these debates. Removing the two-child limit from universal credit will help more children to fulfil their potential, to grow up make a positive contribution and to be part of a fairer, stronger country. I hope that the whole House will now support this vital measure.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is right that raising wages has been a crucial part of the Government’s strategy, but removing the benefit cap would reduce work incentives. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said that there is no evidence that that is the case, but actually there is such evidence—from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, for example. It is not a huge amount of evidence but nevertheless there is evidence that the benefit cap provides a modest but significant incentive for work. Our view, for the time being at least, is that that should be maintained. We have published an impact assessment as part of the Bill. It sets out the number of households that will not gain in full or will only partially gain from this measure because of the benefit cap. The Department publishes quarterly statistics on the benefit cap, which includes the number of households that are capped and how that changes over time. The most recent quarterly statistics show that of 119,000 households capped at the start of the quarter that ended in August last year, 40,000—about one third—were no longer capped by the end of the quarter, although others were newly capped, so there is a lot of churn in the cohort of capped households. The 40,000 households that left that cohort included 2,900 who had ceased to be capped because their earnings exceeded the threshold of full-time earnings at the national living wage. We want to encourage more people to make that transition. [ Official Report , 2 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 5WC.] (Correction) We also publish statistics on the number of households affected by both the two-child limit and the benefit cap, with the next annual statistics to be published in the summer. After that, the quarterly benefit cap statistics will show how the number of capped households has changed after the two-child limit has been removed.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  We would certainly like to do so. Let us get up to the level that we have set, which will be a dramatic improvement on the situation we inherited. Once we have done so, we will learn the lessons and see what more we can do. I very much welcome the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who chairs the Work and Pensions Committee. I commend her and the Committee for their work. She referred to the research—published, I think, towards the end of last year—showing that children who suffer poverty and adversity in childhood are, as she said, five times more likely to be NEET as young adults. I looked at that interesting paper, and I think I am right in saying that it found that children who had grown up just below the poverty line, but without childhood adversity as well, were three times more likely to be NEET as young adults, so just poverty on its own leads to a big increase in the likelihood of being NEET. In order to tackle this big NEET problem—the shadow Minister was right to say that it needs tackling—we have to tackle child poverty, as we are doing with the scrapping of the two-child limit in universal credit.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  We are not proposing any change in those arrangements. As the hon. Gentleman will know, those arrangements were introduced by the previous Government. In fact, the coalition Government put in place the current arrangements for the new state pension, which were introduced with commitments to future uprating. We are committed to delivering the triple lock, but we are not planning to change the relativities between those two arrangements. Most working-age benefits and other benefits for people below state pension age will also increase by 3.8%. They includes statutory payments such as statutory sick pay, statutory maternity pay, the personal allowances of income support, housing benefit, jobseeker’s allowance, and contributory employment and support allowance. The order will also increase by 3.8% the child amounts, the carer amounts, transitional severe disability premiums in universal credit, and pensioner and carer premiums in income-related employment and support allowance. As I mentioned earlier, the Universal Credit Act 2025 included important changes to rebalance universal credit. For 2026-27, the standard allowance in universal credit will be uprated by September’s consumer prices index plus an additional 2.3%. That represents the first ever permanent above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance, and I believe that it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline benefit rate since the 1970s. [ Official Report , 23 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 4WC.] (Correction) That is not part of the order that we are debating, but all these increases will apply across Great Britain.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I think perhaps the point that the hon. Gentleman is making is that it does not fulfil the aspirations of the essentials guarantee campaign, with which he and I are familiar, and that is true. However, April’s above-inflation uprating will be the first of four such upratings, so there will be a similar over-inflation uprating in each of the following three Aprils. It will not end up at the level on which the essentials guarantee campaign has focused, but let us see what happens beyond the period for which we have made these announcements. As he said, it is an historic change of direction for public policy. Benefits for people in England and Wales who have additional costs as a result of disability or ill health will also increase by 3.8%. These include disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The increase will also apply to carer’s allowance. The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026 sets out the yearly amount by which the guaranteed minimum pension part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension, earned between 1988 and April 1997, must be increased when it is being paid. The increase is paid by occupational pension schemes, and helps to provide a measure of inflation protection for people in receipt of contracted-out occupational pensions earned between 1988 and 1997. The law requires that GMPs earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices measured the previous September, capped at 3%. The September 2025 inflation figure— or CPI—was 3.8%, so the increase for the financial year 2026-27 will be 3%. The 3% cap provides pension schemes with more certainty, allowing them to forecast their future liabilities more reliably. That is important when they are considering their funding commitments. The measure strikes a balance between, on one hand, protecting members against the effects of inflation, and on the other, not increasing scheme costs beyond what schemes and sponsoring employers can reasonably afford. The draft Social Security Benefits Uprating Order 2026 will, if Parliament approves it, commit the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in the next financial year. Changes will mainly come into effect from 6 April this year and apply for the tax year 2026-27. The order maintains the triple lock—which benefits pensioners in receipt of both the basic and new state pensions—raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices, increases the rates of benefit for those in the labour market, and increases the rates of carers benefits and benefits to help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment. The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formally contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMPs in pensions earned between April 1988 and April 1997, giving a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by the scheme. I commend the orders to the House.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  The question of how the tax system operates is a matter for His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me. However, the hon. Gentleman might take some comfort from the reassurance provided by the Chancellor that those whose only income is the basic or new state pension, without any increments, will not have to pay any income tax in the course of this Parliament. Of course, those who have additional income beyond the state pension often do have a tax liability. The mechanism for how that is applied is a matter for my hon. Friends in His Majesty’s Treasury rather than for me, but I can certainly ensure that his point is passed on to them. Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.8%. That means that it will increase from £227.10 to £238 per week for single pensioners, and from £346.60 to £363.25 per week for couples. The maximum amount of pension credit savings credit will increase by 3.8%, in line with prices.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this point. It might be of some comfort to him to know that it was not only the last Government who failed to do anything about this, and that previous Governments also failed. Indeed, in my previous tenures of the office of Pensions Minister, this issue was raised with me. However, it was the case that when those people left the UK, the rules were then as they are today. They were quite clear when people left. Of course, it depends on which country they went to, but in the countries where uprating has not been applied, it has always been the case that uprating has not been applied there, so it should not have come as a surprise to those who left that their pensions were not uprated. We are not looking at any proposals to change the situation at the moment, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman has campaigned on this matter consistently over a long period and I pay tribute to him for that.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate. I thank everyone who has taken part for their constructive and helpful contributions, and I want to make a number of points in response. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for clarifying what happened in 1997—she read my facial expression correctly. I was perplexed when she told us that child benefit had been abolished. I have done a little bit of checking since she made that clarification, and it was in 1999 that family credit was replaced with the much better and stronger tax credit system. I do not know whether her family decided not to apply for that, but the introduction of working tax credits and the wider tax credit system made big progress, particularly in reducing child poverty across the country. The hon. Lady was absolutely right to draw attention to the scale of the challenge that the country faces in the number of young people not in education, employment or training, as nearly 1 million were left behind by the previous Conservative Government. We are energetically on the case now to address that problem, which should have been addressed long ago. It is encouraging that the proportion of young people out of education, employment or training has fallen over the last year, but we do not want anybody to be left behind. We are investing £820 million in the youth guarantee over the next three years to ensure that every single young person can access the support that they need to earn or to learn. Nearly 900,000 young people will receive intensive one-to-one support, and we are expanding youth hubs to every area in the country, creating around 300,000 additional opportunities to gain valuable workplace experience and training. Additionally, the youth guarantee will guarantee jobs for some 55,000 young people aged 18 to 21. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a great deal to be done on this issue, and we are finally doing it. I look forward to reporting back to the House on progress as it develops. The hon. Lady referred to the Conservative party’s reputation for being “a safe pair of hands for the economy.” Well, following the Liz Truss debacle, that reputation has sadly been destroyed, and it will take a long time to rebuild. People have a long memory, and remember the awful turbulence that the country was plunged into during that period, and that alleged reputation is sadly long gone. The hon. Lady made the point that families have a choice about whether they can afford another child. Of course, one of the points that emerged from our debate on the two-child limit was that most families on universal credit with more than two children were not on universal credit when they had them. That was not an issue in their minds when they made that choice, so the Conservative response in that debate did not reflect the realities of what families are facing. The hon. Lady made an interesting point about passported benefits, and I have seen the publicity on what the think-tank Onward has said on this matter. It is understandable that service providers use an existing means test to target their provision. That is what the last Government did on the cost of living payment during the pandemic, for example. I notice that the head of Onward is a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, so one would have thought that he would have had a chance to do something about this over his years in office, but it is an interesting topic. I think the arrangements we have for passported benefits make sense, but if there are proposals for alternative arrangements, we will be interested to look at them. The hon. Lady was critical of the use of the relative poverty measure for assessing the number of children growing up in poverty, as was the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) last week. The relative poverty measure is the international standard measure; it is widely respected, and is used for all international comparisons on this metric. I think the reason why the Conservative party has always been so reluctant to refer to relative poverty is that its performance on that measure in government—I am talking about the Government who left office in 2024, but Governments before that as well—has been so consistently dreadful. During the debate on the two-child limit Bill, the point was rightly made that an important part of David Cameron’s work to bring the Conservative party up to date was embracing relative poverty as a valuable measure that ought to be taken into account. We now seem to have moved back to the pre-Cameron era in the Conservative party, and it may take some time for the party to recognise the scale of the change in its thinking that is needed if it is to reflect the country’s current situation. I was interested in what the hon. Member for South West Devon said about her constituent who is on PIP. I would very much like to see the letter that she referred to, because she is absolutely right that PIP is an in-work benefit as well as an out-of-work benefit, and I would be extremely concerned if people were being told, “You’re in work, so you can’t have PIP any more.” There are disincentives of that kind in the system that need to be addressed, so I would love to have a look at that letter. As the hon. Lady knows, I am co-chairing a review of PIP that will conclude by the autumn of this year; she said that she did not think that the review would happen until 2027, but it will conclude by the autumn of this year. The hon. Lady is right that we need to increase the proportion of face-to-face assessments for benefits. Face-to-face assessments are such a small proportion of total assessments at the moment because of the contracts that the Conservative Government entered into towards the end of their term in office, which contained no requirements for an adequate number of face-to-face assessments. Indeed, the Conservative Government sold off most of the premises where those assessments were undertaken, so of course it is taking some time to build up again the capacity to deliver those assessments, but we are doing so. We are putting right the mistakes that the previous Government made, and we are seeing a steady increase in the proportion of both work capability assessments and PIP assessments that are undertaken face-to-face.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  It is an interesting paper, and I very much welcome research along those lines, as I know my hon. Friend does. She is right to make the point that spending on social security is not rocketing. It is not out of control as one sometimes reads, but is between 10% and 11% of GDP. Working-age benefits are 4% to 5% and pretty consistent. It is not changing rapidly at the moment. She makes an interesting point, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), about the current depth of poverty. That is an important part of the picture that we need to address in our work. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth that the social security system has an important job to do. We cannot just freeze it for a year and under-uprate it for another year, because that inflicts harm. We have seen that harm inflicted and the consequences of it. She is also right that we need a properly functioning health service again. We also need support for good employment. I was pleased to hear from her and the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) that the Work and Pensions Committee has been listening to Sir Charlie Mayfield and his excellent “Keep Britain Working” review, from which he is continuing to develop work. The hon. Member for Torbay rightly referred to the practice of shuffling people off the books. Too often, people have run into a health problem in the course of their work, had to take time off and then, by accident really, lost touch with work and the workplace and become unemployed and inactive. If there had just been a bit of flexibility and a bit of continuing communication, that outcome could have been avoided. I welcome the work that Sir Charlie Mayfield is doing with more than 100 vanguard employers looking at how best to put those lessons into practice. The hon. Member for Torbay also referred to the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. We appointed Liz Sayce OBE to conduct an independent review of how overpayments occurred, how affected carers could be supported and how to prevent future problems with overpayments arising. The review made 40 recommendations, and the Government have accepted or partially accepted 38 of them. We have taken action to raise the earnings limit in carer’s allowance by the largest amount it has ever increased by. In future, we will uprate the earnings threshold annually in line with the increase in the national living wage, so that accidental exceeding of the earnings threshold will be less common. The hon. Member for Torbay also drew attention to the difficulties with the current cliff edge arrangements for the carer’s allowance earnings threshold. In the 2024 Budget, the Chancellor announced that we were considering the introduction of an earnings taper to replace that cliff edge, and we may well conclude that that would do a better job. I do not think I ever expected there to be a Labour Member of Parliament for Poole, but I am delighted that my hon. Friend was successful in being elected to that role, and long may he serve there. He was right to highlight the continuing scale of the challenge of pensioner poverty. If we look at the record of the former Labour Government, we see that there were dramatic reductions in both child poverty and pensioner poverty. In respect of child poverty, those reductions were reversed under the coalition and the Conservative Government, and towards the end of the term of the Conservative Government the number of pensioners in poverty was rising again, but it rose much less dramatically than the number of children growing up below the poverty line. Our priority has therefore been to tackle child poverty, and that is the reason for the strategy that we have published and the changes to universal credit that we debated in the House last week. However, I recognise that there are continuing challenges for pensioners as well. The Government are increasing the basic state pension and the full rate of the new state pension, in line with earnings growth, by 4.8%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings, by 4.8%, to support pensioners on the lowest incomes. We are increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carers’ benefits, in line with prices, by 3.8%. We are increasing a number of working-age benefits, statutory payments and disability benefits in line with prices by the same amount, 3.8%. The Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formerly contracted out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 3% on GMP—for the reasons I gave earlier—in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997, to give a measure of protection against inflation for those pensioners which is paid for by their scheme. I commend both orders to the House. Question put and agreed to , Resolved, That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved. Social Security Resolved, That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2026, which was laid before this House on 12 January, be approved. — (Sir Stephen Timms.)

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  In my view, the provisions in the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights. The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.8%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2025. It will increase most other benefit rates by 3.8%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2025, so the regular formula has been used. The order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £9 billion in 2026-27, of which £6 billion will be from state pensions and pensioner benefits, £2 billion from disability and carers benefits, and £1 billion from other working-age benefits. A further £2 billion of expenditure on working-age benefits will be incurred in 2026 as a result of uprating decisions made under separate legal powers in the Universal Credit Act 2025, which will set new rates for universal credit and income-related employment and support allowance. Let me say a little more about each of the benefits being uprated in turn. First, on pensions, the Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices or 2.5%. That means that the uprating will be by 4.8% for 2026-27. As a result, from April the basic state pension will increase from £176.45 per week to £184.90, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £230.25 at the moment to £241.30 per week.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Construction Industry Training Board: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a fair point, but CITB’s view is that most employers that are members of training groups now access support through employer networks. He raised an important point about SME participation, which CITB reports is improving under the network model, reflecting the easier access and more direct influence that businesses have over local training priorities. CITB thinks that helps to reduce regional disparities, and provides more agile support for smaller firms. Indeed, it recently surveyed employers that had accessed support via employer networks, 87% of which were micro, small, or medium-sized organisations. Of those, 81% said that they were satisfied, and 54% said that they were likely to do more training in future because of employer network support. My hon. Friend will readily acknowledge that meeting the current and future skills needs of construction employers is extremely important for delivering the Government’s aims, and important for opening up opportunities for the large number of young people, and others, left economically inactive over the past few years. The CITB’s view is that the employer network model is simpler, faster, more cost effective, and more flexible. In its view, it better supports SMEs—those employers that need the most support—and it allows the industry to respond quickly to emerging skills challenges, including digital and net zero construction skills. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing this important matter to the attention of the House, and for his interest in it, and that of other Members. I understand that the chief executive of CITB, Tim Balcon, has written to my hon. Friend and invited him to make contact if he would like to discuss the matter further. I do not know whether he has taken up that opportunity yet, but if he does take up that offer and has further reflections in the wake of the subsequent discussions, I would be pleased to hear from him about that. Question put and agreed to.