Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Tuesday 1st July 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUniversal Credit Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 149 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:13 - The House divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
The reasoned amendment in the name of Rachael Maskell has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill and our wider welfare reforms seek to fix the broken benefits system that we inherited from the Conservatives and deliver a better life for millions of people across our country. Our plans are rooted in principles and values that I know many in this House share: compassion for those who need our help most, a belief in equality and social justice, that everyone should have the chance to fulfil their potential no matter where they are born or what their parents did, and responsibility for our constituents and our country as a whole, so that we ensure the welfare state is sustainable and lasts for generations to come. But the system we inherited is failing on all those counts.
Conservative Members left us with a system that incentivises people to define themselves as incapable of work just to be able to afford to live. They then wrote people off without any help or support, then blamed them to grab a cheap headline. The result is 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and one in eight of all our young people not in education, employment or training, with all the terrible long-term consequences that brings for their future job prospects, earnings and health. The number of people on disability benefits is set to more than double this decade, with awards for personal independence payments increasing at twice the rate of increases in the prevalence of disabled people in our society, adding 1,000 new PIP awards a day—the equivalent of adding a city the size of Leicester every single year.
Liz Kendall
Let me make some progress.
I do not believe that this is sustainable if we want a welfare state for generations to come that protects people who most need our help. There is nothing compassionate about leaving millions of people who could work without the help they need to build a better life. There is no route to equality or social justice when 9 million of our fellow citizens are out of work and not looking for work, and when our country has one of the widest disability employment gaps in Europe. There is no responsibility in leaving our system of social security to continue as is and risk support for it becoming so frayed that it is no longer there to provide a safety net for those who can never work and who most need our help and support. This Bill, alongside our wider reforms, will help people who can work to do so, protect those who cannot, and begin to get the benefits bill on a more sustainable footing.
Labour’s historic mission is to get more people into good jobs because we know the value of good work, not only as the best route out of poverty and to raise living standards, but because good work brings a sense of purpose, pride and dignity and because there is such clear evidence that good work is good for physical and mental health.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State is absolutely right that any Government that take office should aim to reduce poverty in this country. Why then do her own Government’s figures show that the actions she is taking this afternoon will put an extra 150,000 people into poverty? Does she really think that is what her Back Benchers expected when they were elected to government last year?
Liz Kendall
That is what they call chutzpah, seeing as Conservative Members put an extra 900,000 children into poverty. This Government are determined to tackle child poverty and will take 100,000 children out of poverty through our plans to extend free school meals to every household on universal credit—a downpayment on our child poverty strategy in the autumn.
I am proud that at the spending review—alongside billions of extra investment to create good jobs in every part of the country, to invest in transport infrastructure and in skills so people can get those jobs, and to drive down NHS waiting lists so people can get back to health and back to work—my right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the biggest-ever investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservatives to £1 billion a year.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the improvements she has made to the Bill, which are extremely reassuring for my constituents, 9,000 of whom are on personal independence payments and are now reassured. Some, however, are concerned about the number of adults who could be put into poverty, following the publication of the impact assessment yesterday. I recognise that these figures do not take into consideration the impact of the planned record investment in employment support. Will she publish further assessments that provide a more accurate view?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that those figures do not take into account the employment impact from the investment we are putting in. We have produced extremely clear evidence that good employment support works, including Work Choice—a Labour programme ended by the Tories—which meant that 40% more disabled people were in work eight years later. We will, indeed, publish further updated impact assessments before Committee stage, spelling this out in more detail.
Jim Shannon
I have been asked by representatives of people with Parkinson’s and multiple sclerosis to put this question to the Secretary of State, and I hope she will give me the answer. They are worried that people with these fluctuating conditions will be locked out of qualifying for the higher rate of the UC health element, as a functional limitation must “constantly” apply for a claimant to meet the severe conditions criteria. Will she commit to add an explicit reference to the Bill to ensure that those with fluctuating conditions such as Parkinson’s and MS are not locked out of the higher rate? It is really important for those people.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. Members have asked whether people with fluctuating conditions will meet the severe conditions criteria, which are for those with lifelong conditions that will never improve and mean they can never work. It is the case that, as someone’s condition progresses, if they change and meet those severe conditions criteria, they will be protected. One of the reasons for the Timms review, which I will come on to, is precisely to make sure this vital benefit recognises the impact of fluctuating conditions on people’s lives. That is crucial to make sure this benefit is fit for the future.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Liz Kendall
I will make a tiny bit of progress, and then I will give way.
As I set out to the House yesterday, we have listened carefully to concerns that there would not be enough employment support in place quickly enough by the time the benefit changes come in. We are bringing forward an additional £300 million of employment support for sick and disabled people, delivering a total of £600 million next year, £800 million the year after and £1 billion in 2028-29—increasing our total spending on employment support for sick and disabled people to £3.8 billion over this Parliament—to ensure that anyone who is affected by this Bill will be offered personalised work, health and skills support, including access to a specially trained adviser by the time the legislation comes in.
Dr Luke Evans
The last Government introduced WorkWell pilots in 15 areas for 59,000 people, providing a multidisciplinary team package to get them back into work. Am I correct in thinking that the £300 million the Secretary of State is investing is built off the back of that pilot? Are they planning to continue the pilot and grow it? The results seemed to show that it had a strong record of getting people back into work while supporting their health. That is what this House wants to do. Does she agree that that is the case, and is that the funding?
Liz Kendall
Joining up work and health support is essential. I have been to visit some of the projects in place, and they are making a really big difference. We are building on that with additional investment, quadrupling what we inherited from the Conservative party. Joining up work and health support is very important, because good health and good work are two sides of the same coin, but this needs to be available widely across the country.
Let me turn to the specific measures in the Bill. Clauses 1 to 4 begin to tackle the perverse incentives left by the Conservative party, which encouraged people to define themselves as incapable of work by rebalancing the universal credit standard allowance and health top-up. I am very proud that we are delivering the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance—the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits since the 1970s. Some 6.7 million households—the lowest-income households—will benefit from the increase in the universal credit standard allowance, and it will deliver a £725-a-year increase in cash terms by 2029-30 for a single person aged 25 and over.
Having listened seriously to concerns about our original proposals on the UC health top-up for existing claimants and future claimants with severe conditions and those at the end of their lives, we will ensure that for these groups, the combined value of their universal credit standard allowance and the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation, protecting their income from these vital benefits in real terms every year for the rest of the Parliament.
Alongside those changes, schedule 1 to the Bill will ensure that people with severe lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, removing all the unnecessary and unacceptable stress and anxiety this brings, so that they have the dignity and security they deserve. Yesterday we published draft regulations on our new right to try, which will guarantee that, in and of itself, work will never lead to a benefit reassessment, giving people the confidence to try work—something many people have called for for years.
I turn to clause 5 of the Bill, on personal independence payments. Yesterday I told the House that we have listened to the concerns raised by many Members, disabled people and their organisations about the impact of the new requirement for existing claimants to score a minimum of four points on at least one daily living activity to be eligible for the daily living component. Even though nine out of 10 people claiming PIP at the point these changes come in would be unaffected by the end of the Parliament, I know this has caused deep and widespread anxiety and stress, so we have changed our original proposals. The new four-point eligibility requirement will only apply to new claims from November 2026. This means no existing claimants will lose PIP because of the changes brought forward in this Bill, and anyone who currently receives any passported benefits, such as carer’s allowance, will also be unaffected by this change.
Mr Betts
The changes to PIP, as far as they go, are very welcome, as is the review to be conducted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, which will be co-produced with disability groups, as I understand it. However, the Government have committed to make changes in November 2026, when that review may not have been completed. Would it not be far more logical to have the review, bring it to this House for agreement and then make the changes after that?
Liz Kendall
I will come on to this point in a moment, but the purpose of the PIP review is to have a wider look at the assessment. It has not been looked at for over a decade since it came in. I understand the sequencing point, and I will come to that in a moment. It is extremely important to have a very clear message that existing PIP claimants will now be unaffected by the changes in the Bill.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact she has listened this week, but she knows that many disabled people watching our proceedings today will remain very worried. She is absolutely right that the existing system is not working. Can she say more about the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review and about how we can rebuild the confidence of disabled groups and the people who are worried, because every welfare reform seems to have been bad for them, in the fact that we can have a system that assesses who really needs it?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. I will come on to say a little more about that in a moment. The review will be co-produced with disabled people, their organisations, clinicians, other experts and MPs, because we must ensure that we get this right. I have been a long-standing champion of co-production, including when I was the shadow Minister responsible for social care. I think we get the best decisions when we work closely with people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Liz Kendall
Let me say a bit more, because many hon. Friends raised these issues, including yesterday. We believe that protecting existing claimants, while ensuring that new PIP awards are focused on those with higher needs, strikes the right and fair balance going forward. I want to address some of the questions raised yesterday by Labour Members about the sequencing of the PIP changes, and the wider review of the PIP assessment that is being led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability.
Liz Kendall
I will make progress on this point.
No existing PIP claimant will be affected by changes in the Bill. They will also be reassessed under the existing rules whenever they have an award review. From November 2026, new claimants will be assessed under the four-point criteria. The purpose of the Timms review is to look at the PIP assessment as a whole, and ensure that it is fair and fit for the future. It therefore takes account of the huge changes in society, the world of work, and the nature of health conditions and disability since the benefit was first introduced more than a decade ago.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
I thank the Secretary of State for giving way. I welcome the improvements made to the Bill so far, but I think we still need more details about the co-productive element of the Timms review. Will she confirm that the review will guarantee that disabled people and their organisations are the key voice in developing this policy? Will the review change and revolutionise the view in Whitehall, so that future policies that impact disabled people will always have their voices central to the discussion?
Liz Kendall
I can absolutely reassure my hon. Friend about that. Many hon. Members have asked for precise details about how this process will work, and it is extremely important for us—we are beginning the process—to discuss this with disabled people, their organisations and other experts. It is not for me—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) would let me finish my sentence I will, of course, give way. It is important that we do not come up with—it would be completely wrong if we in Whitehall came up with a process and imposed it on other people. We have to do this properly.
Esther McVey
Have the Government taken legal advice as to whether it is lawful to treat people with the same conditions, disabilities and circumstances differently within the benefits system? It is morally unacceptable, but does the Secretary of State believe that it is lawful?
Liz Kendall
I gently remind the right hon. Lady that her own party had different rules and different rates for people on existing benefits compared with those on new benefits. That is something the Conservatives did—once again Conservative Members seem to be railing at the very problems that they caused.
I understand why many Members would like to see the results from the Timms review implemented before the four-point change takes effect. However, reviewing the assessment as a whole is a major undertaking that will take time to get right, especially if we co-produce it properly. It will be for those involved in the review to determine the precise timetable, but we are absolutely committed to moving quickly and completing the review by next autumn. I assure the House that any changes following the Timms review will be implemented as soon as is practically possible via primary or secondary legislation. Once we have implemented changes from the review, any existing PIP claimant can ask for a reassessment.
Let us be honest: welfare reform is never easy, especially perhaps for Labour Governments. Our social security system directly touches the lives of millions of people, and it is something that we all care deeply about. We have listened to concerns that have been raised to help us get the changes right. The Bill protects people who are already claiming PIP. It protects, in real terms, the incomes of people already receiving the UC health top-up from that benefit and their standard allowance. It protects those with severe lifelong conditions who will never work, and those near the end of their life, as we promised we would. But I have to tell the House that, unlike the previous Administration, this Government must not and will not duck the big challenges facing this country, because the people we are in politics to serve deserve so much better.
We are taking action to put the social security system on a sustainable footing so that it is there for generations to come. We are helping millions of low-income households across the country, by increasing the standard rate of universal credit. And because we know that there is no route to social justice based on increased benefit spending alone, we are providing record investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, so that they have the same rights and chances to work as anybody else. Our plans will create a fairer society in which people who can work get the help they need, and where we protect those who cannot—a society where the welfare safety net actually survives and is always there for those who need it. Above all, this Government are determined to give people hope that tomorrow will be better than today, with real opportunities for everyone to fulfil their potential and build a better life. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
We are staring down the barrel of a crisis that no serious Government can ignore. The welfare system no longer works as it should, and what was once a safety net has become a trap. A system designed to protect the most vulnerable is now encouraging dependency, and dragging this country into deeper debt. The welfare system is a crucial safety net for the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, so I was quite surprised at the tone that the Secretary of State decided to take today. She thinks that she can stand there and get away with the fiction that all this was caused by the previous Government, so let me refresh the memories of Labour Members, especially those who were not here at the time.
In 2010, we inherited 8% unemployment, and we brought it right down. The last Conservative Government reformed welfare to introduce universal credit, and our reforms helped to ensure that unemployment more than halved and was at a near record low. What have we seen since Labour came in? Unemployment has risen every single month since Labour came into office. During our time, 800 jobs were created for every day we were in office. At the same time, until the covid pandemic, we kept spending under control, cutting the deficit every year. But covid changed everything—[Interruption.] It did, and now we face a new—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, it is delightful to hear Labour Members laughing. I remember when we sat on the Government Benches, and they were demanding that we spent more and more and more money. Thank God it was Conservatives who were there under covid—Labour would have bankrupted the country!
We face a new reality. Under this Government, every working day 3,000 people move on to incapacity benefits—3,000 every single day. That is a 50% increase from when we left office. The Government have been in power for only one year; imagine what it will be like after the next four years. A 50% increase and 3,000 people going on to incapacity benefits every day is not normal, sustainable or acceptable. Spending is spiralling under Labour.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
My right hon. Friend quite rightly mentions covid. I am sure there is one thing that we can agree on. Unfortunately, people were assessed much more often in person before covid, and during covid that was understandably stopped. Surely we can all agree that we have to get those in-person assessments going and get them going quickly.
Mrs Badenoch
The Father of the House is absolutely right. This is something we should all be able to agree on, but the Government are too busy trying to shift the blame instead of solving the problem.
Let us talk about solving the problem. We have 28 million working people propping up 28 million people who are not working—the rider is getting heavier than the horse. Health and disability benefits were £40 billion before covid. By 2030, on this Government’s spending plans, they will hit £100 billion.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I wonder whether the right hon. Lady could help the House. During the 14 years when the Conservatives were in power, when was the time that the benefits system worked well?
Mrs Badenoch
I will remind the right hon. Lady of our inheritance. We took difficult—[Interruption.] I will. I have said it before, and I will say it again: we had 8% unemployment, and we got it down to 4%. Every single time Labour leaves office, it leaves more people unemployed.
The welfare system needs continual reform. We took difficult decisions and got universal credit through with so much opposition from Labour. We improved the system, but that does not mean it cannot be improved further. We have offered to help, but the Government do not want any help: they just want to make things worse.
By 2030, on this Government’s spending plans, we will hit £100 billion on health and disability benefits alone. That is more than we spend on defence. That should make everyone in this House stop and think, because this Bill does nothing to fix that problem. That is why we cannot support it.
The Conservative party is the only party in this House urging restraint. Unless this House acts, the Government will bankrupt our children. They will bury the next generation under a mountain of borrowing and debt, and they will do it not because we have no choice, but because they lack the courage to choose. A fundamental and serious programme to reform our welfare system is required, and this Bill is not it—it is a fudge. I feel sorry for the Secretary of State: she looks as if she is being tortured.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Mrs Badenoch
I will in a moment.
We all know why this is happening: this is a rushed attempt to plug the Chancellor’s fiscal hole. It is driven not by principle, but by panic. The changes were forced through not because they get more people into work, but because someone in 11 Downing Street made a mistake. It is clear that these changes were not designed to introduce fundamental reforms.
How did we get here? Last year, at the Chancellor’s first Budget, she left herself no headroom. That same Budget killed growth, meaning that unemployment has increased every month since Labour took office. This is a good time for me to remind the House again that every time Labour leaves office, it does so with unemployment higher than when it came in, and it is doing that again.
Mrs Badenoch
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) first.
Laurence Turner
I am sure the right hon. Lady would not want an inaccurate statement to stand on the record. Unemployment fell under just two 20th-century Governments: the first Labour Government and the 1970 Government of Ted Heath. I know that she is repeating a standard Conservative party message, but it is a really cynical and silly misuse of statistics.
Mrs Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He needs to get an education and look at the facts.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chief architect of the fiasco faced by people with disabilities and every member of the Labour party today is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The fact that she is not here to face up and take responsibility is all we need to know about her and those on the Government Front Bench.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is quite right: this is a fiasco, and it is the Chancellor’s fault. She marches Labour Members up and down the hill all the time, and they are the ones who have to face their constituents. We are trying to help to get a welfare system under control and get people into work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is right to raise the Chancellor. When the economic outlook worsened this spring, she chose to force through these changes to welfare, which are designed not to reform or improve the system, but to address a hole in her numbers. Those changes were rushed for Rachel, as we say. I watched when she made that Budget, and it was quite clear that she had no idea of the consequences of her decision. The country should not have to pay for the mess she has made, and neither should disabled people. Even with the changes in this Bill, welfare spending will still be billions higher at the end of the Parliament. Slowing down how much you increase spending is not a cut.
Mark Ferguson
I do not know about the rest of the House, but I am slightly baffled. The Leader of the Opposition has made a virtue of her blank slate and her blank sheet of paper, but is she in favour of more or less? Is she in favour of the actions of her Government or not? This complete lack of taking responsibility is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman is baffled, because he is clearly not listening to what I am saying. We had three conditions. We have been very, very clear that we want to see the welfare budget come down. I will make some progress.
Even with the changes in this Bill, welfare spending will still be higher by billions at the end of this Parliament. Slowing down an increase is not a cut: we need to get this under control.
Mrs Badenoch
I will make some progress.
Despite the obvious flaws in the Bill, we offered to support benefit changes in the national interest. The hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) asked a question, and I will answer it very clearly for those who have not been paying attention. We agreed to support the Government if they could make three simple commitments; they were not unachievable or unreasonable commitments. First, they had to cut the overall welfare bill, because we are spending far too much already. Secondly, they had to get more people into work. Thirdly, they had to stand by the Chancellor’s own commitment that, with taxes at a record level because of her choices, she would not come back for more tax rises.
What did we get from the Government? A sneery response indicating that they could manage on their own. How’s that going? What happened instead was that the number of MPs opposed to the Bill grew ever larger, until the inevitable U-turn finally came, announced by a press release dispatched after midnight and a panicked letter setting out that the reforms had been gutted. The Bill is now more incoherent than it was at the beginning.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Just to reflect on the record of the previous Government, as of 2024, approximately 24% of the UK population—nearly 16 million people—were living in poverty. Between 2019-20 and 2022-23, an additional 2.1 million people were living in poverty. In the year to April 2024, before the Labour Government came into power, 4.45 million children, or 31% of children in the UK, were living in relative poverty. Will the right hon. Lady agree with me that the previous Tory Government failed a majority of the population, including disabled people and children?
Mrs Badenoch
I definitely will not agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is talking about relative poverty figures. The fact is that the best way to get people out of poverty is to get them into work—something we did again and again and again.
The Bill is more incoherent now than it was at the beginning. It does not do the job at all. Reforms that were not enough in the first place will now cut only £2 billion from a ballooning budget, instead of £5 billion. They will create a new welfare trap and a two-tier welfare system. Right up until the last moment, the Government kept pushing and pushing, ruling out changes and sending their poor, weary Ministers and ambitious Back-Bench bootlickers out on to the airwaves. At the last moment, as we have seen before, the Government abandon them after all of that—they have been hung out to dry.
The Government do not care how they have made their Back Benchers look, and it is not for the first time. Week after week, the Chancellor was sent here to say with a straight face that she was right to cut the winter fuel payment, that there would be no turning back and that the country’s finances would simply collapse if she did not take pensioners’ fuel money and give it to the trade unions, and her Back Benchers sucked that one up. They muttered and they grumbled, but each of them went back and told their constituents that the winter fuel payments were being confiscated to fix the foundations.
Only once pensioners had sat in the cold all winter, the Chancellor had tanked the economy and Labour MPs had had the door slammed in their face up and down the country did they finally accept that it was a mistake. This time, when asked to line up behind a Bill that takes money from older, disabled people with physical disabilities—a Bill that, according to the Government’s own modelling, gets no one into work—funnily enough, lots of Labour MPs did not fancy another go. Perhaps they will think twice next time the Chancellor comes to them with a bad idea.
Paul Holmes
The Prime Minister’s inability to control his Back Benchers means that the Chancellor now has to find an extra £2.5 billion to fill the savings that she is claiming to have made. Can the Leader of the Opposition guess how she might raise that money?
Mrs Badenoch
The fact that the Government have refused to commit to not raising taxes means it is probably inevitable that they will. However, it is quite clear that Labour MPs will feel emboldened to push for more unaffordable changes to our welfare system, including the two-child benefit cap.
Let us be clear: part of the reason why these plans have been so rushed and badly thought through is the mess the Chancellor has made. This Bill is an attempt to find the quickest and crudest savings possible—to plug the hole in the public finances that she has created—but the Chancellor is not the only one to blame. It beggars belief that the Labour party came into office after 14 years in opposition with no serious plan for reforming welfare. What was Labour doing all that time? The welfare bill is already totally unsustainable, and it is only getting worse.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
As one of the Labour Back Benchers who will be supporting the Government, I would just point out that there are not that many Back Benchers behind the Leader of the Opposition, and there are fewer every week. However, given that she has just said that she wants to cut the budget of the Department for Work and Pensions further, perhaps she could tell us what she would cut. What exactly would she do?
Mrs Badenoch
We would cut unemployment.
As I was saying, health and disability benefits are forecast to rise to £100 billion, meaning that one in every four pounds raised in income tax will pay for those benefits. That is not sustainable. Until the pandemic, we in the Conservative party had spent years bringing down the benefits bill and getting people back into work, including millions of disabled people. Talent, energy and ingenuity are not confined to those in perfect health. If we want to afford public services, improve people’s lives and compete globally, we cannot consign so many people to a life out of work—we have to get them into work. I believe that the whole House agrees that the system needs change. We may disagree on what exactly that change looks like, but what we have in front of us today is just a big mess.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Secretary of State was right: welfare reform is tough, and Governments tend to duck the issue, with notable exceptions such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). However, if a Government are going to change welfare radically, they should surely review the options and then decide which ones to take. By contrast, this Government have decided on their option, and are then going to review what they might have done. Surely that is not the right way to run welfare, or any part of Government.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I have nothing further to add—he said it as well as it could possibly be said.
The whole House agrees that the system needs to change in one way or another, but what we have in front of us today is a big mess; it is neither fish nor fowl. Because of the Government’s hasty concessions, we now have a two-tier benefits system under which people who are already on benefits will be incentivised to keep them.
There are other issues. Why, for instance, should someone diagnosed with Parkinson’s after November 2026 receive a lower payment than someone diagnosed a month prior? We need to fix a whole load of problems. For instance, we need to filter out people who are gaming the system, we need to redesign the system so that genuinely disabled people do not find it so Kafkaesque, and we need a fundamental rethink of who we can afford to support and why. One in four people in this country now self-report as disabled—that is an extraordinary state of affairs. We clearly cannot afford to support all of them; rather, we should focus that support on those with the greatest need.
Many people with disabilities live full and independent lives, contributing to society. Research published by the Centre for Social Justice last week shows that we could save up to £9 billion by restricting benefits for lower-level mental health challenges such as anxiety. Labour Members ask what we would change—that is one of the things we would change. Findings published by the TaxPayers’ Alliance today show that people with conditions including acne and food intolerance are getting benefits and entitlements such as Motability. The impact assessments for the Bill—not my impact assessments, but the Government’s—show that it will get no one into work, so the Government should think again. We will support them to do so.
We support replacing remote or online assessments for claimants with face-to-face assessments—that simple change alone could dramatically reduce the number of new claimants. Before the last election, we outlined reforms that the new Government rejected out of hand, so will the Secretary of State return to them? The changes we are discussing today are rushed and confused. Rather than the fundamental reforms we so badly need, we have been presented with a botched package of changes that have been watered down and carved apart in the face of Back-Bench pressure. There is no way we can back this, so instead of allowing her Back Benchers to dictate her policy, the Secretary of State should go back to the drawing board. She should cut the overall welfare bill, get people into work, and eliminate the need for new tax rises. That is a programme that we would support in the national interest.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, whilst noting the need for the reform of the social security system, and agreeing with the Government’s principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work, declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers; because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025; because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because while acknowledging protection for current claimants, the Government has yet to produce its own impact assessment on the impact of future claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit limited capability for work and related activity and the number of people, including children, who will fall into poverty or experience worsening mental or physical health as a result, nor how many carers will lose carers allowance; because the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs; and because the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review into the assessment for PIP and Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.
I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and those of other Members, and—most importantly—in the names of 138 deaf and disabled people’s organisations that backed it and co-produced it, working alongside us. It is about time that we all recognised the ableism within our systems that has made disabled people feel so far away from policymaking. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be looking at changing that—once and for all, I trust. On these big decisions, it is so important that disabled people are involved.
My constituent sat in front of me with his gorgeous little girl, who thankfully had headphones on and was playing a kiddie’s game. He said that he would not get through this. He just about manages now—some days he gets up, others not, as his mental health is failing. He cannot work. Everything else has been taken from him, and the loss of this little bit of funding to help them get by—to give him just one ounce of dignity—was more than he could bear. Then the words came: “It would be better that I wasn’t here.” That was also his expectation. He has tried before. He will be safe now, but the one who follows will not.
Another constituent felt dehumanised, as they would lose their independence to shower and dress, and others could not balance their books, as Scope’s disability price tag is £1,095 of extra costs every month. They face changes that would switch independence to dependence—dependence on social care, food banks, and pleading for emergency funds or seeking charity. Those with fluctuating conditions who came to see me just do not know where their future lies.
These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party. They are far from what this Labour party is for—it is a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother’s keeper. These are my constituents, my neighbours, my community and my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side, as one who is better known than the 150,000 who will be pushed further into poverty. As so many of us fear and as the evidence shows, since 600 people took their lives under the Tories’ brutal reforms, the tragedy of this ideology could be worse. I will fight for the purpose of politics—for these people’s livelihoods and for their lives. It is a matter of deep conscience for me to ensure that for once, these precious people are treated with dignity, so that they matter for being and not just for doing.
Sixteen million; in the chaos and confusion, where the sequence of consultations on the Bill makes no sense to them, no sense to me and, if we are honest, no sense to any of us, they beg the Government to just stop and start again by listening to their voices. At this 11th hour, I plead for the Bill’s withdrawal, which would be met with relief and praise. Let us consult, co-produce, incorporate the Mayfield review findings and accommodate those of the Timms review first. We should let the voices of older women, whose physical health is declining as they work into later life, come to the fore. Refuge says that disabled victims of domestic violence will not be able to leave to find their place of safety without PIP. They should be heard.
The olive branch of grace for current claimants offers no mercy to those who are to come. Disabled people have fought all their lives not to have the ladder pulled up behind them. We are talking about 430,000 people on PIP losing £4,500, 730,000 people on universal credit losing £3,000, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. There is a reason that we are a dystopian state of excessive wealth and abject poverty: Governments focus on what they value most, and these people never get the attention. When people are left behind, it pressures services, shortens lives and breaks societies.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I am proud to put my name to the hon. Lady’s reasoned amendment. Does she agree that we have a decision to make in this House today? Do we stand alongside some of the most vulnerable—people who feel that politics cannot deliver for them? Surely we have a moral duty, across this House, to stand with those people, to pause and to show them that we care.
Rachael Maskell
What the hon. Member says is so powerful. I urge all my colleagues to take with them the stories of their constituents. We are here because of them, and they expect us to serve them in this difficult vote. I, too, find it hard, as I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for 30 years, and I know that he comes from a good place, but this Bill is just wrong. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) is absolutely right.
If we can afford not to have a wealth tax, not to equalise capital gains and not to draw on the excess profits of corporate greed, we can afford PIP for a disabled person. We must clear the waiting lists, prevent people falling out of work, get physio to the injured, hold employers to account for their failings and make them open their doors. In assessments, we need to look not just at what somebody cannot do but at empowering them to do what they can. We should optimise health and opportunity and take a public health approach with social prescribing and advancing adaptive technology.
Why not have a bridge between what we have now and where we are heading at the end of this process, so that nobody falls through the net? When they are managing discomfort, despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or their life has spiralled out of control, disabled people want anything but this Bill. They are already discriminated and dehumanised, so I plead that we do not leave them desperate, too. There is a heavy duty on us all, and it starts with compassion, kindness, safety and support. Disabled people want reform, but not by this broken Bill. My vote weighs heavy on me, as this is a matter of deep conscience, as it should be and will be for us all. As Nelson Mandela said:
“May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson in a moment, but I will be imposing a six-minute limit after his speech.
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?
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
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.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), my fellow Select Committee Member.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the need for reform of the social security system. I believe that the social security system, like the NHS, should be there for any one of us in our time of need, whether that need is a result of being in low-paid work or of not being in work at all, protecting us from poverty and destitution. Unfortunately, it did not do that under the last Government. If we become sick or disabled or if we can no longer work, the system should be there for us. I believe that the vast majority of people of working age want to work and do the right thing by their families, and, as the Committee heard, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have just completed our “Pathways to Work” inquiry.
The Leader of the Opposition, who I think was the Equalities Minister in the last Government, did not mention, for example, the inquiry conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—which was subsequently escalated to an investigation—into the DWP’s potential discrimination against disabled people. That is still outstanding. Nor did the Leader of the Opposition mention the investigation of the last Government by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—not once, but twice. What she said was therefore a little bit rich.
For the last 15 years we have seen a punitive, even dehumanising, social security system in which not being able to work has been viewed with suspicion or worse—with devastating consequences, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Too many people relying on social security support to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by their poverty. Since 2010, under previous Administrations, 10 prevention of future deaths reports have been issued by coroners because of the direct causal responsibility of the DWP. We do not even know the full number of claimants’ deaths or the full extent of the harms, but my Committee’s “Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants” report, published in May, defined recommendations to prevent such harms from being done to claimants, and it has been at the forefront of my mind while I have been considering the Bill.
I want to acknowledge some of the positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people’s lives and help them to get into work. Those measures include the reform of jobcentres and the merger with the National Careers Service; the new right to try and the new regulations just announced; the Trailblazer programme, which will increase the opportunity for people to get closer to the labour market by working with community groups, the voluntary sector and health bodies; Connect to Work, providing employment support; “Keep Britain Working”, an essential and independent review undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield on how to reduce the appalling disability employment gap, which was not improved by the Opposition during their 15 years in power and which remains at about 29%; and—this is really important—the commitment to safeguarding, which is one of the key measures in the Green Paper.
There is also, of course, the work that the Government are undertaking in other Departments. They are increasing NHS capacity to ensure that, for example, hip or knee replacements or mental health support are available in weeks, as was the case when I was an NHS chair under the last Labour Government, not the years for which people are now having to wait. They have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy—I could go on. However, the Bill, as it is currently planned, risks undermining some of those excellent initiatives.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is always fair-minded in the Chamber and outside. She will recognise that 2.5 million, or perhaps as many as 3 million, more disabled people entered the workforce under the last Conservative Government. Does she share my concerns that the Bill could undermine the ability of people with disabilities to enter the labour market?
Debbie Abrahams
We have to ensure that that does not happen. There are risks: I am being very honest about that.
As we heard in the evidence that my Committee received as part of our “Pathways to Work” inquiry, ours is an ageing society, with worse health than other advanced economies as a result of the austerity policies of the previous Government, including the cuts in support for working-aged people. According to a very good report—published in 2018, so before the pandemic—if we improved the health of those in the areas with the worst health in the country, we would increase our productivity by more than £13 billion a year. We need to look at that in the round.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Just last week, the Health Secretary made an announcement about redirecting health support to the more deprived areas. Does my hon. Friend welcome that, and does she think it will help to improve the health outcomes of people in those areas?
Debbie Abrahams
I have not yet seen the details, but it is a subject that I raised, and, as we know, the funding will follow.
Covid exacerbated these problems, as did the mental health crisis that we have experienced in the United Kingdom, especially among young people. A UK Millennium Cohort study shows that the key drivers of the NEETS levels are poverty and austerity, as well as other issues faced by families.
Let me get back to the Bill. I thank the Government for the concessions that they have made to date to protect existing PIP claimants and people on UC LCWRA with severe conditions or terminal diagnoses. Th growing evidence of the potential harms that they would have experienced was significant, and it was the right thing to do. However, people who are newly disabled or who acquire a health condition from November 2026 will also need help with their extra costs. The New Economics Foundation has estimated that 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty as a result of no longer being eligible for PIP.
Debbie Abrahams
No—I am sorry, but I will not get an extra minute.
Pushing people into poverty will, in itself, worsen their condition. It will make it easier for people to live independently, including going to work, if they get money through PIP.
There is still confusion about the PIP review. Will it be co-produced with disabled people and their organisations? If so, why are we saying that the outcome of that review, and the new PIP assessment, is predetermined at four points? Therein lies the problem. Most of us are aware that this dog’s breakfast of a Bill is being driven by the need to get four points to the Office for Budget Responsibility to enable it to be scored for the Budget. The Governor of the Bank of England has said that we have to stop over-interpreting the OBR’s forecasts, which, as we know, are fallible.
I urge the Government to remove the reference to four points in clause 5. We can table amendments, but the Government should put a commitment to the co-production of the new PIP assessment review on the face of the Bill and delay the implementation of the freezing of UC LCWRA.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
It is a delight to take part in this debate, and I will speak about my lived experience. I want to put on the record that after I was shot and left the military, I received a war pension, and that having had some of my foot amputated this year, I am undergoing reassessment for that process. At one stage in my life, I was also diagnosed with complex PTSD and suffered extreme mental health issues for about 15 years, which I have openly shared in this Chamber, so I understand how people can be impacted by unforeseen circumstances.
I saw that from a young age, when my dad died and left my mum, me and my two brothers on our own, with literally nothing. We had a roof over our heads, but I watched my mum go without food to put food on our table. I spoke to my mum at the weekend, and she said that the welfare support she had at that time was a lifeline. She said that she could not possibly have seen a way through if we had not had that. I grew up on free school meals, and understood that the system supported us and allowed us to get through what was a very challenging childhood, although I was brought up in a loving environment. Later in life, I lost a business and found that I could not put food on my children’s table. I had support through a challenging time, and did everything I could to work my way out of that and get back on my own two feet.
As a Conservative, I firmly believe that there should be support for people when they need it, because you never know what you are going to face, and the support should be there when it is required. However, welfare should not be an option for people who do not want to work. I have seen many times multigenerational unemployment, whereby families create a career of benefits; they grow up having seen relatives in welfare for many years, and they do everything they can to stay in it. I have seen it at my surgeries, where people say to me, “I can normally cheat the system, but I’m struggling here.” It is not everybody, but I have had people openly admit that to me. As I said, the system needs to be there for people who need it, but at the moment it is my firm view that there are a lot of people who do not need it. It should always provide an incentive for people to return to work where possible, although I also understand that some people will never be able to work and we should support them.
Government figures published in April stated that the total cost of health-related benefits in 2019-20 was £46.5 billion. That has risen to £75 billion this year, and is expected to rise to £97.7 billion by 2029-30. On this trajectory, the cost will almost double within a decade. The OBR predicts that the Government’s welfare reforms will increase costs by 5.3%, but expects GDP to grow by only 1.6%.
I know the Secretary of State agrees that welfare needs reforming, because on 19 July she sent a “Dear Colleague” letter explaining a system that the Government believed was right. We then received another letter on 26 June that said the system has changed. If the Secretary of State has had to change her mind in the space of a week, how can we believe that the system being put forward is right? I do not believe it is, and this Bill is not a serious attempt to reform welfare. I will back that comment up.
We have talked about the social security system. The Government’s forecast for the total cost of the social security system for 2025-25 is £316 billion, and today we are discussing a Bill that does not save even—or saves only about—1% of that cost. That is not reform; it is tinkering around the edges.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Given the rather botched way in which the Government have dealt with this issue and the U-turn that is proving to be unsatisfactory, and given the scale of the changes that need to be made, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government will just move away from any meaningful reform, deeming it to be too difficult or too hot to handle? That does no service to those who are in receipt of benefits, and it is certainly of no benefit to taxpayers.
Stuart Anderson
My hon. Friend is right.
The Government have a huge majority, and they have a chance to reform welfare. If they do not take it at this moment, it will not get reformed. I believe that pausing the Bill would get the support of many Members across the House. The Government should go back, create an assessment process that can actually look at who requires welfare and who does not, and plan the system out before looking at implementing it—a multi-stage approach. I respect the Minister and am looking forward to the Timms review, but we might as well make him the Chair of the Select Committee as well; it is as if he is marking his own homework. We need to have a fairer approach, and the new system does not provide it.
I believe in welfare and have benefited of a good welfare system. I am proud that we have a welfare system to support the people who need it, but it must be affordable and sustainable, and where possible it should put people back into work. I do not believe that any of these changes are going to do that. I believe, hand on heart, that every Member will recognise that saving 1% on the whole social security system is not reform—nobody can ever say it is. It is tinkering around the edges and a missed opportunity.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her diligent and careful work over recent months. I am sad that we have ended up here. No matter what, and regardless of the concessions, a vote for this Bill today is a vote to plunge 150,000 people into poverty and to tighten the eligibility criteria for those who need support the most.
Some of us have been here before. In 2015, when the Tories pushed through their Welfare Reform and Work Bill, I and other colleagues were persuaded to vote for it on the promise that we could change it in Committee. It did not change, and although we voted against it on Third Reading, the damage was done, because the nuances of the stages of a Bill are completely lost outside this place. The result was that the savings predicted never materialised and employment levels did not increase. Instead, there was an increase in poverty, an increase in suicides, strain on the NHS and other public services, and, in the long run, higher welfare spending and reduced growth.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case. None of us should take any lectures from the Conservatives. She and I were here when the bedroom tax was introduced. We can have many moral arguments about welfare reform, but the bedroom tax saved very little in the end, which shows that this way forward is not the way to help people into work and ultimately cut our welfare bill.
Debbie Abrahams
I remember well the UN rapporteur saying that the Conservatives were engaged in cruelty towards people in this country who needed help the most.
What I cannot fathom is why a Labour Government are not first putting in the support and then letting it bed in, which is what will reduce the welfare bill and increase employment levels. The impact of any cuts would then not be as drastic. The starting point should never be cuts before proper support. The review led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who I have a lot of respect for, is starting to look a little bit predetermined as the change in criteria will happen at the same time as the review concludes. It remains unclear how existing claimants with fluctuating conditions will be assessed, and the impact that these changes will have on the carer’s allowance. However, we do know that disability living allowance claimants and those on other legacy benefits will be assessed under the new criteria, putting almost 800,000 disabled children at risk of losing support.
The north-east region has the highest number of disabled people in England, and the number of people searching for work outpaces the number of available jobs. How on earth will cutting the health element of universal credit incentivise those people to go out and find a job that does not even exist? Since PIP is an in-work benefit, restricting the very support that could keep people in work will only help to increase unemployment. All of this for £2.5 billion of savings, when we know that savings can be made elsewhere and when we know that those with the broadest shoulders could pay more. Instead, we are once again making disabled people pay the price for the economic mess that the Conservative party left us.
As it stands, we are being asked to vote blind today. There is no new Bill, no new explanatory notes and no fully updated impact assessment. There is no time for sufficient scrutiny, and no formal consultation has taken place with disabled people. The majority of employment support will not be in place until the end of the decade, and Access to Work remains worse than ever before. We are creating a two-tier, possibly three-tier, benefit system, and we know for certain that disabled people are going to be worse off. This is not a responsible way for any of us to legislate. It is predicted that disabled people will lose on average £4,500 per year, yet we know they already need an extra £1,095 per month just to have the same standard of living as those in non-disabled households. There is a reason why 138 organisations representing disabled people are against this Bill, and there is a reason why not a single organisation has come out in support of it.
I am pleading with MPs today to please do not do this. For those on my own Labour Benches, staying loyal to your party today may feel good in this place, but once you go home and are in your individual constituency, the reality of this will hit—and it will hit very hard.
Emma Lewell
I am sorry, but I am concluding my comments.
Just as in 2015, constituents will never forgive us, and it will haunt those MPs who vote for this Bill. I, of all people, should know.
Mr Tom Morrison (Cheadle) (LD)
I come here today fuelled by the voices of hundreds of my constituents, and I want to speak about the harm I think this Bill will cause if rushed through the House. How a society treats its most vulnerable members is a real reflection of its progression and intent, and despite recent U-turns and last-minute changes, people, including children, will be pushed into poverty because of this Bill.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that changing life-critical benefits in a rush, gambling with people’s futures without evidence, and only listening when their Back Benchers rebel is simply not how Governments govern at their best?
Mr Morrison
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend.
As I have said, many of my constituents have raised their fears, worries and anxieties about these plans. As they have been unable to provide their own stories directly because of the Government’s lack of consultation, I want to use my time to be their voice. Amy from Bramhall suffers from ME, and her illness can fluctuate hour to hour and day to day, making it hard to pass assessments for support. Amy recently appealed to me for assistance after the DWP withdrew her PIP, despite the fact that her illness was getting worse. Amy said:
“It is astounding how I can be reduced to zero points from receiving higher levels for mobility and daily care when I have not been cured nor had any improvement in how my conditions affect my life. In 2018 when my PIP was downgraded, following appeal it was rewarded back to me. Yet, now, without improvements to how I am affected it has been completely stopped.”
Those who have had to face mandatory reconsideration will know the extent of the documents needed and the stress involved, but to cope with this when someone is ill and suffering every single day is simply not sustainable. Amy has been advised that the mandatory reconsideration will take 15 weeks, which is almost four months, so where will Amy get the support she needs during this wait? This situation highlights the barriers that people with chronic illnesses and disabilities face when trying to get support.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that these changes risk devastating consequences for people living with complex mental health conditions? They may not score four points on a single activity, but experience persistent moderate challenges across many areas, and this could in fact lead to financial hardship and worsening mental health, which will put more pressure on other services and negate the point of the exercise in the first place.
Mr Morrison
I thank my hon. Friend for that incredibly important point. Whether it is motor neurone disease, blindness, ME, arthritis, mental illness or cancer, these barriers will only be further entrenched should the Bill be passed.
Disability Stockport is a local charity that specialises in autism and mental health. It has told me that it is deeply opposed to the changes the Government are proposing:
“Such cuts would exacerbate poverty, worsen mental health issues, and further reduce the already limited support available to the most vulnerable and marginalised people across Greater Manchester. We believe this would pose a serious risk of harm.”
While Disability Stockport welcomes the Government’s investment in employment support, it is clear that much more is needed, because of people such as Joan.
Joan lives in Cheadle Hulme and worked in financial services before falling very ill. She explained to me the persistent and defeating barriers that disabled and ill people face when trying to secure employment. She faces a six-month wait for an assessment for Access to Work. How can this Government expect more disabled people to work if they have to wait six months just for an assessment? Joan told me that it is a degrading process to have to work without adjustments. She has to push herself through pain and fatigue, because she does not receive sick leave during her probationary period. If Joan moves jobs, she will have to start over again, despite a registered record of her need adjustments. This is just one example of the lack of full and effective investment in supporting disabled and chronically ill people into work.
The Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People has told me it is concerned about those using PIP to pay rent and bills. It also expressed the view that this rushed legislation does not truly apply more pressure on or give more support to employers to make accommodations for disabled people. Instead, the Bill will protect the status quo, and the onus to get support will be on the individual, not the employer. It asked:
“What will happen to 16-22 year olds who no longer get Disability Living Allowance and don’t quality for PIP?”
These young people will fall through the cracks and be pushed into poverty.
By bringing forward this Bill, which could amount to the biggest cut to sickness and disability benefits in a generation, it is clear that there is no sense of the real-life impact it will have on hundreds of my constituents and hundreds of thousands of people across the constituencies represented by Members of this House.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
Can the hon. Gentleman confirm what he thinks is the extent of the cut, because my understanding is that spending is still going to increase? Can he also confirm if the cut, as he sees it, is even bigger than the cut his party forced on the poorest in this country when in coalition?
Mr Morrison
I thank the hon. Member for his comments, but these are the voices of my constituents, whom I am here to represent. Labour Members can talk about the coalition Government all they want, but I am talking about the here and now, and Members of this House will be judged on which Lobby they vote in later.
It is ironic that the Government have introduced a child poverty taskforce, yet through this Bill are actively undermining that work towards alleviating child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that, because of this Bill, following the so-called mitigations from the Government, 54,000 children will be forced into poverty, which is the equivalent of 1,800 full classrooms.
Disabled people, and all benefits claimants, should be thoroughly consulted before legislation is rushed through. If the Government will not listen to the voices of my constituents and the constituents of other Members, then maybe they will listen to the voices of respected charities such as Child Poverty Action Group, Citizens Advice, the Trussell Trust, and Mind. They are all urging the Government to change course.
The Bill will likely reduce support to millions of disabled people, pushing at least 150,000 people into poverty. Food bank use will undoubtedly soar. Worklessness will grow and the Government will, ironically, add even more to the unemployment figures that they are so desperate to bring down. The charities rightly warn, despite the last-minute changes the Government have hurriedly introduced, that adult social care services, NHS services, housing and homelessness support, the justice system and advice services will be catastrophically stretched, with many organisations facing breaking point.
The Government know that there are multiple other ways to ease the country’s finances, but they are making a very deliberate choice to penalise a group of people who have neither the strength nor the time to fight it. It is absolutely shameful. Unless the Government scrap the two-child limit and benefit cap, child poverty will be higher at the end of this Parliament than at the start. Is that really the legacy this Labour Government want to leave?
Finally, I urge the Government to think of the stories of Amy and Joan, and to reflect on the very real and personal impact that the changes will have on them and the millions who share their story. The Government must change course without delay. I am sure I speak for many in this Chamber when I say that we came into politics to fight for the most marginalised and vulnerable in our communities. If the Bill passes, we will have all let them down.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to have a couple of minutes to give my comments.
I have been frustrated that Ministers have continued to say that the Bill is rooted in fairness. It originates, as far as my recollection goes, from a £5 billion cut from the Treasury, and I think that has marred the whole situation. The political mess it has unleashed is the result of a lack of a clear purpose. I am incredibly proud of the work I have done and the campaigns I have been part of with disabled charities. I am just sorry that they feel excluded from the process up until this point, but I am glad that the Secretary of State has made a commitment to work with those charities going forward.
We say we want to win the support of working-class communities, yet the people I represent, in the most deprived communities in our country, do not yet think our Government are on their side. They felt the winter fuel cut was an attack on them, and they think that taking money off physically disabled people who cannot wash themselves is plainly wrong. I want welfare reform. I want the dignity and pride of work for as many of my constituents as possible.
I want to say to the Secretary of state that I am reassured that the 14,697 people in Liverpool Walton currently on PIP will be protected, that the Government will scrap reassessments for those with the most severe conditions, and that the Government have committed to spending £1 billion a year on health, skills and work support. But we are in a dire state. There are people for whom no amount of employment support will make a blind bit of difference. There are 1 million young people not in work or training. Give them the chance to find purposeful, dignified, unionised work. If they are on benefits, get them doing something useful in the community for them. Recommit to full employment.
In the poorest areas, welfare is the lifeline for people up against a housing crisis and ever-rising bills for food, electricity and the cost of living, but of course it should not be. Tackle the fundamental problems, impose rent caps in the poorest areas, drive out the landlords extorting my constituents and help my constituents to buy their homes. I do not want the Labour party to be the party of welfare; I want it to be the party of transformation. It was founded to give workers a voice and to take on their class enemies. We are in government, with the levers of power in our hands, so show the British people that we are on their side.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I wanted to speak in this debate to try to get behind some of the headlines and challenges that those on the Government Benches face in getting to a settled view today, by looking back over the last years the Conservatives had in government at some of the lessons that we must draw from that experience but which are relevant to consider today.
I will not be able to support the proposals, not because I do not think some of them have significant merit, or because I do not have the greatest respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who has spent 31 years in this place and who I believe will do all that is asked of him, but because I do not think that the changes in the Bill are sufficiently ambitious to deal with the scale of the challenges we face.
I was in government for seven years and I was in the Treasury for most of that time. During the covid epidemic, we had to make some pretty quick changes while the economy was shut down overnight. They involved changes to benefits, standing up a furlough scheme very quickly, bounce back loans and many interventions to try to keep our public services going, and they were at the core of some of the patterns of behavioural change that we now see in our benefits system. I was looking at the numbers for my constituency, which I recognise is a wonderful place and also quite a wealthy place that does not have some of the embedded challenges in other parts of the country. The number of PIP claims in January 2019 was 2,065 and in April 2025 it was 4,211. The vast majority of my constituents and the vast majority of people in the country cannot understand how those numbers have doubled in such a short amount of time.
I fully respect the aspirations of the Secretary of State and her ministerial team in seeking to address that, because we have to come to terms with what we can afford as a country. I also respect sincerely the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), whose constituency is rather different from mine, because I think we are united in this place in wanting to look after the most vulnerable. I want to see those who are suffering, who are disabled and who need support from the state to receive that support in a timely way. What I do not want to see is people written off permanently.
About 12 or 14 years ago in this House, we had a debate about mental health. Several Members of Parliament stood up and bravely talked about their own mental health challenges. We then went on a journey to bring parity of esteem to mental health and physical health in our benefits system. I believe that that pathway into assessment for mental health has not worked. It writes people off too easily and it does not serve them well, by leaving them in a place where they are, on an enduring basis, reliant on the state. As a country, we cannot afford it. It is time to legislate for more resilience: resilience in our country and in those who receive benefits such that they can get out of that place of dependency, because I do not think it is a happy place for anyone to be.
When I reflect on the changes proposed today, I can see the hand of the Treasury. I can see the fiscal imperative. I can see the public finances and what is now likely to happen in the autumn, which will mean more tax rises. Now, for some on the Government Benches that will be a price worth paying, but we as a country will lack the productive capacity to grow if we tax those who create jobs to a level where they just will not create jobs any further. We have to come to terms with that profound reality; if we do not, we are in a death spiral as a country.
I give credit to the Government for some of the steps they are taking today. However, for reasons different from those stated by many on the Government Benches, I will not be able to support the Bill. I do not think it is holistic, goes far enough or deals with the profound tragedy that has happened to our benefits system as a consequence of covid and our public finances.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I always appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks in the Treasury Committee and in the Chamber as an extremely fair-minded colleague. I appreciated his remarks in yesterday’s statement and the admission that the previous Government’s handling of our recovery from the pandemic was not what it should have been. However, does he not recognise that the constituents with whom I meet now rely on their PIP to get to their places of work because of the stripping away of council funding for bus routes, social care and all the services that were left in tatters by the previous Government?
John Glen
I reciprocate the hon. Lady’s warm sentiments. She makes her political points, some of which will be true in some circumstances, and some of which will not.
My point today to everyone in this House is this: let us be real, honest and true about the trajectory of growth in welfare spending in this country, and let us be honest about what we can afford. We face a transformed landscape of threats to this country, with calls for more spending on defence. We have to address our priorities, but we must also recognise that the most vulnerable need continued support. However, the system we have brings too many into dependency on the state, and that is not right.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
We all know the famous quote:
“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.”
It is a litmus test for the morality and integrity of our country’s values. In recent years, the United Nations has twice reported on the conditions for disabled people in the UK, finding that there were “grave and systematic violations” of human rights. Sadly, the Bill as it stands will worsen this situation.
Despite concessions, and even excluding existing claimants, brutal cuts will still push hundreds of thousands of vulnerable, sick and disabled people into poverty. Existing claimants will live in fear that if their situation changes and they are reassessed, they could lose everything under the new system. Disabled children will look to the future with trepidation, knowing that in adulthood the support that would have helped them to live a full and fruitful life might not be there.
I truly welcome the proposals to support with a little help those who could work, but according to the Learning and Work Institute, the number of people who will be helped is nominal, at between 1% and 3%—a finding echoed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which concludes that we might expect increases in employment in only the tens of thousands.
Although the concessions made over the weekend are welcome, they create a two-tier system, as the amount of support that someone receives will now depend on when they made their claim. That is simply not fair, especially as those who require help need this support through no fault of their own.
Yes, it is clear that our punitive and broken welfare system needs reform—it drives disabled people into poverty. However, there should have been proper consultation with those most directly affected in order to build a system that truly nurtures, but that has not happened. The Government should have published assessments on the impact of these updated proposals on the poverty of future claimants, those undergoing reassessments and their carers, but they have not. The Government should have assessed the knock-on impact on local authorities, the NHS and the charity sector and the scope for non-payment of household debts as people pushed into poverty desperately seek help elsewhere, but they have not. We are being asked today to vote on a Bill and rush it through without consultation or knowing the full picture, and that cannot be right.
If this is about cost, I recognise the financial challenges facing the Government—challenges that are a direct result of 14 years of mismanagement and under-investment by the previous Government—but the sad thing is that there are alternatives. The Government could introduce higher taxes on extreme wealth, end the stealth subsidies for banks and tax gambling fairly and properly. The list of alternatives is endless.
Every single disability organisation is against this brutal Bill. If we ignore them and say that it is okay to treat one group of people as lesser than another and okay to neglect the vulnerable, undermine their rights and dignity and push them into poverty, what does that honestly say about the true measure of our society? I say to my colleagues on the Front Bench: please pull back from the brink now, before it is too late, and withdraw this Bill.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Terrified, anxious and angry—these are the words that Citizens Advice Rural Cambridgeshire has heard most since these changes were proposed. I recently hosted an emergency forum in St Neots that brought together those on the frontline—food banks, advice bureaux, charities and social organisations—to discuss the impact of these changes, and every organisation said the same thing: the Government’s proposals, as they stood, should not go ahead. The fact that the Government reached the same conclusion just yesterday does nothing to reassure people that they know what they are doing. Their last-minute changes may protect existing claimants, but they will create a fundamentally unjust two-tier system.
As we have heard from my Liberal Democrat colleagues, we understand that the system needs reform, and we understand concerns that the welfare bill is currently too high. However, we also understand disabled people and their carers, which is a claim the Government cannot possibly make for themselves when they have yet meaningfully to consult those whose lives will be so significantly altered by the proposed changes.
The figures that many Members have mentioned help us to see the scale, but they do not tell the stories of the millions of real people whose lives will be changed by these reforms, so let me share the story of a 23-year-old autistic man on the Switch Now learning programme based in my constituency. Through education, health and care plan funding, he receives a full-time education and would be supported to progress into employment by next summer. Switch Now has a brilliant record of success, and I would welcome the opportunity to talk to the Secretary of State more about its work. However, his PIP was unexpectedly cut a few months ago with little notice, from around £100 a week to just £20. With that reduction, he cannot afford to feed himself through the week, let alone afford the transport to get to his programme every day or the care that he needs elsewhere.
My constituent and many others like him are doing exactly what the Government claim they want them to do: working hard, completing training and looking to the future where they can join the workforce with that support. They need that help. Hundreds of thousands like him will still face these barriers, even after yesterday’s changes. A 23-year-old autistic person applying next year will be treated differently from one applying today—not because their needs differ, but because of political timing. If the Government now accept that changes are necessary, why are we voting before the Timms review concludes? Why implement a four-point threshold on criteria that the Government admit need to be reviewed?
The Government’s approach exposes a lack of compassion. How will they encourage the back-to-work culture that I know the Secretary of State wants? Every person who might have a future lifeline taken away by these reforms is a human, but it is difficult to see that the Government are treating them that way.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State dismissed concerns about the two-tier system, but that is patently absurd. The Government are creating different levels of support for identical conditions purely based on application dates. Disabled people should not be shouldering the burden of fixing our public finances. They and the disability groups that represent them must be meaningfully consulted on any changes that will affect them. I will be voting against these changes and I urge anyone who cares about disabled people and fundamental fairness to do the same.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
This is, as has oft been reported this week, the first anniversary of a Labour Government— and have I not been waiting for that for a very long time? It is also the 10th anniversary of the start of my time chairing two Select Committees, first looking in detail at public spending and, for the last year, looking at the Treasury—and what a privilege that has been. I therefore cannot stand here and claim that I did not know that the Labour Government would be inheriting a very difficult financial situation.
Although this matter is not just about money, and should not just be about money, it is a tragedy that too many young people in particular are being pushed into disability benefits. It is a sign of what the Public Accounts Committee would call “cost shunting”— failures in parts of the public sector, where money has been taken away, have seen people pushed into other areas where they could claim the money. Too often, these people are being written off, and I have too many of them in my constituency. I can see the face of one mother who came to my surgery. She was distraught that her two young sons, one of whom is in his early 20s, were in a terrible state and had never been able to work.
A week is a long time in politics, as has famously been said. One week ago, this Bill meant that more than 300,000 people currently receiving personal independence payments were fearful that they would lose them through reassessment. But things have changed since then—I pay tribute to many hon. Friends for that, particularly to many of those who chair Select Committees and to the Government, who have embraced the discussions that we had in good faith. As a result, the Government have agreed to protect existing PIP claimants to make sure that those people are not fearful that they will lose their money and that they can relax and know that they can be secure in their future.
The Government have also ensured that those receiving universal credit and the health top-up are protected in real terms. I pay particular tribute to the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for that proposal.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Throughout this process, I have focused primarily on the impact of these changes on people with severe disabilities who are unable to work. Originally, the Bill would have made those people worse off, which was unacceptable to me, but the Government’s changes ensure that their income will be genuinely protected in real terms. Does my hon. Friend agree that that change is vital?
Dame Meg Hillier
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That was one of the biggest concerns that I had with the Bill. It was also why so many hon. Members stood up and said that they did not want this to go ahead on those terms, and the Government listened.
The Government are also introducing important employment support. That presents a huge opportunity for our local councils and for others that provide that support. I am talking about not just the DWP, but charities that specialise in working with people. I have an example of such work. DWP staff in Hackney have worked with a woman, a victim of domestic violence, who at the age of 49 found herself homeless. They helped her into a flat. She was a parent of three and had not worked since she was 16. They found her work, and after a few weeks she came back to them and said, “I like this 10 hours of work a week. I want more.” Intensively done, these efforts can work. It takes time, which is one reason that we needed to protect current PIP claimants.
The co-production of the Timms review is a groundbreaking change. If the DWP adopts that, does it well and makes it the blueprint for the future, it will put disabled people in the driving seat in shaping benefits, not just now but in the future. That is long overdue and it is one of the biggest changes that came out of the discussions in recent weeks.
We all know that work is a noble endeavour. I will not repeat what others have said about that, but it is good for people and people want to work. Many disabled people in my constituency, and up and down the country, are not supported into work. Whether they are receiving PIP or they become well enough to work and do not need PIP, the dignity of work should be open to all. Too many disabled people are excluded from the workplace, so work support is critical to them.
I welcome the work of the Mayfield review. At a roundtable last week, I met employers and people who are putting people into work, who praised the early findings of the Mayfield review—one of the people there had been involved in it. It is demonstrably good value for employers to support people to stay in work because they keep that experience and knowledge.
I also welcome the right to try and all the other payments and support set out in the Bill. We need to reform the welfare system because it is letting too many people down: too many people moulder on benefits and never have the chance to get off them.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work that she has put into the changes that have been made to the Bill. She spoke of cost shunting—the way that cuts in one area have forced people to claim in other areas, and those costs have risen. Does she not therefore think that it is important that the Government address those areas where the cuts have been made that forced people out, before we reduce the support for the new claimants that will be coming in?
Dame Meg Hillier
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Cost shunting can work both ways, so it is vital that the Timms review examines that. If this Government are serious about mission-led government and working across Departments, it is crucial that the Department of Health and Social Care and others are closely involved.
We all know that government is about hard choices—no one said that to govern is easy. However, I say to the Government that it is about not just what they do but how they do it. I trust that over the past week the Government have really learned that. I am blown away by the talent of Members of the House, particularly new colleagues I have met since 2024. There are people sitting on the Benches on both sides of the House who have huge talent and experience. We are not just message replicators or voting fodder—there is talent, knowledge and expertise in this House that the Government would do well to harness. It is easy to get into a bunker mentality and feel like government is hard—I have been a Government Minister; there is lots to do and there is never a minute to oneself—but listening and engaging is vital and makes for better policy.
The privilege of this place is that every centimetre of the United Kingdom is represented by a Member of Parliament, so we have reach, which is a valuable tool for anybody who takes policymaking seriously. Parliament has a vital role and the Government need to engage better with Members of this House, particularly those who work on the Committee corridor. I pay tribute to my fellow Committee Chairs. We have a constitutional role to play to challenge and cajole Government, but we also have a role to inform and shape policy.
We live in a world where we see leadership in some prominent countries by people with whom we do not have the same values. The world is being taken in a direction that I do not want to see, and that is a risk in this country. Under the last Government, we saw how division rent the party now in opposition asunder. I have spent more than half of my 31 years in elected office under Governments led by the Conservatives—that is miserable, frankly, because it means that we did not have the power to shape things in the way that we do when we are in power.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
The hon. Member talks about the previous Government. Does she agree that politics is about choices? This Government too have chosen cruelty: they came for the elderly, then the children and now the sick and disabled. Who is next?
Dame Meg Hillier
I am absolutely clear that government is about choices. When a party is in government, it has to make choices to run the country. Some 14 of my 20 years in this place have been served when other parties have been in government, and I have seen Conservative Prime Ministers pass through a revolving door, but I would always rather see a Labour Government. Divided parties do not hold power or government. If we want to see our values played out in this country, we need to vote for the Bill today.
There is still a lot to do, a lot of discussion to be had and the Timms review to take place, but major changes were made last week that have significantly altered the Bill in a short space of time. We should bank that and continue to fight, with the passion that hon. Members have demonstrated today, for the rights of disabled people and all of those who want a job, whether they are disabled or not, and need support to get into work.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
So there we have it: a Prime Minister not in control, a Work and Pensions Secretary with her hands tied behind her back, and a Chancellor now scrambling to find ways to balance the books after months of reckless spending. This shoddy attempt at welfare reform has revealed something that the nation has learned over the last year: Labour did not plan for government. We all know that the welfare bill is enormous, with more than £150 billion being spent on benefits for working-age adults. A staggering one in four claim to have some form of disability; that is simply unsustainable.
The Government had a prime opportunity in their first year in office—their honeymoon period—to bring about long-term reforms, yet this half-baked Bill, which has already been hastily rewritten to appease hard-left Government Members, does not even achieve the £5 billion of savings originally intended. Worse, it leaves us with a two-tier system from a two-tier Prime Minister.
We all know why the Chancellor needs these savings: she will go down as the Klarna Chancellor—spend now, pay later. After all, she has blown taxpayers’ money on 25 more pointless quangos.
Mr Bedford
I am not giving away.
The Chancellor has also blown billions of pounds on GB Energy—a project so vague that no one seems to know what it does—while handing out inflation-busting pay rises to appease the unions. Now she cannot even claw back £5 billion of savings to keep market confidence as the country’s debt spirals out of control.
When the Work and Pensions Secretary tabled the Bill, Conservative Members gave her three reasonable asks. First, we needed the Government to commit to reducing welfare spending, yet as their screeching U-turn shows, they are incapable of tackling that problem. Indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts an increase of £60 billion in annual welfare costs by the end of the Parliament.
Secondly, we asked for a clear commitment that the Government would get people back to work. However, as was highlighted by the Secretary of State yesterday, the pathways to work programme will not be fully funded until the end of the Parliament, so it will arguably be inconsequential, weak and woefully underfunded.
Mr Bedford
I am not giving away; I am going to make progress. The hon. Member can repay the favour sometime.
Thirdly, we needed a guarantee that taxes would not rise again in the upcoming Budget. But let us be honest: the Chancellor has only one move left—she will raid the pockets of hard-working families, which is something Labour promised not to do. Even today, we have heard rumours in the media that she is coming after people’s ISAs.
It is painfully clear that the Government have lost their fiscal credibility. I say to my constituents: I will always be there to support you and I will fight your corner when the Government come back again for more of your hard-earned income to cover their incompetence. This embarrassing failure of leadership from a Government who should be at the height of their power has led Conservative Members to conclude that we cannot and will not support the Bill.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The social security system should be there as a safety net for those most in need—those who are vulnerable, disabled or have ill health—but after 14 years of the Conservatives, it has been left with gaping holes. Disabled people were the ones who suffered the most harm under previous Conservative Governments as well as under their coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats.
We all know that many disabled people suffered. Indeed, the DWP found that between 2014 and 2020 there were 69 process reviews—for those who do not know, those reviews happen when claimants have committed suicide. The National Audit Office found that in fact the number was probably higher. Just a few weeks ago, the second coroner’s inquest into the death of Jodey Whiting found that the DWP’s failings precipitated her death.
I set that out because it is important that we understand that disabled people’s lives have not been valued or respected for the last 14 years. Then, five years ago, when the pandemic hit, we all know that nearly two thirds of those who lost their lives had either a long-term condition, a disability or ill health. We also know that blanket applications of “do not attempt resuscitation” orders were placed on many. Indeed, Mencap found, and showed in its evidence on that issue, that that was happening to those with a learning disability. When the Government rightly put in place financial support such as the furlough scheme and the £20 uplift to universal credit, again, disabled people on legacy benefits did not attract that support. It is therefore fair to say that disabled people were hammered; in short, our lives were not valued.
In 2009, under the last Labour Government, we signed the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. The coalition Government then came in in 2010 and rather than supporting and implementing that, became the first nation state to be investigated for the way in which they treated disabled people through their welfare reforms. What was found? Grave and systematic violations of the rights of disabled people—and just last year, the update to that review said that there were no significant improvements. That was the record of the last Conservative Government, so we take no lessons from them.
Universal credit and personal independence payment are there as an income-replacement benefit. When we talk about UC and personal independence payment, they are not an out-of-work benefit, and people need to understand that. This is about an extra cost benefit that is there to help those who have a disability and need that additional support.
I come to the Bill, which still includes billions of pounds’ worth of cuts that will have a significant and negative impact on tens of thousands of disabled people. We know that it will potentially create a two-tier—and possibly three-tier—system. It is not me saying that, but the experts—the many organisations that provided Members from across this House with briefings. Imposing that four-point descriptor will mean that many will not be able to get support. If someone like me, who has sight loss, loses their sight in two years’ time, they would potentially not get the support they need. That is unfair and unjust.
It is vital that this Government wait for the OBR’s analysis. The proposals were not developed in consultation with disabled people, nor with us as Members of Parliament. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment shows that up to 150,000 people will be affected by the changes, although it will be more than that according to analysis by NEF and many others.
I respect the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), so I urge the Government to please let us have his review, let us all feed into it and let it be co-produced with disabled people. Let us also wait for Sir Charlie Mayfield’s findings from his Getting Britain Working review. I have met him and I am excited by his work. I welcome some of the other proposals from the Government in their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper on the right to try. That is so important, because I strongly believe that disabled people who want to work should be given the support that they need. Yet we all know that there are far too many challenges in that space.
I stand here as somebody who lives with a disability and as somebody who has served as a shadow Minister for Disabled People for many years. I know their lived experience. It is vital that they are at the centre of all the reforms. We cannot rush through these plans and changes as they will lead to a negative impact. We do not want to see this progressive Labour Government, who want to bring about change, break down barriers and create opportunities for people, end up leaving disabled people worse off.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Too much of what we have discussed today has not centred disabled people, the Bill or the changes that we are being asked to vote on. We are being asked to vote on the Second Reading of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. We have had some reassurances from the Government and they made some announcements yesterday. Yet even if we take those into account, the principles of the Bill are wrong. This is the wrong Bill at the wrong time, which will attack people and make their lives worse. It cuts money from disabled people, and it is driven entirely by the need to make cuts and not by the need to improve the welfare system.
If, for example, the PIP numbers are spiralling out of control, perhaps the Government could concede that there are more disabled people than there were before. Perhaps there are more people that need additional support. The number of people on the state pension increases at a rate larger than the population of Leicester every year. Perhaps that is because there are more older people than there were in the previous year. Perhaps the increase in PIP numbers is happening because more people are struggling to live their lives. Perhaps that is because, as Scope has said, £1,095 a month is the additional cost of living with a disability.
If this is a Labour Government who are on the left, who care about making people’s lives better, and whose principles are those of the party that created the welfare state and the social security safety net, why are they now choosing to dismantle it? Why are they choosing to go for disabled people when there are lots of other ways they could make savings? They could scrap their self-imposed fiscal rules. They could choose to have a more progressive taxation system. They could choose to levy this £2 billion of savings—or £5 billion, however much it is today—on someone other than the people who are already struggling.
Those people are already living in a world that is made for neurotypical people and for people who are healthy. They are already struggling with the additional costs of having to heat their homes more and having to buy special food. That is what PIP is used for: to allow people to get to work when they are struggling because they cannot do the 40-minute walk in the way that able-bodied people can. It is for people who cannot sit at home and put the heating off because they need a consistent level of temperature to manage their chronic pain. This Bill will take money away from those people in the future who have exactly the same conditions as those who are eligible now, and it is purely on the basis of cost. This is absolutely not about reforming the welfare system.
Yesterday, the Secretary of State stood up to answer a question from me. She said:
“I do not expect the hon. Member to have read every line of our manifesto, but reforming the benefit system was in it.”—[Official Report, 30 June 2025; Vol. 770, c. 32.]
It was not. Reforming the benefit system was not in the Labour manifesto. It talked about “reviewing universal credit” and said it would “reform employment support”. It did not talk about reforming the benefit system. The Government are going to have a hell of a time when they get this Bill through to the Lords, because the Lords are going to know that this was not in the Labour party’s manifesto.
If the Government are going to reform the welfare system, they should look at the issues that the Timms review is looking at, but to be fair, I do not have a huge amount of trust in the Timms review, given that the Minister said to me the day before “Pathways to Work” was published that I would be reassured and that I would welcome the proposals in it. The Minister honestly thought that I would welcome, on behalf of disabled people up and down the United Kingdom, the fact that they would have to get four points in one of the components of the personal independence payment to be eligible, and that I would welcome the fact that people would have the payments that they live on taken away. They use that money to be able to live. As I have said, this UK Government making these changes are supposed to be a Labour Government.
I want to talk about a couple of the specific matters in the Bill. First, the issues in “Pathways to Work” in relation to age discrimination continue to apply. They have not been fixed. There is nothing in this fudge of a compromise that changes them. A disabled person under 22 could have exactly the same additional costs as a disabled person aged 25. A two-tier system is being put in place. Also, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has said, there are major issues with the proposals on severe conditions in relation to limited capability for work. It is clear that the Secretary of State does not know what it says in the Bill. The Bill says that the descriptor must apply “at all times” for the claimant to be classed as meeting the severe conditions criteria. If I cannot do something 95% of the time, but 5% of the time I can, I will not be considered to have a severe condition. Unless the Government promise to make changes to this, the severe conditions criteria will apply to hardly anybody. People with Parkinson’s, ME or MS, for example, and who have recurring or remitting conditions will really struggle to claim this benefit. The Government need to reprioritise and to rethink. They need to listen to disabled people and to understand the impact that this will have on their lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will reduce the time limit to five minutes after the next speaker, but I have no plans to reduce it further. Members will be able to see just how many are standing to speak and will know that this debate is scheduled to finish at 7 pm. That will mean many Members—35—will be disappointed.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
I wish that we were not here today. We do not need to be here today. There is nothing special or magical about this Tuesday—nothing at all. The deadline we have been given is to solve a political problem. That is why so many of us on the Labour Benches have been pleading with the Government to pull the Bill, go back to the drawing board and work in partnership with disabled people and others, including with the Timms review, to ensure that we get a welfare system that works for disabled people and others. There is no need to ram the Bill through other than to save political face. There is no need to ram it through at Third Reading next Wednesday in Committee of the whole House so that disabled people cannot give evidence from their experiences in Bill Committee. There is no need to do that at all. We should be solving this problem, not solving a political problem.
We are being asked to vote on the principles of the Bill, and all hon. Friends should be clear about what those are. They are on the face of the Bill. It says,
“to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment.”
That is the purpose of the Bill. My colleagues and I did not come into Labour politics to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments. When I think about what we are being asked to vote for tonight, I think not just of my colleagues here, but of the disabled people who come to my constituency advice surgeries. I think of the disabled people who had hope in their hearts a year ago when a Labour Government were elected after 14 years.
Let’s be clear: this was not in our manifesto. The Labour party as a whole has not approved this, and the Bill has been rushed through. We need to be clear that if this were a free vote, it would be hard to find many Labour MPs at all voting for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, this is a matter of conscience, and we need to be clear about what we are comparing here. When we decide how to vote tonight, we are not comparing the Bill as the Government intended with the Bill as is promised; we are comparing the situation of disabled people across the country as it is now with the situation that will come to pass if the Bill is passed.
This Bill, which was brought—whatever the narrative—to save billions of pounds, with these concessions still cuts billions of pounds from disability support. No Government and no Labour Government should seek to balance the books on the backs of disabled people. That is not what any of us in the Labour family, left, centre or right of the party, came into politics to do, and that is why so many people are uneasy about this.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) spoke clearly from her experience. She regretted not voting against the Conservatives’ welfare Bill back in 2015. I urge all colleagues to listen carefully to what she said because the truth is this matter does not end when the voting Lobbies close tonight; this matter will come back to haunt Labour MPs in their constituency surgeries Friday after Friday up to and including the day of the next general election. People will ask, “Why on earth did you vote for these cuts?” or “Why on earth did you sit on your hands?”
It is notable that 138 disabled people’s organisations are pleading with Labour MPs to vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central and vote against this Bill. I know the Whips and those on the Front Bench can make compelling arguments, but for me, the real compelling argument has been made outside this Chamber by those 138 disabled people’s organisations. It was very telling that, when asked yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to name one disabled persons’ organisation that supports this disability benefit cuts Bill, the Secretary of State could not name one, because there is not one.
I honestly believe that for any Labour MP who votes for this Bill tonight or sits on their hands, that vote will hang like an albatross around their necks. I understand that some colleagues will feel they have to vote for disability benefit cuts out of party loyalty, but there are other types of loyalty in addition to that: loyalty to our consciences; loyalty to our party’s values; loyalty to our disabled constituents; loyalty to those who are really struggling and come to see their MP—people like me, on about £90,000 a year—and ask them for help. I do not want to be in my constituency advice surgery saying to those people, “You know how you’ve got a problem and you’re in a really difficult situation? Well, that’s because of the way I voted.”
I urge MPs to have the democratic dignity that comes today by voting with their conscience and voting to give disabled people outside this place what they have been denied for too long: dignity, respect, a voice in this House and a vote in the Lobby—
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I want to begin today not with statistics or slogans, but with the reality of just one life: a constituent of mine, Sarah, from Hassocks. Sarah has a spinal cord injury. She is a wheelchair user, and this is what her personal independence payment makes possible.
It pays for underwear that does not dig into her skin, wedge pillows to raise her legs, grabber sticks, so that she can pick things up off the floor, and a second wheelchair to keep upstairs. It covers the use of a specialist rehabilitation gym that keeps her as healthy as possible. It allows her to buy heated blankets for the cold weather, because the cold weather makes her pain worse. It pays for specialist outdoor clothes from Norway to cover her legs, and in hot weather, it pays for extra fans, because the heat makes her injured body swell.
Sarah’s PIP funds a CPAP—continuous positive airway pressure—machine that runs 24 hours a day, connected directly to the hospital, because she has developed sleep apnoea, and it pays for the additional electricity to keep it going. It pays for a specialist mattress to prevent pressure sores, bathing aides and specialist body wipes for when cleaning herself is just too difficult. It pays for extra fuel for an average of four medical appointments each month, some in Hassocks and some as far away as London, and it has helped to make her garden accessible so that there is at least one part of her home where she feels free. These are not luxuries; they are the bare essentials that allow Sarah to live in dignity, with some measure of independence.
Sarah told me she has no faith in the system operated by the Department for Work and Pensions and no trust that fair and just decisions will be reached, because in her experience, the DWP’s overriding drive is not to understand but simply to cut.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I wonder whether the hon. Member has told her constituent, Sarah, that under these proposals, nobody who is currently on PIP will have a single penny of their income cut, and they will be protected for time immemorial.
Alison Bennett
I did not need to explain that to Sarah—she fully understands that—and I am about to address that point.
The Government’s last-minute climbdown has brought Sarah no comfort, because she never imagined she would be in a wheelchair. She never thought her life would change forever in an instant, and she knows that for thousands of people, that change is still to come. Life can turn on a sixpence—a single diagnosis, a single accident—and suddenly we find ourselves in a world we never imagined, up against barriers we never thought we would face. When that happens, the welfare system should be there to support us, not abandon us.
It is not just disabled people themselves who will be harmed by this Bill; it is also the millions of family carers—the unpaid carers—whose labour sustains our entire health and social care system.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the fate of unpaid carers, given that carer’s allowance hinges on a disabled person receiving PIP? With one in five people in my constituency who are disabled, which is well above the national average, should the Secretary of State commit to delinking carer’s allowance from PIP eligibility, or as a minimum, to providing automatic transitional payments during PIP reassessments, so that devoted carers are not left destitute while assessments drag on?
Alison Bennett
My hon. Friend makes a wise point. In my constituency of Mid Sussex, one in four carers are themselves disabled. Carers UK has warned in the clearest possible terms that the Bill still risks a severe and lasting financial impact on future unpaid carers and disabled people—people already facing significant hardship. Even after the Government’s partial concessions, around 81,000 future carers stand to lose support by 2029-30. That is not a small technical change; it is a decision that will push families closer to poverty, create a two-tier system of entitlements, and deepen inequalities.
Let me be clear: the Government have produced no impact assessment, no comprehensive evidence of what this will mean, and there has been no consultation with carers themselves. Carers have been ignored by the Government throughout this entire debacle, and their voice must now be heard loud and clear. The Liberal Democrats will continue to oppose the Bill, which risks stripping thousands of carers of vital assistance, and leaving some of the most vulnerable people in Britain without support. Yes, we agree that the welfare bill is too high, but if the Government were serious about bringing it down, they would be serious about fixing health and, critically, social care at pace, tackling chronic ill health at its root, rather than punishing those who live with its consequences.
Sarah told me that she wanted to speak up not for herself but for that future community of disabled people. In truth, most able-bodied people think that they understand disability, but until someone is there, they cannot comprehend the world of barriers that are thrown up. For many, that day will come after this Government’s reforms have been forced through. That is why I say to Ministers that they should pause the Bill and go back to the drawing board. They should consult the people whose lives they are about to upend, and show them the basic respect of listening before they legislate to take away their support. If we do not stand with disabled people and carers now, and if we do not insist on compassion and fairness at the heart of our welfare system, we will all pay the price later, not just in higher costs to the NHS and social care, but in the erosion of the values that bind our communities together.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am often asked about how we legislate in this House. Many Members, and members of the public, have approached me about the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through. Moving from Second Reading to Third Reading in eight days does not give Members the time they deserve to scrutinise the Bill, and by denying the Bill the opportunity to go into Committee, we are denying disabled people and their organisations time and space to give evidence and ensure that the Bill is the best it can be. We all agree that the current system is broken. I have been a constituency MP for 10 years, and I have lost count of the number of times that I have sat in advice surgeries with constituents who have been failed by the current system. The need for reform is clear, but it is also clear that we need to do it in co-production with disabled people.
One of my closest friends, Zara, is a disability rights activist—indeed, she was when I met her when we were 18. She taught me many things. She taught me that having a disability was no barrier to living a full and exciting life. She taught me never to dance too closely on the dancefloor of a nightclub to someone in a wheelchair, because you will lose a toenail. She taught me “nothing about us without us.” That is the thing she taught me that I value most, and those are the values with which I approach the Bill.
When we legislate for disabled people without involving them, we make bad legislation—we make poor legislation, and I mean “poor” in many senses, because the Bill will push 150,000 disabled people into poverty. As a Labour MP and someone who cares deeply about reducing poverty, I cannot do that. PIP is an in-work benefit and enables many of my disabled constituents to be able to go to work in the first place, and the threats we see to it actually threaten their ability to access work. I have heard from constituents who are concerned about the fact that PIP is a passport benefit to claiming things such as carer’s allowance, and I seek reassurance on that from those on our Front Bench.
Most people would agree that eligibility for disability benefits should be determined on need. The concessions we have had from Government this week lead me to think that that value is not shared, because we will see future claimants being judged differently from today’s claimants. That means that in two years’ time, when I am sat in my advice surgery hearing from a constituent who is struggling to access PIP, I will be asked a question about how I voted today. I will be asked to explain why, because that constituent’s diagnosis or accident happened later than somebody else’s who has been left with the same disabilities, one of them is eligible and the other is not. I do not think I can look my constituents in the eye and say that I voted for a fair system, because this is not fair. A two-tier system for disability is unfair, and I do not want to be able to justify that. The Timms review will not be out until autumn next year, and I am beginning to wonder what the point of it is if the four-point rule will already be implemented by that point.
It is not easy to vote against my party Whip. I joined the Labour party 21 years ago—I added it up recently, and it was a bit of a shock that that was more than half my life. I joined because I believe in social justice and equality. I joined because people such as Zara taught me it was important to stand up for social justice and equality. I joined a Labour party that was reducing child poverty and introducing things such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and actually making life better for disabled people, and I have not changed: those are still my values today. That is why tonight I will vote for the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will do so because it is consistent with my values as a Labour MP and with the mantra that Zara taught me: “Nothing about us without us”.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
This is a crucial moment for a lot of people in this country. This Bill did not come from the demands of the disabled community or from an understanding of the inequality and injustice in our society; the whole origin of this Bill was a demand to save £5 billion. That £5 billion was wanted by the Defence Secretary for more armaments—no doubt other Departments were making demands—so the whole thing has been driven from a bad source at the very beginning.
It would be much more honest and much better if the Government simply withdrew the Bill altogether and allowed the review of the Minister for Social Security and Disability to take place and look at the issues of poverty facing people with disabilities and the huge levels of stress that many others face. That includes children with special needs that are not met in schools and children with autism or other special needs not being housed in decent-sized homes. There is a whole area of discrimination against people with all forms of disabilities that could and should be addressed.
As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) just pointed out, it was a previous Labour Government who introduced the disability discrimination legislation that made such an enormous difference. Going back further, it was the Labour MP Alf Morris who introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which made a phenomenal difference to a lot of people’s lives. What has happened is that that whole tradition seems to have been stood on its head.
We are now presented with a piece of legislation that was going to take the personal independence payment away from a very large number of people, but instead, after the failed rebellion by some Labour MPs, it was changed to say that only future generations will be denied access to the payments they absolutely deserve. That means that in future, there are going to be very serious levels of poverty—much worse than there are now—among every family that includes someone with a level of disability.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his opinion regarding this proposed piece of legislation, but would he concede that voting against it also means voting against £725 extra in cash terms for those on universal credit, against denying those people the ability to try work, and against investing £1 billion in the health and skills of people who wish to try work?
Jeremy Corbyn
Voting against this Bill will be a clear message to the entire community that we believe in the equality of people’s needs, and that we will bring in new legislation that will meet those needs. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he will have to face people in his own advice bureau who will be asking why they cannot get a personal independence payment, yet their brother, their sister or their neighbour still gets it because they got it before the cut-off date. He knows full well the anomaly that, presumably, he will be voting for this evening. Perhaps he would care to reflect on that, and how to represent the people who have sent us to this place.
At the present time, the levels of poverty among the disabled community are absolutely huge. According to Scope, the cost for any family with levels of disability is around £1,000 per month. That is what will be removed if this legislation goes through. I ask Labour MPs—because it is in their hands at the present time—to reflect on what was said in the Labour manifesto last time, what was said in previous Labour manifestos and the history of the Labour party with respect to disability, and not to turn that history on its head by deliberately impoverishing the next generation. Are we to be a society that is a welfare state, with universality of benefits and support for people whoever they are and whatever their needs are—that is the whole tradition of the welfare state—or in 10 or 15 years’ time are we all going to be supporting charities, trying to raise money for people who are in desperate poverty because they have a disability that is absolutely no fault of their own?
We are going to move into a two-tier benefits system, in which those who got PIP before 2026 will seem to be relatively all right, but the rest will not. This is a ridiculous situation for the Secretary of State and the Government to have put the House in, and the only sensible thing to do is to withdraw the Bill now, allow the review to take place, and recognise the needs of all people with disabilities. If that costs us more money, so be it. As a society, are we content not to have a wealth tax, to have massive levels of inequality, and to accept that those with disabilities live economically much poorer lives because of the system we have? Surely, our function as Members of Parliament is to recognise a problem and be prepared to grasp that nettle and, above all, change it.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
In March 2020, when the Conservative Government looked like an outlier in appearing to pursue a strategy centring on herd immunity, I felt raw, hot fear. Thinking of my toddler and what might happen if I caught coronavirus meant that I sobbed deeply. After 10 years of austerity, I knew then that disabled people would pay an enormous price, and they did: almost 60% of covid-related deaths in that first wave were of disabled people. I vowed then that I would do all I could to create a country that treats disabled people with dignity and respect.
The social security system was broken by the Conservatives’ legacy of austerity and their monumental mishandling of the covid pandemic. I am now one of the only visibly physically disabled Members of Parliament. I am proud that our manifesto committed to championing the rights of disabled people, and the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do.
My communities nurtured me growing up, and they taught me the values of fairness, equality and community. It is with a heavy, broken heart that I will be voting against this Bill today. As a matter of conscience, I need my constituents to know that I cannot support the proposed changes to PIP as drafted in the Bill. Since April, I have been engaging relentlessly with the Government at the very highest level to change their proposals, making clear that I could not support the proposals on PIP. PIP is an in-work benefit designed to ensure that disabled people can live independently. Low-level support such as PIP helps to build the bridge to the deinstitutionalisation of disabled people, keeping us out of the dark corners of hospitals, prisons and social care settings.
The concessions that the Government have announced are significant, including that all recipients of PIP who receive it will continue to do so. While that will come as a relief to my 6,000 constituents who receive PIP, 4 million disabled people still live in poverty in the UK. The proposed changes to be made in Committee are still projected to put 150,000 people into poverty. I cannot accept that or a proposed points system under current descriptors, which would exclude from eligibility those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the issues with the points system is that it does not take gender into account? The assessment process does not understand that there are different issues for women and the physical things that our bodies face. Any changes that we make to the points system or descriptors must include a gender reference.
Dr Tidball
Absolutely, I agree. As a disabled woman, I know the added burden of menstruation, incontinence and pregnancy on disabled women, as those things intersect with their disability.
Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches far outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. To be able to vote for this Bill on Third Reading, I will be looking for further reassurances that the detail of the Bill will fulfil Labour’s manifesto commitments to disabled people. I need to see three things from the Government embedded in the amendments.
First, the Timms review must not be performative. The Government must not make the same mistake twice, and co-production must be meaningful. The social model of disability must be central to that, removing barriers to our inclusion in society. Disabled people’s voices should be at the heart of decision making about our lives. The sequencing of the Timms review and decisions about future recipients need to change.
Secondly, the Government must consult disabled people over the summer to understand the impact of the proposed changes from November 2026 on future claimants, to mitigate risks of discrimination and poverty for those with similar disabilities to current claimants. The Government must produce an impact assessment based on that. In fulfilling the outcomes of the consultation’s findings, they may need to reconsider the savings that result from this process.
Thirdly, growth must mean inclusive growth. In implementing the £1 billion employment, health and skill support programme, there needs to be a clear target and a sector-by-sector strategy for closing the disability employment gap. That matters. The Conservatives left us with a pitiful 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people. As the Tories vote against this Bill today, I say loudly that that should not be read as a mark of solidarity for disabled people. Instead, they should be hanging their heads in shame, acknowledging their legacy of 14 years of failure for 16 million disabled people across our country.
I am proud that our Labour Government have done much already to promote the rights of workers and opportunities for disabled people. This Labour Government now have an opportunity to build on the positive aspects of its “Pathways to Work” Green Paper to bring in a new era of policy making for disabled people that puts a laser focus on closing the employment gap. The disability sector believes that the employment gap can be reduced by 14%, generating £17.2 billion for the Exchequer. We must seize this moment to do things differently and move beyond the damaging rhetoric and disagreements of recent weeks. There is an alternative approach, in line with the Prime Minister’s statement that reform should be implemented with Labour values of fairness. A reset requires a shift in emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil our potential.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I cannot proceed with my speech without putting on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). She made a courageous and passionate speech, and I hope that all Members listened to it very carefully.
Let me start on a personal note. My dad is currently receiving PIP. He has been a proud scaffolder throughout his life, and Members should trust me when I say that he is not happy to be sitting at home. He would much rather be contributing to society, but his hips are giving up on him, and the NHS waiting lists are so long that he has been told he has no choice but to stay at home. Home life is difficult. He does not score four points on any particular measure, but he cannot move around as he used to, and he needs support to manage the basics. PIP does not solve everything, but it gives him dignity and independence, helping him to live his life while he waits for treatment. Cutting his entitlement will not incentivise him back into work. He needs no incentive. He just needs treatment. Following the Government’s recent announcement, I understand that my dad will no longer lose out, but the next person like him will. The Secretary of State talked earlier about a better tomorrow, but her proposals mean discounting the value of tomorrow’s disabled, suggesting they are less worthy of support than today’s. It is for that reason that I still cannot support the Bill.
Let me be clear. I agree that the welfare bill is too high, but we have to look at why that is. It is not because we have suddenly become a workshy nation, but because we have become less well. If the Government were serious about reducing the welfare bill, they would focus solely on fixing the root causes: chronic ill health, a broken social care system, and a mental health crisis among young people. While the Bill does good things—and I am sure that the reviews to come will propose more good things—to address the reasons for people being out of work, that is not its primary driver. The motivation for it was made clear in its timing, just before the Chancellor’s spring statement, with the core savings resulting not from helping people back into work but from tightening the eligibility criteria for a disability benefit. The Bill also removes carer’s allowance from thousands of unpaid carers—people who provide tireless, often invisible care that props up our NHS and social care system. Taking away their support is not just unjust, but economically reckless.
Let us be honest about the consequences. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the Bill will push hundreds of thousands of people into poverty by 2029. How can anyone in this place look at that figure and truly believe that the Government are making these reforms to help people rather than to balance the books?
I appreciate that some will feel that the new deal struck over the weekend is a fair compromise, and in political theory it may be, but in practice it remains unsupported by disability groups and unsupported by the public. The majority in the country see the Bill for what it is: an unfair cost-cutting exercise. This is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat from compassion, from evidence and from the values that should underpin our welfare state.
I believe that there is a better way, a fairer way, one that supports people into work by investing in health and care rather than punishing them for being ill, one that helps disabled people to live independently rather than stripping them of the support that they need to survive, one that values carers rather than treating them as an afterthought, and one that does not create an arbitrary division between today’s disabled and tomorrow’s. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and vote against Second Reading. We believe that reform must be fair, sustainable, and rooted in dignity.
My dad wants to work. He is not looking for a handout. He wants to be well again. I believe that there are many more like him, and that this Bill will make their futures worse. I urge Members to think carefully about the legacy of tonight’s vote. I say, “Vote for compassion, vote for fairness, and vote against the Bill.”
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
At the heart of any progressive society is a simple test: how do we support people when they are most in need? The test is simple, but the answer is anything but, because need is not uniform. The duty of the Government is to create a safety net—one that is wide enough to break people’s fall, but not so wide that they can never escape it. We have a consensus in this House that the system is failing, and people are right to ask how we can fix it, but before we answer that, it is important to know where we are now and how we got here.
Where are we now? We should look at the situation when Labour came into power less than a year ago: NHS waiting lists were at record highs; 3 million people were shut out of work through ill health; universal credit allowance was at a 40-year low; young people were written off, with one in eight not in work, education or training; and we had a mental health crisis, with over 1 million people in desperate need of support. The Conservative party is responsible for that situation, and we are responsible for fixing it.
The Conservatives failed with their welfare reforms. For those who are disabled and want to work, the status quo puts up too many barriers. A disability employment gap of 28% is far too high, and behind that statistic are individuals who are being failed by the system—people who, with some adjustments, could get all the benefits that good work brings, but who are denied that opportunity. It is a dead-end system that counts people out more than it helps them up.
As more people come into the system, they are locked into the same damaging status quo. Every day, we see 1,000 new people claiming PIP. As a constituent in Wirral West said to me last week, many on PIP are in work. She is right, and it is important to point that out, but it is also the case that over 80% of people on PIP are not in work. Some of those people will never be able to work—they have an irreversible health condition that would not allow it—and they have been reassessed endlessly, which is unnecessary and cruel. But others are telling this Government that they want to work, and we have a duty to give them equal choices and equal chances, which they have been denied for far too long. Doing nothing is not an option. We have been doing that since 2019 and, at the current rate, the number of PIP claimants will more than double by the end of the decade, from 2 million to more than 4 million.
How did we get here? The statistics I have mentioned are not just data points; they tell a wider story about the path of decline that the Tories took our country down. It is a story familiar to many of us: local councils were cut to the bone, austerity left public services failing people across the board, health and social care services were stripped out, and we had a cost of living crisis that pushed families to breaking point. That is just the backdrop. The Conservatives presided over multiple failed welfare changes and scrapped the Work and Health programme, which helped unlock support to get people into work. They shut down Work Choice, thereby closing avenues to help disabled people to get on at work, and they left Access to Work in backlog chaos, meaning that many people have missed out on vital funds. The safety net was torn to shreds by neglect, and the system was stacked against those it should empower.
Given that legacy, is it any wonder that people worry when they hear about reforms? I do not blame them, but we need to fix the situation. We need deep and lasting change for our country, with direct support alongside wider reforms, and that is the journey we started when people voted us into government last year. We are delivering an extra £29 billion each year for our NHS to bring down waiting times, with a 10-year plan on the way. We will provide mental health services in every school, breakfast clubs and free school lunches so that we can help future generations. Employers are part of the solution too, and our Employment Rights Bill will give people confidence that they will be supported into good work. We will build more and better-quality homes, and nearly 3 million more households will qualify for the warm home discount next year. However, those steps alone will not secure our safety net.
We cannot allow misinformation to enter this debate. That would serve only to scare those who are most in need, so let us be clear: these reforms have never been about taking support away from those who are most in need. In fact, those people will never again suffer the indignity and anxiety of needless reassessments. The Government are taking action to support disabled people with targeted help, including by increasing the disabled facilities grant by £172 million.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the legacy left by the Tory Government. Does he agree that we need two Labour Governments working together in Scotland because the situation—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Benches may not want to hear it, but one in six Scots is languishing on an NHS waiting list as a result of the decisions of the Scottish Government—
Matthew Patrick
My hon. Friend is totally right, and the SNP record is worse. One in eight young people are not in employment, education or training here, but in Scotland the figure is one in six, and the SNP should be ashamed of its record for the Scottish people.
The Bill will introduce a right to try, so that people who receive support but have a job offer know they can take that opportunity with both hands and with no fear, because if for whatever reason it does not work out, the same support will be there for them. This removes an important barrier for many. We are also increasing the standard rate of universal credit and committing £1 billion in pathways to work funding. We aim to restore dignity to a system that has become a burden to those it should serve. This is a moment to rebuild trust in the safety net, to protect those who cannot work and empower those who can, and to restore dignity to everyone.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
This Government’s Bill is not just flawed, but morally indefensible. From the outset, we need to be honest about what this Bill represents. It is not a reform; it is a calculated assault on some of the most marginalised people in our society—people with disabilities, people with complex mental health conditions and people already struggling under the weight of austerity and neglect. This Bill continues a pattern we have seen too many times, with cuts dressed up as reform and cruelty wrapped in the language of efficiency. The Department’s own assessment confirms the truth: 150,000 people will be pushed into poverty, approximately 20,000 of them children, if the Bill passes. That is not a side effect but the outcome, and the Government know it.
This Bill targets those with fluctuating, invisible or mental health conditions—the very people who already face systemic injustice. It imposes narrow functional descriptors that do not reflect the real-world barriers people face. It punishes people not for being unwilling to work, but for not fitting neatly into bureaucratic tick boxes. Worse still, there has been no meaningful consultation with disabled people or carers, and no engagement with those who live this reality every single day. The Government are making policy about disabled people without disabled people. That is not just neglect; it is offensive. The evidence is clear: the Government are looking to make savings by depriving thousands of their means to live while telling them that the planned changes will empower them.
According to research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, one in five people in receipt of PIP are already in paid employment and working to the limits that their condition allows. Of those, 60% will lose their PIP. These people are already in work. What more do the Government want? Why are they punishing them? In my constituency of Birmingham Perry Barr, 9,000 people rely on this vital payment, but nearly 4,000 are set to lose out entirely, including 630 people currently in work. What do the Government say to my constituents who will lose the income required to live with their condition? What do they say to the millions of families who will have to tighten their purse strings so they can pay for the basic needs of loved ones?
Ayoub Khan
Worse still, just a year ago, when this Labour Government came to power, the people were promised change. The Prime Minister said on the campaign trail that those with the broadest shoulders should pay their fair share, yet only one year in this Government are stripping income from those who are most in need by telling disabled people that they are not impaired enough to earn state support.
Ayoub Khan
This is nothing short of shameful, and if the Bill passes, it will be a national disgrace. The welfare state was built on the principles of solidarity, dignity and security, and this Bill tramples on those values. It will strip away independence, force people into deeper hardship and leave many with no safety net at all.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I just make the point to the hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way, which is in his gift.
Ayoub Khan
I say to the Ministers and hon. Members who claim that these changes are needed to preserve the welfare state that the welfare state was built on the idea that everyone would receive state support for things that were out of their control, no matter what. Passing this Bill will not preserve the welfare state but dismantle it, and I urge every Member of this House to reject it. We can and must do better than this. The people we represent deserve far better.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)
I begin by welcoming the positive steps the Department has set out in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper on supporting people into work; the right to try work without the fear of having to go through reassessment for benefits if it does not work out; reforming and modernising the Access to Work system; disability pay gap reporting; disability employment gap reporting; ensuring everyone has access to a supportive work coach; the assessment process, and ensuring that assessments are recorded as standard, which people were desperately crying out for; and ensuring people with lifelong conditions do not need to be reassessed when we know their condition is unlikely to ever improve. I also welcome many of the concessions the Government have made over the past week: bringing forward employment support, introducing protections for current PIP claimants going forward, and recognising the need for co-production.
However, I continue to have some concerns, which I believe must be addressed. We need the Timms review to report before the new system is rolled out. On co-production, I want to start by saying that this should have happened way before we got to today’s debate. I know from my time as shadow Minister for disabled people that when we work with disabled people and their organisations from the start, we produce better policy. There is so much talent out there and, like many of us in the Chamber, disabled people and their organisations want reform of the benefits system, but the reforms set out in the Bill are not what they want or need. We should have been working with them on it right from the start.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. Does she agree that, as well as having meaningful engagement with disabled people themselves and disabled groups, it is really important that the Timms review engages with unpaid family carers, both because they are caring for people with disability and because they are implicated through carer’s allowance being linked to PIP?
Vicky Foxcroft
I absolutely agree. The review needs to ensure that it has the right engagement and consultation with everybody, but it must be co-produced with the experts by experience.
I want to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what we mean by co-production. The principle of co-production is rooted in the US civil rights movement and the ladder of citizen participation developed by Sherry Arnstein in 1969. It should be in place from the start of the process. All information should be made available to everyone. A plan should be agreed together. There must be the ability to bring in experts. These experts should be paid for their contribution and treated as valued partners. We should empower and upskill those who are involved. And I hope that it goes without saying, but all information should be available in accessible formats. The valued partners need to be user-led disabled people’s organisations.
I finish by underlining that the focus of making the changes should not be on making cuts, but on getting it right. The focus on getting it right means that everything needs to be in scope of the review, not just the ability to tinker within limited predetermined parameters. Co-production must take place before any changes to the current assessment criteria are proposed. If that means pausing to ensure that we get it right, then that is what we must do.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I have great respect for the experience and intelligence of the Ministers behind the Bill, but what we have left in front of us today is no more than a clumsy salvage operation. How on earth did we end up here? The Government say that the cost of disability benefit is spiralling out of control. They say there is no option but to make cuts. However, the premise behind this argument is too simplistic. Overall, the cost of in-work benefits as a percentage of GDP has not changed much, because every time a Government try to cut one benefit, another rises in its place to compensate.
Before any changes were proposed, there should have been a serious analysis of what is driving the surge in PIP claims, but Ministers have made little attempt to understand why—it is just a curve on a spreadsheet that needs to be flattened. We are left with the implicit assumption that the Government believe that hundreds of thousands of people are currently receiving benefits that they do not really need and do not deserve.
However, there are lots of factors driving this increase, some of which are actually a direct knock-on effect of other Government policies. For example, many of the extra claimants are the result of a recent rise in retirement age; the Government have simply shunted one benefit cost—pension payments—into another—PIP. Another big slice of the increase comes from people who are unable to access healthcare in a timely fashion, especially since covid, and have therefore fallen out of the workplace. Perhaps most of all, people are driven towards benefits by the terrific rise in the cost of living—they just cannot get by any more. Fundamentally, life costs more for people who are disabled. Besides the impact on daily living, many treatments and aids are not available on the NHS.
Overall, there are three telltale signs that what we are looking at is a botched compromise. First, we have the new four-point rule for PIP assessments. Any question that scores a one, two or three will not make any difference to the outcome. If someone cannot undress their lower half and needs help to go to the toilet, incredibly, they will not qualify for help. There is literally no point in asking half the questions on the form. The whole four-point rule has been dreamed up not because anyone thinks it is a good way to assess hardship, but to hit an arbitrary cost saving.
Secondly, we have the incomprehensible proposal to change PIP assessments next year, without waiting for the outcome of the Timms review. I quote from the Commission on Social Security, which has written to the DWP:
“The circus around the proposed changes to PIP and universal credit are a classic example of what happens if policy makers do not work with those whose lives are profoundly affected by Government policy.”
Thirdly, we have the decision to give higher benefits to existing claimants than to new claimants, as if someone’s needs were somehow less because they applied after 2026. I do not know how anyone can stand over this as a credible policy.
Even on the most optimistic forecasts, only a relatively small minority of current claimants will be able to find jobs, and no account at all has been taken of regional employment blackspots. For every disabled person who can be helped back into work, there will be others moving in the opposite direction. About a third of ME and MS sufferers who are currently in work will be unable to continue as a direct result of losing PIP support, but they do not figure in the Government’s back to work estimates. We also have the 150,000 people who will lose their carer’s allowance, which is likely to rebound on the health service and wipe out whatever savings the Government had hoped to make.
The Secretary of State has set high standards to be judged by, saying:
“For me, this is a moral mission because I believe that there is a better future for people in so many parts of the country. It is absolutely not cruel.”
Well, it might have been a moral mission, but it is certainly not a moral outcome. This is not fairer and more compassionate, as the Secretary of State has claimed. It is harsher and more chaotic.
The Bill can no longer be considered a serious attempt at welfare reform—it is just a cobbled together scheme to get us through the next 24 hours. I urge all Members to vote against it.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I never expected to be standing here opposing Labour Government legislation that seeks to impose changes on disability benefits that will put 150,000 people into poverty. The Government’s own poverty assessment states that the concessions mean there will be a “negligible” impact on pensioner and child poverty. I do not know when we became so matter of fact about the implications of putting people into poverty, or where that language comes from. I would expect us to be moving people in the opposite direction.
We talk about choices, and we hear a lot from the leadership about tough choices. I do not consider cutting disabled people’s benefits to be a tough choice for us politicians, but it will mean that people on the receiving end will be forced to make tough choices about the way that they make ends meet. Too often, we make choices that adversely impact those who cannot fight back. We show deference to people with wealth and power, when we know that they should be bearing a heavier amount of the burden. Those who have enormous wealth have done extremely well over the past 15 years. Average incomes for ordinary families in that time have stagnated and the standard of living has gone down. If we want to make tough choices, we should be looking there.
I wish to use my time today to highlight some of the areas where we could make a difference: reforming capital gains tax, for instance, through increasing rates and closing loopholes to raise £12 billion a year; closing the carried interest loophole to private equity bosses so that they pay their fair share to raise half a billion pounds; applying national insurance to investment income to raise up to £10.2 billion; introducing a 4% tax on share buybacks to raise between £0.1 billion and £2 billion a year; ending and redirecting fossil fuel subsidies for oil and gas companies to raise £2.2 billion a year; taxing private jets to raise an additional £1.2 billion a year; and stopping rich multinational corporations evading tax and mandating that they declare their profits wherever they operate to raise £15 billion a year.
Then we come to the performance of the Treasury. In 2023, according to the Audit Commission, the Treasury gave out £204 billion in tax relief. The Audit Commission, the Treasury Committee and the Institute for Government concluded that the Treasury is not investing enough into understanding the benefits of these tax reliefs. There are a total of 1,180 tax reliefs, 815 of which the HMRC has no idea what benefit they bring to us. That is billions of pounds a year going on tax reliefs.
Those are the choices that we are choosing not to make. Let us balance those choices against the choice that we are being asked to make today. It beggars belief that we are putting savings in the welfare budget ahead of changes to the welfare budget that might assist people into work. The amount of money that is available in the examples that I have given could easily offset what we are talking about today and allow us to implement the reforms of the welfare state. Then we could see how they benefit the people in the system and what savings can be achieved.
For all those reasons, I will be supporting the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and voting against this Bill.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I speak today not just as a Member of this House, but as someone who has lived with the reality of a disability in my own family. I grew up with a sister who has a learning disability. Later in life, she also faced the brutal challenge of cancer. I have seen for myself the emotional toll, the complexity of care, and the financial pressures that came with that journey—pressures that were not self-inflicted, or in any way her fault.
I have also seen at first hand how PIP can be a lifeline for many people working in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, helping them to avoid total reliance on the state. For my constituent Shane, this support is “the fragile scaffolding” on which his life and work currently depend. All these experiences have shaped my own principles, including the need to take personal responsibility, to have a moral duty to support those who genuinely cannot support themselves and to follow the foundational principle that people in exactly the same situation should be treated the same before the law. This Bill breaks those principles.
Under Labour’s current plans, someone like Shane, or my sister, Becky, will be treated completely differently by the state, not due to their willingness to work, but based on a completely arbitrary cut-off date, currently being forced through by Ministers in Whitehall. If the Bill passes, someone in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley, newly diagnosed with a learning disability, cancer or other life-changing condition in late 2026, will get thousands of pounds less in support than someone in identical circumstances today.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The hon. Member is giving a great speech. He highlights the ridiculous two-tier system that the Government are setting up, whereby it is fine for existing claimants but not fine for future claimants. My North Cornwall constituents, Dennis and Jill from Bude, already face a similar two-tier system: they do not qualify for the carer’s allowance because they are of pensionable age. Does he agree that we should be expanding the system rather than narrowing it?
Robbie Moore
I am sure that Dennis and Jill will be looking at the debate carefully and understanding clearly the issue of fairness, which is at the heart of what this legislation addresses. As I have explained, it is a scenario that Shane, in my constituency, is experiencing: he is able to receive PIP today, but someone in a similar circumstance to him will not be able to receive it after late 2026. That is not fair.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Lauren, from my constituency, is a bright and determined 16-year-old young woman, who has just completed her GCSEs and came to do work experience in my office. She has cerebral palsy and is applying for PIP not because she wants a handout, but because she knows that she will need support to live independently and pursue a career and life ambitions that will probably bring her to this place at some point, if she gets her way. Does the hon. Member agree that young disabled people deserve clarity and dignity, and that this Bill is not giving them that?
Robbie Moore
This Bill gives no clarity or dignity to the many people such as the constituent the hon. Lady kindly mentions, or those in my constituency of Keighley and Ilkley. That is why I do not support a plan that creates such a two-tier system, which now seems to be the hallmark of this Labour Government and goes against the very principle of fairness.
Let us not forget exactly why we are here: these changes are being pushed through at pace, at the eleventh hour, without proper evidenced reasoning for the new cut-off date. That is not the kind of detailed policy making that we expect from our leaders.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that the Labour Government’s proposals are creating the worst of both worlds? On one hand, they are failing to tackle the rising welfare budget, but on the other they are creating anxiety and fear among many disabled and vulnerable people, who do not understand or know the impact of these changes on them?
Robbie Moore
That is the nub of why there is so much concern that has been consistently raised by all Members on the Conversative Benches, and many on the Government Benches as well, who, dare I say, are considering how they will vote later.
No one doubts that our welfare system, which is set to exceed £100 billion by 2030, needs reform. If we continue to follow the Chancellor’s strategy of recklessly borrowing, which will have the same negative implications on PIP, some of the poorest in society who feel the biggest impact of any financial crisis will be exposed.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Thus far, I have kept out of this debate, probably for the wrong reason, but my wife has been disabled for 26 years and is in receipt of PIP. Although I became an MP in 2017, as a family, we were deeply grateful for the support. My wife is an honest lady—I hope I do not embarrass her by saying that—and she would have been delighted to have been consulted about PIP, as set out by the hon. Member for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft). She would have put her thoughts down on paper, and I am sure that many recipients of PIP would have said, “Yes, we will try to see if we can help to get the budget straight in some way.” That way, the Government would take people with them; that is important and we are missing that.
Robbie Moore
Trust is at the heart of the issue, and if we want to create a system that commands public trust, this is not the way to do it. We need to reward effort and promote self-reliance, but the Bill creates a two-tier system detached from individual responsibility. We need to make the welfare system more targeted, but the Bill, like many Government policies, simply shifts new costs on to people who will genuinely be ill, newly disabled or simply younger and does little to target those relying on the state.
Anna Dixon
The hon. Member talks about fairness and trust. I wonder if he is proud of his Government’s record, where Tory cuts to welfare pushed more people into poverty, with 2.9 million emergency food parcels in the last 12 months. If he votes against the Bill, he will be voting against the biggest uplift in the UC standard allowance. Is he proud of that?
Robbie Moore
I will take no lectures from somebody who supported a 10% rise in council tax across the Bradford district, impacting many of those who will be impacted by PIP.
This is not principled reform, it is not radical and it is not good policy making—and many Labour Members know it. The Government can and should be doing better. I will not support the Bill.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Welfare reform is important because the current system is not working and because it has a huge impact on the lives of so many individuals and families across the country. For the past 10 years in this place, I have seen so many of my constituents trapped in poverty with the constant fear and insecurity the current system brings, but we should not be in a position in which the Government are scrambling at the last minute to make changes to improve proposals that were not good enough when the Bill was tabled. While there are many positive measures in the Bill, we should not be here because the Government have had evidence since April of the extent of concerns from right hon. and hon. Members. Those concerns have been patiently and respectfully expressed in private and in public, but it appears that the extent of those concerns was simply ignored for a long time, until it became clear that the Government might lose the vote.
We are now reaching for solutions at the final hour, which should have been better considered over a longer period of time as part of a rational and respectful response to feedback. I regret the situation deeply, and I say to Ministers that, whatever happens today and in the coming days, there must be a profound change in the approach to engagement with MPs, whose primary duty is to their constituents and especially to those who rely on the services we design and govern.
On where we are with the Bill, I welcome the substantial changes agreed to in discussions last week to which I was a party. The protection of existing PIP and universal credit health top-up claimants will alleviate the anxiety so many of our constituents have been experiencing for months that they would see their incomes drop, with no additional support, without any change in their condition. The commitment to co-produce the Timms review with disabled people is significant and welcome. I hope that the Government will put that commitment on the face of the Bill before we get to Third Reading and that more detail will be provided about how co-production will be done so that disabled people and their organisations can have confidence that they really will be true partners in the process, and that engagement will be properly resourced.
The commitment to bring forward employment support is also helpful. The last Labour Government sought to address unemployment and the size of the welfare bill, and they did so by front-loading employment and health support. That should have been part of the plans from the start, because addressing the barriers to employment that many sick and disabled people face is the best way to address the challenges that the Government are seeking to tackle.
Deirdre Costigan
I know that many hon. Members were concerned that support would not be put in quickly enough. However, my constituency of Ealing Southall already has £8 million of funding from the Government’s get Britain working trailblazer programme. Does she welcome that the new proposals include £1.3 billion for investment in that programme and that that help will be rolled out to every disabled person who wants a job?
Helen Hayes
I welcome the bringing forward of employment support, and I know how effective that support can be, but we have yet to see it bed in.
I have further concerns that have not yet been addressed. I am concerned about the impact of the Bill on young people, and care-experienced people in particular. We need further detail on the support that will be provided for 16 to 22-year-olds, particularly with their mental health, to enable them to participate in the workplace.
There is one further concern that has not been addressed and on which I want to press the Minister, which is the lack of alignment between the conclusion and implementation of the Timms review and the implementation of raising the threshold for PIP to four points. I believe that the Secretary of State made some movement on that point in her opening speech, but so far, it is not clear that we will avoid a situation in which there will be a category of new claimants—people who become disabled after November 2026 but before the implementation of the Timms review—who will face an increased threshold without any of the mitigations that will come from a revised assessment process and descriptors that are co-designed with disabled people. That would be unfair and unequitable, and I believe that it makes the policy and putting four points in the Bill incoherent. We must have a system that aligns the implementation of the new system with the review process, co-designed with disabled people, that defines it.
I believe that the Government must also set out further detail on the impact assessment between today and Third Reading. That the Bill will plunge 150,000 people into poverty is an unacceptable consequence. If the Government are confident that their mitigations and the additional support mean that that will not be the case, it must provide this House with credible evidence so we can believe that. At the moment, we have to base our judgments on the evidence that is in front of us and that says that 150,000 people’s lives will be made worse as a consequence of the Bill.
One of the most regrettable aspects of the process is that it has harmed the trust and confidence of disabled people. Full alignment of the Timms review with the introduction of the new system is an essential requirement of beginning to rebuild that trust. I will listen carefully to what the Minister says from the Dispatch Box in closing the debate.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
This cruel mistake of a Bill must fall today. The reasons in the amendment tabled by the Green party stand, and with my colleagues I will vote to stop it on Second Reading and support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The proposals are a mess, the timetable is breakneck and other hon. Members have said it right: it is about the spreadsheet. The rush to get it through before the Budget is a dead giveaway that this is about making cuts and not improvements.
The Government’s actions in that way do not respect sick and disabled people. Way before making any changes to social security, real dialogue should have taken place that respects their rights and needs. Already, three in four people who need to use a food bank have a disabled person in their household. The Bill will further impoverish hundreds of thousands with cruel cuts in support. The Government’s promises of changes from removing to denying support will harm millions in future and create a multilayered mass of injustices. The Bill clearly must fall today.
Instead, why not do what Greens, disabled people’s organisations and many Members across the House have proposed and work with disabled people to co-produce a social security system that is fair, humane and accessible, without pre-emptive criteria? A whole playbook of proposals was put forward by the hon. Member for York Central on tabling her amendment. Why not do that? Why not develop policies that are genuinely good value, which do no harm and which achieve the stated objectives of helping to invest in people to save money? Why not raise the investment needed to save on future spending from fair taxation on the very wealthiest, who are orders of magnitude away from the struggle to survive that MPs hear about every day from the people the measures are aimed at? The least advantaged should not pay, but there are those who clearly should.
I echo many Members across the Chamber when I say that I am sad that a Labour Government have brought us here. This is in such contrast to the post-war principles that the party once stood by, which were about real social security alongside investment in jobs. Shamefully, in its current form, the Bill brings in the largest social security cuts since summer 2015, 10 years ago when George Osborne was Chancellor.
The compromise proposals that mainly protect current claimants are unfair and divisive, and so many will remain unhelped if our honourable colleagues give in. What about the young people whose disabilities are yet to develop and who will need PIP to thrive? What about the people who fall sick or get injured the day after these measures come into effect? And what about the people with conditions such as Parkinson’s, MS or ME, who are still effectively excluded from the Government’s serious condition criteria because the Bill does not allow for fluctuating conditions?
This whole process has truly scared people, and it has mobilised them. I have heard directly the testimonies of worry and fear from hundreds of my constituents in Brighton Pavilion. The Secretary of State knows that I have raised with her the terror that people are feeling right from the start. Will she now apologise for that? I have heard from a roundtable of organisations in Brighton who are supporting people to get by. They have told me how people are using disability benefits to cover just the very basics, such as shortfalls in rent, heating costs and food. I have heard how local employment services are hanging by a thread and local authority support has been hollowed out. Brilliant organisations such as Amaze, Money Advice Plus, St Luke’s and Citizens Advice are already inundated with people concerned for their futures. They want structural barriers and inequalities removed first, but they want investment in people as well.
Today, we must vote down these proposals, so that the Secretary of State can listen and learn and go back and do better. Those who are sick, injured or disabled today and in the future need our solidarity, and they will get it from the Greens.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
When coming to a crunchy question or problem, I always think it is wise to take a step or two back and try to unpick some of the assumptions that underpin the issue—to see the bigger picture, if you like. Not everyone will agree with some of the conclusions that I come to, and that is fine—this is a debate, not an echo chamber, although some people may be surprised to hear that—but it is right that we robustly test the proposition before us, to try and understand the structural issues that underpin this Bill.
Let us consider the key issue here: rising welfare costs could lead to the welfare budget becoming unsustainable. The assumption often made is that welfare costs rise because of individual failings, such as people being lazy, unwilling to work or even dishonest—workshy, in other words—but this assumption does not stand up to scrutiny. The welfare bill is not growing because people suddenly became lazy. It is rising because our economy and our society are fundamentally broken. They are broken because of 14 years of cuts and of dehumanised, punitive changes wrapped up as reform but little more than a brutal disciplining of the workforce, compliments of the Conservatives. That workforce are increasingly finding themselves trapped between insecure low pay and in-work poverty, or a humiliating workfare programme that has sucked the marrow out of millions, leaving them drained and burned out and leading to a soaring mental health crisis.
What does explain our dilemma is the fact that work itself has fundamentally changed. Jobs are less secure and often poorly paid, and many who work full time still need benefits because wages do not meet the basic costs of housing, food, childcare and utilities. On top of this, the cost of living crisis is being driven by a toxic mix of structural failures. The climate crisis has increased volatility in the global supply chains of everything from microchips to semiconductors, pushing up food and energy costs. At the same time, companies operating under monopoly and oligopoly conditions, particularly in the energy, water and food sectors, have taken advantage of this disruption to engage in price gouging, driving profits sky high while families struggle to make ends meet.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, the weakness of trade unions has limited workers’ ability to bargain for pay rises that reflect rising costs—costs that, by and large, Governments have failed to cap. Yes, caps on energy prices have been half-heartedly attempted, but what about a cap on rents and on greedy landlords? What about capping the large agri-corporations pushing up food prices or water companies extorting all of us? These are the underlying structural causes. Their collective outcome is a relentless squeeze on real incomes and an increased reliance on welfare simply to survive. In truth, our welfare system is increasingly the state subsidising employers who pay poverty wages, landlords charging unaffordable rents and corporations extracting vast profits, all at society’s expense. All the while our climate and ecology decline, adding to that instability.
The Bill, which at its heart is about balancing the books by tightening welfare eligibility and gatekeeping access, will not address those root causes. It still punishes victims rather than tackling the structural failures, and I cannot support it. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). The Labour Government have made a start on many of those structural issues—the trade union Bill, GB Energy and the leasehold Bill—but they must go further and faster if we are to make a real impact on who our economy works for and, ultimately, bring down the welfare bill.
Welfare reform should deliver dignity and fairness, not austerity and exclusion. Until we face those deeper truths, we will continue to address the symptoms rather than the causes, perpetuating the very injustices we claim to want to solve and that so many of us came to this place to sort out.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I rise to support the reasoned amendment and to vote against the Bill, which will produce an abandoned generation: young people with disabilities and life-limiting conditions who are currently on children’s disability living allowance and who would normally transfer to PIP at the age of 16. The Bill completely ignores them and forgets about them. The usual process is that around someone’s 16th birthday, the DWP sends them an invitation to claim PIP, and it is then up to the parent or young person themselves to apply, within a time limit of 28 days. This Bill does nothing to address that. It is a process of mandatory self-application, so there is no automatic conversion for a child with a disability or a life-limiting condition who is already entitled to DLA to move on to PIP.
The stricter eligibility criteria in the Bill and the concession actually make it worse, because as of November 2026 new PIP claimants must meet the four-point single activity daily living test. For those young people with a disability or life-limiting condition who are currently in receipt of children’s DLA who would normally have transferred to PIP, come November 2026 their condition must be such that it enables them to reach that four-point eligibility test. Those young people, who this place and the devolved legislatures keep talking about and encouraging to stay in education and be supported with their special educational needs, are now being told that, come 16, if their condition does not meet the four-point criteria, they will not be in receipt of personal independence payment. That payment is a door opener for their families and allows them to access carer’s support. It allows those young people, if they look to further their education or employment, to access mobility and support schemes. It allows those young people with disabilities and life-limiting conditions to hope and to dream, and to be eligible for support to enter the workforce. If a young person who, come November 2026, does not have a condition that allows them to reach that four-point criteria, that payment will be denied to them.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I want to share the words of young disabled children from my constituency. They said to me this weekend, “Don’t speak for us, speak with us.” That struck me, because so often in this place decisions are made about people without ever really listening to them. Does the hon. Member agree that if we are serious about a just and compassionate welfare system, we should honour those words, “Don’t speak for us, speak with us” and, better still, listen?
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I have met these young people, too. I met people from an organisation called BraveheartsNI, which represents a cohort of young people with congenital heart defects who are at that transitional stage. They told me about the real concerns—they are not just concerns, but fears—among these young people, who have been looking forward to the opportunity to go to university, get on to training courses and seek employment but still require additional support.
Mencap has highlighted that child DLA is the main childhood disability benefit for children aged nought to 15. Some 166,000 children with learning disabilities, autism and Asperger’s retained or increased the total monetary value of their child DLA award when transitioning to PIP. Mencap is concerned that this number will decrease because of those young people not being able to achieve the four-point eligibility criteria.
For the sake of those young people who have special educational needs, disabilities and life-limiting disabilities, who we all come to this place to support—to give them a future and to give them hope—I implore the Government to withdraw this Bill now, go back, engage and co-produce something that meets the needs of our country and our young people.
Several hon. Members rose—
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
On a long, hot, sweaty day like this, one of my hearing aids has collapsed in the middle of this session, so I am only half hearing you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you did call me, didn’t you?
Andrew Pakes
Thank you—you have saved me the embarrassment.
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate alongside so many passionate advocates who want to get this reform right. I think all of us on the Government Benches, whatever our differences of opinion on a point of policy, came into this House to make a difference and fix the welfare system, to liberate and create opportunities for people. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement yesterday and welcome news of the PIP assessment review, which moves us forward. It is vital that we engage those most affected by a failed welfare state in designing a successful one.
We have put off change for too long. That is particularly true when it comes to young people. If politics is about choices, condemning nearly a million young people to the scrapheap of unemployment was the choice of the Conservative party. I want to focus my contribution on how these changes can affect young people and their life chances.
Full employment and good-quality jobs have been a central part of Labour’s most successful Governments. That is why fixing Britain’s broken system of social security must be a priority for this Labour Government. There is no dignity in denying young people the opportunity to learn, earn or make a better life for themselves. As we approach the 80th anniversary of the 1945 Labour landslide, we must remember previous Governments who have dealt with such big challenges. Work was essential to that great 1945 Labour Government. William Beveridge’s landmark report in 1942 laid the foundation for Labour’s post-war welfare state, with an NHS, free education for all and full employment.
The vision of Labour leaders such as Attlee, Morrison and Bevin was that every citizen would live a life free from want, squalor, disease or poverty, with meaningful help when times were tough. In return, every citizen was expected to play a full part in the social and economic life of the nation. Looking at the high number of people not in education, employment or training—NEETs, that terrible phrase—in my constituency, I see an economy that is still letting people down, a mental health system that is letting young people down and an NHS system that is trapping too many young people on a life of benefits.
When the Minister winds up the debate, can he confirm that we will deliver the employment support that young people need and simplify the way that benefits and jobcentres work, so that young people get the support they deserve? Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fix our broken mental health system, so that young people have a hand up rather than being pushed down? Our values should be about compassion, and our social security system should be about dignity for those who are unable to work or need support. That is why I welcome the protections that have been announced for people already on PIP.
There has been a common theme in the debate. Many Members have raised concerns not with the fact that the Timms review will happen—it will begin to embed co-production, as the Secretary of State and many others in this House have said—but, I think legitimately, about its timing.
Anna Dixon
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I am pleased that he could hear my desire to intervene. Does he share my concern that the Timms review is too slow and will not conclude under its current timetable until next autumn? Does he agree that the Timms review should be accelerated so that a package of measures that have been co-produced with disabled people and their carers, including young people, can be implemented in November 2026?
Andrew Pakes
I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I would, if possible, give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability Duracell batteries to turbocharge his work in this area.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
During this debate, my hon. Friend and others across the House have raised concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading. We have heard those concerns, and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove clause 5 from the Bill in Committee. We will move straight to the wider review—sometimes referred to as the Timms review—and only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review. The Government are committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your clarification. We have just heard that a pivotal part of the Bill, clause 5, will not be effective, so I ask this: what are we supposed to be voting on tonight? Is it the Bill as drawn, or another Bill? I am confused, and I think Members in the Chamber will need that clarification.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and the vote will be on the Bill as it stands. We have had a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box as to what will happen in Committee.
Andrew Pakes
As a member of a party that often debates clause IV, I welcome today’s news about clause 5, which I think addresses many of the concerns that hon. Members across the House, particularly on the Government Benches, have raised.
There is an urgency to moving forward with the Bill and with change. Today’s system is broken. The legacy of the previous Government is shocking. Some 2.8 million people are outside the labour market due to long-term sickness. That is the same as the populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool combined. One in eight young people are outside education, employment or training. The UK is the only G7 economy where sickness rates are higher than before covid, and as we have heard, health and disability-related benefits will cost around £100 billion over the next four years. That has a massive impact on our national resources. Economic inactivity not only holds back growth and makes us all poorer, but it blights the lives of those without work. That is why Labour Members believe that tackling worklessness is not just an economic case but a moral crusade.
In conclusion, I want to see real support for people to get skills, opportunities and jobs. I want every 18 to 21-year-old to be offered a life off benefits through an apprenticeship or training. I want real support for people with poor mental health so that they can access the care they want. We need Labour’s Employment Rights Bill to be fully implemented to change the culture of work, so that employers work with disabled people to create the opportunities we need. Most of all, we need a system of social security that is there for everyone with a genuine need, so that no one falls into poverty because they lose their job and everyone who can work is given a path back into employment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise not just with grave concern but with absolute conviction. I speak in support of the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and with a plea to the Government to pause, think, reflect and bring back something that will work for the betterment of disabled people. I am afraid to say it, but I have been saddened to hear disabled people being presented in a negative light throughout this debate, although not by all Members. Disabled people are not a burden on society; they are part of society, and they make an invaluable contribution to it. The support that they receive allows them to make that invaluable contribution.
If this Bill passes, it will do unconscionable damage to disabled people, their carers and their families, who are already on the brink in this cost of living crisis. It will deepen poverty, increase hardship and undo decades of progress on social security. I urge the Government to withdraw it now and come back when it is fit for purpose. My independent alliance colleagues and I have been clear and consistent in saying that we are acutely aware of the devastation this Bill will cause. We have fought it and will fight it every step of the way until a Bill that is fit for purpose is before us.
Today we are being asked to sign off on billions of pounds in cuts without any credible data. We have a moving target, as elements of the Bill that are published will no longer apply when it comes back to the House. We have heard the Department’s analysis that 150,000 people would be pushed into poverty, and maybe more than 20,000 children. Despite the talk of concessions that were rushed out and tweaks that were made, they do not change the core injustice.
This Government want to create a two-tier welfare system in which today’s disabled people get help but tomorrow’s disabled people are discarded. New PIP claimants will have to pass a cruel new threshold to qualify for PIP compared with existing claimants. My question to the Secretary of State is: can she explain to my constituents who designed this four-point system? Who defined the criteria by which somebody would qualify or not qualify?
Mr Adnan Hussain
Does the hon. Member agree that now is the time when the Government need to confirm what we are voting on? We have had U-turn after U-turn, and I believe Members are confused.
Iqbal Mohamed
I will accept a Government who listen, adapt and change their approach in the light of new evidence put before them, so I would congratulate the Government on improving on the proposals. I really do not question the core intentions. Fourteen years of waste and mismanagement have led us to the point of having an unmanageable welfare state, and that absolutely must be assessed and improved, but that cannot be at the expense of support for the most vulnerable in our society.
This Bill will impact not just on disabled people, but on carers. It slashes £500 million from carer’s allowance, which is the largest real-terms cut since the benefit was introduced in 1976. Carers save this country tens of billions of pounds through unpaid labour, and nearly half of them already live in poverty. Is this really the thanks that they deserve?
It gets worse: if an existing claimant loses their PIP on reassessment, which happens all too frequently due to assessor errors, they will be treated as a new claimant and be subject to stricter rules. That includes anyone moving from DLA to PIP. That is punitive and regressive, and will erode trust in the entire system.
We are told that there will be consultation, but what consultation happens when a Bill is pushed through in a single week without adequate scrutiny or engagement with those most affected? The principle of “Nothing about us without us” has been flagrantly ignored.
We have heard from Scope that the extra cost of living with a disability is nearly £1,100 a month, which is not covered by PIP. That is expected to top £1,200 by 2029, yet under this Bill those same people will be expected to survive without the support they rely on. The Government expect disabled people to shoulder £15,000 in extra costs and to offer them less and less.
The public see through this. Only 27% support these reforms, while nearly half of those surveyed believe that they will worsen the health of disabled people, and over half expect more pressure on the NHS. These cuts will make people sicker, more isolated and more dependent on an already overstretched service. The politics of this is damning, but it cannot be about politics—it must be about the people we are in this place to serve. I ask the Government to please go back, wait for the consultation to be completed, and then integrate the learnings and the feedback from the people affected so that this legislation makes a positive contribution to our society, not a negative one.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
There is no denying that the ideological austerity of the previous Government over the past 14 years has led to the decimation of our services, the devastation of our communities and extreme poverty, as well as an economic mess, so I get that this Government have to make some extremely difficult decisions. However, the central point in this debate is that we cannot balance the books on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It is not the fair thing to do, it is not the right thing to do, and simply put, it is not the Labour thing to do.
Labour Members who oppose the Bill do not come from the same place as Tory Members. We come from a place of sincerity; they come from a place of political game-playing. We continue to come from that place of sincerity, but it is disrespectful to Back Benchers, and in particular to Labour Members, that we continue to be fed things piecemeal, even at this late stage. While I welcome the previous concessions and today’s concession, we have been talking about this for months, and we could have been engaged in the process. We approached it in good faith, and this piecemeal approach makes a further mockery of a process that will result in hundreds of thousands of people being pushed into poverty.
The timescale we have been given already lacks the respect that this democratic House should be afforded, but the piecemeal way in which information is being leaked to us means that we are being asked to rely on the good will of Ministers. I have the greatest respect for Ministers, but we as Back Benchers should be afforded the same dignity, because we have all been elected on the same premise. My constituency of Bradford East suffers from some of the worst health inequalities and child poverty—over half of all children who live in my constituency are living in absolute poverty. I have to go back and face them.
Regardless of what Ministers tell us, the Bill today is the same Bill we had a week ago and the same Bill we had when it was introduced. That is what we are voting on. We can discuss the concessions next week if the Bill makes it, but it must be pulled today, because I cannot go back to my constituency tomorrow and tell my constituents that for the sake of some concessions that were not in the Bill, I voted for it, even though it could deepen the poverty that people on my streets face. That is not the premise I was elected on.
Simon Hoare
The hon. Gentleman is making a most correct and powerful point, which is that this is not the best way of making law and it is hugely disrespectful to Members on all sides of the House, irrespective of position. Does he agree that that is compounded by the woefully inadequate time that is being set aside for Committee consideration of the Bill and Third Reading next week? That timeframe is very truncated, and we are all absolutely dizzied by the number of U-turns and concessions. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is much better to withdraw the Bill, start again, and bring it back in September.
Imran Hussain
Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. I have already touched on the seismic nature of the Bill. To be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, and I have never seen a Bill of this seismic nature and with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. The motion that goes to the House of Lords will be a money motion, which will not allow it to make any amendments before the Bill comes back.
Jeremy Corbyn
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Would it not be a sensible way forward if the House simply passed the excellent reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and parked the issue there? We would then have the necessary consultation and preparation for a more effective Bill.
Imran Hussain
Courageous political leadership sometimes demands that we admit it when we get it wrong, like we did with the winter fuel allowance. I sincerely think that people respect us when we get something wrong and come back to it. We have had concession after concession, and that is admission enough that we have got this wrong. My view remains that it would be dignified for the Government to say, “We will go with the reasoned amendment. We will have meaningful consultation with disability groups, and then we will come back.”
Everything I say is said in absolute sincerity, and I finish by making a point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are acting in good faith for the collective good of the people they represent, which is this: all of us will have to go back to our constituencies and justify the decision we make today. I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I will never vote for anything that will increase poverty and deprivation or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency, because it is not this place that sends me to Bradford, but the people of Bradford who send me to this place. I will remain true to them, I will remain accountable to them, and I will make sure that their voice is heard. I will be voting for the amendment, and I will be voting against the Bill today.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
What an excellent and powerful speech to follow. We should all be here to stand up for the dignity of people who need us to stand up for them.
I know what it means to become disabled, because 11 years ago, I developed Guillain-Barré syndrome. It happens to one in 100,000 people. Unfortunately, I ended up totally paralysed for three months, but fortunately I then made a full recovery over the next couple of years. It was an insight into what it is like to become disabled. I went from full health to total dependence overnight and lost the ability to move for three months. Fortunately, I was lucky and I recovered, but I remember those early days vividly and what it was like to suddenly learn to live with a disability. I remember, for example, having to have some clicking contraption, and a hook to be able to grab my socks and get dressed in the morning. That is an example of the extra costs and challenges that people living with disabilities face, as has been highlighted today.
Personal independence payments are a lifeline that enable people with disabilities and long-term health conditions to live independently, participate in society and, crucially, stay in work if they can. Wales will be hit hard by this proposal. In Wales we have higher rates of long-term illness and disability, and in rural areas the cost of living with a condition is even higher. These changes will hit hardest where communities and people are struggling to cope as it is. The Government’s so-called climbdown does not fix this. Delaying the stricter criteria until 2026 does not make the policy fairer; it just creates a two-tier system. From 2026, someone newly diagnosed with a condition will not be entitled to the support that someone with the same condition receives today.
When I was diagnosed with Guillain-Barré syndrome, I was added to a Facebook group consisting of many people who had been struggling to live with the consequences of it, and who talked about how they coped. Clearly the people being added to that group today will be in an even worse position, and that is frankly immoral. If the Government were serious about trying to reduce the welfare bill, they would be focusing on fixing the issues in health and social care and tackling the root causes of chronic ill health, or providing good jobs across Wales. In Wales, where Labour has been running the healthcare service for more than 25 years, 800,000 people, almost a third of the population, are stuck on NHS waiting lists, and more than 9,000 people have been waiting for more than two years to start treatment. That means hundreds of thousands of people are unable to work as normal because they are languishing on waiting lists.
So many people in Wales are not receiving the healthcare that they need, although our welfare system as a whole was built by Welsh politicians, by Nye Bevan and David Lloyd George. In Wales we know how to fight for each other, and we do not forget our roots, but the Government have. It was shameful to see Welsh Labour politicians sitting there on the Front Bench. People in Wales will be disgusted by the changes being made to disabled benefits and PIP payments, which will make life harder for people with disabilities.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
On the subject of tackling the root causes of illness and poor health, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the substantial package of mental health support announced by the Welsh Labour Government this weekend, including £5.6 million to tackle the long waiting list for children awaiting diagnosis for conditions such as hyperactivity disorder and autism, is to be welcomed?
David Chadwick
I think we all know that a great deal of this is political posturing, and that the Bill will not fix the underlying problems we have in Wales. Many of those problems have been caused by the Conservatives’ closing down of our industries 40 years ago. Wales has been waiting for a response since then, and this is not it. Picking on the vulnerable is what the Conservatives do, but it is not what the Welsh do, and that is why we voted them out last year. I say to Members, “Do not punish people for getting sick. Do not divide disabled people into first and second-class citizens. Do not vote with the Government today.”
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Let me start by saying how shocked I am that the Minister has intervened, near the end of the debate, to say that he will be removing the whole of clause 5 from the Bill. While I am grateful for the concessions, this has further laid bare the incoherent and shambolic nature of the process. It is the most unedifying spectacle that I have ever seen. As the House has just heard, we will vote tonight on the Bill as it stands on the Order Paper, and not as amended. I am really sorry to say this, but when it is not written down, it is not worth the paper it is written on. We were promised a Hillsborough law by April this year, and nothing has come to fruition.
Paula Barker
No, I will not.
It is with sadness that I will vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and I will vote against the Bill. I implore my Government to do the right thing: to pause, take a breath, and let us get this right.
Before entering Parliament I had served local government, the trade union movement and working people throughout my life. Service matters deeply to me, and I see it as my job to do exactly that as a Member of Parliament. I am a passionate believer in the dignity of labour and of secure, well-paid work being the route out of poverty and to opportunity and a life free from fear, but this Bill, I regret to say, will create poverty, and has already induced fear.
I think everyone in this House believes that we need to reform our welfare system, but we must be honest: the Bill before us today is not reform. It is simply cuts, which have been brought forward to fill an economic black hole. In the Liverpool city region, nearly 30% of residents are disabled—more than 10% above the national average. Liverpool has one of the highest disability rates in the country, and our region already experiences some of the highest poverty rates in the UK.
Even with concessions, this Bill still entails cuts, not reform. It will see 150,000 people pushed further into poverty, and create a stark disparity in our welfare state for disabled people. Despite a commitment to co-production, there is nothing that commits the Government to ensure that the PIP assessment review’s findings have any bearing on this legislation.
Over the last few weeks, we have heard a lot about the lack of time to scrutinise legislation when debating another Bill in this place, yet here we are with a Bill that has concessions that are not actually on the face of the Bill because there has been no time. There will only be eight days between Second and Third Reading, which is truly a lack of time to scrutinise proposed legislation.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good speech, and we are here as legislators. Does she agree that the fact that we have been denied the opportunity to scrutinise the Bill denies us the opportunity to make it right for disabled people?
Paula Barker
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent intervention, and I absolutely concur with her views.
We must be crystal clear on what we are voting for tonight: we are voting for the Bill as it stands, unamended. The late changes, combined with the compressed parliamentary timetable, mean that MPs will have just a single day to debate and consider amendments, and the fact that this is a money Bill means that it will not be subject to amendments from the House of Lords.
Our movement, at its best, is the rising tide that lifts all boats—not some, but all. I cannot in good faith look my constituents in Liverpool Wavertree in the eye and tell them that this Bill would improve their lot, because quite frankly it will not.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I have heard some really passionate, personal speeches in the Chamber today, and I thank all hon. Members for their testimonies and contributions.
The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill is a direct attack on ill and disabled people, just to cut costs. Arbitrarily restricting eligibility for PIP, and cutting the health element of universal credit, will have devastating and lasting consequences. Whatever this Labour Government claim, there is neither fairness nor compassion in their approach to welfare. It is certainly not fair or compassionate for the people of Wales, who will be disproportionately impacted by these measures.
I thank organisations such as Policy in Practice and the Bevan Foundation for their vital work in filling the absence of data for Wales, which the UK Government have all but refused to provide. Four of the 10 local authorities that are worst hit by the welfare cuts are in Wales, impacting on 6.1% of the Welsh population at a cost of £470 million for our communities. In Carmarthenshire alone, the economic impact will be nearly £17.5 million, and too many people will suffer. My constituents will suffer.
Robin Swann
I just want to make a point of clarification. The hon. Lady mentions that her constituents will suffer. The Government have withdrawn clause 5, but under clause 6 the legislation will still apply in Northern Ireland. Are the Government going to put a barrier down the Irish sea with regard to PIP?
Ann Davies
I will allow the Minister to answer that in his closing statement. I could not possibly comment.
My constituent Clare Jacques has several disabilities, including arthritis. She currently receives PIP, which has helped her to build on her master’s degree in equality and diversity in work and allowed additional support, such as the ability to have a carer accompany her when necessary. Ms Jacques does not have four points in any one part of the daily living component. Versus Arthritis has calculated that 79% of people who claim PIP in Wales for arthritis alone score fewer than four points, which is nearly 17,000 people.
This is not just about claimants. Mencap, which has been mentioned, has estimated that over 13,000 carers may lose their carer’s allowance in Wales due to caring for people with fewer than four points. The Government’s justification for this suffering is completely flawed. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has found that 60% of recipients scoring four or fewer points are already in employment in England and Wales, rising to 63% in my constituency of Caerfyrddin.
The UK Government claim that their amendments to the Bill will lessen the blow—we will have to wait until after Second Reading to see them—but they are set to penalise people who become disabled after the arbitrary cut-off date of November 2026. What data has informed these concessions, and what specific evidence suggests that people can pick and choose when they become sick or disabled, because that to me looks like discrimination? Legal experts for the Equity union agree that it could be
“unlawful on the grounds of arbitrariness.”
Such arbitrariness looks half-baked considering the PIP assessment review will be published only in autumn 2026.
The UK Government’s amendments to the Bill do not address the fundamental injustice at the heart of these measures. Is plunging 150,000 people into poverty rather than 250,000 really a marker of success? Is only punishing people who will get ill or disabled in future, or those who turn 18 later, really a sign of a fair and compassionate welfare reform? I call on hon. Members across this House, and particularly my friends on the Labour Benches, to vote against this cruel Bill. The Labour UK Government must abandon these damaging plans entirely, and instead create a welfare system founded on dignity, equity and compassion, and one developed with disabled people and representative organisations. Plaid Cymru Members will be voting for the reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and against the Second Reading of the Bill.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Millions of disabled people will listen, view or read about this debate and its consequences, and feel fear. For some Members of the House, this is just an afternoon’s political cut and thrust, but for the disabled it is the rest of their lives.
Members will have heard that we should be concerned about the rising trajectory of welfare spending in this country. Ministers say that all the time, but what about the rising trajectory of tax avoidance, or the rising trajectory of salaries in the City of London? Why must people on welfare bear all the opprobrium and have the money taken out of their pockets? We are the Labour party, and historically we have stood up against injustice. Why are we stepping away from that today?
Anybody who has ever had anything to do with the welfare system knows that it needs reform. I deal month after month with dozens of people who are struggling with the welfare system. It is not that people do not accept that it needs reform. The problem is these reforms, which are unfair, ill thought out and, in the end, focused on saving money.
On the question of the personal independence payment, too many Members talk about PIP as if it is too easy to claim, and that people are gaming the system or even engaged in some sort of scam. The truth is that PIP is generally not merely difficult to claim, but humiliating to claim. Any reform should deal with that.
There are so many practical problems with the Bill. It is being rushed through in a week, which is ridiculous. There has been no formal consultation with the people whose lived experience it is concerned with. It is not a coincidence that a not a single organisation which speaks for the disabled supports the legislation. It will become law before two important reviews—one into PIP itself, the Timms review, and the “Keep Britain Working” review—will actually report. The reviews, and in particular the Timms review, will actually be a dead letter.
And because it is too late to change the face of the Bill, Members are being asked to vote purely on the basis of verbal assurances from Ministers. None of us would come to an important arrangement with our council on the word of councillors, so, with all due respect, why are we expected to vote for a law that will affect millions of people’s lives and drive hundreds of thousands of people into poverty purely on the basis of what Ministers claim they are going to do? I, myself, continue to oppose the Bill on moral, legal and political grounds.
Millions of disabled people will watch this debate on television, hear about it from their friends and family or read about it in a newspaper. They will not be able to believe that the Labour party—the Labour party—is putting legislation through like this. If this legislation means anything at all, it means money coming out of the pockets of the disabled, otherwise what is the point of it? If you are going to save money in this financial year, disabled people have to lose money. It will be shocking to so many people listening and hearing about this that Labour Ministers are standing up and putting this through to hit Treasury targets.
Even at this late stage, I urge colleagues to think about the people who put us here and withdraw the Bill. It cannot be right that we have had concessions so late in the day, even in the course of the debate. If Ministers were proud of what they are doing, concessions would not be coming so late in the day. As I say, even at this late stage, we should withdraw the Bill.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I have been sitting here for over four or five hours, and there have been so many changes and concessions that I really do not know what we will be voting on. This is no way to bring in a Bill, when it is so important to people’s lives.
The independent alliance stands firmly against the Bill, because it is unfair and unworkable. No Member should, in good conscience, vote for it. Of course, abuse of the welfare system is unacceptable—we all agree on that—but the Bill does not target fraud. It targets the most vulnerable and most needy in our communities.
There have been some excellent and very powerful contributions, and, like everybody else, I have constituents who have shared their story. Jo, a constituent of mine, is actively suicidal. All sharp objects and medications have been removed from her home. The only reason Jo is not in hospital is that there are no beds available, yet Jo has been told she is not ill enough to qualify for PIP under this system. Is this the kind of society we want to build? The Bill is not just unfair; it is unworkable. The Government are asking Members to vote for cuts now based on the promise that they will help people back into work in future, yet the supporting evidence from the OBR will not even be available until October. The process has been rushed, the consultation inadequate and the system proposed cruelly simplistic. Scoring four points on a single activity will become the deciding factor in whether somebody receive life-changing support.
According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, cutting disabled people’s benefit will not magically create suitable jobs, especially in those areas of the country that have long had a weaker jobs market.
A disability that is close to my heart is visual impairment. There are 2 million people in this country living with visual impairment, which is set to double by 2050, yet 25% of employers would not be willing to make workplace changes for employees with a visual impairment, and 48% did not even have an accessible recruitment process. There is nothing addressing this issue.
Government figures estimate that these changes will push approximately 150,000 people, including thousands of children, into poverty. There is no credible employment support plan for them. There is no guarantee that those whose conditions fluctuate will be treated fairly. These changes will disproportionately punish people with mental health conditions, like Jo.
Politics is not a game. We cannot balance the national budget on the backs of disabled people, and the public know this. I will be supporting the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), because this Bill is simply unfair, even though I am not quite sure what it stands for at the moment. It is unworkable and unworthy of this House’s support. I urge all Members to do the same.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
It is safe to say that the topic of today’s debate has been my overriding focus in recent months. I thank my constituents and all organisations for their input, as well as the Secretary of State and the wider DWP team for listening to concerns, and indeed for acting on them with recent amendments.
The Bill will raise the universal credit standard allowance by the largest increase since the 1970s. It will help 3.9 million families with an average gain of £265 a year, bringing us closer, finally, to ensuring that every family can afford the essentials without relying on charity or community support. I wholeheartedly welcome this as part of the Government’s wider efforts to rebalance universal credit to better reward work and improve basic adequacy, along with an end to reassessment for those with the most severe conditions and an end to work capability assessments, as well as the right to try work without the risk of losing existing entitlements and crucial increased investment in health and into work pathways.
However, the undeniable focus of the Bill has been changes to the personal independence payment. I truly thank my Clwyd North constituents for their time and their trust in sharing their stories so openly. To them, I say: I hear you, and will continue to represent you. So many of my constituents have been desperately worried about what the eligibility changes mean for them; this concern is real, and it must be taken seriously. One constituent said to me:
“Every time I turn on the news, it’s there. I’ve looked at the changes and I know they won’t affect my payments, but I keep wondering if I’ve got it right…and it’s causing me real anxiety.”
That level of fear is hugely regrettable, and is a responsibility we all share.
Thanks to the incredible support of advice organisations in Clwyd North, many of my constituents have navigated the complex PIP system—one, by the way, that is too reliant on appeals and outside agencies—and now have some stability in meeting daily costs, which remain far too high for far too many. It is right that the Government have listened to these concerns, and I welcome the Government’s amendments to protect existing claimants and the accelerated review of PIP assessments with a stronger commitment to co-production with disabled people.
However, it is also right to recognise that the system is not working as it should be. It is right that we recognise that too many believe that they have nothing to offer and that their health, and particularly their mental health, defines what they can do. It is also right that we stop that belief being passed on to the next generation—something I have seen far too often as a teacher—and stop too many young people feeling that they do not belong in the social networks and financial independence that good work provides.
The expected soaring reliance on PIP reflects the woeful lack of health and local support that has been offered until now. Areas such as mine have sought to fill this gap, with services that create bespoke pathways to work—like the pathway trod by my constituent whose life changed forever when he was helped out of his bedroom, which he had stayed in for years while struggling with his mental health, and into stable work in our local hospitality sector. There are many more like him. We must turbocharge that support, working closely with health services to provide the wraparound care that people need. And, as an inactivity trailblazer area, Clwyd North is determined to lead this effort.
Reform is endlessly challenging, but it is necessary as the system we inherited is not working. It is a hugely ambitious challenge and requires us to be bold and determined. I came into politics to be bold, and I will work tirelessly to make real change happen. And it is with that belief that I support this Bill today.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Steve Witherden—not here. I call Ian Byrne.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
I just need to clear up a few things. This vote tonight is on the Bill that we have in front of us, which include includes restricting eligibility for PIP. Even with what the Minister has just said, three quarters of a million low-paid, sick and disabled people will lose the health element of universal credit, costing them £3,000 on average. That is £2 billion-worth of cuts even after what the Minister has just said. If the Government want to change it, they should pull it and start again. I know how frightened disabled people must be watching this debate tonight and seeing the shambles rolling out in front of us. Last night, I stood outside this building with people from Disabled People Against the Cuts, many of whom had travelled here despite the heat and the real hardship. They told me not just of their anger, but of their fear, their sense of betrayal and—I do not use this word lightly, Madam Deputy Speaker—of their terror. They are far from alone.
At a recent citizens’ assembly in my constituency, disabled constituents and families came together to discuss this Bill. Not one person supported it. Yesterday, I asked the Secretary of State whether she could name a single disabled people’s organisation that supported this Bill. She could not name one—not one.
Disabled people in my constituency tell me that they feel abandoned and punished. Perhaps most heartbreakingly, they believed that, after 14 years of Tory austerity and attacks, covid, and the cost of living crisis, a Labour Government—their Labour Government —would protect them. That belief has now been shattered. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask myself how can I look them in the eye and tell them that they are wrong, because the truth is that this Bill is an absolute shambles. It is immoral. It has been rewritten on the fly. Policies affecting millions and millions of disabled lives have been made up in this Chamber over the past couple of hours. We are being asked to vote on a Bill, as legislators, without full impact assessments, without proper scrutiny, without even knowing what the final version will be. How can we vote for something so absolutely consequential for so many people in our constituencies across the country without the data, without the analysis and without everything that we need as legislators to make informed decisions?
What we do know, though, is devastating. The Government’s own figures say that this Bill will push at least 150,000 more people into poverty and 100,000 more people into absolute poverty. It will create a cruel two-tier welfare system, where support depends not on need, but on when someone was assessed. That is not just unworkable; it is absolutely morally indefensible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, some votes define us in here. They reveal who we are and who and what we stand for. This, tonight, is one of those votes. I say to colleagues, especially to those on my own Benches: do not ignore the voices of the people who need us most; stand with them. Stand on the right side of history. Vote against this Bill and hold your head up high.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I was pleased yesterday to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the anxiety of disabled people in her comments from the Dispatch Box. If we really want to understand why changes such as this cause such anxiety and fear in the disabled population, then just sit and listen to the speech that was completely without empathy from the Leader of the Opposition at the start of this debate. Areas such as the north-east of England where, over decades, industry has declined are the same places that have the highest levels of poverty, poor health outcomes and consequently the highest need for social welfare support.
The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the lack of productive capacity. I can tell him that it was successive Conservative Governments who stripped the productive capacity from seats such as mine. That is why Professor Peter Kelly, a former director of public health for Stockton North, when asked what would be the best way to improve the health of our residents, said it would be for
“everyone who can to have a secure, well paid job that they like doing”.
We see it time and again: a physical health condition is left untreated due to long NHS waiting lists and the resulting inactivity leads to musculoskeletal problems, which turn to isolation, anxiety and depression. Our benefits system often compounds that hurt, forcing people to prove and reprove their disability, creating a climate of doubt rather than dignity. I am pleased to see that the Bill will address that by removing the need for reassessment and protecting existing claimants.
I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability as well as other Ministers for listening to me when I have raised the concerns of my constituents. There have been some really meaningful concessions on the Bill, such as the protection of existing claimants, support for new claimants and inflation-proofing of annual increases, but as the Minister knows, a major concern for me has been clause 5—I was pleased to hear about the withdrawal of that clause—as well as the Timms review on PIP assessments.
I am also concerned about mental health being made worse by debt and unemployment. I welcome the Government’s investment in expanding access to occupational health and the almost 7,000 new mental health workers since last July. Those are not just policies; they are the foundations for a healthier and, I think, more hopeful society.
We have heard a lot about work and Labour’s commitment to work, with the purpose and dignity it offers as well as the improvement in mental resilience. I want to be clear that there is a value judgment behind that, but it is not one that chooses to separate people in work from those who are not. People’s lives have equal value regardless of whether they work, but work does in and of itself improve the quality of people’s lives.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is giving a passionate speech about our region. Does he agree that although lots of people would like to contribute, for too long the workplace has not been disability-friendly? My experience as a trade unionist is of seeing time and again people who really needed support and wanted to be in work being managed out of the workplace, despite that being illegal. They have told me that they were bullied out of the workplace because of the weak reasonable adjustments clause.
Chris McDonald
I agree that accessibility to work is important, both through buildings and transport, as well as Access to Work. It is not just about supporting people to get into work but whether they can physically get into work.
To reiterate, people’s lives have equal value regardless of whether they work, and it is our duty to ensure that as many people as possible are supported into secure, purposeful, well-paid work, and that employers satisfy their duty to make necessary adjustments for people with disabilities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) outlined some things that the Government are doing to try to reduce unfairness. I would add to that investment in our NHS, which will help deal with people’s long-term health problems, and the employment support measures announced by the Government, which will offer a pathway to work. The Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy will create more opportunity for work.
I also want to speak directly to those who may never return to work. They deserve dignity, and they deserve unconditional support. They offer more to society than previous Governments have ever recognised. This is the time to turn a page on Conservative Governments who treated claimants with suspicion and to work hard to build trust with actions rather than words.
I would like to conclude by quoting a few words that I heard on the “Today” programme last week from the former welfare Minister, Lord Blunkett. He said:
“Labour is the party of supporting people into work, not the party of keeping people on benefits.”
I have got faith in the intrinsic value of everyone in our society and their ability to contribute. So long as the voices of disabled people continue to be heard and they remain at the table, the Government’s plan for changing the country will enable everyone to thrive regardless of their ability.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I have to say that I am absolutely amazed at what has happened, even just this afternoon. Like many people in this place, I have been totally ignored when saying anything about this Bill. The Bill was published a few months ago and very little consultation, if any, has taken place.
I have been here nearly 15 years and have never once seen a massive commitment given about a Bill like the one my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has just made in an intervention. This is crazy, man! This is outrageous! The Bill is not fit for purpose. If we looked at the 16 pages that make up the Bill and I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister to rip out the ones that have changed, there would be only two pages left. Withdraw the Bill!
With the commitments given from the Front Bench, we are really not that far from some sort of satisfactory Bill that everybody would get behind. If we had had another hour or two, we could have voted on something that we would all have agreed with, instead of this hotchpotch of a Bill that means nothing to nobody.
I might seem terribly cross, and that is because I am. That is because we are discussing the lives of millions of disabled people who live in our constituencies. Not one of them voted for their representative, regardless of the party, to reduce the PIP payment or any payments received by disabled people. We also have to remember that this is not just about disabled people. It is about people who are sick, who are ill—people who one day were absolutely fine and the next day, possibly because of an industrial accident or some sort of illness, lost their capacity to earn any money.
The Bill as it stood—the Bill as it still stands, I should say—means that there would be a two-tier system. It does not do any good to try to argue the cheat in this House that there would not be a two-tier system. Somebody with a condition is paid money and given support to a level on one day and then the next day, because of a date on a calendar, the support for someone else is less. I am happy to give way to anyone who can tell me how that is not a two-tier system and how that is not unfair. Come November next year, if the Bill continues as it is, people who might have paid their tax and national insurance for many years and who are currently not ill or poorly and who do not have a serious condition could fall into that bracket the day after the introduction of this legislation. That cannot be fair, man—it just is not fair.
I am speaking here among good colleagues. I think everybody has had a rough time over the past few weeks and we want to see a resolution. We understand that there is huge expense involved and we understand the black hole that we found when we got into power, but people did not vote for the Labour party’s change to be a change for the worse. They really had some faith in the Labour party. I still have a little bit of faith left, but it is draining out of us and it is draining out of my constituents. We need to restore that faith and make sure that people really understand what change we mean and what we meant at the time of the election. I say to the Minister: we need to look after people. We need to look after not just the sick and the disabled, but everyone else in this country. That is what change means.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I speak as a signatory to the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because I recognised, as many across the House did, that there were serious problems with the original version of the Bill. Welfare reform, which we all believe in, has to be fair, compassionate and grounded in evidence, and I am afraid that the Bill, as first published, failed on all three counts. I acknowledge that there have been significant and welcome changes, and I genuinely thank Ministers for meeting me and for listening. We all know that scrapping or reducing PIP for people who are already in work was always the wrong target. It risks making employment harder, not easier, for many disabled people, and it is right that current recipients of PIP—there are over 7,000 in my constituency —will now be protected.
If we are to avoid repeating the mistakes of this recent period, we need a proper process for consultation and co-production. Ministers have said that they will now do that through the Timms review, and that is the right vehicle. I welcome another concession around the £300 million of employment support that is being brought forward. In my view, that should always have been front and centre to this reform. Intentions alone are not enough, however, and while I welcome the removal of clause 5, which will mean introducing no changes before the Timms reviews reports, I am concerned that this process remains open-ended.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, welcome the commitment that was given from the Dispatch Box on the removal of clause 5, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend shares my hope that, when the Minister sums up this evening he will categorically state that those people grandfathered in today, to help get past that clause 5 moment in the Bill, will still be grandfathered in without clause 5 and despite whatever comes out of the Timms review, so that they are not put back into the pool of potentially being reassessed in the future.
Darren Paffey
My hon. Friend makes an important point that I hope the Minister will confirm.
There are other assurances that many of us would like to hear from the Dispatch Box today, including a defined timetable for the report. In wrapping up the debate, will the Minister confirm that November 2026 is now no longer a relevant date at all? I am glad that we will now avoid the absurd situation of having potentially three different assessment regimes running in parallel. What has been announced will, I hope, give clarity to claimants and will, I hope, in good faith demonstrate that the Government are serious about introducing reform properly.
Kirsty Blackman
If November 2026 is not a hard deadline any more, why do the Government need to push this Bill through today? Why does it have to get through before the summer recess so that it can go to the Lords in order that it can be in place before November 2026 if that date no longer matters?
Darren Paffey
Most of the answer to that question is obviously a matter for the Minister, but I do not want to delay the uplift in universal credit, so I am willing to vote that through today.
We understand the catastrophic financial mess that we inherited, but we have to underscore the fact that abstract OBR dogma means nothing to our constituents who have been worried these last few weeks. There must be a willingness from Government from the Dispatch Box today to rebuild that trust. Reform has to start with the right foundations: with investment in the NHS to help people become work-ready; with a renewed Access to Work scheme; with better jobcentre support; with the right to try; and with employer engagement. These are all good measures, and they all have my full support.
As I have just said, I welcome the uprating of universal credit, as well as the scrapping of the work capability assessment and the additional support that has been promised to those who cannot work and will never be expected to. These are important steps in restoring fairness and dignity to the social security system, but my supporting the Bill today, which was a last-minute decision, does not mean that I give the Government a blank cheque. I, like many across this House, will be watching very closely as the next stage unfolds. I still believe that the next stage is rushed, but we are where we are. I will consider opposing the Bill on Third Reading if today’s commitments are not delivered on in the coming weeks. That is not a position I enjoy being in, and anyone who thinks it is an easy position to be in does not know what they are talking about.
In constituencies like Southampton Itchen, we know the difference that a fair and functioning welfare system can make and the damage that is done when it fails. That is why we have to avoid making the same mistakes that the last Conservative Government made. Casting our minds further back, we all remember the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition’s litany of failure on welfare reform—the bedroom tax and Atos doing reassessments. I accompanied my mum to her reassessment. She was a nervous wreck because that was an absolute disaster of a scheme. We will remember the great sanctioning machine known as the Work programme. This Labour Government have different values to that, and we must demonstrate them.
There is a great opportunity here today to commit to a clear timetable for the review so that people can rebuild trust in what is about to happen, convince us as a House that the review will be a meaningful co-production, and set out what employment support will come with the £300 million that is being brought forward. If the Bill passes today then, by the Government’s own rushed agenda, they have one week to get it into shape. If we get the system right, we will have a reformed welfare system that delivers on the Government’s objectives to support people who can work into work with dignity and prosperity, and—yes—to ensure the sustainability of the welfare system.
Darren Paffey
I am coming to a conclusion.
Let us build a system that is sustainable, but that is, above all, just and fair.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I speak on behalf of the hundreds of desperate people in Durham and beyond, as well as the dozens of organisations, who have contacted me with concerns about the Bill.
I am sure that many Members across the House, not least those of us in areas that have been decimated over the last three decades, will agree that there is a need to reform the social security system and to support people to stay in and get back into work. We have been told that the purpose of the review of PIP is to ensure that the benefit is fair and fit for the future, and that it will be co-produced with disabled people and the organisations that represent them. But what is fair about us being asked to vote on changes when the terms of reference of the review were only announced yesterday? I popped out earlier for a banana, and when I came back in, things had changed again, so I am even more unclear of what I am voting on.
As we have heard, the proposals are so unfair. They will create a two-tier system of social security. Someone who fell ill earlier this year will have the support they have always had, but woe betide those who fall ill later this year or next year. How can we be asked to vote for a system that, rather than penalising everyone for being ill, has been tweaked to only penalise people based on when they got ill—or, in fact, they get more ill, as anyone reporting a change in circumstances will be caught up in these changes?
Every organisation I have spoken to, including at my recent expert roundtable event in Durham, agrees that the changes to PIP will have a bigger impact on the north-east than almost any other region in the country. This is not a level playing field. The scale of ill health is 50% higher in the north than in the south. The north-east has a higher rate of people living with a disability than any other region. The “Ageing in the North” report recently published by the Northern Health Science Alliance and Health Equity North suggests that in the south, people leaving the job market later on in life overwhelmingly retire; in the north, they leave due to ill health. The impact that these changes will have on individuals, communities and the economy in the north-east will be huge, regardless of any recent concessions. Again, we are being asked to vote on proposals before any meaningful consultation with disability charities and organisations has taken place, and without a regional impact assessment being carried out.
Let us remember that PIP is an in-work benefit. For many, it provides them with the support they need to stay in work. If people are caught up in these changes or claim after they are introduced, it will be much harder for them to stay in work. If we vote for this Bill, we will be knowingly leaving vulnerable people without the support they need to live dignified, independent lives, free from poverty, when we should be supporting and championing the rights of disabled people, their carers and their families.
As the parent of a daughter, Maria, who lived her life with a severe disability, I empathise with all those who are unlikely to undertake meaningful or secure employment because of their disability and to experience the dignity that so many people in work enjoy. Even if someone cannot contribute economically to society, they still deserve dignity. They still deserve to be treated with respect and to feel of value in society, no matter how they are able to contribute.
I joined the Labour party 30 years ago to be on the side of the poor and the weak. This Bill penalises those with the weakest shoulders. That is not what I was elected for, and it is not what this Labour Government were elected for. I plead with colleagues again: pause this process, start again and do it the right way—do it the Labour way.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I think every Member of this House would agree that welfare needs reform. I think about the constituent who was asked in a PIP assessment, “How long have you been autistic?” I think about other stories that are close to my heart, which I cannot repeat because they are not my stories alone to tell. The words come easily; the path to reform is harder, and I think many of us have walked that hard path in recent weeks. We have heard many points made in this debate, and in the short time available to me, I would like to respond to some of them.
A number of Members have sincerely suggested that there is something inherently wrong about creating a system where people’s treatment depends on the date of application, but I ask, how many people in this Chamber who have been a negotiator or a trade union member have voted for an agreement that involved red-banding a particular rate of pay? I think every representative of every party that has served in government has passed cut-off points into legislation. I remember leaving school around the time that the statement system in special educational needs started to be phased out in favour of EHCPs, and the consequences of that are with us to this day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) said that we are being asked to place trust in Ministers, and in particular my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. Following many discussions in recent weeks, I do have that trust, and I know that many Government Members have that personal trust. The fact that the review will now be co-produced with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations is a real and material change.
In this age of snap judgments, when we are expected to respond immediately to every manner of change and when politics in public is rewarded more highly than the politics carried out in private, the party system perhaps is not in good repute. But I know that many Members—I am one of them—have wrestled with their individual concerns and the desire to have collective discipline, without which there is no party and no programme, and nothing would ever get done. These are good and honourable principles to have. They must be moderated by a willingness to listen, and however it came about, people have listened today. The changes that have been made, as Ministers and officials will know, have been the subject of many long and, at times, difficult conversations.
We now have a Bill that removes the critical problem for many of us, which was that the change would have begun next November before the review was completed. That has been addressed. We are in the business of making material change for the people we represent. I think about the 10,037 PIP recipients in my constituency, with perhaps 1,000 more recipients of DLA, and the many more family members who will have the ease of mind of knowing that the changes we in this place have made will protect their income and security in life. The Bill still has some way to go over the course of the next week, but we must recognise progress when it has happened. I thank everyone in my constituency who has contacted me and taken time to meet. In all those discussions with officials and Ministers—
Laurence Turner
I will not, as I do not wish to deny other Members the chance to speak.
All those representations were helpful and made a difference, and I am grateful to everyone who shared their story. I will be voting for the Bill tonight.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
This has been an extraordinary afternoon in the Chamber. Listening to the debate, we have surely all been moved by the stories we have heard of the experiences of hon. Members, of the experiences of their families, loved ones and constituents, and of how the welfare system has served its vital purpose of providing a safety net in times of desperate need, particularly for people whose disabilities or ill health have made it impossible for them to make ends meet on their own. It is clear that there is broad consensus across the House that the welfare system needs reform. There has also been consensus that what we were debating was a bad Bill. It was a rushed and chaotic compromise that would harm disabled people, create a two-tier benefit system, and barely make a dent in the overall welfare bill. How could anyone justify voting for something that would not make a single disabled person’s life better? It is clear that many, many Members could not.
I said that it “was” a bad Bill, because while we have been debating it, it has more or less disintegrated. Less than two hours ago, the Minister for Social Security and Disability told us, in an unprecedented intervention, that clause 5 of the Bill is to be removed in Committee. That takes out all the changes to personal independence payment, and with them almost the entirety of the remaining savings in the Bill. Describing it as chaos now feels like an understatement.
We have a Government with a supermajority who were voted in on a manifesto for change, a welfare system that everyone agrees needs reform, and public finances that simply must be brought under control, but the Government are now serving up a Bill with next to nothing in it. They had already U-turned once; it seems they cannot even deliver a U-turn. The Prime Minister told the country that he was distracted at NATO, and he flew back home on Thursday to sort the problem out. This is what sorting it out looks like. Once again, his calamitous negotiations are letting the country down.
Last week, we offered the Prime Minister help in the national interest and set out three tests that he would need to meet to have our support on welfare legislation. The first was that the welfare bill must come down. We all know people whose lives would not be possible without the help that our welfare system provides. Each and every one of us in the Chamber wants a welfare system that is there for those who need it, but if the welfare bill spirals out of control, it puts that support in jeopardy. The Bill now makes no meaningful changes to a system that we all agree is not working, and I reckon it will now save less than £1 billion from a sickness benefits bill that will be rising to nearly £100 billion by the end of the decade. That is a total dereliction of duty by a Government who claim to want welfare reform and fiscal discipline.
Secondly, we said that we would support plans that get people into work, but the Bill will not help a single person into work. Ministers said, “Trust us, employment support is coming,” but why would anyone trust this Government on jobs when 100,000 were lost in May alone? None of us have seen the Government’s plan to get more disabled people into work, and apart from new red tape and making it more expensive to hire people, I do not think there is one. Thirdly, we said that we must not have more tax rises in the autumn. Given that the Chancellor had already committed to that, it should have been the simplest of those three conditions to agree to, but this desperate climbdown blows an even bigger hole in her Budget. She is pushing us into a doom loop of higher taxes, fewer jobs and more welfare. At this rate, the time is coming when our constituents will not even have a welfare system to call on in times of trouble.
What is left for us to vote for or against this evening? All of us in this House know that welfare needs reform and want to see more people helped into work. All of us in this House—surely most of us, at least—recognise that the country must live within its means. The remnants of this Bill will manifestly achieve none of that. In fact, the only purpose it will now serve is to etch forever into the statute book the moment when this Government totally lost control.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We have had a passionate and eventful debate. We have heard the concerns, and the Government will amend the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have set out, but the system we have inherited does not work. Uniquely in the G7, our employment rate is still lower than before the pandemic. Every other G7 country has got back to where it was before, or better, but we have not. The system is trapping hundreds of thousands of people needlessly in low income and inactivity. It tells people that they cannot work, and for many of them that is simply untrue. We have to change that.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I am sorry to come in so early in the Minister’s peroration, but we have limited time. Can I have the assurance, on the concession given this evening with regard to the Timms review, that its outcome and recommendations will be in primary legislation, not delegated legislation?
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me say a little about the announcement I made in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) earlier on. We have listened to the concerns expressed in the debate, specifically about the new four-point threshold being implemented before the outcome of my review. As I have said, we will in fact move straight to my review and make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors only following that review.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister to confirm at the Dispatch Box that clause 5, which specifically references the need for claimants to score four points in order to receive the daily living allowance, will be removed from the Bill?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that is the case. We will table the amendment to do that.
Let me say in answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who raised this point perfectly properly in the debate, that we will also remove the parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. He suggested that that would mean removing clause 6, but it does not mean that, because there are a lot of other things in schedule 2, which is referenced in clause 6. Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 addresses the points that we are dealing with.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make a little further progress. I still have not quite answered the question put to me in the first place in the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). His question was about whether the outcome of the review will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation. That depends on the outcome of the review and the form of the assessment we take forward. We will come back to that when we have concluded the review.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make a little bit of headway before I give way again.
Under the last Labour Government, in the 12 years up to 2010, the disability employment gap fell steadily. In 2010, as soon as the Tories and Lib Dems took over and scrapped the new deal, it stopped falling, and it has barely shifted since. This Bill opens up the chance for proper support into work once again for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds. We will provide that again, recognising that with—for example—far more mental health problems among young people, the needs post pandemic will be different from those of the past. I listened with great interest to the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), calling for a target for the disability employment gap. She makes a strong argument, and that is the kind of approach that we need to develop as we bring forward our plans for employment support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way at the moment. The Bill opens up that possibility, and it deals with work disincentives inserted into universal credit by the previous Government. The current system forces people to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment, and once so classified, it abandons them. We have to change that system.
Simon Hoare
The House knows that not only is the Minister an honourable man, but he has spent the largest proportion of his parliamentary career looking at these issues. He must surely understand, however, that the confusion that has been expressed in this place is now being felt and expressed in the country at large. I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by its own sponsoring Ministers in such a cack-handed way—nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interests of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it, and start again?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman one of the things that the Bill does. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to bring up a family on the standard allowance of universal credit. The Tories reduced the headline rate of benefit to the lowest real-terms rate for 40 years. Families have to rely on food banks, and people aim to be classified as sick for the extra benefit. The system should not force people into that position; it needs to be fixed, and the Bill makes very important changes in that direction.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I came here today with the intention of voting against the Government on this Bill. I have to say that with clause 5 having been removed —which, as I am sure everyone at home will be delighted to know, completely withdraws PIP from the scope of the Bill—there is consequently nothing to vote on. However, could the Minister give me some comfort by confirming whether or not the Timms review is going to take place within a spending envelope?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can assure my hon. Friend that the review is not intended to save money—that is not its purpose. The review is to get the assessment right and make sure we have an assessment that will be fit for the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I need to make a little more progress. As a number of Members highlighted in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), a key step in this Bill is the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the standard allowance of universal credit. Actually, it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of benefit for decades, and of course, the Tory party is against it. The Tories froze benefits time and again, and created the work disincentives and mass dependence on food banks that this Government are determined to now erase.
We are, of course, also concerned that the future cost increases of PIP should be sustainable. Let me just look back at the record of those cost increases. In the year before the pandemic, 2019-20, PIP cost the then Government £12 billion at today’s prices; last year, it cost £22 billion. We want the system to be sustainable for the future. That is extremely important, because many people with large costs arising from ill health or disability depend on PIP. Those people need to be confident that the support will be there in the future, as well.
Paul Holmes
The Minister is doing an admirable job defending the farcical. Last week, there were £5 billion of savings. Today, there were £2.5 billion of savings. Then he came to the Dispatch Box and did three more U-turns. As he stands at that Dispatch Box today, how much will these new measures save the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will set out those figures in the usual way.
The last Government wanted to change the personal independence payment from cash to vouchers. They wanted to take the independence out of the personal independence payment, and we opposed them. It has been suggested that the benefit should be frozen, but the costs that the benefit is contributing to are continuing to rise along with all the other costs, so we oppose that, too. Some argue for means-testing, but disability imposes costs irrespective of income. We reject all those proposals.
Let me just make a comment about the concern that has been expressed—it does not arise now, given what I have announced—about a two-tier system. A two-tier system is completely normal in social security. PIP replaced DLA in 2013, but half a million adults are still on DLA today, and that does not cause problems. Parallel running is normal, and actually it is often the fairest way to make a major change.
Barry Gardiner
I think that Members on the Government Benches appreciate the concessions that the Minister has already made. When he is talking about whether measures will be put in primary legislation, he must understand that Members will not be able to amend things if they are not in primary legislation. That is a key concern when we do not know the outcome of the review.
Sir Stephen Timms
My answer to my hon. Friend is the one I gave earlier: we need to await the outcome of the review and the assessment that it develops to determine whether it will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I want to make some further headway. In her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) drew attention to the fact that she and I had known each other for a long time, and that is correct. She urged us to listen to the voices of our constituents. In February, someone I had not met before came to my constituency surgery. He explained to me that he lost his arm aged six in a road accident. As a result, on leaving school at 16 he could not find a job. He tried really hard, but he could not find an employer that would take him, until in the year 2000 somebody told him about the new deal for disabled people, which found him a job. He then worked for 23 years without a break in a whole series of different jobs. He brought up his children and he paid his taxes, until in October 2023 he was in an unsatisfactory zero-hours job and he left it. To his dismay, he has not been able to find a job since. He came to me as his local MP to ask where to get help again, like he had from the new deal, but unfortunately that was all scrapped by the Tories and the Lib Dems after 2010. We are determined now to provide proper support again, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced further early funding for that support.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not be giving way again. The Tories were never really interested in the disability employment gap. They had a brief flirtation in the 2015 general election campaign, when David Cameron suddenly announced a target to halve the gap. Unfortunately, as soon as that general election had been safely won, that target was immediately scrapped, and they reverted to type.
We do care about disability employment. That is what we are making changes to address. In this Bill, we are making the changes to deliver.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Division 248
Ayes: 335
Labour: 333
Independent: 3
Noes: 260
Conservative: 100
Liberal Democrat: 70
Labour: 51
Independent: 12
Scottish National Party: 9
Green Party: 4
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Alliance: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the shambles this afternoon, with the Bill being ripped apart literally before our eyes in this Chamber and the Minister unable even to tell us how much it will now save, can you please advise me whether it should still be rushed through to be debated next week in Committee of the whole House, or whether the Government should in fact withdraw it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.
Programming committee
(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.)
Question agreed to.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money)
King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act;
(b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing—
(i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit;
(ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.)
Question agreed to.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Wednesday 9th July 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberUniversal Credit Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
18:00 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 35 / Noes: 469 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 103 / Noes: 416 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:30 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 370 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:43 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 335 / Noes: 135 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:56 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 175 / Noes: 401 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 130 / Noes: 443 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:25 - The Committee divided: - Ayes: 149 / Noes: 334 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:38 - The House divided: - Ayes: 336 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I remind Members that in Committee they should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker. Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair and Madam Chairman—or, for Sir Roger, Mr Chairman—are also acceptable.
Clause 1
Standard allowance for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I beg to move amendment 39, page 1, line 21, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
“(4) The relevant uplift percentage for tax years 2026-27 to 2029-30 is 4.8%.”
This amendment would apply the full standard allowance uplift percentage currently specified in clause 1 of the Bill for 2029-30 to all preceding years 2026-27 to 2028-29 as well.
The First Deputy Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Amendment 41, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section, so far as it relates to tax years up to and including 2027-28, comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed.
(9) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2028-29, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2027, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.
(11) This section, so far as it relates to tax year 2029-30, comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.
(12) Regulations under subsection (11) may not be made unless, on a date not before 1 October 2028, a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before and approved by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment provides for separate decisions by the House of Commons on the continued effect of Clause 1 for the final two tax years affected.
Amendment 50, page 2, line 29, at end insert—
“(8) This section comes into force when the conditions in section [Commencement requirements relating to welfare reform] have been met.”
This amendment makes the commencement of Clause 1 conditional on the requirements relating to welfare reform set out in NC12.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 31, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) In the table in regulation 36 of the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 (amounts of elements)—
(a) before the row showing the amount for limited capability for work and work-related activity (“the existing row”) insert—
Siân Berry
When one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits has used a food bank in the last month, and when Scope has found that the disability price tag is £1,095 per month, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper has terrified so many of our constituents, and when the basic rate of universal credit cannot cover the basic essentials, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today. When the ultra-rich are orders of magnitude away from the tough choices disabled people face, and when we have such a deeply unequal society, and a wealth tax would break no manifesto commitments, here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.
From the Green Paper to where we are now, the Government’s behaviour has been an insult to disabled people, and I think they should be ashamed and should apologise. My constituents who receive benefits, and the people who love and care for them, have been subjected to chaos, confusion and indignity. Instead of making improvements, with careful consideration, to a complex and treacherous benefits system, the Government have rushed to fit the imperatives of the Budget timetable, bypassing evidence gathering and line-by-line scrutiny in a Committee of this House, and further limiting the power of the other place by making this a money Bill.
Yes, a tremendous effort of people power and bravery from Labour Members has won last-minute concessions for current claimants, but the Government should still scrap this unfair and harmful legislation, due to the harm that it will do to people who find themselves in need of support in future. This Bill is not a tough decision; it is the wrong decision. Here in Parliament we must do better than this Bill before us today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for the proposals that she is bringing forward. This is the crux of the Bill. Does she accept that the reason why people get more money when they qualify for the health element of universal credit is that their illness means more expenditure—a certain diet, the need for a warmer home, and so on? Does she accept that halving it to £217 a month will detrimentally affect the most vulnerable people—the very people she says we should be trying to help?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for giving those examples of the vital things that additional payments are used for. They are so necessary, and it is so necessary not to cut them.
My amendment 39 affects clause 1, the only at all positive clause in the Bill as it stands. The clause uplifts the rate of increase in the standard allowance of universal credit beyond inflation—by 2.3% in the year starting April 2026, rising to 4.8% for 2029. My amendment simply sets the uplift percentage at 4.8% for the whole period. This sustained rise in the basic rate of universal credit is much needed. Setting out the case for an essentials guarantee, the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation state:
“The basic rate of Universal Credit should at least cover the cost of essentials like food, household bills and travel, but it is not currently set according to any objective assessment of what people need.”
Amendment 39 goes some way towards ensuring that, and the joint briefing to MPs from 20 charities, service providers and disabled people’s groups highlights this need in its recommendations.
I realise that the question on many people’s minds is, “How can the country pay for this boost to universal credit and the removal of cuts to the personal independence payment?” The answer lies with the Chancellor and something that my Green colleagues and I have called for many times, especially on this issue, ever since the Secretary of State introduced the Green Paper. On that day, 18 March, I asked
“why impoverishing”
disabled people
“to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax.”—[Official Report, 18 March 2025; Vol. 764, c. 181.]
The hon. Members for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) and for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) also spoke up for such a tax on the same day. Many hon. Members have asked the same question in the House, and it is not just MPs making this suggestion. It is not just charities such as Oxfam and the Equality Trust, not just campaigners such as Tax Justice UK and Green New Deal Rising, and not just Patriotic Millionaires UK, which says that its polling shows that 85% of people who have more than £10 million would happily pay 2% of their wealth to support a better society and public services. Two former leaders of the Labour party are also now talking about it as a serious option.
There are, I should say, other ways to tax unearned wealth, as part of a wider package, than the way set out in this simple proposal, which is making unlikely allies of Greens, millionaires and Labour leaders. I think the view of this House is clear: when fairer taxes on assets, which absolutely can work and should work for the nation, are finally put into the Budget, first to go should be the cuts target set out in the Department for Work and Pensions spreadsheet, and the two-child benefit cap. It is through such a tax that we should pay for the improvements needed to the Bill.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
I am a great believer in a wealth tax, rather than taking money from disabled people—simple as, bottom line. What would a wealth tax look like, as far as the Green party is concerned?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for that question. I refer him to Patriotic Millionaires UK. It has done considerable work on this issue, with its considerable resources, and set out proposals for a 2% wealth tax on people who have more than £10 million in wealth. It polled the general public on that, and found that 75% of them hugely supported the measure, not just as an alternative to cuts to welfare, but as a general principle.
Clause 1 would be made into a genuinely good policy by amendment 39, but that change alone will not make this a Bill that the House should pass. Removing clause 5, as Government amendment 4 proposes, will not be enough, either, to make this a Bill that this House should pass. Clause 2, even once amended by the Government, would cut in half the health element of universal credit for nine in 10 new claimants. I will speak later about the severe conditions criteria and fluctuating conditions. Without amendment 2(a), tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), clause 2 should be removed from the Bill. Clause 3 would freeze the health elements of universal credit for the rest of this Parliament, so clause 3 should also be removed from the Bill. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 4 would freeze legacy benefits for disabled people, so they should be removed from the Bill, as my amendment 40 proposes.
A Bill that just consists of a much-improved clause 1 and possibly a much-improved clause 2 would almost be a Bill that this House could, in conscience, pass. We have the choice to craft such a Bill today. As well as those changes, amendments such as amendment 12, tabled by the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), are needed, and there are some new clauses that would help make the Bill even more fit for purpose.
The vital principle we must stand up for today is that any policy changes relating to disabled people must be led by disabled people. On the day the Green Paper was published, I raised the matter of co-production with the Secretary of State. That word has been much talked about by many others with experience of co-producing policy, and by the Government, thanks to strong campaigners and pressure from MPs.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I fully agree with the hon. Member on co-production and co-designing any changes that come forward. Does she agree that it is crucial that young people are also included, given the conditions that they can face, and especially given the challenge in moving from children’s disability living allowance to the personal independence payment, which the Minister has still not addressed?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member greatly for that intervention. When I have gathered together young people in my constituency, I have found that the issues that they face are unique, and their voices absolutely must be heard.
The Government have said that they are committed to co-producing the Timms review with disabled people and disabled people’s organisations, but organisations such as Disability Rights UK have told us that those promises are hard to trust. They fear a tick-box exercise, co-production in name only, and that the Government’s original plans will be the inevitable result. That is why I have signed up to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), as well as new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
If clause 2 and its schedule remain, the severe conditions criteria simply cannot stand as written. It appears that the Government either meant to exclude people with fluctuating lifelong conditions such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis from the higher rate of the universal credit health element, or that Ministers completely overlooked that community when rushing all this through. Criteria that withdraw support from people with fluctuating conditions are unacceptable, and that is why I signed amendment 38 tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and amendment 17 tabled by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie). The severe conditions criteria also say that any diagnosis must be made in the NHS. Again, that is either careless drafting or a deliberate restriction, so I have also signed amendment 33 from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman).
I am trying to bring to this House the voices of disabled people in Brighton Pavilion and across the nation who are closely watching what we do today. So many of our constituents remain scared by the Bill. Right from the day of the sudden and careless release of the Green Paper, which contained terrifying policy details that were not in the Labour manifesto, they have been forced into a cruel limbo. It is shameful that the Government have chosen this path. This Labour Government are showing themselves far more willing to punish disabled people than ask the most wealthy to shoulder the burden of fair public spending on real social security.
I am so proud of the people power that has been brought to bear on the Bill. Action by disabled people and their allies has forced MPs to listen and take action, and forced the Government to withdraw the most brutal cuts, but still the Bill remains unacceptable without the serious amendments that I have outlined. I look forward to hearing much sense, including what the United Nations has told us, from the many hon. Members in this debate who share my values. My Green colleagues and I are ready to do all in our power to minimise the consequences of the Bill; to make it do good, not harm; and ultimately, if that does not happen, to see it fall. I hope the Government will truly learn from the cruel mess that this has become.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will speak to my amendment 2(b) and the amendments associated with it. Before I get to the substance of my remarks, I thank the Bill Committee Clerks for their invaluable advice and amendment-drafting expertise. I thank the dozens of disabled people’s organisations, disability charities, academics and think-tanks who provided evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee’s “Pathways to Work” inquiry. I also acknowledge the Clerks team, and in particular the deputy Clerk, who led that inquiry. The role of Select Committees in improving Government policy is of immense importance and cannot be overestimated.
As I said last week, there is general recognition that the social security system needs reform, but reform should not be equated to cuts to the support for vulnerable people. There are many positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper that will have a significant positive impact on people’s lives, and that will help people into work, and to stay in work.
However, there is also evidence of the impact other Departments will have on getting and keeping Britain working. Increasing NHS capacity and the funding allocation to areas of high health need will have a direct and positive impact on health status, participation in the labour market and, ultimately, productivity in those areas. The 2018 “Health for Wealth” report estimated that increasing NHS spending by 10% and targeting that at areas of high health need would reduce economic inactivity by 3% and increase productivity by £13.2 billion a year. However, although we have launched the NHS 10-year plan, which contains many positive measures, the additional targeted NHS capacity will not come on stream until April next year.
Jim Shannon
One issue that I hear about—like other Members, I am sure—is the decisions made on PIP, universal credit and ESA applications. Constituents tell me continually that there is a harshness in how those decisions are made. Does the hon. Lady agree that those applications should be looked at by experts, and that there should be compassion and understanding when the decisions are made? Does she agree that that is the sort of system we need for the people we represent?
Debbie Abrahams
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I agree that we need a more compassionate system, but I also believe we need a system that is co-produced by the people who will actually be affected by a new assessment process. Yes, we need a system that is more compassionate, but I think that that will be built in by the people who co-produce the new assessment.
I was a little disappointed that the Government did not take the opportunity to include the co-production of the review in the Bill. I hope the Minister will address that in his remarks, but for that reason I support new clause 11 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball).
In addition, the Government have agreed to protect people on UC health with severe conditions or a terminal diagnosis—both existing and new claimants—and to ensure that their awards will be uprated annually in real terms.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome some of the last-minute concessions that were made last week. Does she share my concerns, in particular around UC health, that there are still £2 billion in cuts that will impact more than 700,000 people, meaning that they will get £3,000 less? These are some of the most vulnerable people.
Debbie Abrahams
Let us be clear: this will apply to newly acquired conditions in particular. My argument is that by delaying the changes, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability or condition can receive treatment and care quickly by making sure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. I do not think it is ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and I hope the Government will listen.
As I said, people with both new and existing severe conditions will be protected. This, I understand, is covered in Government amendment 2 and new clause 1.
There is significant evidence of the harms that disabled people would potentially have experienced if the Bill had remained in its previous form, but the concessions that have been made over the past couple of weeks have addressed that. I applaud the Government for that; it was definitely the right thing to do when the evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer term, it is right that we think again, and Iusb therefore urge the Government to consider my amendments.
There is strong evidence that the Government will make savings in social security spending in the long term through case off-flows. As I have mentioned before, that will be achieved naturally through the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market and, of course, the bringing forward of the employment support.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook.
Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.
Graham Stuart
As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.
Graham Stuart
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges.
Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for support, sometimes for nearly two years, which worsens their condition and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work? That also leads to an increased demand on PIP.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We on the Conservative Benches know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, is not generous and is not kind, but is an abrogation of responsibility and economic negligence.
Let me be clear: this Bill in its current form locks in billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year. Under the current Chancellor, we have already seen Britain’s debt interest forecast soar and the bond markets become jittery—more than that, they are charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which Labour Members so love to refer. And inflation, of course, has proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment, with no plan to pay for it except reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. The Chancellor might not say it outright, but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this ends up—with them paying more.
The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning his way throughout his time in office, but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister bending to pressure from the left of his party, which is so well represented on the Government Benches today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting Government who have lost all propulsion.
Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy—or fixing the foundations, as has oft been repeated—Labour has chosen the easy political route of higher spending, higher borrowing and, inevitably, higher taxes. Those higher taxes will be imposed not on some mythical class of super-rich people, which the Greens like to propose, but on ordinary men and women who get up in the morning, work hard, look after themselves and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives. That also needs to be a central tenet of our political lives.
That is why I have tabled two amendments to the Bill. Amendment 41 would ensure that Parliament retains control over future annual above-inflation increases. It would mean that the House of Commons must explicitly approve continuing those rates beyond 2027-28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. New clause 9 would require the Government to report on fraud and error arising from these provisions.
Graham Stuart
Given the scale of welfare fraud that we have seen in recent years—it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 billion—it is only right that we get a proper handle on where taxpayers’ money is actually going.
Graham Stuart
I would happily give way if there were Labour Members who had an interest in controlling the public finances rather than running up the national credit card irresponsibly, which is their wont. Those efforts by the Front-Bench team have now come to nought. They have given in to their Back Benchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this Government. Together, these straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse would help reduce waste and misuse.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout and scream in frustration, but they will have their time to speak. In reality, this is not a fair and measured Bill. It achieves nothing but a two-tier benefit system, unfunded spending commitments and, ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way on that point about fraud?
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.
Neil Coyle
I am really intrigued, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the right hon. Member suggested that he has a concern about tackling fraud and responsibility in public finances. Can he tell us where he was under the previous Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of the UK’s social security system? Where are his references in Hansard? Where was he on Bill Committees and in this House when that fraud was soaring? And where was he when this Government began passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of irresponsible fraud in the benefit system?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots.
Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The right hon. Member is right to bring his speech back to the vulnerable people who will be impacted. He will know the devastating impact of cancer on many families. One in two face the reality of a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer has said that, on average, the disease costs £700 a month and £6,000 in annual income. Does he agree that the Bill, by ensuring that those people do not get the high rate universal credit health element, will be devastating for many cancer patients right across the country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy.
The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.
Patricia Ferguson
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is for me to decide what my intervention will be. I was going to say that I am very pleased to hear him sticking up for people who really need help. What part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government.
When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% disability employment gap, a 17% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling the last Government over the first half of their decade that they failed on almost every single commitment in the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.
If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.
The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
My constituency has one of the highest unemployment rates at 17%, and many of my constituents receive the universal credit health element. Does the hon. Member agree that if they were to be stripped of financial support, that may have an enormous impact on their mental health, which would cause a further drain on the NHS?
Rachael Maskell
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We know that when people’s mental health declines because of stresses and strains, it pushes them further away from the labour market, which is not the objective of “Pathways to Work” or this Government. It would be detrimental to people and our ambition.
That pittance of £50 a week will hit the budgets of individuals who have so little given that we have rising energy and food prices and housing costs. This is the difference between struggling and surviving. All they could expect is poverty to bite harder, stress to spread wider and hope to fade faster. For many with fluctuating conditions, stress exacerbates symptoms. What a way to live.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The hon. Member is making a powerful and compassionate speech. I recently knocked on the door of one of my constituents who suffers from fibromyalgia, and it happened to be the day that she received a letter telling her that she was expected to up her working hours by six hours following an assessment. She was broken by this news, and exactly the kind of mental distress that the hon. Member is referring to was evident to me. Does the hon. Member agree that whatever reforms we introduce must put compassion and care for individuals at the heart of the assessment system, so that people, particularly those with fluctuating conditions, do not experience the kind of distress that I witnessed that day from my constituent?
Rachael Maskell
The hon. Member advocates powerfully for his constituent and all those with fluctuating conditions, who never know how they will fare, perhaps because of the season of the year. Some people may develop more chest infections over the winter while being well for the rest of the year, yet they will be receiving a health element of just £50 a week, not £97 a week.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Will my hon. Friend recognise how the Bill protects people in exactly the situation that she describes? Those who receive the universal credit health premium at the moment will be fully protected, and once they go into work they are likely to continue to receive universal credit, so their protection will carry on. If their income exceeds the universal credit level, there will be a further six months when they are earning at a significant level when if they come out of work afterwards they will come straight back on to the position they were in at the start. There are very strong protections for exactly the people she is describing.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week.
My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support.
I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
We are at a really interesting point with this Bill: a year’s worth of politics happened last week, and it feels like there is more to come. Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I begin by thanking all the disabled people’s organisations who have worked incredibly hard and assisted us in winning some concessions. No matter where we end up, they should be incredibly proud of the work they have put in, as should the disabled people already receiving PIP and the universal credit limited capability for work element who have continued to fight on behalf of future claimants even though they have no selfish need to do so. That shows the strength of the community and the amount that disabled people care for each other.
It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in a group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour Government. Given the change promised by Ministers, that first change should not have been to attack older people by cutting the winter fuel payment. The Government have also refused to take action on child poverty by bringing forward the child poverty strategy, and now they are balancing the Budget by cutting money from disabled people.
This is not the Labour party that I wrote about in my history Highers—I wrote about the rise of the Labour party, what it was founded on, and how the whole point of it was about supporting people and the principles of the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour Government would look like. I had hoped that they would actually deliver for some people—for disabled people and those the Tories spent 14 years marginalising—yet they are choosing to make the easy cuts that affect disabled people. I do not think those are the right cuts to make. I agree entirely with my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who suggested that there are much better ways of balancing the Budget. The fiscal rules are self-imposed, anyway.
To look at some of the specific issues with the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion in relation to the essentials guarantee and amendment 39. Making people poorer will not magically improve their health. I fully agree with new clause 11 on co-production, and I urge the Minister to take action on that.
In Scotland we have created the adult disability payment. If the Minister looks on the Social Security Scotland website, he will see that it says
“social security is a human right...any of us, at any time…may need this support.”
We centred the decision making on dignity, fairness and respect. I am not saying for a second that the adult disability payment is perfect—there are issues with every system—but I urge the Minister to look at how it was co-produced and the lessons we learned from that when he is planning the co-production of the review of PIP assessments.
I am massively concerned that we are not clear about the basis on which the Timms review is being done. What is the point of the review? I understand that it is to review the PIP assessment process—I have got that bit—but what is the Government’s aim? Is it to cut billions of pounds from the PIP bill? Is it to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions do not have to fill in the same form over and over again, explaining what it is that they cannot do? Is it to reduce the number of mandatory reconsiderations? Is it to make the system better, centring it on dignity and respect? Some clarity from the Government on that would be incredibly helpful.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with the terms of reference for the Timms review, which clearly set out that its purpose is to ensure that PIP assessment is
“fair and fit for the future…and helps support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence.”
I hope that she will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is very well placed to lead the review in co-production with disabled people.
Kirsty Blackman
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. It would be great if the Minister could clarify from the Dispatch Box that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money. If the hon. Member can give that commitment on behalf of the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked the Minister to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference say, “We do not want money to be saved,” that is grand, but I could not find that in the terms of reference.
I would like to hear from the Minister on whether he has been asked to save money through the review. Disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the Government’s actions and their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. I think we should hear from the Minister whether he will be trying to save money or putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that co-production happens with that.
I have some questions about the severe conditions criteria. I am concerned because the Bill’s wording is different from what the DWP has been putting out in press releases. Press releases such as the one quoted today in The Guardian have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible under the severe conditions criteria. However, the Bill says that a claimant would need to have a condition “constantly”.
The Minister needs to give an explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box. The UK Government have decided not to give the Bill a proper Bill Committee, where we would have asked these questions, hashed this out and got that level of clarification, and people are really scared. As the Minister will know, a significant number of amendments have been tabled on these conditions, from parties across the House. Concerns have been raised, because schedule 1 to the Bill states:
“A descriptor constantly applies to a claimant if that descriptor applies to the claimant at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.”
So if one of the descriptors is about being able to get around or being able to wash yourself, that paragraph says that the descriptor must apply “constantly”. If that is not the case, we need a clear explanation about that from the Minister. I cannot find the need for a condition to apply “constantly” in previous legislation. It seems to me that this is a new addition.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Last week we heard the Minister say, from the Dispatch Box, that descriptors, activities and associated points will all be subject to the Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people. Was the hon. Member listening to that statement, and does she accept that as a fact given at the Dispatch Box?
Kirsty Blackman
No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?
Sir Stephen Timms
The form of words in the Bill, including the word “constant”, exactly replicates the way the severe conditions criteria are applied at the moment. The “constant” refers to the applicability of the descriptor. If somebody has a fluctuating condition and perhaps on one day they are comfortably able to walk 50 metres, the question to put to that person by the assessor is, “Can you do so reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time?” If the answer to that question is no, the descriptor still applies to them. The question is whether the descriptor applies constantly. If it does, the severe conditions criteria are met.
Kirsty Blackman
That clear information from the Dispatch Box is what I was asking for. Hearing that will give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister is aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at when it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the descriptors. If people are not asked if they can or cannot do something reliably on other days, I will expect disabled people’s charities to use the Minister’s comment from the Dispatch Box when they bring mandatory considerations or challenges to say, “The Minister was utterly clear that I have answered the question correctly, in line with the legislation.” I encourage them to do so.
Given the way the legislation is written, I will still not support the severe conditions criteria and the cut. I agree with colleagues who have said that 750,000 people are expecting to lose money as a result of this. As one of my Labour colleagues, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), has said, this is still £2 billion of cuts on disabled people that the Labour party has chosen to make, or that is what it says in the impact assessment. It has chosen to make that cut to 750,000 people, asking itself, “Where can we make £2 billion of cuts? I know, let’s do it to disabled people.” We could have an additional £2 billion in taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on that money for the everyday items that they desperately require.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I completely agree with that contention. This is how we judge a society: by how it takes care of the most vulnerable. As the hon. Lady says, and not to discredit anybody, but it appears on the face of it that people have simply decided to say, “This is where we will go”, when in actual fact there are other avenues that can be explored, and people want us to do that before we get into any of this.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Member has been a real champion for her constituents in this and she is absolutely correct: this is not the first place that I would expect any MP to look to save money, and especially not the first place where I would expect a supposedly progressive Government to look to save money. I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up in this situation and unlike what was said before, I do not think there are victorious faces on the Back Benches. I think people on the Government Benches are absolutely heartsick, no matter what side of this debate they are on. They wish that those on the Government Front Bench had not put this forward and that they were not in the position of having to pick a side, because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour Government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first matter of business.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The winding-up speeches will have to start at 5.30 pm. There are 37 Members standing on both sides of the House. I am not allowed to impose a time limit, but were I to do so, it would be about four minutes. It is for Members to decide whether to allow their colleagues to speak or to take up more of the time, in which case it is quite clear that not everybody will be called to speak. I call John McDonnell.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I will do my best, Sir Roger. I want to address new clause 8, tabled in my name. It is a procedural clause and I do not think it is particularly contentious.
Before I address the new clause, I want to say that I am still getting emails and still being met on the bus and at community events by people who are extremely distressed about this legislation going through. I want to put on record for my constituents that, as always, I will not vote for any legislation that cuts benefits to some of the poorest people I represent. I just cannot do that and I want that underlined.
Ironically, just to give some context, some Members may have listened today to an interview on the “Today” programme with George Osborne, who is now the chair of the British Museum, in which he was talking about the Bayeux tapestry coming to this country. I remember another tapestry, which was brought to this House when he introduced cuts to benefits for disabled people. It showed the names of the people who had committed suicide. Do hon. Members remember that? It was one of the most distressing things I have seen in my political life and I wept that day. I do not want that to happen again. Let us be honest, as sure as night follows day, if cuts go through on the scale proposed, people will lose their lives. People will suffer immense harm. Let us all understand that.
Members talk pompously about “The House at its best”, but last week’s debate was a good day for the House. People on all sides expressed their views, the Government responded, although not as far as I wanted them to respond, and the House held the Government to account. It is not often that we see that, but it happened, and the reason it happened was that we were dealing with primary legislation that hon. Members could debate and amend. I have put this new clause forward because, if the Government do anything, they should do it through primary legislation and not delegated legislation, which goes on in Committee, where there is no chance to amend it and it is often rushed through on a vote with no debate. This matter is so important that that is not the way we should operate as a House.
Last week, hon. Members on all sides of the debate showed how democracy should work in this Chamber. That is why my new clause says that the Government must bring forward primary legislation in draft form so that we can all see it—no bouncers any more—and it is not done as delegated legislation so that Members do not have the chance to amend it or properly discuss it. That is all I ask for, and to be frank, it is not contentious. I would expect the Government just to accept it, because it is the normal democratic process in this Chamber. I want to be able to go back to my constituents when the review comes forward, and say, “I argued your case, I tried to amend it, I won on some and lost on others—that’s democracy.”
I support new clause 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). It is truly an excellent setting out of how co-production could work. The only element on which I disagree with her is when the process moves on and we become dependent on the Government making a statement, which we could reject so that they could not move on. The problem with that is exactly the same as with delegated legislation: we cannot amend a statement. I have been here so long that I know what Governments do. They bring forward a statement including some good stuff that we cannot vote against, but there is also some bad stuff that we disagree with. If we cannot amend it at that stage, it is all or nothing, and as a result, we get bad legislation. None the less, the part of new clause 11 that sets out who should be consulted, be involved and elect the chair is critical.
I do not want to sound patronising, but the speech made by the hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge last week brought tears to my eyes, and it is not often a speech in this House does that. The justified anger that she expressed about what went on under the Tories moved me deeply, and I think it moved the whole House. I do not want a Member standing up in five years’ time equally angry about what we did in this legislation. I want us to be able to hold the Government to account, not aggressively but constructively, in a way that we can debate and amend, and hopefully we might even be able to build consensus. That is what my new clause is all about, and that is all I want to say.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I rise primarily to speak to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). However, I would like to begin by addressing the amendments brought forward by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We were first presented with the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill in June. Then, after being held over a barrel by her Back Benchers, the Secretary of State returned to the House with something quite different. Then, at the eleventh hour on Second Reading, just last week, amendments 4, 5 and 10 were hastily drawn up. Why? It was to cobble together enough support to get something that resembles welfare reform over the line. Only a Labour Government could pledge to reduce the cost of something and end up doing the exact opposite. The people who will pay the price for this additional welfare spending are our constituents who get up early, work hard and pay their dues.
New clause 12 and the associated amendments are key to fairness in the system, key to protecting the social contract that underpins our society and, most importantly, key to balancing the books to support our economy. There is no way we can continue to have a situation where individuals receive their PIP payments after attending only a virtual session. There is no way we can continue to have a spiralling welfare bill driven by the over-medicalisation of conditions such as OCD and anxiety. And finally, there is no way we can continue to hand out benefits willy-nilly to those who have come to the United Kingdom without any means of supporting themselves. These are not fringe views. They are widely supported by the public, by working men and women across the country who do the right thing and who increasingly ask, “Why are we footing a bill for a system we no longer believe in?” The social contract is fraying, and the blame lies not with the public but with the state in allowing the system to drift and grow to unsustainable levels.
Debbie Abrahams
I hope the hon. Member does not mind my intervening on him, but I want to pick up on the point he was making about people that come to this country and take benefits. Is he aware that during the pandemic, for example, people who have leave to remain were unable to avail themselves of any social security support as they do not have recourse to public funds, and that they were left absolutely destitute? I hope he will withdraw his remark, because it is just not true.
Mr Bedford
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but I am not going to withdraw the comment I made, because there are people in that situation—
Mr Bedford
The social contract is fraying, as I said. When my constituent Nick, who works hard for the money he earns and pays into system, walks through his town centre, he asks himself, “What is the point? Why am I working harder than ever when the system rewards those that often don’t?” These amendments matter. They are not unfair; they are principled. They would ensure that the welfare system remained strong for those who truly need it, and fair for those who fund it. The hard-working British public expect us to act, and unfortunately, if the Government do not support our amendments today, they will be letting the public down.
Dr Tidball
I rise to speak to new clause 11 and Government amendment 4. This Bill has been transformed since Second Reading. I welcome the Government’s significant changes and hard work. I said that I could not support the measures that remained on the face of the Bill last week that would have pushed 150,000 people into poverty. Nor could I accept proposals for a points system which, under previously proposed descriptors, would exclude eligibility for those who cannot put on their underwear, prosthetic limbs or shoes without support. Towards the end of the Second Reading debate, the Government promised to remove clause 5 on personal independence payments, including the eligibility criteria. I wholeheartedly support Government amendment 4, which achieves that.
I am pleased to hear that the new impact assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions has found that the Bill will now lift 50,000 people out of relative poverty by 2030. This matters, to fulfil the Government’s obligations under the Equality Act 2010 and to meet our commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In 2016, under the Conservative Government, when the UN produced its inquiry report on the UK’s treatment of disabled people, it said that the Government at that time had to ensure that any measures of welfare reform should uphold the human rights model of disability and did not disproportionately or adversely affect the rights of disabled people to live independently or to access employment.
Vicky Foxcroft
I welcome the amendment, but does my hon. Friend agree that co-production needs to go beyond oversight if we want to build trust and engagement with disabled people and their organisations, and that we need to commit to the principles of co-production as outlined in my speech on Second Reading last week?
Dr Tidball
I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend, and I will be getting to those points shortly.
Further, the UN said that the voices of disabled people must be at the front and centre of this work and that the UK must actively consult and engage with disabled people and their organisations and give due consideration to their views in any legislation related to these rights. Therefore, Government amendment 4 is a significant step forward in removing those measures that were not consulted on. It also prevents the risks I highlighted in my speech last week on the previously proposed eligibility criteria, particularly on future recipients.
I am also pleased that the Minister confirmed last week that the legislation on changes to PIP eligibility and descriptors will not happen until the completion of the Timms review. This leads me to new clause 11. I am grateful for this new clause being selected. It is important to have a debate on it as a probing new clause, and above all, I will be seeking reassurances from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will get the detail of co-production right. I am grateful that the measures in this new clause were co-produced and supported by Disability Rights UK and the Spinal Injuries Association, as well as through discussions with a broader group of disabled people’s organisations and charities.
My new clause 11 sets out key measures to deliver on our excellent manifesto commitment to champion the rights of disabled people and enshrine the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Further, the measures in the new clause create a strong link between the Timms review and fulfilling our Equality Act public sector equality duty, along with the UK’s commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, including the principle in article 4.3 of the need to
“consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”.
Thus, in this context, meaningful co-production with the disability inclusion taskforce as part of the Timms review is essential.
Anna Dixon
I commend my hon. Friend for her excellent speeches, both today and on Second Reading, and for all the work I know she has done behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. I fully support her new clause 11, which would guarantee meaningful engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP. As she knows, PIP is also a gateway benefit to carer’s allowance, so does she agree that it is essential to include carers, as well as disabled people, in the disability co-production taskforce?
Dr Tidball
I do agree. The Minister will head up this review, but the voices of disabled people must be front and centre. The measures in this new clause emphasise the need for disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to make up the majority of the taskforce and to have a significant role in the leadership of the review, and I believe carers could be part of that.
The output of this review must be meaningful and not performative. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recommendations co-produced in the taskforce come back to this House for full scrutiny, debate and parliamentary approval before the legislation to implement the review’s outcomes is brought forward. That will ensure democratic accountability on those outcomes, including on how changes to PIP eligibility will impact disabled people. While the new clause suggests that this should happen after 12 months, and ahead of any proposals on PIP coming out next autumn, I am aware that the Minister is keen to ensure this co-production process is not rushed—that is a good approach.
I am grateful for the fact that in his closing statement on Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged my call for a target on closing the disability employment gap. That is the kind of approach I know the Government will develop as they bring forward their plans for employment support. The significant changes made to the Bill since last week will shift the emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential, and to closing the disability employment gap. They will anchor Labour values of fairness in this part of the legislation.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), amendment 38 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), amendment 39 in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), and new clause 8 tabled by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Errol Graham was a 57-year-old grandad and former amateur footballer. When bailiffs came to evict him, they found his emaciated body in a freezing flat—no gas, no electricity and no food. Only two tins of fish four years out of date remained. He weighed just four and a half stone. A coroner ruled that he had suffered death by starvation. Errol suffered from severe social anxiety. The Department for Work and Pensions knew that, and still cut off his only source of income. As his daughter-in-law said,
“He would still be alive. He’d be ill, but he’d still be alive.”
His death was not a tragic exception; it was a political consequence.
In 2017, Jodey Whiting took her own life after missing a fit-for-work test while she was hospitalised. Stephen Smith was denied benefits despite being gravely ill. He died in 2019. These are not just names; they are the human cost of decisions made in this place—decisions that, according to Sir Michael Marmot’s research, contributed to over 1 million premature deaths in England between 2011 and the pandemic, driven by poverty and austerity. Today the Government press ahead with more of the same.
Clause 2 of the Bill will slash the universal credit health element—the limited capability for work and work-related activity component—from £97 to just £50 a week. By 2030, that is an annual cut of £3,000 for over 750,000 disabled people. These are not people waiting for an assessment; they are people who the DWP has already found too ill to work—people who cannot feed themselves, who live with degenerative illnesses and who experience daily pain, confusion and incontinence—and we are supposed to believe that this is about helping them into employment. Even the Government’s own figures show that fewer than one in 10 new claimants will be protected by the so-called severe conditions criteria, and charities such as Scope, Z2K, the MS Society and Inclusion London have made that clear. The clause will exclude “huge swathes” of severely disabled people, especially those with fluctuating or progressive conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, bipolar disorder and Parkinson’s. Why? Because to qualify, their condition—according to the Bill—must affect them not severely or overwhelmingly, but constantly. As Scope put it,
“It feels like it’s been designed to cut support—not to support people.”
Let us not forget the requirement for an NHS diagnosis in the middle of an NHS backlog crisis. That excludes people with neurodivergent conditions and others who rely on private or social care support. This is a deliberate narrowing of the safety net. The result? A two-tier system that punishes people for trying to work, having variable symptoms or falling through the cracks of bureaucracy.
Robin Swann
The severe conditions criteria and the need for an NHS diagnosis exclude young people as well, because their diagnosis and condition may not automatically transfer from their medical records as a child to their adult records. They would need another NHS diagnosis to move from the children’s DLA to PIP.
Zarah Sultana
Exactly. Those are among the concerns about the requirement for an NHS diagnosis.
Meanwhile, what is the economic justification? Well, there is not one. As a share of GDP, working-age benefits have not risen since 2015. Other countries, such as France, New Zealand and Australia, invest more in their disabled citizens. We have alternatives—for example, we could have a 2% tax on extreme wealth. Just 50 families in this country own more wealth than half the UK population. According to YouGov, three quarters of the public support a 2% tax on those with wealth of more than £10 million, yet this Government will not tax the super-rich. Instead, they choose to take from those with arthritis, cancer and chronic pain. They just cannot decide how much suffering to inflict. While they squeeze the most vulnerable, they have found billions for war, and billions to raise defence spending and back endless foreign interventions—money for war, but not the poor.
The truth is this: Westminster is broken, but the real crisis is deeper. This Government are not only out of touch but morally bankrupt. They work for billionaires and big business, while turning their back on disabled people. They hold their summer receptions at Mastercard headquarters, while disabled people are pushed to food banks. They impoverish the sick and elderly to satisfy spreadsheets, and then dare to speak of “tough choices.” But the public sees through this: 81% of voters believe that disabled people should receive support for basic living costs. That is not a niche opinion; that is mainstream Britain. Disabled organisations, from Disabled People Against Cuts to Disability Rights UK, are united in their opposition to clause 2, because if this cut is passed, the consequences will be felt everywhere, especially in our constituency surgeries. The emails, the letters, the desperation, the suffering—all of it is avoidable.
I voted to protect winter fuel payments, and I would do it again. I voted to scrap the two-child benefit cap, and I would do it again. I will vote against these cuts tonight, because this is not just about benefits; it is about the country we want to be. Do we want to be a country that protects the vulnerable, or punishes them? I know which side I stand on, and I know that I speak for millions across this country when I say that we are not going to take this any more. The two-party stitch-up is finished. There is an alternative, and we will be offering it.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield Hallam) (Lab)
I begin by saying how much I respect the sincerity of colleagues who believe that the Bill will help address some of the difficult challenges that our country faces. I know many in this House are motivated by a genuine desire to improve lives and ensure that our welfare system is fair, sustainable and fit for purpose, but I have to say, with the deepest respect and regret, that on this occasion, I think we have got this wrong. Yes, the Labour Government have inherited a broken system on multiple fronts and, yes, we need reform, but we must be clear that reform cannot mean pushing disabled people further into poverty. It cannot mean referring to cuts as modernisation. Poverty has a price tag, and the cost-shunting that will be involved in these cuts will be plain to see in years to come and must be taken into consideration.
I support amendment 37 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which highlights the lack of value for money in the contracts for assessment. There are so many successful reassessments and appeals; it is clear that we are not getting value for money from these contracts, and that this is an expensive and ineffective model that Ministers should look at, if they are looking for savings. There are better ways forward, and that is reflected in many of the amendments that I am supporting.
New clause 8, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), would ensure that any changes to PIP must be brought forward in primary legislation. I strongly agree with that. Given the lack of time we have had to debate and give proper scrutiny to what is before us today, we should slow things down until the recommendations are brought back to us, so that we can have good-quality debate, and put better regulation and safeguards in place to prevent changes that would worsen eligibility for those who are already struggling or at risk of poverty.
New clause 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) calls for any review of PIP to be grounded in the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. In a sense, I am disappointed that such a clause might be needed, but it points to the fact that we need more transparency, independent oversight and, crucially, co-production with disabled people. There can be nothing about us without us, and I hope the Government are listening on that new clause.
Amendment 38, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), acknowledges the fluctuating nature of some medical conditions that can be unpredictable and debilitating. The amendment would ensure that people with those conditions are not left vulnerable, and that the process is responsive and serves its purpose of being a safety blanket to those who need it most. Countless organisations have reached out to me and many others to raise concerns. People with conditions including multiple sclerosis, Huntingdon’s, cancer and schizophrenia are concerned about how the changes will impact on them. Their voices must be heard in this place. The amendments do not block reform; I think they strengthen it. They will ensure that the Bill is evidence-led and rooted in fairness.
New clause 12 seeks to prevent people with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and victims of trafficking from accessing PIP and elements of universal credit. Although it is not a shock that the Opposition will use any debate as an excuse to have a game of migrant-bashing, I am disappointed that those ideas have made their way into this proposal. What they will not tell the public is that most migrants in the UK are already excluded from accessing PIP and universal credit because they have no recourse to public funds. That restriction acts as a blanket ban on access to the social security system for 3.6 million migrants. Is it really acceptable to deny access to PIP or other social security to those who have spent years living and working in the UK—paying taxes and astronomical visa fees, and finally securing indefinite leave to remain—based on their nationality rather than on their disability? The new clause threatens the fundamental principle of our immigration system—that those granted indefinite leave to remain should have access to many of the same rights as British citizens.
There are better choices we can make, and better ways to find the money that we are told we need to find. We can scrap the outdated marriage tax allowance, a gimmick of the Cameron Government that still costs us £590 million a year. We can close unjustifiable tax loopholes, such as the carried interest loophole used by private equity bosses, which would raise half a billion pounds. We can apply national insurance to investment income, raising over £10 billion. A modest 2% adjustment to the £207 billion handed out in non-structural annual tax reliefs would raise £4 billion alone each and every year.
Let us talk about those reliefs. There are roughly 1,180 tax reliefs in the UK. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has no idea what benefit 815 of them bring to the public. This is about choices—we hear all the time about “tough choices”—so why are we not choosing not to properly examine that £200 billion of public spending while we tighten support for disabled people, who are just trying to live? We can and should reform the system.
Imran Hussain
As ever, my hon. Friend is making a passionate case. Does she agree that, for many of us, our principled objection to the Bill remains? It will still balance the books on the backs of the most vulnerable; it will still bring poverty to our streets. Will she join me in my plea for the Bill to be withdrawn, which is the best option for the Government?
Olivia Blake
I agree. That is my plea to the Treasury Benchers: There is still time to withdraw the Bill and come back with something better.
These issues should be tackled head-on. It is unjust that, because of the way we have built society, each and every disabled person faces £1,000 in extra costs on average per month. None of that is optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was not designed with disabled people in mind. There is a whole host of reasons for that spending; they are the non-negotiable realities of having a disability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help, so listen to us.
Graham Stuart
A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, be it looking after the poor or the disabled, or any other priority. Yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled, and their unemployment Bill, jobs tax and other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can Labour Members not understand that if they do not prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, they will never be able to serve the most vulnerable, who depend on that growth the most?
Olivia Blake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting at that point, because I have two suggestions that I think would be good for growth. The first is to ask the British Investment Bank to support disabled people in setting up their own business, as it does women and those setting up a minority-led business. I know many ADHDers who would make great entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, sometimes they end up going down the path of criminality. We should consider how we can ensure that their innovation is enhanced and used properly.
The second suggestion is that we make our economy much more inclusive. There could be a national insurance contribution discount for taking on someone with a disability, who may be in receipt of PIP and may have been out of work for more than six months. I am sure that, through a more inclusive society, we can encourage growth, not discourage it.
I have taken up far too much time, so I will end with this. Disabled people know what is best for us. We should be investing in people’s independence, not leaving them on the sidelines or pushing them into poverty. That is a matter of justice, but in the end, it saves money as well. More than that, it gives people the dignity and freedom to live well. That, surely, should be our purpose.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I stand to support new clauses 8 and 11, and amendments 12, 38 and 39, among others, which I will mention as I go through my speech. I promise to keep to the unofficial four-minute time limit.
A week after the cruel Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and its arbitrary eligibility cut-offs was first discussed, we are today being asked to amend and pass this deeply flawed Bill in a couple of hours. Of course, it is now a completely different Bill from what was first introduced—even the title will be changed. I am not alone in welcoming the removal of clause 5, which means that no one will lose vital personal independence payments so that the Government can save some money. However, unlike other hon. Members, I do not believe that the UK Government’s concessions make the Bill any more worthy to become legislation.
The Government have conceded that placing an arbitrary cut-off date on PIP eligibility is unsupportable, so why on earth do they continue to do exactly that for claimants of the health element of universal credit? I commend the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) for amendment (a) to amendment 2, which would keep the health element of universal credit at £423.27 for all new claimants, rather than lowering the rate for people who are unlucky enough to require that support after 2026, which will cause real hardship. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimates that, without further changes, over 700,000 disabled people will still face a cut to their income of up to £3,000 a year by 2030.
We do not know what data has informed that approach or how it will impact on the great people of Wales. An assessment of the specific impacts on Wales has been necessary since the UK Government first announced their welfare cuts months ago. Now that their plans have changed considerably, that impact assessment is all the more crucial. People in Wales need transparency and certainty about how the changes will affect their lives.
In what functioning democracy does a Government Bill get fundamentally altered in the middle of the first debate on that very Bill, and then elected representatives are given only a few hours to scrutinise it before it is passed? We need time to scrutinise the Bill fully and effectively. We need time to co-produce it with the constituents whose lives it will affect. This is a chaotic and shameful state of affairs, especially in the light of the substantial impact that the Bill will have on thousands of disabled people on the lowest incomes.
Ann Davies
I am just coming to the end of my remarks, if the hon. Member does not mind. I am keeping to my four-minute time limit.
The Bill should be scrapped. It is neither fair nor compassionate welfare reform. It is not fit for our constituents.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.
I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria,
“at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.”
Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”.
I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he has done on this, and for helpfully highlighting that concern. It might help if I read briefly to him what the current training material for people applying the severe conditions criteria says about what level of function will always meet limited capability for work and work related activity:
“Although this criterion refers to a level of function that would always meet LCWRA, this does not in any way exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.
The key issue is that the person’s condition is not subject to such variability that their function would ever be significantly improved from the LCWRA descriptor identified”.
I hope that that, together with my earlier intervention, will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
Graeme Downie
I very much thank the Minister for his intervention, which I think will provide extensive reassurance to those with Parkinson’s and other conditions. I will keep a watching brief on this measure as it progresses, and I am aware that Parkinson’s UK has today received its own legal advice, which indicates that the application of the measure might not be quite as clear as the Minister intends.
My other concern is about the perhaps undue burden that the measure places on the guidance, as well as the perhaps unfair position in which it puts an assessor, which could lead to an inconsistent application of the guidance.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will know, as do many Members, that my father-in-law died from Parkinson’s two and a half weeks ago, so this is a personal issue for both me and my family, and for many constituents who have written to me in recent weeks regarding their concerns about the lack of clarity. I add my support to my hon. Friend’s calls for clarity. Although I am grateful for the Minister’s intervention, we must ensure that we get this right, and get it right soon.
Graeme Downie
I know that the thoughts of Members across the House are with my hon. Friend and his family. I know what a challenging time it has been, and the fact that he has been able to carry on his duties extensively, representing his constituents, is to his credit and something that his family will be incredibly proud of.
As I said, the Minister has been generous with his time, and I do not believe for a moment that his intention is to restrict access to the severe conditions criteria for those with Parkinson’s. Those words from the Dispatch Box are incredibly helpful, but I ask him to ensure that he keeps a close eye on the situation.
Robin Swann
As the hon. Member knows, I signed his amendment, but may I caution him before he accepts the Minister’s very kind guidance? Will he clarify that it is guidance? This is training documentation and it is subject to change. It is not contained anywhere in the Bill or the amendments, so what the Minister read to the Committee was simply training guidance.
Graeme Downie
Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern.
My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—
Patricia Ferguson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. As a signatory to his amendment, I wonder whether his discussions with the Minister have included someone with a condition such as relapsing-remitting MS who can spend long periods appearing to be perfectly healthy, but then have other periods when a crisis occurs and they are debilitated by their condition. Will the provisions that the Minister describes be sympathetic to those sorts of situations?
Graeme Downie
As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need.
Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of amendment 36. Over the past weeks, I have met numerous disability organisations, from Parkinson’s UK to Action for ME, and heard directly from those living with complex fluctuating conditions. I have also seen the impact at first hand as an employer of people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen and lived is simple: the current proposals risk unacceptable consequences for those who are already among the most vulnerable. The Government’s redefinition of “severe conditions” hinges on the word “constantly”—a single word that is of dubious clinical value. I appreciate the clarification given to other Members, but it is very late in the day to be getting such important information.
Conditions such as ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, MS, epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable and they fluctuate, yet the Bill would exclude many individuals who have them from vital support, simply because their symptoms do not comply with a Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that our assessment system respects the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. This affirms the principle of non-retrogression so that we do not roll back hard-won rights. It insists that we take invisible and episodic conditions seriously, and it protects people from falling through the cracks.
The Bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament, and at this point the most obvious course of action would be simply to pull it altogether and start again. I realise the political difficulties that that may involve, but vulnerable people’s lives are at stake. When the Government come to look again at some of the deleted clauses via the Timms review, it is essential to approach the issue from a “needs first” angle, not a “how much can I save?” angle, because so many Government cuts in the past have ended up costing more than they have saved.
I accept that the Government do not have infinite funds, but the PIP proposal represented an arbitrary change in eligibility—the four-point rule—with the crude objective of making a predetermined saving. It has all been the wrong way around: we should wait to understand needs first, and only then consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them.
Anna Dixon
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the concessions that the Government have brought forward and the amendments that are before us today ensure that we are getting it the right way around? It is explicit in the terms of reference that the changes are about a fair and fit-for-the-future assessment, rather than to generate further savings, so does he agree that the Bill allows us to get the Timms review done and to bring forward proposals after that?
John Milne
I cannot agree with the hon. Member, and I will partly explain why in a moment.
We need a more honest assessment of the overall financial situation that is being used to justify these drastic cuts, because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions. The dramatic rise in PIP claimants is at least partly driven by other Government policy; perhaps one quarter of the rise is simply due to raising the pension age. Large numbers of people who are older, and therefore more likely to be disabled, have been pushed out of pension support into benefit support. The state pension is paid out of current taxation, not past contributions, so the impact is immediate.
Kirsty Blackman
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the NHS and waiting lists. Does he share my concerns about the severe conditions criteria and the requirements for the diagnosis to be made by an NHS professional, in the course of NHS duty, when people may not have access to that? There is also a requirement for the condition to be considered “lifelong” by NHS professionals or health professionals, who may be unwilling to say that schizophrenia or bipolar disease, for example, are “lifelong” because they do not want to tie people down to that diagnosis.
John Milne
Yes, I agree that that is an additional concern.
The implication has been made, both by this Government and the previous one, that much of the rise in claims is down to benefit chasing and people simply exaggerating their conditions. This is an assumption that needs serious interrogation because it looks to be substantially untrue. For all these reasons and more, the best course of action would be to pull the Bill now and to make a fresh start. Denying adequate support today will only shift the burden tomorrow on to social care, the emergency services and our already overstretched NHS. We have been warned by the UN not once, but three times, that our welfare system is failing disabled people. Amendment 36 is a chance to show that we are listening.
Neil Coyle
I am concerned about some of the amendments before us today, in particular those that call for delays to legislation. We are one year into a five-year term—20% of this Parliament is gone—and the public need to see progress, not further delay.
I am mindful that Ministers have already done a huge amount of heavy lifting to rebuild trust with disabled people and disability organisations since the election. We should all recall that in July 2024, the Department for Work and Pensions was under formal investigation by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for unlawful treatment of disabled people. This Government have made considerable progress since then in trying to rebuild trust, including through measures in this Bill and linked to it, such as abolishing the work capability assessment. I have been here for 10 years—some might say it feels like longer—but before entering this place, I campaigned, as the chair of the Disability Benefits Consortium, to abolish the work capability assessment. I know that disabled people and their organisations are grateful and thankful for the inclusion of that measure in the wider package that the Government are bringing forward.
Although it seems to have been lost in some of the debates we have had on the subject, I am also mindful that in my own constituency, the number of claimants for PIP will rise in this Parliament, spending on that will continue to rise in this Parliament, and the 12,700 universal credit claimants in my constituency will get an additional payment under this Government’s plans, which will be the first ever above-inflation rise in universal credit. There is much to gain and much that is supported by disabled people and their organisations in the package that the Government have brought forward.
I particularly welcome the Government’s commitment to support more disabled people into work. We need to challenge ourselves a little more in this place about some of the language of vulnerability. Being seen automatically as vulnerable because of a health condition or impairment is not in line with the social model of disability. Many disabled people find that patronising and offensive, and we need to update our system, just as we updated our system thanks to previous Labour Governments. We had the first ever blind Secretary of State in David Blunkett—now Lord Blunkett—at a time when the benefits system said that blind people were not required to participate in work-related activity. The benefits system is not a static beast: it is an evolving creature that needs to be updated to reflect changes in assistive technology, medication and adaptation and advances in technology.
We must not end up with a system in which people are written off and parked in a system because it is too difficult to get them into work. That is not a Labour solution. We are the party of full employment, which must and should include disabled people if we are committed to disability equality and if we are the party of progress. I will chip in that this party takes no lectures on what is progressive from nationalists, whether it is Scottish nationalists or the populists in Reform. We see the costs to disabled people of parking under the former benefits system and legacy benefits: the longer that somebody is out of work, the more ill health that they experience, including mental health and depression, and the more costs that they incur for the NHS. There are state benefits and individual benefits for getting the right support.
I speak from rather too much personal family experience. My mum has schizophrenia and my dad had a stroke in his 40s. He was told by the jobcentre, “This is what you will get. Now, basically, sod off—we do not want to see you, and we do not expect to provide you with anything.” He found his own way back into work through going to university as a mature student—well, not that mature—at Newcastle University, and he graduated in the same year as me.
We should look at the wider picture of full employment. I particularly welcome the Government’s broader aim of reducing the disability employment gap, which was deeply neglected for 14 years, and transforming jobcentres from benefit administration centres. They had been failing not because of a lack of will or frontline staff, some of whom are absolutely excellent, but simply because the job they were given to do had changed from being about supporting people into work to simply administering a failing system that, as we discussed earlier, had the highest fraud levels ever seen in the UK social security system.
I think most of us believe that disability equality is measured not in the amount of benefits that individuals receive, but in the shared opportunities and access to life chances open to all in our country. I am deeply mindful of that, because while we had a lost generation under the 14 years of the Conservative Government and the Lib Dem coalition Government, we had a previous Government who were deeply committed to those issues. That Government published a report, 20 years ago today, called “Improving the life chances of disabled people” with an implementation and delivery date that was meant to provide those opportunities and equal access by 2025. Sadly, those coalition and Conservative years set back the clock.
The report is still available to all those who want to see it, and it talks about pathways to work and dedicated employment programmes being necessary, such as the new deal for disabled people. Those programmes were largely demolished by the coalition. It talks about the importance of the role of the NHS, GPs, occupational health and rehab. Again, a Labour Government are now fixing the wider NHS problems to make those aims and objectives deliverable today. The then Prime Minister’s strategy in the report committed to changing the system so that it tested functionality and ability to contribute, rather than writing people off. Again, this Government have had to come back to that after a lost decade.
We had a report 20 years ago that talked about the necessity of a better equipment system and the need to improve access to work—something that Ministers are committed to today and are beginning to transform with faster assessment processes and by delivering the kit needed. The report also talks about the importance of engaging with employers and the positive role that Jobcentre Plus could play in engaging employers early in the process. Sadly, we have seen a long delay in delivering those improved life chances, but this is a Labour party back in government and trying to deliver disability equality and improve the life chances of disabled people. The measures in this Bill are integral to that aim.
As I say, I am concerned about some of the amendments before us. I also have some concerns that the Bill needs to go further in tackling barriers to work for disabled people, such as the benefits structure, including for those in supported accommodation. It is great that we have the right to try, but more is necessary. We also need to go a bit further with employers, including around reasonable adjustments and ensuring that employers do not accept resignations based on ill health immediately, but look at the packages of support that might be necessary, as well as working with them to tackle discrimination. The Federation of Small Businesses in particular, which has done work on this issue previously, would be a really useful partner to have going forward.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, may I remind all Members that this is the Committee stage? Can we have some focus on the amendments we are debating this afternoon, not wide-ranging Third Reading speeches? At this rate, there will be little time for Third Reading.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I rise today to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country.
As the Resolution Foundation puts it, this Bill represents an
“income shock for millions of low-income households.”
That should give every Member in this Chamber pause. What is particularly troubling is that the areas hardest hit are the very communities that this Government claim to support—places in the north of England, in Wales and in my region of Yorkshire. These proud working-class areas are being failed by a Government tightening the purse strings on the most vulnerable.
In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment. I have had more than 150 constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. Those are not just numbers; they are real people with real needs. The universal credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country. One of my constituents, Andrew Waring, ran a business before 2020. Then covid left him with long-term organ damage. He could barely walk 10 metres, and his PIP payments became a lifeline. Cutting such support is not about trimming fat; it cuts into people’s dignity and survival. More than 20 civil society organisations have urged MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the Government’s amendments and the change introduced last week to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms review has concluded, people are still left concerned and in severe distress.
As it stands, clause 2 will leave 750,000 people, according to the Government’s impact assessment published last night, up to £3,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit and disability benefits have used a food bank in the past month, and this Bill will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to maintain the current universal credit health element. That cut will especially hurt people with mental health conditions who are already struggling to access support.
Many Members across the House have spoken in support of the other amendments that I also support, and I will not repeat their eloquent and informed speeches and the points they made. To conclude, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year in Parliament is to see a critical Bill, which will impact millions and millions of people in our country, rushed through the legislative process in a way that has not allowed the relevant time to understand, amend and improve it so that it is fit for purpose. I am sorry to say so, but this process has been a legislative mess.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I just want to make a gentle point to the hon. Member. He points out that the process feels rushed, but sitting here, I observe that there is not a lot of demand to speak from Members from any of the other parties on the Opposition Benches: just two Conservative MPs, no SNP MPs and no Reform MPs. Does he share my disappointment?
Iqbal Mohamed
I am unable to comment on the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers as “absent”. I am here to represent my independent alliance colleagues, all of whom strongly oppose the Bill as it is presented here today. It will adversely impact millions of people in our country—the people at the bottom of the food chain; the people who are struggling to feed their children, heat their homes, get to work, and keep appointments that are critical for receiving treatment that enables them to manage their conditions.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The hon. Member talks of the difficulty faced by people with disabilities. Many millions of those people are supported by family members who are unpaid carers. Does he agree that although the Government have said that they will work with disability groups and people who have disabilities, they should also co-produce whatever comes forward in conjunction with carers’ organisations?
Iqbal Mohamed
I do agree, and I repeat a point that was made earlier by one of my colleagues: the Timms review must include not just disabled people but disabled people of all ages, and also carers. As I said in my speech last week, this change could potentially cut £500 million from carer’s allowance for people who are caring for disabled relatives, the largest cut since the allowance was introduced in 1967. We urge the Government to maintain that holistic view of the change and the impact that it will have.
The process of the Bill—despite the objections from Labour Members—has been a legislative mess. What happened last week has been followed by today’s amendments, which will basically gut the Bill and focus the changes on universal credit. We have seen last-minute changes, a rushed timescale and a lack of proper scrutiny. Disability is not a choice. Needing help is not a failure. This Bill is not just bad policy; it is a betrayal. I urge every Member of the House to reject it.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I was keen to speak in the debate, to share with hon. Members my own lived experiences of our current welfare system and to explain why I support a number of the amendments.
My dad worked hard from the day he left school, at age 15, right the way through to the age of 55. He was an engineer. He paid his taxes and contributed to society. He never sought help from anyone throughout his life, and he was proud of the work ethic that he stood for. But on 13 August 2013, out of nowhere, he had a life-altering stroke. Overnight he completely lost the use of his left leg and left arm, his hand was almost always in a tight fist, and speech and memory became difficult. Although he had worked for the same engineering company for more than 20 years, his employment contract offered little financial support, and within just a few weeks he was struggling to make ends meet on statutory sick pay. As a family, we had never heard of personal independence payments or of universal credit. My dad did not want to apply, but financial realities meant that we had no choice.
We found a welfare system that was difficult to access. It was confusing, slow—incredibly slow—and at all times we found it frustrating and, frankly, dehumanising. We spent months and months going through the PIP application process, and all the while no financial support was forthcoming and things were tough—very tough. My parents were supported by the local food bank. They borrowed money and got into debt.
Having lived a difficult 10 years following his stroke, fighting against a system that he had paid into for so long, my dad died. In January 2023, having struggled to get a GP appointment, he developed pneumonia. He was placed in a medically induced coma, during which time he had a further stroke from which he never recovered. My dad, like so many others, was let down by the welfare system that was supposed to care for him, and let down by the NHS at the end of his life.
Given my background, the House can perhaps understand why I have found confronting some of the initial proposals in this Bill so difficult. I have seen at first hand how debates in Parliament and rhetoric from hon. Members impact on my own family and on my constituents, particularly with regard to their mental health. It is important that we recognise that disabled people so often feel that they are a burden. They feel that others think that their disability has been somehow manufactured, and that they are benefit cheats. Disabled people are not a burden; it is our privilege to support them.
It has been said of late that Labour is the party of work. Indeed it is, but through that labour we have a responsibility and duty to help others, and it is important that these values are reflected in any proposals. I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), which seek to ensure that those values are enshrined, because I agree that we absolutely should be doing more to support disabled people into work. Obvious barriers exist, particularly in more rural areas, such as my constituency, where transport options are limited and suitable work opportunities are more difficult to find. Of course we should support disabled people into work, but not by changing the rules and making eligibility for benefits more difficult.
Our public services are broken, and many of my hon. Friends have articulated well how bad things are. Following 14 years of Conservative failure, it should be no surprise that welfare claims are rising. It is the statistical inevitability of the state of our country.
In all the time I spent advocating for my dad at DWP appointments, medical assessments and work capability assessments, I would sit there and think, “What about the people who do not have someone fighting on their behalf? What hope do they have?” Navigating the system was bad enough for our family. What must it be like for others?
In our roles as MPs, we all have a responsibility to advocate for people who do not have a voice. If we want to reduce the welfare bill—I am sure we all want to do so—we must do so by fixing our broken systems. Millions of people are on NHS waiting lists, and many who want to work are not receiving the treatment that would enable them to do so. This Government are making tremendous progress on improving our NHS and healthcare systems, and we need to give that time to bring about the change that we seek. The welfare system is slow, expensive and inefficient, and it is riddled with private profit taking advantage. We must reform that, tackle that and reduce those costs.
Disabled people in this country have suffered disproportionately for years. Austerity and the last Conservative Government ruined lives, and people longed for a changed narrative under Labour. They voted for that change last July. If we are to move forward as a country, we must move forward together, and that includes disabled people.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
I understand that Sir Roger may already have made this point, but about 23 colleagues are still waiting to speak and we have roughly 88 minutes left. At four minutes each, most of you will get in. If you choose to take eight minutes each, half of you will get in. I will allow colleagues to make the decision as to whether they wish to help each other.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who is my constituency neighbour. I welcome and value his testimony and his authenticity of purpose in what he said.
I wish to speak in favour of my new clause 5, which I am pleased to say has been supported by many of my colleagues representing both inland and coastal communities. My new clause would require the Government to publish, within six months of the Bill passing, an assessment of how its provisions impact on coastal communities, such as mine in North Norfolk. That is really important, because this Bill could have a huge and detrimental impact on such communities, and I am deeply concerned that the Government have once again failed to consider coastal communities in their policy. I have heard from hundreds of worried constituents, and I am sure that the same is true of my coastal colleagues from across the House—we all know that our areas are too often overlooked and not valued enough by Governments. My new clause would ensure that the Government have to take account of how our areas will be particularly harmed by such badly thought-out changes.
What is on the face of the Bill as it stands will be really damaging to our coastal regions, even if we accept the Government amendments. Some of the highest rates of PIP claims are in coastal communities, as are some of the highest rates of unemployment. Considerably above-average rates of sickness, poor health and lower quality of life are found in coastal communities. If the Government press ahead with such blunt changes without supporting more people into work first, it could be catastrophic for communities all around our coastline.
Communities who are eager to get into work are faced with a litany of barriers that the Government are not doing enough to solve. We have real issues with public transport access, so for many trying to access inland employment, it is either too far or too hard to get to many jobs, or they see their pay packets eaten into disproportionately by bus or train fares. Almost one in five unemployed people have not applied for jobs or have turned down offers due to problems with transport.
This problem is even more acute among young people—both employed and not—who are nearly three times more likely than their older working age peers to turn down a job because they simply cannot get to it. These struggles extend to those accessing vocational training, which can be a new route into new trades and qualifications that are simply not accessible for many due to the distances required, or the lack of a workforce to provide the training. We have many talented people currently in receipt of PIP or UC who would be eager to train for an industry that they feel could allow them to work, but in communities such as mine the opportunities are just too lacking.
We know that the welfare system is not working—that is clear—but the Government have to stop looking at this issue as mere numbers on a balance sheet. When the Government do that and just look at ways to get to a magic number demanded by the Treasury, they ignore the people behind the numbers. There is an urgent need to tackle underemployment and, in particular, the rise in the number of young people with mental ill health being sentenced to a lifetime of worklessness. But ripping out the safety net will do nothing to help young people in coastal communities such as mine, who are three times as likely to suffer from undiagnosed mental distress than their inland equivalents in underprivileged areas.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Tewkesbury is not a coastal constituency, although once a year at least it feels as though it is, but my hon. Friend’s constituency shares a lot of the issues faced by my rural constituency. What he is getting at—and this is why I will be voting against the Bill—is that it does not present the means to get people back into work. Transport is one of the most significant barriers to that, as I hope he agrees.
Steff Aquarone
I completely agree that that barrier must be addressed, and the business case is so clear and easy to see. The Government should focus on supporting employment opportunities in our coastal communities by investing in our tourism and hospitality sectors, supporting training and development opportunities, and fixing our broken transport system. Yet again, I think many of these challenges might have been raised earlier if there was a Minister for coastal communities in the Government who could speak up for us.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
The hon. Member speaks with passion about coastal communities, and I share that passion because I also represent a coastal community. I am pleased that some of the barriers he has highlighted are in fact being addressed in my coastal community through the work there that has now been chosen as a trailblazer. Transport is one of those barriers, and the organisation working in Clywd North will break down transport barriers by finding routes and ways for people to get into training and work, and by paying for their transport as well. I know that the trailblazers are looking to roll that out countrywide at the end of the process. Does he agree that things can be done to overcome those barriers, including in our coastal communities?
Steff Aquarone
I look forward to the shareable case study from Clywd North when it is available, because things can be done, and doubtless they are being done, but we need to be doing them in every corner of the country and every coastal community around our country. I hope the Government accept my new clause 5 to force them to make a real assessment of how areas such as mine and that of the hon. Member’s will be affected by the proposals. However, I still urge them to scrap these badly designed changes, go back to the drawing board and come up with reforms that will support, not punish, our coastal communities.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Today, I rise not just with a heavy heart, but with huge disappointment. Despite the concessions made last week, the Bill remains a danger to disabled people, and it is not just a bad policy, but economically reckless. When we take away essential support, we do not reduce costs; we shift those costs on to the NHS, local authorities, unpaid carers and working-class communities.
Despite the hard-won concessions, this Bill remains an assault on disabled people. It is not a strategy for inclusion or support; it is a calculated effort to slash funding and vital support from those of our constituents who need it the most. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, it will mean £2 billion-worth of cuts, which are set to cost around 700,000 future universal credit recipients an average of £3,000 each year by 2030. The Bill will push 50,000 people into poverty and will be disastrous for people already living in poverty. I was not elected as a Labour MP to take money out of the pockets of the poorest and most vulnerable.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I wish to speak in favour of amendments 12, 13 and 17, and Liberal Democrat new clauses 2, 3, 6 and 7.
The Bill has been an absolute shambles from the start; there was no consultation with disabled people, and there has been last-minute chopping and changing. The Timms review and the removal of the PIP elements of the Bill are welcome, but the process that got us there has left disabled people in Yeovil fearful, and with little confidence in the Government. For example, my constituent Noel has unfortunately been unable to work due to a degenerative condition. He receives universal credit and has been left deeply distressed by the proposed changes; he visits my office almost daily for support. He is not alone. So many people in Yeovil have made it clear that the proposals are just unfair.
The whole point of the Bill, as far as I can tell, was to get people back into meaningful work and lower the welfare bill—things that I think we all want—but at no stage has the Bill done what is needed to help get people back into meaningful work: address the crisis in our NHS and social care system, and our growing chronic health issues. I have constituents who would have ended up homeless as a result of the original proposals, and now, without a full impact assessment, we do not really know what effect the Bill will have on our constituents. I am really concerned that people with Parkinson’s and conditions like MS will effectively be excluded, as a result of the criteria, from the higher rate of the health element of universal credit. At the very least, I urge colleagues to support amendment 17 to address that.
The original Bill was supposed to save around £5.5 billion, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts that the amended version will deliver basically no savings over the next four years, as over that period, the forecast savings from reducing the universal credit health element for new claimants will be offset or exceeded by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance. What is the actual point of this Bill?
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
My hon. Friend and neighbour’s constituency, like mine, is extremely rural; he will know that the cost of delivering services in rural areas is four to five times higher than it is in urban areas. PIP allows people to live independently. Both my hon. Friend and I see integrated care boards that are under extreme financial pressure. We will end up paying one way or another—we might as well give people the independence to live freely while we do it.
Adam Dance
I completely agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour. We will see a huge impact from ICBs having to make a 50% cut. We are already seeing the impact in Yeovil, as hon. Members will have heard me say. The maternity unit has had its funding cut, and is being shut for six months.
The Bill was not produced with disabled people; lots of its content is being removed; there is no impact assessment; and the Bill is not likely to make any real savings. This tells me that the Government should go back to the drawing board, and either withdraw the Bill, or adopt the Lib Dem amendments and new clauses that require proper consultation and impact assessments. Either way, the Government must stop making decisions about disabled people without them.
I thank some Labour Back Benchers for having a backbone and voting against their Government in support of disabled people. I hope they do so again today.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
I rise to disagree with Opposition new clause 12, which would indefinitely block the provisions of the Bill. I am speaking today not only as the MP for Beckenham and Penge, but from personal experience, as one of the few Members of this House who has been a recipient of the higher rates of the disability living allowance and mobility allowance, and having relied on a Motability car throughout my teenage years. I will speak to why the provisions in the Bill are so welcome, and to the damage that the Conservative new clause would do to it.
First, this legislation and the wider debate we are having do not exist in a vacuum. The Bill cannot be separated from the impact of more than a decade of savage cuts to our NHS and community care services, which have led to what one NHS manager describes as “medieval” levels of untreated illness. In poorer parts of the country in particular, community care has been decimated, and A&E attendance has almost doubled since 2010. This country now has the lowest life expectancy in western Europe, one of the highest rates of preventable deaths among rich countries, and one of the lowest numbers of neighbourhood nurses and GPs per head among wealthy nations. The dismantling of preventive care has not only brought our NHS to the brink; it has done more than anything else to drive the increase that we are discussing in the number of people who are on health-related benefits and who are disabled. I can speak to that from personal experience.
When I was 13, I had an accident in which I shattered my right hip. It left me unable to walk for four years. I needed nearly 10 major operations on the NHS at the Royal London hospital and the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, and when I was a sixth former, I became one of the youngest people in the country to have a hip replacement. When I had my first hip replacement in the 2000s, under a Labour Government, the average waiting time for a hip replacement in Britain was under nine weeks, although, thanks to the staff at the Royal National orthopaedic hospital, I was seen even quicker. I then received excellent rehabilitation care, with hydrotherapy every other day.
After 14 years of Conservative Government, the waiting list for a hip replacement has trebled from nine weeks to 27 weeks. That is up from two months to more than six months. It is not uncommon in Britain today to wait up to two years for a hip replacement, and rehabilitation services are non-existent.
This situation is replicated for other treatments. The Nuffield Trust notes that there was an increase in waiting times of nearly 300% for respiratory medicine services under the previous Government. The ballooning of NHS waiting lists and the list of people on health-related benefits go hand in hand, so we cannot divorce progress on the issues that we are discussing today from progress on the NHS. We are already seeing great strides forward. Following record investment from this Government, our NHS is on track to achieve a target of 92% of patients waiting no longer than 18 weeks from referral to treatment. There has also been investment in rehabilitation services, such as hydrotherapy, which are essential.
We must also understand this debate in the context of cuts to other community and preventive services, including programmes such as Sure Start. I was very proud to have had the opportunity to work for Tessa Jowell, who created Sure Start under the last Labour Government. Tessa understood the importance of a child’s first 1,000 days, and designed Sure Start as an early intervention programme, which had a significant and positive impact on the long-term outcomes for hundreds of thousands of families and children in this country. The programme was savagely cut by the previous Government in one of the most short-sighted and cruel things that they did over 14 years. That has led to increased hospital admissions. Evidence shows that young people who had access to Sure Start were more likely to be in very good or excellent health.
Alongside this investment and the great progress that this Government are making on health, we also need to reform the DWP and the systems around health-related benefits in this country. That is why opposing new clause 12 is so important today.
I want to touch on what happens when a person has had medical treatment and is looking to get back into the world of work, and also on the right to try, which is in the Bill. In essence, the Bill says that trying work will not trigger a PIP award review or work capability assessment. The importance of this is borne out in research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, published in November last year, which said that almost three quarters of work-related disability benefit claimants whom it surveyed cited a fear of losing benefits as a significant or very significant barrier to work.
The right to try matters, because people with a disability or a significant health condition often will not know what they are capable of doing until they have tried to do it. They may not know what adjustments they will need to get back to work. Eight years ago, I was told that I would need a series of operations on my ankle and knee, followed by a second hip replacement—a revision to the one that I had received a decade earlier. After this, I optimistically thought that I would be able to return to work five days a week in the office as soon as I could walk unaided. I was not able to do so; it would take several months for me to do that again. I was fortunate that I had been with my employer for several years, and I had six months’ unpaid leave, which allowed me to try and initially fail to get back to work. However, for anyone relying on support from the DWP today, the reality is often very different.
We have a perverse and inflexible system in this country, which has been designed to penalise and issue sanctions, rather than incentivise and provide support. It is a broken welfare system, designed by the previous Government, that is failing people. It traps people by telling them that the only way to get help is to declare that they will never work again. It creates a climate of fear—a fear that if they try to work, they will lose their support. This Government are absolutely right to challenge and reform the system, and I am fully behind them doing so. If implemented well, the right to try will make a really big difference to getting people back to work, and will go some way to dismantling the fear that surrounds the DWP for disabled people. It is a positive measure that will empower disabled people, rather than patronise or infantilise them. It has been campaigned on for decades. It is long overdue, so I am pleased to see it in the Bill.
Finally, I wish to touch on co-production. I am pleased to see it in the Bill, but new clause 12 would block it. Co-production brings people together. It leads to policy that is more person-centred and effective, and outcomes that are more equitable and sustainable. It is not only essential in all conversations about disability policy, but particularly important when legislation passes through a Chamber like this one, which so starkly under-represents the voices and lived experiences of disabled people.
Although disabled people make up 20% of the population, only 2% of MPs are disabled. I think everyone in this Chamber has received an A1 print-out of an election map. I have one in my office. The top right-hand corner of that poster lists the women, ethnic minority, and LGBT MPs, but it has never been lost on me that there are no disabled MPs included.
Disabled people are a marginalised minority who are so often overlooked in every corner of public life. As we look to reform our welfare system and the institutions across society, I hope we will stick true to the principle of co-production so that services and policies are designed and implemented in a way that empowers disabled people and meets their real needs.
Ms Creasy
At Committee stage, we often table amendments to try to understand the nature of the legislation. Many questions are being put forward in this concertinaed process. The first is whether we should make policy by phone-in rather than on an evidence base. That is the only justification I can see for new clause 12 tabled by the Opposition, who appear not to understand that no recourse to public funds guides the lives of many migrants in our community. It contains a fundamentally un-British perspective on people who come here and work for many years in our national health service, and who then have a stroke or perhaps develop MS. Under the Opposition’s proposals, we would deny such people the support they have paid into as taxpayers. It is a dog whistle so loud that I fear the dogs in Battersea right now are having a terrible time. We should not make policy by phone-in but by evidence, and I pay tribute to the incredible words of my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who bring their own experiences to this debate.
I will speak to new clause 4, which I tabled, as well as to other amendments. Those amendments come from my experience of what makes good policymaking in this place and from my concern that we need to protect our constituents from the vagaries of public policy. I think in particular of a 62-year-old constituent of mine who is physically disabled with a mobility condition called ankylosing spondylitis—I will tell Hansard how to spell that. She works full time and lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her. Removing, messing around with and playing with her benefits—as this Bill would do for millions of people around this country—will not save money; it will simply cost more. My constituent would struggle to get to work and to look after herself, which she can do using the welfare support that she gets under the current system. That means we will face higher costs in the long run.
I wish that Members would learn from the evidence on the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax was brought in under the same metric that we heard from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer here—that somehow people who are supported by our welfare system are probably making it up. This is not a moral argument I am making; the bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to save, because it just pushed costs into other parts of the public sector. That is why it is so important that agree to new clause 4 and weave the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into this legislation. It should be guided by principle not prejudice—in particular the principle that we should respect our fellow human beings and our constituents who have a disability.
New clause 4 covers the question of co-production, and on this point I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) is not in her place. I want to come back to that question, because there is a very important principle about co-production that we have not bottomed out, and I want to hear from the Minister about it. There is a simple premise that we signed up to in the UN convention, which I hope Members across the House would support, that there should be an adequate standard of living—that is identified in article 28. Crucially, article 19 also sets out that there should be an independent living process for our disabled constituents. That is why in 2017, 2024 and indeed 2025, when the UN criticised the previous Government, we rightly held them to account for it. What do we wish for our disabled constituents, if not an independent and equal standard of living? What do we wish for them, if not the basic human right to be treated equally? We must recognise that the world we live in does not work for them, and we must account for that through our welfare system so that they can live freely and, yes, play a part in the world of work while also living with dignity.
It is about very practical things, such as the freedom that comes from someone having a carer who helps them get dressed so that they can go to work. That is supported by our welfare system. It is also about travel costs, especially for those living in my constituency, where Transport for London seems to be hellbent on breaking down all of the stations so that they are not accessible. Covering those costs means that someone can go out to see family and friends. There is also the food that someone might need if they have a condition like phenylketonuria—a metabolic condition that means a person needs a low protein diet. These are not equal experiences, but by using our welfare state to support those people, we can have ensure that they have the human rights we wish them to have.
New clause 4 is about giving due regard to the principles set out in the UN charter so that benefits are calculated in a way that means they are sufficient to allow people to live a life of freedom equally alongside their fellow human beings. The payments we make must meet those tests so that disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses. That is a question that many hard-working people who are struggling at the moment in their lives can recognise well.
It is about levelling the playing field. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, about making fools of us all. Those are principles that I hope the Government will commit to weaving throughout the legislation. That is why new clause 4 matters: it goes beyond the principle of co-production, which I know the Minister has recognised, to the basic principle of how we treat people. That would apply to the universal credit health element of the Bill. If we restricted a benefit, it would call on us to ask why we consider somebody to need X amount at this point in time but Y amount in the future, and to ask whether that will live up to the required standard of living.
I want to touch on co-production in particular. Many have talked about it, but people do not necessarily understand what it means. It is not consultation. Co-production means that whoever is included can say no as well as yes. Without a power of veto, all we have is a better managed consultation. Co-production genuinely empowers every participant to shape things, because they can walk out of the room as well as being part of it.
The Minister has talked about seeking consensus, but it is not an equal relationship if disabled people are not given the clear power to veto what is put on the table, such that the Government have to work with them so that they do not use their veto. That is the principle of co-production—that is why it is not consultation—and that is what we should be seeking.
I have much sympathy for new clause 8—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is not in his place—because I was here in 2015 when George Osborne used statutory instruments to slash the tax credits that our constituents relied on and 3 million people were pushed further into poverty. I was also here when MPs on both sides of the House expressed frustration about the use of that process. We had to watch the House of Lords clear up our mess and stand up to the Chancellor for using delegated legislation to take £1,300 away from our constituents. I hope the Minister will understand that this is not about this individual Bill or even about his good intentions; I know that he has engaged with all of us. It is about the principle that if we are to change the law, we should be able to amend and adjust that law and scrutinise it on behalf of our constituents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) set out many alternative ways in which we could switch spending to invest in order to save money in the long run. There are many different ways in which we can support our economy to grow; it does not have to be off the backs of our disabled constituents. There is also the important principle here—I know many on the Labour Benches believe this—that socialism is the language of priorities. Our priority must be to empower and enable every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential—and yes, that happens through a growing economy, and also through a welfare state.
I hope that the Minister will address the amendments that seek to ask questions about how we get this right. For many of us those unanswered questions are troubling —we cannot bring back answers for our constituents—because they tell us that we may not achieve those things that I have set out. None of us who have lived through George Osborne and the bedroom tax ever want to go back to that again. We want to be able to say to our constituents, who might find themselves in the position of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, that we can absolutely be proud of the system we are building today, just as we are proud of my hon. Friend himself.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them.
I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities.
This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one.
DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future.
A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care.
This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones.
I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
I rise to speak in favour of a variety of amendments, which I will mention as I go. In the life of an MP, not a day goes by without hearing from a constituent with an issue relating to benefits or health. We can all think of the people we have met who have suffered badly after 14 years of austerity imposed by the Conservative party. Our sick, disabled and vulnerable were left trapped in a doom loop, living hand to mouth and battling worsening mental health, while fighting a broken system that fails far too many.
I doubt many hon. Members in this Chamber have personal experience of the cruel welfare system. I do. I first became ill at work with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, which is a heart condition. Not long after, I suffered a pulmonary embolism and almost lost my life. That was followed by a total mental breakdown. Punitive sickness policies meant I was soon being managed out of the job I loved so much by human resources, which refused to acknowledge the recommendations of occupational health.
I was in receipt of universal credit for about a year, receiving £690 a month, but that did not even cover my rent and bills, and I was at risk of losing my rented home. Thankfully, I had friends and family to support me, but not everyone is that fortunate. My confidence plummeted, and the feelings of failure, rejection and uselessness at not being able to sustain myself were all-consuming. Nobody chooses this life. In fact, just yesterday the United Nations wrote to the Government stating that the rhetoric, language and false statements used when discussing welfare is damaging, as well as raising concerns about human rights violations.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I will speak to the Government amendments and against some other amendments. Before I was elected, I worked for the trade union Unison where I was the national officer for disability equality. In that job, I saw every day how disabled people who love their jobs are often pushed out of the workplace by employers who refuse to make the small changes that would help them to thrive at work.
Through the Mayfield review, this Labour Government are seizing the opportunity to finally make the workplace more accessible for disabled people. The Employment Rights Bill will bring in flexible working, allowing disabled workers to perhaps start a little later in the morning when tablets have kicked in or to work from home to avoid the painful morning rush hour. Alongside that, I have also introduced my own Bill for a deadline for employer responses to reasonable adjustment requests from disabled workers. We are transforming the workplace for disabled people, and Labour is also making work pay. No longer will it be a choice between benefits and a bargain basement job. We have increased wages for 3 million low-paid workers, committed to introducing mandatory disability pay gap monitoring and delivered the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation.
Government new clause 1 and associated amendments will ensure that for those who cannot work, their universal credit health benefit will increase in line with inflation. The Bill ends the absolute indignity of constant reassessments for those with severe conditions. Almost 15,000 families in Ealing Southall will also see the basic rate of universal credit increase by a record amount, lifting thousands of children out of poverty across the country. New clause 12 would rob those 15,000 families of that money—it must be rejected.
It cannot be right that almost 3 million people are off work long-term sick, 1 million young people are not earning or learning, and a thousand people a day are applying for PIP. We are an outlier internationally. No other country in the world sees the same massive increase in people on sickness-related benefits. It is unique to this country, and we do no favours to people with long-term conditions by ignoring it. The Tories created this broken system where people are better off on sickness benefits than in work and there is no help for those who want a job. Everyone knows the system needs reform, but amendments 2(a), amendment 2(b) from the Chair of the Select Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), Conservative amendments 50 to 55, and new clause 12 would continue to put reform on the long finger and delay change.
Last August, after 14 years of the Tories, when I visited west Ealing jobcentre and asked who I could speak to if I was a disabled person who needed a job that would work around my needs, I was told there was no one—no one at all. That is why we need change now. Under Labour, west London is one of the 14 Get Britain Working trailblazers across the country. People on long-term sickness benefits with back pain and other musculoskeletal conditions, which are the second biggest reason why people claim health-related benefits, have been contacted and asked if they want help to get a job, and hundreds have replied that they do. They have been sat there waiting for us to contact them. Those people were ignored by the previous Government—people who wanted to work but were left on the scrapheap.
Some £8 million from the Government is helping west Londoners into work. The Bill is part of a much bigger £1 billion plan to extend that to every jobcentre and to every disabled person who wants a good job. The new right to try will build a more flexible benefits system that does not force people to put themselves in a box, locked out of work for ever, but allows them to try work without losing benefits.
I am glad that the Government have ensured that no one on PIP will lose it, and that they will co-produce the PIP review with disabled people—it has been over a decade since the PIP system was last reviewed, and since then we have learned more about the impact of mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions—but true co-production means letting the review go ahead without this House trying to control it, so we must reject the rigidness of new clauses 8 and 11 in favour of true co-production.
Disabled people were let down again and again by the previous Government. Labour is finally delivering equality for disabled workers while fixing the broken system that forces almost 3 million people to languish on long-term sickness benefits without help. If colleagues across the House genuinely want reform that builds a better, more flexible benefits system that makes work pay, takes 50,000 children out of poverty and properly supports disabled people who cannot work, they must do more than just talk about it; they must vote for the Bill and get on with the job of changing Britain for the better.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 11, amendment 38 and the Bill more broadly. This informed debate has been conducted respectfully. Throughout the entire process, it has been illuminating to hear from so many Members with such in-depth personal, familial and professional experience. I urge those on the Government Front Bench to look upon such Members from across the House as a resource, because they speak with great authority. I mention in particular the speeches by my hon. Friends the Members for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), which were so informative.
May I correct one earlier comment? We heard from one Opposition Member that “no recourse to public funds” means “recourse to public funds.” Well, the clue is in the descriptor. I know that Boris Johnson struggled with that, but “no recourse to public funds” means exactly what it says.
I wish to speak about the impact were the House to pass amendment 2. I recognise that the amendment adopts some of the previously announced concessions and somewhat limits the damage of clause 2. But let me be clear: even with the amendment, the clause is not acceptable. The Bill is not welfare reform; it is a cut—deliberate, far-reaching and deeply damaging. Even after amendments, clause 2 will remove £2 billion from disabled people in the years ahead. Three quarters of those affected are already in material deprivation. Around 750,000 individuals—people who are too ill to work—stand to lose an average of £3,000 a year. Members must consider today which constituents whose doors they knock on will find themselves £3,000 a year worse off. The weekly top-up for those too unwell to work, which is currently £97, will fall to £50 for new applicants—the same condition and need as current claimants, but half the support. That is not fairness; it is the creation of a two-tier welfare system. We are not talking about abstractions; we are talking about people who cannot walk 50 metres, or who need constant supervision, or who cannot operate a keypad unaided. They currently receive £423 per month. Soon, some could receive as little as £217 per month. That is not a budget decision; it is a moral one.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
One amendment tabled by the Conservatives seeks to strip foreign nationals of the right to claim benefits. That could mean that some people are left with no support whatsoever, which could include my father, who has been in this country for 40 years and paid into the system. The amendment tabled by the Conservatives is absolutely despicable, and I invite the hon. Member to join me in agreeing with that statement.
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes a powerful point. We have to raise our heads and look at our brothers and sisters, who are actively and economically engaged in our country, and think about the contribution they make and the payments they make into the Treasury, through tax and national insurance. We must treat them with dignity and respect, rather than trying to other them at every opportunity.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The hon. Member makes an incredibly powerful and telling point about the disincentive of trying to get into work for people who have a varying and fluctuating condition, such as MS. That is an unanswerable point and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say in response. Does he agree with me that in conversations that the Minister has with what we are too lazily inclined to refer to as “the disabled community”, unless we are able to break down disabled groups into those who have a permanent condition and those who have a fluctuating condition, and to individually tailor responses to that, it will be a missed opportunity to get this right?
Andy McDonald
The hon. Member makes an important point, and it is critical that that is reflected on the face of the Bill. With all sincerity, we cannot walk away from here thinking that guidance notes are enough. They may change fundamentally in further iterations and say something completely different from what this honourable and decent Minister is saying to us today. Policy for disabled people must be made with them, not imposed upon them.
If we are serious about ending austerity, we cannot keep balancing the books on the backs of the poorest. That means revisiting not just what we spend, but who we tax and how. We have heard about the party of millionaires making their case that this country has done so well by them—they are so privileged to have made a success of their lives and to have flourished—that they are looking at the opportunities they were given and saying, “Please, we can make a further contribution.” It is they who made the argument about a wealth tax that would raise £24 billion. Nigel Lawson, when he was Chancellor, thought that the differential between capital gains tax and income tax was an anathema, and he equalised it, so there are opportunities for us there.
The Employment Rights Bill also presents us with wonderful opportunities. If we could grasp the issue of “single status of worker” and deal with the issue of bogus self-employment, limb (b) employment, zero-hours contracts and the rest of it, that not only represents secure, well-paid, unionised work for people to give them a flourishing life; it also gives us the opportunity to collect currently uncollected tax and national insurance, to the tune of £10 billion per annum. That would also mean supporting people according to their needs. That is not Marx, but the Acts of the Apostles.
This is a moment of reckoning. The country expects better. If we are to lose our nerve now, we will lose more than a vote: we will lose the trust that brought us here. We must reflect that during our discussions about the Bill, each and every one of us has heard the response from our constituents and our offices that this has been a shambles—there is no other word to describe it. Now is the moment to stop the cuts and I implore the Government to rethink the Bill.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I rise to support my new clause 10, as well as a number of other amendments tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends, including new clause 8, new clause 11 and amendment 38.
I welcome the concessions that the Government have made to the Bill, which I will be supporting. I pay tribute to the disabled and chronically ill people whose tireless campaigning led to those concessions—I have been proud to stand with them. However, the changes do not alleviate all my concerns about the Bill. One in three disabled people are already in poverty. The Bill, even after the Government’s amendments, would take around £3,000 a year from the disabled people of the future, at a time when the extra cost of being disabled is set to rise by 12% in the next five years.
The Government’s analysis states that the measures in the Bill will lift 50,000 people out of poverty. However, analysis from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation shows that they would actually push 50,000 disabled people into poverty. We know that benefit cuts and loss of payments help to trap women experiencing domestic abuse, make children grow up in poverty and even cost lives, like that of my constituent Philippa Day, who died from a deliberate overdose after her benefits were wrongly cut.
This is particularly pertinent to those with fluctuating conditions, who risk losing LCWRA status during periods of temporary improvement. That is why amendment 38 is so vital, as it would ensure that they are protected. Even with the Government’s concessions, not a single disabled people’s organisation supports this Bill. It is at the request of the disabled people’s organisations forum in England that I have tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to publish a human rights memorandum before the Bill can be enacted.
No analysis of the impact of the Bill on the human rights of disabled people has been published so far. Last year, the UN found that there had been further regression in the “grave and systemic violations” of disabled people’s rights in the UK, which it reported on in 2016. Last night, the UN wrote to the Government to say that it had “received credible information” indicating that the Bill will “deepen” that regression. We should not proceed with the Bill as it stands.
Disabled people’s organisations remain sceptical about the Timms review into PIP. I am hopeful that the Government will support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), which would make provision for commitments around co-production and oversight. They must also support new clause 8, which would ensure that changes from the Timms review are introduced as primary legislation. That is essential in ensuring democratic scrutiny—otherwise, MPs will not be able to amend or vote on the legislation. It would also prevent a reduction in eligibility for PIP, which we know would be disastrous and which motivated so many of us on the Government Benches to call on the Government to think again.
I joined the Labour party because of what I experienced and witnessed growing up as a child and a teenager under the Conservatives. As a disabled MP, I have first-hand experience of the disability benefits system. We have all met constituents who are already not getting the support they need. The question today is this: do we let their number grow? If the answer is no, I urge Members to support the amendments that would strengthen protections for disabled people and, ultimately, to vote down this Bill.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, because I think they get to the heart of the unfairness contained within it.
There can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that trust was eroded between the Government and disabled people’s organisations—that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over the coming months. We should therefore recognise that a positive step in that direction is the Government’s decision to pause on the issue of PIP reform and to place those decisions in the hands of the Timms review. However, that is not enough, because the Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for more than 750,000 future claimants.
From next April, we will have created a two-tier benefits system based not on health needs, but on the date when a claim was made. In fact, there are already nearly 4.8 million disabled people living in poverty today across the country. That is a damning indictment of our welfare system and should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not to make it go even higher.
The numbers are stark. Taking £3,000 a year, or £250 a month, from disabled people’s income will force families to a crisis point and into further reliance on food banks. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims that if the cuts are not removed, an additional 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, three quarters of all universal credit health element recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live. If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefits system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of universal credit would not also be part of the Timms review.
Ian Lavery
Is my hon. Friend aware that 25% of those claiming the health element of universal credit used a food bank last year, or that a third of those who claim it could not afford to heat their homes last year?
Neil Duncan-Jordan
That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Last week, I voted against the Government because I was not happy with the proposals on the table. When the Bill was initially put forward, I was particularly concerned about the proposed changes to PIP eligibility criteria, which in my view were arbitrary and risked taking support from those who need it most. I am glad to say that the Government have listened and acted.
As a result of Government amendment 4, which will remove changes to PIP eligibility, alongside making other positive changes, I can now—carefully and with reservations—support the Bill as amended. The removal of changes to PIP eligibility criteria from this Bill protects carers and prevents the consequential loss of carer’s allowance. As a former carer, that is important to me.
I have put a lot of thought into this issue over the preceding weeks. I have listened to my constituents, and I have been thinking about what is important to them. Not only have the amendments removed the changes to PIP that I was worried about, but the Bill will now include vital increases to the basic level of universal credit. I do not feel able to vote against that today.
We inherited a heck of a mess from the last Conservative Government, and I do not think anyone disagrees that there is a need for change. We need a system that is well designed, that works, and that is fair to both claimants and other taxpayers, so I welcome the ministerial review of the PIP assessment. Co-production with disabled people and the organisations that represent them is particularly welcome. Conducting a thorough review in genuine co-production, leading to well-thought-out proposals for reform, is the right thing to do.
Simon Hoare
With the greatest respect, the hon. Lady is putting the cart before the horse, as are the Government. You do your review first, you find out what it says, and you tailor your policies and your response to it. Is that not the best way of making policy? This half-baked idea satisfies no one.
Lizzi Collinge
I think the hon. Gentleman has missed the bit where the Government are taking out clause 5 and the measures on the PIP eligibility criteria, and are doing the review first, but I thank him for his intervention.
I will hold the Government to account for their promises about the review. I also endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), and support her new clause 11.
This debate has involved a huge raft of different issues, and they have been conflated at times, so before I talk about the other changes that I support, I want to emphasise that PIP is not just an out-of-work benefit. It is claimed by people both in and out of work, and it is there to help with the extra costs associated with disabilities and long-term conditions. However, there is also a huge disability employment gap, and a great many people who want to work cannot, simply for lack of a bit of support—some health treatment, or an employer who will make reasonable adjustments. I am therefore pleased that plans for employment support have been brought forward, and that there will be extra investment earlier.
I should make it clear that my concerns always focused on a small part of the broader reform package, but for reasons of time, I will not go into them. These are vital steps towards fixing the system. I will not say that I have no concerns left—I have, which is why I support amendment 17, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie)—but no policy or solution will be perfect. No Green Paper can address everything, and no legislation can get everything right.
In these past few weeks, I have been reminded of something that my friend Joe once said to me: “Politics is not a game to be played. It’s people’s lives, and people’s lives matter.” No wonder our constituents have so little faith in our political system, when what should have been a debate about the rights and wrongs of a policy and about the lives of those constituents has turned into a debate about the Westminster bubble, not the people we serve. The Westminster bubble ought to be popped, and quickly.
The views of the House have been made clear over the last couple of weeks, and I am glad that the Government have listened. I will always speak out, as I know my colleagues will, without fear or favour, and we will always fight for a better, fairer welfare system for everyone.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I rise to support the removal of clause 5 and the associated amendments, and to comment on a few other amendments, based on what I have read and learned.
Many things have been said in this debate, in the Chamber and outside, but it is undeniable that the system is not working for far too many people. We see a welfare bill rising, people trapped on benefits, and opportunities lost. The most heartbreaking part of all this is not the monetary cost, which we seem to talk about too much, but the cost to people of being written off, and spending a lifetime in a failed, broken system. We all hear stories every week, through our casework and in our surgeries, of people who want to work but do not have the necessary support; of the intrusive nature of assessments; of bureaucracy that needs a human touch; of people fearing to try work for fear of losing their benefits; and of disabled people who need more support.
One of my hon. Friends, who is no longer in the Chamber, spoke about the broken social contract. While we approach this debate, and this subject, with the compassion and care that are needed, we should also be clear that the social contract is already broken. There is nothing honourable about denying or slowing down action to tackle the problem of 2.8 million people being thrown on the scrapheap for being sick, or long-term sick. There is nothing to cherish from the Conservatives, who left this Government a legacy of nearly 1 million young people thrown on the scrapheap, not in employment, not in education and not in any meaningful walk of life. No one can say that the system is not broken, and that is the spirit in which many of us in this Chamber have sought, from different perspectives, to approach this legislation. I want to speak against amendments that seek to delay or wreck this Bill, because whatever happens next, we need to get going.
One of the criticisms of this Government that I sometimes hear is that we do not move fast enough. Now that we have started to fix our broken welfare system, we are being told by some that we are going too fast. I think we can move forward with a Bill that begins to fix the foundations of our welfare system, and do so with compassion for those most in need, and I welcome contributions that we have heard today. I also welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to our concerns about the Bill and decided last week to remove clause 5, because it caused anxiety not just to Members of this House, but to many people outside who saw the risk.
Bringing the Timms review forward before any changes are made, and committing to fully involving disabled people and their organisations, is the right thing to do; the Government have listened. I recognise many of the points made in passionate speeches, and I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). I hope the Minister will address that, and assure the House that the sentiment has been taken on board, because the new clause will make the Bill better, not worse, and clear the fog.
It is important that we push ahead with this Bill. As colleagues have said, work is central to Labour’s mission, because dignity comes from good work and from employers who embrace their employees and give people the ability to work. There is no dignity in allowing 2.8 million people to be thrown on the scrapheap, with no ability to get off it.
Tom Hayes
I recognise exactly what my hon. Friend is saying, because both my parents were forced out of work. They were unwell, and could not get the support they needed from the NHS. They could not get a foot in the door of the social security system and, as their health got worse, they got further away from the workforce. I wish that we had had better support for them.
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is positive that the Government are open to setting a disability employment target, which could drive action? In my constituency of Bournemouth East, the rate stands at an unacceptable 24% after 14 years of the Conservatives.
Andrew Pakes
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He makes a powerful case for why our job today is to fix the Bill, not kill it.
We should be passionate about the centrality and dignity of work. Unemployed young people in my constituency, and those who are disabled, are frustrated by a system that does not work, and they want the Government to work with them to fix it. That mission was true 80 years ago, when the post-war Attlee Government were elected to pick up the pieces following the devastation of the second world war. Similarly, our Government’s mission today is to fix the foundations of a broken welfare system and a broken economy.
As I said on Second Reading, I am particularly concerned about the impact of the welfare trap on young people. I represent a city with one of the highest levels of—this is a horrible phrase—young people who are NEET, or not in employment, education or training, and who are starting their adult life on benefits. We know that the trend has not been helped by the failure of the mental health system and the health system, which has put pressure on people without offering them any help or support to get them through.
I am a passionate advocate of apprenticeships. It cannot be right that so many young people in Peterborough and around the country are starting their adult lives on benefits, and I agree that we should not be paying benefits so that young people can stay at home. We should be investing in young people’s ability to earn, learn and train.
I hope the Minister will expand on those points when he comes to respond to the debate, because it is morally, politically and economically right that young people should be earning and learning, and it is right that we proceed with this Bill. Following the removal of clause 5, I am content that this Bill begins the journey of fixing the system. It is the start, not the end, but it is a start we need to make.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I rise to speak to the many amendments that attempt to improve this Bill, which I signed in desperation, because I did not enter politics to strip vital support from those who need it, yet the Bill does exactly that. We are the party that created the welfare state, so we know the welfare state is not a handout—sadly, the debate on this Bill has characterised it as such—but a lifeline. Proposing to take that lifeline away from anyone who may need it is a betrayal of those we are elected to serve.
While I welcome the Government stepping back on some elements of the Bill, I do not believe they have gone far enough. As it stands, £2 billion is still set to be cut from hundreds of thousands of sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes, which cannot be right. That is why I am pleased to support amendment (a) to amendment 2, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), to scrap the cut to the universal credit health element entirely. We have to realise that disability rights organisations still do not support the cut at all. The impact assessments that do exist are inadequate or worrying, and thousands will still be pushed into poverty.
In truth, the announcement of the Timms review does little to quell my fears. This Government-led review will take place after the Bill takes effect. Whether or not the review is co-produced, the Government will be taking support away from disabled people and then consulting them on their views after the fact. The toxicity around the Bill means that it is being criticised by those whom it is meant to support, and that is really not a good start.
While I am pleased that the points element has been removed from the Bill, I still share the concerns held by many disability rights groups about what the Bill will truly mean for disabled people. That is why I have signed my name to amendments that will go some way towards making the Bill somewhat more humane. Amendment 38, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), would protect those with fluctuating conditions. New clause 8, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and new clause 11, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), would fix concerns about the Timms review by ensuring it is followed by primary legislation and by mandating its implementation and co-production with disabled people.
Other amendments that I support include those to protect carers and to ensure that due regard is given to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We would be wrong to ignore the UN’s warning that the Bill will worsen the rights of disabled people. We have to remember that PIP allows many disabled people to access work. Cutting support does not incentivise work, but prevents it. The claim that these reforms would have boosted employment simply does not hold up. Let us not forget that the Bill was published three weeks ago, and was gutted on Second Reading with a further week to rush it through Parliament. That is no way to legislate on matters with such serious consequences.
We have a health crisis in our nation, especially in respect of mental health, and the answer is not to take financial support away from those who need it. If we want to reduce the number of people off work due to physical or mental ill health, we have to continue to address the issues in our healthcare system, and get on with the plans to allow people to access appointments and assessments to stop their ailments worsening. This is not how welfare reform should be carried out, and even at this late stage I urge the Government to throw this Bill out. Some may say that that would be mad, but surely it cannot be worse than what we have been doing this week.
We have to be frank about why the Bill was introduced. It was primarily about saving money, but it would balance the books on the backs of the sick and disabled. I am really tired of how we talk about the economy and about growth in this House as though this is a household bill and we can cut this or cut that. No one seems to ask a good economist and find out that we are meant to invest for growth. People keep telling me that I am young, which is patronising—and it is not even that true any more—but I still cannot find anyone who can give me an example of a time in history when cuts to public services or welfare have solved the issues of the day. That is the case again and again, and those discussions need to end.
There are many other ways in which we can save money. As many Members have pointed out, we could end tax loopholes or have a wealth tax. I was pleased to add my name to amendment 37, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), which would scrap third-party PIP assessments. US multinationals are making millions of pounds out of those assessments, while humiliating people and/or getting it wrong.
We are told that all this is about getting people into work, but I just cannot see how we can continue to hold on to that idea. I reiterate that it may seem bad to drop the Bill at this late stage, but it cannot be worse than the debate we have had over the past couple of weeks.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Sometimes politics seems complicated. Sometimes the passage of a Bill through Parliament, especially with antics and shenanigans like those we saw last week, may confuse people. But actually, the issue before all of us when we vote tonight is very simple. Today, Wednesday 9 July 2025, are Labour MPs going to vote through cuts to universal credit that will take £2 billion from 750,000 sick and disabled people who are already on low incomes—people who will have been judged not fit to work? Will we put our name to a Bill that will, on average, take £3,000 off every single one of those 750,000 people? I think that if we had not had the complications with the Bill the week before, Labour MPs would find it very easy. They would see a Bill that asks us to take billions of pounds from low-income people in our constituencies across the country and find it very easy to vote no.
I ask my friends on the Labour Benches to cast their minds back to when they were first selected and first elected. None of us got into politics to take £3,000 a year off low-income people who are sick and disabled and on universal credit. It has been said that what is morally wrong can never be politically right. People outside this Chamber see the issue before us very clearly indeed. The Bill is being railroaded through, disabled people’s voices are being excluded, and when colleagues say, “Don’t listen to those who say we shouldn’t press on,” that means, “Don’t listen to disabled people.” I think we should listen to disabled people, and not one disabled people’s organisation supports the changes.
The reason the Bill is being rushed through a Committee of the whole House, rather than a Committee where disabled people and their organisations—people with lived experience—could talk to the MPs on the Committee, is because of a politically imposed artificial deadline that is there to save face. I welcome the changes made last week as a result of pressure from disabled people and Back-Bench MPs, but we are voting tonight on taking money off people on low incomes. We are voting tonight on whether we think, after saying last week that it was wrong to have a two-tier PIP system, that it is right to have a two-tier universal credit system.
The reality is that people will remember how we vote tonight. It has been said before, but I will say it again: some votes define us. They define us as politicians and they define how we view our time in Parliament. Disabled people who come to see us in our constituency surgeries will not understand if we, as Labour people, vote for this cut to universal credit tonight or abstain. We will live with that vote in every single constituency surgery between now and the next general election.
Let us take a step back and imagine that we did not have a Whip system in this House. Of course, all of us agree on 99% of things all the time. That is the reality, but if this were not a whipped vote, I think the vast majority of Labour MPs would vote with their conscience and with their disabled constituents against cutting universal credit. All the rest is sophistry. We will live with this vote. It is often said that the longer the statement on Twitter from an MP after a vote, the worse the decision they must have made. You start at the first sentence and by the time you get to the end, the constituents are thinking, “Did they? Did they really vote for that after all they said on the TV, in their tweets and in the Chamber?”
We are Labour people. This is not a left and right issue in the Labour party; this is a right and wrong issue. I say this: any Labour MP who votes against these cuts to low-income people on universal credit tonight will sleep soundly, knowing that they did all they could, on £90,000-odd a year, to stand up for their disabled constituents. That is what we got into politics to do. We should not plough ahead. We should vote this out.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the final Back-Bench speaker, David Pinto-Duschinsky, after which I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I rise to speak against amendment (a) to amendment 2, amendments 45 and 52, and new clause 12.
The creation of the modern welfare state by the 1945 Labour Government remains one of our proudest legacies. At its heart was the powerful idea that people should be protected from hardship and supported to realise their full potential. Underpinning that vision was a clear principle: everyone who can work should work, not just for the dignity and agency work brings, but because it is the most effective route out of poverty. Children in workless households are five times more likely to grow up poor than those in households where every adult works.
That principle holds true today, but it is under strain. One in 10 working-age people is out of the labour market; among young people, that figure is one in eight. This is not a global trend, but a challenge unique to the UK, rooted in the welfare system’s design. Too often, that system locks people with health conditions and disabilities out of work; too often, it penalises attempts to get ahead and fails to offer real support; too often, it writes people off.
Disabled people in the UK have an employment rate 29% lower than those without disabilities and face a wider unemployment gap than many of their international peers. Their poverty rate is 10% higher. This is not compassion. We owe it to these individuals and to the welfare state’s founding principles to fix this problem. We cannot avoid change or fall back on impractical slogans—to do so would be to abandon those who most need help.
Yet that is what these amendments and new clauses do. I shall start with amendments 45 and 52 and new clause 12, tabled by the Opposition, whose Benches are empty. These measures reveal a lack of seriousness and of a plan. The Tories presided over this crisis of opportunity and soaring claimancy. They failed to reform the system, to address the disability employment gap or to tackle fraud, which tripled on their watch. Throughout this debate, they have been unable to explain their alternative—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), whom it is good to see in his place, recently admitted as much, saying that he could not say exactly what he would do—so they resort to gimmicks.
Amendment 45 demands that all assessments be face-to-face, forgetting that it was the Conservatives who cut face-to-face assessments by 90%. If there were an Olympic event for brass neck, they would win the gold medal every time. This proposal is unworkable, denying frontline managers discretion—a fact the Conservatives essentially admit in the small print. It is also unnecessary; unlike the Conservatives in government, this Government are restoring most assessments back to being face-to-face.
The same applies to amendment 52 and new clause 12. PIP already has strict residency and qualification rules and is needs based. These proposals would not effect meaningful change, but would slow down reform. Once again, this is gesture politics—the Conservatives do not have a plan.
While the Opposition admit a problem but offer no plan, amendment (a) to amendment 2 seems, I fear, to deny that there is a problem at all, proposing simply to remove all changes to the LCWRA. The changes those behind the amendment want to scrap are vital to rebalancing the system, which will not just remove disincentives to work but enable the largest above-inflation increase in basic jobseeker benefits since the 1970s. These benefits will rise £725 a year for 6.5 million people by 2029, helping 15,000 people in my constituency. Removing these changes risks losing measures that would lift 50,000 children out of poverty.
None of this is easy. We are talking about real lives, not abstract policies. I understand the anxiety this debate causes, but freezing the system in aspic and ignoring its failings would lock in current injustices and create future problems. We should start reform by reaffirming the system’s basic purpose: to protect and treat all with dignity, but also to empower people and give them true agency. That means recognising that some cannot work, ensuring protection for the vulnerable, and listening to and co-producing with disabled people. However, it also means ensuring that those who can work do so, offering support and holding employers to account. I believe that the Government’s proposals do so.
Just as Attlee’s Government reimagined the role of the state after the war, so we must reimagine it now after the upheavals of the pandemic, economic change and rising ill health. The world has changed, and our welfare system must do so too. We must reform the system—not in spite of Labour values, but because of them.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Colleagues have described the events surrounding this Bill as “chaotic” and “shambolic”, and they were right to do so. Sadly, by failing to consult on key elements, the Government were setting up the Bill to fail. Moreover, the Government’s impact assessment is, I fear, somewhat misleading, because it bakes in cuts that the previous Government had planned, but not actually implemented. As a result, I am somewhat cautious of some of the Government’s figures.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Minister.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
So here we are. Labour has had 15 years, including 14 years spent complaining about welfare reform while the Conservative Government fixed the catastrophic mess of unemployment benefits that we inherited—the alphabetti spaghetti of welfare that we had in 2010, if any of their Members can remember it. We fixed all those benefit traps, introducing universal credit, making work pay and supporting people off welfare and into jobs. In the first decade of our time in government, 100,000 fewer people were economically inactive every single year of the 2010s. In 2019 we had the lowest number of workless households since records began. Then covid hit, and Labour were clamouring for more welfare throughout that period. After the covid incident, as we left office we were introducing reforms to fix the health and disability benefits system. All of that was opposed every step of the way by Labour.
Dr Tidball
Does the shadow Minister really believe that anyone could truly think that the Conservatives ensured that disabled people were well paid when 14 years of their government led to a 17% disability pay gap?
Danny Kruger
The fact is, in our time in government we increased the number of disabled people in work significantly. Two million more disabled people were in work at the end of our time in government than before. There is much to regret about the last years of our time in government, and I was a critic of them myself, but on welfare throughout our time in government we have a proud record of improving the broken system that we inherited.
We are now a year into Labour’s time in government. They have had all this time to come up with a plan and we have absolutely nothing. Clause 5 did have some changes to the system, but they are going to scrap that today. I want to pay tribute to the rebels on the Labour Benches for finding their voice and showing what Parliament can do, and I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—the real Prime Minister sitting there on the real Front Bench. I respect and honour them all.
As for the Government Front Bench, they are chopping the Bill’s title in half. It is now nothing to do with PIP, so we have no reform to welfare and certainly no savings. This is now a spending Bill, not a savings Bill. Looking at the impact assessment that has just been published—the third in the last three weeks, I think—if we add up the savings from cutting UC health for new claims, which is a little over £5 billion, and minus the cost of raising the standard allowance, which is a little over £5 billion, we get £120 million of extra costs over the next four years, plus the £1 billion of extra employment support. Labour’s idea of saving money on welfare is to spend more by the end of the Bill’s passage. The Government have also spent the money that they thought they were saving from the PIP changes before they did the U-turn. Even now they are on a wing and a prayer financially.
The Office for Budget Responsibility, on which the tottering Chancellor has relied to hold up her sums, assumes that the on-flow to benefits will fall halfway back to their 2019 levels over this Parliament. If they do not, the Chancellor will have to find another £12 billion. Why should new claims reduce under this Government when there is still an incentive of £50 a week to get on to UC health, and there is no reform to PIP for at least another year? The Minister has also said that his famous eponymous review is not aimed at saving money anyway. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) challenged him earlier to confirm that, and I think he has confirmed from the Dispatch Box that there will be no savings from his review.
Meanwhile, the UK is haemorrhaging jobs thanks to the national insurance rise, and we have the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track. The OBR did not even include in its forecast the likely impact of the unemployment Bill that Labour is introducing. That is something we can look forward to in the autumn.
We are in a deep fiscal hole, and of course we need welfare reform—in fact, we need welfare cuts. That is why the Opposition wanted to support the Government when they set out their intentions, and we said that we would support the Bill if they reduced spending, got more people into work and pledged that there would be no new taxes, but they did none of that, so we do not support it. We do, however, have a further set of proposals.
My friend, the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), challenged me to come up with some alternatives, and we have some amendments to that very effect. First, amendment 45 would improve the quality of assessments. There is a bigger piece of work to be done, and I welcome the Government looking closely at the assessments process, but right now we could make one clear and simple improvement. In 2019, 84% of PIP assessments were conducted face to face; last year, the figure was 5%. That was a covid change—[Interruption.] That was absolutely a covid change that was not changed back in time; I totally agree. The fact is, the work-from-home culture really took off at the DWP and with its subcontractors, and that does need to change. I recognise that. Why are the Government not doing that?
As a result, in the system we have, which is not being changed by the Bill, people are at the mercy of some distant, faceless assessor on the end of the phone. Of course, there will be people who cannot manage a face-to-face assessment, and we would authorise the Secretary of State to specify circumstances for that. It is also right not to call people back for repeat assessments. That was a change that the Conservatives were introducing, and I am glad that the Government are sticking with it. But, for the great majority of cases, we have got to get back to face-to-face assessments for the sake of claimants as well as the taxpayer.
Secondly, I turn to amendment 50. We have 1,000 new PIP claims a day—that has doubled since covid—and more than half the increase is in mental health cases. For UC health claims, it is more like three quarters. Of course, distress is real in our society and it is rising—I do not disparage the reality of many of these claims—but as the Minister has said the incidence of disability in our society is rising by 17% while benefit claims are rising by 34%. For some of the less severe mental health claims, it is far worse. In January 2020, there were 7,000 claims for people with anxiety disorders; this year, there are 31,000. In January 2020, there were 155,000 claims for anxiety and depressive disorders mixed; now there are 365,000. Autism was 60,000 and has gone up to 183,000. The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned ADHD, which has gone up from 29,000 to 115,000 over the last five years.
Nadia Whittome
I wonder whether the shadow Minister realises that according to the DWP’s own statistics the PIP fraud rate is 0.2%. I do not want him to feel like a mug.
Danny Kruger
I am not talking about explicit fraud. These awards are being given, and no doubt the assessment is judging them to be eligible. There is not necessarily a deliberate attempt to defraud the system. What we have done is create a system whereby one is incentivised to seek higher and more expensive claims.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before the hon. Member makes her intervention, will colleagues make sure that their language is parliamentary and respectful?
Olivia Blake
I want to pull up the shadow Minister on the ADHD statistics. Will he recognise that women were not recognised as having ADHD for many years and thus there is a backlog of women now accessing their right to benefits relating to ADHD? Many women like me were misdiagnosed with depression and anxiety disorders instead of ADHD.
Danny Kruger
I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. Those disorders have also increased extraordinarily in recent years. I take her point, and I was struck by the point she made in her speech about how many people with ADHD would benefit from being in the workplace. They could be in work, and they need to be supported for that. It is not right that we are consigning so many people to a life on the sofa with the curtains drawn, being told that they have no value and no contribution to make and will receive no help. Last year, 4,000 more people got PIP because of dyslexia, which was twice the number before covid. It was 10,000 for OCD; again, that number has doubled.
I want to acknowledge that the charity Mind—of course, it wants to increase benefits, so I do not cite it in support of our amendments—has said that what people with mental health conditions need is decent mental health support, proper employment programmes and flexible workplaces. That is what is needed.
Let me finish with new clause 12. The other place where we can look for real savings is with foreign nationals claiming health and disability benefits. I am aware that many visas have no recourse to public funds, but people with indefinite leave to remain do. Some 800,000 people are likely to claim indefinite leave to remain in the course of this Parliament. We do not have enough data from the DWP, so I urge the Government to have more transparency about the information that is received. However, on the basis of the information we have, we believe that some hundreds of thousands of people in this country who are claiming PIP and UC health are foreign nationals—that does not include EU citizens, who have rights under the withdrawal agreement. Welfare is simply not part of the contract that we make with people who come to this country. They are given visas on the basis that they will support themselves and our amendment would make that principle real.
Every pound spent on benefits for someone who could be supported into work is a pound less for someone else who cannot or can never work and who deserves all our sympathy and support. We cannot wait another year for this dithering, hamstrung Government to come forward with the changes we need. Our amendments offer a path to a better system that is fair for claimants and fair for taxpayers, and I commend them to the Committee.
Sir Stephen Timms
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. If someone can work, they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was absolutely right to remind the House that that principle underpinned the creation of the welfare state by the post-war Labour Government. If someone needs help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who cannot work must be able to live with dignity. Those are the principles underpinning what we are doing.
The UK, uniquely in the G7, has a lower rate of employment today than we had before the pandemic. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Hendon were right to point out that that is uniquely a UK problem. In large measure, it is because of the traps in the universal credit system that this Bill addresses. The system needs to be fixed and it is urgent to get on and do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) was right to point out to the House that delay is not the answer. The delay being called for by the Conservatives is not the right way forward. Abandoning people, in the way the system has for years, has been catastrophic. There are 2.8 million people out of work on health and disability benefits, and hundreds of thousands want to be back in work and say they could be, if only they had the support to get back into a job. We are determined to provide them with that support.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
When the Bill started its life, the Government were advocating for cuts for PIP and UC health claimants now and in future. They conceded that now was not right and that it was only for future claimants. Then they conceded that it should not be PIP claimants in future, leaving only UC health claimants. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anxiety and confusion that this has caused people in the disabled community? Would it not be better to pause, wait for the review and do it properly?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do.
It is particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers, with nearly 1 million not in employment, education or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) was absolutely right to highlight that point. We need to get on and tackle the disability employment gap.
The Bill addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit. It protects those we do not ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment, and the poverty impact assessment, which has now been published, makes it clear that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. We are rebalancing support here.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.
A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should
“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”
in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway. I will give away a little bit later.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and I have discussed, I do not agree that the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year, and with no four-point threshold, I do not think it is in anybody’s interest to rush it. I accept her proposal, in subsection (4) of her new clause, for a group to co-produce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it. I will chair the group, and we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings, with around a dozen members and with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics.
My hon. Friend has made helpful suggestions for who some members of the group might be. We will want disabled parliamentary representation to be involved in the process as well, and arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her that the majority of the group’s members need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part.
Dr Tidball
I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many aspects of new clause 11 and for his assurances from the Dispatch Box. I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote if he can offer further assurances that there will be sufficient links between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on PIP to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard.
Sir Stephen Timms
I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows.
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.
Ms Creasy
I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.
Sir Stephen Timms
I will not give way for a moment or two.
On Parliament’s handling of the review outcome, which is also raised in new clause 11, I would envisage a ministerial oral statement. I can commit on behalf of the Government that there will then be a general debate on it, in Government time, and that the legislation to implement the review outcome will not be brought forward until that has happened.
Sir Stephen Timms
Not just at the moment.
Clause 1 introduces the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. The previous Government ran universal credit down. They did not uprate it; they froze it, forcing mass dependence on food banks. The increase is accompanied by a reduction, as we debated, in the health top-up for most new claimants, as set out in clause 2.
Clause 3 set out that the health top-up would be frozen until 2029-30 for existing claimants and for those with the most severe lifelong conditions or those near the end of life. The Government amendment means that, for existing claimants, the standard allowance plus the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation up to 2029-30. That also applies to people with severe lifelong conditions who we do not ever expect to work and those near the end of life. Clause 4 and the amendment to it mirror the universal credit changes in employment and support allowance.
The Bill will protect existing claimants in a powerful way, including those with fluctuating health conditions, but it will move decisively to a more proactive, pro-work system. That is what we need, and the protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment—
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me make just a little more headway.
The protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment and who are on the LCWRA rate is that if they go into work, they are likely—depending, of course, on their income—to stay on universal credit, so that protection will continue while they are in work. If their income rises to the level where they are lifted off universal credit, for six months they will retain that protection, and if they go back, they will return to their original rate, so there is very strong protection there.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not give way.
Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
Vicky Foxcroft
Will the Minister ensure that the universal credit health element forms part of the co-produced Timms review when reviewing the assessment process, as the UC health element will be assessed under the new PIP assessment? Furthermore, can we ensure that all disability benefits and support are in scope, so that we can truly get an assessment process fit for the future?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that the Green Paper set out our proposal that the PIP assessment will in future also be the gateway to the universal credit health top-up, giving it indeed a broader role. Our aim is specifically a co-produced benefit assessment. If that works well, there may well be a strong case to apply the same approach, maybe even using the same or a similar group to other challenges, and perhaps including other aspects of the health and disability benefits system, but that would need to follow successful completion of the task immediately in hand.
Let me finally make an important point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and others. The severe conditions criteria in the Bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present. That is in guidance. It is being moved in this Bill into legislation. It does take account of Parkinson’s and MS because people need to meet these descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable timeframe, so I can give a firm assurance to those concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those with fluctuating conditions. The word “constantly” here refers, as I said in my earlier intervention, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms.
This Bill begins to repair a broken system that holds people back, by removing work disincentives from universal credit. We will provide record employment support for disabled people, for people with health impairments—
Division 258
Ayes: 35
Labour: 10
Scottish National Party: 9
Independent: 8
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Noes: 469
Labour: 356
Conservative: 95
Independent: 5
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Reform UK: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Division 265
Ayes: 336
Labour: 333
Independent: 3
Noes: 242
Conservative: 91
Liberal Democrat: 65
Labour: 49
Independent: 11
Scottish National Party: 9
Green Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 4
Reform UK: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Traditional Unionist Voice: 1
Alliance: 1
Ulster Unionist Party: 1
Universal Credit Bill
Thursday 10th July 2025
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberUniversal Credit Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Universal Credit Bill
Tuesday 22nd July 2025
(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberUniversal Credit Bill 2024-26 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
21:03 - Division on Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle’s amendment - Ayes: 17 / Noes: 120 - Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle’s amendment disagreed.
Baroness Sherlock
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Northern Ireland legislative consent sought.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, on top of the usual joys of a debate such as this, we are blessed today by the unusual combination of a maiden and a valedictory. I look forward very much to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, but I am very much touched with sadness that we will hear the valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. This is an important debate for such important occasions.
This Universal Credit Bill forms part of the Government’s reforms to our social security system. Our welfare state sits alongside the NHS as a key pillar of our society. Both represent the principle that, when our people need help, they should get it. This Government’s commitment to both these pillars is absolute, but that commitment cannot mean, in either case, that reform is never possible.
I do not think that many noble Lords would disagree that some reform is needed. We have a lower rate of employment today than we had before the pandemic, and progress in closing the disability employment gap has stalled. One in eight of all our young people is not in education, employment or training. Some 2.8 million people are now out of work for long-term sickness. The number of people claiming health-related benefits with no requirement to work has increased since 2019-20 by 800,000—that is 45%. This is not just about worsening health. Claims for these benefits have been rising far faster than the overall prevalence of self-declared health conditions. So things have to change.
One problem is the structure of our current system. At present, everyone presenting for out-of-work support is put in one of two categories: they are classed as “can work” or “can’t work”. Having created this divide, the system reinforces it financially. Someone labelled as “can work” is expected and supported to find a job, and given £92 a week to live on in the meantime—less if they are aged under 25. Someone classed as “can’t work” is given more than twice as much money but little or no help to take any steps towards work.
This is an unhelpful binary when we know there are hundreds of thousands of people claiming health and disability benefits who are ready for work now, if the right job or support were available. The system is failing them and failing taxpayers. This Bill addresses the problem by rebalancing universal credit, while protecting those we do not ever expect to work from reassessment. We will underpin this by investing record amounts in employment support for sick and disabled people.
These changes are based on three rules: if you can work, you should; if you need help to get into work, the Government should give it to you; and if you cannot work, you should be supported to live with dignity. Crucially, this Bill is part of a wider package of reforms that includes that record investment in employment support for sick and disabled people, totalling £3.8 billion over this Parliament. We have published draft regulations on our right to try guarantee, so that work, in and of itself, will never lead to a benefits reassessment, to give people the confidence to try out work. We are delivering the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, overhauling jobcentres to create a new jobs and careers service, delivering our youth guarantee, and joining up work, health and skills support at a local level. This is on top of investing billions in the NHS and moving to create more good jobs across the country, plus reforming Access to Work so it is fit for the future and working with businesses on the role that they can play in creating healthy, inclusive workplaces. We want everyone who could work to have that opportunity, not least because work is the best route out of poverty.
I am aware that the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, refers to the impacts of the Bill. I look forward to hearing her contribution, and I will try to address her concerns in my closing speech. However, it is worth noting here that, after the recent changes, we estimate that the package of benefits changes announced at the Spring Statement, revised to account for the changes to the Bill, will lift 50,000 people out of poverty in 2029-30, something that I hope the whole House will welcome. These estimates do not include any impact that our record investment in employment support for sick and disabled people may have on poverty levels.
I turn to the specific measures in this Bill. Previous freezes to the universal credit standard allowance, and below-inflation increases, have built disincentives to work into the system. The Bill starts to address this by rebalancing payments in universal credit, including through the first ever sustained, above-inflation rise to the standard allowance, which the Bill introduces through Clause 1. This will be the largest permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of an out of work benefit in decades. It will mean that a single person aged 25 or over will receive an income boost worth around £725 a year by 2029-30. This is balanced by a reduction in the health top-up of universal credit for most new claims, with the new rate set out in Clause 2. This clause, together with Schedule 1, also sets out to whom this lower rate will and will not apply.
Existing claimants, as well as those with severe, lifelong conditions whom we never expect to be able to work, and those nearing the end of life, will continue to receive the current, higher rate of top-up. For these groups, we will ensure, through the calculation in Clause 4, that the combined rate of their standard allowance and their health top-up in any tax year will rise at least in line with inflation between 2026-27 and 2029-30. That means that the income from these benefits will be protected, in real terms, for every year of this Parliament. Clause 3 makes it possible to offer this protection and to freeze the new lower health top-up rate by removing the relevant rates from the Secretary of State’s uprating review.
Clause 5 of the Bill mirrors the changes that we are making in universal credit through Clauses 1 to 4 in employment support allowance, while Clause 6, along with Schedule 2, makes the corresponding provisions for Northern Ireland. We believe that these changes strike the right and fair balance. They allow us to build a more proactive, pro-work system for the future, giving people the right incentives and support to build a better life. They also protect existing claimants who are already familiar with a certain level of support and who might find it particularly difficult to readjust if that were to change. They protect the most vulnerable, regardless of whether they are already claiming the top-up or will do in the years to come. We will always protect the most vulnerable, which is why Schedule 1 will ensure that people with severe, lifelong health conditions will never be reassessed, preventing unnecessary anxiety and giving them the dignity and security they deserve.
As I have said before, welfare reform is not easy and it never has been, but it is really important that we get it right. That is why we always said that we would listen to disabled people, their organisations and others as we deliver our reforms. The House will be well aware that this Bill originally set out to reform the personal independence payment, PIP, as well as universal credit. However, having listened carefully to a full range of opinions in the Commons and beyond, the Government have removed from the Bill the clauses relating to PIP. We will now look at PIP in the round, within the wider Timms review. We have already published the terms of reference for this review, and we expect it to conclude by autumn next year. It will be led by my honourable friend Sir Stephen Timms, my fellow Minister, and will be co-produced with disabled people and other stakeholders as we work to make PIP fit and fair for the future.
This Bill is an important part of our wider reforms to give disabled people and people with health conditions the same rights, chances and choices to work as everybody else. It rebalances universal credit to remove work disincentives, and it gives existing claimants the security and certainty they need, while providing new protections against unnecessary benefit reassessments for the most vulnerable. There is more work to be done, and much of that is already under way, but this Bill, to become the Universal Credit Act 2025, will take us another significant step closer to fulfilling our vision of giving everybody who can work a pathway to work. I beg to move.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the details of the Bill with her usual clarity. It is regrettable that we have only a Second Reading of this Bill, with no further stages, as there is so much up for debate and so much progress which it is imperative to make, and which is simply now not being made, in the important area of welfare and on health and disability-related benefits. The Minister has given the House what sounds on the surface like a considered approach to the strategy on welfare, but the House will not be fooled. The truth is that this is a case of much fiddling while Rome burns.
I start by presenting the economic context with the facts. We are on course to spend £1 in every £4 of income tax on sickness benefits alone, more than we spend on our entire national defence. By the end of this decade, the cost will exceed £100 billion from a current £60 billion. This trajectory is unsustainable, and it puts at risk the long-term viability of the system itself.
The word “unsustainable” comes not from me but from the right honourable Alan Milburn, as a senior adviser in the DWP and an ex-Labour Secretary of State, following the cave-in by the Government to their Back-Benchers against the proposed £5 billion reduction to the welfare bill. He has cautioned against “running away” from reform—and, of course, he is right. On Friday, on “Any Questions?”, the Minister’s own DWP colleague, Minister Alison McGovern, said that progress “must be made” on welfare. However, following the removal of Clause 5, the Secretary of State Liz Kendall said in the other place that PIP is not about making savings but about making sure that this benefit is “fair and fit” for the future. That is a rapid and catastrophic moving of the goalposts. I presume that the Secretary of State has put in a call to the OBR to stand it down from scoring on any savings. I wonder what the Chancellor thinks about this.
As the Resolution Foundation has stated, the body from whence came Torsten Bell, our Pensions Minister, the Government have
“basically eradicated all of the savings they had hoped to make this decade”.
It is extraordinary that the report of the Timms review, to be co-produced by the disability groups, as the Minister said, will not be ready until Autumn 2026 —two years and three months after the general election and into the next Parliament. The Government will surely need to respond. By then, more than 3,000 people a day will have continued to sign on to PIP.
Will the government response at least be published at the same time as the review? Why is the review going to take so long? It is very likely that legislation will then be required. How long will this take? How long will it all take? These delays are a major issue for the Government; they are very damaging and very expensive.
As Kemi Badenoch said recently:
“28 million people in Britain are now working to pay the wages and benefits of 28 million others”.
She went on to say that this country is a welfare state supporting an economy. As a leader in the Times highlighted last week, this is one of the most serious issues stifling growth—the key driver for this Government, as we have been hearing. The noble Baroness the Minister, in her reply, will produce a riposte, I am sure, concerning the last 14 years. I hope she does, because it is a positive story.
The last Government made the hard choice to reform universal credit, replacing six benefits with one, leading to a system that proved 100% robust under the severe pressures of Covid in 2020-21, where the old system would undoubtedly have failed. We also generated an extra 4 million jobs between 2010 and 2024, and this should not be forgotten. This is a huge contrast to the current deteriorating macroeconomic backdrop, stemming directly from this Government’s decisions, and I will name a few: inflation remains above target, at 3.6%; payroll employment is down 0.6% compared to this time last year; vacancies are down by over 63,000 year on year; slack in the economy is widening; and debt now stands at 94% of GDP.
Behind the economics lies a deeper moral case for reform, and my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott may expand upon this later. We commenced our PIP consultation in 2023. Why was this pulled by the Government in favour of their own, causing years—and I do mean years—of delays to change? This was surely ideologically driven and, in retrospect, another big error made by the Government.
Let me state an important point. On these Benches, we have consistently said and continue to emphasise, and it is also my personal viewpoint, that for those who genuinely need help, notably with a severe mental or physical condition or illness, the state—and by “the state”, I mean the taxpayer—should provide support. After all, we are a developed and civilised nation. But radical reform is needed, which the last Government started on the back of the Covid period. A measure of the current urgency is highlighted by the Centre for Social Justice, which states that a recipient of the highest level of sickness benefits earns £2,500 a year more than someone on the national living wage. We continue to believe that individual help is needed to aid those on sickness-related benefits into work, which is essential and urgent for a range of different benefit cohorts. What we need is not just money but targeted investment that works. Higher welfare spending is not always compassionate. It can trap people, stripping them of agency, of purpose and of independence. A life on benefits is not a life of dignity. Aspiration, work and opportunity confer meaning; dependency corrodes.
Let us speak plainly: the UK cannot sustain a situation any longer in which one in four people self-identifies as disabled. That is not compassion; it is category or descriptor creep. We risk draining the term of its meaning and its moral force. The welfare state must be focused, it must be functional and it must be fair. Trevor Phillips made an interesting recent observation in the Times. He said:
“In 1995, the Disability Discrimination Act marked a transition from what used to be called the ‘medical’ model of disability to the ‘social’ model”,
meaning that a disability was deemed to have become a “manifestation of human diversity”. The number of people who come under the description of disabled—and this is a very important point—has rocketed from one in 50 to one in four: that is 16 million inactive people. The cohort for benefit eligibility has ballooned from 600,000 in 1990 to 7.2 million today, and this partly explains why 47% of those who successfully self-declare disability between the ages of 16 and 65 do so for mental health or musculoskeletal reasons. This is why welfare reform is no longer a matter of political choice, and the Government know it: it is a matter of urgent national necessity.
Now, as alluded to by the Minister, we are told that £1 billion, plus a bit more from the last spending review, has been allocated to support people back into work, but is this serious structural reform or just surface-level spending? What is the breakdown of that allocation? How far will it go? Who will make the decisions? How much of it will reach front-line, human-facing interventions? Will the noble Baroness, in her winding up, give us more information on this? Will she at least say when the “right to try” SI will be debated? When is it likely to commence and be rolled out on the ground?
At last, I turn briefly to the Bill itself, which makes a damp squib look like the top-of-the-range firecracker. The easy decision for the Government, their decision, is the increase in UC rates. Then we have the severely watered-down LCWRA restrictions for new claimants from April 2026. And that is basically it. The Bill before us today, what remains of it, fails to take the bold, essential steps required to reduce dependency, bring down the welfare bill, empower PIP claimants and reform eligibility criteria. The Bill offers no credible strategy to reduce long-term demand on the system. What in the Bill helps to address the rise in the sick-note culture, the increasing ease with which people are signed off work with a fit note? Where is the reform to clinical accountability or the incentives to keep people engaged in the labour market? Perhaps the noble Baroness could address these points in her winding up.
I believe that the political fault-lines are now clear. Labour entered office decrying a fiscal hole, then reached for tax rises, not reform. Higher taxes were not inevitable. They were a choice, a preference, not a necessity. This Government, facing their own internal rebellion, as we have seen, have now retreated from reform altogether. However, the electorate sees through this paralysis. They know the real questions which remain unanswered. These are, briefly: who truly needs state support? How do we reduce dependency without punishing the vulnerable? And how do we ensure that systems designed to protect do not entrench disempowerment? These are the questions that the Bill fails to answer.
Nowhere is the gap clearer than in the Government’s abandonment of the PIP review and Clause 5. It was a crucial opportunity to reset eligibility, rebuild public confidence and ensure that the system is reaching the right people. Why was it quietly cancelled? We need structural reform now, reform that reduces dependency, narrows eligibility where appropriate and ensures that those in genuine need are protected and supported. Ministers appear unwilling to confront the hard trade-offs or to engage seriously with what rising dependency and spiralling costs mean for the future of the welfare state and the state of the national finances. I conclude with another sobering statistic. Benefit claimants in most member states in the OECD have fallen below pre-Covid levels. In the UK, they have increased, so welfare dependency is, unfortunately, a British disease.
I conclude on a more conciliatory note. I look forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, who I suspect may highlight issues relating to work, welfare and the family, not least from her influential and authoritative period spent in No. 10.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, to say that this Bill, in its various incarnations, has had a bumpy ride would be something of an understatement. The Bill is now being rushed through Parliament at what feels like an indecent pace and now, having been assigned as a money Bill, it means that this Chamber cannot undertake its normal scrutiny. In short, the Bill has had neither proper consultation nor in-depth scrutiny. To be blunt, the whole parliamentary process has been shambolic, and I fear that this has seriously damaged trust with disabled people, including those with mental health problems, who have needlessly gone through turmoil.
I totally understand that the current welfare bill is unsustainably high and that reform is needed, but if the Government are serious about cutting welfare spending at source, they would also get serious about fixing health and social care without delay so as to tackle chronic ill health at its root, rather than start by trying to cut funding for carers and some of the most vulnerable.
Having made those general points, I will focus on two issues which give me real cause for concern. The first is mental health. The initial plans in the Bill when it was introduced would have had a devastating impact on people with mental health problems. Although I welcome the announcement of the Timms review of the PIP assessment, to which I will return, there remain fundamental flaws with the Government’s plans. The cut to the health element of universal credit, which remains, will mean that about 750,000 disabled people will miss out on about £3,000 a year by the end of the decade. This will include many people with mental health problems who find themselves too unwell to work.
These cuts to universal credit are supposed to be safeguarded by the new severe conditions criteria, which apply to people who meet a set of requirements including having a lifelong condition and being likely to satisfy the relevant criteria for the rest of their life. This will mean two things: first, that at least one of the descriptors of people’s conditions applies to them “constantly”; secondly, that they will have been given an official diagnosis by an NHS practitioner. I share the concern of many in the sector about the requirement for a descriptor to apply constantly because, for many mental health problems, even severe ones such as schizophrenia, people’s mental health can fluctuate. This sort of fluctuating condition also applies to people with severe conditions such as MS and Parkinson’s.
I am also concerned about the new NHS diagnostic requirement, as we know that many people with mental health problems can wait years to receive a diagnosis and many feel forced to receive or seek treatment outside the NHS because of very long waiting lists or inaccessible services. It just does not feel fair to penalise people who seek private diagnosis and treatment due to the inadequacies of the current NHS.
I share the concern expressed by some about the extent to which the Timms review into personal independence payments will be a genuinely co-produced endeavour. Despite welcome promises to work closely with disabled people on changes to the system, the way this Bill has been handled so far—and, frankly, the way it fell apart—demonstrates a clear lack of consultation with the people most affected. It is also unclear what obligations the Government will have to implement the review’s recommendations and whether they will need to be bound by the current spending envelope of the cuts we have already seen. Can the Minister give me an assurance that there will be proper parliamentary scrutiny, including full debates in both Chambers, following the publication of the Timms review?
I return to the Bill’s impact on unpaid carers. Given that PIP is a crucial gateway for carer’s allowance and other carer benefits and that 150,000 disabled carers receive PIP, it is vital that the Government provide a firm commitment that unpaid carers and organisations that represent them will be consulted and fully engaged with throughout the Timms review. This time, we really need to take the time to get it right.
What assurances can the Government give that the outcome of the Timms review will not lead to significant numbers of unpaid carers being put at risk of losing their own benefits entitlement? It is worth reminding ourselves that the original Bill would have resulted in 150,000 carers losing entitlement to carer’s allowance. I quote one carer: “The extra costs we faced as carers will not disappear if the health element is cut. For those of us like myself who are carers and disabled, this will be a double whammy”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle
At end to insert “but regrets the impact of the Bill, particularly with regard to age discrimination, the impact on people with high levels of need and mental health conditions, and the overall impact on rates and severity of poverty among people with disabilities, and notes the human rights concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler. I echo her concerns about the way in which this is being rushed through procedurally and how its being declared a money Bill denies us the broader debate that we might otherwise be having. I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill, welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and express my sadness at the departure of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick.
I begin, perhaps surprisingly, by agreeing with the Minister and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, that we have a problem with ill health—but it is not a problem with providing benefits for ill health. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, referred to the delays and problems with NHS treatment and social care. I add that we are a deeply unhealthy society; we have food systems and housing of terrible quality, and problems with air quality, nature and the environment, low pay, and insecure work. All these things make people ill. We very much need to tackle those issues, but if we deny people enough money to live on and to be able to afford healthy food, that will not make them healthier. That is the basic reason for my regret amendment.
I have spent more time explaining what a regret amendment is in the past couple of days than I might have expected. I know that a lot of people are listening tonight, so it is worth stressing that the House of Lords has no power to stop or amend this Bill. A regret amendment is the strongest thing that I am able to do. Its practical effect is absolutely nothing, but I intend— I have tried to make sure everyone is aware of this—to put it to a vote, because it is really important that people out there who will be affected by this Bill have the chance to know that there are people supporting then. In the other place, 47 Labour MPs and many others indicated at Third Reading that they did not want this Bill to proceed.
The regret amendment notes the effects of the Bill on
“age discrimination, the impact on people with high levels of need and mental health conditions, and the overall impact on rates and severity of poverty among people with disabilities, and notes the human rights concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities”.
That reflects the perspective of the Disability Rights UK briefing on the Bill, which I have widely circulated:
“Debt and poverty are already a fact of life for existing Disabled claimants of UC, with many unable to afford essentials such as food, energy and housing or the additional costs of disability. The cuts will exacerbate this grave situation even further, pushing people into deep poverty”.
I and many other noble Lords, I am sure, have received a flood of briefings from organisations representing disabled people, including Scope, Sense, the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, Parkinson’s UK, the Mental Health Foundation and Amnesty International. The last of those clearly identifies, as the UN did, that this is a human rights issue, as the regret amendment points out. The latest letter from the UN committee points out that this is going backwards, when it had already identified that there was a problem. Looking at what that means, recent research from the Trussell Trust and YouGov found that one in five people receiving universal credit and disability benefits now has been forced to use a food bank in the past month. What will that do to people’s health? How will that equip them to find work, if that is even a possibility?
There is a further joint briefing involving many of those organisations, as well as the Disability Benefits Consortium, the Trussell Trust, Citizens Advice, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Child Poverty Action Group, the New Economics Foundation, Z2K, Turn2us, the MS Society and Carers UK. It highlights how the Bill as it stands means that the existing recipients of the health element of universal credit will not see their payments frozen but will also not feel most of the benefit of the £250 per year increase in the standard allowance, which the Minister and the Government have made much of. About 50,000 more disabled people and people in households with disabled people are predicted to be in poverty by 2030 as a result.
Perhaps the most pernicious part of this is the key Clause 2, which cuts the limited capability for work and work-related activity, or LCWRA, element of universal credit—generally known as the health element—and will affect more than 750,000 disabled people by £3,000 a year, an effect that will only continue to grow unless we get a future Government who are concerned about the rights of disabled people and basic humanity. That means effective age discrimination, since younger people are far more likely to be affected.
As Sense points out, if the people with complex needs whom it represents received £47 less in support each week, a quarter would be pushed into debt—often further debt—and one in five say they would be forced to go without essential support to basically live their lives. The Government claim, and the Minister said, that some people with terminal illness and lifelong conditions will be protected, but the impact assessment confirms that fewer than 10% of new claims would be saved by this. The Cystic Fibrosis Trust says that few of the adults it represents are likely to meet the severe conditions criteria,
“despite the fact that a typical person with cystic fibrosis on the health element of universal credit is someone who cannot walk 200 metres within a reasonable timescale, the majority of the time is at risk of voiding their bowels and/or bladder, and would spend a significant portion of their day performing their daily treatments”.
Those are the people the Bill explicitly targets for benefit cuts. If the Minister can tell me that they are going to be protected, I am interested to have that on the record, but that is not what charities that are experts in this area believe. Parkinson’s UK notes that it has legal opinions from two different experts concluding that the severe conditions criteria are likely to effectively prevent people with Parkinson’s getting the higher-rate health element.
I came into your Lordships’ House promising to share the voice of the voiceless. As I am sure many others have, I have received hundreds of emails from individual disabled people and their carers, setting out their situations. I am going to use just one, with permission, although I will not name the person to protect their and their family’s privacy. This woman is a former elected Labour councillor and former NHS professional. She is a carer for her young adult autistic son and a parent with multiple sclerosis. She says, “I am currently advocating for my son, who has applied for universal credit and is now undergoing the LCWRA assessment. Without me helping him, my son could not negotiate this system. Cutting the health element for these young people is wicked. This is how they end up on the streets when there is no family to support them. This generation has been shafted by the SEND system. Most did not achieve their potential due to unmet needs and lack of support in school. They are at higher risk of mental health issues; they are less likely to gain employment”. She notes that the first requirement of most job ads is excellent communication skills. She says, “My son is selectively mute. He is at an immediate disadvantage”. Can the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, responding for the Official Opposition, confirm that, having listened to the speech by the noble Viscount, Lord Leckie, she agrees that this family needs the strongest possible support? I hope the noble Baroness can confirm that.
I conclude with remarks from this former Labour councillor, who said, “I am shocked and appalled at this proposal. It really will destroy lives”. I am sorry that I will not be able to respond individually to everyone who has emailed me; the volume is just too great. It is a collective testament to the fact that disabled people in our society are not feeling how Sir Keir Starmer told the Liaison Committee yesterday that he wants them to feel. They are not feeling secure and supported; they are feeling the opposite. I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Local Government Association and a recipient of personal independence payment.
Like others, I have received many emails from people worried about the proposed changes and I am extremely concerned about how this narrative has played out in the media. Disabled people are being portrayed as benefit scroungers and a drain on society. Like others, I am disappointed that this has been made a money Bill. I recognise that the Bill is different from what His Majesty’s Government originally intended, due to a number of concessions. I am frustrated that Members in another place, when talking about PIP specifically, seem to have become confused, called it a not-in-work benefit and conflated it with the Pathways to Work Green Paper. It is not a benefit that is linked to whether you work. These fundamental inaccuracies do not help a reasoned debate about proposed changes.
I will briefly cover personal independence payment because it is integral to disabled people’s lives. It exists because society is inaccessible. Successive Governments have been slow to bring about the necessary changes to make society more inclusive, and disabled people face discrimination in all areas of their lives, whether that be in public transport, healthcare, education or employment, to name a few. People should be working, and I agree that the system is not sustainable in its current format. However, the extra costs of being disabled have not gone away. Scope has published a disability price tag and, even after taking PIP into account, the average household that includes at least one disabled adult or child faces extra costs of £975 per month. This figure is updated yearly.
Also of concern is the article in the i paper yesterday that reported errors in the way that PIP has been awarded that could cost the Department for Work and Pensions another £260 million. Ultimately, I believe we are missing a fundamental opportunity to look at the whole system, and I hope that Access to Work can be part of a wider review. What we are doing at the moment feels slightly too piecemeal.
The current Bill could develop a two-tier system. I repeat the quote from Disability Rights UK given by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle:
“Debt and poverty are already a fact of life for existing Disabled claimants of UC, with many unable to afford essentials such as food, energy and housing or the additional costs of disability. The cuts will exacerbate this grave situation even further, pushing people into deep poverty”.
There are some more positives with the Bill: the proposed increase to the standard allowance means that 2.3 million disabled people currently receiving universal credit will see the total amount they receive protected, but dramatic cuts to universal credit remain in the Bill, such as the restricted eligibility gateway of the severe conditions criteria. The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation think the latest concessions could mean the Government make no net savings by 2029-30.
I am concerned that the tone of the debate has generated quite a lot of victim blaming for disabled people. This is never more apparent than in the debate around Motability cars. I do not have a Motability car, but when I was learning to drive it was the only way I could afford to do so; public transport was even less accessible than it is now. The cost of insurance when you drive on hand controls is high—even more so if you are young. In the media it is being portrayed as a free car, which it is not, and we should remember that over the years it has considerably helped the car industry. There is a website, which was taken down over the weekend with promises to put it back up, to help people detect if “an annoying neighbour” is seen driving a new car. This is terrifying for a number of disabled people. It has been reported to the police; it feels like it crosses a line to incitement. Over the weekend, the replies on the website were despicable. This does not feel like a collaborative environment in which to have sensible debate.
The reality that is the system we have is too complicated and many disabled people find themselves unable to navigate the complex and lengthy processes. We do not have time today to consider it, but I would prefer a system that is better able to assess people’s needs, one that wastes less money with overturned appeals. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but now it is time to rebuild trust and have a genuine consultation. Can she give more information about how we can properly co-produce with disabled people? We have to find a better solution for everybody.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing the debate with such clarity. I also look forward with great anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. I look forward in a slightly different sense—with great regret—to the valedictory speech of my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. We will miss her, and I am sorry that she is leaving the House.
I support the Bill because it has found, in a difficult time and in a contested situation, an honourable way through these very difficult issues. It has also started to correct the distortion that has developed between the standard provision and the health-related elements of universal credit. It has begun to nudge towards what we all want to see: a more effective way of supporting people into work. That is the great prize.
I also welcome the fact that the reference to PIP has been removed and that it will now be in the guardianship of Sir Stephen Timms. There could not be a better person to look at PIP; he is a man of huge integrity and respect. He is very likely to listen closely to the people he will involve, and he has already begun to involve disabled people. The tragedy, of course, could have been avoided—the past few weeks have been agonising for disabled people and their carers—if the decision had been taken earlier to do what Sir Stephen intends to do now: to bring them into the dialogue, so that they will help co-produce and co-own their future. It will be a more sustainable future because of their input.
The scale of the challenge has already been set out, not just by my noble friend the Minister but by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. Between 2019 and March 2025, the number of working-age adults claiming disability rose from 3 million to 4 million—or, from one in 13 to one in 10—a phenomenal increase. Within that, there is of course a disproportionate increase in the number of people claiming for mental health. This has been compounded by years of poor health and disability, rising poverty and deepening inequalities, all of which has been measured and recorded.
Those factors have been years in the making. I say to the noble Viscount that all parties have to own that failure and legacy. That includes the failure to plan for an ageing population, which we knew decades ago would require us to rethink the relationship between health, housing and care; the failure to anticipate the impact of the rising retirement age on the numbers of chronically sick and disabled in work; and the failure to care about the inevitable impact that a decade or more of austerity and the loss of essential services would have on physical and mental health in younger and older life. That was all left in the “too difficult” box—which has now been opened by this Government, who have a particular responsibility to act.
Most recently, Covid changed patterns not just of physical and mental health but of behaviour, which we still do not fully understand. There are some explanations, but there is no one conclusive explanation. On our watch, we have an inescapable duty—one we have to share—to make not just PIP but a new social contract for a welfare state fit for the future. We need to meet the needs for work as well as for support. If nothing changes for the 1 million young people out of work, employment and education, they will be condemned by design to further unemployment and poverty.
I welcome the Timms review, and I think it is welcome too for people with disabilities. When I had the privilege of chairing the Adult Social Care Select Committee, we heard, over a considerable length of time, from disabled people and carers about how the system is not working for them. Because of the precarious nature of this and the sense of anxiety every time there is a review, they know that the greatest danger is to do nothing and therefore introduce the risk that social security will be even worse, maybe to the point of collapse, in the next 10 years.
I particularly welcome the emphasis on co-production, using the experts by experience, who can really inform Ministers on what does and does not work. I want to send a particular message to Sir Stephen via my noble friend the Minister. As was already mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, it is absolutely necessary that unpaid carers be involved in the review and in leadership roles. Sir Stephen has said in the other place that it will be a consideration. Can we please have some information to reassure carers that their voices will be heard in the review? As we showed in our report two years ago, the tragedy of the unpaid carer is that they feel and are invisible. If they are left out of this review, it will be another egregious indication that they really do not matter. Whatever changes for them, they will have to go on caring, and whatever happens to PIP will have an immediate and direct impact on them. I trust my noble friend the Minister to take that message to the other place.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson; I look forward to her maiden speech, and acknowledge the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan. I also thank Ministers for listening to concerns about the Bill when it was initially brought forward.
A functional social security system tackles poverty and supports people to live full lives. With that, the system needs to retain public confidence, expressing the best of our values. It must also strike a balance between supporting people who are able to work and ensuring that people who cannot work are protected and cherished for who they are. We need economic growth—that is not disputed; this is, after all, a money Bill—but I am concerned for those who are left behind or who do not fit the model of financial productivity at the rate that seems to be desired.
There is a granularity to this debate about the complexity of people’s lives, which do not always fit into neat economic models. I therefore note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in her amendment to the Motion about the rates of poverty among disabled people, who are already disproportionately likely to be living in poverty. This can have an impact on children, making their start in life all the more challenging and deepening systemic injustices.
This landscape of poverty and economic inactivity is acute in the area covered by my diocese in the north-east. There are opportunities to make a difference in local communities—through devolved authority mayors, councillors, community leaders and citizens—but turning the tide on poverty still requires decisive leadership and vision from central government. One of dozens of emails I have received in recent days came from a father in the north-east, who told me about his son who has complex disabilities. He would like to work one day but is struggling to navigate what feels like a punitive approach in the changes to universal credit. His capacity to enter the workforce faces barriers even before he can contemplate exploring opportunities. Our values should hold us to account for how we raise up the most weak and vulnerable.
What do we need? I suggest some joined-up thinking. I understand the Government’s desire to reform the system. It is becoming more expensive to administer, but even if it were not, proportionate actions should be taken to help people make the most of their gifts and skills, whether in the labour market or through volunteering in their community. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the fact that social security spending is rising, and more people receive health benefits, points to shortcomings elsewhere.
On PIP, we should not shy away from the difficult questions that the Timms review needs to ask and answer about the assessment process, the treatment of physical and mental health, and a reasonable eligibility threshold. None of that can happen without tackling some of the causes of ill health: the under- investment in social security and social housing in recent decades; the shortage of mental health provision; the effects of insecure, demoralising work; and the many other areas that noble Lords have already spoken to. I am glad that the Government are addressing some of these challenges, but I hope they will not be considered in isolation, that the Government will monitor the impact of this Bill closely and that the lives of all our citizens can be improved so we may all flourish together, each according to their capacity and need.
Lord Rook (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her introduction and to noble Lords for what has already been a broad discussion. I look forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and to her contribution to your Lordships’ House in the days to come. I also look forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and wish her all the best for the future.
A long time ago, in a land not so far away, I worked for the Salvation Army as a youth worker. In those distant times, there was a new and unhappy category of young person emerging in our communities. While not entirely the stuff of fantasy or fiction, the prospect of sustainable employment for those young people, who we called NEETs, was not that great. Where working life was concerned, those young adults who were not in education, employment or training needed their Government and communities to help them on their way.
As was the case in 2009, we now have almost 1 million 16 to 24 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training. I welcome the efforts in the Bill to reduce those numbers by increasing the incentive and support provided. This will help to reduce long-term benefit dependency, motivate young people to find their place in the workplace and enable those who currently feel left out to seek a way back in.
In 2009, my honourable friend, the right honourable Sir Stephen Timms, now Minister of State for DWP in the other place, was the architect of the future jobs fund. As a youth worker, I saw first-hand how this programme provided the aspiration and activation that so many young adults needed to step up on to the first rung of the career ladder. The Bill provides young people with similar prospects for support, training and opportunity.
As with other legislation, I am keen that we prioritise young people. After all, this generation has been disproportionately affected by the Covid pandemic and other societal challenges. While the current economic outlook clearly restricts the resources available to the Government, the department’s investment of £2.2 billion over the next four years to increase work, health and skills support for all those struggling to find suitable employment is more than welcome.
Once a youth worker, always a youth worker. While my youth work skills are certainly less in demand here in your Lordships’ House, my heart still goes out to those young people struggling to make their way in our country today.
Of all the challenges we face, the current mental health epidemic among young people is among the most significant and urgently demands the attention of government as a whole. For a significant number of those not in education, employment or training, anxiety, depression and other complex conditions can provide a seemingly insurmountable barrier to employment.
With this in mind, I am particularly heartened by the right to try guarantee. This will make it easier for those who are out of work to make a go of things in the workplace. Where support for young adults is concerned, I hope that today’s legislation will be a good start and not the whole story. There is much that needs to be done, for their sake and ours. I am grateful for the tireless work of my noble friend the Minister, Lady Sherlock, and stand to support the Bill today. Given his previous success in this area, I am thankful that Sir Stephen Timms has been tasked with bringing his unique expertise to the upcoming Timms review. I hope that there will be more creative and impactful policy to come and remain keen to see other institutions take the Government’s lead and invest in our young adults.
At the Salvation Army, I saw how a large employer could grasp a government policy such as the future jobs fund to give disadvantaged young people a much-needed hand up and thus reduce the requirements for future handouts. As the Government seek to quicken the path of young adults into future jobs through the Bill, I hope that other institutions will redouble their efforts to give youth a chance and provide future generations with a brighter future.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rook, and I am also looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson and to hearing the valedictory speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, later in the debate. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the National Autistic Society and note that I am a vice-chair of the APPG for both autism and for Parkinson’s. I am not going to talk about PIP. We will almost certainly return to that after the Timms report.
The Bill proposes that people with disabilities applying for universal credit in 2026-27 will receive a reduced amount of benefit, from £97 a week to £47 a week. It is a little early to know what the Equality Act will make of that—two people with the same needs and the same disability. When the Minister sums up, it would be very helpful to hear what the appeal procedure is going to be, because I suggest it will be put to a lot of use.
According to the Bill, young disabled people with limited capacity for work-related activity will not be able to claim until they are 22. At the moment, under the age of 22, younger teenagers and those who are above 18 can claim. Here, we are talking about children most likely to have grown up with a lifelong disability, and now they must wait until they are 22. If there is anything one can do to help children with lifelong disabilities, it is to give them a sense of purpose. The idea that there is going to be a stopgap in that procedure concerns me greatly.
Under the Bill, disabled people will be required to provide an NHS diagnosis to comply with the severe conditions criteria. The criteria are narrow and could reduce, as we have heard, the annual amount by 3,000 a year by 2028. Could the Minister explain whether, if a person has a private diagnosis from a registered doctor or psychologist, that will be accepted?
The Government call these changes “adjustments” and “balancing”. I understand the Government’s problem and I know it is growing exponentially. I agree with the comments we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, about the impact on the sickness of the nation, for various reasons, that has affected general health, in terms of environmental issues. I also agree with the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, who raised the issue of the outcome of experiencing Covid as a nation. I still do not think we fully understand the impact that Covid has had, not only on those families who lost people but on those people who worked on the front line. I believe that has had an impact far greater than we fully understand.
In today’s Times, William Hague writes—and I am going to mention another Labour Secretary of State for the second time in this debate—that the former Labour Secretary State Alan Milburn says that the Government should reform to a 10-year horizon, not a single Parliament. I agree with that, because I believe that the single-Parliament approach—or the cliff edge, as it is—sorts people into those who receive benefits and those who do not. I would go further. The employment opportunities for disabled people and the benefits they qualify for should not be based on a one-size-fits-all.
We have heard from many charities. I too have heard from most of the charities mentioned, which all have grave concerns for their members about the impact. They need to be reassured, as of course do the people with disabilities.
People with disabilities who do not receive an out of work benefit or a workplace benefit will end up in the second division of priority and will be affected. There is no doubt about it, they will be affected. The results will become obvious in time. The Government hope that a new approach to employment, training and opportunities for disabled people will bridge that damage. I know that this Minister in particular will do her best to see that that happens, but it would have been far better if there was a 10-year transition, with the job changes preceding the change in benefits.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Browning. The retirement of the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, is a loss to the House and a loss to me personally. On behalf of her adopted home in Scotland, she has made a significant contribution to devolution and constitutional affairs more generally, in spite of the fact that she is really a cockney sparrow. She has many friends here and I shall particularly miss her friendship and solidarity. I join with other Peers to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and I look forward to her maiden speech, which will follow in a few minutes.
The Bill was introduced, of course, to cut government spending on welfare; that was the justification originally. That was and is not necessary. In the sixth-richest country in the world, there are many more ways of balancing the Government’s books than by cutting payments to the disabled. My noble friend the Minister says that these changes will encourage those who will lose benefit into work, and that work is the way out of poverty. I understand the sentiment, of course, but two factors must be borne in mind. First, there are not 750,000 vacant jobs waiting for disabled or partially disabled people to fill. Secondly, the jobs that may be available will not necessarily lift them out of poverty. The fact is that 31% of those on universal credit are in work, so low are the wages at the bottom end of the labour market. The proposed changes, as has been mentioned, cut the health element of universal credit for those claiming after April 2026 from £97 a week to £50 a week. That cut does not reflect diminished need but is irrespective of need. It is solely to save the Government money. That, I find unacceptable.
The proposed changes also appear to conflict with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is supervised by a committee with that name, and it has said this:
“In its general comment No. 5 … on persons with disabilities, the Committee emphasized the importance of providing adequate income support to persons with disabilities who, owing to disability or disability-related factors, have temporarily lost, or received a reduction in, their income, have been denied employment opportunities or have a permanent disability … Benefits, whether in cash or in kind, must be adequate in amount and duration in order that everyone may realize his or her rights to family protection and assistance, an adequate standard of living and adequate access to health care, as contained in articles 10, 11 and 12 of the Covenant”.
Under the United Nations declaration, Article 28 provides:
“States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and shall take appropriate steps to safeguard and promote the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability”.
I will not read further for reasons of time. It seems to me that there is a significant risk here that the United Kingdom is or will become in breach of its international obligations.
In addition, eight out of nine new claimants who would currently qualify for full limited capability for work and work-related activity payments will not receive them because of the new fourfold, severe conditions criteria. I will leave others to develop the injustices of those. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation estimate that the effect of the Bill will be to put 50,000 more people into poverty, and those are people who are disabled and their families.
The removal of benefits from those who would otherwise be entitled to it is something that I cannot support. I know that my noble friend the Minister is not responsible for the proposal, but I hope that the Timms review will cause the Government to think again.
Baroness Shawcross-Wolfson (Con) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a huge honour to make my maiden speech here in your Lordships’ House, and I am grateful for all the warm wishes that I have received. I want to thank those who have helped me since my introduction, first and foremost Mr Ingram and the doorkeepers, who have been unfailingly kind, along with Black Rod and the rest of the staff of the House. I must also thank my supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and my noble friend Lady Jenkin. In different ways, they have both inspired me across the years.
Like all of us, I am the product of my family, and, like many of us, my family's story is one of immigration and integration. My father’s father, Hartley Shawcross, came from Lancashire stock. He was a barrister, an MP, Clement Attlee’s Attorney-General and Britain’s chief prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. In 1959, he was among the first life Peers to be introduced into your Lordships’ House and sat as a Cross-Bencher. My mother’s mother, Leah Katzeff, was born in Lithuania, but her parents, fearing persecution and poverty, emigrated to South Africa when she was an infant. The family who stayed behind were all murdered in Lithuania as the Nazis advanced in the summer of 1941.
My grandparents led vastly different lives. My childhood memories are of clotted cream in Cornwall and chopped liver in Camden. But they shared a love of this country, a commitment to liberty, and a belief in the rule of law. My English grandfather helped to try those ultimately responsible for the murder of my Lithuanian grandmother’s family. My Lithuanian grandmother spent the second half of her life here in England campaigning for human rights and ending her career as director of Justice, a charity my grandfather co-founded decades earlier. Their stories, and the stories of my parents, shaped my sense of purpose.
After starting a career in management consultancy, a desire to be more useful and, I confess, youthful optimism, led me into politics. My grandfather and father both started on the left of the political spectrum and moved right over their careers. I thought I would save myself the trouble and start squarely in the centre-right. After nearly 20 years in Westminster, I have worked with wonderful politicians and civil servants: too many to thank individually. I particularly thank George Osborne, who took a chance in 2007 that a spreadsheet-literate consultant might be useful on his team. George was a wonderful boss—such a good boss, in fact, that he introduced me to my husband, my noble kinsman Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise. The career I began with George ultimately led me to No. 10 Downing Street, where I ran the Policy Unit for Rishi Sunak. It was the honour of a lifetime. Rishi believes in public service to his core, and I hope to follow the example he sets in public life: unstinting hard work, steadfast integrity and personal kindness.
If the first duty of government is defence of the realm and the second the rule of law, the third, I would argue, is to help the vulnerable. I was fortunate to spend time at the Department for Work and Pensions, most recently as a non-executive director, when the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, was Secretary of State. As our population ages and demand grows, this country has to grapple with how to run an effective, fair and sustainable healthcare and welfare system. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on the universal credit Bill, and I offer two reflections today.
First, we must always live within our means, so every spending decision is a trade-off. Here, I must acknowledge the influence of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, and six years working at HM Treasury. Borrowing more is not a solution. I agree totally with the Chancellor when she said that there is nothing progressive about a Government who simply spend more and more each year on debt interest. Instead, we must choose. Reasonable people can and do disagree on what those choices should be, as we can see here today. This debate makes for better decisions, but trade- offs are unavoidable, and we cannot pretend otherwise.
Secondly, policy is always about people. The numbers must add up, but every pound taxed, every pound spent, every incentive created, every disincentive introduced, makes a difference to people’s lives. The Government’s job—and I really know from first-hand how difficult this is—is to see it all: the big-picture cost, the systemic incentives and the individuals at the heart of it.
Twenty years in politics—or perhaps it is just middle age—have tempered my youthful optimism but not my belief in progress. I know that there will be difficult decisions ahead, but I am greatly encouraged by the wisdom, determination and civility that I have witnessed in this Chamber. I will do my best to follow the example that you have all set, and I look forward to making whatever contribution I can to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, it is a huge honour and privilege to be the first to congratulate my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson on her superb and very moving maiden speech. I am particularly pleased that my noble friend chose a debate on welfare policy to make her debut. Having served in the Department for Work and Pensions as both the chief of staff and a non-executive director, she brings great expertise to this debate. As she reminded us, it is our duty, in our position of privilege, to look out for those less fortunate than ourselves, an obligation expressed beautifully in the speech that we just heard.
My noble friend also brings with her six years’ experience of working in His Majesty’s Treasury. This too is crucial—to policy generally and to welfare policy specifically—because without a growing economy we cannot pay for welfare spending and without a conducive business environment, we cannot create the good jobs that are needed to help people on their journey from welfare to work.
I should also mention my noble friend’s two years as head of the No. 10 Policy Unit. In this capacity, she joins many distinguished Members of your Lordships’ House, including—I am hoping that Wikipedia has not let me down here—the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Adonis, the noble Baroness, Lady Hogg, my noble friends Lord Griffiths, Lord Blackwell, Lord O’Shaughnessy and Lord Johnson of Marylebone and, last but certainly not least, the noble Baroness, Lady Cavendish of Little Venice. If the No. 10 Policy Unit alumni do not already have a dining club, I hope that they consider setting one up. We are all lucky to have the pre-eminent brains trust of the country in our midst, including their newest member, my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. I offer her many congratulations on a superb maiden speech and our collective thanks in advance for her contributions to this House in the years to come.
Turning to today’s debate, I very much welcome the Government’s aim with this Bill—to get people into work. I was heartened when the Prime Minister said in December, at the launch of the Get Britain Working White Paper:
“Getting Britain back to work is at the heart of my mission to grow the economy”.
This objective is to be applauded. The Government’s Pathways to Work Green Paper in March outlined their plan for getting people into work. This Bill is a key element of that plan in its desire to shift from the current system, which incentivises applicants to maximise health-related benefits.
However, having followed closely the debate on the Bill in the other place, I was disappointed that very few commented on the positive and important role that the business community has to play in getting people from welfare into work. The debate today rightly has delved into a lot of detail about the workings of the benefit system, but the other element of getting people from welfare to work must be the availability of good jobs with appropriate training. The role of the business community as the primary creator and provider of jobs in our economy is therefore paramount. I realise that this point goes slightly beyond the narrow focus of this Bill, but for its overall objective to be achieved it requires the carrot of decent jobs for people to transition to, as the Government’s overall plan recognises.
I will use my remaining time to plant the seed of an idea for a cost-free measure to ensure that there is a carrot of good jobs for people to go to and a carrot for employers to provide these jobs. The proposal is as follows. Noble Lords will be aware there is currently a scheme to incentivise employers to hire veterans, which was introduced by Rishi Sunak in 2020 when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer and extended earlier this year by the Government to run until at least 2026. The scheme is simple. Employers who hire ex-Armed Forces personnel do not have to pay employers’ national insurance contributions during their first year of employment. This is facilitated through a zero rate of employers’ NI on salaries below £50,270 a year. A separate national insurance category is used when submitting payroll reports to HMRC. Similarly, employers hiring those under 21 do not have to pay class 1 national insurance contributions up to the lower earnings limit for these workers. In its submission ahead of the Autumn Budget, I hope that the Department for Work and Pensions might propose extending this scheme or replicating it for those who are moving from welfare into work.
I declare an interest: the proposal was recently suggested by the Jobs Foundation charity, of which I am president, as declared in the register. It was also advocated recently by the Good Growth Foundation, which was founded by and is directed by Praful Nargund, who stood as the Labour candidate for Islington North in the 2024 general election. The Good Growth Foundation is chaired by Tim Allan—who I understand from the Sunday newspapers might soon be joining the Civil Service as a Permanent Secretary—and has on its advisory council the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, whom I see in his place. I hope that he supports the proposal as well. I say this to emphasise and doubly underline that this is not a party-political suggestion but a common-sense suggestion. Even better, it will not cost the Treasury anything. The Good Growth Foundation estimates that the policy would save the Exchequer up to £1.1 billion every year. I am not expecting a commitment from the Minister tonight, but perhaps she might give us her initial thoughts on the proposal at the end of the debate and commit to asking her officials to look into it further.
Returning to where I began, if there is a dining club of former heads of the No. 10 Policy Unit, I hope that they discuss this at their next gathering. It seems to be an eminently sensible suggestion, and anything that encourages employers to help people on welfare into work and saves taxpayers money is surely worth serious consideration by the Treasury to help deliver on the very worthy aims of this Bill.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the many disabled people and disability and anti-poverty organisations, as well as colleagues in the Commons who listened to them, for winning concessions and shrinking this Bill to exclude PIP. Nevertheless, there remain serious concerns. Although, thankfully, for the most part existing claimants are protected, the shrunken Bill will still cause real damage. Yet the rushed process does not allow for proper scrutiny—a criticism voiced by the many disabled people who have emailed us. We should not underestimate the degree of anxiety, stress and mistrust that this episode has caused them.
The joint civil society briefing, for which I am grateful, warns that by 2030 the cuts to the health element of universal credit will mean a loss of £3,000 a year for 750,000 disabled people, with the impact increasing in future years. They will also have a damaging knock-on effect on carers, some of whom are themselves disabled. A major point of concern is the drafting of the severe conditions criteria, which will protect a small number of future health element claimants with a terminal illness or lifelong condition, and in particular the “constantly” requirement, which applies a more stringent standard than now, to the detriment of people with severe conditions that fluctuate day to day, including MS and Parkinson’s. The Minister in the Commons tried to address this at Third Reading, but the civil society briefing warns that
“there is a gap between the stated intention to exactly reflect the existing severe conditions, and the test which is written into … the legislation”.
Given the lack of time to look at this properly now, will my noble friend consider withdrawing paragraph 6 of Schedule 1, which simply amends existing regulations, so that this can be sorted out through secondary legislation? What the Minister said so helpfully in the Commons needs to be written clearly into legislation. Can my noble friend explain why it is not?
As noted, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the New Economics Foundation estimate that the net effect of the Bill’s measures will be an increase of around 50,000 in the numbers of those in poverty by 2029-30. Yet disabled people are already at disproportionate risk of poverty, as demonstrated by a recent report from the APPG on Poverty and Inequality, which I co-chair. Disabled women are particularly at risk—one of the human rights concerns raised by the UN—but the revised impact assessment offers only a superficial high-level equalities analysis rather than a proper equalities impact assessment.
The one mitigating provision in the Bill is the very welcome real increase in the UC standard allowance, which contributes to the aimed-for rebalancing of it and the health element. However, the rebalancing is not exactly balanced as, between the cuts to the health element and the improvements in the basic UC rate, even by the end of the decade we are talking about a real increase of only around £5 a week. Of course, even £5 matters to someone on a very low income, but it is hardly enough to provide the dignity and security that is promised in the impact assessment—which acknowledges that this only starts to improve basic adequacy. As the Resolution Foundation warns, it will still leave benefit income being far from adequate. Moreover, the impact assessment acknowledges that a “fairly small number” will not gain from the increase, because of the benefit cap. Can my noble friend indicate how many this “fairly small number” will be, considering that anyone who loses entitlement to the health element could then be subject to the cap?
I welcome the commitment to coproduction of the Timms review, and the assurances he has given. I hope these will allay the totally understandable fears of disabled people and carers, given the lack even of genuine consultation hitherto. But while, like him, I hope the review group will be able to achieve a consensus, if it does not, then what? Can my noble friend say whether, in such a scenario, those who disagreed with the outcome would be able to publish their views as part of the official report?
When recently I asked my noble friend whether the DWP would consider extending the principle of coproduction to the UC review, she tried to reassure me with reference to forthcoming focus groups with Changing Realities. I am a great supporter of Changing Realities, which brings the expertise of lived experience into the policy domain, but a few focus groups do not amount to coproduction. In an unanswered letter to Minister Timms, the APPG on Poverty and Inequality made the case for establishing a formal mechanism for coproduction and meaningful consultation with those who have experience of claiming UC, so as to avoid the shortcomings of the current scheme.
Finally, I hope the omnishambles of the past few weeks will stand as a lesson for how not to carry out social security reform. Yes, there is general agreement that we need reform. Indeed, I have been arguing for it for years, all the more urgently after a decade or so of cuts amounting to £50 billion a year—the very opposite of the scare stories about ballooning expenditure. Charities, think tanks and academics all make the case for investment in social security as a force for good rather than treating it as a dead weight. It is time we put the security back into social security.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. I thank the many disabled people and organisations who have written to us all. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, on her maiden speech and look forward to hearing her future contributions. Along with other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing the valedictory speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, and I wish her well. We will miss her.
Other speakers have outlined the changes in the Bill following the outrage from disabled people, and the major Labour rebellion in the Commons, but there are still concerns about this reduced Bill, as well as the Timms review looking at personal independence payments. The Secretary of State’s tone in her speeches was very worrying right from the start. The premise that all that disabled people and those with serious health problems need is support to get a job was, to disabled people, quite extraordinary. Worse, there was an implication that many of them were workshy. That is not the problem. I entirely agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, when he set out that more needs to be done to encourage business to offer proper jobs and support disabled people in them.
In referring to changes to PIP, the Secretary of State repeatedly implied that PIP was an in-work benefit—it is not. It is there to help disabled people manage the extra costs of life, as the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, outlined. At the Work and Pensions Select Committee last week, my honourable friend, Steve Darling MP, who is visually impaired, had repeatedly to challenge the Secretary of State’s assertion that cutting PIP would help people get into work. Kemi Badenoch MP, the leader of the Opposition, said last week that it was possible to claim PIP by self-certification, as well as suggesting that every disabled person in the country claims disability benefits. She also asserted that it was possible for someone with a food intolerance to get a Motability vehicle. Not one of those statements is true. It is alarming that senior people in the two main parties in the Commons appear to be demonising disabled people, but it is really good that the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, do not use this approach and this tone.
The definition of a disabled person is someone with a condition or illness that lasts 12 months or more, which limits their ability to carry out day-to-day activities. The one in four statistic includes the elderly: 40% of the elderly fall into the disabled bracket. Perhaps demography is also increasing the number of disabled people.
I turn to what remains of the Bill. On the changes to universal credit, principally the limited capability for work-related activity—the health element—the proposals will create a two-tier benefit system, as others have said, and may breach the Equality Act. It is extraordinary that the Government believe it is acceptable to halve and then freeze the UC element. People with disabilities and health conditions will find their costs far harder to manage, despite having to live with severe conditions. This may mean that they have to resort to the NHS or social care, with increased costs to those public budgets. What assessments have the Government made of the additional costs that are likely to be transferred to the DHSC, other departments and local authorities? The impact assessment on the UC element says on page 5:
“Nearly three million people are not working or looking for work due to ill health, a significant increase of nearly 800,000 since early 2019”.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Andrews and Lady Browning, both mentioned Covid. As the health spokesperson for the Lib Dems during that time, I am interested in the statistics. The ONS data published last year showed that the number of people in England and Scotland with long Covid had increased by 2 million and, of that number, around 381,000 had serious life-limiting Covid. Worse, many doctors are now reporting significant increases in certain serious chronic diseases, such as Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis—caused, it is thought, by triggering the immune system following Covid. Have the long-term direct and indirect consequences of the pandemic been taken into account in these increased numbers? Has advice been sought from the Chief Medical Officer and the NHS?
Finally, will Ministers please truly consult and work with disabled people? Decades ago, disability campaigners created the phrase “nothing about us without us”, but the publication and announcements for this Bill have destroyed whatever tiny amount of hope the disabled community had that this new Government understood disabled people and their lives. There is much rebuilding of trust to do.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, on her excellent speech and welcome her to the House. I also look forward to my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick’s valedictory speech. I thank her for her compassion and mentoring. When I first arrived in this House, she said, “You must faithfully follow all the signs and instructions”. The first sign I saw said “Keep left”, so I have been following that ever since.
The Bill before us is cruel. It started life as the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill and morphed into the Universal Credit Bill. Without providing any evidence, Ministers said publicly that without cutting benefits to the disabled, the welfare system would actually collapse. Strange: no such argument is ever made when vast sums are handed out in corporate welfare. Billions of pounds have been handed out in subsidies and uncosted tax reliefs to banks, auto, steel, shipbuilding, oil, gas, biomass, water, rail, the internet and many other industries. No equity stake is acquired in return and no cost-benefit analysis is ever produced.
The Government said on 23 April 2025 that spending on welfare would be 10.6% of GDP this year, which is considerably below the OECD average. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research said earlier this year that the UK has some of the least generous welfare across OECD countries, yet here we are inflicting more harm.
The Bill still targets the disabled. There has been no assessment of its impact on the NHS, public services, local economies, families, people, and human dignity. The assumed financial savings are unlikely to materialise. I welcome the proposed £1 billion investment in employment support and a right to try but, after changes in the Commons, the cuts are still there to the amount of around £2 billion. This is a large amount and will devastate the lives of around 1.6 million disabled people by slashing the health element from £97 a week to £50 a week for those applying for universal credit after April 2026. That is a cut of £2,444 a year and will plunge millions of people into poverty. It violates any notion of equality by creating a two-tier society. Pre-April 2026 claimants will not really be safe, as their circumstances can change and they may well be classified as new claimants and lose what they are getting now.
No evidence has been provided to show that the government policy will deliver the assumed objectives, jobs and savings. The OBR will not publish its analysis until later this year. The Timms review will not begin until autumn, and we still do not have the full wording of the new eligibility criteria, and Parliament will not really be able to amend it, though it may be able to discuss it. Consultations were needed before proceeding with the Bill, but that has not been the case.
There is no shortage of money. For example, around £15 billion a year can be raised by taxing capital gains and dividends at the same rate as wages. Another £14.5 billion can be raised by standardising tax relief on all pension contributions at the basic rate of income tax, but the Government are choosing not to do that. We are all one serious illness or accident away from becoming disabled and needing benefits. None of us could live on the new level of reduced support for future claimants. The Bill removes hope and support for those who desperately need it. I regret that I cannot support the Government on this Bill.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, it is always daunting to follow my noble friend Lord Sikka. His depth of knowledge and of figures always amazes me. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, not only on her great pedigree in coming here but on her maiden speech. We are doing our bit for the numbers here, on the basis of one in, one out.
I thank your Lordships so much for all the very kind comments. I blush when I hear them, because I feel a fraud, giving a valedictory speech after only seven years in the House. That is just the blink of an eye compared with many Peers. Despite my short stay, I would like to put on record my thanks to those who have given me support while I have been here, many of whom are in the Chamber today. The doorkeepers have always been tremendous and, from my first day, given me their kind support. Some old friends among them have retired, while other stalwarts remain, and I have seen the professionalism of the newer doorkeepers. I thank them all.
I was honoured to be introduced by my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Hayter of Kentish Town—two formidable women from whom I have learned a lot. It has been a particular honour to support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in her many attempts to protect human rights during the last Parliament. The most important person who helped me settle in and find my way around, both procedurally and geographically, was my noble friend Lady Gale. She was my unofficial mentor and remains, I hope, a good friend. I also remember that my first Whip was my noble friend the Minister, who was as gentle and supportive as any Whip can be.
However, I have never been reconciled to the unelected nature of the House of Lords. While I wish good speed to the Bill to abolish hereditary Peers, it will not change the fundamental problem of the imbalance in representation in this House. During my time on the Opposition Benches, I saw how difficult it was to pass amendments just to ask the Government to think again. Currently, the main opposition party can defeat the Government simply because, at times in the past, the Conservative Party has used its patronage to create more life Peers than Labour has. I believe that a second Chamber must be a check on the powers of the Executive, particularly when Members of the other place are unable to perform that role. But the basis for a second Chamber should be rooted in democratic accountability. The House has many Members who represent the great and the good, but it is not representative of or answerable to the people who are affected by the legislation it considers, including the Bill we are discussing. So I leave still committed to an elected senate of the nations and regions, and I will continue to write and campaign on that cause.
I turn now to the Universal Credit Bill. I thank campaigning groups for their briefing papers and the many individuals who shared their lived experience, which undermines the false idea that anyone can self-identify as disabled. I put on record my admiration for the many disabled campaigners who were successful in persuading the Government to accept that their first Bill was deeply flawed. I am proud to stand with the MPs who campaigned against both Bills, in particular the four Scottish Labour MPs who stood by their constituents and principles and voted against this Bill.
Despite the decision to consider the future of PIP in the Timms review, the Bill will have a devastating impact on those who need to claim the health element of universal credit. Last week, we saw levels of unemployment rise to a four-year high. Finding skilled, well-paid jobs is challenging for everyone; the slogan “those who can work, should work” is meaningless if employers are even less interested in making the adjustments needed to bring disabled workers into the workplace. Surely that is where the emphasis needs to be. Employers should have an obligation to make space in their workplaces for disabled people.
I hope the Minister recognises that the Bill was perhaps drafted in undue haste. In a debate in 2020, she said the very wise words:
“Occasionally, all of us in politics need to reflect that when we legislate in haste, we may repent at leisure”.—[Official Report, 3/9/20; col. GC 69.]
I hope that the Bill can wait for the publication of the impact assessments and supporting information, including the analysis of the Office for Budget Responsibility on the expected number of people moving into work as a result of these changes. It is likely that that analysis will show that many of the people affected will not be able to move into work; instead, they will be moved into greater poverty.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend Lady Ritchie, who has been such a valuable Member of this House.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow my roommate and noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick as she makes her valedictory speech today and says farewell to the Chamber. As my roommate in Room 14 on the 2nd Floor, West Front, along with our mentor and boss, my noble friend Lady Gale, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, she formed a very good friendship with all of us. She is a good colleague and a hard-working campaigner for social justice, fairness and equality for all, and in particular for all the residents of Scotland. I hope that, outside this Chamber, she continues that work in whatever guise she decides.
I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. She is very welcome in your Lordships’ House.
Moving on to the Bill, I welcome the Government’s decision to make concessions in relation to the original Bill with regard to PIPs and disabilities, as well as, on a separate basis, the winter fuel payment. As a former Minister with responsibility for welfare in Northern Ireland—under the principle of parity, the Bill will apply in Northern Ireland—I recognise that welfare is a very challenging issue and requires to be reformed, and that the financial bandwidth has been lessened due to the actions of the previous Government over 14 years and the existential threats posed by Brexit.
None the less, the concessions show a listening Government. But there is a little more that needs to be addressed, as has been referred to in this debate, in the many letters we have received via email and in the various submissions from disability organisations. I hope the Government will be able to lead, listen to the needs of the disabled and provide a solution with particular reference to the health element of universal credit for new claimants. I hope that those measures, which bring benefit to disabled people, will emerge from the Timms review, which will be co-produced with disabled people through listening to and working with them.
Many people have said to me that there is a fear in the wider community of a possible return to austerity. I would like assurances from my noble friend the Minister that that will not be the case and that the most vulnerable, who have faced disproportionate costs for heating and food over many years, will be protected by benefits uprated in line with inflation.
People still find themselves disproportionately affected by rising inflation and the ongoing cost of living crisis. The latest consumer prices index has spiked to 3.6% for June 2025, with the Bank of England predicting possible further rises due to higher food and energy prices. In such circumstances and in the context of the Bill, will my noble friend the Minister commit the Government to social security benefits uprating in line with inflation for those out of work and those in low-paid work? She provided me with some comfort some weeks ago in answer to my question when she stated
“the Bill says that we are guaranteeing an above-inflation increase to the UC standard allowance in each of the next four years”.—[Official Report, 2/7/25; col. 807.]
I hope that that will be the case, notwithstanding the challenges faced by the Treasury and the Government, and taking on board the increase in price inflation figures released some days ago. That is the issue for Advice NI in Northern Ireland, which represents many people in receipt of disability benefits.
I have a further question for the Minister. What if the move to universal credit takes longer to complete than by March 2026? Will anyone who moves from ESA to universal credit after March 2026 be treated as a new universal credit claimant and so be subject to the health element, which would mean a 50% reduction for new claimants? I am looking for some assurances. Therefore, can my noble friend the Minister indicate what the situation will be? None of us want to see people ploughed into endless poverty, disadvantage and financial loss while enduring their disability.
The Cystic Fibrosis Trust and the disability charity Scope, while welcoming the Government’s concessions, are concerned about the fluctuating nature of health conditions for new claimants. Therefore, can my noble friend the Minister outline what further measures could be provided to assuage the concerns around the health element of those potential new claimants for universal credit? Many disability conditions do not disappear with changes in social security regulations or legislation.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I have a long-standing interest in ME—chronic fatigue syndrome—having seen at first hand its awful impacts on people’s lives. It is good to be able to say something this evening, because today we saw the publication of the long-awaited delivery plan on ME. It is very welcome to see that. The Ministerial foreword says that we need
“a better understanding of the condition”.
I think patients with ME would certainly agree.
For context, an estimated 400,000 people in the UK are living with ME, and around a quarter of those are disabled to the extent that they spend most of their lives in bed. The remainder have symptoms on a very wide spectrum. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, it is estimated that around 381,000 people have serious post-viral symptoms that have lasted for more than two years as a result of long Covid. Long Covid is not the same as ME, but there are some similarities.
The sad truth is that for many people ME is a lifelong condition. Its severity and impact vary enormously, not just between individuals but for the same individual, both over the long term and as part of a pattern of symptoms in the short term. Flare-ups are common, relapses occur, and it is entirely unpredictable.
For claimants, that means tasks that can be completed on some days cannot be completed on others, or simply cannot be sustained. I had a look at the training module for assessors, which says, “This training will take you approximately 30 minutes to complete”. The training is not bad, but I suggest to the Minister that 30 minutes is wholly inadequate to train an assessor in determining the condition of someone who is presenting such a complex set of conditions.
The delivery plan, which I referred to, says that we need
“to ensure that … the right decisions are made the first time”.
Amen to that, but the briefing from Scope tells us that around 49% of universal credit decisions reaching appeal are overturned. I cannot help but wonder whether that is related to the level of training on the part of the assessors. It would be very good if the Minister could say a word or two about that.
From April next year, new claimants will get a reduced limited capability for work rate, even if they have the most severe form of ME. Although it is lifelong and often seriously disabling, because it fluctuates and has an uncertain prognosis, many people will simply fail the “severe, lifelong condition” criteria. Many will not reach the strict “no improvement expected” test and thus will be locked out of the enhanced support.
Current regulations refer to
“the majority of the occasions on which the claimant … attempts to undertake the activity”.
The new regulations refer to “all occasions”. That is highly problematic for anyone with a fluctuating condition. I am talking this evening about ME, but we have heard from many other organisations and from individuals who have fluctuating conditions.
Freezing for four years means that disability support will not rise with inflation while other basic costs such as food and energy keep rising. It is a fact that many ME patients carry on working—life is tough, but they do it—and there are many others who aspire to work. They want to recover enough to one day go back to work, but it is complex and unpredictable. Their general health and well-being are key if they are to get back to work. Being pushed into poverty by measures in the Bill and by other measures will simply further disadvantage people with this condition.
Although not in the Bill, there is consultation on removing the health element of universal credit for under-22s. That is causing widespread concern, particularly among families and carers of young people with ME. The median onset age for ME is 15.
I agree with the comments made by Steve Darling, my colleague in the House of Commons, that the key to achieving the Government’s aspirations for welfare reform is genuine engagement with the people affected. I say to the Minister that, from reading the briefings from the organisations, it is very clear there is a huge gulf between the picture that she has painted today and the understanding of the organisations, and, perhaps even more importantly, the testimony from many hundreds of people who are now desperately worried about what the future holds for them. We need collectively to do much better to offer them not just a financial leg-up but some reassurance that we have their back.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
First, in her absence, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, on a very graceful maiden speech. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, that if he goes ahead with the idea of having meetings of former heads of the No. 10 policy unit, I hope that I, as a mere humble member, might occasionally be invited. Secondly, I would like to say how much I will miss my noble friend Lady Bryan of Partick. We come from opposite ends of the Labour spectrum, but one thing we have in common is a great love of Keir Hardie, who is one of my great heroes. In the context of this debate, I remind noble Lords that his great campaign was for the right to work, not the right to benefits.
The Conservatives left us with a pretty dire situation on social security in 2024. We are going to talk today not about the triple lock, but benefits. We were spending £64.7 billion on incapacity and disability benefits in 2023-24, which was an increase of 40% in real terms since 2013—an increase, not a cut—and it has been forecast that this amount will go up to £107 billion through this Parliament. This is a massive £36 billion increase in five years.
One of the reasons for this is that the number of people receiving the health element of universal credit soared from 2.5 million to 3.7 million under the previous Government, a 1.2 million increase. As my honourable friend in the other place, Alison McGovern, said, it is obvious that the current system is not financially sustainable. The Economic Affairs Select Committee, of which I am a member, did a report on why this has come about. It could discover no adequate health explanation for the rise in the number of people on benefits. What was clear was that the DWP had stopped vetting people properly to receive this benefit. Whereas before the pandemic, seven out of 10 people were given a proper interview, that virtually stopped. The cost of that failure of the system is huge, and I do not think we can go on as we are.
There is another issue that I know is very difficult, but we have created a situation where people out of work on disability benefits are significantly better off than people who work—who flog their guts out on the minimum wage and receive universal credit. We have got the incentives for work all wrong, and this is politically unsustainable. I have spent much of my life campaigning for the Labour Party on council estates, going around the country representing people on three local authorities, all in areas with deprived estates. A situation where people are going out to work full time and seeing people on the opposite side of the street with a considerably higher income is not sustainable.
I support the central proposition of this Bill, which is to equalise universal credit, but it has to be combined with a very strong welfare-to-work programme. There is nothing social democratic or socialist in enabling a young person with mental health difficulties to go on to a lifetime of benefits. We have to move away from that. We have to have welfare-to-work programmes, as we did in the Blair and Brown Governments. That is the key to the future.
Finally, the other reason why we have to tackle the cost of disability benefits is that otherwise, we are not going to be able to tackle child poverty, which, for me, is a much bigger cause: it can lift families out of desperate poverty and enable them to have many more opportunities in life. This is the great cause to which a Labour Government should address themselves, and unless we deal with the problem of working-age disability benefits, we will never be able to afford it.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, I will speak in the gap, if I may. I would like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, on her maiden speech. I look forward to her future contributions, particularly with her policy background. I also want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, for her service to this House.
I support the regret amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and I have key three key points to add to this evening’s Second Reading of the Universal Credit Bill. First, on Wales, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation calculates that there are almost 900,000 disabled people in Wales—around 30% of the population—with 26% of working-age adults self-reporting as being disabled. The DWP’s own Green Paper evidence pack shows that Wales will be disproportionately affected by any changes to welfare. It shows that 14.7% of the working-age population are on disability and incapacity benefits, the highest in the UK, while 20.4% of working-age people and 26.9% of working-age households in Wales receive universal credit. The Bill has also been highlighted by the First Minister of Wales as having a disproportionate effect on Wales. Will the Minister share with us what specific attention the UK Government have given to these disproportionate effects, and what discussions His Majesty’s Government will be having with the Welsh Government on the effect of this Bill?
My second point is that we already have a two-tier benefit system, and this Bill, as so eloquently pressed by other speakers, will worsen that. What I mean by that is that the two tiers already in existence are in relation to age. I will illustrate this briefly. Universal credit rates are 20% less if you are under 25, and the housing cost elements can be 45% less for those under 35 in some areas. There is a presumption here that all young people have parents or family members to support them, which is not the case. Practically speaking, the cost of food and bills is not, shockingly, cheaper for those who are, say, 24 years old compared to someone over 25. I ask the Minister: are those age rates something that will be addressed in the future? The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, also raised real concerns in relation to the gap in the welfare system for those with lifelong disabilities who are under the age of 22.
Finally, as a former unpaid carer, I would just like to add my voice to the calls for further clarity for unpaid carers under this new system.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
If I may, I will speak briefly in the gap, principally just to—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend has not given notice.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
Okay. I just wanted to say thank you to my noble friend Lady Bryan.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
I thank the noble Lord. With speakers in the gap, you never know quite where you are.
My Lords, first of all, it is a great pleasure to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson, and to compliment her on her maiden speech, as well as to compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, on her valedictory speech. The noble Baronesses enshrine the principle we have often noted in your Lordships’ House of “one in, one out”. This is a good example.
The Minister gave, as usual, a very good summary of the Government’s position, including the reasons for the removal of the PIP provisions from the Bill. A comment was made that she has been gentle and supportive, and I would comment from the Opposition Benches that I always find her gentle and supportive.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, made some interesting comments, including that the House will not be fooled. I thought that was very pertinent. He also said that the Government are running away from real reform.
My noble friend Lady Tyler drew great attention to the reduction of support for those with mental health problems, and to the involvement of carers, which has not been emphasised too much during this debate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has her regret amendment, to which she spoke eloquently. If she moves to a vote, the Liberal Democrats will be supporting that. It is a welcome relief in a money Bill to have an opportunity to vote for anything—and this is not just anything but something worth voting for.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott, made some points about decent jobs and giving a carrot to employers. That is an interesting aspect, which has not been discussed in the Bill. He also raised something that I did not know about ex-servicemen’s relief, which is something to be borne in mind.
My noble friend Lady Brinton gave a good clarification on PIP during her comments.
There needs to be reform of the welfare system, but this Bill is not the way to do it. On its way to this Chamber, the Bill has been described by others, including my noble friend Lady Tyler, as shambolic. There is not enough linkage between the NHS and the care system. There are still people stuck on universal credit because they are stuck in an unresponsive NHS.
From April 2026, the health element for new universal credit claimants will be cut, from £97 to £50 a week. As was drawn attention to by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, that means a loss of £2,444 per year. This will push hundreds of thousands into deep poverty, stripping away legal protections and forcing people to choose between food and essential medication.
The consequences are clear: spiralling hunger, mental health crises and suicide. These changes will destroy lives. Only one in nine claimants who would currently receive the full limited capability for work and work-related activity support will qualify under the proposed severe conditions criteria; that is, just 200,000 people.
The SCC introduces four new harsh eligibility hurdles. First, there is the finding of unfitness for work and work-related activity. Secondly, it specifies an NHS-only diagnosis, excluding private specialists, which is a trip into the old world. People are not using only the NHS, so why exclude private specialist diagnoses? Perhaps the Minister could explain that. Thirdly, there is the hurdle of a lifelong condition. Fourthly, symptoms must meet Schedule 7 descriptors constantly and not episodically.
These requirements structurally exclude and discriminate against people with fluctuating conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia and Parkinson’s. They punish those stuck on NHS diagnostic wait lists, some for more than a decade. My noble friend Lady Scott drew attention to ME as a long-standing symptom, but it is one of many.
The Bill also scraps ESA Regulation 35(2), a vital safety net that protects people from being forced into unsafe work where there is substantial risk of harm or suicide. The safeguard is applied only when clinicians provide serious evidence of the danger, and its removal is reckless. Coroners’ prevention of future death reports have repeatedly warned of tragic outcomes with such protections missing.
No one has really talked about whether the Bill will now save money. I quote Helen Miller, the deputy director of the IFS:
“The government’s original reform was set to save £5.5 billion in the short run … and double that in the long run when fully rolled out. Without reform to Personal Independence Payment, the watered down bill is expected to deliver essentially no savings over the next four years. This is because over this period the forecast savings from reducing the Universal Credit (UC) health element for new claimants … will be roughly offset by the cost of increasing the UC standard allowance”.
This is typical of the Government and just like the winter fuel allowance. We understand why the winter fuel allowance was cut but, with people claiming additional benefits, the monetary benefit of removing it was not there. History is repeating itself.
This is a money Bill and our formal powers are limited, so I put it in simple terms to the Government—four very simple points. First, they should recognise that the exclusion of fluctuating conditions is unfair. Can the Minister answer that? Secondly, the change to require NHS-only diagnosis and treatment is also unfair. Thirdly, we should defend the protections of those at substantial risk. Fourthly, where is the engagement with carers’ organisations, as referred to by other Peers?
From these Benches we call for revision to the severe conditions criteria and the restoration of essential safeguards, which will help future legal challenges and put disabled people’s voices and lived realities on the record. This is a faulty Bill, and it should not even be here.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the Bill and for the ability to speak openly to her in the lead-up to today. I completely agree with the Minister that benefits should be easy to access for those who are in genuine need and difficult—even impossible—to access for those who are not in need.
I warmly welcome my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson to your Lordships’ House and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I have no doubt that my noble friend will make a significant contribution to the work of this House. The strength of that contribution was clearly understood today. My noble friend and I spent many interesting times in the DWP debating the merits of changes to the Child Maintenance Service with our own other noble friend Lady Coffey.
I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan of Partick, well as she leaves your Lordships’ House. I thank her for her service and can confirm 100% that the noble Baroness is no fraud.
I want to focus your Lordships’ minds on the realities facing millions in this country and on the striking absence of ambition in this Bill. I will summarise the issues I believe the Government should address and attempt to solve, and where they ought to have begun before embarking on this legislation. I have always tried to be balanced and measured in my approach to this subject matter, and today will be no exception. I want to discuss the facts, which are important. We should be straightforward about them because, in discussing and debating them, we might get some solutions that benefit the people we exist to serve.
First, I was surprised that there is nothing in the Bill that addresses the deep-rooted challenge of long-term benefit reliance. People have always depended on the state when they see no other path forward. I was delighted that my heart was beating in concert with that of the noble Lord, Lord Liddell, when he talked about it being outrageous that people should get more on benefits than they would if they went to work. There are people who say, “Why should I work when I can get this?” The other day I was with somebody who works goodness knows how many hours a week. He told me that his friend, who is on benefits, was on Brighton beach. I suppose that is legit. When she went for a benefit assessment with her doctor, she used to put thick mascara around her eyes and Vicks underneath to make herself cry. Well, it worked. We should not have those sorts of things.
There is nothing in the Bill for those who have tried and failed; for whom interventions and standardised work programmes have never worked. Some people have been on every government programme that has ever been devised and delivered, but, to our shame, they still remain out of work. In one area of the country, they call these people their “beached population”, because they are completely held out of work by various conditions, or simply a lack of opportunity.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle made a very good point that we cannot standardise things. One size does not fit all, and having flexibility in the service we offer people is going to be really important. I note the points made by the Minister on PIP assessments. I congratulate her on the commitment to do them face to face. The only reason that face-to-face assessments were stopped was Covid, and I am glad that they are coming back.
We must do better, especially for those living with disabilities and battling severe conditions every day. I recognise the Government’s progress on the Conservative principle of the right to try and welcome recent investments in skills, but without real, personalised, wraparound support, these efforts will continue to fall short for some people who need them. I have had loads of emails, as I am sure other noble Lords have, from people concerned about the impact on disabled people. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that the media have not helped one little bit in the way that they have frightened people into believing that certain things will happen, when maybe they will not.
Why can we not offer real choices and a sense of purpose to those who have never truly had one—a point well made by my noble friend Lady Browning. Where is the choice for the choiceless? I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, had pinched my speech, because we were sharing those words, so we are at one on that. I am very happy to confirm that the family the noble Baroness told us about should get the help that they really do deserve.
Secondly, our labour market is faltering. The most recent figures show that payrolled employees have fallen by 0.6% on the year, vacancies are down by 63,000 in the last quarter and the universal credit claimant count rose again in June to 1.743 million—up on both the month and the year. Yet this Bill offers no road map or plan to reverse the trend.
The West Midlands and London, two of the most populous and diverse economic regions, have experienced some of the weakest labour market recoveries. The constituencies with the highest universal credit claimant rates dominate the top of the list. This is no coincidence. The data reveals a stark truth: high claimant rates correlate directly with underperforming local labour markets. Jobs created are either out of reach or out of sync with the people who need them most. Nothing in the Bill seeks to address this reality. Where is the effort to connect talent to opportunity? Where is the connection for the unconnected?
We also know that adult education and skills training are the key to unlocking potential but, for too many, those doors remain shut. Whether it is basic maths and English or technical qualifications, acquiring skills later in life is profoundly difficult. Even when the financial support is there, awareness is lacking. Claimants are struggling to find tailored practical pathways that fit around the daily grind. Nothing in the Bill seeks to address this reality. Where are the accessible education opportunities for those who need them most? Where are the education opportunities for the forgotten?
In my 32 years of helping people into work, I—like all noble Lords—have seen the battles people face, the demons behind closed doors and the slow grinding effort required to turn lives around. Although the Government can do a lot, they cannot do it alone, and neither should they. Civil society must meet the challenge with urgency, and very often they are the best people to engage with the people we are talking about and trying to help this evening. What we need is not another scheme; we need belief and commitment. We need to support people who walk life’s tightrope every day, to keep them in work—not just for their finances but for their sense of purpose. Nothing in the Bill seeks to address this reality. Where is the direction for those who need it most? Where is the hope for the hopeless?
Nowhere is this more critical than with our young people, especially those who are NEET. This is a group that I and others in this House have worked with very closely, and I am sure we all care deeply about it. Today, over 800,000 young people in the UK fall into this category, and that should be a shock to us all. It should stir us into action—a point well made by the noble Lord, Lord Rook, who mentioned one of my favourite organisations: the Salvation Army. It was William Booth who set up the first labour exchange; the Government nicked the idea, and today we have Jobcentre Plus. Behind that number are real lives—real young people who were told to work hard, go to school and go to university. They did, but they now find that promise broken. How will the Government stop young people becoming NEET in the first place?
Graduate jobs are also vanishing as AI and automation reshape the economy. Up to one-third of traditional graduate roles are expected to disappear. These young people are not lacking in ambition; they are simply not being met with opportunity. The consequences are severe: studies show that time spent NEET leads to worse mental and physical health and a greater likelihood of unemployment or poor-quality work for years to come.
Consider the broader economic picture regarding inactivity. The UK inactivity rate for working-age adults is now 21%. Some 37,000 working days were lost to labour disputes in May alone. We face a softening labour market, falling payroll numbers and growing economic disengagement. At the moment, the Bill does nothing to respond to this. My noble friend Lord Elliott made the point that it is only employers who create jobs. Nobody else does that. You cannot buy jobs; it is only employers who create them. We need to work with employers to make sure that those jobs are created. Even I cannot offer the Minister the offer that my noble friend made, so if I were her I would grab it quickly. Meanwhile, we are told that the Bill delivers value, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that there are no net savings—yet we still plan to spend £2.2 billion immediately. Where is the fiscal prudence in that?
Hanging over all of this, our welfare bill is forecast to exceed £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. Our national debt, enormous in size, is even more concerning in composition—much of it inflation linked, meaning that prices rise directly and raise the cost of our repayments. This is a dangerous fiscal position. As my noble friend Lady Shawcross-Wolfson said, we cannot borrow, and we cannot borrow our way to opportunity. We need growth and reform and, above everything else, people in work. We will not reduce the bill until we reduce the dependency; that is the fundamental truth at the heart of this debate. We must win the argument that an ever-expanding welfare budget is not an act of kindness—it is a form of cruelty. It traps people, robs them of dignity and hollows out society’s productivity.
The Government, through the NICs Act—I know that it is a sore subject—have taxed work at the expense of people and of what employers are able, or now not able, to do. We need a new vision, one rooted in belief, backed by action and committed to the conviction that everyone deserves the chance to thrive through work. Many may ask, “What does that matter to me?” The answer lies in the long-term health and balance of our economy and of the people impacted. We risk drifting towards a situation where the welfare state outpaces the economy that sustains it—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. A fair and sustainable system depends on a strong workforce and a thriving labour market.
Britain needs people like us who will speak plainly about the scale of the challenge, and many in this Chamber are doing that. Your Lordships’ House knows me well, and I will continue to speak for the voiceless, the choiceless, the hopeless and the workless, and I know that noble Lords will all join me in that. I will continue to challenge the silence in this Bill and continue to fight with noble Lords for a future where work is not only possible but purposeful.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions this evening. It has been a really interesting debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shawcross-Wolfson. What an astonishing story and what an incredible heritage. I can only think that her forebears must be so very proud of her. It is a real joy to have her here with us today.
I thank my noble friend Lady Bryan. It was a privilege to be her Whip. I cannot say that I was always successful in persuading her of my point of view, but it was an absolute delight to work with her and we will miss her very much. I know that retirement for her will not mean walking away from the cause of social justice; indeed, she may be the first person to leave the House of Lords to spend more time in politics. We thank her for her contribution and we hope that she stays in touch.
Before I turn to the specific points raised, I say from the outset that this Bill is simply one part of the Government’s wider programme to reform our social security system so that it is sustainable and helps people to build a better life. That is what it is there to do, but it is part of a much wider programme. Let us bear that in mind as we go through.
Let us look at the specifics. I will try to talk on as many points as possible, but in 20 minutes I will not get to them all and I will not name everybody. I apologise in advance.
On the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle, and others that the Bill pushes people into poverty, let me be clear that nobody will find themselves pushed into poverty as a result of the changes in the Bill. People who are claiming benefits are not going to be subject to these changes. As I said at the start, we estimate that the benefits changes announced at the Spring Statement, revised to account for changes in the Bill, will now lift 50,000 people out of poverty in 2029-30. That is without any impacts of our record £3.8 billion investment in employment support. It is absolutely the case that those who qualify in future will get a higher standard allowance in universal credit and will still get a health top-up in universal credit, albeit at a lower level than now, as a result of the rebalancing. They will also get much more support in their journey towards work.
As for those with the highest needs, we recognise that some people will never be able to work. That is why those with the most severe, lifelong conditions whom we do not ever expect to be able to work, and those nearing the end of their lives, will receive the current higher rate of health top-up when they apply, and we will not be calling people in for pointless assessments.
My noble friend Lord Rook and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, focused particularly on young people. We have a special responsibility to make sure that nobody is written off before their adult life even begins. That is the basis of our new youth guarantee, to ensure that all 18 to 21 year-olds can access quality training opportunities, an apprenticeship or help to find a job. That will include targeted support for, for example, young people with learning disabilities. Our youth guarantee trailblazers are already doing brilliant work, testing and delivering new ways to help young people. We are working in partnership with all kinds of organisations, including the Premier League, Channel 4 and the Royal Shakespeare Company, to engage and inspire young people on their journey towards work. Perhaps the Salvation Army needs to be added to that list now—I can take a hint from both Benches.
My noble friend mentioned mental health. I reassure him that we are expanding mental health support teams, so that more schools can offer early, specialist help. All pupils will have access to mental health support in school by the end of the decade. Through the youth guarantee, we are improving access to mental health services for 18 to 21 year-olds.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the proposal we consulted on in the Green Paper, which is not part of this Bill, as to whether we should delay access to the health top-up of universal credit until someone is 22. I make no apology that we have to explore every option to make sure that young people are making the best possible start to their adult lives. However, there was a consultation. No decision has been taken, nor will it be taken until we have had the opportunity to review responses to the consultation. I reassure the House that, if we decide to go ahead with that, the savings will be reinvested in training and work opportunities for that age group and we will consider carefully what special provisions are needed for those young people for whom the youth guarantee will never be a realistic option.
I heard the comments of my noble friend Lord Hendy and others about the questions raised by the UNCRPD. I say to the House that we take our international obligations seriously. We have had a letter, we are considering the issues raised and we will respond in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, made some very important points about the way we debate these questions. I share her concern that the narrative can become regrettable and focused in ways that are just not helpful to the debate, never mind to the individuals. I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that my honourable friend the Secretary of State—I know this because I know her well—does not believe that disabled people are work-shy and wants to give them opportunities to move into work. I want to see a much better debate all round. We have to find a way, as a country, to be able to discuss reform of social security without running into problems where either we are not able to discuss it or we are doing it in ways that cause fear and anxiety, which do not need to be there. I hope we can all work together to find ways to do that.
I was shocked to hear of the website described by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, identifying Motability users. We have checked and the Motability Foundation has confirmed that no data was provided to the developers and any information returned is not accurate. I am glad that the website has been taken down, but the bottom line is that that should not be happening. That is not what this is about. It is shocking.
I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to make sure that we regain trust among those who use our services. A couple of noble Lords made points on this. We made clear in our Green Paper that this is our mission. We announced that we are reviewing our entire safeguarding processes and strengthening our clinical governance. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, that that includes the training of assessors, because we want to make sure that we get this right. A lot of time and effort is being invested in this and we have some really good people from the clinical side who are working with us internally in doing that. I am glad that the noble Baroness found the training helpful, even if it was not as long as she would want it to be. We are moving to bring back face-to-face assessments and will record them as standard. We think that those things taken together will help make a difference to the way the assessments happen and are perceived.
The noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell, touched on the challenge of making sure that the right jobs are there in the first place, and he is absolutely right. We are creating good jobs across the country, including using our modern industrial strategy and investing in such things as clean energy. However, our local Get Britain Working plans are based on the recognition that we do not have a single labour market in this country but a number of different labour markets that depend on local conditions.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, that this Bill does what this Bill does. If she wants to find hope and opportunity, she should go out there and look at Get Britain Working, the inactivity pilots, our youth guarantee pilots, and the independent review that we have commissioned from Sir Charlie Mayfield, former boss of John Lewis, into what employers can do to create inclusive workplaces where people can stay in work and not fall out of it when they hit health problems. There is a huge amount going on beyond this.
I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell; he is not the first person to make it to me. I will share it where it can best be used. We want to find ways of making sure that there are jobs there for people who want to get into them and that we can support them to do it.
Fluctuating conditions were mentioned a lot. This is an area where there has clearly been some confusion. Let me clarify for noble Lords who are not familiar with this that the work capability assessment is not specific to a condition; it is based on the impacts of a condition rather than the condition itself. Some conditions will have different impacts on different people or at different stages of a person’s life. The assessment includes provisions to ensure consideration of how someone’s condition might fluctuate, hence the use of the terms “reliably” and “repeatedly” in some of the descriptors. This Bill does not change that. The idea that we have somehow changed that through using the word “constantly” is not the case. In some of the descriptors embedded in legislation, the concept of fluctuation in a condition is explicit within the use of those terms “reliably” and “repeatedly”. The bottom line is that, if a person cannot repeat an activity within a reasonable time, they should be considered unable to complete the task at all. I hope that is reassuring.
The severe conditions criteria are existing criteria which we are now going to use to determine who gets the higher, protected amount of health top-up. The wording in the Bill reflects how the functional tests are applied at present, and those tests take account of fluctuations. The healthcare professional has to look at how someone can undertake a task; if they cannot do it reliably and repeatedly, they should be assumed to be unable to complete it at all. I hope that provides reassurance.
NHS diagnosis came up a couple of times, so I would like to take the opportunity to clarify this. To meet the severe conditions criteria, the condition needs to be recorded somewhere in the NHS, following a proper clinical investigation and a formal medical diagnosis in line with NHS best practice. That does not mean the initial diagnosis has to be done by the NHS, but it has to be recorded somewhere in the NHS system. For a person who has a severe, lifelong health condition, their diagnosis will be in their GP record, even if it was made privately. I hope that helps reassure noble Lords.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of unpaid carers. I once again put on record how much the Government appreciate their work and contribution. The increase to the UC standard allowance will benefit around a million unpaid carers. For any carers currently getting the universal credit health top-up, this Bill will not change that. My noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, gave me a strong challenge on the review of PIP being co-produced with disabled people and other stakeholders. I reassure them that that will include carers’ organisations, so the voices of unpaid carers will be heard in that process.
On the two-tier system—I hate this phrase anyway, for all kinds of reasons that will be obvious—it is really common in social security when you make a significant change that some people on an existing system will stay on the old terms. Take the example of the limited capability for work premium in universal credit, which the last Government changed in 2017: people who were getting it then are still getting it today and will carry on doing so. There are only two ways to do this: either you change it overnight for everybody or you allow those already getting something to carry on getting it for a time while you change it. We cannot have both no two-tier system and no cliff edge. All this is doing is allowing people who have already got used to this to carry on with it, and adjusting it, which is the right thing to do.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked for details on exactly what the employment support will be. I do not have time to go into this now, but I reassure him that we are scaling up fast, with £600 million in 2026-27. The support we are delivering includes Connect to Work, WorkWell, nine inactivity trailblazers and access to 1,000 pathways to work advisers. I assure him that anyone affected by the reduction of the UC health top-up will be offered work, health and skills support through an adviser.
A number of noble Lords talked about the challenges we are facing in the system. It is true that making our social security system sustainable is a real objective for this Government, as it must be for every Government. That needs action on various fronts. It needs action to reduce the drivers of ill health, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle said. It needs action, which we are doing, through our record levels of investment in and reform of the NHS. It needs investment in jobs in poor areas and in employment support, all of which we are doing at scale. It also needs reform of the benefits system, which we are committed to doing.
In response to the noble Viscount, who wants everything to have happened yesterday—even though I am not sure that characterised his Government’s period in office—for reforms of this scale, we need as far as possible to take people with us. I want these reforms to last for generations to come, because I want the welfare state to last for generations to come. Let us try to get this right, work together and be sensible about change. The real prize here is long-term reform and that is what we are shooting for.
A couple of noble Lords asked whether we are still saving money. Obviously, the removal of the PIP measure from this Bill will come with a cost, but the updated impact assessment shows that the Bill will still deliver some savings by 2029-30. However, the OBR will certify these as part of its next economic and fiscal outlook.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked what would happen to people on ESA. Existing claimants and anyone declaring a health condition before 6 April next year, and who become entitled to LCWRA because of that declaration, will get the higher rate. That includes claimants who currently receive income-related ESA and migrate to universal credit with no break in their claim. I hope that reassures her on that point.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, asked about fit note reform. It is not working, so through interventions such as WorkWell, we are testing different approaches to the role it can play as part of a joined-up work, health and skills system. He also asked about the right to try regulations; we aim to have those in place before April 2026. I hope that reassures him.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the position in Wales. Obviously, we published impact assessments that looked at Britain as a whole, because UC is reserved in Scotland and Wales, so the policies are not specific to a country—but I take her point. The Department for Communities in Northern Ireland has published detailed impact assessments as well. In response to her comments, we want to make sure that the positive changes in the Bill make a difference as far and wide as possible, but I stress again this Bill is only about the changes I have described so far. Some of our wider programmes are devolved and some are reserved, and we are absolutely committed to engaging closely with the devolved Governments to make sure we join those up, so that the benefits will spread across Wales as well as other parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope I have addressed as far as I can the points made about the impacts. On process, I know noble Lords do not like it being money Bill. I am sure noble Lords know that this was not the Government’s decision. It was a decision made by the Speaker of the House of Commons, on the advice of the authorities. I can only say to noble Lords that if Governments chose to make Bills money Bills, I suspect in all cases we would see an awful lot more of them. But this was not the decision of this Government at all.
I cannot pick up all the points that were raised. Let me say that we have published impact assessments; we are confident that the Bill complies with the Equality Act 2010; and we have engaged, and will continue to engage, with disabled people and their organisations. To be clear about the process on the Timms review, we expect it to conclude by autumn of next year and we are absolutely committed that it will be co-produced with disabled people and others to ensure that a wide range of views and voices are heard. We have already started, and will engage widely over the summer, on the details of the process and co-production. The review is reporting to the Secretary of State, but she has committed to reporting its findings to Parliament, so they will be coming here.
I hope I have addressed as many of the points as I can in the limited amount of time. I want to say a couple of things. One is that I am not ashamed to be part of a Government who listen, even if people have to shout quite loudly. Sometimes, we have to find ways of listening as carefully as we can. One of my noble friends suggested that you legislate at haste and repent a leisure. Well, we have had plenty of time to reflect on how we shape this Bill in the first place and I am really happy with it.
However, I want to stress the Bill has two parts. The PIP discussions will carry on, in the context of the Timms review, but this half of the Bill is about reforming universal credit, and that is absolutely worth doing. It is a prize worth having and we have to carry on with it. I am really proud that we have been able to push ahead and look at these details. The real difference is going to be made in the lives of people on the ground, in their engagement with our work coaches, the various services we can provide and the programmes we refer them to. We are trying to invest in getting people’s lives to be better.
In the end, we have to hope. We acknowledge that there will be some people who will never be able to work, and they should be supported. But there are plenty of other people who could have the opportunity to work if we could give them the right support and make sure they had the confidence to try a job; if we can get employers to listen and to take them seriously, and to want to bring on people with a history; if we can provide them with the skills or health support they need. We are setting out to join up all those things. For far too long, they have been separate. We have to join up health with skills, education and social security. If we can do that, the prize is enormous.
I do not want to write off people at 18. I do not want to write off people who have been given benefits for 20 years but nobody comes near them to offer help—that is not how I want it to be. I have heard the concerns around the House from different quarters and from all directions, and I understand that people worry about this. I very much hope that when not only this Bill but the Government’s programme of reforms get under way, people will begin to see that we really can make a difference—and that is a prize worth having.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her typically comprehensive response within the limits of the time available. I thank everyone who has contributed to this extremely rich debate.
Your Lordships’ House has done what we can within the limits of the procedure allowed us, and I particularly note the highlights of the maiden speech and the valedictory speech. However, this debate has inevitably left many questions unanswered. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted that what we heard from the Minister today and what we heard in the other place do not square with what is actually in the Bill on constant and continuing. Had we had further stages of the Bill here, we would have been able to explore that at depths that we simply have been unable to do today.
I note the equality points about age, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning; about gender, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; and about nations, especially Wales, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—and we did not even get into the regions of England. A particular highlight was the strong and powerful contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, in which they attacked some of the disgraceful stigmatisation and victim blaming that this debate has almost been free from, with a couple of exceptions. We have seen far too much of that in the public debate and in the other place.
The issue of finances is still hanging. The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, rightly pointed out that the justification for the Bill, when we started, was to cut government spending. The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, highlighted that we really have no idea what impact the Bill will have on raised costs for the NHS, social care, local councils and lots of other people. I should declare that I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
On jobs, the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, said that we need to do more to encourage employers. I am afraid that I am with the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, in thinking that employers should provide jobs, ensure that those jobs are open to disabled people and make appropriate accommodations.
The right reverend Prelate said a very powerful phrase: we have to embrace those who do not fit the model of financial productivity. People can contribute to our society in many ways. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott—I am sure that she did not mean to say this—spoke about a sense of purpose coming from paid work. I am sure she will acknowledge, as all sides of this House have acknowledged, that there are people who will never be able to take paid work, but those people’s lives can still have a sense of purpose. They can still contribute to communities—through caring and through volunteering—if they get the appropriate support.
The tone of this debate has very much been one of regret. The people listening to this debate need to hear as much support as they possibly can, so I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, social security is transferred in Northern Ireland, but there is a long-standing principle of parity between the social security systems of the Northern Ireland Executive and the UK Government. We want to ensure that Northern Ireland will also benefit from these important changes, and have included provision for Northern Ireland, engaging with the Department for Communities in the usual way regarding legislative consent.
The Northern Ireland Minister for Communities has been clear that, although the Northern Ireland Executive disagree with these reforms and therefore did not put forward a Legislative Consent Motion, it is not feasible or affordable for the NIE to diverge from the UK Government. Reluctantly, the UK Government have therefore decided that there was little choice but to proceed without consent from the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is not a decision that the UK Government have taken lightly, nor does it indicate a general change in our commitment to the Sewel convention. We will continue to engage closely with the devolved Governments as we move forward, including on the Timms review.