(3 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Personal Independence Payment and disabled people.
I am proud to have secured this debate today, and to be able to stand up for the disabled in the light of the catastrophic effects that the proposed cut to personal independence payments will have on them. This is the week after the council elections and the Runcorn and Helsby by-election proved disastrous for at least two major parties. The issue on everyone’s lips, and the cause of much of the disaffection, was welfare cuts, and specifically cuts to personal independence payments.
I begin by thanking in advance all those who will take part in this debate, all those watching, all those in the outside world who are campaigning against the cuts and, above all, the disabled community itself, which, day by day, shows exemplary resilience and courage.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in her spring statement, raised the curtain on a series of welfare cuts: the health element of universal credit will be cut by 50% and frozen for new claimants, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has outlined that the planned cuts to disability benefits will reduce PIP for at least 800,000 claimants and cut health-related universal credit payments for 3 million families. And that is just the beginning.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
On that point, I thank my right hon. Friend because many of my Slough constituents are extremely concerned about the proposed welfare cuts, especially to personal independence payments and other disability benefits. Unlike the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that embarked on austerity, and unlike Conservative Governments of recent years that became characterised as “the nasty party,” does my right hon. Friend agree that it is the job, indeed the moral duty, of this Government to protect the most vulnerable so that they can lead a dignified and independent life?
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government insist that the rising disability benefits bill means that something must be done, but in a recent report, the New Economics Foundation revealed that the disability benefits bill has risen because there has been a rise in the number of disabled people and a rise in deprivation. But, as we learned from David Cameron’s round of austerity, cuts have consequences that severely limit, or even eliminate, their supposed savings.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
In my Birmingham Perry Barr constituency, notwithstanding these forecasted cuts, people are already suffering because the Department for Work and Pensions—or perhaps His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—is trying to clamp down and suspend benefits such as PIP. That is causing immense anxiety for disabled and vulnerable adults, who are now having to seek an appeal while their benefits are being cut. Does the right hon. Member agree that an equality impact assessment needs to be conducted now, as opposed to simply cutting £5 billion in the near future?
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need an equality impact assessment now, and I cannot understand why the Government are introducing these random welfare benefit cuts without allowing MPs to understand fully what the consequences will be. The fact that the proposed welfare cuts come on top of the cut to the winter fuel allowance and the failure to raise the child benefit ceiling makes everything worse.
The furious response to their proposed welfare cuts, particularly the cuts to personal independence payments, seems to have come as a surprise to the Government. PIP is a benefit intended to help people who have a health condition or disability with the extra costs of living. Unfortunately, some people, including some Ministers, talk about it as if it were a handout.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that PIP is not an income, and that those councils that count it as income should be called out? Leicester city council counts PIP as income. The number of people applying for PIP is therefore reducing, and they are not getting council tax support. People like my constituent Jason will be £900 worse off.
Ms Abbott
PIP is certainly not an income, and I imagine that the Minister will be in contact with Leicester city council to try to understand what it thinks it is doing.
The new points system that the Government are suggesting for people to qualify for the maximum level of PIP is particularly concerning. For instance, it will mean that people who cannot wash below their waist could lose points and lose benefits, and be expected to find a job. Focus groups are revolted when they hear that. The country’s anger at these cuts boiled over last week in spectacular fashion with the by-election in Runcorn, where Labour lost its 16th safest seat.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Lady for securing this debate. Westminster Hall is full today, so this is clearly a massive issue.
PIP is effectively a lifeline to help to maintain people’s wellness and independence, and in many cases people’s employment, so more needs to be done. Furthermore, if a claimant no longer qualifies for the daily living component, any carer will also lose their direct access to carer’s allowance, which would be a loss of £10,000 on top of the other money that is lost. This situation is a minefield for those who are disabled and depend on PIP to continue having some quality of life. Does the right hon. Lady agree that today the Minister must give us many, many answers and change the policy?
Ms Abbott
It is indeed a cruel and brutal system that needs reform. It does not need cuts.
Elements of the Labour party seem to want to claim that the loss of the by-election in Runcorn and the fact that Labour lost two thirds of the council seats we were defending was all about immigrants. However, voter surveys show that, far from being all about immigrants, the single most important reason for vote-switching was anger at the Government for the winter fuel allowance and welfare cuts, such as the proposed cut to PIP. Immigration came well down the list.
Labour people who went out knocking on doors said that two issues came up over and again: cuts to winter fuel payments; and cuts to personal independence payments. However, despite the catastrophic results last week, the Prime Minister has made it clear that nothing will deter him from pushing ahead with these cuts. So far, his only concession has been to say that he will go “further and faster.”
In my Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency, well over 8,000 people are on either personal independence payment or disability living allowance, which translates nationwide to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men and women whose fury will only mount as they find that, month by month, their payments are shrinking or disappearing altogether.
The Labour leadership have not helped their case for cutting PIP by putting forward a set of contradictory arguments. On the one hand, they insist that they are helping the disabled by putting them back to work, but on the other hand, they say this cut will save £9 billion. Well, they cannot do both. Putting disabled people into rewarding, sustained employment, which we would all support, means spending money on training, therapy and childcare. In the short run, putting disabled people into jobs will not save money; it will actually cost more. The only certain way that cutting PIP saves the billions of pounds that the Government want is by making PIP recipients live on less, and this is something that Ministers claim they do not want to do.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful speech. I briefly draw attention to some figures from the Public and Commercial Services Union about its members working in the Department for Work and Pensions, including in jobcentres. Almost 50% of PCS members working in the DWP claim the very benefits that they process. Many of them rely on PIP to work, which further underlines the point she is making about the folly of cutting the benefits that enable people working for the Government to deliver these policies—they will not be able to do so if those benefits are cut. Does she agree that these cuts will punish sick and disabled people, including those working for the Government in this policy area?
Ms Abbott
Far from enabling the Government to put people into work, removing PIP will actually stop people working, because they depend on PIP for the extra cost of going to work.
Perhaps the most preposterous argument for cutting disability payments is that it is the moral choice. This is obviously nonsense. In what universe is slashing benefits for the disabled moral? No one is taken in by that, not even those who think that all benefit claimants are scroungers.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I have a constituent who has two sons suffering with cystic fibrosis. The condition means they have to be on a high-calorie, high-fat diet, so the cost of their food is much more than the ordinary shop. On top of that, my constituent has to bear the additional costs of buying medication and the loss of income as a result of having to be a carer for her two children. My right hon. Friend mentioned the need to look after our children. Does she agree that we need a system in which PIP provides for individuals such as my constituent’s two sons, so that children can also have the support to lead good-quality lives?
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree. Furthermore, it seems to me that Ministers have not really looked into the costs that PIP is covering, otherwise they would not be talking about slashing it in this way.
I wonder whether it ever occurs to the Government that voters will begin to notice that whenever they want money, they take it from the most vulnerable—old people, poor children and now the disabled. When we suggest a wealth tax, they recoil in horror, yet a 2% levy on men and women whose assets are worth more than £10 million would affect only 0.4% of the UK population and raise £24 billion a year. Politics is the language of choices, and sadly, this Government are making a conscious choice to balance their books on the back of people on welfare in general and the disabled in particular.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns that, by the Government’s own estimates, 300,000 people will be pushed into relative poverty by 2030 and, as a result, will need to rely on council services that are already severely oversubscribed? Does she agree that these cuts, without funding for council emergency services, will be a disastrous combination that risks exacerbating the pressures already faced by our local councils?
Ms Abbott
There is no question but that my hon. Friend is correct. These cuts will put even more pressure on local authorities, which are already in difficulties.
There is all this talk about getting disabled people into jobs—what jobs? The areas of employment where there are labour shortages tend to be minimum wage, like social care, or seasonal, like agricultural work. The DWP’s own figures show around 102,000 registered vacancies. Of those, only 807 can be done completely remotely, of which 127 are with employers that the DWP describes as Disability Confident, and of those just 10 are part time. Where are these jobs that the Government want to coerce the disabled into, and with what employers?
The PIP claimants that the Government want to force back to work may have physical disabilities, but they may also be severely depressed or have mental health problems. Most employers will not tolerate the intermittent patterns of employment and long periods out of the labour market that come with those types of health problems. Furthermore, there is very little evidence that cutting benefits boosts employment—a point made by a group of concerned charities recently—and, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) said earlier, Ministers seem to miss the point that PIP is paid to disabled people regardless of whether they are in work. That means that many of the women and men the Government are taking PIP off already have jobs.
Supporters of the Government’s cuts claim that, all too often, men and women on welfare are “taking the mickey”—I am quoting a Minister there—or making a “lifestyle choice”. People who describe welfare as a lifestyle choice obviously do not actually know many people who live on welfare. The poor housing, the struggle to pay for the basics and the humiliation they often endure mean that it is not a lifestyle that anybody would choose.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate speech and, in particular, for highlighting the real human impact of these cuts. Over 1 million disabled people were forced to use food banks last year, while, for many others, basics such as affording transport to hospital appointments will be jeopardised by these cuts. Does that not only emphasise and underline the case that right hon. Member was making: that this is a political choice, and that asking the very wealthiest in society to pay a bit more in tax would be the moral thing to do?
Ms Abbott
It is indeed a political choice. I would prefer my Government to introduce a wealth tax or some taxation system that asks the very wealthy to pay a little more than take money away from the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. But the Government refuse to accept that there is anything wrong with cutting benefits for the disabled. Instead, they say that there has been a “communication problem”. Some of us have tried explaining to Downing Street that they could employ the best communicators in the world, but these welfare cuts will be impossible to sell to the public and will undermine Labour’s position in communities.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
I recently met many furious constituents outraged both by the cuts already made and by those still to come. Nearly 10,000 people in Blackburn rely on PIP. I join the right hon. Member in condemning these cold-hearted and cruel cuts that leave people fearing that they cannot even heat their homes or eat.
Ms Abbott
I entirely agree, and I would add that if Ministers think that the recent local election results were bad, they should wait until next year’s council elections in Scotland, Wales, big city conurbations such as Manchester, Birmingham and Liverpool, and every single London borough.
There are people in No. 10 who believe that we did not go far enough. A nameless No. 10 adviser said:
“We didn’t go big enough the first time round…It’s a fairness issue”.
Another nameless Government source said:
“We should’ve done it all in one hit—we didn’t go far enough.”
I wonder how many poor or disabled people those people have ever met or known.
The Government should drop the cuts to the winter fuel payment and review the personal independence payment. They should consult the disabled and organisations that work with them, and genuinely improve and reform it.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is really important that the Government work on co-production so that disabled people are involved in the decision-making processes. On the interaction with the Scottish Government, the UK Government have said that they are cancelling work capability assessments and are relying on the PIP assessment to make the decisions. In Scotland, we do not have PIP assessments; we have adult disability payment assessments. Will the right hon. Lady join me in encouraging the Minister to set out clear plans before the welfare Bill comes to Parliament? Otherwise, we will be taking a decision about something with no idea about its impact.
Ms Abbott
We undoubtedly need more information before we can meaningfully vote on these proposals.
Some of us are old enough to remember Mrs Thatcher and her poll tax, which was her undoing. It is not too late to drop the winter fuel tax and the cuts to PIP. I plead with my Government to do so.
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. As so many people wish to speak, and I would like to give everyone the opportunity to do so, I will unfortunately have to set a one-and-a-half-minute timer; otherwise, we would simply not be able to get everyone in. I know everyone feels strongly about this issue.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I commend the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this very important debate.
Young people battling cancer are being failed by the system. They are forced to wait an average of eight long months before they can access PIP, including a three-month qualifying period that applies even after a confirmed cancer diagnosis. In that time, those young patients and their families face an extra £5,000 in out-of-pocket costs, on top of the emotional, physical and psychological burden of the cancer itself.
Does the Minister understand the consequences of these reforms for young people already enduring the fight of their young lives? Will he commit to working with his ministerial colleagues to scrap the arbitrary wait times, ensure that a medical diagnosis alone is accepted as sufficient evidence for PIP eligibility, and reshape the system so that it does not punish but protects?
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Harold Wilson once said:
“The Labour party is a moral crusade, or it is nothing.”
We need to be clear, as millions of people outside this place are clear, that to try to balance the books on the backs of the poor and disabled is fundamentally immoral and un-Labour. The Prime Minister and the Government need not to plough ahead apace with this immoral, appalling plan, but instead to drop it now. Let us be clear: someone who needs assistance to cut up their own food and wash and dress themselves would currently get a personal independence payment, but they could lose it thanks to the Government’s proposals. That is completely appalling.
These cuts were cruel enough when the OBR estimated that 800,000 people would lose PIP, but a new freedom of information answer from the DWP estimates that 1.3 million people could lose it. The Government should come clean and say what the figure is. It is outrageous to have a vote without knowing the figures. I say quite clearly that if the Government do not drop this immoral plan, I will vote against these cuts to disability benefits. I know that many of my colleagues will do so as well.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Too many disabled people in West Dorset are living in fear: fear that the PIP support they rely on will be taken away or that loved ones might not qualify. In recent weeks, I have heard from 190 constituents each sharing their distress about the plans. One of my constituents, Barbara, is 65. She has lived with juvenile idiopathic arthritis since she was three. She has experienced constant pain, multiple surgeries and increased disability throughout her life. Yet she worked in social services for many years and never claimed employment and support allowance. Her PIP award helps her fund the support she needs to give her independence: mobility equipment, home adjustments and private care when the NHS service falls short.
Despite scoring three points in some areas on her most recent assessment, and scoring on virtually all areas of daily living, Barbara would not qualify for any support under the proposed changes. For constituents such as Barbara, this is a terrifying prospect. As she put it herself:
“PIP is not a benefit. It is a tool for survival.”
As we debate the potential changes to PIP, I hope we will remember her words. Disabled people and their carers deserve dignity. They deserve to be seen not as a cost to be managed, but as valued citizens, worthy of respect and entitled to fairness and compassion from this House.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Everything is hard in body or in mind. People face the barriers, pain, dejection and not being believed—even when they are, assumptions are made on which only lived experience can speak. They face the effort to live, to just get up and face the day and to prove that their experiences are real, and they face the costs. After 14 years of battling, here we are, with “Pathways to Work”, taking away money, agency, dignity, independence and the essence of life itself. I fear, like many do, that people will take their lives, once again crushed by a system that fails to believe and points the finger rather than offering the hand, turning hope to despair. Poverty, dependency and harm—if not physical, most definitely psychological—await.
Colleagues, we are better than this. Let us vow to stop such pernicious cuts and rewrite the story with the voices, experiences and hope of disabled people. Even if tech, task, time and place can be accommodated, work is not always the answer. We do not even have the diagnosis, understanding of the evidence, or answers from Charlie Mayfield’s report. I will vote against these cuts because I am Labour and because disabled people matter.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Diolch yn fawr, Dr Allin-Khan; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Of the so-called savings, £4.5 billion will come from restricting eligibility for the daily living element of personal independence payments. Restricting that will result in an average financial loss of £4,500 each for our constituents. PIP is not a benefit for people out of work. With one in five people in the workforce in Wales being disabled, taking away PIP, or the option of PIP, from disabled workers will leave people worse off.
Often, post-industrial areas have a higher proportion of working-age people receiving PIP, and they will be disproportionately affected by these changes. Recent Policy in Practice data has shown exactly that: Wales will suffer three times the economic impact and have twice as many affected residents as London and the south-east. Four out of 10 of the most affected local authority areas are in Wales. In Carmarthenshire alone, over £17 million will be lost because of PIP changes, with nearly 4,000 people losing eligibility within my constituency.
Data and analysis by organisations such as Policy in Practice are crucial for our understanding, especially since the UK Government have so far refused Plaid Cymru’s call for an impact assessment in Wales. Even the Labour First Minister of Wales has requested a Wales-specific impact assessment, but the proposal was batted away and refused. This is not the change that Wales and the UK voted for, and they have recently made that crystal clear.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
For the last few years, I have chaired a group of unpaid carers—the Minister has met them—who struggle to manage on carer’s allowance as it is. Under the Government’s proposals, 150,000 unpaid carers will lose the carer’s allowance. Already, 1.2 million carers live in poverty and 400,000 live in deep poverty. I fear the impact of the proposals on carers who have devoted their lives to looking after family members.
A few months ago, I hosted a drop-in with Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, whose team have been researching the risk of suicide and suicide incidence among carers. Most MPs who attended were shocked by the scale of risk and the scale of incidence at the moment.
I am absolutely terrified that the proposals will push more carers over the edge and that people will suffer. When such changes occurred in the last round of austerity under the previous Government, people lost their lives. I do not like to do this to my own Government within their first year—they are so new—but I will be voting against the proposals. I hope that the Government will think again and withdraw them.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
With limited time, I will share the voices of some of the 200 constituents who have been in touch with me about the proposed changes to personal independence payments. For example, one worried father, Robert, contacted me on behalf of his son, Richard, who lives with functional neurological disorder. Robert told me how vital PIP is to Richard, who will never be able to work again. They feel completely abandoned by these proposed cuts and, after countless attempts to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions, they feel ignored and disillusioned.
Another example is James, who lives with multiple mental health conditions that have left him hospitalised several times in the past. He wrote to me saying:
“Nearly all my PIP goes towards paying for my guardian angel carer. Without that support, I would have to move into a supported living arrangement, which would make my mental health problems much worse and I would end up in hospital again. I don’t want to lose my independence as I am just managing with the support I have now.”
For James, it is clear that PIP is the difference between managing or entering crisis.
Meanwhile, Susan is the sole carer and appointee for several disabled members of her family. Under these proposals, at least two of them would lose all of the support they get. She wrote to me saying:
“I honestly am broken, life is hopeless—I can’t feed my family if these cuts go through. Please can you join us in fighting the cuts.”
My constituents in Chichester are not asking for special treatment. They are just asking to live with dignity, fairness and, importantly, independence, which is what PIP gives them. The changes are the exact opposite of what the Government claim they want to achieve.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. Many of my constituents have contacted me with serious concerns about the proposed changes to PIP. Putting aside the human cost of that worry for one moment, we already know what happens when we take money away from early intervention and preventive support. It does not save money; it simply shifts the cost, and often ends up increasing it.
We have evidence for that. When the disability living allowance was replaced with PIP in 2013, people with multiple sclerosis were often taken off the benefit. The MS Society investigated the effects of those changes on 2,500 people with MS who lost the higher rate of DLA. Unsurprisingly, it found that those people relied more on NHS services, particularly GPs and A&Es. In one year alone, those GP and A&E costs were £7.7 million for just 2,500 people.
We are still dealing with the real human cost of 14 years of Conservative austerity and cuts to health and social care. We have to learn from the failure of those policies and do something differently. This party was elected on a promise of change. I stand by that promise, and I stand by my Government, but no one is denying that our welfare system needs serious reform. That should not come at the cost of disabled people.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
In response to all the letters and emails from my constituents, I will focus on PIP and the effect that the changes will have on the 1.3 million people who are suffering from ME and long covid. I am particularly concerned that the additional criterion for a PIP award of needing four points in one descriptor disproportionately affects people with ME and long covid, because they currently reach their eight points with a spread of low points across many descriptors.
The abolition of the work capability assessment and the focus on PIP are a double whammy, particularly given the extra difficulty that people with ME and long covid will have in accessing PIP. They did better under the work capability assessment, because that could accommodate the fluctuating nature of ME and the reality of post-exertional malaise as a distinct aspect of it. PIP does not accommodate the nature of that disability for those who suffer with the condition.
The Green Paper talks about two positive moves, which I potentially support: the redesign of the PIP assessment and the recognition that many people have lifelong disability and cannot return to work, so there should be some accommodation for them through special funding. I ask that the Minister consider people with ME and long covid when looking at that redesign.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
We have heard from the Government that by 2029-30, 800,000 fewer people will get the daily living component of PIP. For the 370,000 people already on it, the average loss is £4,500. Three million people will see their health-related universal credit cut, some by as much as £3,000. The consequences will be rising poverty, greater food bank reliance and mounting pressure on public services.
The Government claim that those consequences will be offset by incentives to work. However, estimates from the Learning and Work Institute and the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggest that only 1% to 3% of those affected—perhaps tens of thousands out of millions—may gain employment. That leaves 97% worse off. As the MP for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East, I have repeatedly asked how that will affect my constituents, how many will lose their entitlement, and how many will fall into poverty.
I have asked at Prime Minister’s questions and I have tabled written questions for equality, employment and poverty impact assessments to be published before legislation is introduced. I have asked whether disabled people and carers will be consulted on changes, such as the one requiring claimants to score four points. I have not received any response to those questions, yet the changes will proceed with urgency. This is policymaking in the dark. I will be voting against the changes, because for me it is always country first and party second.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I extend my extreme gratitude to the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing forward this debate. Thousands in my constituency will be affected by the proposed cuts to PIP and to wider benefits. That is about not just numbers on a balance sheet, but the daily lives of real people.
PIP is a vital lifeline for those living with disabilities and long-term health conditions. It helps to cover the extra costs that many of us never have to think about: mobility aids, transport and specialist care. Cutting that support does not just tighten budgets; it strips away independence and, more importantly, dignity.
We must ask ourselves what kind of society we want to be: one that turns away from its most vulnerable, or one that lifts them up, ensuring that disability does not mean poverty, isolation or fear. Behind every efficiency saving is a person: a mother skipping meals so her disabled son can get to an appointment; a veteran left waiting months for a reassessment; or a young woman terrified of losing the support she needs to work part time and stay independent.
This is about not just fairness but justice, compassion and basic human rights. I ask the Minister to halt these proposed cuts, to review PIP with empathy and not austerity, and to build a system that supports not punishes the most needy in our society.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate. I wish to place on record my grave concerns about the Government’s proposals to change the eligibility criteria for PIP. When His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has written off £27 billion of debts over the last five years, saying they are uncollectable, and the UK is still failing to act on UN tax avoidance guidance, losing us millions of pounds every year, it is impossible to accept that targeting disabled people is the answer. No consideration has been given to the knock-on effects to local government.
In my area, Conservative-run Dudley council has made more than £42 million-worth of cuts, which includes a loss of services for carers, for mental health, for domestic abuse and for dementia, as well as the slashing of funding to the charitable sector. Where are people supposed to turn for help? A narrative is being created of scroungers and cheats, when in reality, disabled people are fighting tooth and nail for every little scrap they can get. As one constituent told me, being disabled is a full-time job.
The Green Paper suggests that disabled people will be supported to retrain or access voluntary opportunities. That is patronising; they have qualifications and careers. One in three of us will become disabled in our lifetime, and I will vote against these proposals.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for her courage, and I commend the courage of all hon. Members who have made a clear commitment today. I thank them for that, and I mean that quite honestly.
I have a wonderful lady in my office as our benefits adviser, and she is fantastic at talking people through the PIP and benefits process, and supporting them with filling in their forms, as it can be a very stressful process. The points system can already be challenging, often leading to mandatory reconsiderations and appeals, so I can easily understand why many people are worried about the changes.
One of the criteria changes that Labour will introduce is a requirement for claimants to score four points on at least one of the 10 activities to qualify for the daily living component. That change could result in some existing claimants no longer meeting the eligibility requirement, which could impact them severely month to month. Parkinson’s UK told me that the degenerative condition incurs average extra costs of more than £7,500 a year, so PIP is a crucial payment for people with Parkinson’s.
I do not have much more time, but more study is clearly needed to assess how the changes will truly impact people. I speak on behalf of the 200,000 people across Northern Ireland who the changes will ultimately impact. I look to the Minister for greater clarity that action will be taken only when backed by evidence. The Minister is a great friend of us all, but today we need answers.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Government claim that the proposed cuts are about getting disabled people into work, but they have provided no evidence that they will result in significantly more disabled people in work. Even if that was the result, there would still be some disabled people who are unable to work. They deserve support too, but under the proposals, many of them would not receive it. The proposed disability cuts mean more poverty, suffering and hardship for disabled people.
One young person living with mental illness told Just Treatment, which I hosted in Parliament yesterday:
“I feel suicidal when I get caught up in the thoughts of losing this life changing support.”
Another says that she will not be able to access
“food, shelter, and vital care”
for her condition. A third young person says:
“I am terrified they will take my PIP away, that I will end up homeless, and my only option will be suicide.”
We should be in no doubt that these proposals will cost lives. That is not hyperbolic: the benefits system has already been a key factor in the deaths of disabled people such as my constituent Philippa Day, who tragically took an overdose and was found next to a letter from the DWP refusing a home assessment visit.
If the Government go through with these disability benefit cuts, they will be making a huge mistake that the public will not forgive us for. We must be true to our values as a party and stand up for the whole of the working class, including disabled people, whether they are in work or not. It is not too late for the Government to drop these cuts. If they do not, I will vote against them.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
In Yeovil, 7.9% of working-age adults claim PIP, which is higher than the average for the south-west. For my constituents, PIP is not some kind of luxury; it allows them to live their lives, manage their disabilities, go to work and do daily tasks that people without disabilities can do. For example, one constituent told me that
“we are terrified of becoming homeless if these cuts go ahead”.
The Government’s proposals are likely to result in rising child poverty, and that is just not good enough. Many of the changes detailed in the Government’s new Green Paper seem to be financially driven. That is simply wrong; Labour should do something about that.
The assessment process has to change, especially assessments over the phone, which have left my constituents unable to express their needs and get the support they are owed. The Government cannot make decisions about disabled people without consulting them. Over the past decade, we have seen under-investment in our social care system, which has to change. If it does not, there will be no meaningful drop in the welfare bill.
In conclusion, it is right that we bring down the welfare bill, make Britain healthier and give all our constituents meaningful work, but that cannot come at the expense of the most vulnerable.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I will be brief. I want to draw Members’ attention to a report published on Friday that provides evidence of the impact by constituency. It clearly shows the impact on northern areas: an average of £269 per working adult in the north-east, and similar in the north-west and in Yorkshire and Humber. The cumulative impact could be tens of millions of pounds for each constituency.
The impact on local economies, which we have not explored in great detail, is significant. My constituency of Oldham East and Saddleworth will lose £15 million a year, which will have a huge impact on our local economy. Importantly, the financial losses will be highest in the constituencies with the lowest life expectancies, which means that health inequalities are likely to widen even further.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Millions of lives have been impacted overnight by a single policy. It is indefensible. It will drive more disabled people into poverty, push children further into poverty, further strain public health and leave those in the greatest need behind. We should help those in greatest need in our society, not abandon them.
Let me be clear: the four-point rule is a cruel test dressed up as a reform. It means that people with complex, overlapping needs who score few points in many areas could be cut off. Those are real people, with anxiety, chronic pain or fluctuating conditions. If they do not tick a box, they do not get help. The system should protect, not punish.
As outlined by a number of speakers, a 2% tax on wealth above £10 million would raise £24 billion a year, more than five times what the Department for Work and Pensions hopes to save. Let us be honest: this is not about sustainability; it is a political choice. We cannot weaken the foundation that protects those with the greatest need. This is a moral line that we cannot and must not cross.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate—as always, she is right. Like many hon. Members, I have been contacted by hundreds of constituents who are angry and anxious about the Government’s proposed cuts, which make no sense and will push people further into poverty. There is no evidence that they will get people into work, but there is an abundance of evidence of how devastating they will be.
My biggest fear is that we may ultimately count the cost of these cuts in lost lives. Lest we forget, a study attributed 330,000 excess deaths in Britain between 2012 and 2019 to the last round of austerity cuts. There is no denying that the number of people claiming sickness and disability benefits is rising, but we cannot ignore the fact that the increase in claims is linked to an ageing population and a decade of under-investment in our health services.
If the Government are to recoup costs from somewhere, they should cast their gaze away from some of the most vulnerable in our society and instead look at those with the broadest shoulders. Disabled people bore the brunt of cuts under the previous Government, while UK billionaires saw their wealth triple. These cuts represent the worst of all worlds and will plunge disabled people into poverty while failing to increase employment. They will make people sicker and more reliant on the NHS, and they will not win the Government any favours with the electorate.
At the last general election, people voted for change—for a Labour Government that would be more compassionate than the previous Conservative one. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington that it is not too late to change course. The Government can and should reverse these plans.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Last week, I held a citizens’ assembly in my constituency on the Government’s plans, and dozens of disabled people told me how frightened they were. Laurence, a disabled man who led the debate against the cuts, said:
“Parliament is legislating to assist my suicide…while legislating to stop me from being able to live.”
The fear in his words—they are his, not mine—cut through the room. I held a vote at the end of the meeting, and every single person voted against the cuts.
If the proposed cuts are brought to Parliament, then, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said about Tory cuts a decade ago, I will swim through vomit to vote against them. I cannot express to the Minister the scale of the devastation they will cause for disabled people in my constituency and across the country. The Government’s analysis shows that they will drive 250,000 more people into poverty and many others deeper into deprivation. This is not what the Labour party was formed to do.
I conclude with this appeal to the Minister. We were elected last summer on a promise of change. These cruel cuts are not the change that people voted for. Last week, we saw the people’s judgment on unpopular, unnecessary and immoral cuts. For the sake of disabled people in Liverpool West Derby, and for the sake of basic decency and morality, abandon these cruel cuts, deliver the progressive change our country needs and stop austerity.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this vital debate.
I want to speak about working people. My constituency of Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr has a proud industrial heritage. Some may claim that the birthplace of the industrial revolution is Telford, but I would encourage them to read up on Bersham. In 2010, we witnessed the closure of our large chemical plant, which in 1920 was the world’s leading producer of phenol. We were also home to the last coalmine in north Wales, in Rhostyllen, which closed in the late 1980s. Like many post-industrial areas, our region suffers from higher deprivation and increased rates of illness.
When I look at the proposed cuts, especially the unjust tightening of the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment, I am filled with deep concern for many of my constituents. Wales already has the highest poverty rates among disabled people in the UK, and a greater reliance on PIP than any other part of the country. These cuts will hit Wales and my constituents particularly hard. I will vote against them.
The Government must withdraw the proposals and ensure that disabled voices are at the forefront of all future reforms. We urgently need a welfare system that supports people when they need it most, so that they can continue to live, work and contribute to society, not one that pushes them further into poverty.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
A strong social security system is not just the cornerstone of a welfare state, but a hallmark of a decent society. However, it is exactly because the system is so essential that we must safeguard its future. It is our duty not just to help the most vulnerable today, but to ensure that the system is sustainable so that it can offer support tomorrow.
That is the central challenge when we consider PIP. The number receiving it has more than doubled in the five years since the pandemic, and more than 1,000 new people join it every single day. Although health conditions have become more widespread in the years following covid, due mainly to the Conservatives’ terrible mismanagement of and under-investment in the NHS, the number of people on health-related benefits such as PIP has, on some metrics, increased at twice the rate that underlying health conditions have.
Those of us who believe in the welfare state cannot simply ignore this issue, and neither can we posit speculative new revenue sources to wish the problem away. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned a wealth tax as a possible solution. I say to them gently: if only it were that easy. Dr Allin-Khan,
“no country in the world has ever successfully had a wealth tax”.
Those are not my words, but those of Paul Johnson, head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
If we are to protect the system, we must not seek to freeze it in aspic or ignore the problems it faces. Instead, we must confront the problems head on and seek reforms that will allow the institutions of the welfare state and the values they encode to endure.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Many people in South East Cornwall are deeply worried about what the proposals will mean for them and their families. The Government’s consultation is still open, so I urge residents to participate and respond. Alongside the work that I and colleagues undertake daily, raising the issue in public and holding meetings, the consultation is a vital opportunity for people to participate.
In South East Cornwall, 9.3% of working age adults are claiming PIP, well above the south-west average. Behind every one of the numbers is a person—a neighbour, a parent, a carer, a young adult trying to build a life in a rural part of the country where access to services and transport is already difficult. The most common reasons for making a claim include anxiety, depression, learning disabilities and so on, so it is clear that we must do more to support working-age adults who can work to do so. That means quality mental health services and better special educational needs and disabilities provision for our families.
The cost of living continues to hit hard in South East Cornwall, so I welcome the Government’s commitments to raise the standard universal credit allowance above inflation and to introduce the new health premium for those who will never be able to work, but I ask the Minister: what is being done to ensure that those affected are protected from being pushed into poverty? Will he commit to reviewing how to ensure that more accurate decisions are made in the first place to reduce stress, deliver better for our communities and reduce costs? Ultimately, South East Cornwall people rely on these services, and that is who I work for every day and will continue to fight for as their MP.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I give great credit to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for bringing this subject to the Chamber.
There is not one MP here who was elected to make people poorer—not one. If there is, they should look at themselves in the mirror and feel a million shames. I look at the Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms)—a good friend of mine and a tremendous servant to this House—and I wonder what went wrong. Why, when the rich are getting richer, the very rich are getting even more rich and there are more billionaires and millionaires than ever, are we tapping people for pennies, taking away their livelihoods and making their lives so miserable? My constituency of Blyth and Ashington is in the bottom 10% for social deprivation. I have 10,467 people depending on PIP support just to live. They are not living a life of luxury.
Imran Hussain
I forgot to say in my speech that I will vote against these measures if the Government push ahead. Will my hon. Friend do the same?
Ian Lavery
I will definitely vote against these measures. I was not elected to make my people poorer, for heaven’s sake, and to reduce support and benefits. There are some decent proposals with regard to getting people back to work, but the threat of a blanket reduction of benefits is scandalous. It is not Labour.
By the way, I will not take any lectures from the Tories, who have said categorically that they would double the amount of money that we are looking to withdraw from the benefits system—probably up to £15 billion. I will definitely be voting against these measures. I am a voice for people who need a voice in this place, and we need to oppose this.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for securing this important debate.
I totally agree that the welfare system needs reform. There is something seriously wrong when a person who cannot work at one point in time is written off work forever and not supported to re-enter the labour market, after having failed the work capability assessment. That is the flawed system that the Government are rightly aiming to address, but I want to use this short time to express my real concerns about the proposed tightening of PIP eligibility criteria. The truth is that many people who currently qualify for PIP will no longer qualify under the reforms, despite having very significant care needs.
Jane, one of my constituents, has Crohn’s disease. The condition significantly impacts her daily life, affecting food preparation, washing and dressing, and leading to anxiety when interacting with others. She uses her PIP to buy more expensive free-from foods, and petrol to allow her to use a car to go to work. She is seriously worried that if these reforms are implemented and she loses her PIP, she will not be able to work.
I have had example after example from constituents whose care needs would seem, from the reasonable perspective of a member of the public, to be significant despite the proposed removal of PIP. The Prime Minister was absolutely right this morning to say that the principle is that the most vulnerable will be protected. At the moment, it seems to me that we are not meeting that test.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
As the parent of a child with cerebral palsy and complex disabilities, I know what it is like to be a carer—I am a carer every day and I will be a carer until my dying day. It is therefore incumbent on me to speak on behalf of carers in this debate.
I am now privileged because of the income I earn, but I have been there: worrying every day about the struggle of caring and the cost of paying the bills and mortgage. I know how many of my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford are stuck in the bubble that you get yourself into—stuck on a mixture of carer’s allowance and PIP, often becoming disabled yourself because of the mental or physical cost of that care. According to analysis by the Carers Trust, 28% of carers are already living in poverty; it has particularly asked for a detailed impact assessment specifically on the carers community. Will the Minister comment on that when he sums up?
I believe that this policy is driven by the DWP and Treasury alone. It is incumbent on us to ensure that other Government Departments—the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Education and the Department for Transport—come up with proposals that also support the measures. I ask the Minister to comment on that because if we are truly to get disabled people to access work, and if we are truly to support carers, we need a strong cross-Government departmental strategy.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I am going to call the final Back-Bench speaker and, following that, Steve Darling.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
PIP and its predecessors have never been unemployment benefits but a critical aid to supporting people in and out of work to live independent lives. We know that being disabled or suffering from a chronic health condition means facing many additional costs. Scope estimates that households with a disabled inhabitant need to spend an additional £1,000 a month just to secure the same standard of living as those without. Prepared food delivery, specialised clothes and technology required to aid normal everyday living, or just simply to get to work, all come at a greater cost.
Right now, we know that these households are disproportionately impacted by the cost of living crisis, with Trussell estimating that three in every four households accessing a food bank have a disabled inhabitant. Data from the Department for Work and Pensions shows that 307,000 households who currently receive the daily living part of PIP needed to use a food bank in the past year. That is three times the rate of food bank usage among households in general, which illustrates the significant hardship that disabled households face.
Yes, we have problems and too many people need welfare support, but let us attack the reasons for that rather than simply cutting the financial envelope associated with those services. Let us build a system that reflects the founding principles of the welfare state—compassion and fairness—and that recognises the challenges of the 21st century, but removes the remaining obstacles, making sure that all people can live fulfilling and worthwhile lives.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). I myself applied for this very debate last week, but I am delighted that the Mother of the House came out of the hat—or maybe Mr Speaker chose her. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady has led the charge so ably.
This is about dignity and independence. What is the point of being an MP? It is to give people agency over their own lives, and that is what PIP does in shedloads—it gives people with disabilities agency over their own lives. In my constituency of Torbay, 8,592 people claim PIP—12% of our working-age population, against a national average of 8%. I have the honour of representing the most deprived Liberal Democrat constituency in the country, and I live some of that myself, being disabled. We face real challenges. The issue is the highest area of interest for those who come to our citizens advice bureau in Torbay.
Only this week, I met a couple of people who came to take part in events. A blind gentleman from Portsmouth shared with me how he has PIP to back him up if things go wrong with Access to Work—and sadly, things regularly go wrong with the Access to Work system, as the Minister knows, because I have crossed swords with him on this before. I also met a young lady yesterday who has mental health challenges. She is able to have therapy, but that would not be there and she would be spiralling in a mental health doom loop if she did not have PIP to support her.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
In Stratford-on-Avon, I have heard from constituents who fear that the welfare reforms could actually undermine their ability to remain in employment. Does my hon. Friend agree that many of our constituents rely on PIP as a crucial support that allows them to overcome the barriers they face to staying in work?
Steve Darling
That is the crucial thing—PIP is there to support people getting back into work; my hon. Friend is quite right.
Whether it is the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor or the Prime Minister, they all say that the benefits system is broken, so let us make sure we reform it with some compassion. Liberal Democrats would like to see the benefits system reformed, but we want that to be done with people with disabilities, rather than it being foisted upon them. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said there is no evidence that the cuts will get people back into employment—actually, 300,000 people will end up in poverty. We must also remember that PIP is a passport to other benefits; for example, carer’s allowance is often married to it. Under the proposals, a number of households across the country could lose £12,000 if they lost PIP and carer’s allowance at the same time. That would be massive.
I want to touch on a couple of case studies. One is from Scope: the case of a gentleman called Anthony who suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and autism. He gets 13 points—brilliant—but sadly, all those points are collected up under the four-point threshold. That is extremely concerning. He is worried sick about what he will be able to afford, and he works part time. The citizens advice bureau in Torbay reached out to me about a lady whose condition got worse. She was assessed, but sadly she lost her PIP. She is almost a harbinger of what could go wrong for other people, because she is now not able to meet her living costs, particularly her housing costs. That is a massive challenge for her.
I have a few questions for the Minister. I am particularly interested to know why the Government are introducing this cruel cut to PIP without undertaking reform in advance. As a few Members have highlighted, academics have found that there were about 600 suicides at the time of the change from DLA to PIP. As this cohort is much larger, has the Minister undertaken an assessment of how many suicides there will be? Is it over 1,000? Will he share with us what mitigating measures the Government are considering to ensure we do not hit those figures, which are extremely scary?
As the Mother of the House highlighted, there was a by-election in the not-too-distant past. Will the Minister listen to the people who spoke in that by-election and make sure that some of the most deprived communities do not have the heart ripped out of them by cuts to PIP?
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Thank you very much indeed, Dr Allin-Khan, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to participate. I acknowledge the powerful speeches made by all Members this afternoon and my deep respect for the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). Nobody speaks with greater sincerity and authority on behalf of people who are marginalised and disadvantaged in our society. I pay tribute to her, to her work and to her contribution today.
I want to say a quick word about the history, as mention has been made of the Conservatives’ time in office. I acknowledge that genuine mistakes were made in the design of the welfare system that we have now. The system is clearly not perfect, but it was very much not perfect before: in 2010 the system was extremely complex, with high rates of benefit dependency. The introduction of universal credit and PIP helped to rationalise and bring greater order to the system, and to reward work rather than welfare. Significant improvements were made in that regard, including improvements in the number of disabled people who were able to work and were supported in work.
In the last year of our time in government, 300,000 more disabled people were in work than in the year before. There was genuine improvement. Nevertheless, not enough support was given to many welfare recipients; that was the consequence of our fiscal inheritance in 2010 but also of choices made by the coalition Government, which fell particularly hard on local authorities and the DWP. I acknowledge that point, which is often made by hon. Members.
Then something else happened, particularly around 2017 or 2018 and even more so after covid. We saw a significant rise in the number of people in receipt of health and disability benefits, including in the higher categories of the universal credit health element. People were stuck on benefits, in many cases indefinitely and forever. What explains the imperative for reform, which the Government are responding to, is that the number of people on the higher rate of UC has increased by a third over the past five years. The PIP budget grew by 50% in the last Parliament alone. The fact is that the benefit bill is unsustainable. However, it is also true that the system can be inhumane and ungenerous.
We have a paradox: a system that is bloated and unsustainable overall, leading to the large budgets we are facing, yet on the frontline, in people’s actual experience, the system is starved in terms of the consequence of the inadequacy of benefits for many people. This is a huge opportunity and an imperative for reform—genuine reform, not just the soundbite. I notice that we do not have any Reform MPs in Westminster Hall for this debate. We genuinely need real reform.
In 2024, the Government I supported had plans to bring in further reforms to the benefit system; we did not have the opportunity to introduce those reforms, thanks to the public. Labour was elected with a huge majority that includes many Members here. To my regret and surprise, after 14 years of complaints about Government welfare reforms, the Labour party entered Government apparently without any plans to change the system.
We have spent eight months waiting for reforms to be introduced, only to get what we have now: a crude and cruel set of cuts, without any reform to the system at all. It is purely in response to what the Chancellor has done to the British economy—induced a fiscal crisis and caused the Treasury to demand of the DWP that swingeing cuts be made to the welfare budget, without any opportunity to reform the system or to reduce demand for welfare. That is, of course, what we should be doing if we want to bring down the bills.
There are also, of course, tax increases, including on employers, making it much harder for people to move from welfare into work, which I will not discuss today, and the removal of vital support from pensioners through the winter fuel payment cut.
Ian Lavery
Would the hon. Gentleman care to tell us how much His Majesty’s Opposition propose to cut from the welfare bill?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman will be gratified to know that we are not in government, so it is not for us to come forward with precise plans. At the end of the previous Parliament, we had a manifesto commitment to reduce benefit spending and reform disability benefits and UC. We are now in a position of policy formulation, so I am afraid I am not able to tell him exactly what we would do. My role is to challenge the Government on why they have taken so long to come forward with an absence of meaningful reform plans. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I want to see benefit spending reduced. I think we spend too much on welfare in this country, but that is because we have social breakdown and poverty. The answer to that is not simply to cut benefits without reforming the system, but to reduce the drivers of poverty.
I recognise many of the problems with PIP, and I understand the imperative for change. Members have powerfully made the case that the system is currently inadequate, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions. We have heard powerful testimony about that in the Work and Pensions Committee—the Chairman and many other members are here. In fact, just this morning we heard powerful evidence from people talking about mental health. People who have a set of very complex, interconnected needs might not reach four points on any one measure, so could lose PIP under the Government’s proposal. I have read evidence from the MS Society that makes the same point: 48% of PIP recipients with MS do not reach four points in any one of the measures, so would be at risk. I am very concerned on behalf of those individuals.
I am also concerned that we do not even know how many such people there are. Members made the point that it took a freedom of information request to get the figure of 1.3 million out of the Government. That is not the figure that was officially released. As the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) said, we are also unclear about the effect on passported benefits, which is a significant question for the Government to answer. Most of all, we do not know what the Government’s announced assessment review will come forward with, yet we are making the cuts before we understand how the method of assessing eligibility will be reformed.
I implore the Minister to pause the measures set out in the Green Paper. We need a proper review not just of the assessment but of the way the whole system works. We absolutely need to bring down the benefits bill, but we do that by reducing demand for welfare, and many of the levers for that are of course outside the DWP. Nevertheless, we should redesign the system itself because of the many problems I have identified. As Members said, we should do that with claimants, not to them.
People voted for change in 2024, but they are not getting it. The Prime Minister promises more of the same—to go “further and faster” on the course he is already on. I deeply regret what he is doing. I have very great respect for the Minister. Few people have spoken in Parliament with greater authority, conviction and expertise on the subject of welfare in recent times. I have great sympathy with him for having to defend this policy position, which I do not think he would have defended in opposition.
I echo the points made by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and the right hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington. They said that Labour should be better than this, and I agree: we should all be better than this. My party will stand with Members who oppose the changes.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I kindly request that he leave Diane Abbott a couple of minutes to have a final closing word.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Like everyone else, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing the debate and on the way she introduced it. I pay tribute to her for her consistent focus on this very important topic for a long time. To everyone who has spoken, I say that it is absolutely right to be passionate about this topic.
The “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published in March, set out to deliver three things with a properly thought-through plan—contrary to what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) just said. First, we will provide proper, tailored employment support for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds, with the biggest reforms to support for a generation and a funding commitment rising to an additional £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament.
Secondly, we will remove the disincentives to work that were left behind in the benefits system by the previous Government’s haphazard benefit freezes, which forced too many people to aspire to so-called limited capability for work and work-related activity status, when it should be supporting people to aspire to work and providing the support to enable them to achieve those aspirations. As has been mentioned, we have announced the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the universal credit standard allowance.
Thirdly—this is where we have focused in the debate—we will make the costs of PIP sustainable and address the unsustainable increases that have led to an almost doubling of the real-terms cost of the benefit, from £12 billion to £22 billion, since the year before the pandemic. Last year alone, it increased by £2.8 billion beyond inflation. I think everybody who has spoken would recognise that we simply cannot let that trend carry on.
I think I am right in saying that 30 years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and I served together on the Treasury Committee. She knows as well as anybody the need for funding to be sustainable. It is not in the interests of those for whom PIP is a lifeline, in anything beyond the very short term, for the Government simply to allow the costs to rise as they have done over the last five years.
Nadia Whittome
Has the Minister seen the latest analysis from the New Economics Foundation, which estimates that fewer than 50% of disabled people are claiming these benefits, and that the acceptance rate has remained static? It is not actually the case that people are claiming who should not be claiming: people are claiming benefits to which they are entitled.
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are getting PIP are the people who meet the criteria. My point is that we cannot simply carry on increasing spending at the current rate. That has to be addressed.
I well understand the concerns among people who claim PIP, and I want to take the opportunity of this debate to address those concerns. We are talking to disabled people, disability charities and disabled people’s organisations. The Green Paper consultation will continue until the end of June, and a White Paper will follow later this year. But we need to act ahead of a White Paper. Claims to PIP are set to more than double this decade, from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. That increase is partly accounted for by a 17% increase in disability prevalence, as mentioned, but the increase in the benefit caseload is much higher. It would certainly not be in the interests of people currently claiming the benefits for the Government to bury their heads in the sand over that rate of increase.
Following the Green Paper, we are consulting on how best to support those affected by the eligibility changes. We are looking to improve the PIP assessment; as mentioned, I will lead a review of that. The current system produces poor employment outcomes, high economic inactivity, low living standards and high costs to the taxpayer. It needs to change. We want a more proactive, pro-work system that supports people better and supports the economy as well.
I will turn specifically to the changes to PIP eligibility. PIP is a crucial benefit that contributes to the extra living costs that arise from disability or a health impairment. The changes we have announced relate to PIP daily living; the PIP mobility component is not affected. We are clear that the daily living component of PIP should not be means-tested, taxed, frozen or anything else that has been suggested. We are committed to continue increasing it in line with inflation. For the majority of current claimants, and categorically for the most vulnerable, who have been highlighted in this debate, it will continue to provide, in full, the support that it currently provides. Employment support for those who are able and want to work will be substantially improved as well.
As has been referenced, we have published data that shows that just over half of those who claim PIP today scored four points in one daily living activity in the last PIP assessment. Understandably, as we have heard, almost half of those who currently claim the benefit will be concerned that they will not be eligible in future. However, we have also published the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment, which is that by 2029-30 only around 10% of those who currently claim the daily living component of PIP will lose it as a result of the changes. That is the assumption that has gone into the spending forecasts. We are projecting that spending on PIP will continue to increase in real terms every year, but not at the unsustainable rate of the last five years.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am afraid I cannot give way again.
The OBR is right on this. Its assessment is based on previous experience of changes of this kind. The behaviour both of the people claiming the benefits and of those who conduct the assessments changes. For example, I have met people who were awarded two points for one of the activities last time around, when I thought they were entitled to four, but it did not change their award, so it was not challenged and nobody minded. In future, someone in that position could well score four points on that activity and so retain the benefit, even though they did not score four points on any of the activities last time around.
Changes to the PIP assessment will not be immediate; they will take effect from November 2026.
Sir Stephen Timms
I cannot give way again; a lot of points were made in the debate.
For a given individual, the changes will take effect only at their first award review after November 2026. Award reviews take place on average at three-year intervals, so for many PIP claimants the change will take effect only a year or two after November 2026. In line with existing practice, people who are above state pension age will not normally be reassessed and so will not be affected at all.
If and when people are reassessed, it will be by a trained assessor, and the assessment will be of their individual needs and circumstances. We are consulting on how best to support those who lose entitlement, including those who will lose carers’ allowance, who are explicitly flagged up in the Green Paper. We set out in the Green Paper our plans to improve trust in the way that both PIP and WCA assessments work, which many of us have heard worries about, through reviewing our approach to safeguarding; recording assessments as standard so that when something goes wrong with the assessment, we can look back at the recording, see what happened and improve the assessment for next time; and moving back to having more face-to-face assessments, while continuing to meet the needs of people who may require different methods of assessment.
I think I have time to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon).
Anna Dixon
I apologise for not getting here earlier; I have been listening to carers who have been sharing their stories. I spoke to a woman who is caring for her husband, who has a neurodegenerative disease and currently scores only two points across the board. Their family would be penalised under the tightening restrictions. Does the Minister agree that somebody with a neurological and degenerative disease should be counted as severely disabled and protected from the changes?
Sir Stephen Timms
I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the details of that particular case. I think the threshold we have set is the right place to set the eligibility criteria in the future. I am happy to discuss that point specifically. Our goal is a system that is financially sustainable in the long term so that it can be there for all of us who need it in the future.
Ms Abbott
The Minister has again repeated the line that the number of people claiming PIP has shot up and that there must be something dubious about that. I ask him to look at the New Economics Foundation report that came out today, which says that the reasons why the number of people claiming has gone up are a rise in the number of disabled people, a rise in deprivation, long covid and the pressures on the NHS.
The Minister said we were asking the Government to put their head in the sand; no—we are just asking the Government to talk to the disabled and their supporters and not ram through legislation without giving us sufficient information. This cruel and misconceived legislation will not end well politically. Meanwhile, millions of the disabled will live in fear.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Personal Independence Payment and disabled people.