Universal Credit Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Welfare Reform

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise for the repetition, but for 32 years I dedicated my working life to helping people into work, not just by finding them jobs but by opening their eyes to the opportunity, purpose and dignity that meaningful employment brings. I do not rise today to lecture the Minister on the challenges that her department faces, nor do I believe that it serves this House to relay political refrains about the past 14 years, which do little to address the pressing realities we face.

We all recognise the scale of the task ahead, which is why yesterday’s events were so concerning. In response to widespread unease across Parliament, key elements of the Bill were withdrawn. The result is a significantly weakened piece of legislation that now faces serious questions about its purpose, scope and impact. Even with those changes, more than 40 Labour MPs felt compelled to vote against it. That should give us all cause for concern and cause to pause. It reflects not just concern with the process but discomfort with the overall direction.

I genuinely do not envy the Minister. Ministers were asked to defend proposals that have since been fundamentally altered. In the process, the Government have not only damaged their credibility but opened a £4.5 billion hole in their fiscal plans.

These Benches are clear: urgent welfare reform is necessary, but it must be long-term, evidence-led and considered. Reforming PIP or any other benefit should never be reduced to short-term savings driven by arbitrary fiscal targets. We were told that the Bill would reform personal independence payments, but this approach to welfare has been crude and alarmingly hasty. Both the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Resolution Foundation confirm that the revised proposals will deliver no net savings this decade. This is not just a missed opportunity but a collapse of any clear policy.

Welfare is a vital lifeline for people facing illness, disability or disadvantage. Reform must focus on strengthening this support, securing long-term financial sustainability and maintaining public confidence. This starts with asking the right questions. Is the current system sustainable? No. Are eligibility criteria fair and effective? No. Why are 3,000 people entering incapacity-related benefits each day? How do our costs compare internationally and are those differences justified? How do we strike the right balance between compassion and cost? These are not questions for headlines or quick fixes; they are serious questions about complex and long-term governance, requiring thoughtful cross-party collaboration.

This also highlights the limits of top-down approaches. Tackling entrenched unemployment, or an ever-increasing PIP bill, requires more than a new set of policies; it requires moral leadership, cultural awareness and deep community engagement. If we are to tackle the welfare challenge, policy must be person-centred, culturally intelligent and grounded in the lived experience of the communities it seeks to serve. Real fiscal gains come from reform: a smarter, outcome-focused approach that helps people to move into work. That is how we reduce the welfare bill: not by crudely cutting support but by reducing the need for it, while protecting those with serious health conditions.

I urge Ministers to take stock. Do not confuse speed with strategy. Do not mistake cuts—much needed as they are—for reform. Go back, reflect, consult widely and return to Parliament with a plan that meets the scale of the challenge, with the care and responsibility it demands.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, for introducing questions on the Statement. She quite rightly talks about missed opportunities of not only the current Government but the previous Government.

Welfare provision is a broken system. We should not proceed until we hear from the Timms review. I hope the Minister will comment on that. There is no doubt that we are abandoning valuable members of our society. People within the leadership of the Labour Party who described PIP as “pocket money” should know better. We are enshrining in law that we have a system that all disabled people are equal, but some are more equal than others—this is an early proclamation by the pigs who control government in Animal Farm; the phrase is a comment on the hypocrisy of Governments.

Let us be clear: the proposals are a leap in the dark and not even the Ministers know where they are going to land. The proposals are ill thought-out, rushed and continually amended. As days, weeks and months pass, we will see the unedifying and unintended consequences.

The access to work scheme for those with a disability needs to be urgently fixed. Could the Minister tell the House what consultations have been made with carers about this legislation?

The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill sends a message to disabled children 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.

PIP is a passport to other levels of support, such as blue badges or railcards, which give people the opportunity of getting out and living their best lives. Perhaps the most passported benefit from PIP is the carer’s allowance. On these Benches, we have grave concerns about the Bill’s impact on those families who will no longer benefit from carer’s allowances. They will be robbed of up to £12,000 a year.

We recognise the benefit system is broken and needs resolving, but it needs to be co-designed with disabled groups and carers groups to make sure that we get it right for our people.

The root of the problem, sadly, is the NHS, which is where a lot of these problems start. We really need to sort out the National Health Service and social care. They are part of the problem and the solution. This so-called reform sticks a piece of sticking plaster over it, pats it on the head and says, “Now leave it to Auntie”. Sadly, Auntie has not a clue.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 15th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her opening speech in outlining the purpose of and some of the details contained within the Bill, and for all the engagement from her and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, who I think is in the running for a new job, closely followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander. My noble friend Lady Spielman is hot on the heels. We greatly appreciate the engagement we have had, and it has been very helpful.

I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Spielman on her maiden speech. It was excellent, and I know that others in the House will join me in welcoming her to these Benches. I hope that my noble friend has got the message loud and clear: we are pleased to see her. The words that describe her—substance and integrity—are absolutely accurate.

I will be clear from the outset: this side of the House supports the principle of this Bill. Fraud against the state is unacceptable and tough measures that we can legislate for in this place to crack down on disreputable people and fraudsters who steal from the public purse are not just welcome but essential. We have a moral and fiscal duty to address this, and I echo the point raised so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander. The moral aspects of the Bill were also well referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Rook.

The proposals before us were, broadly, introduced to Parliament by the previous Government. I was disappointed that, in the other place, the Minister refused to acknowledge our shared ambition on this Bill. Although we are on the same page as the Government when it comes to preventing fraud, we have some serious and genuine concerns, and many questions about how this objective can be achieved, given the Bill before us.

One key question that these Benches have is on the level of ambition the Government have to combat fraud. Fraud is a very serious matter, which needs to be addressed robustly. We lose a total of £55 billion a year to fraud across the public sector, but the Bill before us is set to recover only £1.5 billion. This is 2.7%. Can the Minister tell us why the anticipated returns, as a target number, are so low? Perhaps His Majesty’s Government would like to go away, rethink the target and up their game.

The Government seek to target three forms of welfare benefit through the provisions set out in the Bill. Can the Minister tell us how much each of these benefits contributes to the overall figure for public sector fraud? Can she also provide a breakdown of these figures, covering all welfare streams, to the House for our review and in preparation for Committee?

Another question we have is why certain aspects of the Bill are not ready, notably the Cabinet Office proposals. We have seen this already with the Employment Rights Bill, to which literally hundreds of government amendments have been added to try to correct errors in the drafting of the legislation.

I could not have put it better than the noble Lord, Lord Vaux: His Majesty’s Government need to get their act together on impact assessments. Do we really think that it is a good idea to lose his skills and that of other hereditaries, on such important legislation? I leave that with your Lordships. The Bill is being introduced without key impact assessments being available. We have no impact assessment measuring the cost to banks or to the DWP, the projected return on investment or the cost per head throughout the entire process. As we do not have these assessments, we will be discussing proposals with much of the relevant information unavailable.

It would also be incredibly helpful for noble Lords to have a breakdown of the fraud figures that the Government referenced throughout the passage of this Bill in the other place. Knowing the details of the challenge we face will allow us to make a better assessment of where this Bill can be improved to better meet that challenge. I hope that the Minister can provide this information to the House soon. Having it to hand is vital in allowing us to do our jobs properly. It simply is not good enough that we should scrutinise these proposals without the information that we need to make an informed decision. I reiterate to the Minister that we want to work collaboratively with the Government to improve the Bill.

I will start by covering the chapter of the Bill that relates to the Cabinet Office. The intention of the Bill to combat fraud in government departments is noble, and we have already had unanimous support from across the House. However, we are concerned that these proposals do not go far enough, for reasons that I shall now outline.

The changes to the Public Sector Fraud Authority—like others, I will jump on the bandwagon and call it the PSFA—are a concern for us. This enforcement unit currently has 25 staff. The authority is rightly tasked with investigating fraud across every department—a massive undertaking. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised, is the Minister confident that the PSFA’s resources are sufficient? I mentioned returns of 2.7% earlier; as my noble friend Lady Finn said, the returns specifically expected from the PSFA are far lower than that—around 0.002%. How much resource would the PSFA need to make returns of 25%? The Minister said that the Government will scale this operation, but we need to know how this will work if we are to approve the proposals now.

My noble friend Lady Coffey made the point that the Bill does not go far enough. Her point about percentages and cash is real, and we need to address it. If the PSFA is to be expanded to meet the increased workload it will soon encounter, can the Minister tell us how this appointment process will work and who will oversee it? Can she please outline the timelines we can expect for when she anticipates the PSFA will be scaled up, and how quickly it will be fit for purpose, effective and achieving results?

Furthermore, we have some serious questions over the independence of the PSFA. It is right that the Government are incorporating a provision in the Bill to make it an independent body. However, it is still subject to powers that go up to the Minister responsible in the Cabinet Office. Government departments are marking their own homework, and we have no actual guarantee that the PSFA will be independent. This should be in the Bill from the start and not down to the arbitrary discretion of the Minister. Can the Minister confirm that the PSFA would become independent from the Cabinet Office?

It is unacceptable, in our view, that the process of recourse for those who want to appeal should be in a straight line back to the Minister. As my noble friend Lady Finn said, recourse processes should be independent, and we want to again emphasise that recourse should be through an independent tribunal mechanism and not back to a politically appointed person—someone, clearly, with vested interests.

This all relates to a wider point about the ultimate purpose of the authority. The PSFA has an important task to perform, and we on this side of the House support the Government’s intention to introduce a six-year extension up to 12 years, but can the Minister give a timeline as to when it is expected to conclude its work? I wonder how the Government would react to a proposal of a sunset clause to the authority, so that there is no risk that these powers are held indefinitely beyond the period for which they are reasonably required.

Points were raised on whistleblowing protections by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. As my noble friend Lady Finn has already made clear, the Bill relates to situations where people could be asked to make very difficult, stressful and worrying decisions. It is easy for us to talk about this in academic terms but whistleblowing is far from easy, and we need to do all we can to support those who stick their necks out to do the right thing.

The Government have made it clear that they believe that existing protections are enough, although a recent National Audit Office investigation into whistleblowing in the Civil Service highlighted serious shortcomings, showing that it is even harder than it has been to call out wrongdoing. The NHS has rightly strengthened its whistleblowing safeguards, and these issues are being addressed elsewhere in our state system. We on these Benches believe that the same support needs to be given to civil servants working in this sensitive area, covering both the Cabinet Office and DWP aspects.

I turn to the part of the Bill which relates to the Department for Work and Pensions. We on these Benches also firmly support measures to crack down on those people who abuse the welfare system. For some people in our society to steal from a system that is designed to support the most vulnerable is a truly despicable act, and we need to stop those who do that as a matter of urgency.

I have no desire to upset the noble Lord, Lord Davies, but I must say that the Minister the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, mentioned driving licences; what about passports, too? The noble Baroness looks after child maintenance; I looked after it, under the guidance of my noble friend Lady Coffey, and we took away driving licences and we took away passports. How many do you think we took away? Less than five, because it was a deterrent. So, please, think twice before everybody knocks this. I want to make myself available to the Minister, because I have got a load of other ideas for deterrents, and I am telling you they will work.

The Bill proposes a substantial increase to the DWP’s workload and, from what I understand of the detail that the Government have outlined, the DWP can expect to receive thousands on thousands of signals from banks flagging potentially fraudulent activity. These will then have to be individually checked by a human being. The Government have rightly said that they will approach this with a deep attention to vulnerability. We must welcome this. This was also raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield, but does this mean that DWP civil servants will be checking not only the movement of money into an account but also whether the person in question is someone with a disability—in other words, perhaps someone with reduced capacity or someone who is at risk of being coerced? None of this detail is clear, and the Government have failed to publish an impact assessment showing the cost of this additional work.

It is vital that these wider considerations are taken into account. We need to distinguish between those who are committing fraud intentionally and those with reduced capacity and additional needs who may not realise that what they are doing is fraudulent. We also need to consider wider circumstances. If a suspected fraudster is in fact a woman trying to save money to escape an abusive relationship, we will be doing far more harm than good by stripping this money away. How can the Government ensure, under the provisions in the Bill, that vulnerable people will be supported and not debanked?

If the Government in fact intend to proceed in the way that I have outlined, we are talking about literally thousands of hours of additional work. Can the Minister please tell us how the DWP intends to meet this increased workload, how much it will cost and whether she is certain that the additional cost of meeting this demand will be worth the revenue we save by tackling fraud in this way? We shall be paying close attention to this as we progress to Committee.

I now want to say something about the use of artificial intelligence to improve investigatory performance—this was raised by the right reverend Prelate—and about technology, a point that was raised by other noble Lords. We would support the use of new techniques to improve efficiency, but they should be subject to close oversight. We are talking about personal, confidential financial information. Can the Minister assure the House that any use of AI will be subject to rigorous safeguards, and will she commit to coming before the House again to set out how these will work and how the Government will guarantee security to the owners of that data?

Many of the same questions remain over the role of banks. The Bill places a significant burden on banks, which, it appears, are being asked to devote resources to this system out of a sense of moral duty, as, in dedicating staff and systems to the Government’s plans, they forego considerable opportunity costs which will not be recovered. This may be right in principle, but for financial institutions the bottom line is always the determinant factor. Can the Minister please update the House on how much these new responsibilities will cost banks? I know that the figure will ultimately depend on demand, but can the Minister tell us the cost per head, which the department will, I hope, know? Do the Government have an impact assessment prepared for banks, showing them how much this will cost them? If more work than anticipated emerges, what arrangements are made for paying for this?

I am greatly concerned that these proposals are being put before the House while talks with banks are still ongoing. The Government have not come into this as prepared as I believe they should; we should know what the settlement is before we start discussing the Bill; and the fact that it is still a moving picture is deeply worrying when we are being asked to enshrine this in law. These are important questions, and I hope that the Minister can shed some light on them for the sake of business and, fundamentally, the taxpayer. We will be testing the Government in Committee on all these aspects.

Arguably, the most fundamental provisions in this Bill relate to enforcement. People need to know that, if they commit fraud, they face a genuine and real risk of retribution. One of the issues that we have identified is that the DWP will be able to assess activity only in one bank account—this point has already been raised—which is the bank account that benefits are paid into. As soon as the Bill is passed, fraudsters will realise that all they need to do is open a new bank account and move the money over; then they are completely safe. Bank accounts can be set up in minutes from a smartphone, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Coffey, so a fraudster could circumnavigate the DWP and all the measures in this Bill on their phone in the space of a single Tube journey. They would be completely safe in the knowledge that the DWP legally cannot pursue them any further.

This brings me back to pilot schemes. Can the Minister please publish the results of these important schemes? I have a hunch that they might highlight some of these issues. Closing this loophole is the only way to make sure that the Bill works at all, which is another subject for debate in Committee.

Finally, on a very serious matter that is a plague on society, I turn to so-called “sickfluencers”. These are people who use social media sites to spread information on how to defraud the benefits system. This sort of behaviour simply has to stop. People across the country are gaining substantial online followings. People consume their videos instructing them on how to defraud the benefit system. Sickfluencers provide model-aware answers, highlight keywords and openly boast that their script will win a claimant the maximum number of points in their welfare assessment. We need to be clear that this sort of behaviour is designed to circumnavigate the rightful checks that are in place and enable fraud.

The Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 provide a useful framework for tackling this, but we are concerned that those measures are not sufficient to police this sort of behaviour adequately. The Government have said that they want this Bill to modernise powers, and we believe that this is an area where modernisation needs to take place. We will therefore be paying close attention to this Bill in Committee and seeking cast-iron assurances from the Government. We simply want to ask what the Government will do to tackle this threat. How many sickfluencers have been detained under the current legal regime? Either the current legal framework is inadequate, or the powers are not being used.

In conclusion, I reiterate our intention to work with the Government to ensure that this Bill is fit for purpose. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to the points that I have raised. We believe that the issues that we have highlighted are fundamentally important to making this Bill a success, and we shall be pressing them in Committee if needed. I can see why the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, concluded that this Bill was not so dull after all. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate thus far. We genuinely look forward to engaging with Peers, the Minister and her team as the Bill progresses.

Autism Employment Review

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really good point. There are a number of different forms of support available to people with a range of disabilities or other conditions, if they come forward. Our job coaches have extensive training in a wide range of conditions to work with people who come in who need help, but there are also all kinds of schemes available. We can refer people to different kinds of help, to programmes where they can get voluntary support and work with whatever their particular needs are. We are trying to make our service out there increasingly tailored. There is not a generic range of barriers to employment. People often need quite specific understanding of what is getting in their way and help to overcome it. I hope that, in time, if the noble Baroness’s son ever comes to a jobcentre, he will find the help he needs, if, indeed, he needs it.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I declare I have a great-nephew, Ollie, who is autistic and in a special school, and we love him to bits. Every grandparent, every parent, every great-aunt, worries about how their relative is going to get a job. I recently visited Project SEARCH run by the DFN Foundation, and I can tell the House that it has a 70% success rate of getting autistic young people into work, and 60% of them are in a full-time job. Are His Majesty’s Government going to set ambitious targets such as that, so that we get as many people into work as possible and they can lead productive lives? If the Minister would like a day out of the office, I will take her to Project SEARCH myself to see it in action.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

Well, that is an offer I cannot refuse. When I used to work with families with children, there was a saying that every child deserves to have at least one adult unreasonably committed to their flourishing. In this House, I think those adults are particularly ever-present, and I can imagine that Ollie is not only being loved to bits but supported.

I completely agree with the noble Baroness. One of the challenges for us in supporting people who have disability barriers to work is that we have to have confidence that people can be supported and helped to get work, because if we do not believe they can, why should anyone else? If we do not believe it is possible, why should employers take a chance on people and why should individuals have confidence in themselves? We have seen great results with supported employment. Start where somebody is, look at the barriers, think about what they might be able to do and support them into it. Some people will be happy with supported employment. Either someone is at risk of falling out of a job or we can get them into it and, once they are in, can we help them to stay there? I would be delighted to go with the noble Baroness to visit that project but let us talk about this some more.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that carers provide vital services and support to those who desperately need them. The speculation, leaks and briefings have spread fear, anxiety and distress among the most vulnerable about cuts to benefits, particularly for carers. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that clear, effective and timely communication gets to those who will lose benefits and those who will not? What help and assistance will be provided to those who have had the cruellest of times as a result of this rushed decision?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the one thing we can definitely agree on is that we support carers. We are grateful for the work they do. Society has reason to be grateful for the work they do. This Government have supported them. We have shown that by, for example, boosting the carer’s allowance earnings threshold by £45 a week to the highest level it has ever been since the benefit was created in the 1970s, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by 2029-30. The Government are making necessary changes to stem the rising costs and reform the focus of our sickness and disability benefits system. Those changes will affect some people on carer’s allowance.

The noble Baroness need not worry about reading leaks. All the details are set out in the Green Paper, which I commend to her as a good read for this evening, perhaps before she goes to bed. We are deliberately setting out to consult on how we can support those affected by any of the measures in it. I assure her that nothing will happen overnight. No one is going to lose their benefits overnight. Even when the new changes come in, nobody will lose their benefits until there has been a full and individual assessment of their personal circumstances.

UK Poverty 2025

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question; I will certainly look into that and see what else the Government can do. There are a number of programmes, which are not always well known. For example, the holiday activities and food programme, which the noble Baroness will know about, provides in its broadest sense healthy meals, enriching activities and free childcare places for children from low-income families. Bringing together those schemes helps their health, well-being and learning. Also, the Government are committed to developing free school meals. The noble Baroness will know that from this April, free breakfast clubs will be rolled out. We have already picked the first 750 early adopters, which means that more than 180,000 children will begin to benefit—time together in schools learning, and also eating and being ready for the next day.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, the personal independence payment is a benefit for disabled people as well as for those with long-term illnesses, including those who are in work, and it helps with extra living costs. Have the Government formally assessed the impact of any planned changes to PIP on in-work disability poverty? Can the Minister confirm whether freezing PIP will increase poverty levels among this group?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has been around the game long enough to know that no matter how she tempts me to comment on speculation out there in the papers, if I did that I would at the very least be sacked, if not actually transported. So I hope she will bear with me when I say that the Government will always be aware of and consider the impact of their actions on people across society.

Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Janke (LD)]

I, too, thank the Minister for her presentation. As she said, we have heard from many other noble Lords about sufferers from these diseases and that they are the legacies of old industries and still very much in evidence among many communities across the country. The diseases are not caused just by such industries; some sufferers still do not know how they contracted them. They are vicious and cause tremendous suffering, so I think, as the Minister said, that this is vital support for the sufferers. We also need to recognise that these are sick people; they may be very old and dependent on this payment. With the rising costs of energy, and so on, I hope that we might, at some stage, look more closely at how adequate these upratings are.

I am grateful to hear about the mesothelioma oversight committee, which I had not heard of before, but I would like to know a little more about the profile of this cohort of recipients. We hear a lot about their suffering—they have suffered through no fault of their own—and, as the noble Baroness said, their life expectancy is very short. So that would be helpful to me, but obviously we cannot have that today. The noble Baroness mentioned the number of recipients—I am sorry; I did not manage to write that down—but perhaps we could have something on that, on the age profile and on how many dependants are receiving the payments, as opposed to the actual sufferers. Can we hear a bit more about the life expectancy of some of the sufferers? It may be that we might get a more detailed approach to this payment, perhaps with the help of the mesothelioma oversight committee and other bodies.

I believe the Labour Party will conduct a benefit review. I hope there may be an opportunity to look in more detail at some of the cohorts. I have mentioned before that benefit payments are not really related to the cost of living or the cost of healthy eating. In looking at whether these recipients’ payments are adequate, we ought to think about the treatment, the suffering and the conditions that they must endure.

I hope that we may have the chance, in a review, to look at the particular needs of these people who are suffering from these terrible, debilitating and terminal diseases. I am sure that we all support the uplift, but I suspect that we all wonder whether it is adequate, so I hope that that will be looked at again.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I have stood where the Minister is standing on many occasions to bring forward SIs on this subject. I have always been horrified by the impact and the effects on people’s lives, and by early deaths that have come so quickly after diagnosis.

However, quite recently, a letter dropped into my letterbox at home from a legal firm in the north of England, advising me that the lady I had employed as my first PA, 43 years ago, had contracted mesothelioma. That made it a little more personal to me. I was then asked whether I could remember the names of other people I employed at that time, whether I knew where they were and whether I could give a rundown of the buildings that we worked in, in those early days. I did my best to do that, and that put me in touch with this lady, who ended up as the deputy director of HR at the John Radcliffe Hospital—a very able person. She is now coming to terms with what will happen in her life. That has made me more committed to understanding and supporting efforts to help them.

I thank the Minister for her clear outline of the purpose of these two statutory instruments. These regulations seek to increase the value of the one-off lump sum payments made under the two compensation schemes—the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979 and the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—by 1.7%, in line with the inflation rate. Although we acknowledge that these increases are a positive step forward, particularly for those living with life-threatening conditions due to past exposure to hazardous substances, we must consider whether these adjustments are truly sufficient in the light of the immediate and long-term needs of the affected individuals.

The compensation schemes in question provide vital support to individuals who have suffered as a result of working in hazardous environments, particularly from asbestos exposure. Under the 1979 Act, lump sum payments are made to those affected by dust-related issues, while the 2008 Act compensates individuals diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma, including those who may not be eligible under the 1979 Act. These instruments propose to increase the sum by 1.7%. Although this increase offers some relief to those affected by asbestos-related diseases, it is important to ask whether this adjustment adequately meets the ongoing and growing needs of individuals whose lives have been irrevocably impacted by these conditions.

The previous Conservative Government consistently supported, and made increases to, these lump sum payments during their last Administration. Can the Minister commit to further increases in the payments in the future? I am sure she will.

His Majesty’s Opposition agree with these measures, but one concern that arises is the long-term sustainability of the compensation schemes. The draft regulations predict a gradual decline in long-term cost, as fatalities due to asbestos exposure stabilise. However, it is important to recognise that asbestos-related diseases continue to have a significant impact on individuals and families, and the effects of exposure can endure for generations.

I ask the Minister how the Government plan to ensure that the funds required to support these individuals will remain available as we see a decline in the number of claims over time. What steps are being taken to ensure that the national insurance and compensation systems can continue to meet the needs of those who continue to suffer from asbestos-related diseases?

Furthermore, the Government propose that the increase will apply only to claims where the individual first fulfilled the conditions of entitlement on or after 1 April 2025. This raises an important point for consideration. By setting this deadline, there is a risk that individuals currently in the middle of their claim process may miss out on the increase, potentially placing an added burden on those who are already in vulnerable situations. I ask the Minister how this decision was made, and whether there is any flexibility built into the process to accommodate those who may be affected in the interim.

The uprating of the compensation scheme is a necessary and welcome action, but we must recognise that these increases may not be sufficient to address the full extent of the challenges faced by those affected by asbestos-related diseases. I hope that the Government will ensure that the long-term sustainability of these schemes is maintained, and that they will remain attentive to the needs of those who continue to suffer as a result of past industrial practices. We on these Benches absolutely support the uplift.

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and their support for these regulations. I always find that this is one of the most moving debates we have in any year, and it gives us an opportunity to remember those who have lost their lives. My noble friend Lady Donaghy described her sister-in-law and her trade union colleague. There are also new cases: I was so sorry to hear about the employee of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott. One of the reasons why we come back here year after year is in order to honour those who have died because of things that were no fault of their own—in most cases simply going to work or caring for others whom they loved.

I loved to hear my noble friend Lord Jones, whom I thank for his inordinately kind words about me. It is a real privilege every year to hear him. I commend him for his faithfulness: he comes here every year to bear witness to what happened to the slate men, the quarrymen and the miners of his homeland of Wales, and to what they suffered. I love the fact that he reminds us every time that the only reason why these things were attacked in the workplace was that trade unions organised and defended people there, and made sure that we had proper legislation, so that people were not being sent into dangerous places and expected just to put up with it. I thank him once again for reminding us what happened at Hebden Bridge and Blaenau Ffestiniog, and so on. We must never forget that history; otherwise, we will be condemned to repeat it.

I will try to work though some of the questions that were asked. I commend my noble friend Lady Donaghy on chairing the mesothelioma oversight committee. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, has not heard of it. It is typical of my noble friend Lady Donaghy that she does incredibly important work in the background, and always points away from herself, never towards herself. This is another example, and I thank her for the work that she does. In this, as in so much else, I am grateful to her.

I will try to go through as many of the cases as I can. My noble friend Lord Jones asked how many cases of mesothelioma there are a year, and for a breakdown. We publish data on mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain, and I will send him a link so that he can see the breakdown of that. Unfortunately, mesothelioma is usually rapidly fatal following the onset of symptoms, but that means that annual deaths give a pretty clear indication of what is happening with the disease. Breakdowns are available by age, by last occupation and by geographical area—that is, where the person was living when they died. The statistics also include analysis of the relative frequency of different occupations recorded on mesothelioma death certificates, which is probably more useful as an indication of what happened in the past rather than of where we are going in the future—or, indeed, of numbers for particular occupations. It is a pattern.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this White Paper and are very keen that it should work and deliver positive outcomes for people who are out of the labour market, people who are economically inactive, those with health problems, and young people trying to get a productive start in life. Many of the proposals contained in the White Paper are either based on or continuations of some of the work we started in government—our WorkWell pilot schemes, our youth offer with youth hubs, and the universal support schemes—but we are not quite sure about the carrying on of the fit note, so I would be grateful for some confirmation on that. It is critical that the outcomes of the White Paper proposals work and, to that end, we really want them to.

I will talk about outcomes, which are important when looking at the investment being committed to this important area of work. As many in this House will know, I spent many years working with others in this sphere, so noble Lords must forgive my passion and commitment to the subject. Let me give just a few examples. On ThinkForward, we put our advisers in schools, working with the teachers and the management team. Our job was to prevent young people becoming NEET in the first place. The outcomes were that 85% of the 14 to 16 year-olds showed significant improvement in their attendance and behaviour. Some 60% of the group achieved at least five GCSEs at grade A to C and —wait for it—96% of the 17 to 18 year-olds in further education, employment or training were still there after a year.

Then we put our advisers into doctors’ surgeries. Let me tell your Lordships about the outcomes: a 20% reduction in GP appointments, a 74% reduction in referrals to practice counsellors—not that there is anything wrong with counsellors—and a 34% reduction in antidepressant prescriptions. Some 36% of people who completed the course were in employment and 80% of the 36% were still in employment 12 months later. This was for one surgery with a cohort of 200 people, at a cost of just over £2,000 a job. The noble Baroness who was the Minister of State for Education visited the project and saw for herself how great it was.

My other point on outcomes is, as noble Lords have heard me say many times, that getting someone into a job is one thing but keeping them there is another. Will His Majesty’s Government publish a set of metrics against which we can judge the success of Get Britain Working? Will they publish quarterly performance data? This will allow us to see what is working—and, indeed, what needs to change—to make this policy more effective. There is nothing wrong with changing half way through or changing course; people who do not change their minds do not change anything. Once someone has a job, will they retain the support of their coach to help them stay in work to ensure that the return on the investment reaches its full potential?

On employers, economic activity is not a problem that the Government can solve on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy. They create jobs. No Government can improve employment rates without creating an environment where business can thrive and grow. If people are to get off benefits and into work, there must be jobs for them to do. However, as a result of this Government’s Budget, businesses are saying that they will no longer be hiring. Some 50,000 jobs will be lost from this Budget alone, according to the OBR. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions has had a negative impact on the chances of finding employment? If the Minister wishes to help more 18 year- olds into work, I respectfully suggest—I was challenged on this many times here—that she might speak to the Chancellor who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ someone.

The Minister might also take the opportunity to speak to the Business Secretary whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely that employers will take on young people. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s policies are counterproductive and making it harder for people to get into work? Only employers create jobs—and they have a very challenging time ahead.

As much as the people we are trying to help need continued, robust support, so do employers. We will be asking them to try to integrate people with various issues into their workforce. Let me tell noble Lords about one project I was involved in. A very high-profile car company said it wanted to integrate long-term unemployed people into its workforce. We got a young girl booking the executive travel for the workforce. She turned up for work on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday but on Friday she was a no-show. Our staff went round and knocked on the door. She came down in her pyjamas. We said, “What are you up to?”. She said, “I never went to school on a Friday and nobody said anything”. That is true. We told her to get dressed and took her to work. The next week, the same thing happened. We went round, knocked on the door and took her to work. The third week, she showed up and it was not a problem. That is an example of the level of support that people need.

We on these Benches fully support the review of the apprenticeship levy. It is much needed and will be welcomed by employers. But I am disappointed that those on the Labour Benches in the other place could not recognise the significant work that came before them on apprenticeships. We have had over 5.8 million apprentices earning while they learn since 2010, 225,000 of them at degree level since degree apprenticeships were launched by the Conservative Government. Over that time, we developed 690 high-quality apprenticeship standards in partnership with 5,000 employers, 370 of those in STEM subjects, ensuring that we delivered the skills the country needs. This is a record to be proud of and I know the Minister will be keen to build on it.

I come now to the merging of jobcentres and the careers service. It is good to see the continued cross-government working between the DWP, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care. It is really important that the Government work across departments. The merging of Jobcentre Plus and the National Careers Service is a significant move. Can the Minister tell the House what assessment and analysis has been made to result in this decision? What is the plan for the merged service to become operational and what do His Majesty’s Government forecast that the benefits will be? What is the plan for ensuring the staff have the skills to carry out their roles? What is the timetable to deliver the new service and when will it become operational?

The challenge to Get Britain Working should not be underestimated but do we really need to wait one to two years for it to gain momentum? I assure the whole House that we on these Benches want this to work; we want Britain to work. For the sake of the people, we all want to help. To quote my leader in the other place: we are here for you—let us help. I personally pledge any help I can give to making this work.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we welcome the encouragement the Government are giving to improving apprenticeships, reforming jobcentres and investing in the health service to cut mental health and other health problems affecting labour activity rates. The long-term sickness at the end of this Parliament, projected to be 2.8 million, is clearly completely unacceptable, and the social and benefit costs of that will be dire. We need to transform our training, career and employment services. The only problem is that we have been arguing and discussing this for more than 50 years of my political life. It comes up in every generation.

In this sort of debate or Statement, we should have in front of us all the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, from the Budget debate. She said that

“if Britain were ranked against each of the 50 US states in terms of wealth, it would be last, with Britain’s GDP per capita … below America’s poorest state, Mississippi”.—[Official Report, 11/11/24; col. 1614.]

Our per capital income in this country has not grown for 10 or possibly 15 years; 25 years ago our economy was larger than China’s, and we are now 20% of the size of China. Those are the warning signals, and therefore investment in training is absolutely fundamental to the Government’s growth strategy.

I have six points, which I hope will be helpful, on aspects that I am worried about. First, as I said, we have been struggling with our training, career services and jobcentres for more than 50 years. There have been so many initiatives. Does the Minister accept that it is not going to take one year, nor five years, nor possibly even 10 years? This is a 20-year programme to get this right. It needs investment and long-term planning to achieve comprehensive reform.

Secondly, are the Government worried that there is a huge shortage of resources here? There are a number of schemes in this White Paper devolving to mayors eight trailblazers; we are going to spend £45 million next year. That is just £6 million per region. It sounds like quite a lot of money but in reality it is not, so there is just a slight worry that this is a sticking plaster trying to deal with a long-term problem. Too many of these funding projects are just for one year, when we actually need a long-term plan. The White Paper seeks to bring together the jobcentres and the National Careers Service to transform our training arrangements. This is going to involve a major culture change. Any other organisation undergoing this would be planning for the long term and understand that it is going to take a major effort to achieve it, let alone make an impact. Do the Government realise this?

Thirdly, the youth guarantee is a fine objective, but in the White Paper there is very little mention of the role of further education. This is one sector, outside universities, that has been neglected and underresourced over the last few years, but it is fundamental to all this. Are the Government going to set some objectives and produce a reform of further education?

Obviously, the one priority that the Government have set—quite rightly—is that we must clear the backlog in mental health care and in the health services, but all the evidence is that early intervention is required to get people back into work quickly. Is there a conflict between the long-term need to clear the backlog and having resources to deal with the short-term, immediate need?

Finally, reducing the backlog in the NHS, which is behind a lot of these problems, is going to require real progress in social care. I know that the Government are struggling to come up with their reforms on this, but I repeat that releasing the NHS beds that are being used for social care is absolutely fundamental to providing beds to get people back into the labour market. They cannot get the care at the moment.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I trust that the Minister will agree that the Social Security Advisory Committee made six reasonable recommendations in its letter. I urge all noble Lords to read it. I ask the Minister to respond to the letter, particularly covering the point about the additional cost of pension credit against the savings of the winter fuel allowance. There are a number of other benefits that pensioners may well get that could be impacted by taking pension credit. I am sure that all the things the committee raised in the letter would raise unintended consequences, but we want to avoid making a difficult position worse. I draw noble Lords’ attention to one:

“We would encourage the government to assess the equity of excluding housing benefit as a qualifying benefit on the basis of incomes after housing costs, rather than on the basis of gross incomes”.


When the Minister replies to that letter, I ask that she place a copy in the Library for all noble Lords to see.

State Pension: Age Increase

Baroness Stedman-Scott Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, of all the weeks when I am not going to start making up national insurance policy on the hoof, this is most definitely one of them. However, I hear what my noble friend says, and I will pass that along.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the impact on employment, particularly for older people, of increasing NI contributions for employers, bearing in mind that the winter fuel payment has been withdrawn?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, to separate those two out, the Treasury has published documentation on GOV.UK relating to the Budget and an impact assessment of different aspects of the Budget. On the question of the winter fuel payment, the noble Baroness will know that the vast majority of people who will be entitled to it are being encouraged, if necessary, to apply for pension credit or other benefits. For most of the rest, many of them will not be in employment and will not intend to be in employment. The winter fuel payment is aimed at people of pension age, so I do not see the connection between the winter fuel payment and national insurance, but if the noble Baroness wants to speak to me about it afterwards, I am happy to talk to her.