Welfare Reforms and Youth Unemployment

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Evans of Rainow]

That this House takes note of the economic implications of the Government’s approach to welfare reforms and the current levels of youth unemployment.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Younger on his 15 years’ service on the Front Bench. He was an outstanding public servant and is very much missed in your Lordships’ House.

All of us can remember our first job and the moment we got our first pay cheque—or, depending on how old you are, pay packet: cash paid in a little brown envelope with holes in it. My father was a wages clerk, and he always told me to open it instantly and count how much was in it. My first pay packet was £10 and I bought myself sweets, clothes and Airfix models. Then I moved on to working in my local pub, the Farmers Arms in Poynton, as a glass collector and bottle washer—hospitality and retail.

High streets and the NEET issue are inseparable. Hospitality and retail provide jobs in every high street in the UK. Hospitality and retail jobs are part of the answer to youth unemployment. Your first job is your first step. With businesses struggling with increased costs and additional taxes, they have been forced to cancel recruitment plans, cut staff hours and, in the worst cases, close. This has acutely affected part-time, entry-level and first jobs, feeding directly into today’s NEET crisis.

Let us look at some economic data and facts. Nearly 1 million young people between the age of 16 and 24 in the UK, one in eight, are NEET—not in education, employment or training. At the end of 2025, that figure was registered as 957,000 young people. If they formed a city, it would be the third largest in the UK, larger than cities such as Leeds, Glasgow and Cardiff.

This is a long-term issue, as over the last 25 years the NEET rate has fallen below 10% only during the Covid-19 pandemic, while at the end of 2024 it reached the highest level in a decade, 13.2%. The UK has a higher-than-average rate of young adults who are NEET compared to similar countries in the EU and the OECD. The EU average for 15 to 24 year-olds was 9% NEET. The UK used to be around the EU average, but now only Romania has a higher NEET rate. France had a similar NEET rate when it entered the Covid pandemic in 2020, but it is now lower. Denmark’s NEET rate for 15 to 24 year-olds was 8.4%. The Netherlands is currently around 4.1%. The UK has gone from being average to being an outlier.

In the early 2010s, most NEET young people were unemployed, seeking employment and ready to start. Now only 43% are. The other 57% are economically inactive. This is driven most by an increase in inactivity among men since the Covid pandemic. Six in 10 NEET young people today have never had a job, going up from four in 10 in 2005.

The duration that a young person is NEET makes a big difference on returning to employment. Some 65% of those who are NEET for less than a year return to employment the following year, but only 25% of those who are NEET for more than a year do so. While there are 7 million more jobs in the UK than in 2000, the number of workers who are under 25 has fallen. Young people have gone from making up one in seven workers to one in nine. At the turn of the millennium, 63% of young people were in work, but now it is barely 50%. In contrast, the employment rate for 25 to 64 year-olds rose from 74% to 80% over the same period. Unemployment among young people was 9% in 2022. It is now 16%. More than 250,000 young people have been unemployed for over six months, the highest number since 2015.

The Young People and Work interim report, the Milburn review, estimated that the NEET rate could increase to over 16%, or more than 1.25 million young people, within five years. Over the last decade, the proportion of those who say they are NEET due to a work-limiting health condition has gone up by 70%. The proportion of NEET young adults who are inactive due to sickness or disability has gone up from 11% in 2005 to 28%. The proportion of disabled NEET young adults who cite mental health as their main health problem has risen from 24% in 2011 to 42% in 2025. All those who fell into ill health-related economic inactivity between 2017 and 2019, almost eight in 10, were still NEET more than two years later.

A young person who first claimed health and disability benefits in 2019 is one-third more likely to be NEET five years later than someone who first claimed in 2010. Between 2010 and 2020, the proportion of young people leaving disability benefits within five years dropped by 40%. Today, around seven in 10 young people claiming a health and disability benefit are still claiming a decade later.

The Milburn review found that only one in five NEET young people in England are getting meaningful employment support from the welfare system. Around half the young people in the UK do not claim benefits and so are hidden from the system. Of those who claim benefits, only one-third get meaningful support in finding employment, and these are often those who face the least barriers to work. Almost half of those who first claimed a health and disability benefit aged 16 to 24 are not in work or education 15 years later.

A young person who first claimed health and disability benefits in 2019 is 34% more likely to be NEET after five years than someone who first claimed in 2010, but this is different from what those surveyed for the Milburn review claimed they wanted. In a survey carried out for that review, 64% of NEET young people said they wanted to find a job or an apprenticeship, and 19% wanted to enter education or training. Of the young people who are claiming disability or health benefits and were surveyed by the Milburn review, 90% are working and 49% believe that they could work, either now if the right support was available or in the future if their health improved. Only 32% feel that they will not be able to work again.

This is not what the system supports. Less than half of the total £8 billion currently spent on key benefits for young people aged 16 to 24 has any participation support or requirement attached to it. It is an issue that affects the whole system. More than 4 million people claim universal credit, with no requirement to look for work. In 2024-25, DWP spent less than £0.2 billion on funding employment support programmes for young people, plus a share of the £1.4 billion spent on jobcentres, which support all ages.

The Milburn review estimated that, in 2024-25, £25 was spent on benefits for young people for every £1 on employment support for them. The amount of money spent on PIP for young people alone is expected to rise from £3.2 billion to £6.5 billion by 2031-32. The Milburn review estimated that, if the spend on DWP employment support stays at the levels currently funded through the youth guarantee, by 2030-31, for every £1 spent on employment support for young people, around £10 will be spent on welfare support for them.

The Milburn review estimates that the cost to the 45% of today’s NEET 24 year-olds who have never had a job will be almost £300,000 in earnings over the course of their lifetime. Their cost to the state could be up to £240,000. The estimated direct total potential output lost due to NEET 18 to 24 year-olds is £38 billion, and the estimated scarring impact on output is £63 billion. The estimated forgone tax revenue for 18 to 24 year-olds who are NEET is £3.2 billion and the estimated scarring forgone revenue is £10.8 billion. The cumulative annual cost to the UK of almost a million NEET young people is £125 billion. The UK’s welfare expenditure is set to rise by £18 billion this year, up to around £333 billion. That is an eye-watering figure, given that we need to spend more on defence and elsewhere.

When I was a Member of Parliament in the other place during the coalition Government, the Conservatives’ approach, working together with the Liberal Democrats, achieved some significant thresholds. Workless households fell to a record low; there were over half a million fewer children growing up in workless homes; youth unemployment was cut in half; and £20 billion was saved from the annual welfare bill. OBR analysis concluded that UK government policy reduced social security spending by £19.6 billion in 2015-16 alone, relative to the 2010-11 baseline. That shows how, by working together cross-party, savings can be made that are fair to the recipients of welfare but also fair to those taxpayers who have to pay for it.

What about the employers who will employ young people? Make UK, the manufacturers’ representative association, has set out a range of challenges, from an employer perspective, that are making it more difficult to recruit, train and retain young workers. It cites overall employment costs as the most significant concern for manufacturers in 2026, as overall hiring appears to be slowing as a result of higher costs. There are constraints on apprenticeships, with a lack of the right local provision, while increasing training and employment costs are limiting employers’ capacity to offer apprenticeship opportunities. On wider skills and technical education, there is insufficient exposure to vocational and technical routes, while lack of employer engagement from schools is limiting awareness and understanding of skilled employment opportunities for young people in sectors such as manufacturing. Consistently high increases in both the national living wage and national minimum wage and their age-based rates, plus the proposed reduction in the national living wage age threshold to 18, mean restricting opportunities for young people. On labour market regulation and the Employment Rights Act 2025, measures such as the right to guaranteed hours may limit opportunities for young people to be employed flexibly.

At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned hospitality and retail, which cite the tax burden that recently fell upon the sector. Since the 2024 Budget, the hospitality sector has been battling an increase of £3.4 billion in annual costs and, more recently, an existential crisis in business rates. Hospitality has been disproportionately and repeatedly hit with taxes by successive Budgets. The sector has accounted for nearly half of all job losses in the UK since the Budget, confirming that it is the hardest hit by tax increases. Hospitality is the biggest employer of young people, with 39% of its workforce being 16 to 24 years old, by far the highest of any sector. Young people have typically been able to rely on a job in their local high street as their first job, and job losses in the hospitality sector affect them most acutely.

The changes to employer national insurance contributions brought in at the 2024 Budget are costing the hospitality sector £1 billion annually. Employment costs hit every part of the workforce, but particularly young people. A student working 14 hours at the weekend would mean £1,140 more in employment costs. Last year saw a 25% year-on-year drop in summer jobs, evidencing the loss of job opportunities for young people. High employment costs have had a knock-on effect in limiting job opportunities for young people and reduced footfall in the high streets. High-cost employment is high-risk employment; hospitality offers many people their first job and is a vital first step on the career ladder for many young people. The Government must de-risk businesses employing the least trained and least experienced in the economy, by reducing employment costs and ensuring that part-time and temporary work is affordable for businesses to offer.

Job losses in the hospitality and tourism sector are collateral damage to the Government’s NEET mission. The industry is leading the way, providing 25% of all entry-level jobs. Will the Government rethink any fiscal measures that threaten further job losses in hospitality and elsewhere to provide accessible jobs for everyone, everywhere? Why was hospitality not included in the Government’s industrial strategy? Again, that would have helped young people gain good-quality apprenticeships.

Finally, we are still awaiting the Government’s response to the 2025 Lords report on social mobility, which was completed in December last year. The Government should have reported back by February this year. With exceptional delays, if a response is likely to take longer than two months, the responsible government department must write to the specific committee, explaining the delay and providing a revised timetable. With this in mind, can the Minister take this opportunity to ask her departmental officials to update your Lordships’ House on the Government’s response to this important Lords report on social mobility, which is highly relevant to all those NEETs who are no longer or have not started in the workplace? I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I am truly grateful to everyone who contributed with excellent speeches to this debate today. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, said, it has been a non-partisan debate, which means that I look forward to debating again when we get the Milburn report, as the Minister says, in the autumn, because it is so important. I referred to the coalition Government and the progress made there 15 years ago. Your Lordships’ House has an important role in helping with this NEET issue. The noble Lord, Lord Walker, made the point in his excellent contribution that his is the Labour Party, not the benefits party, and that private sector businesses—indeed, private sector family businesses—create the jobs, create the wealth, to move the nation forward.

I am also grateful to the Minister for her responses. I am biased when it comes to the report of the Lords Social Mobility Committee, because I sat on that committee, but it is an excellent report and is complementary to the Milburn report, as my noble friend Lord Young said. The key recommendation is to run a pilot scheme and look at a combined authority, such as that of Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester, or indeed Bristol or elsewhere, to give them the money and see if we can learn from a focused and concentrated effort to reduce NEETs in those communities. As we say in the report, there needs to be a welfare system reset to reflect local areas and local labour markets, because those mayors know best about the specific needs. One hat does not fit all, and it should not even be on a regional basis but on a town-by-town, city-by-city basis.

We cannot carry on spending more on disability and incapacity benefits than we do on defence. At the beginning of my speech, I referred to the predicted growth in welfare spending of £333 billion by 2030. During this debate, I was very sorry to learn that the Defence Secretary, John Healey, has resigned, specifically because of the lack of money being provided for our defence at this time. I pay tribute to John Healey, who was an outstanding Defence Secretary and, indeed, public servant.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Young light-heartedly pointed out that of the five Conservatives on the Select Committee, three were old Etonians, but there was also one NEET. I was the NEET on that committee, and when I left school at 16 with no qualifications, I was lucky enough, as I indicated in my opening remarks, to have had a Saturday job in a shop. I also worked in my local pub, which gave me the work ethic that enabled me to get into a business career in manufacturing, in the local aviation sector near where I lived, which set me up for life. The challenge is to get young people into those early start-up jobs. Saturday jobs are a rare thing these days, as has been ably pointed out. Your Lordships’ House is in a position to help NEETs. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Free Speech Complaints Scheme

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have not seen much evidence that the noble Lord is being silenced, but it remains an important part of free speech provisions to be able to protest legitimately—but not, of course, to harass or to promote antisemitism on campus. It is completely clear that that is the case, and there is a clear distinction between the two.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder if the Minister can give us an indication of when the Government will respond to your Lordships’ House’s special report into social mobility. It has been sat on the Secretary of State’s desk for a long time now.

Youth Unemployment

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. We will certainly ensure that we properly evaluate the youth guarantee trailblazers that are currently in place in eight areas, and the much- expanded national youth guarantee that we are now funding, and consider the sorts of impacts that my noble friend has identified.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, some of the best job opportunities are with some of our outstanding engineering companies throughout the United Kingdom, but some schools, colleges and universities do not allow companies involved in defence contracts to attend job fairs. What advice would the Minister give to schools and universities about the appropriateness of defence companies attending job fairs?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My advice would be that the defence industry is an enormously important part of this country’s engineering base. It is one of the eight areas identified in this Government’s industrial strategy and our young people should be encouraged to take advantage of the opportunities that there are in that industry.

Dyscalculia

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government will be introducing a reading assessment in year 8, on the basis that we think reading is the thing most likely to open up the rest of the curriculum and the ability to succeed in assessment. We will also make sure that schools have the support to use a range of methods of assessing progress in both maths and writing in year 8. Other changes we are making in response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review will make sure that the sequencing of maths learning enables students, including those with special educational needs, to build up their core understanding in a way that is more likely to support success.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I first came across dyscalculia as a young dad in school reports 25 years ago, when one of my children had an issue with mathematics. I noticed that his 2s, 3s, 5s, 7s and 9s were all the wrong way around. Is that not a very early and obvious sign to teachers that there is an issue?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect it is, as other things would also be. The noble Lord makes an important point, which goes to the point I made in my first two responses. It is important that we identify all pupils who have challenges with maths—including those with dyscalculia—as early as possible, and put in place support, structure in the curriculum and training for teachers to enable those students to succeed, whatever is causing the problems with their maths learning.

State Pension: Age Increase

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

There are variations. One of the challenges is that, now we want to keep young people in education, training or employment until 18, we find that fewer people leave school and start work early. My noble friend is raising an underlying point that is really about fairness. We want to see everybody having the opportunity to study for as long as is genuinely helpful and suits them, then to move into fulfilling work and to be able to progress in it over time. I return to one of the challenges. The Secretary of State will consider all factors, but if we look at how difficult it is—and we know how hard we have had to work—to communicate a single state pension age, trying to communicate variable state pensions ages risks complicating it. But my noble friend raises an important point, and we will keep it under consideration.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, the Chancellor has announced that she is going to merge 86 public sector pension funds into eight megafunds. We have been talking about that for quite a long time. Will the Minister update the House on how and when that will happen?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, information will be coming forward. We are doing a pension review at the moment. Stage 1 is coming to an end and stage 2 is coming through. There is also a pensions Bill coming through, and when that comes through, all the details will be made available.

Child Poverty: Benefit Cap

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, we always welcome new initiatives to help unemployed people get back to work. With that in mind, will the Minister update the House on the current number of job vacancies?

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

There is always something that you wish you had put in your pack when you stand up. Today it is that. I will write to the noble Lord.

Child Poverty

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bird]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to address the root causes of child poverty across the United Kingdom.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, as dinner break business is now the last business of the day, the allocation of time is now 90 minutes. Therefore, the Back-Bench speaking time has increased from four minutes to eight minutes.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I welcome the chance to sort out the problems of poverty in an hour and a half. I welcome the idea that, in such a short amount of time, we can sort out the problem that a third of all our children are in or around poverty—that is 4 million children in the United Kingdom.

I alert people to my belief that, in the seven or eight years I have been in the House of Lords, I have never come to a debate or discussion where the root causes of things are dealt with. I believe strongly that one of the main problems we have is that Governments, Oppositions and people who have worked for many years in and around poverty are always dealing with the effects of poverty; they do not deal with the root causes of poverty. So when I proposed this small debate, I was actually trying to be revolutionary. I was trying to move the House of Lords—and, I hope, the House of Commons—towards the idea that instead of continuously dealing with the effects of poverty, we move the argument towards the root causes of poverty.

Throughout the world—it is not just the United Kingdom—in the region of about 80% of all money spent on social intervention is spent on dealing with the emergency and problems of coping with poverty. There is very little money spent on prevention or cure—the two opposites. Since the time I came into the House, I have been like a scratched record; I have gone on, again and again, asking when we are going to spend our time on eradicating poverty rather than ameliorating it and trying to accommodate it. That has been my real argument.

I think that His Majesty’s Government and His Majesty’s Opposition, and the previous Governments and Oppositions, have always dealt with the terrible reality poverty throws up. Tonight, I want to be a revolutionary and ask why we do not all look at something quite real. Why is it that, for all our efforts over decades—my decades go back to the end of the Second World War—we have always tried to deal with the obnoxiousness that is thrown up by poverty but we have never done a scientific analysis of the root causes of poverty? We have never had a Government or an Opposition, or an argument within our universities and charities, or among those who get involved in the struggles of the poorest among us, ask when we are going to do something about eradicating poverty.

I am sorry if I sound a bit Joan of Arc. I came into the House of Lords with one strict instruction from the people who encouraged me to come here, which was to help to dismantle and get rid of poverty, not to shift the deckchairs on the Atlantic. My instruction was not to make the poor more comfortable but to actually get rid of the concept of poor people.

I come from poverty, and maybe that is what drives me on. I come from people who came from poverty, who came from poverty and who came from poverty. The interesting thing is that when I grew up, I realised that they were surrounded by poverty; they could not get away from it. The mind-forged manacles that go with poverty meant that they perpetuated it. I have done my best within the lives of my own children to get rid of poverty in their futures, but the larger part of my family is still perpetuating poverty. Why? Because the root causes of poverty were never dealt with in the course of their lives.

To me, the big problem with poverty is the inheritance of poverty. In the United Kingdom, about 4 million children—a third of our children—are in poverty. It is interesting that a third of our children are in and around the problems of poverty, and in spite of all our efforts they remain so. What are we, the Church, the charities or the political parties going to do about it? Will they wake up one day and say, “Actually, we’re getting no nearer”? We know that in the last year, 100,000 more children have arrived in poverty.

We need an enormous mind shift, but I do not see it happening. I do not see anybody building the intellectual appliances or the university courses to find out why we are always trying to address the problems of poverty as if a bit more to the poor will actually change anything.

I came into the House of Lords and was astonished at the number of people who wanted me to get involved in agitating to give poor people more. I was determined, however much it would damage my reputation, not to do that. If the only thing you inherit is poverty, how do we break that situation so that you do not inherit it?

Can I just check: if we have more time, does this mean I can speak for another five minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I announced at the beginning of the debate that rather than an hour, we have an hour and a half. That extends Back-Bench speeches, but the noble Lord may have a few more moments above the 10 minutes for which he has spoken now. He can carry on.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

I love democracy.

I was born in the London Irish slums of Notting Hill, but we moved to Fulham. On my road, I fell into being a friend of a guy whose family, like mine, came from Ireland. His father had accumulated a number of jobs. He was a very clever guy, even though, like my family, he was ill educated. He became very wealthy and bought his house, so he had a house in Fulham Broadway at a time when my family were living around the corner in social housing—what was called council housing. He became very prosperous and employed 20, 30, then 50 Irish people to make money for him, so that he could buy a house, then a bigger one. There were two kinds of poverty. That guy did not inherit poverty, but my family inherited it and made damn sure that we and other members of my family inherited poverty and the mind-forged manacles that go with it.

What do we actually do to break that situation so that people in poverty are given something—a “je ne sais quoi”, a little thing—that will mean they do not imitate the inherited poverty of their own family? To me, that is the big issue: Patrick Crowell and his mum and dad built a business, made money and became middle class and prosperous, but my family remained in poverty. Their children and their children’s children are still in poverty and stuck in social housing, having all sorts of problems.

I want to know how the House of Lords and the House of Commons, with all their great brains, can help us dismantle the mind-forged manacles that come with poverty and its inheritance. That is my passion. Over the next few months, as we move towards a general election, I will be campaigning through my work in the Big Issue, and in Parliament in general, for a reinvention of social housing.

Do noble Lords know that there are so many people in this world who are defenders of social housing? These people absolutely love it and think it is absolutely brilliant. But do noble Lords know that the children of people who live in social housing rarely finish school, get their qualifications, get skilled and move out of poverty? Do noble Lords know that a fraction, an infinitesimal number of people in social housing, ever get to university or college so that they can then start living a fuller life away from poverty? Do noble Lords know that in housing associations, on average 70% of people are unemployed? I do not want to be interpreted as rude or insensitive, but if you really wanted to condemn somebody to poverty for the next 100 years, you would give them social housing.

Data Protection and Digital Information Bill

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 22nd April 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 208A. I am a recovering solicitor. Many moons ago, I gave public affairs advice to the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers, which is a fine organisation. I very much support its call and this amendment on that basis. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Leong, on his introduction to this amendment; he and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, made a terrific case.

APIL took the trouble to commission research from YouGov, which showed that 38% of UK adults had received a cold call or text while 86% had a strong emotional response and were left feeling annoyed, angry, anxious, disgusted or upset. Therefore, the YouGov research reveals that almost all those who received a call supported a total ban on personal injury cold calls and text messages.

There is little for me to add but I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, is not with us—she has just exited the Room, which is unhappy timing because, in looking back at some of the discussions we have had in the House, I was about to quote her. During Report stage in the Lords on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, when she was a Minister, she told us:

“We know that cold calls continue and understand that more needs to be done truly to eradicate this problem. We have already committed to ban cold calls relating to pensions, and are minded to bring forward similar action in relation to the claims management industry. I have asked officials to consider the evidence for implementing a cold-calling ban in relation to claims management activities, and I am pleased to say that the Government are working through the detail of a ban on cold calling by claims management companies. There are complex issues to work through, including those relating, for example, to EU directives”;


of course, we do not have those any more. She went on to say:

“We would therefore like time to consider this important issue properly, and propose bringing forward a government amendment in the other place to meet the concerns of this House”.—[Official Report, 24/10/17; col. 861.]


How much time do the Government need? Talk about unfinished business. I know it is slightly unfair as you can unearth almost anything in Hansard but the fact is that this is bull’s eye. It is absolutely spot on on the part of APIL to have found this. I thought for one delirious minute that the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, was going to stand up and say, “Yes, I plead guilty. We never pursued this”.

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

I have texted the noble Baroness asking her to return as soon as possible so that she can listen to the noble Lord’s wise words.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

I am not going to carry on much longer. I know that that will be a grave disappointment but it makes the case, I think, that it is high time that the Government did something in this area. It is clearly hugely unpopular. We need to make sure that Amendment 208A is passed. If not now, when?

Personal Independence Payment: Regulations

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

It was a privilege to serve on the Work and Pensions Committee with the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) in the last Parliament.

I wish to focus my speech on two particular areas. First, it is not the case that the Government are using the change as a cost-cutting exercise. Secondly, I will address some of the comments made by Opposition Members on mental health and physical conditions in relation to PIP.

We spend £50 billion every year on benefits—up by £7 billion since 2010—to support people with disabilities and health conditions, so, rather than being subjected to austerity cuts, these benefits have seen an increase in Government spending. That figure is 6% of all Government spending, or 2.5% of GDP. It is significantly more than countries such as France and Germany spend, and higher than the OECD average. It is more than we spend on the defence of the realm.

As I have said, this change is not, as some Members have suggested, a cost-cutting exercise. The Government have made it abundantly clear that they will seek no further savings through welfare in this Parliament. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work to reassure the House that she will continue to defend the disability budget.

The changes restore the original aim of the policy by clarifying the assessment criteria to make sure that support is targeted on those who need it the most. Nobody will receive less money than they have previously been awarded. This is not about making savings. PIP was widely consulted and voted on and debated in this House during the coalition Government.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

rose—

[Graham Evans]

I am sorry, but I really want to make some progress so that other Members can have their say.

More than two thirds of PIP recipients with a mental health condition receive the enhanced daily living component, compared with just 22% who used to receive the higher rate under the disability living allowance. This Government are investing more in mental health support than any other before them. The figure stands at £11.4 billion this year.

Parity between mental and physical conditions is a core principle at the heart of PIP’s design. Awards are dependent on the claimant’s overall level of need, regardless of whether the condition is mental or physical.

As well as increasing spending on disabilities, this Government are challenging attitudes towards disability through initiatives such as Disability Confident. Last year, I, along with many Members of this House, held my first Disability Confident fair, bringing together 20 local businesses and support agencies to hear at first hand the benefits of employing people with disabilities.

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Gentleman says that parity of esteem applies to the way in which PIP works, but the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has specifically explained how the carve-out of mental distress means that it is clearly discriminatory. Does he not agree with that?

[Graham Evans]

I cannot comment on the specific case to which the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) referred. All I would say is that there is variation from case to case, and we can all give examples. In my experience, these changes to PIP have, overwhelmingly, been better for people with mental illness in my constituency.

[Victoria Borwick (Kensington) (Con)]

I also have a number of local residents concerned about those with mental health issues having access to the higher rate mobility allowance. I think that it has had the unintended consequence—this is where I seek my hon. Friend’s advice—of young people, post-transition, not necessarily being able to still have access to their blue badge or disability or mobility access.

[Graham Evans]

That is for the Minister to answer.

The Disability Confident fair brought together employers in Weaver Vale and those with disabilities and mental health issues and I encourage Members to consider doing something similar. I learned a lot about the challenges facing my constituents and the fair helped to bring employers and those with disabilities together. This Government have done a lot more to ensure that our welfare system is a strong safety net for those who need it. PIP is a more modern, dynamic and fair benefit than its predecessor, DLA, focusing vital support on those in our constituencies who need it the most.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Evans of Rainow Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

These changes took place under two Acts of Parliament: the Pensions Act 1995, which brought in the main change, and the Pensions Act after that. I want to make it clear that after the 1995 Act, 18 months was the maximum increase.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Last week, the John Cridland report indicated that there may well be an increase in the pension age. As life expectancy rises, it is right and proper for any Government to consider increasing the state pension age. However, will my hon. Friend reassure the House that if there are indeed any changes to the state pension age, they will be communicated in a timely and appropriate manner, so that those affected know about them?

[Richard Harrington]

The Government will be making a full response to the Cridland report. The review is forward-looking and, I must make it clear, will not make recommendations for any changes to happen before 2028. That was a commitment in the 2013 autumn statement.