Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ms Abbott]

There is no question but that my hon. Friend is correct. These cuts will put even more pressure on local authorities, which are already in difficulties.

There is all this talk about getting disabled people into jobs—what jobs? The areas of employment where there are labour shortages tend to be minimum wage, like social care, or seasonal, like agricultural work. The DWP’s own figures show around 102,000 registered vacancies. Of those, only 807 can be done completely remotely, of which 127 are with employers that the DWP describes as Disability Confident, and of those just 10 are part time. Where are these jobs that the Government want to coerce the disabled into, and with what employers?

The PIP claimants that the Government want to force back to work may have physical disabilities, but they may also be severely depressed or have mental health problems. Most employers will not tolerate the intermittent patterns of employment and long periods out of the labour market that come with those types of health problems. Furthermore, there is very little evidence that cutting benefits boosts employment—a point made by a group of concerned charities recently—and, as the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) said earlier, Ministers seem to miss the point that PIP is paid to disabled people regardless of whether they are in work. That means that many of the women and men the Government are taking PIP off already have jobs.

Supporters of the Government’s cuts claim that, all too often, men and women on welfare are “taking the mickey”—I am quoting a Minister there—or making a “lifestyle choice”. People who describe welfare as a lifestyle choice obviously do not actually know many people who live on welfare. The poor housing, the struggle to pay for the basics and the humiliation they often endure mean that it is not a lifestyle that anybody would choose.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I thank the right hon. Member for her passionate speech and, in particular, for highlighting the real human impact of these cuts. Over 1 million disabled people were forced to use food banks last year, while, for many others, basics such as affording transport to hospital appointments will be jeopardised by these cuts. Does that not only emphasise and underline the case that right hon. Member was making: that this is a political choice, and that asking the very wealthiest in society to pay a bit more in tax would be the moral thing to do?

[Ms Abbott]

It is indeed a political choice. I would prefer my Government to introduce a wealth tax or some taxation system that asks the very wealthy to pay a little more than take money away from the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society. But the Government refuse to accept that there is anything wrong with cutting benefits for the disabled. Instead, they say that there has been a “communication problem”. Some of us have tried explaining to Downing Street that they could employ the best communicators in the world, but these welfare cuts will be impossible to sell to the public and will undermine Labour’s position in communities.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Stringer.

Surely the abiding question that arises from this debacle is: what is the point in having an ombudsman if, when maladministration is found, it can be swept aside and ignored? Why have we an ombudsman? Governments make mistakes. Governments get things wrong. People think Governments get things wrong, so they want to complain. So what do we do? We set up an independent ombudsman. Why? Because Governments should not be judge in their own cause. That is the whole purpose and ethos of having an ombudsman. But in this case the Government want to be judge in their own cause.

We are not talking about some incidental, slight illustration of maladministration. Let us remind ourselves that the ombudsman found that

“some women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances. It diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control”

and therefore led to injustice. We are talking about injustice—we are not just talking about maladministration —and injustice needs to be rectified. The Government say, “We apologise”—frankly, the sincerity of that apology is weighed in the balance of their refusal to compensate—but it is not just a matter of saying sorry. It is a matter of putting it right. That is what we do when we find an injustice: we try to put it right.

What have the Government done in this case? We had the most spurious attempt to repudiate the ombudsman’s findings. The Government told us, “Oh, well, only one in four people actually read unsolicited letters from DWP.” What was the point in sending them then? They might as well have saved the postage.

It really is pathetic and appalling that the Government have reached the stage of saying, “Nothing to see here; nothing to do here; we’re doing nothing about it” to women the independent ombudsman says were not just wronged but had an injustice visited upon them. I say to this Government: it is not a sign of weakness to admit that you are wrong; it is a sign of strength. The Government would rise in the estimation of many if, rather than hide behind their huge majority in the House, they exercised the strength of saying, “We’ve got this wrong.”

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman is making an extremely powerful case about righting an injustice and about the importance for our parliamentary system of following the recommendations of an ombudsman. Does he agree that the Government revisiting this issue will strengthen our democracy? We have heard just how strong the cross-party consensus is; notably, that includes many Labour Members, as well as Members of other parties, referring to the pledges we made in the election. Is that not why it is so important that the Government think again to restore faith in democracy?

[Jim Allister]

This matter goes to the very heart of public confidence in our system of Government. I started by saying that Governments get things wrong, and people think they get things wrong, so the Government have an independent arbitrator. But we cannot have an independent arbitrator and then throw the findings in the bin, and that is what is happening here. It goes to the very heart of confidence in Government, whichever party is in power. If maladministration of this magnitude is found, there must be recompense for those against whom the injustice was wrought.

I say to the Government that many of their Back Benchers are saying loud and clear that it is time to rethink. It certainly is time to rethink, and in that there is strength. On behalf of the 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, who are with those in the rest of this United Kingdom, I say that it is beyond time for the Government to rethink. It is time to put right the wrong that was done to all these women.

Agricultural Property Relief

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

Diolch yn fawr—thank you—to the hon. Member for giving way. Farmers in my constituency say to me that their problem is the threshold. The on-paper values of their farms—often several million pounds, even if the farmer makes no actual surplus income from the farm—would take them well into being caught by this policy. But the current situation is not working either, because non-farmers bought up more than half the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023.

One local farmer told me that a 350-acre farm in Suffolk was bought by a merchant banker from London who had not even seen the farm and was clearly not intent on farming. Does the hon. Member agree that although we need the Government to increase the threshold, those arguing for the status quo are not doing farmers justice either?

[Ann Davies]

Absolutely. I am coming to my solutions, so I hope the Treasury will listen. I have three solutions that I think would work, because there are alternatives to this policy. The first is that abolishing capital business asset rollover relief could have provided a more targeted measure to tackle wealthy individuals buying agricultural land to avoid tax. That is the big one.

Secondly, taxing assets at the point of selling, rather than at the point of passing to another generation, would be a fairer measure to keep family farms. Thirdly, modifying existing proposals could double the zero-rate band and significantly increase the threshold, while allowing a shorter period than seven years for potentially exempt transfers. I have an additional comment on that. Do any of us have the right to live for seven years? That, my friends, is really not within our gift. Those are a few solutions from expert organisations in the sector, which could have proposed their solutions before the Government made their decision. That underlines again the importance of proper consultation with stakeholders.

To sum up, the APR and BPR changes have come at an already difficult time for farmers, with high costs of production, adverse weather and marketplace volatility taking their toll. Working farms that have been at the heart of Welsh communities for generations will suffer. As a constituent told me,

“Every farmer deserves the right to security of the farm they own or rent.”

Farms are not businesses but family legacies, vital for our rural economy and key to preserving our Welsh-speaking culture. Plaid Cymru supports closing loopholes that allow billionaire landowners to avoid paying their fair share, but this one-size-fits-all approach ignores the unique challenges of Welsh farming. That is why it is so important that the UK Government implement a Wales-specific impact assessment that reflects the realities of agriculture in Wales.

A petition calling for the UK Government not to change inheritance tax relief for working farms has reached more than 146,000 signatories, and is being debated here on 10 February—put that in the diary, folks! It is clear that the public agree that it is time for the Government to listen to farmers, conduct a proper analysis and rethink this damaging policy before it is too late.

Oral Answers to Questions

Adrian Ramsay Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

23. What her Department’s timetable is for responding to the recommendations on compensation made by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in his report on changes to women’s state pension age.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Emma Reynolds)]

I was the first Minister for eight long years to meet Women Against State Pension Inequality campaigners to hear their experiences directly. However, we do need time to carefully consider the ombudsman’s report and evidence before we can outline our approach.

[Emma Reynolds]

The ombudsman’s report is a serious report that took six years to complete and deserves serious consideration. We are carefully reviewing the details of that complex report and will come to a conclusion in the round.

[Adrian Ramsay]

I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) on this serious injustice, which is being compounded by the lack of swift action for redress. It really matters to all our constituents, including mine in Norfolk and Suffolk, where I have spoken to the local WASPI women group, which highlighted just how a big an impact it is having, including on women born in the 1950s who are struggling to make ends meet. Will the Minister please set out the timescale by which she will respond to the report and the action that will be taken?

[Emma Reynolds]

The ombudsman took six years to look into what is a serious, significant and complex set of cases. We need time to look at that seriously, and we are doing precisely that.