Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Alison Hume Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ms Creasy]

At Committee stage, we often table amendments to try to understand the nature of the legislation. Many questions are being put forward in this concertinaed process. The first is whether we should make policy by phone-in rather than on an evidence base. That is the only justification I can see for new clause 12 tabled by the Opposition, who appear not to understand that no recourse to public funds guides the lives of many migrants in our community. It contains a fundamentally un-British perspective on people who come here and work for many years in our national health service, and who then have a stroke or perhaps develop MS. Under the Opposition’s proposals, we would deny such people the support they have paid into as taxpayers. It is a dog whistle so loud that I fear the dogs in Battersea right now are having a terrible time. We should not make policy by phone-in but by evidence, and I pay tribute to the incredible words of my hon. Friends the Members for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) and for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who bring their own experiences to this debate.

I will speak to new clause 4, which I tabled, as well as to other amendments. Those amendments come from my experience of what makes good policymaking in this place and from my concern that we need to protect our constituents from the vagaries of public policy. I think in particular of a 62-year-old constituent of mine who is physically disabled with a mobility condition called ankylosing spondylitis—I will tell Hansard how to spell that. She works full time and lives alone in a rented flat that has been adapted for her. Removing, messing around with and playing with her benefits—as this Bill would do for millions of people around this country—will not save money; it will simply cost more. My constituent would struggle to get to work and to look after herself, which she can do using the welfare support that she gets under the current system. That means we will face higher costs in the long run.

I wish that Members would learn from the evidence on the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax was brought in under the same metric that we heard from the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), who is no longer here—that somehow people who are supported by our welfare system are probably making it up. This is not a moral argument I am making; the bedroom tax did not save the money it was meant to save, because it just pushed costs into other parts of the public sector. That is why it is so important that agree to new clause 4 and weave the principles of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities into this legislation. It should be guided by principle not prejudice—in particular the principle that we should respect our fellow human beings and our constituents who have a disability.

New clause 4 covers the question of co-production, and on this point I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) is not in her place. I want to come back to that question, because there is a very important principle about co-production that we have not bottomed out, and I want to hear from the Minister about it. There is a simple premise that we signed up to in the UN convention, which I hope Members across the House would support, that there should be an adequate standard of living—that is identified in article 28. Crucially, article 19 also sets out that there should be an independent living process for our disabled constituents. That is why in 2017, 2024 and indeed 2025, when the UN criticised the previous Government, we rightly held them to account for it. What do we wish for our disabled constituents, if not an independent and equal standard of living? What do we wish for them, if not the basic human right to be treated equally? We must recognise that the world we live in does not work for them, and we must account for that through our welfare system so that they can live freely and, yes, play a part in the world of work while also living with dignity.

It is about very practical things, such as the freedom that comes from someone having a carer who helps them get dressed so that they can go to work. That is supported by our welfare system. It is also about travel costs, especially for those living in my constituency, where Transport for London seems to be hellbent on breaking down all of the stations so that they are not accessible. Covering those costs means that someone can go out to see family and friends. There is also the food that someone might need if they have a condition like phenylketonuria—a metabolic condition that means a person needs a low protein diet. These are not equal experiences, but by using our welfare state to support those people, we can have ensure that they have the human rights we wish them to have.

New clause 4 is about giving due regard to the principles set out in the UN charter so that benefits are calculated in a way that means they are sufficient to allow people to live a life of freedom equally alongside their fellow human beings. The payments we make must meet those tests so that disabled people in our communities can meet their living expenses. That is a question that many hard-working people who are struggling at the moment in their lives can recognise well.

It is about levelling the playing field. It is not, as the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness said, about making fools of us all. Those are principles that I hope the Government will commit to weaving throughout the legislation. That is why new clause 4 matters: it goes beyond the principle of co-production, which I know the Minister has recognised, to the basic principle of how we treat people. That would apply to the universal credit health element of the Bill. If we restricted a benefit, it would call on us to ask why we consider somebody to need X amount at this point in time but Y amount in the future, and to ask whether that will live up to the required standard of living.

I want to touch on co-production in particular. Many have talked about it, but people do not necessarily understand what it means. It is not consultation. Co-production means that whoever is included can say no as well as yes. Without a power of veto, all we have is a better managed consultation. Co-production genuinely empowers every participant to shape things, because they can walk out of the room as well as being part of it.

The Minister has talked about seeking consensus, but it is not an equal relationship if disabled people are not given the clear power to veto what is put on the table, such that the Government have to work with them so that they do not use their veto. That is the principle of co-production—that is why it is not consultation—and that is what we should be seeking.

I have much sympathy for new clause 8—I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) is not in his place—because I was here in 2015 when George Osborne used statutory instruments to slash the tax credits that our constituents relied on and 3 million people were pushed further into poverty. I was also here when MPs on both sides of the House expressed frustration about the use of that process. We had to watch the House of Lords clear up our mess and stand up to the Chancellor for using delegated legislation to take £1,300 away from our constituents. I hope the Minister will understand that this is not about this individual Bill or even about his good intentions; I know that he has engaged with all of us. It is about the principle that if we are to change the law, we should be able to amend and adjust that law and scrutinise it on behalf of our constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) set out many alternative ways in which we could switch spending to invest in order to save money in the long run. There are many different ways in which we can support our economy to grow; it does not have to be off the backs of our disabled constituents. There is also the important principle here—I know many on the Labour Benches believe this—that socialism is the language of priorities. Our priority must be to empower and enable every single one of our constituents to achieve their potential—and yes, that happens through a growing economy, and also through a welfare state.

I hope that the Minister will address the amendments that seek to ask questions about how we get this right. For many of us those unanswered questions are troubling —we cannot bring back answers for our constituents—because they tell us that we may not achieve those things that I have set out. None of us who have lived through George Osborne and the bedroom tax ever want to go back to that again. We want to be able to say to our constituents, who might find themselves in the position of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk, that we can absolutely be proud of the system we are building today, just as we are proud of my hon. Friend himself.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 11 and amendment 38. I am incredibly relieved that the Government have listened—most importantly, they have listened to the people who will be affected by changes to PIP—and taken clause 5 out of the Bill. The terms of reference for the Timms review have already been set without involving disabled people, but there is a chance with new clause 11 to ensure that it moves forward in a truly co-produced way. What worries me is that without the proposals in the new clause, the Bill highlights the need for co-production but provides no assurances that it will be comprehensively done. Disabled people must feel that any changes to the welfare system are made properly with them rather than done to them.

I have walked in the shoes of families in my constituency bringing up children with special educational needs and disabilities. For decades, my son and I have been caught up in the endless cycle of assessments, mandatory reconsiderations and tribunals. That is a situation familiar to many who have turned to the DWP for help to manage life with a disability or disabilities.

This is the reason that so many disabled people are terrified of the Government’s proposed changes: the DWP is too frequently at war with the people it is supposed to protect. Too frequently, it lets down the most vulnerable in our community, and it mostly gets away with it. Recently, the incredible Joy Dove won an eight-year legal fight to link her daughter Jodey Whiting’s suicide to the stopping of her benefits, which the DWP admitted was a mistake. Jodey’s avoidable death is not the only one.

DWP decisions often seem to be completely arbitrary. Once, when I was waiting to go into a tribunal, I received a call from the DWP offering to reinstate my son’s benefits if I dropped the tribunal. That experience cemented in my mind something that I believe to this day: the culture of the DWP is hostile to disabled people. That culture must change if we are to have any chance of building a sustainable, fair and compassionate welfare system for the future.

A constituent of mine in Scarborough and Whitby suffers from a variety of complex physical and mental health conditions, including PTSD, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorder, polycystic kidney disease and liver disease. In May, after reporting a deterioration in his health, he submitted new evidence to support reassessment for a higher rate of PIP, which led to the DWP removing his award entirely. He was left with no income or support despite his ongoing need for care.

This is the reality: many disabled people who are turned down for PIP rely on the health element of universal credit. Many of my constituents have fluctuating conditions, such as MS, ME and mental health conditions. The reality of their conditions means that during periods of remission they return to employment. However, once their condition deteriorates, they return to universal credit. If that happens, with this Bill they would return on a lower level than before, down to just £50 a week. That completely ignores the realities faced by disabled people and their experience of their conditions. Without the protections provided for in amendment 38, we would create a two-tier system where people with unpredictable conditions would be valued less than those with more predictable ones.

I urge hon. Members to support new clause 11 and amendment 38. I also ask the Government to please pull the Bill. Even at this late stage, let us get it right for the people who really matter; let us get it right for disabled people.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in favour of a variety of amendments, which I will mention as I go. In the life of an MP, not a day goes by without hearing from a constituent with an issue relating to benefits or health. We can all think of the people we have met who have suffered badly after 14 years of austerity imposed by the Conservative party. Our sick, disabled and vulnerable were left trapped in a doom loop, living hand to mouth and battling worsening mental health, while fighting a broken system that fails far too many.

I doubt many hon. Members in this Chamber have personal experience of the cruel welfare system. I do. I first became ill at work with Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome, which is a heart condition. Not long after, I suffered a pulmonary embolism and almost lost my life. That was followed by a total mental breakdown. Punitive sickness policies meant I was soon being managed out of the job I loved so much by human resources, which refused to acknowledge the recommendations of occupational health.

I was in receipt of universal credit for about a year, receiving £690 a month, but that did not even cover my rent and bills, and I was at risk of losing my rented home. Thankfully, I had friends and family to support me, but not everyone is that fortunate. My confidence plummeted, and the feelings of failure, rejection and uselessness at not being able to sustain myself were all-consuming. Nobody chooses this life. In fact, just yesterday the United Nations wrote to the Government stating that the rhetoric, language and false statements used when discussing welfare is damaging, as well as raising concerns about human rights violations.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Alison Hume Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister to confirm at the Dispatch Box that clause 5, which specifically references the need for claimants to score four points in order to receive the daily living allowance, will be removed from the Bill?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that is the case. We will table the amendment to do that.

Let me say in answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who raised this point perfectly properly in the debate, that we will also remove the parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. He suggested that that would mean removing clause 6, but it does not mean that, because there are a lot of other things in schedule 2, which is referenced in clause 6. Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 addresses the points that we are dealing with.

Winter Fuel Payment

Alison Hume Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

What Labour MPs want is a Labour Government who bring down child poverty, and that is what we will do. They want a Government who take responsible decisions, including difficult ones on tax and on means-testing the winter fuel payment, so that we can invest in public services and turn around the disgrace that there has been in Britain’s public realm for far too long.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

I welcome this announcement, as will the 26,000 pensioners in my constituency, where we have particularly cold and harsh winters. Will the Minister reassure my constituents that automatic payments will be reinstated, and will there be any change to the date on which payments will be made?

[Torsten Bell]

I will not adjudicate on which Member has the coldest constituency in England, as my hon. Friend invites me to. She raises an important point that has not yet been made, so I should spell this out: we will bring forward the regulations on the payment of the winter fuel allowance over the summer, and they will set the qualifying week as that of 15 September, as it has been in past years. That means that payments will be made in November and December, as in past years.

Pension Funds

Alison Hume Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Manuela Perteghella]

Yes, the practice is a relic from the past and needs to be abolished.

Women have historically occupied lower-paid roles at Midland bank and HSBC. They have taken career breaks to care for children or elderly parents, or have been placed on new contracts with clawback attached—often without being told the implications for their pension rights. HSBC claims that there is no discrimination because the policy applies to all, but indirect discrimination is defined as a policy that appears neutral but disproportionately harms a particular group.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

A female constituent of mine who has worked for HSBC UK for over 35 years has seen her pension reduced by approximately £850 a year because of a clawback clause that she was never properly informed about when she joined the bank’s defined-benefit scheme. Does the hon. Member agree that HSBC needs to engage properly with the affected employees?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I thank the hon. Member for that valuable point. I have a message for HSBC later in my remarks.

Campaigners have presented robust evidence, including research by the University of Exeter, showing the disproportionate impact on women and low-paid staff. One of the recommendations in the University of Exeter report is for policymakers—us—to consider the suitability of the equal pay provisions that have not been available to members of the post-1974 Midland bank pension scheme, despite evidence of the disproportionate impact on women. When campaigners turned to the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Government Equalities Office, they were passed from pillar to post. No one took responsibility; no one acted. Equality law does not cover pensions.

Let us not forget that HSBC’s pension fund currently stands at £4.1 billion in surplus after liabilities, but the estimated cost of ending clawback is just £450 million. HSBC has the resources; what it lacks is the will.

British Sign Language Week

Alison Hume Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jen Craft]

[In British Sign Language: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.] As people will see, we have tried to learn some parliamentary signs ahead of this debate. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—it is a question of accessibility. If someone is a British Sign Language first-language speaker, there are barriers to taking part in this House. There absolutely should not be. This is the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. There are 87,000 BSL first-language speakers and they absolutely deserve their place here as much as hearing people do. Too frequently, Government consultations, including on the national health service 10-year plan and the welfare reform Green Paper, have BSL interpretation as an afterthought, if it exists at all.

In wider society, we need to see a renewed focus on the needs and interests of the deaf community. Some 90% of deaf children are born to hearing parents, but support to learn BSL is based on a postcode lottery. Across the country, there is a patchwork of sign language services, with a mix of local authority and third-sector provision. According to research by the National Deaf Children’s Society, almost half of local authorities neither provide, fund nor commission any courses in sign language for families.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this debate.

In 2023-24, 26 children in north Yorkshire were registered with special educational needs due to a hearing impairment, yet support remains inadequate. To show my support for them and for the other children here today, I will now sign my name in BSL. [In British Sign Language: Alison.] Does my hon. Friend agree that deaf children need access to fluent signers as teachers?

[Jen Craft]

I completely agree: deaf children need qualified teachers of the deaf. I thank Mrs Smith, who is in the Public Gallery today—an exceptional teacher of the deaf in my constituency. I come back to the point about the patchwork of sign language provision for parents. There is an estimate that the availability of courses has fallen by 34% in certain areas since before the pandemic.

Parents are often told to access support through adult community colleges. While they provide an excellent grounding in BSL, it is usually irrelevant for the kind of conversations that parents need and want to have with their child. For example, my one-year-old daughter did not really have too much interest in how many brothers and sisters I have, what job I want to do or what my favourite colour is, but the signs for “milk”, “mummy”, “daddy”, “play”, “book” and, most importantly, “biscuit” very much caught her attention.

It is also hard for adults who are not naturally adept in learning languages to learn a completely new language in a way that meets their learning needs. I ask the Minister to work with me, the British Deaf Association and the National Deaf Children’s Society to build a pathway to ensure that parents of deaf children have access to relevant BSL lessons no matter where they grow up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. I will attempt to say [In British Sign Language: Good afternoon] to the members of the public and members of the deaf community who have joined us today.

For more than 150,000 people in the UK, BSL is their first or preferred language. That is 150,000 people who cannot routinely follow debates in this Chamber; 150,000 people who may be unable to read information about how to travel to Westminster or, indeed, anywhere across the UK; and 150,000 people—approximately one in 450 people—whose language has been and continues to be misunderstood and whose communication preferences often go unmet. Their language is misunderstood because BSL, as we have already heard this afternoon, is not a translation of English. Many people do not realise that, but it means that too often service providers believe that they have met the needs of BSL users because they provide webchat or email access to customer services, not understanding that many BSL users may not read English.

The lack of understanding was brought home to me all too clearly a few years ago when I was working for an electricity distribution network. Following engagement with our deaf customers, I recommended that the network introduce video relay access to its customer services. That recommendation was initially met with bewilderment, as customer services had only recently introduced webchat and the view was that the needs of deaf customers were therefore met. After several discussions explaining and re-explaining that BSL is not a translation of English, video relay was introduced to those customer services.

Although a growing number of organisations now provide video relay access to their customer services, many do not. I did a quick check ahead of today’s debate and confirmed that although my constituents in Carlisle and north Cumbria can access their water company by video relay, they cannot access their gas and electricity networks. Considering how vital those utilities are, we need to do more; I will certainly be writing to my local electricity and gas distribution networks after today to urge them to introduce video relay.

British Sign Language is a beautiful language, but its users can face less than beautiful consequences from using it. BSL users can face social exclusion as a direct result of linguistic exclusion. That can negatively affect their employment, education, access to healthcare, and navigation of the justice system and victim support. The concerns that we all have about our public services become doubly concerning when people cannot routinely access information about those services.

That is why the 2022 Act introduced by the former Member for West Lancashire—we have already spoken about it this afternoon—was a major step forward. The requirement to produce a report every three years on the use of BSL by Departments is key to ensuring that Government communications are as inclusive and accessible as possible. I welcome the Labour Government’s commitment to continuing to improve the accessibility of Government communications to the deaf community and BSL users.

In conclusion, I want to share with hon. Members that earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) and I took part in an introductory BSL training session specifically for MPs. I urge all colleagues to look out for it if it is offered again.

[Alison Hume]

My big takeaway from the training session that was provided here was that the language is a visual language. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are therefore excluding many of our constituents without realising?

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Alison Hume Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her powerful opening remarks.

According to the latest figures, there are 7,160 women in Scarborough and Whitby affected by the various Acts that made changes to women’s state pension age. As a candidate standing in Scarborough and Whitby, I pledged to support WASPI women, and as an MP, I rise today to speak for them. I sympathise with their anger and frustration. In her statement to the House in December, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said that most women knew that their state pension age was increasing. That may well have been the case—I have no way of telling—but I have been contacted by so many constituents who have told me that they were not aware of the changes to their state pension age, and the reasons are ones that I think we can all understand.

My constituent Kirsty was living in Spain when the letters were sent from the DWP, so was totally unaware of the pension age increase. Another of my constituents told me that she only heard about the changes through a friend while looking after her dad, who was suffering from dementia.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As the whole House is probably aware, Women Against State Pension Inequality has received 7,607 requests and raised £132,000 for the judicial review. There are 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, and 6,000 in my constituency, who want justice. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would be in the best interests of the Government and the Minister to meet those women to finally negotiate a satisfactory outcome, avoid the costs of a judicial review, and ensure that justice can be given to the WASPI women, who richly deserve it?

[Alison Hume]

As always, the hon. Member makes a powerful point for his constituents, and I support his wider call for the Government to think again.

Returning to my constituent who was looking after her father who suffered from dementia, had she been aware of the changes she would have increased her personal pension contribution and saved more money to enable her to retire sooner to look after her dad, who has since passed away. The carer’s allowance was simply not enough to live on and pay for food and other essential bills. Her experience caring for an elderly parent is very common among women in their 50s and 60s; I have been there myself. It is extremely likely that many other women in that situation will have been preoccupied with coping with the day-to-day challenges that carers face and will not have known about the change to their state pension age.

Another constituent of mine had to sell her home of 36 years after she lost her husband, as she had planned for the future under the impression that she would receive her state pension at 60. Obviously, she acknowledges that even without the changes there is no guarantee that she could have remained in her home, but all the calculations that she and her husband did indicated that she would be all right. Many others had to work longer than they had anticipated or dip into their life savings and change their retirement plans after years of working hard and looking forward to life beyond work.

I acknowledge the action that the Government are taking to tackle the long-standing problems with carer’s allowance, which previous Governments failed to address. The increase in the state pension this April will make a tangible difference to the lives of many women in Scarborough and Whitby. I also acknowledge that the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for compensation, and left behind a black hole in the public finances, which I appreciate constrains the ability of this Government to offer compensation.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the implicit argument of Ministers in this debate—that they would rather spend the money on other issues—is producing an incredibly slippery slope when it comes to delivering justice for Government maladministration? Does she agree that it gives the impression that we might be moving towards a situation where we means test justice?

[Alison Hume]

It is important that as a Labour Government we recognise the impact on people, including my constituents, of the DWP’s failure to communicate the change effectively. I urge the Minister to look again at giving compensation that will, in some way, acknowledge that WASPI women have lost out on so much more than money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Hume Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes, we have already met Kim McGuinness, on 19 September, when she set out the actions she is already taking. Let me say to Members on both sides of the House that our strategy will be out in the spring, but we will not be waiting until then to act. Nationally, we have put £421 million into the household support fund to help the poorest families, and mayors such as Kim McGuinness are doing amazing work: they are working with schools to ensure that people claim the benefits to which they are entitled, and, crucially, working with businesses to help them to do all that they can to tackle in-work poverty and ensure that working families receive the money for those children.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to tackle carer’s allowance overpayments.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

16. What steps she is taking to tackle carer’s allowance overpayments.

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

The work of unpaid carers is vital and often heroic, and we are determined to give them the support that they need. We are currently looking at options for tackling the problem of overpayments, including the possible introduction of a text message alert service.

[Alison Hume]

Carers make incredible sacrifices to care for loved ones, but they can be left deep in debt as a result of repaying the allowance after unintentionally breaching the qualifying rules. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we, as a society, have a duty of care to carers, and can he say more about the progress that the Government are making in overhauling carer’s allowance and addressing the earnings cliff edge?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I agree that we need to support carers properly. We want to get to the bottom of what has gone wrong with these overpayments and why so many people have been caught out. We have been piloting the introduction of a text message service, as I have mentioned, which has involved texting 3,500 claimants to alert them when His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs informs the DWP that they have breached the current earnings limit. We are currently looking at the results, and if they are positive, that will be the first step towards addressing the overpayments problem. We will need to do more, but it will be a good first step.