Carer’s Allowance Overpayments

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I will call Anna Dixon to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate, the Minister and the Chair, although no such requests have been made. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up the debate.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank Members for joining me here in Westminster Hall. I have committed my career to securing better care and support for older people and their family carers, and I continue that work here in Parliament as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers.

This year marks a significant milestone for carers: it has been 50 years since carer’s allowance was first introduced. It was known originally as the invalid care allowance, and it was the first benefit to recognise the financial sacrifices of unpaid carers. It has made a huge difference, providing vital financial support to those who give 35 hours or more per week in unpaid care. I am proud that it was a Labour Government that introduced carer’s allowance back in 1976, and I am just as proud that this Labour Government and Chancellor increased the earnings threshold from £151 to £196 per week—the largest increase since the benefit was introduced—and again this month to £204 per week, as promised. The world has changed a lot since Harold Wilson was Prime Minister, but some things remain the same, and Labour is still putting its money where its mouth is and standing up for carers.

Supporting carers should be a moral mission of any Government. There are 5.8 million unpaid carers in the UK, and the economic value of their contribution is some £184 billion per year, which is more than the entire NHS budget in England. However, despite the value that carers bring to our society, we often fail to value them. According to Carers UK, 1.2 million unpaid carers in the UK live in poverty, and around half of carers cut back on essentials in 2025.

There is a multitude of reasons for carer poverty. Many carers give up paid work, but many juggle paid work and unpaid care, often reducing their hours, harming their careers and impoverishing themselves. It is for all those reasons that the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal is hard to stomach.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this subject forward. Does she not agree that the amount of money the Government have saved from the unpaid labour of carers is astronomical, and that unless the Department can prove that there was a deliberate overclaim, discretion must be available? These people, whose lives are dedicated to the care of others, do not need the stress of paying a penalty for a mistake and thereby being treated as a criminal.

[Anna Dixon]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the impact of the overpayments on carers is terrible, and I am going to share the story of someone who was affected. I am sure others have heard similar shocking stories. As many as one in five unpaid carers who claim carer’s allowance and work part time were hit with overpayments. Thousands of carers have been left with huge debts and the fear of financial ruin.

Helen cares for her son Robin. He was born with a heart condition, respiratory vulnerabilities, developmental delay, mobility issues and Down’s syndrome. Helen gave up work as a teacher to support Robin and she relied on carer’s allowance. She also received some royalties for online resources that she had created as an education provider. She was paid those every six months, but the Department for Work and Pensions considered them as monthly earnings. It stopped her carer’s allowance and informed her that she had incurred overpayments going back over four years. She was charged more than £2,000 and told to pay back £50 a week. In her words,

“there was no care of how we would live or survive. It took me three very long years to repay the debt. It hung over like a great shadow, the letters, the fear of what could come. We were devastated by the department’s actions. Carers just don’t have bank balances that can stretch and withstand such pressures…you are so vulnerable…it shouldn’t be this difficult”.

As I have said, Helen’s is not an isolated case; thousands of carers are in this position, not as a result of failure on their part to report to and notify the DWP, but owing to a failure of Government. This scandal is a stain on the record of the British state.

I therefore commend this Labour Government for asking Liz Sayce to conduct an independent review of carer’s allowance overpayments. She made it clear that overpayments were caused

“not by widespread individual error by carers in reporting their earnings but by systemic issues preventing them from fulfilling their responsibility to report.”

I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted the vast majority of her recommendations and set aside £75 million to implement them.

Among other things, the review called on the Government to reform the earnings averaging processes and guidance, as well as that for allowable expenses, so that there is clarity, transparency and predictability, and it called for a thorough reassessment of cases to right the wrongs and deliver redress. It called for creative short-term solutions to address the cliff-edge crisis, while the DWP works on a longer-term plan. That is vital. If someone earns one penny over the earnings limit, they have to pay back the whole weekly carer’s allowance. The Sayce review found that although the earnings limit cliff edge does not itself cause overpayments, it dramatically increases their scale and impact, negatively affecting people’s health, finances, wellbeing and opportunities to work. Will the Minister update us on progress on the introduction of a taper system?

Liz Sayce recommended a whole range of other reforms, from upgrading computer systems to using more empathetic language, improving the join-up between types of benefits and simplifying the system. I thank her and her team for completing this crucial task. I urge the Minister to implement the recommendations with urgency and to set out the timeline for doing so.

Turning to those affected, I welcome yesterday’s announcement that the Government have launched an audit of more than 200,000 carer’s allowance cases affected by unclear Government guidance that was in place between 2015 and 2025. The cases will be reviewed, and debts potentially reduced, cancelled or refunded for some 25,000 unpaid carers. That is excellent news and I am sure the Minister will say more. However, I believe that there are several categories of people who have been adversely affected whose cases remain outstanding. The DWP appears to be accepting responsibility only for those affected by the unlawful guidance on average earnings and not for the lack of clear guidance on expenses deductions.

Will the Minister ensure, as the audit begins, that the DWP fully addresses all aspects of maladministration? First, there should be consideration of cases in which the DWP held information regarding expenses but did not act on it or make corrections for many years. Secondly, I urge him to ensure that cases in which data has been “lost” by the DWP are dealt with as Liz Sayce recommended, and treated as cases of official error unless the DWP can prove otherwise. Thirdly, in the cases of those affected by the failure to adjust universal credit correctly, Sayce recommended that the DWP should pay UC arrears. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed whether the audit will include reviews for those missing groups.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Stepney) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She rightly highlights the important contribution that carers make to our country and the savings of £184 billion a year. The carer’s allowance scandal that this Government have had to deal with, which has taken place over a number of years, has parallels with the Post Office scandal in the way that individuals have been treated. Does she agree that the Department for Work and Pensions, which rejected a recommendation by the Work and Pensions Committee to undertake a regular audit of its progress on carers, should do that, so that we can see the progress the Department is making?

[Anna Dixon]

I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we have requested that the DWP reports every six months on its progress on implementing the Sayce review. As a member of that Committee, I will certainly be keeping a close eye on progress.

My final point is about the culture in the DWP. I have had the opportunity to challenge its senior officials in the Public Accounts Committee, and I was shocked by the culture on display, which clearly regarded the victims of Government incompetence as benefit fraudsters. It disturbs me that that culture has been prevalent for so long and that, despite knowing about carer’s allowance overpayments for many years, the Department did little or nothing. As a Committee, we are clear that the lack of integrated and concerted leadership from the Department exacerbated the crisis. I ask the Minister for reassurance that he is confident that the senior team at DWP understand the nature of the harm done to carers, are fully committed to putting this right and do not adopt a defensive culture.

On the 50th anniversary of carer’s allowance, I call on this Labour Government to right the wrongs caused by the state, which have parallels with the Post Office Horizon scandal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) said, and to put right the scandal of carer’s allowance overpayments so that our carers are paid what they deserve and not punished for the dedication and care they provide.

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this extremely timely debate, which is a welcome opportunity to set out some of the work that the Government have been doing in response to the concerns that she has raised. She is a very strong advocate for unpaid carers; she was before entering Parliament, as she said, and she is now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I echo her remarks about the significance of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of carer’s allowance by Harold Wilson’s Government. It is right to mark and celebrate that.

My hon. Friend has spoken previously of how her mother cared for her grandmother for nearly 30 years. I think all of us can grasp how important and valuable the heroic scale of the contribution made by unpaid carers is, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) is right to draw our attention to the economic value of that contribution. The contributions of unpaid carers are vital to the family members, friends and neighbours they look after, but also to our communities, our country and our economy.

We inherited a dreadful situation in which some very busy, hard-pressed carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with large, unexpected debts due to alleged overpayments of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a particularly clear example of the problem that arose, and I will comment on it a moment.

The Work and Pensions Committee, among others, including the Public Accounts Committee, looked at this problem when I was the Chair, and I am pleased to now be a part of a Government who are able and willing to do something about it. We made a very early move after we were elected—I think that it was in the first Budget after the general election—to increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit, as my hon. Friend said, to match 16 hours of work at national living wage levels.

As my hon. Friend said, that change from April 2025 resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit. It means that more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30, but it is also important to note, particularly in the context we are discussing, that the chance of inadvertently slipping above the earnings limit is greatly reduced, because the limit will keep track with increases in the national living wage in the future. As my hon. Friend said, the earnings limit rose again to £204 per week from the beginning of this month.

People had a real problem in the past when the national living wage was increased, because their earnings that had been below the earnings limit went above it, and there was nothing to alert them to that; they had to monitor it themselves. Quite a lot of people were tipped inadvertently above the earnings limit, leading to an overpayment of carer’s allowance. I am very confident that the change we have made to keep the earnings limit in line with the national living wage will be a big step forward in reducing the incidence of overpayments in the future.

[Anna Dixon]

I had understood that we were also looking into opportunities to alert carers of potentially having breached the earnings limit. Is there anything in place to help communicate information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP to carers?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come on to that, because there is some progress in that area.

As my hon. Friend said, having made the change to the earnings limit, we commissioned the independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK and a well-respected and widely recognised expert in disability benefits. Her review was published in November and, in my view, she did a brilliant job. She really got to grips with what had gone wrong, and I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to her. The report found that many carers had faced unexpected debts because of errors in the way that the DWP had applied averaging rules on fluctuating earnings. The guidance used by DWP staff since 2015 had not properly reflected the law, which permits averaging over a period when assessing whether earnings are above or below the earnings limit.

The case that my hon. Friend mentioned of somebody who was receiving income once every six months is a clear example of the problem. I do not know what the figures were in that case, but it may well be that if Helen’s earnings had been averaged over six months instead of being taken into account in one month, they would have been below the limit. That is exactly the sort of instance that we will examine in the reassessment exercise, which I will say more about in a moment.

We accepted 38 of Liz Sayce’s 40 recommendations in full or in part, and we have already made progress on more than half of them. I will set out those recommendations and what we have done in response, and I will pick up on a couple of my hon. Friend’s questions. The review recommended putting right historical overpayments caused by flawed guidance on the averaging of earnings. I am pleased to say that new and correct guidance has now been in place since the start of September 2025, but it was wrong from 2015 for 10 years.

We are now delivering the reassessment exercise that Liz Sayce recommended: reclassifying affected overpayments as “not recoverable”, refunding carers where appropriate, and applying a fair approach where records are no longer held by the Department. The reassessment exercise began yesterday, so this debate is particularly well timed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured it.

As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set aside £75 million of funding for refunds under the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a three-year period; we are hoping we can complete the exercise in two, but just to be sure, we have allowed three years to ensure we can complete it properly. We are expecting to review more than 200,000 cases, so it is a major undertaking. As she said, we estimate that we will be reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for perhaps some 25,000 carers in the course of the exercise.

Youth Unemployment

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

Youth unemployment has been going up since 2022—it has been going up for around four years. What we have not had is a specific package to tackle it, but that changes with the package that I have announced today, which will offer real hope and opportunity to young people in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. My gentle advice to him is to go and make the most of this package. That is what he should do for the young people in his constituency.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I welcome the support for small and medium-sized enterprises in my Shipley constituency, which will be able to take on young people who have been long-term unemployed and to offer apprenticeships, but the Secretary of State will know that young carers face additional challenges with getting into education, training or work. Shipley college provides excellent training opportunities, but often struggles to find work placements. Will he commit to working with DFE to ensure that all young people, including young carers, can benefit from today’s announcement?

[Pat McFadden]

My hon. Friend is right: there is a particular challenge for young carers. A significant proportion of the 1 million young people who are not in education, employment or training have caring responsibilities. I commend the work of Shipley college, and I am very happy to keep talking to her about this issue to see what help we can give to young carers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I am always keen to work together with the Father of the House. He mentions the triple lock, but we are doing far more things to tackle pensioner poverty. There were 900,000 pensioners eligible for pension credit under the Conservatives who were not claiming, and that is why we have brought forward the biggest take-up campaign ever seen. The marketing campaign this year will run from September to the end of the financial year, we are carrying out research on what works to encourage take-up of pension credit and we are stepping up data sharing across Departments, including between His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the review of carer’s allowance overpayments, published on 25 November 2025.

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

Liz Sayce did an outstanding forensic job in getting to the bottom of the carer’s allowance overpayment problems. We have accepted or partially accepted 38 of her 40 recommendations. The Department will reassess overpayments incurred between 2015 and last summer where fluctuating earnings were an issue, and we will set out detailed plans in the new year.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank the Minister for his response. As he well knows, over the last decade, around 185,000 unpaid family carers have been pursued by the Department for Work and Pensions to return overpayments in their carer’s allowance. Through no fault of their own, many working carers have faced bills that have often run into thousands of pounds. It is incredibly positive that, after years of inaction from the Tories, this Government have acted. Does the Minister share my hope that trust might now be rebuilt between the state and the near 6 million unpaid family carers in this country?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is a great campaigner for carers on this issue and others. She is absolutely right: this is a very serious problem that was ignored for 10 years, despite there being quite a lot of publicity about it. I hope, as she says, that trust will now be rebuilt as we fix these problems in the coming months.

Autistic Adults: Employment

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lisa Smart]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of getting the right education suited to each young person to enable them to flourish in their lives and contribute meaningfully to our community.

Clearly, the issues that my constituents have faced are not the same as every autistic person’s experience. When someone has met one autistic person, they have met one autistic person—that is a key point. All too often, autism is viewed in just one way, and it can be seen as a burden that employers have to overcome to employ that person, rather than as a range of differences and strengths.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My niece successfully secured a place on a civil service internship. She was then able to go on and train as a work coach and is helping people who face similar challenges with neurodiversity or health conditions to get back into work. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is important that other employers set up these bespoke internship schemes, particularly to give opportunities to young people?

[Lisa Smart]

People with lived experience are often the best trainers and best able to explain a situation and enable employers to adapt to get the best out of their employees. I very strongly agree with the hon. Lady’s point.

I see it in my own area of Stockport, where the council delivers training for employers on how best to welcome neurodiverse employees into their workforce. That training is delivered by those with lived experience. Stockport council also provides adapted spaces at inclusive job fairs. That enables it to support attendance by those for whom busy, noisy spaces do not necessarily bring out the best in them.

As a Liberal, I want to ensure that people are viewed as individuals; that they are given a platform to be the best version of themselves; that we give our fellow citizens opportunities and not barriers; and that we ensure they are not limited by someone’s view of a category in which they happen to fit.

I thank my constituents who have shared their experiences with me and who have very different lives, needs and experiences, but who have faced very similar problems when entering the world of work. My constituent, Bradley from Marple, has had several voluntary jobs in the past. He has done them well and he now volunteers as a digital champion in the local library. Bradley is autistic and has a speech and language condition. He is capable, reliable and determined. I was really pleased that he and his mum came to see me at my advice surgery a few weeks ago, and that they are here today. He is now on universal credit, including the disability element, but tells me that what he wants is the independence and dignity that comes with having a paid job.

For Bradley, the problem he faces is getting over the hurdle of having a chance to prove his worth. He has applied for over 100 jobs. He has been given interviews and has passed tests, and yet is never given the job. All too often he tells me he hears the same refrain: “We have another candidate who we feel best suits the post.” Although that is said to anyone who applies for a job and they hear it from time to time, Bradley hears the same thing every time, after every interview and every successful test. That is what stings.

Another constituent has had two jobs with the same organisation. He has been diagnosed as high functioning with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. He has a master’s degree and a range of awards and accolades that attest to his brilliance. He also struggles to know what day of the week it is or how to cook a pizza. He fits many of the stereotypes that people have about autism. In the first job, although he was given support to help him, it did not take account of the way he processed information. Instead, he was put on a performance improvement plan, which gave him no time to embed the enabling strategies that his mentor had helped him with. Instead of being supportive, it fed into his anxiety, and such was the stress it caused that he ended up with autistic burnout and on medication.

Fortunately, with support from his parents and some courses of cognitive behavioural therapy, he was able to start again. However, such was the lack of confidence in his own abilities that his first experience caused, he applied for a much less senior role. This time around, though, the experience was a world apart. He had a structured induction that gave him all the information he needed to settle into a new role. Similarly, when he starts a new project or task, he is introduced in a way that gives everyone the information they need to work well with him, such as sharing with any new colleagues how he prefers to receive information related to the task. He is now a valued high-performing member of staff ready to step back up the career ladder, and his mental health is in a completely different, far more positive place.

Those two wildly different experiences are with the same organisation, the civil service, which shows the need for best practice to be implemented much more consistently. My constituent is someone who has the potential to do things that few other people can, and when his job is built to get the best out of him, he flies. When it fails to take account of his needs, he crashes. I suggest that in a world where we hear all too frequently from some politicians demeaning descriptions of the lives that autistic people will have, we instead need to work on removing barriers that stop them living the right life for them.

A Stockport council officer working in this area reports interesting conversations with employers about the fact that adapting the business to be more inclusive is really, in his words,

“about looking at what skills a person can bring to the role and that isn’t as difficult as people first think. It’s about listening and understanding. It certainly doesn’t stop you being successful and profitable and it might actually help you!”

Two of my constituents faced challenges when starting and running their own businesses. Both of them set up their own companies—one supporting people with autism and ADHD and the other a small business selling games and toys. In both cases, their efforts to run their companies were undermined when they were in what we could term an irregular part of running a company. In the first case, it was going through the set-up of the company, which took longer than expected. In the second, it was when they missed an email they were not expecting from Companies House. In both cases, my constituents struggled with the sorts of activities that too often people and processes take for granted: making calls, sending emails and completing documents.

Katie, who joins us today, was allocated funding for a virtual assistant through Access to Work payments. But when her caseworker retired, her case was not reallocated and she was left facing mounting bills. To resolve it, she was forced to pursue her funding through a labyrinthine process. Were it not for her fantastic mum advocating on her behalf and further support from my superstar casework team, she would not have got it sorted out. As her mum said,

“The process to claim completely failed to recognise her disability. It was like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”

When someone has communication issues, layering inaccessible processes on top causes a struggle that is cruel. The irony is that Katie was caught out by this when she was setting up a company helping people with neurodivergent conditions. In a further twist, it was systems designed to help people like Katie into work that failed to take account of her autism.

Those are just four examples of people’s lived experience of trying to get into or on with work. Disabled people with autism are among the least likely to be in employment of all disabled people; 34% of disabled people with autism are in employment, compared with 55% of all disabled people and 82% of non-disabled people. The Buckland review of autism employment found that adjustments for autistic employees are highly variable, and that the onus is normally on the autistic employee to identify and advocate for the adjustments that they need. That is why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for there to be obligations on employers and local authorities to provide appropriate care assessments and support. To repeat the words of Katie’s mum, not doing this is

“like asking someone in a wheelchair to get out and walk up the stairs.”

All too often we are building employment practices and processes that are one size fits all, but that size is too small. People are different, and we need to take account of that. It is only by recognising the differences between people, and by allowing for them and working with them, that we will get the future workforce that we need. I look forward to the Minister telling us what more the Government plan to do to make employment work for autistic people more easily, whether that is businesses employing autistic people, who can bring so much to a workplace, or changing processes so that autistic people can work in a way that suits them and gives them a platform to thrive.

Schemes such as Access to Work, Connect to Work or Disability Confident certainly exist, but my inbox suggests that too many people with skills and talents are falling through the gaps. I am particularly keen to hear when the Minister expects to publish a response to the recommendations made by the independent panel of academics led by Professor Amanda Kirby.

I really want to thank my constituents who have taken the time to share their experiences. Some of them are here today, and others are watching online. I hope that this place will change things for the better, so that we can do real justice for all the autistic people who just want the same opportunities as everyone else—to work, to live their best life and to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) for securing this important debate. Like many other Members, I have met many neurodivergent adults and their families in my constituency who are desperate to contribute to society and really do want to work but are still struggling to access the same opportunities as their neurotypical peers.

As other Members have said, it is heartbreaking to hold roundtables and hear of autistic individuals who, having volunteered for five years with some of our corporate chains and been told that it would build their experience, find that there was really no pathway to paid work. On the very day that their work experience finishes, after five years, they are told to go home. That leaves them with a real sense that they do not belong anywhere. They thought they were working and did not realise that, after five years, they would simply be told to go home. That is not equality. Our companies need to do much better and show a sense of responsibility.

Across the UK there are approximately 700,000 autistic adults of working age, yet only three in 10 are in employment. Only 15% are in full-time paid work. Just 35% of autistic graduates find work within the first 15 months, which is half the rate among non-disabled graduates. This is not just an autism issue; for people with learning disabilities, the picture is even starker. Of the 950,000 working-age adults with a learning disability, only 27% have a paid job.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that closing the disability gap—indeed, the specific employment gap for people with neurodiversity—will mean opening up opportunities in different ways, so that autistic people do not have to go through interviews and other barriers that a normal application process requires of neurotypical people?

[Shockat Adam]

I wholeheartedly agree. We have to think expansively and not follow the rigorous rules that we have for abled individuals.

Some 77% of unemployed autistic people say they want to work. They are not unwilling; what is unwilling is the system, which creates barriers at the crucial first step, the transition into work. Many of them have never had any work experience at all. We need a structured supported internship and greater flexibility. The minimum 420 hours required by the current Access to Work scheme is simply too rigid and too difficult for many people, and unrealistic for small employers—and employers, too, need support. The Keep Britain Working review identified a culture of fear among managers and staff, which discourages open conversations about disability.

Many people from autism and disability backgrounds find that a lack of visible role models affects their transition into work, and there is inconsistent guidance for employers trying to make reasonable adjustments. That is why I agree with Mencap, which is urging the Department for Work and Pensions to go further and create a central online hub of best practice for employers, provide training and peer-to-peer support for businesses, and ensure that autistic people themselves are consulted. Currently, two thirds say they have never even been asked what support they need.

We also have to look at the benefits system, because for many autistic people it remains an obstacle to work, not a bridge. People fear losing their safety net if they cannot meet their job recommendations and commitments due to a lack of reasonable adjustments. We need a system that rewards their effort rather than punishing their vulnerability.

Helping autistic people and people with learning disabilities into meaningful employment reduces welfare costs, raises living standards and unlocks enormous economic potential. It gives people purpose, dignity and belonging. There are great examples in my constituency of what can be done when we get things right. Leicestershire Cares is a fabulous organisation that assists people with autism and learning challenges into the workplace. Eyres Monsell Club for Young People gives young autistic adults real-world experiences in community pantries and food banks. Café Neuro, which is specifically but not exclusively for people from ethnic minorities, offers supported placements where participants learn teamwork, customer service and confidence. Millgate school is developing leadership and life skills through student-led committees, creating the role models of tomorrow. Finally, charities such as Jamila’s Legacy are showing how conditions like autism intersect with anxiety and mental health, reminding us that holistic pastoral support in schools is essential to preparing young people for employment.

Welfare Spending

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matt Rodda]

I will not, I am afraid. I need to make some progress.

In addition, one in eight young people were out of work due to long-term sickness and were on sickness and disability benefits. In short, the system that the Government inherited this time last year was in crisis and, moreover, trapped people in poverty.

We are lucky to have a growing local economy in my constituency. We have a town that attracts many new businesses, and we grow our own businesses. However, that wealth is not spread evenly. Despite the impressive array of new buildings in the town centre, there is a stark contrast between the wealth in those businesses and some of the wonderful science parks on the edge of the town, and the poverty in which some of our residents live. I want to see that issue addressed. The Government are taking important steps forward in tackling that issue. I certainly saw the problems when I was a councillor in Reading. They can include families struggling to get by in an area where the cost of living is particularly high and the cost of housing is high; that is a crucial part of the issue.

Creating more good jobs is very important, and that is not just my opinion. Those jobs need to be spread across the country, and I believe the Government are making real progress on that, and on growing the economy. Indeed, I will correct a point that was made earlier: the UK economy has grown more in the first quarter of this year than any other comparable G7 economy, and that is in a difficult economic context around the world. As well as a need for economic growth, there is a need to improve access to good jobs. That is one of the points I want to cover.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that disabled people have been written off by the Conservatives for too long? They have not been given opportunities to access work and good jobs, and they have been blamed by the Conservatives, for the sake of cheap headlines. Does he also agree that the Labour Government’s proposed transformation of jobcentres, which is already under way and will involve retraining dedicated work coaches, will help people to access the good jobs that he talks about?

[Matt Rodda]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right and makes an excellent point.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

We are at a really interesting point with this Bill: a year’s worth of politics happened last week, and it feels like there is more to come. Like the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I begin by thanking all the disabled people’s organisations who have worked incredibly hard and assisted us in winning some concessions. No matter where we end up, they should be incredibly proud of the work they have put in, as should the disabled people already receiving PIP and the universal credit limited capability for work element who have continued to fight on behalf of future claimants even though they have no selfish need to do so. That shows the strength of the community and the amount that disabled people care for each other.

It is unfortunate that disabled people need to come together in a group to fight what is supposed to be a Labour Government. Given the change promised by Ministers, that first change should not have been to attack older people by cutting the winter fuel payment. The Government have also refused to take action on child poverty by bringing forward the child poverty strategy, and now they are balancing the Budget by cutting money from disabled people.

This is not the Labour party that I wrote about in my history Highers—I wrote about the rise of the Labour party, what it was founded on, and how the whole point of it was about supporting people and the principles of the left. This is not what I imagined a Labour Government would look like. I had hoped that they would actually deliver for some people—for disabled people and those the Tories spent 14 years marginalising—yet they are choosing to make the easy cuts that affect disabled people. I do not think those are the right cuts to make. I agree entirely with my Green colleague, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), who suggested that there are much better ways of balancing the Budget. The fiscal rules are self-imposed, anyway.

To look at some of the specific issues with the Bill, I agree with the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion in relation to the essentials guarantee and amendment 39. Making people poorer will not magically improve their health. I fully agree with new clause 11 on co-production, and I urge the Minister to take action on that.

In Scotland we have created the adult disability payment. If the Minister looks on the Social Security Scotland website, he will see that it says

“social security is a human right...any of us, at any time…may need this support.”

We centred the decision making on dignity, fairness and respect. I am not saying for a second that the adult disability payment is perfect—there are issues with every system—but I urge the Minister to look at how it was co-produced and the lessons we learned from that when he is planning the co-production of the review of PIP assessments.

I am massively concerned that we are not clear about the basis on which the Timms review is being done. What is the point of the review? I understand that it is to review the PIP assessment process—I have got that bit—but what is the Government’s aim? Is it to cut billions of pounds from the PIP bill? Is it to make the assessment process more humane so that people with chronic conditions do not have to fill in the same form over and over again, explaining what it is that they cannot do? Is it to reduce the number of mandatory reconsiderations? Is it to make the system better, centring it on dignity and respect? Some clarity from the Government on that would be incredibly helpful.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady is familiar with the terms of reference for the Timms review, which clearly set out that its purpose is to ensure that PIP assessment is

“fair and fit for the future…and helps support disabled people to achieve better health, higher living standards and greater independence.”

I hope that she will agree that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is very well placed to lead the review in co-production with disabled people.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that. It would be great if the Minister could clarify from the Dispatch Box that there is no requirement on him or his review to save money. If the hon. Member can give that commitment on behalf of the Minister, that is great, but has the Treasury asked the Minister to reduce the bill? If the terms of reference say, “We do not want money to be saved,” that is grand, but I could not find that in the terms of reference.

I would like to hear from the Minister on whether he has been asked to save money through the review. Disabled people looking at this have already been terrified by the Government’s actions and their “Pathways to Work” Green Paper. I think we should hear from the Minister whether he will be trying to save money or putting dignity, fairness and respect at the heart of the decision-making process and ensuring that co-production happens with that.

I have some questions about the severe conditions criteria. I am concerned because the Bill’s wording is different from what the DWP has been putting out in press releases. Press releases such as the one quoted today in The Guardian have been saying that people with fluctuating conditions will be eligible under the severe conditions criteria. However, the Bill says that a claimant would need to have a condition “constantly”.

The Minister needs to give an explicit commitment from the Dispatch Box. The UK Government have decided not to give the Bill a proper Bill Committee, where we would have asked these questions, hashed this out and got that level of clarification, and people are really scared. As the Minister will know, a significant number of amendments have been tabled on these conditions, from parties across the House. Concerns have been raised, because schedule 1 to the Bill states:

“A descriptor constantly applies to a claimant if that descriptor applies to the claimant at all times or, as the case may be, on all occasions on which the claimant undertakes or attempts to undertake the activity described by that descriptor.”

So if one of the descriptors is about being able to get around or being able to wash yourself, that paragraph says that the descriptor must apply “constantly”. If that is not the case, we need a clear explanation about that from the Minister. I cannot find the need for a condition to apply “constantly” in previous legislation. It seems to me that this is a new addition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Tidball]

I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend, and I will be getting to those points shortly.

Further, the UN said that the voices of disabled people must be at the front and centre of this work and that the UK must actively consult and engage with disabled people and their organisations and give due consideration to their views in any legislation related to these rights. Therefore, Government amendment 4 is a significant step forward in removing those measures that were not consulted on. It also prevents the risks I highlighted in my speech last week on the previously proposed eligibility criteria, particularly on future recipients.

I am also pleased that the Minister confirmed last week that the legislation on changes to PIP eligibility and descriptors will not happen until the completion of the Timms review. This leads me to new clause 11. I am grateful for this new clause being selected. It is important to have a debate on it as a probing new clause, and above all, I will be seeking reassurances from the Minister at the Dispatch Box that the Government will get the detail of co-production right. I am grateful that the measures in this new clause were co-produced and supported by Disability Rights UK and the Spinal Injuries Association, as well as through discussions with a broader group of disabled people’s organisations and charities.

My new clause 11 sets out key measures to deliver on our excellent manifesto commitment to champion the rights of disabled people and enshrine the principle of working with disabled people to ensure that our views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Further, the measures in the new clause create a strong link between the Timms review and fulfilling our Equality Act public sector equality duty, along with the UK’s commitments to the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, including the principle in article 4.3 of the need to

“consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”.

Thus, in this context, meaningful co-production with the disability inclusion taskforce as part of the Timms review is essential.

[Anna Dixon]

I commend my hon. Friend for her excellent speeches, both today and on Second Reading, and for all the work I know she has done behind the scenes to get us to where we are today. I fully support her new clause 11, which would guarantee meaningful engagement with disabled people before any changes are made to PIP. As she knows, PIP is also a gateway benefit to carer’s allowance, so does she agree that it is essential to include carers, as well as disabled people, in the disability co-production taskforce?

[Dr Tidball]

I do agree. The Minister will head up this review, but the voices of disabled people must be front and centre. The measures in this new clause emphasise the need for disabled people and disabled people’s organisations to make up the majority of the taskforce and to have a significant role in the leadership of the review, and I believe carers could be part of that.

The output of this review must be meaningful and not performative. Therefore, there must be a mechanism to ensure that recommendations co-produced in the taskforce come back to this House for full scrutiny, debate and parliamentary approval before the legislation to implement the review’s outcomes is brought forward. That will ensure democratic accountability on those outcomes, including on how changes to PIP eligibility will impact disabled people. While the new clause suggests that this should happen after 12 months, and ahead of any proposals on PIP coming out next autumn, I am aware that the Minister is keen to ensure this co-production process is not rushed—that is a good approach.

I am grateful for the fact that in his closing statement on Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged my call for a target on closing the disability employment gap. That is the kind of approach I know the Government will develop as they bring forward their plans for employment support. The significant changes made to the Bill since last week will shift the emphasis to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential, and to closing the disability employment gap. They will anchor Labour values of fairness in this part of the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 36. Over the past weeks, I have met numerous disability organisations, from Parkinson’s UK to Action for ME, and heard directly from those living with complex fluctuating conditions. I have also seen the impact at first hand as an employer of people with long-term invisible disabilities. What I have heard, seen and lived is simple: the current proposals risk unacceptable consequences for those who are already among the most vulnerable. The Government’s redefinition of “severe conditions” hinges on the word “constantly”—a single word that is of dubious clinical value. I appreciate the clarification given to other Members, but it is very late in the day to be getting such important information.

Conditions such as ME/chronic fatigue syndrome, MS, epilepsy and bipolar disorder do not operate on a schedule. They are unpredictable and they fluctuate, yet the Bill would exclude many individuals who have them from vital support, simply because their symptoms do not comply with a Government definition. Amendment 36 would ensure that our assessment system respects the United Kingdom’s obligations under the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. This affirms the principle of non-retrogression so that we do not roll back hard-won rights. It insists that we take invisible and episodic conditions seriously, and it protects people from falling through the cracks.

The Bill has had an extraordinary passage through Parliament, and at this point the most obvious course of action would be simply to pull it altogether and start again. I realise the political difficulties that that may involve, but vulnerable people’s lives are at stake. When the Government come to look again at some of the deleted clauses via the Timms review, it is essential to approach the issue from a “needs first” angle, not a “how much can I save?” angle, because so many Government cuts in the past have ended up costing more than they have saved.

I accept that the Government do not have infinite funds, but the PIP proposal represented an arbitrary change in eligibility—the four-point rule—with the crude objective of making a predetermined saving. It has all been the wrong way around: we should wait to understand needs first, and only then consider to what extent the Government can afford to meet them.

[Anna Dixon]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the concessions that the Government have brought forward and the amendments that are before us today ensure that we are getting it the right way around? It is explicit in the terms of reference that the changes are about a fair and fit-for-the-future assessment, rather than to generate further savings, so does he agree that the Bill allows us to get the Timms review done and to bring forward proposals after that?

[John Milne]

I cannot agree with the hon. Member, and I will partly explain why in a moment.

We need a more honest assessment of the overall financial situation that is being used to justify these drastic cuts, because the wrong diagnosis leads to the wrong solutions. The dramatic rise in PIP claimants is at least partly driven by other Government policy; perhaps one quarter of the rise is simply due to raising the pension age. Large numbers of people who are older, and therefore more likely to be disabled, have been pushed out of pension support into benefit support. The state pension is paid out of current taxation, not past contributions, so the impact is immediate.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)]

I begin by welcoming the positive steps the Department has set out in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper on supporting people into work; the right to try work without the fear of having to go through reassessment for benefits if it does not work out; reforming and modernising the Access to Work system; disability pay gap reporting; disability employment gap reporting; ensuring everyone has access to a supportive work coach; the assessment process, and ensuring that assessments are recorded as standard, which people were desperately crying out for; and ensuring people with lifelong conditions do not need to be reassessed when we know their condition is unlikely to ever improve. I also welcome many of the concessions the Government have made over the past week: bringing forward employment support, introducing protections for current PIP claimants going forward, and recognising the need for co-production.

However, I continue to have some concerns, which I believe must be addressed. We need the Timms review to report before the new system is rolled out. On co-production, I want to start by saying that this should have happened way before we got to today’s debate. I know from my time as shadow Minister for disabled people that when we work with disabled people and their organisations from the start, we produce better policy. There is so much talent out there and, like many of us in the Chamber, disabled people and their organisations want reform of the benefits system, but the reforms set out in the Bill are not what they want or need. We should have been working with them on it right from the start.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. Does she agree that, as well as having meaningful engagement with disabled people themselves and disabled groups, it is really important that the Timms review engages with unpaid family carers, both because they are caring for people with disability and because they are implicated through carer’s allowance being linked to PIP?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I absolutely agree. The review needs to ensure that it has the right engagement and consultation with everybody, but it must be co-produced with the experts by experience.

I want to take this opportunity to clarify exactly what we mean by co-production. The principle of co-production is rooted in the US civil rights movement and the ladder of citizen participation developed by Sherry Arnstein in 1969. It should be in place from the start of the process. All information should be made available to everyone. A plan should be agreed together. There must be the ability to bring in experts. These experts should be paid for their contribution and treated as valued partners. We should empower and upskill those who are involved. And I hope that it goes without saying, but all information should be available in accessible formats. The valued partners need to be user-led disabled people’s organisations.

I finish by underlining that the focus of making the changes should not be on making cuts, but on getting it right. The focus on getting it right means that everything needs to be in scope of the review, not just the ability to tinker within limited predetermined parameters. Co-production must take place before any changes to the current assessment criteria are proposed. If that means pausing to ensure that we get it right, then that is what we must do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

Trust is at the heart of the issue, and if we want to create a system that commands public trust, this is not the way to do it. We need to reward effort and promote self-reliance, but the Bill creates a two-tier system detached from individual responsibility. We need to make the welfare system more targeted, but the Bill, like many Government policies, simply shifts new costs on to people who will genuinely be ill, newly disabled or simply younger and does little to target those relying on the state.

[Anna Dixon]

The hon. Member talks about fairness and trust. I wonder if he is proud of his Government’s record, where Tory cuts to welfare pushed more people into poverty, with 2.9 million emergency food parcels in the last 12 months. If he votes against the Bill, he will be voting against the biggest uplift in the UC standard allowance. Is he proud of that?

[Robbie Moore]

I will take no lectures from somebody who supported a 10% rise in council tax across the Bradford district, impacting many of those who will be impacted by PIP.

This is not principled reform, it is not radical and it is not good policy making—and many Labour Members know it. The Government can and should be doing better. I will not support the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Pakes]

Thank you—you have saved me the embarrassment.

It is a great privilege to speak in this debate alongside so many passionate advocates who want to get this reform right. I think all of us on the Government Benches, whatever our differences of opinion on a point of policy, came into this House to make a difference and fix the welfare system, to liberate and create opportunities for people. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement yesterday and welcome news of the PIP assessment review, which moves us forward. It is vital that we engage those most affected by a failed welfare state in designing a successful one.

We have put off change for too long. That is particularly true when it comes to young people. If politics is about choices, condemning nearly a million young people to the scrapheap of unemployment was the choice of the Conservative party. I want to focus my contribution on how these changes can affect young people and their life chances.

Full employment and good-quality jobs have been a central part of Labour’s most successful Governments. That is why fixing Britain’s broken system of social security must be a priority for this Labour Government. There is no dignity in denying young people the opportunity to learn, earn or make a better life for themselves. As we approach the 80th anniversary of the 1945 Labour landslide, we must remember previous Governments who have dealt with such big challenges. Work was essential to that great 1945 Labour Government. William Beveridge’s landmark report in 1942 laid the foundation for Labour’s post-war welfare state, with an NHS, free education for all and full employment.

The vision of Labour leaders such as Attlee, Morrison and Bevin was that every citizen would live a life free from want, squalor, disease or poverty, with meaningful help when times were tough. In return, every citizen was expected to play a full part in the social and economic life of the nation. Looking at the high number of people not in education, employment or training—NEETs, that terrible phrase—in my constituency, I see an economy that is still letting people down, a mental health system that is letting young people down and an NHS system that is trapping too many young people on a life of benefits.

When the Minister winds up the debate, can he confirm that we will deliver the employment support that young people need and simplify the way that benefits and jobcentres work, so that young people get the support they deserve? Will the Secretary of State work with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to fix our broken mental health system, so that young people have a hand up rather than being pushed down? Our values should be about compassion, and our social security system should be about dignity for those who are unable to work or need support. That is why I welcome the protections that have been announced for people already on PIP.

There has been a common theme in the debate. Many Members have raised concerns not with the fact that the Timms review will happen—it will begin to embed co-production, as the Secretary of State and many others in this House have said—but, I think legitimately, about its timing.

[Anna Dixon]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Pakes]

I will give way.

[Anna Dixon]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and I am pleased that he could hear my desire to intervene. Does he share my concern that the Timms review is too slow and will not conclude under its current timetable until next autumn? Does he agree that the Timms review should be accelerated so that a package of measures that have been co-produced with disabled people and their carers, including young people, can be implemented in November 2026?

[Andrew Pakes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I would, if possible, give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability Duracell batteries to turbocharge his work in this area.

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are getting PIP are the people who meet the criteria. My point is that we cannot simply carry on increasing spending at the current rate. That has to be addressed.

I well understand the concerns among people who claim PIP, and I want to take the opportunity of this debate to address those concerns. We are talking to disabled people, disability charities and disabled people’s organisations. The Green Paper consultation will continue until the end of June, and a White Paper will follow later this year. But we need to act ahead of a White Paper. Claims to PIP are set to more than double this decade, from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. That increase is partly accounted for by a 17% increase in disability prevalence, as mentioned, but the increase in the benefit caseload is much higher. It would certainly not be in the interests of people currently claiming the benefits for the Government to bury their heads in the sand over that rate of increase.

Following the Green Paper, we are consulting on how best to support those affected by the eligibility changes. We are looking to improve the PIP assessment; as mentioned, I will lead a review of that. The current system produces poor employment outcomes, high economic inactivity, low living standards and high costs to the taxpayer. It needs to change. We want a more proactive, pro-work system that supports people better and supports the economy as well.

I will turn specifically to the changes to PIP eligibility. PIP is a crucial benefit that contributes to the extra living costs that arise from disability or a health impairment. The changes we have announced relate to PIP daily living; the PIP mobility component is not affected. We are clear that the daily living component of PIP should not be means-tested, taxed, frozen or anything else that has been suggested. We are committed to continue increasing it in line with inflation. For the majority of current claimants, and categorically for the most vulnerable, who have been highlighted in this debate, it will continue to provide, in full, the support that it currently provides. Employment support for those who are able and want to work will be substantially improved as well.

As has been referenced, we have published data that shows that just over half of those who claim PIP today scored four points in one daily living activity in the last PIP assessment. Understandably, as we have heard, almost half of those who currently claim the benefit will be concerned that they will not be eligible in future. However, we have also published the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment, which is that by 2029-30 only around 10% of those who currently claim the daily living component of PIP will lose it as a result of the changes. That is the assumption that has gone into the spending forecasts. We are projecting that spending on PIP will continue to increase in real terms every year, but not at the unsustainable rate of the last five years.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am afraid I cannot give way again.

The OBR is right on this. Its assessment is based on previous experience of changes of this kind. The behaviour both of the people claiming the benefits and of those who conduct the assessments changes. For example, I have met people who were awarded two points for one of the activities last time around, when I thought they were entitled to four, but it did not change their award, so it was not challenged and nobody minded. In future, someone in that position could well score four points on that activity and so retain the benefit, even though they did not score four points on any of the activities last time around.

Changes to the PIP assessment will not be immediate; they will take effect from November 2026.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Dixon]

I apologise for not getting here earlier; I have been listening to carers who have been sharing their stories. I spoke to a woman who is caring for her husband, who has a neurodegenerative disease and currently scores only two points across the board. Their family would be penalised under the tightening restrictions. Does the Minister agree that somebody with a neurological and degenerative disease should be counted as severely disabled and protected from the changes?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the details of that particular case. I think the threshold we have set is the right place to set the eligibility criteria in the future. I am happy to discuss that point specifically. Our goal is a system that is financially sustainable in the long term so that it can be there for all of us who need it in the future.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

Information of that nature was published prior to Second Reading and is available to Members.

I turn to the amendments and new clauses that attracted the most attention in today’s debate. New clause 1, tabled by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay, pertains to the carer’s allowance. I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country. This Government value carers highly, and recognise the vital and valuable contribution they make every day. Like others, I see that in my constituency work, week after week, and I am in awe of all that carers do.

This Government inherited a system in which busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of responsibility, have been left to repay large sums of overpaid carer’s allowance, sometimes worth thousands of pounds. We need to understand exactly what went wrong, so that we can set out our plan to put this right. That is why we launched an independent review of earnings-related overpayments, and we were delighted that Liz Sayce agreed to lead that review, which will investigate how overpayments of carer’s allowance have occurred, what can best be done to support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of these problems occurring in future. The independent review is under way and is anticipated to conclude this summer.

But we are not sitting back; we are taking action now. We continue to review and improve our communication with carers to make it as easy as possible for them to tell us when something has changed in their life that could affect their carer’s allowance entitlement. Moreover, this Government introduced the largest ever increase in the earnings limit since carer’s allowance was introduced; the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit increased to £196 from 7 April this year. It is now pegged permanently to 16 hours.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Clearly, many carers have been affected by overpayments. Overpayment comes as a shock to many who are trying to work in order to bridge the gap between carer’s allowance and their family’s costs, and it has a significant impact on their mental health. Does the Minister share my gratitude to Liz Sayce for the work that she is doing to hopefully provide clarity for the many carers who are trying to juggle unpaid family care and work?

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. Liz Sayce is doing excellent work, and I look forward to seeing the conclusions of her review in due course.

Turning to new clause 1, as I have said, the independent review that has been commissioned is expected to arrive at its conclusions this summer. It would be irresponsible for me to commit in advance to implementing all recommendations. As the House will understand, the recommendations will need to be given careful consideration when they are provided to the Department. Moreover, I do not believe that the new clause would have the effect intended.

Welfare Reform

Anna Dixon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Many other Members have asked that question. We will publish the equality impact and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I believe that we need to treat people with dignity, respect and compassion, but must also face up to the challenges of a failing system that is currently not sustainable, not for the public finances—although that is relevant—but for the very people who will depend on this in future. That is what we are trying to change.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring my constituents with profound disabilities that they will be protected under these reforms. My niece, who herself has autism and has faced significant barriers to work, is a health coach in a local jobcentre, where she is helping other people with disabilities, neurodiversity issues and mental illnesses to find work. However, she is frustrated by her lack of access to fit notes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that jobcentre staff have the time, information and resources that they need to help people with disabilities and health problems to find suitable and rewarding jobs?

[Liz Kendall]

As always, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We want to free up our work coaches’ time from tick-box benefit administration so that they can spend more time with sick and disabled people who need support, and can refer them to, for instance, mental health or debt advice services. When we do that, more people get into work, and both their finances and their mental health improve. We have already announced that we will free up 1,000 work coaches’ time to help more than 60,000 sick and disabled people, and that is just the start: we want it to be rolled out throughout the land.