Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I remind all Members that this is the Committee stage? Can we have some focus on the amendments we are debating this afternoon, not wide-ranging Third Reading speeches? At this rate, there will be little time for Third Reading.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I rise today to speak in support of amendments 2(a), 37 and 39, and new clauses 8, 10 and 11. Without going into a Third Reading speech, it is important to highlight that we are debating a Bill that will have a profound and, in many cases, devastating impact on thousands of families across our country.

As the Resolution Foundation puts it, this Bill represents an

“income shock for millions of low-income households.”

That should give every Member in this Chamber pause. What is particularly troubling is that the areas hardest hit are the very communities that this Government claim to support—places in the north of England, in Wales and in my region of Yorkshire. These proud working-class areas are being failed by a Government tightening the purse strings on the most vulnerable.

In Dewsbury and Batley, 7.9% of people claim personal independence payment. I have had more than 150 constituents contact me terrified about what these cuts mean. Those are not just numbers; they are real people with real needs. The universal credit health element is an essential lifeline for millions of people in our country. One of my constituents, Andrew Waring, ran a business before 2020. Then covid left him with long-term organ damage. He could barely walk 10 metres, and his PIP payments became a lifeline. Cutting such support is not about trimming fat; it cuts into people’s dignity and survival. More than 20 civil society organisations have urged MPs to reject these cuts. Even with the Government’s amendments and the change introduced last week to defer any cuts to PIP until the Timms review has concluded, people are still left concerned and in severe distress.

As it stands, clause 2 will leave 750,000 people, according to the Government’s impact assessment published last night, up to £3,000 worse off by 2030. One in five people on universal credit and disability benefits have used a food bank in the past month, and this Bill will just increase that number. That is why I support amendment 2(a) tabled by the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) to maintain the current universal credit health element. That cut will especially hurt people with mental health conditions who are already struggling to access support.

Many Members across the House have spoken in support of the other amendments that I also support, and I will not repeat their eloquent and informed speeches and the points they made. To conclude, what has been disappointing at the end of my first year in Parliament is to see a critical Bill, which will impact millions and millions of people in our country, rushed through the legislative process in a way that has not allowed the relevant time to understand, amend and improve it so that it is fit for purpose. I am sorry to say so, but this process has been a legislative mess.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

I understand that Sir Roger may already have made this point, but about 23 colleagues are still waiting to speak and we have roughly 88 minutes left. At four minutes each, most of you will get in. If you choose to take eight minutes each, half of you will get in. I will allow colleagues to make the decision as to whether they wish to help each other.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who is my constituency neighbour. I welcome and value his testimony and his authenticity of purpose in what he said.

I wish to speak in favour of my new clause 5, which I am pleased to say has been supported by many of my colleagues representing both inland and coastal communities. My new clause would require the Government to publish, within six months of the Bill passing, an assessment of how its provisions impact on coastal communities, such as mine in North Norfolk. That is really important, because this Bill could have a huge and detrimental impact on such communities, and I am deeply concerned that the Government have once again failed to consider coastal communities in their policy. I have heard from hundreds of worried constituents, and I am sure that the same is true of my coastal colleagues from across the House—we all know that our areas are too often overlooked and not valued enough by Governments. My new clause would ensure that the Government have to take account of how our areas will be particularly harmed by such badly thought-out changes.

What is on the face of the Bill as it stands will be really damaging to our coastal regions, even if we accept the Government amendments. Some of the highest rates of PIP claims are in coastal communities, as are some of the highest rates of unemployment. Considerably above-average rates of sickness, poor health and lower quality of life are found in coastal communities. If the Government press ahead with such blunt changes without supporting more people into work first, it could be catastrophic for communities all around our coastline.

Communities who are eager to get into work are faced with a litany of barriers that the Government are not doing enough to solve. We have real issues with public transport access, so for many trying to access inland employment, it is either too far or too hard to get to many jobs, or they see their pay packets eaten into disproportionately by bus or train fares. Almost one in five unemployed people have not applied for jobs or have turned down offers due to problems with transport.

This problem is even more acute among young people—both employed and not—who are nearly three times more likely than their older working age peers to turn down a job because they simply cannot get to it. These struggles extend to those accessing vocational training, which can be a new route into new trades and qualifications that are simply not accessible for many due to the distances required, or the lack of a workforce to provide the training. We have many talented people currently in receipt of PIP or UC who would be eager to train for an industry that they feel could allow them to work, but in communities such as mine the opportunities are just too lacking.

We know that the welfare system is not working—that is clear—but the Government have to stop looking at this issue as mere numbers on a balance sheet. When the Government do that and just look at ways to get to a magic number demanded by the Treasury, they ignore the people behind the numbers. There is an urgent need to tackle underemployment and, in particular, the rise in the number of young people with mental ill health being sentenced to a lifetime of worklessness. But ripping out the safety net will do nothing to help young people in coastal communities such as mine, who are three times as likely to suffer from undiagnosed mental distress than their inland equivalents in underprivileged areas.

Pension Schemes Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I just want to be clear that it will be about an hour before the wind-ups. Nine Members are bobbing, so perhaps you can all reflect on that in your contributions so that I do not have to put on a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak on this Bill. Pensions and the regulation of private pensions are increasingly of national interest. I believe that regulation is needed, so I welcome the Bill. Obviously the small print will become more apparent during its passage, but it is good that we are introducing the Bill.

The Government’s intention of ensuring that people have a private pension to supplement their income when they eventually reach retirement is increasingly being realised. By and large, most young people—22 million, I understand—have a pension. The Minister will remember the story I told him about when I was 18. I think I am right in saying that I am the oldest person in this Chamber, so that was not yesterday. The fact is that pension advisers were almost unheard of then. I will tell hon. Members who the best pension adviser I ever had was: my mum. When I was 18, she took me down to the pension man in Ballywalter. She said, “You need a pension.” I said, “Mum, I’m only 18. What do I need a pension for?” She said, “You’re getting a pension.” We know how it is: our mum tells to do something, and we just do it, so I got a pension on her advice.

I ended up with four pensions over my working life, which were all beneficial. I did not understand the value of them until I came to the stage at which I was going to cash some of them in—I realised the value of them then. Today, we have an opportunity to advise young people of the need for a pension. When it comes to pensions, not everybody has my mum, but everybody has somebody, or an equivalent through Government.

Let me give a quick story about my office staff. I employ six ladies and one young fella. They are in their 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. I will not get into trouble by naming the staff in each bracket, but their approach to their pension varies by age bracket, and that is a fact; they see it differently. Listening to their discussion highlighted to me the need to educate people on the importance of paying into their pension, because it is so important that we get this right. That is why the Bill is important: it is an opportunity to advise people.

One member of my staff has two children at primary school. She highlighted that she was paying an additional 5% into her pension on the advice of her older colleague, only to find that the tax on her savings this year meant that she actually had less money in her account each month compared with last year. The first thing to go was not the kids’ piano lessons or hockey camp—she said that those experiences shaped her children’s memories. The first reduction was scaling back on her pension additions. People might say, “My goodness me! That was not necessary,” but actually it was, if she wanted to preserve that lifestyle for her children. It seems that the tax on savings means that one mum has made the choice to stop supplementing her pension, and to instead sow the money into her children’s lives just now. That is not the aim of the Government or the Minister, but there is only so much that we can tax the middle class before they make cuts that are not in their best interests.

Apart from a number of clauses, this legislation does not directly affect Northern Ireland, but it should be noted that accompanying legislation and a number of legislative consent motions—statutory instruments—will come to this Chamber that will change the pension schemes in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, what we discuss here and what happens through this Bill will come to us in Northern Ireland, and the Northern Ireland Assembly will bring provisions in Northern Ireland in line with those here. I have therefore considered carefully the aims of this legislation, and whether I believe it will be effective in achieving those aims. The Minister has said that this Bill will fundamentally

“prioritise higher rates of return for pension savers, putting more money into people’s pockets in a host of different ways. For the first time we will require pension schemes to prove they are value for money, focusing their mindset on returns over costs and protecting savers from getting stuck in underperforming schemes for years on end.”

When we look at the issues, we understand the necessity for the Bill.

In his introduction, the Minister referred to 13 million small pension pots floating about in the UK pension system, with £1,000 in each. It seems logical to have a better pension system for people—I think it does, anyway, and maybe we all do. It is essential that the opt-out is iron-clad, and I will give a reason why. One of my office staff members would not be comfortable with her pension paying into any companies that test on animals, for example. Another has said that she wants the highest return, full stop, so we must ensure that the Bill enables people to follow their moral obligations as well as get a return on their work. I am concerned that consumers will be tied down and face difficulty in leaving pots, which is something that must be addressed. With that in mind, I welcome this Bill to regulate the pension market, but we must ensure that it does not become a mechanism for Government to control the private pension industry and direct pension pots into Government investment. We must ensure that this Bill simply protects pensioners, and I very much look forward to watching its progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It has been a privilege to hear so many well-informed and considered speeches this evening. I am sure we would all agree that there is clearly significant expertise in the Chamber.

The heart of this Bill is people doing the right thing by preparing for their future and saving into their pension pots. With auto-enrolment having been introduced by the Conservatives in 2012, there are now over 20 million employees saving into a workplace pension. That is 88% of eligible employees saving into a pension and preparing for later in life, which is a great achievement that I hope everyone in this House can celebrate. However, while the number of people who are saving has increased significantly, engagement has remained low, as we have heard this evening. Less than half of savers have reviewed how much their pension is worth in the past 12 months, while over 94% of pension savers are invested in a pension scheme’s default investment strategy. With people taking the right steps and starting to save for their retirement early thanks to our action, we must now ensure that the pensions market is working for them, so that they get the best returns on their savings and ultimately have the comfortable and secure retirement for which they were planning.

We have heard many contributions this evening. I will briefly mention the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse), both of whom gave us lengthy and very detailed speeches presenting both sides of the argument. [Interruption.] They were very enjoyable speeches—that was not a criticism, just an observation of the way things have gone this evening. Both the hon. Member and my right hon. Friend clearly showed the expertise that they garnered earlier on in their careers and expressed some legitimate concerns, particularly about the consensus that there has perhaps been in the Chamber this evening. Some points have been made showing that that consensus is not entirely guaranteed, certainly among Conservative Members. We support the principles behind the Bill—indeed, much of what we have heard builds on the work that the Conservatives were doing while we were in government. We want to ensure that poorly performing pension schemes are challenged, excessive administration costs are removed, and savers receive the best returns on their investments. Ultimately, that is how we will ensure more people have a comfortable retirement.

However, we have concerns about some specific measures in the Bill, which we will scrutinise further as it progresses. In particular, we have significant concerns about the reserve powers that allow the Government to set percentage targets for asset allocation in core defaults offered by defined-contribution providers. In other words, a future Government could tell pension schemes where they must invest their funds, regardless of whether it delivers good returns for savers. This potentially conflicts with their fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of their members. While I know the Minister will stress that the Government do not intend to use those reserve powers, that neither addresses concerns about what a different future Government could do nor explains why those powers are being brought in. It could be asked why the reserve powers are being created at all.

We want to see more investment in the UK market. While this country is one of the largest pension markets in the world, only around 20% of DC assets are invested in the UK. However, the solution should be to make domestic investment more attractive—to create opportunities that deliver better returns for savers—not simply to mandate investment in assets that deliver lower returns. During our last term in office, we worked with the industry to introduce the Mansion House reforms as a voluntary agreement to boost investment in the UK, but this Bill goes further—it could mandate such investment against the wishes of the industry. Similarly, the local government pension scheme will have a new duty to invest in the local economy. While that is understandable at face value, it raises concerns about returns on investments if there are not suitable local opportunities.

We also have questions about some of the Government’s assumptions, and would like to understand more about how they were reached and the evidence used. For example, why is the minimum value for megafunds just £25 billion? Why is having fewer and larger pension providers better? We recognise the benefits of economies of scale, but what about competition and innovation? It has also been raised by the industry that a significant number of details are unknown, as they will come later in the form of regulations. Can the Minister set out some more details on when the various sets of regulations will be published, and whether that will be before the Bill has passed through Parliament?

Finally, the Bill fails to cover a number of areas, and we would like to understand why. Concerns about pension adequacy have been touched on this evening and whether people are saving enough to have the security and dignity in retirement they deserve. Auto-enrolment was a good start, but it will not be the only solution. Indeed, lots of people are still not eligible. When we passed the Pensions (Extension of Automatic Enrolment) Act 2023, the then Conservative Government confirmed their intention to reduce the lower age limit to 18, as has been mentioned this evening. As yet, the current Labour Government have not done so. Auto-enrolment does not apply to self-employed people, despite just 16% of self-employed people actively saving into a workplace or personal pension. The Bill does not look at whether people are saving enough and early enough, and I would be grateful if the Minister could set out whether that is deliberate and whether further action will be taken.

I briefly draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving councillor, but I hasten to add that unfortunately I am not a member of the local government pension scheme. Sadly, I was elected after that provision was scrapped, but an entire chapter is given over to the local government pension scheme in this Bill. Indeed, it is a key element, enabling local authorities to use pension schemes to invest in their local economy. However, as with much of the legislation being taken through Parliament at the moment, the who, what and when remain unanswered. Without the English devolution Bill before us, for example, we are not entirely clear on what form local government will take, nor entirely clear on how compatible this Bill is with that forthcoming local government legislation.

We are in effect being asked to legislate on a moveable feast. Indeed, there is likely to be a considerable transition timetable for local government changes, which all raises questions about how the local government reorganisation transition fits in with the plans in the Bill. Following on from the comments of the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), how will asset pools work under local government reorganisation? Who gets the potential investment benefits or spending power, and where does all that investment take place?

The Bill also fails to mention any reforms to the local government pension scheme, which reached a record surplus of £45 billion in June 2024. One reason for that might be that it is being used to offset Government debt under the Chancellor’s current fiscal rule, which uses public sector net financial liabilities to measure that debt. That is a huge amount of money in local government terms, and it is not going towards local services, business support or regional projects. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government intend to reform the local government pension scheme beyond the measures outlined in the Bill? Finally on the local government pension scheme, I look forward to seeing more detail as to how newly created asset pools will work in practice with the local government pension scheme.

Local government treasury management over recent years has seen local authorities taking advantage of the investment opportunities available to them to acquire properties and the like, but often some distance from their local authority. That is something to tease out in Committee, but when the Government state that they wish local authorities to have finance available to invest locally to bring economic growth, what does “local” look like?

Finally, can the Minister confirm that fiduciary rules regarding investments and how they are assessed will prevail going forward? Overall, we will support a Bill that reduces administration costs, removes complexity for savers and maximises value for members, ultimately helping people who took the right action to save for their retirement to live in comfort and dignity. While this Bill makes the start, there is more to do to get it right, and we look forward to working with the Government to achieve that. There is plenty of food for thought for amendments to take us forward.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Women’s State Pension Age: Financial Redress

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before Mr Shannon intervenes, may I respectfully ask the hon. Lady to consider truncating her speech a little, as a number of colleagues will want to speak this afternoon?

[Jim Shannon]

There are 77,000 WASPI women in Northern Ireland, 7,000 of them in Strangford. Does the hon. Lady appreciate their palpable anger about how they have been mistreated and about the injustice that they wish to see addressed? On behalf of those 7,000 constituents of mine, I seek the same thing as the hon. Lady and all of us in this Chamber today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Yes. In a way, the Government have fallen between two stools. The report, as we have heard, anticipated that the Government would be reluctant to the right the wrong done to so many people at once, but nevertheless the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman felt that justice required compensation to be paid. It knew that there would be this Government resistance, so it must have meant a lot to the ombudsman to still go down this highly unusual route of trying to present its report directly to Parliament, because it felt it would not get far by dealing with the Government directly.

One might have expected the Government to offer a scheme that fell some way short of the ombudsman’s recommendation, but their outright rejection of any restitution at all is rather insulting to the women whose complaint was upheld by the ombudsman. As we have heard, despite the DWP claiming to accept the findings, and even apologising for its maladministration, it is not offering a penny in restitution, and is relying in its response on a deeply unconvincing polling exercise that supposedly found that nine out of 10 of the affected women knew in advance that their state pension age was going to change. If that was the case, why did so many of them carry on as if nothing was going to change at all? A few moments ago, the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) asked about the nature of the sampling that was done; only some 200 women born in the 1950s were included in the sample of nearly 2,000 people surveyed, which led to that misleading result.

I know the Minister has a great deal of expertise and a strong track record on issues of this sort from his former career, before he came to this House. I therefore appeal to him to at least reach out the hand of negotiation and discussion; to accept the offer that reasonable people are making to the Government; and to sit down and talk to them, and not to let the whole thing go through the courts, which would lead to an adversarial deepening of hostility and, inevitably, a less desirable outcome for everyone concerned.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

With an immediate four-minute time limit, I call Brian Leishman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for setting the scene so incredibly well and all the hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed fantastically, putting across the demands of their constituents.

This is not a new issue, and we know that. I do not think I have missed a WASPI debate. Indeed, I do not think the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has missed one either in the time I have been here. This week in this House has given me hope that perhaps the Government can acknowledge when we are moving in the wrong direction. The Government need to correct the wrong steps taken and follow through on the recommendations in the ombudsman’s report.

Northern Ireland has some 77,000 WASPI women, of whom 7,000 are my constituents. I do not know all 7,000 personally—I have not done that roll-call—but those who have come to me have told me their stories. In many cases, they are ladies who have cleaned floors or cleaned offices or been classroom assistants or teachers. Age catches up with us all, and it catches up with me, too. It catches up with them, and their knees are not as strong as they used to be. They planned their pensions in accordance with the timescale, and then it was taken away from them. That is the concern I have. They had planned for their life, and then they were deprived of that.

The report rightly found that some WASPI women were not informed about the changes to their pensions and had made long-term financial plans based on the assumption that they would receive their state pension at 60. All their financial planning was in place, and then it was just taken away. That meant that when the WASPI women lost their pensions, they lost all sources of income and met unexpected financial insecurity. The insufficient information was not only negligent, but deeply unjust, and the Government have acknowledged that to be the case, so there is a precedent. The hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) was right to say that the process was backed away from.

Women who spent decades raising families, paying taxes and contributing to the economy were left without recognition for their hard work. Many WASPI women were forced back into the workforce, often with disabilities and often into low-paying jobs, or had no choice but to apply for benefits. Those women should never have had to do that after a lifetime contributing to the system.

A number of these women—I call them the silent generation—still face significant outstanding debts and loans that they will struggle to pay off for the rest of their lives due to the inability to manage their income appropriately. When they realised that they could not access their pensions, their ability to go back to full-time hours was not simple, and the emotional toll has been significant, too. Many WASPI women now experience stress and depression brought about by financial uncertainty. It is only fair that the hard and consistent work done by these ladies is financially recognised.

I say this with respect to the Minister, but one of the first steps that this Government took was to sort out the back pay of union workers. I am not saying they should not have done that, but if there is to be fairness in this system, I cannot for the life of me understand how they can do that in one breath, and then in the next apologise to the WASPI women but not do right by them.

The silent generation are determined to be silent no longer. I applaud them for going against the grain, as we often say at home, by continuing to complain. I applaud them for continuing to speak, when many of them have been told to be quiet and give it up. I applaud them for continuing to hold Governments—this one and the last one—to account. I applaud them for standing beside the weary and the worn, and for demanding compensation for all affected.

Apologising is not enough. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said, it is not about words any more. It is about action, and now is the time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I refuse to believe that age is catching up with the hon. Gentleman. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) on securing the debate, on campaigning on this issue, and on making sure that this debate came to the main Chamber. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. As well as hearing the very strong and powerful case around this particular issue, we have heard personal examples. Whether it is Gill from Tiverton, Ann from Newcastle, Helen from Seaford or Paula from Dewsbury, we have heard that many women rightly feel a sense of raw injustice, and the Government must act.

I have met WASPI women many times in Parliament, but I have also met them in my constituency. A couple of years before I was elected, I met a group of 30 WASPI women. I regret that I cannot recall the name of the woman whose case I remember, but her circumstances stuck with me. She was quietly spoken, and I could tell that she had real rage and fury inside her, but she was not prepared to show it. She just said, “I’ve spent my entire life working. I’ve raised a family. I’ve watched the pennies, and I was proud to stand on my own two feet. But at the end of my working life, I felt robbed of my money and robbed of my dignity. Even though I know this situation is not of my making and not my fault, I feel a tremendous sense of shame.”

That really stuck with me. Some 3.8 million women are affected by this issue, and many of them feel a sense of shame. They should not, but they do. It is really frustrating that the Government, notwithstanding the terrible inheritance that they received, have chosen to do nothing, and there are two problems facing them. The first is that an obvious injustice has been left unaddressed. The second is that, as so many Members from across the House have said, it sets a very dangerous precedent. For some women, an offer of an apology or a payment might be symbolic, but it is far more than that for many of them. It is about survival, and it would help them to get out of the struggle that they are now in.

On behalf of my party, I urge the Government please to reflect after this debate, and to go back to the drawing board and think about what can be done. At the very least, they should think of something to help those women who are struggling the most. Doing nothing is really not an option. If the rebellion earlier this week was for any reason at all, it was to send a message to this Government that their own party, this House and the British public want a Government who will stand up for the underdog—those who are hard done by in life, by the Government and by circumstances out of their control. I hope the Government listen today and act, because to govern is to choose. The Government must know that it is not too late to make a different choice.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I will reduce the time limit to five minutes after the next speaker, but I have no plans to reduce it further. Members will be able to see just how many are standing to speak and will know that this debate is scheduled to finish at 7 pm. That will mean many Members—35—will be disappointed.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I wish that we were not here today. We do not need to be here today. There is nothing special or magical about this Tuesday—nothing at all. The deadline we have been given is to solve a political problem. That is why so many of us on the Labour Benches have been pleading with the Government to pull the Bill, go back to the drawing board and work in partnership with disabled people and others, including with the Timms review, to ensure that we get a welfare system that works for disabled people and others. There is no need to ram the Bill through other than to save political face. There is no need to ram it through at Third Reading next Wednesday in Committee of the whole House so that disabled people cannot give evidence from their experiences in Bill Committee. There is no need to do that at all. We should be solving this problem, not solving a political problem.

We are being asked to vote on the principles of the Bill, and all hon. Friends should be clear about what those are. They are on the face of the Bill. It says,

“to restrict eligibility for the personal independence payment.”

That is the purpose of the Bill. My colleagues and I did not come into Labour politics to restrict eligibility for personal independence payments. When I think about what we are being asked to vote for tonight, I think not just of my colleagues here, but of the disabled people who come to my constituency advice surgeries. I think of the disabled people who had hope in their hearts a year ago when a Labour Government were elected after 14 years.

Let’s be clear: this was not in our manifesto. The Labour party as a whole has not approved this, and the Bill has been rushed through. We need to be clear that if this were a free vote, it would be hard to find many Labour MPs at all voting for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) said, this is a matter of conscience, and we need to be clear about what we are comparing here. When we decide how to vote tonight, we are not comparing the Bill as the Government intended with the Bill as is promised; we are comparing the situation of disabled people across the country as it is now with the situation that will come to pass if the Bill is passed.

This Bill, which was brought—whatever the narrative—to save billions of pounds, with these concessions still cuts billions of pounds from disability support. No Government and no Labour Government should seek to balance the books on the backs of disabled people. That is not what any of us in the Labour family, left, centre or right of the party, came into politics to do, and that is why so many people are uneasy about this.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) spoke clearly from her experience. She regretted not voting against the Conservatives’ welfare Bill back in 2015. I urge all colleagues to listen carefully to what she said because the truth is this matter does not end when the voting Lobbies close tonight; this matter will come back to haunt Labour MPs in their constituency surgeries Friday after Friday up to and including the day of the next general election. People will ask, “Why on earth did you vote for these cuts?” or “Why on earth did you sit on your hands?”

It is notable that 138 disabled people’s organisations are pleading with Labour MPs to vote for the reasoned amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central and vote against this Bill. I know the Whips and those on the Front Bench can make compelling arguments, but for me, the real compelling argument has been made outside this Chamber by those 138 disabled people’s organisations. It was very telling that, when asked yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to name one disabled persons’ organisation that supports this disability benefit cuts Bill, the Secretary of State could not name one, because there is not one.

I honestly believe that for any Labour MP who votes for this Bill tonight or sits on their hands, that vote will hang like an albatross around their necks. I understand that some colleagues will feel they have to vote for disability benefit cuts out of party loyalty, but there are other types of loyalty in addition to that: loyalty to our consciences; loyalty to our party’s values; loyalty to our disabled constituents; loyalty to those who are really struggling and come to see their MP—people like me, on about £90,000 a year—and ask them for help. I do not want to be in my constituency advice surgery saying to those people, “You know how you’ve got a problem and you’re in a really difficult situation? Well, that’s because of the way I voted.”

I urge MPs to have the democratic dignity that comes today by voting with their conscience and voting to give disabled people outside this place what they have been denied for too long: dignity, respect, a voice in this House and a vote in the Lobby—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks eloquently about the legacy left by the Tory Government. Does he agree that we need two Labour Governments working together in Scotland because the situation—[Interruption.] Those on the Opposition Benches may not want to hear it, but one in six Scots is languishing on an NHS waiting list as a result of the decisions of the Scottish Government—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Matthew Patrick]

My hon. Friend is totally right, and the SNP record is worse. One in eight young people are not in employment, education or training here, but in Scotland the figure is one in six, and the SNP should be ashamed of its record for the Scottish people.

The Bill will introduce a right to try, so that people who receive support but have a job offer know they can take that opportunity with both hands and with no fear, because if for whatever reason it does not work out, the same support will be there for them. This removes an important barrier for many. We are also increasing the standard rate of universal credit and committing £1 billion in pathways to work funding. We aim to restore dignity to a system that has become a burden to those it should serve. This is a moment to rebuild trust in the safety net, to protect those who cannot work and empower those who can, and to restore dignity to everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deirdre Costigan]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I just make the point to the hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman is clearly not going to give way, which is in his gift.

[Ayoub Khan]

I say to the Ministers and hon. Members who claim that these changes are needed to preserve the welfare state that the welfare state was built on the idea that everyone would receive state support for things that were out of their control, no matter what. Passing this Bill will not preserve the welfare state but dismantle it, and I urge every Member of this House to reject it. We can and must do better than this. The people we represent deserve far better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Andrew Pakes.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

On a long, hot, sweaty day like this, one of my hearing aids has collapsed in the middle of this session, so I am only half hearing you, Madam Deputy Speaker—you did call me, didn’t you?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

indicated assent.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your clarification. We have just heard that a pivotal part of the Bill, clause 5, will not be effective, so I ask this: what are we supposed to be voting on tonight? Is it the Bill as drawn, or another Bill? I am confused, and I think Members in the Chamber will need that clarification.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Member will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and the vote will be on the Bill as it stands. We have had a clear undertaking from the Dispatch Box as to what will happen in Committee.

[Andrew Pakes]

As a member of a party that often debates clause IV, I welcome today’s news about clause 5, which I think addresses many of the concerns that hon. Members across the House, particularly on the Government Benches, have raised.

There is an urgency to moving forward with the Bill and with change. Today’s system is broken. The legacy of the previous Government is shocking. Some 2.8 million people are outside the labour market due to long-term sickness. That is the same as the populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Sheffield and Liverpool combined. One in eight young people are outside education, employment or training. The UK is the only G7 economy where sickness rates are higher than before covid, and as we have heard, health and disability-related benefits will cost around £100 billion over the next four years. That has a massive impact on our national resources. Economic inactivity not only holds back growth and makes us all poorer, but it blights the lives of those without work. That is why Labour Members believe that tackling worklessness is not just an economic case but a moral crusade.

In conclusion, I want to see real support for people to get skills, opportunities and jobs. I want every 18 to 21-year-old to be offered a life off benefits through an apprenticeship or training. I want real support for people with poor mental health so that they can access the care they want. We need Labour’s Employment Rights Bill to be fully implemented to change the culture of work, so that employers work with disabled people to create the opportunities we need. Most of all, we need a system of social security that is there for everyone with a genuine need, so that no one falls into poverty because they lose their job and everyone who can work is given a path back into employment.

Welfare Reform

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I simply say to the right hon. Gentleman that there are many differences in the benefits system already—people are on different rates and have different rules depending on the time they came into the system. That has always been a part of the social security system, including under previous Labour Governments. The Timms review will look at the different descriptors and the points that are delivered to them, alongside much wider changes. PIP came in more than 10 years ago, and there have been huge changes in the nature of disability, the world of work and society. We have to ensure that this vital benefit stays in future, and that is what the Timms review seeks to achieve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I think it would be helpful to let Members know that I plan to allow this statement to continue until 5.15 pm. It would therefore be helpful if questions were short.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Over recent months, I have consulted with constituents who have lived experience of disability and the welfare system and their representatives. I know that they will welcome the Secretary of State’s statement that protections for existing claimants will be protected, but one of the most heartbreaking stories I heard in those consultations was about a young constituent who applied for hundreds of jobs and attended dozens of interviews and simply could not find a job. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what more we can do not just to support disabled people in my constituency, but to encourage employers to take on some of the talented, brilliant people living with disabilities in my constituency?

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a really important issue, which is the world of work and the need to ensure that employers recruit and retain more people with long-term sickness or a disability. That is precisely why, in addition to the huge advances in our Employment Rights Bill, we have asked Sir Charlie Mayfield, the former boss of John Lewis, to look at what more we can do to support employers to recruit and retain disabled people. We are also overhauling our jobcentres so that they provide more personalised, tailored support. Indeed, we have set our jobcentres a new goal of reducing the disability employment gap, which I believe will also make a huge difference.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Cameron Thomas.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

Welcome back, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government’s recent compromise with their own MPs secures PIP for existing claimants, but not for those who come hereafter—a distinction born not of compassion, nor apparently of economics, but to secure the Government’s own political footing. If I am wrong, will the Secretary of State describe the moral foundation for this distinction between those who suffer today and those who will suffer in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I encourage Members to keep their questions short, or they will not all get in.

[Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)]

Having met disabled constituents over the last few months, I have no doubt that the initial proposals caused anxiety, so I do welcome the changes for existing claimants and the Timms review. However, can I urge the Secretary of State to look at the sequencing to make sure that the review happens before we assess new claimants? I have one final point about the assessors themselves. There is no doubt but that the involvement of private companies such as Capita and Maximus has caused problems, as has having assessors who do not understand health conditions. Can we make sure that we look at that properly?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. For the final question, I call Sarah Coombes.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

My borough, Sandwell, has one of the highest rates in the entire country of young people not in education, employment or training. This generation of young people have been let down by years and years of system failure by the Conservative party. As we go through this necessary piece of reform, we must do it carefully. Will the Secretary of State commit to working with the Department for Education and the Department for Business and Trade? For young people to get the jobs that will transform their life chances, they will need the right qualifications as well as needing the jobs to be available.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the next speaker, may I make it clear that I will come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson immediately afterwards?

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

I welcome the return of this Bill to the House. I was happy to speak on it on Second Reading, when I welcomed the Government’s crackdown on fraud, because every pound lost to fraudulent claims is a pound that could be spent on the vital public services on which my constituents in Clwyd North rely. It is extremely good to see the recognition of the issue, and the action taken in response to the £7.1 million of fraud and error payments in 2022-23 in Wales alone—that figure is up by £600,000 on the previous year.

The fine-tuning of this Bill is important, and that fine-tuning is done through the Government amendments, which speak to the correct application under devolution settlements, policy intent, the application and limitation of part 3, and the consequential amendments proposed to parent Acts. I was glad to be a member of the Public Bill Committee that considered the Bill in more detail, and I throw my weight behind the comments made about how the Bill Committee progressed, and how helpful that was to Committee members. The explanations and expansions by the Ministers served us well and have brought us to where we are today.

I spoke on Second Reading about the distinction between intentional fraud and accidental individual error, and I am pleased that Government amendments speak to reservations relating to that, and to proportionality. Crucial safeguards will be strengthened to ensure that no one is pushed into undue financial hardship because of debt recovery. Those safeguards include strict affordability checks on recovery payments, and checks on vulnerabilities.

[Gill German]

The Bill will protect vulnerabilities where we see them and it is very much a Bill of last resort. It is aimed at people who are not engaging with the DWP on fraud and error cases. Now that carers are aware of the problems that have occurred in the system, we hope that they engage, so I do not believe that the Bill will impact them in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. Indeed, the Bill will protect claimants by enabling early dialogue, which will stop errors sooner and prevent debt building up through genuine mistakes; I initially had a reservation on that point.

It is clearer than ever that the measures are powers of last resort for those who have refused to engage and are able to pay—it is important to emphasise that point. The measures put DWP powers in line with those that already exist for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service, and put the importance of the public money spent by those bodies on an equal footing.

The behaviour change that is expected to come as a wider benefit of the Bill is welcome. The Bill encourages debtors to negotiate a repayment plan ahead of using the measures of last resort. Importantly, as has been said, it deters organised fraudsters and those looking to become involved in fraud by ensuring that it is not framed as a victimless crime. It is anything but, because it robs us all of vital money for public services. We are not willing to shrug our shoulders at that, as the Conservative party did at the rising tide of fraud during the covid pandemic and beyond. We must all reinforce the narrative that benefit fraud is not a victimless crime, and our tackling it through the Bill is long overdue.

Throughout the passage of the Bill—in Committee and now on Report—I have been reassured that those who have genuine difficulty navigating the social security system have nothing to fear from the Bill. Indeed, it will raise awareness of the importance of early dialogue. However, I still have concerns about the complexity of the system and how it is administered, as I voiced at Second Reading, but that is for another day. As a member of the Work and Pensions Committee, I will continue to focus on that, as well as having regular dialogue on the subject with my constituents.

To conclude, I welcome the Bill and the fine tuning that has come about through Government amendments passed in Committee. I was pleased to serve on my first Public Bill Committee, and thank the Chairs, Ministers and all involved for its smooth running. I am happy to support the Government amendments put to the House today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I start by assuring the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) that my office has talked me out of mentioning the Waitrose cheesecake that was a hot topic throughout Committee. On a more serious note, I would like to explore the challenges in the Bill. As we have heard, fraud can only be a bad thing, as it robs the public purse, but we need to ensure that our approach is proportionate, and that is where the rub is for us, as Liberal Democrats.

First, I want to focus on the covid crisis. We all lived through that, and some of us were in hot seats. I was leader of Torbay council at the time, so it felt as if I was in the eye of the storm for some of those challenges. I am afraid to say that for many of us in this Chamber, it feels as if the Conservatives were asleep at the wheel, given the level of fraud that we saw taking place during the pandemic. The fact that £10 billion-worth of fraud occurred around personal protective equipment is shocking. Some £16 billion of fraud occurred around support for businesses. While it was extremely important that we supported businesses appropriately, the safeguards were extremely limited. One businessman in Torbay said to me that it was as if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had got handfuls of £50 notes, filled carrier bags across the town centre, and said to the criminal element, “Come and help yourselves.” The reality is that the money could and should have been put to good use. In my constituency, Torbay hospital is crying out for investment. We have a sewage scandal, and the Environment Agency could be supported in tackling that issue. We also have the cost of living crisis; we could support people in ensuring warmer homes. All that money could help with those things.

A colleague and good friend has already alluded to the carer’s allowance crisis, and the real challenge that it poses. More than 136,000 people—the population of the Torbay unitary authority area—are affected by it. There is some £250 million of cost on those people. We Liberal Democrats fear that the powers in the Bill could make things even tougher for those who have challenges to do with the carer’s allowance.

Members do not have to take it from me that the benefits system is broken; the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister have said that it is. If there is such agreement in Government that the benefits system is broken, why are we adding to this edifice? It is built on a foundation of sand, yet we are looking to pile more responsibilities on to it, without looking for the true, positive culture change in the DWP that we need.

Colleagues have alluded to the areas of debate around the Bill. I will touch on a few major concerns that we Liberal Democrats have. The opportunity that the Bill presents for Orwellian levels of mass surveillance of those who get means-tested benefits causes me grave concern.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently reasonable and common-sense approach to this debate and on amendment 11. Does it seem to him, as it seems to me, that this legislation takes place in a wider context? Along with the proposed tightening of eligibility for personal independence payment, it moves us towards a hostile environment for benefit claimants, particularly disabled benefit claimants. We will end up treating them as suspects automatically. Does he agree that it was right for us to oppose this measure when the Conservatives wanted to do it? I tabled an early-day motion, signed by nearly 50 MPs, to that effect. We have to oppose this measure now. The best way to resolve it is by the Government accepting his eminently reasonable—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That was a very long intervention. Perhaps we would be better off going back to Neil Duncan-Jordan.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I will cover the connection between this piece of legislation and the Green Paper shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. It would be helpful if Members tried to confine their speeches to five minutes or so, but I do not propose to introduce a formal time limit yet.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I wish to speak in support of new clause 11, entitled “Publication of results of pilot schemes”. Make no mistake: this Bill allows for a massive expansion of state powers. It will permit mass financial surveillance of the public. It is a massive overreach by the state, so of course it requires close scrutiny. It requires the publication of those results, and then they must be analysed.

Let me put this in context. Before the covid years, fraud and error across the tax and benefit system were at an all-time low. Then, in 2020, after a state-imposed lockdown—another massive state intervention—unprecedented financial support was set up for millions of people, in a rush of panic, with the full support of Members on both sides of the House. I exclude myself from that, but very few Members opposed the arrangement, and it opened up all sorts of new vulnerabilities in the system.

This support was set up only because of a blanket stay-at-home mandate from the state. It was the state that opened up those fraud vulnerabilities, and it was the state that saw, as a result of those impositions, many millions more people claiming universal credit. Let me give the House the figures. In March 2020, 3 million people were receiving universal credit. By November that year 5.8 million were receiving it, and in January 2025 the number was 7.5 million. Just as the heavy-handed state intervention of lockdown left the public paying a very high price, I am concerned that the Bill, another heavy-handed state intervention, will also leave the public paying a very high price. As Big Brother Watch states, the Bill will introduce

“an unprecedented system of mass financial surveillance; create a second-tier justice system for people on the poverty line; undermine the presumption of innocence; result in serious mistakes risking the freedoms and funds of our country’s elderly, disabled and poor; and turn Britain’s once-fair welfare system into a digital surveillance system.”

I have said it before and I will say it again, lockdown was an experiment inflicted on the British people without their consent and that experiment failed. The Bill will be another such experiment on the British public.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s track record on issues like this—he has been proved right on virtually every occasion—I agree. In addition to the mass surveillance, the extent of the information that can be sought and interpreted from the Bill is extremely wide-ranging and open to challenge.

What has annoyed me is that we are now introducing legislation in advance of what we were promised by way of codes of conduct and operation. We have no idea how this will work out in practice without those codes. Members may recall that the codes set out detail on how the system would operate at every level, with the information seeking, investigatory powers and so on. We do not have those, but we are being told not to worry, because the other place will receive them—well, that is not our responsibility as MPs. Our responsibility is to deal with the matter here.

We also do not know how the “independent persons”, as they are described in the legislation, are to be appointed or how they are going to operate. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) raised the question of how their reports and recommendations will then be implemented. There is also the question of whom they will be accountable to and whether there is any accountability for those independent persons to this House.

Time and again, when we have introduced legislation like this in the past that has short-circuited the traditional protective constitutional and legal mechanisms, it has led to debacles and miscarriages. I warn Ministers that that is exactly what we are facing here. Reference has been made to issues with regard to the use of computers, models and algorithms. We seem to have learned nothing from where we have made those errors.

As I also raised on Second Reading, what is happening here is discriminatory. We are choosing a class of people—largely working-class people—who are claiming benefits, and we are targeting them. If there is a class of people we should be targeting who have a record of fraud and of claiming things that they should not, well, here we are. As the expenses scandal demonstrated, if there is one group of people we should be examining more closely, it is Members of Parliament.

I want to talk very briefly about the impact of these measures from a constituency point of view. As an MP for 28 years and a councillor for over 12 years—40 years in total—I have met lots of people who do not claim benefits to which they are entitled. They are often older people, but there are others as well. Why do they not claim? In my experience, it is because of the stigma attached to claiming benefits. With this Bill, we are adding a bit more stigma, which will act as a disincentive to those who genuinely qualify for benefits and should be coming forward. It is that terror of making an error, that fear of risking being penalised for claiming a benefit they may not be entitled to—or of being paid too much. There is a real fear among my constituents about such miscarriages.

Most of the constituents who come to our constituency surgeries have tried everything else by the time they get to us. They are the ones with the most chaotic lives. And they are the ones who get sanctioned time and again, not because of any deliberate act, but often because they have mental health issues, or because something in their life, prevents them from attending that interview, or from applying for enough jobs in time. What will happen to them? They will be dragged into this system again. At the moment, they come to us—this is largely the case in my constituency—because most of the advice agencies have been closed down thanks to the cuts that have taken place, and they come to us in desperation. This Bill will make people even more desperate. It will deter people who qualify for benefits from claiming, and it will cause real hardship and impose severe penalties on those who least deserve it. That is why I think this is a poor piece of legislation, and it will not be long before we are back here again to amend it, to restore some elements of civil liberties and protection for the poorest in our society.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I shall impose, with immediate effect, a four-minute time limit.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

When it comes to public money, everyone accepts the importance of preventing fraud; there is no dispute about that. The mere thought that our benefit system could be exploited loosens the cement holding our welfare system together. However, if we look back in history, there has been a track record of fraud recovery measures not delivering what was hoped. This measure will also probably never save the £1.5 billion that is expected of it, so I ask: will the alleged rewards of this legislation ever match the scale of the imposition on our civil liberties, and are we really going after the right targets?

We all want to catch deliberate and professional fraudsters, but they are precisely the people who are astute enough to change tactics, set up separate bank accounts, and avoid suspicion. Instead, it will be the innocent and the accidental claimants who fall into the trap. The implicit assumption is that we should trust in the DWP as a completely error-free organisation across the entirety of its massive operation. But the DWP does make mistakes. It makes mistakes all the time. And even when it knows that it has made a mistake, and it has been told so, it is very capable of making the same mistake all over again.

In my constituency of Horsham, Anthony and his husband were accused of providing misinformation to the DWP and were overpaid £10,000 as a result. Anthony protested without success. After a long fight the case went to appeal. The tribunal wasted no time deciding in his favour—it was an open and shut case. But then, earlier this year, Anthony and his husband were migrated over to universal credit. After confirming all details were correct, the DWP overpaid them again, and then sought to claw the money back over the following months. The DWP’s mistake, but Anthony pays the penalty.

The DWP has its rules, but real life does not run in straight lines. Real life is messy. How can we possibly rely on the DWP to mark its own homework when we know that there are just four fraud advisers per regional office to handle cases flagged by frontline staff?

Yes, there are some checks and balances within this legislation, but what is really needed is a profound cultural change within the DWP, and that is much harder to achieve. The common experience of people who have to deal with the DWP on a daily basis is that they feel that it is always looking to catch them out. Years and years of inflammatory rhetoric under a succession of Conservative Governments have convinced people to regard the DWP as their enemy, not their friend. If anything, the Bill digs that hole a little deeper.

What concerns me most about the Bill is its extreme overconfidence. It assumes that Government agencies always get things right and that individual citizens are to be automatically treated as objects of suspicion. In Committee, the Government were resistant to any amendments except their own, so I very much hope that they will reconsider today and accept the Liberal Democrat amendments.

Winter Fuel Payment

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson]

I will be reasonable and give way to Members, but first I want to point out that some of the money that has been saved will be spent on the national health service. There is £25.6 billion extra for the NHS this year. Unfortunately, I have had the bad luck of being in accident and emergency with a number of family members in recent months. In this place we often talk about the impact of the national health service struggling, and what I saw there shocked me. I have seen children sleeping on their coats on the waiting room floor for 12 hours. I have seen pensioners on trolleys in corridors for days, crying out for help. It is an appalling legacy—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind Members that we are debating the winter fuel payment. It is perfectly in order to try to put that in context, but perhaps we should steer away from a debate on the NHS.

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your reminder. I have come to the end of my section on context, so let me bring my speech to a close. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) makes the good point that I should give way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Around 15 Members still want to speak. The wind-ups will start at 6.35 pm, so if everyone is to get in, perhaps some thought could be given to the length of contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member, including for the way in which he puts his point. He will hopefully share my relief, then, about the household support fund, which I often find my constituents do not know about. The fund is not reported heavily in the media, so it would be wise for us all to take the opportunity in this debate to reiterate that that support is available to people who are just above the threshold and who might just miss out on accessing the winter fuel allowance, so that they know that. I signpost many concerned constituents to Citizens Advice Wirral and support them in accessing the money available through the household support fund, hundreds of millions of pounds of which has come from this Government.

Conservative Members rightly talk about the need to relieve pressures and protect the most vulnerable. However, I question where their outrage was when their Government, back in 2021, broke their manifesto commitment and suspended the triple lock; I wonder where their outrage was when their leader recently suggested that we should look at means-testing access to the state pension; and where was their outrage when only months ago the shadow Chancellor suggested scrapping the triple lock all together?

It is Labour politicians who are committed to protecting pensioners’ incomes and delivering support to those in need. I have mentioned the household support fund, and we are ending the Tories’ disastrous plans to drag a record number of pensioners into paying income tax by uprating personal tax thresholds from April 2028. Unlike the Tories, we have an iron-clad commitment to the triple lock, which will see the state pension of millions increase by more than £470 this year. I would like to hear them welcome that. We are supporting those caring for their loved ones by increasing the income threshold for carer’s allowance so that more than 60,000 carers will benefit by the end of this Parliament.

Times are tough and this Labour Government have made tough decisions to get our country back on track. As I mentioned, NHS waiting times have now fallen for five consecutive months. We have not had that for a long time. We have made a deal with GPs so that healthcare in the community works for everyone, we have targeted income support to those in the most difficulty and we have launched the biggest ever drive to ensure that those who can claim pension credit do so, with almost 50,000 more pensioners now getting the money they are entitled to. The Tory status quo meant only decline for this country. With the Government’s plan for change, we will get the country back on its feet.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I am introducing an immediate three-minute time limit. I call Bradley Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy]

The motion talks about ensuring that

“those eligible for Pension Credit receive it”.

To return to the point I made earlier, if Conservative Members were so concerned about vulnerable pensioners, why was there absolutely no movement in the take-up of pension credit under the previous Government? Some 700,000 pensioners are eligible for pension credit, but I do not remember a big campaign on that by the previous Government that made a difference—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is far too long.

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to his own Government’s promise to increase the take-up of pension credit. After the past winter, there are still 750,000 pensioners who have not taken it up, so he should not speak with any pride or seek to deflect to previous Governments when his own Government have withdrawn the winter fuel payment and there are still 750,000 eligible pensioners who are not receiving pension credit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

Once again in this House we find ourselves discussing Labour’s failure to protect our pensioners. Time and again we have exposed its false narratives and asked how it intends to use technology to reduce costs, improve services and drive productivity. This Government capitulated to the archaic working practices of train drivers and their trade union paymasters. There has been no serious attempt to modernise, no recognition of the technological advancements of the past five years, and no meaningful reforms to improve efficiency. Worse still, their Employment Rights Bill drags Britain back to 1970s French-style labour laws, rolling back the vital protections of the Trade Union Act 2016. These outdated policies stifle economic growth, make job creation harder and hand excessive power to unions—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the hon. Member that this debate is on winter fuel payments.

[Alison Griffiths]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wish to set the scene for winter fuel payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lewis Cocking]

The hon. Member makes a point that he is passionate about, but I do not agree with him. We need to produce more of our energy here at home, rather than relying on imports. That is why the Government should change their policy and issue new oil and gas licences. I urge hon. Members on the Government Benches —lots of them are honourable—to please support pensioners today and vote to keep the winter fuel allowance.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the wind-ups. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

Second Reading

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The reasoned amendment has not been selected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

The eligibility verification measure is for banks and financial institutions. It has been tightly defined, which is one of the reasons the Information Commissioner has written his response now. The last Conservative Government just referred to third-party data. That was not a serious proposal, narrowly defined with proper independent oversight. We want the legislation to pass and be used proportionately and effectively. That is why we have included the proposals as drafted.

The second important point is that there will be a statutory code of practice on how the powers can be applied, which we will consult on during the passage of the Bill, to clearly define the scope and limitations. Thirdly, there will always be vulnerability checks for each individual under the new debt recovery powers to ensure that people are not forced to pay back money that they cannot afford. Last, but by no means least, final decisions affecting benefit entitlement will always be made by a human being. Those decisions will sit alongside the right to reviews and appeals—no ifs, no buts. Put together, I believe that those new safeguards will provide the reassurance that the public and some Members of this House need that the Bill’s powers are proportionate, safe and fair.

The Bill delivers the biggest upgrade to the DWP’s anti-fraud powers in more than 14 years. It brings in new powers to tackle fraud right across the public sector by empowering the Public Sector Fraud Authority, and not before time. Our approach is tough but fair: tough on criminals who cheat the system and steal from taxpayers; tough on people who refuse to pay back money; fair on claimants, by spotting and stopping errors earlier, helping to avoid people getting into debt; fair on those who play by the rules and rely on the social security system; and fair on taxpayers, by ensuring that every pound is spent wisely, responsibly and effectively on those who need it. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what the Bill will deliver.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

A strongly held Conservative principle is that public money must not be wasted. We hold this view not because we are mean, but because the Government do not have money of their own. What they have, they raise through taxation from all of us. A tiny fraction of every penny that they spend is yours, mine and everyone else’s who pays in. Those who spend public money have a duty to spend it wisely, and ensure that it ends up only with those who should have it, for the purpose for which it was intended. In a big, complex system of government in a country of nearly 70 million people, from time to time that will not happen for a range of reasons—from a form that has been accidentally filled in with the wrong information, or a change of circumstance that someone forgot to notify the jobcentre about, to serious organised fraud—but however taxpayers have lost out, it is incumbent on the state to do all that it can to get their money back. That is what taxpayers rightly expect. It is part of the unwritten contract for collecting that money in the first place. Therefore, it will be no surprise to hear that, in principle, we support the Bill’s aim. In fact, much of the Bill continues work that we did in government, and legislation that was interrupted by the election.

It is important to put what we are discussing today in context. Before the pandemic, fraud and error across the DWP benefits and tax credit system was at a near record low, but then we had two national crises—first, the pandemic, then war in Ukraine—which piled huge cost of living pressures on families across the UK. During both, we acted rapidly. We set up never-seen-before systems of support in record time. We protected millions of people’s jobs. We paid half of everyone’s energy bills for a year. We got direct payments to the people who needed them the most. I am proud of what we did, and I think that history will look back kindly on how we supported people through those times, but the truth is that when we do something fast at a moment of crisis, that inevitably opens up new vulnerabilities in the system. Disappointingly, against a national spirit of getting through hard times together, some people saw it as a chance to make a quick buck, and we saw a material increase in the amount being lost to fraud within the system. Any and all of us could spell out better uses for that money. That is why, back in May 2022, we published our plan, “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System”. We increased the number of frontline counter-fraud professionals in the DWP, created a new Public Sector Fraud Authority and started work on new legal powers to investigate and punish fraudsters. It was a good start. In 2022-23, fraud and error were cut by 10%. We saved £1 billion through the Department’s dedicated counter-fraud activities. The next year we upped that to £1.35 billion, exceeding the £1.3 billion target, yet we were still not satisfied.

In May last year, we published a second fraud plan to save £9 billion by 2027-28, which included hiring more staff to check claims for accuracy, modernising information-gathering powers, broadening the penalty system and investing £70 million in advanced data analytics. In April, we announced plans for a new fraud Bill to align DWP investigations with HMRC, treating benefit fraud like tax fraud and giving investigators new powers to make seizures and arrests. When the general election was called, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill had already passed through the House of Commons. The Bill included the powers the Government are introducing today to require third parties, such as banks, to provide relevant information to the DWP. To the extent that this Bill continues that work, I do not envisage substantial disagreement—albeit we have questions on how the law will work in practice. I also have serious concerns about the powers that the Cabinet Office is giving itself.

Before I deal with those, let me say that I recognise the concerns that people have about the state getting too much information about their finances. Privacy should never be taken lightly. I do not want to live in a country where the Government can access our bank accounts and look at what we have been spending our money on, and I would not support a Bill that would allow the Government to do that, but I believe that it is right for the DWP to learn lessons from HMRC to recoup taxpayers’ money. The fact of the matter is that if someone receives money from the state, it is not unreasonable for the state to investigate if there are signs they are taking money that they should not be.

As I said, I have some questions about how the social security powers in the Bill will be put into practice, and I expect to probe those matters further as the Bill progresses. For instance, on the role of banks, how much testing has been done of the systems that they expect to use? The Horizon scandal is a recent reminder of how computer systems do not always get it right. What progress has been made on the code of conduct, and when will we see it? I also note that no impact assessment has been done on the cost to banks. Has the Minister met the sector and discussed what the changes mean for it? I know there are concerns within the sector about the lack of detail brought forward by the DWP. If the maximum level of scrutiny allowed under the Bill is demanded by the DWP, how would that work in practice for banks and what would it cost?

On the sanctions that can be meted out under the Bill, we support the Department for Work and Pensions being given further powers to pursue recovery outside of benefits and PAYE, but are the measures outlined in the Bill tough enough? Why is 40% the maximum amount of someone’s capital that can be reclaimed? Allowing for hardship, which the Bill does, why should someone potentially keep the majority of their ill-gotten gains?

It is not clear how the Bill intends to treat carer’s allowance overpayments, which I know from my time as Care Minister are complicated and often accidental, though unfortunately not always. None the less, they are a loss to the taxpayer that should be investigated. We would like to understand in more detail how the savings we are told to expect from the Bill will accrue. How many people does the Government think that will affect, and what proportion is it of the fraud currently being perpetrated? I was concerned the other day to see reports in the media of a number of artificial intelligence schemes being quietly shelved in the Department. It is noticeable that the plans rely heavily on human labour to root out fraud. While I know the Government have to create jobs somehow, I would be interested to hear what consideration has been given to automating some of the processes in future. That too will help ensure that taxpayers’ money does not go to waste.

I come to my main area of concern, which is the powers being given to Cabinet Office Ministers and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. I know what it is like to make legislation thinking that I, as a good person, would only use it wisely, but I also know what it is like to be wrongly investigated by a public authority on the grounds of a misleading newspaper article. Looking at the investigatory powers bestowed in chapter 2 of the Bill, how could one not be worried to see a Minister being given powers, with little oversight, to compel a person to release whatever information they wish, in any format demanded, within 10 days, along with the information of anyone connected to them, on any grounds that the Minister deems “reasonable”—and to disclose that information to whomever they think necessary, with the sole right of appeal being only to that Minister? It could be impossible for someone to comply within the timeframe given, yet the Bill includes fines set at £300 a day for missing the deadline.

Of course the Government should go after fraudsters, but I worry that some of that power could be abused and that, in its current form, it may breach laws on the state taking someone’s property without due process. I would be interested to hear if experts in the legal sector have been consulted on the legislation as drafted. Have Ministers engaged with the Law Society, the Bar Council or, for that matter, organisations like Liberty and Justice?

In the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office, it is right to pursue fraudsters with the full might of the law, but the ends cannot justify all means and the process must always be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I look forward to further discussions on the detail of the Bill, and I am sure that colleagues in the other place will be preparing for that, too.

In the meantime, we must not let the Bill distract from the elephant in the room. For every penny the Bill will save—welcome though that is—it will do nothing about the billions of pounds that will be racked up in sickness benefits under this Labour Government. It is staggering that they did not come into office with a plan. They have done nothing to halt the tide in the seven months they have been in office, and I hear that they have shelved some of the work we handed over. We have heard not a murmur about what they will actually do, just briefing after briefing to the papers. Why not bring an actual plan to Parliament rather than talking to the papers? I suspect you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might agree with me on that point.

We had a plan—where is theirs? Every day the Government scramble about without a plan costs taxpayers millions. Fraud and error in the system is a problem, and I am pleased to pledge the Opposition’s support for tackling them, but let us not use this Bill as a distraction from the big issue. We all agree that the welfare system needs reform. Let us end the briefings and have some action.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I call the next speaker, I just want to make it clear that after the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

It is absolutely right that fraud against the taxpayer, whoever it is by, is detected, that money is recovered and that future fraud is prevented. We saw fraud during covid when, for example, the abuse of the bounce back loan scheme cost the taxpayer nearly £5.5 billion. There was also covid-related contract fraud, such as the purchasing of unusable personal protective equipment, which was outrageous.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned, the National Audit Office identified six areas of fraud risk against the public sector, estimated to cost the taxpayer between £55 billion and £85 billion. They are grant fraud, which is the misappropriation or misuse of grant money; service user fraud, which we have focused on today; procurement and commercial fraud; income evasion; internal fraud and corruption; and regulatory fraud.

In its 2023-24 annual report and accounts, the DWP estimated that it made overpayments—including fraud and error—of £9.7 billion out of the £269 billion that it spent. That is 6.7% of related expenditure. However, it also made underpayments of £4.2 billion—that is 1.6% of related expenditure—up from £3.5 billion the previous year, because of underpayments of disability living allowance. Within that, there were different levels of fraud for different benefit types. For universal credit, the level of overpayment for the same period is 13.2%. That is down from a peak of 21% in early 2020, during the covid pandemic, when some of the controls were suspended to speed up the application process. In fact, by value, two thirds of all overpayments are on universal credit—£6.5 billion out of £9.7 billion.

The DWP has tried to argue that the increase in fraud in the social security system reflects an increase in fraudulent behaviour in society. However, that does not explain why the overpayments are concentrated in universal credit accounts, or why, for example, there was a 10% reduction in fraud incidents reported in the crime survey for England and Wales between 2023 and 2024. The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee agree. In its recent report on the DWP’s annual accounts, the PAC said that it was not convinced by the DWP’s claims, adding that that was a “dangerous mindset”. The Committee also produced the following context, which we should all consider:

“It is concerning that DWP is not providing a decent service to all its customers, who include some of the most vulnerable in society and some of those with the most complex needs. In particular, claimants of disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), are receiving an unacceptably poor service including processing times compared with those receiving Universal Credit (UC) and State Pension.”

I worry that many of those disabled claimants, made vulnerable by their circumstances, are receiving less than the DWP estimates that they are entitled to. I believe that there is a genuine commitment from Ministers to change the DWP’s culture and build trust with its service users, but the Bill will be seen by many as more evidence not to trust the DWP and not to engage. I am not alone in that; in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on safeguarding vulnerable claimants, Citizens Advice raised concerns that the failure to engage is the second largest category that the DWP classes as fraud, and that when the enhanced review team identifies a household as having potentially made a fraudulent claim, payments may be immediately suspended. Citizens Advice recommended that the detriment caused by such a suspension should not take place while the fraud review process is ongoing. Disability Rights UK, UK Finance and others have raised concerns about the lack of systemic safeguards in the Bill. To their credit, Ministers have accepted that and will look at it as a whole.

However, Ministers—particularly those from the last Conservative Government—will remember the housing benefit fraud allegations, in which more than 200,000 people were wrongly accused of and investigated for housing benefit fraud and error last June. An AI algorithm—which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), just said we should be using more of—incorrectly identified people as potentially behaving fraudulently, and they were investigated. That is really serious. What level of investigation of innocent people do Ministers consider acceptable?

Policy in Practice has also raised concerns about underclaiming, barriers to accessing support, the lack of value for money of the DWP’s fraud detection, prevention and recovery system, which addresses less than 5% of the debt owed, and how the focus on fraudulent claims is

“spoiling the system for the 97% of ‘genuine’ benefit claims”,

fuelling beliefs about benefit cheats, and detracting from

“the millions of households that are rightfully and legitimately supported by a social safety net designed to be there for all of us when we need it.”

I have questions for the Ministers, some of which I have raised with them before. What risk assessments of the Bill have been undertaken? I know that there is an impact assessment and a human rights assessment. What are the risks, what mitigations have been put in place, and will the Government publish them? How are safeguarding concerns, including the Caldicott principles and the responsibilities of the Caldicott guardian—which the DWP has, to its credit, now put in place—addressed in the Bill? This Bill is too important for us to mess it up and for innocent people to become the victims.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for laying out very concisely some of the challenges in ensuring that the Bill does the right thing without going too far and breaking the things that people want fixed.

Clearly, defrauding the benefits system is wrong. One need only reflect on the level of disinvestment in many of our public services by the previous Government to note how that can bleed the system dry. I reflect on my own Torbay constituency, where the hospital tower block has scaffolding around it not because it is under repair, but to prevent bits of concrete from falling and killing people. I reflect on the lack of investment in our schools; the challenges with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete mean that the necessary capital programme will not happen for the next six years. I reflect on the lack of investment in our police services, which means that the number of sworn officers has massively reduced. Those are serious issues that affect us following the lack of investment under the previous Government.

The Conservative Government were asleep at the wheel during the covid pandemic, as the Secretary of State alluded to in clear terms. Businesspeople in Torbay told me that they felt Rishi Sunak was—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we refer to Members not by name but by constituency. I think he was referring to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.

[Steve Darling]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those businesspeople felt that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was filling carrier bags full of £50 notes and placing them around towns, expecting people just to pick them up, so low were the safeguards for a number of the covid support schemes.

I will move on to an item that has already been covered by a number of colleagues: the carers scandal. More than 136,000 people—equivalent to the population of West Bromwich—have been left with liabilities of £250 million that they are extremely worried about. The Government have quite rightly commissioned a review, but it is due to report not in the near future but next summer. I challenge the Minister: why not wait for that review’s findings before we push hard on these proposals, so that we can ensure that lessons are learned? We want fraud to be tackled, but we want it done in the right way. There have been just seven working days between this Bill’s First Reading and its Second Reading. Large tracts of the safeguards and the rails around it are out for consultation as we speak, which we need if we are to understand what safeguards there will be to protect our communities.

Colleagues have already mentioned AI, and they are right to have done so, because there are real concerns about a lack of transparency—[Interruption.] Sorry, Jennie is joining in; she is having a dream about rabbits. As Liberal Democrats have already highlighted, we do not know what safeguards there will be around the use of AI. How can we back the Bill until we know what safeguards will exist? I would like to reflect on how the Bill can contain those appropriate safeguards. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth highlighted, the DWP is a broken Department.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I shall make a statement on our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, bringing forward the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, turning a Department for welfare into a Department for work, and taking the first steps towards delivering our bold ambition of an 80% employment rate in a decade of national renewal.

Nothing short of fundamental reform is needed to turn the page on the last 14 years, the legacy of which has left the UK as the only G7 country whose employment rate has not returned to pre-pandemic levels and with a near-record 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, and almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training and millions more stuck in low-paid insecure work. All those problems are far worse in the midlands and the north, parts of the country that were deindustrialised in the ’80s and ’90s—the very same places that have lower life expectancy and chronic poor health that the Conservative party repeatedly promised to level up but repeatedly failed to deliver on.

The result is an economic but, above all, social crisis, paid for in the life chances and living standards of people across this country, and by a benefits bill for sickness and disability that is set to rise by £26 billion by the end of this Parliament. We have ended up here because of the failure of Conservative Members to create good jobs in every part of the country, to deliver on the NHS, and to properly reform welfare. Under our Government, that will change, with new opportunities matched by the responsibility to take them up: under this Labour Government, if you can work, you must work.

Our White Paper brings in three major reforms. First, we will create a new jobs and careers service that overhauls jobcentres: from a one-size-fits-all service that overwhelmingly focuses on administering benefits, to a genuine public employment service that provides personalised support for all. We will bring jobcentres together with the National Careers Service in England, beginning with a pathfinder early next year, backed with £55 million of initial funding. We will work closely with mayors and local leaders to ensure that our new jobs and careers service is rooted in local communities and properly joined up with local help and support. We will also work closely with employers to develop the service, because only one in six businesses has ever used a jobcentre to recruit, and that must change.

For too many people, walking into a jobcentre feels like going back in time to the ’80s or ’90s, so we will trial a radically improved digital offer using the latest technologies and AI to provide up-to-date information on jobs, skills and other support, and to free up work coach time. We will also test video and phone support—because in the 2020s, rather than go into the jobcentre only every week or fortnight, people can have a jobcentre in their pocket. Our frontline staff are our greatest asset, so we will develop the work coach and careers adviser professions, including by launching a new coaching academy.

The second major reform is our new youth guarantee, so that every young person is earning or learning. This comes alongside our commitment to provide mental health support in every school, our work experience and careers advice offer, and our plans to reform the last Government’s failed apprenticeship levy to give more young people the opportunities they deserve. Our new youth guarantee will go further, bringing together all the support for 18 to 21-year-olds under the leadership of mayors and local areas so all young people have access to education, training and employment opportunities and no young person misses out. Today I can announce that we will establish eight trailblazer areas for our youth guarantee: the Liverpool city region, the west midlands, Tees valley, east midlands, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, west of England, and two areas within Greater London, backed by £45 million of additional funding.

I can also announce a new national partnership to provide exciting opportunities for young people in sports, arts and culture, starting with some of Britain’s most iconic cultural and sporting organisations, including the Premier League, the Royal Shakespeare Company, and Channel 4, building on the brilliant work they already do to inspire and engage the younger generation and get them on the pathway to success.

This is our commitment to young people: “We value you, you are important, we will invest in you and give you the chances you deserve; but in return for these new opportunities, you have a responsibility to take them up, because being unemployed or lacking basic qualifications when you are young can harm your job prospects and wages for the rest of your life. And that is not good enough for young people or for our country.”

The third reform in our White Paper is our new plan to drive down economic inactivity caused by poor health. The Health Secretary is already taking action to get people back to health and back to work, with extra support to drive down waiting lists in the 20 NHS trusts with the highest levels of economic inactivity. We are joining up employment and health support, expanding individual placement support to reach an additional 140,000 people with mental health problems and delivering new WorkWell services, which include GPs referring patients to employment advisers and other work-related support such as the brilliant service in the Junction Medical Practice in North London we visited recently.

However, we will go much further and faster to tackle this issue. To meet the scale of the challenge, we will devolve new funding, new powers and new responsibilities to tackle economic inactivity to mayors and local areas, because local leaders know their communities best. We will support all areas in England to produce local “Get Britain Working” plans, joining up work, health and skills support.

Today I am announcing eight trailblazer areas backed by £125 million of additional funding in south Yorkshire, west Yorkshire, the north-east, Greater Manchester, Wales, York and north Yorkshire, and two Greater London areas. In three of these areas—south and west Yorkshire, and the north-east—this will include dedicated input and £45 million of funding for local NHS integrated care systems. We are also funding a new supported employment programme called Connect to Work, backed by £115 million of initial funding for next year. This will be included in the integrated settlements of combined authorities, starting with Greater Manchester and the west midlands.

Employers have such an important role to play in helping get people into work, and crucially to stay in work, so today I can announce a new independent “Keep Britain Working” review, looking at the role of UK employers and Government in tackling health-related inactivity and creating healthy workplaces. This will be led by the former chair of John Lewis, Sir Charlie Mayfield, and will report in the autumn.

Finally, we will bring forward a Green Paper on our proposals for reforming the health and disability benefits system, so that disabled people and those with health conditions have the same rights as everybody else, including the right to work; so that we treat disabled people with dignity and respect; and so that we shift the focus to prevention and respond to the complex and fluctuating nature of today’s health conditions. We will work closely with disabled people and their organisations as we develop our proposals, which we will publish in the spring.

This White Paper starts to turn the corner on the past 14 years, putting forward the real reforms we need to get more people into work and on at work, to give young people the very best start in life and to ensure our employment and social security system understands the fundamental issue that a healthy nation and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin. This is how we get Britain working again. It is how we get Britain growing again, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Conservatives are the party of work and aspiration—[Interruption.] In the decade after we took over from Labour, we drove down unemployment—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Helen Whately]

In the decade after we took over from Labour, we drove down unemployment and economic inactivity year after year, including youth unemployment, which went down by 400,000 after the mess we inherited from the last Labour Government. During the pandemic, we took unprecedented action to protect jobs and livelihoods, but since the pandemic we have faced a new and difficult challenge in this country: rising economic inactivity, particularly among young people. In government, we were tackling that. I know that, because as a Health Minister I was working on it. I am delighted that the right hon. Lady and the Health Secretary visited one of our WorkWell pilots just the other day. I was working on our fit note reforms, our youth offer, which helped a million young people, and our universal support scheme, which I now hear the Secretary of State has quietly rebranded as her own Connect to Work scheme.

Far from being cross that the Government are pinching our ideas, I welcome the right hon. Lady taking our work forward. She is making the right noises about how important it is to fix this area. Economic inactivity is a big problem for our economy and for each and every individual who risks being written off to a life on benefits. Knowing that, I am disappointed by the substance of what she is announcing today, because far from matching her rhetoric, it appears to be little more than a pot of money for local councils, some disparaging language about the work of jobcentres and a consultation that will be launched in the spring. Given that the Government have had 14 years to prepare for this moment, is that it?

Where are the reforms to benefits that will make material savings to the taxpayer, such as the £12 billion we committed to save in our manifesto? Where are the reforms to fit notes, which we had handed over, ready to go? Where is the Secretary of State’s plan for reforming the work capability assessments? She has banked the £3 billion of savings from our plan, but has failed to set out her own. Her big announcement is making benefits for young people conditional. Did she forget that they already are?

The fact is that the Secretary of State has dodged the tough decisions. Every day that she kicks the can down the road costs the taxpayer millions of pounds. At this rate, spending on sickness benefits will rise to £100 billion by the end of this Parliament. They are taking that money from farmers, from pensioners and from businesses. To get people off benefits, we need jobs for them to go into. Those are the very jobs that businesses are saying, since the Budget, they will no longer be hiring for. While the right hon. Lady tries to get people into work, her Chancellor is busy destroying jobs—50,000 jobs lost from her first Budget alone.

If the Secretary of State wants to get more 18-year-olds into work, she should have a word with her Chancellor, who has made it so that from April it will cost £5,000 more for a business to employ them. She should have a word with her Business Secretary, whose Employment Rights Bill will, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, make it less likely for employers to take on young people. The Government cannot solve this problem on their own. Businesses are the engine of our economy that create jobs for people to do. It is telling that I cannot see a single business representative on the new Labour Market Advisory Board.

I did hear the right hon. Lady talk about some new partnerships, but this announcement is such a song and dance about so little that I feel sure she will qualify for one of her own Royal Shakespeare Company apprenticeships. She has kicked the can so far down the road that her new partner, the Premier League, is sure to be on the phone by the end of the day.

May I for a moment cut through the word soup of the announcement? It is time for the right hon. Lady to tell the House some facts. How many people will it help into work, and by when? What is the total she is saving the taxpayer? When will she reach her 80% employment target? What return on investment is she expecting from these plans? How will she measure her success or failure? This is so far from the bold grasping of the nettle that she is making it out to be and that this country needs for our economy, for taxpayers and for the millions of people missing out on the purpose and freedom that work brings. It is simply not good enough.

[Liz Kendall]

May I say gently to the hon. Lady, who I personally like and have a great deal of time for, that the only people who dodge difficult decisions on welfare are the Conservatives? The facts speak for themselves. By the end of this Parliament, the Office for Budget Responsibility says that 420,000 more people will be on health-related universal credit benefits, rising from a third now to a half at the end of the Parliament. That is her Government’s legacy. One in eight of all our young people are not in education, employment or training. We have seen a doubling in the number of young people out of work due to long-term sickness and a doubling of young people out of work because of mental health problems. After 14 years in government, who does she think is responsible for that? I am afraid that the truth is staring her in the face: the Conservatives are now the party of welfare, and Labour is the party of work.

The hon. Lady talks about British businesses. I know only too well the pressures that many businesses face. We have spoken to the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the British Chambers of Commerce, and they are keen to work with us on our proposals. They know that their members have hundreds of thousands of vacancies that they need to fill, one in three of which is because of skills gaps. They know that 300,000 people every single year fall out of work due to a health condition. They need support to try to tackle that problem. I believe that the Department for Work and Pensions and jobcentres should serve businesses’ needs and aspirations, not be the place of last resort. That is precisely what our reforms will deliver.

Finally, the biggest challenge we face today is the growing number of people out of work or at risk of falling out of work due to health problems or a disability. Our entire employment and benefits system is simply not geared up to deal with that. We will take examples of good practice from wherever we find them, but we have got to go much further. We need big reforms, not easy slogans that say people just felt a bit too bluesy to work, which do nothing to help people get to grips with the real issues in their lives. We are facing up to our responsibilities and the difficult decisions necessary to get Britain working again. It is time the hon. Lady and her party did the same.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and I look forward to reading the White Paper later. The cross-departmental approach she is taking with colleagues is essential and is a breath of fresh air, particularly in relation to tackling the root causes of economic inactivity, which she has explained predominantly relate to ill health.

In addition to the need to tackle regional inequalities in employment, my right hon. Friend will be aware that there is a 30% disability employment gap, with 2.25 million disabled people wanting and able to work. How will she tackle that real injustice? We know that disabled people are more likely to be living in poverty than other groups. What are her specific plans in that regard?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important question. The Minister for Social Security and Disability and I are working hard to tear down the barriers to disabled people being able to get work and get on in work. We are taking action across Government, including reporting on the disability employment gap. We need to tackle the long waits for Access to Work and the adaptations and other support that people need.

We also need brilliant supported employment programmes for people with autism and learning difficulties, such as those that I and my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary recently visited in our own NHS trusts. They really provide a pathway to work, with the right help and support. There is much more that we need to do, and I look forward to discussing these issues with my hon. Friend and other members of the Committee.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Under the Conservatives the UK’s was the only economy to see employment rates fall over the last five years, leaving a legacy of wrecked apprenticeships, mental health services not fit for purpose and millions on waiting lists unable to work, as well as those with caring responsibilities staying at home to provide care for their loved ones because of the failure in our social care system. The Liberal Democrats welcome steps to improve access to skills, training and education. I praise the work of Fedcap and Maximus UK, which are doing just that in Chichester in conjunction with the jobcentres, working with those who have had long periods of economic inactivity or have additional challenges in finding work. But the insecurity and short-term nature of Government funding for such projects means that both organisations had to pause their referrals this year while they waited for the Government to confirm their continued funding. I am sure that the Secretary of State agrees that to get people back into work, the organisations already trying to do that need more security from the Government.

When it comes to tackling the mental health crisis, it is not enough to reverse the Conservatives’ lack of action. The Government must be proactive in improving mental health services. I invite the Secretary of State to take the proactive ideas that the Liberal Democrats laid out in our general election manifesto such as catching more mental health conditions early on by offering mental health MOTs and the introduction of mental health hubs in every community to deliver ease of access to walk-in services and support.

It is abundantly clear that ensuring people get the NHS treatment they need is critical to getting people back to work. The NHS cannot tackle its long waiting lists unless the Government get serious about fixing the crisis in social care. We have heard a lot of words from the Government on social care but seen little action, with the increase in the social care budget totally eroded by the national insurance contribution rise. Does the Secretary of State agree that a healthy society is a productive society and that fixing the health and social care crisis will get our country back to work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

The right hon. Gentleman raises many important points. As I said earlier, it is absolutely the case that Northern Ireland has the highest level of economic inactivity in the UK. We will set clear objectives for our plans as we work with the devolved Administrations, and at local level, to get the levels of economic inactivity down. That will be challenging because, as I said earlier, only 3% of people who are economically inactive get back to work each year. We need to increase that, and the only way we can do it is by more fully joining up work, health and skills support. Too much of the focus of welfare reform over the past 14 years has been on the benefit system alone. Clearly, the benefit system can incentivise or disincentivise work. We want it to incentivise work, but we also know that we need to join up work, health and skills if we are to get every part of the United Kingdom working again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

This statement will run until 3 o’clock, so short questions and short answers would be very helpful.

[Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)]

It is a sad reality that there are fewer people in work today than in 2019, before the pandemic, so I am under no illusions about the scale of the challenge. When I talk to young people in Welwyn Hatfield, the thing that most concerns me is that they often cite problems with their mental health as being a barrier to getting into work or progressing in work. Can my right hon. Friend reassure me that she will work in lockstep with the Health Secretary? We on the Labour Benches understand that investment in a healthy workforce is a down payment on future prosperity for us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to the work that I did prior to prior to entering this place. It is difficult enough for a disabled person to enter employment; it is even more difficult for a disabled person to remain in employment if the employers are not aware of or not accommodating their disabilities and the reasonable adjustments that they might need. Within the debate on this White Paper, will the Secretary of State ensure that the work of exemplar employers is picked up and credited? There must be a recognition of the value that disabled people can bring to all workplaces. I also invite her to come and meet my old team in the employability service within NHS Lanarkshire, who have worked not just with Project Search but with disabled—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I call the Secretary of State.

[Liz Kendall]

The issue that my hon. Friend raises is so important, and Sir Charlie Mayfield, who will be running our “Keep Britain Working” review, will indeed look at best practice among some great employers who understand what needs to happen to help disabled people get work and stay in work. If my hon. Friend writes to me about that exemplar working, I will make sure that he sees it.

Income Tax (Charge)

Caroline Nokes Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in employer national insurance contributions will impact charities, as well as businesses and GP surgeries? They include the Children’s Trust in Tadworth, in my constituency, which is a leading charity that provides support to children with brain injury. That charity now needs to find an additional significant—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Interventions must be brief. I think the hon. Lady has made her point.

[Ben Obese-Jecty]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

In my constituency, farmers have been left reeling by the Government’s ruinous family farms tax that effectively ends the family farm through their reckless slashing of agricultural property relief, yet the Government repeatedly claimed there would be no tax rises on “working people”. Are the Government honestly suggesting that farmers are not “working people”? Those on the Government Benches made repeated assurances over the past year. The duplicity of the Labour party on this issue is breathtaking. At last year’s Country Land and Business Association conference, the now Environment Secretary stated that

“we have no intention of changing APR.”

The CLA has said that the change could harm 70,000 UK farms, declaring it a “betrayal” that

“puts dynamite beneath the livelihoods of British farming.”

The Prime Minister and the Environment Secretary were more than happy to leverage support from the countryside, with glossy photoshoots of rambling around the countryside in designer wellies. Indeed, the Prime Minister was very eager to make his pitch to rural communities during his Country Life article and photoshoot in September last year, in which he said:

“The need for stability now is urgent: farmers need to plan for the long term more than ever before.”

I doubt farmers were expecting that long-term planning to include being forced to sell 20% of their farms, making them unviable, or taking a 20% loan to cover those costs, potentially saddling the next generation with debts that farming is not profitable enough to repay.

Only yesterday, the Chancellor stated on the BBC that:

“Only a very small number of agricultural properties will be affected”.

A £1 million farm is 100 acres. According to DEFRA’s agricultural facts summary, published the day after the Budget, on 31 October, the average UK farm size is just over 200 acres. How can the Chancellor make her claim when the relevant Government Department has itself contradicted her position?

Given the speed and alacrity with which the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero has covered the countryside with solar panels, it should come as no surprise that the Government are so eager to force farmers out of business, freeing up swathes of the countryside to be sold to developers for more of the same. The Government will be forced into rowing back on this policy, whether it be now or after the visual spectacle of demonstrating farmers blockading Parliament Square with tractors. I urge the Government to do the right thing now, rather than being forced to do so in a few weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I plan to call the first Front-Bench spokesman at 9.40 pm. That means that many hon. Members will not get in, but there will be more Budget debate opportunities tomorrow and on Wednesday.

I will reduce the speaking limit to two minutes after the next speaker. I call Nick Timothy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.