Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Cat Smith Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

As Chair of the Procedure Committee, I am often asked about how we legislate in this House. Many Members, and members of the public, have approached me about the speed with which the Bill is being pushed through. Moving from Second Reading to Third Reading in eight days does not give Members the time they deserve to scrutinise the Bill, and by denying the Bill the opportunity to go into Committee, we are denying disabled people and their organisations time and space to give evidence and ensure that the Bill is the best it can be. We all agree that the current system is broken. I have been a constituency MP for 10 years, and I have lost count of the number of times that I have sat in advice surgeries with constituents who have been failed by the current system. The need for reform is clear, but it is also clear that we need to do it in co-production with disabled people.

One of my closest friends, Zara, is a disability rights activist—indeed, she was when I met her when we were 18. She taught me many things. She taught me that having a disability was no barrier to living a full and exciting life. She taught me never to dance too closely on the dancefloor of a nightclub to someone in a wheelchair, because you will lose a toenail. She taught me “nothing about us without us.” That is the thing she taught me that I value most, and those are the values with which I approach the Bill.

When we legislate for disabled people without involving them, we make bad legislation—we make poor legislation, and I mean “poor” in many senses, because the Bill will push 150,000 disabled people into poverty. As a Labour MP and someone who cares deeply about reducing poverty, I cannot do that. PIP is an in-work benefit and enables many of my disabled constituents to be able to go to work in the first place, and the threats we see to it actually threaten their ability to access work. I have heard from constituents who are concerned about the fact that PIP is a passport benefit to claiming things such as carer’s allowance, and I seek reassurance on that from those on our Front Bench.

Most people would agree that eligibility for disability benefits should be determined on need. The concessions we have had from Government this week lead me to think that that value is not shared, because we will see future claimants being judged differently from today’s claimants. That means that in two years’ time, when I am sat in my advice surgery hearing from a constituent who is struggling to access PIP, I will be asked a question about how I voted today. I will be asked to explain why, because that constituent’s diagnosis or accident happened later than somebody else’s who has been left with the same disabilities, one of them is eligible and the other is not. I do not think I can look my constituents in the eye and say that I voted for a fair system, because this is not fair. A two-tier system for disability is unfair, and I do not want to be able to justify that. The Timms review will not be out until autumn next year, and I am beginning to wonder what the point of it is if the four-point rule will already be implemented by that point.

It is not easy to vote against my party Whip. I joined the Labour party 21 years ago—I added it up recently, and it was a bit of a shock that that was more than half my life. I joined because I believe in social justice and equality. I joined because people such as Zara taught me it was important to stand up for social justice and equality. I joined a Labour party that was reducing child poverty and introducing things such as the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and actually making life better for disabled people, and I have not changed: those are still my values today. That is why tonight I will vote for the reasoned amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). I will do so because it is consistent with my values as a Labour MP and with the mantra that Zara taught me: “Nothing about us without us”.

Oral Answers to Questions

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

I can tell the right hon. Member about pensioner poverty. It halved under the last Labour Government and it rose on the Conservatives’ watch, by 200,000. Yes, we have had to make some difficult choices, but it is because of those difficult choices that we can afford a £31 billion annual increase in the state pension over the current Parliament and an extra £26 billion a year for the NHS. None of those choices would the Conservatives back, which is why the NHS and the state pension would be endangered on their watch.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

In my 10 years as a Member of Parliament, I have run consistent campaigns throughout my constituency to raise awareness of pension credit and encourage hundreds of people to sign up to it, but I know that many of my constituents are just above the threshold and by no means well off. What assessment will the Government make of those who are not eligible for pension credit but will still face fuel poverty next winter?

[Torsten Bell]

I am grateful for the work that has been done by councils and third sector organisations throughout the United Kingdom to drive uptake of pension credit. That work has led to the 50,000 extra awards that I mentioned earlier. The choices we have made mean that we can protect pensioners across the board, and the 4.1% increase in the state pension in April was possible exactly because of the tough choices that we have had to make.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Savage]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I include that figure—that staggering amount of public support for WASPI compensation—later in my speech.

At least 80 Ministers previously pledged support for the WASPI campaign while in opposition but, somehow, that support has not survived the transition into power. The 160,000 people who signed this petition feel betrayed and, as already mentioned, it is worth noting that 74% of the public support compensation for WASPI women.

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this Petitions Committee debate. As the previous Chair of the Petitions Committee, I know that 160,000 people signing a petition shows the strength of feeling, as very few petitions reach that threshold. Does she agree that that is a testament to the commitment of WASPI campaigners?

[Dr Savage]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady.

The assumption that affected women should have monitored their pensions is deeply offensive. Like most normal people, they were focused on their lives, their work and their families. The oft-cited statistic that 90% of women knew about the changes is misleading; it comes from a 2006 survey about the general awareness of possible future changes, not the specific impact on individuals, and only 5% of the respondents to that survey were 1950s-born women. The ombudsman, in fact, found that only 43% knew that their pension age was 65.

Income Tax (Charge)

Cat Smith Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)]

The theme of today’s debate is the effect of the budget on working people. In the UK, it is estimated that 17 million working days are lost each year due to alcohol-related sickness. It is not just days lost; it is also decreased productivity, because alcohol abuse can lead to employees arriving late for work and being absent more often. Some workplace cultures encourage drinking—I think on that point, colleagues, we have to take a look at our own workplace. As we sit here, imagine for a moment that every seat in the Chamber was full but that, instead of seeing our colleagues, we could see the faces of those lost to alcohol harm. That is the reality: every week, the equivalent of this entire Chamber dies because of alcohol.

Just before the election was called, I was informed that as a district, Lancaster has the highest rate of alcohol-related deaths in England. That led me to look more into the issue in the hope of finding solutions to it. I discovered that since 2010, deaths from alcohol across the UK have risen by 42%. One of the main reasons is that alcohol has become much more affordable, due to successive Governments cutting alcohol duty rates—short-sighted and naive decision making that is out of step with the evidence that has come from experts for years. The knock-on effect on our public finances and wider economy is clear. The Institute of Alcohol Studies recently found that alcohol harm costs our society more than £27 billion a year.

Fortunately, however, there is also abundant evidence about what works to reduce alcohol consumption and harm, while raising much-needed revenue for vital public services. The World Health Organisation identifies tackling alcohol affordability as the most effective and cost-effective way of reducing alcohol harm across the world. Alcohol duty is best placed to do that, and has the advantage of also raising revenue for the Treasury. The duty revenue should cover the costs of harm, but currently it covers barely half the cost of the harm to society.

My plea to those on the Government Front Bench is that they stop placating the multi-billion-pound alcohol industry under the guise of helping pubs. Almost every time duty rates have been cut, Chancellors have proclaimed it as a victory for pubs—but that simply is not true. It helps supermarkets far more, allowing them to maintain much cheaper prices on alcohol. The only time in recent decades that that gap did not grow was under the last Labour Government, which introduced a duty escalator, increasing duty above inflation each year. During that period, the death rate from alcohol steadily fell.

Although I welcome the vast majority of the content of this Budget, I implore those on the Government Front Bench to look again at the cost of alcohol to our society and at how we address deaths from alcohol.