Welfare Spending
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Well, there we have it—as ever, all politics and no economics. The Conservatives come to this House to talk not about the people of this country, but about themselves. In March, we found out the truth of the Tory record on child poverty, which is highly relevant to their motion today. From 2010 to 2024, the number of poor children skyrocketed by nearly 1 million. After 14 years in office, the Conservatives left us with 4.5 million of our children growing up without the ability to make ends meet. That is what Tory Governments do, just as they did from 1979 to 1997, when child poverty more than doubled, leaving 4.2 million children in relative poverty. The Conservatives can come to this House to defend the failures of the last Government as many times as they like, as their motion does today. Every single time, we will remind them of their record.
Alison McGovern
I will give way if the hon. Gentleman apologises to the 4.5 million children in this country growing up in poverty.
Graham Stuart
The Minister and Labour Members are in absolute denial about the state of the country. The Government came in with growth as their No. 1 mission, and what have they done? They have brought growth to an absolute, shuddering halt. They have done what every Labour Government do, which is to increase unemployment. Who does that hurt the most? It is the poorest. From an age point of view, who does that hurt the most? It is the young. An increase in youth unemployment of 45% was a scar on this country that the last Labour Government left. It was the Conservative Government that outgrew Germany, France, Japan and Italy over the 14 years we were in power. She should be ashamed of her record, even though it is only 12 months old.
Alison McGovern
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that lengthy intervention. I deeply regret that he does not feel the need to look his own record in the face and, more than anything, that he has nothing to say to the 4.5 million children in this country without the means to make ends meet.
Emergency food parcels distributed by Trussell Trust food banks have increased by 164% over the past 10 years, and 1.1 million children are living in households that have gone to a food bank over the past 12 months. In this country we now have more food banks than police stations. Are the Conservatives proud of that record? I hope not.
Nobody in this country should be begging—no child should face that indignity. The consequences are serious. Over 80% of parents say they struggle to get basic support, such as a GP appointment, or to see a health visitor. Schools are in an attendance crisis, with one in five kids now missing a day a fortnight or more, and it is worse for poor kids. That is the Conservatives’ record. These failures for our children will echo down the years and will turn up in our nation’s life expectancy, the benefits bill they say they care about and, worst of all, in the sense of hopelessness that far too many people in this country now have.
Do the Conservative Opposition have a response on their record? As we have heard, no, they do not. Have they apologised to families in the UK? As we have heard, no, they have not. Have they reflected on their record? As we have heard, no, they have not. They bring a motion to this House to do none of the above, but to agree with the Tory party policy from 10 years ago. They are the same Conservative party that created the mess we are in now, and they have no regrets. Their motion talks of a benefits trap, and the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) just repeated that. They will be awfully cross when they find out who spent £3 billion on the universal credit system that they now say traps people in poverty. They promised that universal credit would get people into work; instead, it pushed people into incapacity benefits.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Tackling the causes of child poverty is the reason I came into this place. As a teacher and then cabinet member for education, I know only too well about the child poverty that has grown for over a decade—I could see it happening before my eyes. In Wales, much has already been put in place to mitigate the impact, including in my own work: long-established free breakfast clubs, work to lower the cost of the school day and universal free school meals in every primary school.
There is also the incredible work that my local schools do, with family support spaces, banks of winter coats and food banks—yes, food banks—in schools, to make sure that children go home to a proper meal. The necessity of these in 21st-century Britain is a stain on our country, so when I hear Conservative Members talk about benefits culture, blaming people for their financial struggles and telling them to live within their means, I am frankly staggered, because it is their inaction and shoulder-shrugging that has led us to where we are today.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Lady recognise that there were 800,000 fewer people—including 300,000 children—in absolute poverty and 4 million more people in work in the UK when the Conservatives left power in 2024 than there were in 2010? Labour Governments take us in the opposite direction: they put people in the dole queue and make the whole country poorer. That is why the Conservative party can be proud of its role in poverty reduction, including for children.
Gill German
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but to be frank, I do not recognise any of it. The Tories sat on their hands and allowed low-paid work to grow, access to work to dwindle, welfare dependency to deepen and daily living costs to soar.
Dr Mullan
Not right now.
I recognise, of course, that some people are not able to make the same choice about the number of children in their family—including, for example, children who are cared for under kinship arrangements, or adopted; there are many exceptions to the policy to make it fair. The welfare system is already growing unsustainably, with spending on health and disability benefits alone set to hit £100 billion by the end of the decade, yet Labour, Reform and the Liberal Democrats all back higher welfare spending, including scrapping the two-child limit, which will keep taxes high. The Resolution Foundation estimates that scrapping the two-child benefit limit will cost £3.5 billion a year by 2029-30. Is this really an appropriate time to put more pressure on the public finances?
Graham Stuart
The focus of the motion today is the two-child benefit limit, yet we heard not a single word from the Minister about it. That shows just how listless and drifting the Government are, when those on the Front Bench cannot tell the truth to this House or to those on the Back Benches. The truth is that the Labour party is riven in two, and those on the Front Bench no longer have any power of propulsion.
Dr Mullan
As others have pointed out, the Government put forward welfare reforms that were supposed to save money but ended up costing money, and this is yet another attempt to placate their Back Benchers in a way that we cannot afford. We must be clear about our record: we brought down absolute child poverty when we were in government. Labour Members are happy to quote figures on relative poverty and take them at face value, but when we quote figures on absolute poverty from the same datasets, they do not want to hear it. I am clear that I care more about absolute poverty, and how much someone actually has to spend on things that they need, than I do about relative poverty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Before I turn to some of the rawer politics as the debate demands, I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in this important debate. Like other hon. Members, I am appalled by the level of child poverty in this country. Running through the debate was an underlying and understandable anger at the unacceptable increase in child poverty since 2010, with 1.1 million children using food banks to eat.
Graham Stuart
I am sure that the Minister wants to give a fair and balanced overview, and we all wish to see fewer people in relative poverty, notwithstanding his support last week for a measure that would have put it up by a quarter of a million. Just to have balance on the record, does he recognise that, in absolute terms, between 2010 and 2024 the number of children in poverty dropped by 300,000, and the number of people in poverty overall by 800,000?
Andrew Western
I absolutely accept that the Conservative party, because of its shameful record, made a fundamental change to the way in which poverty is assessed. We have returned to the internationally recognised comparator that exposes that shameful record. We will not run away from that internationally recognised comparator. It is on that on which we will be judged, and the Conservatives must also be judged on that.
I thank Labour Members who spoke in the debate so passionately about the work that the Government have already done on child poverty and the Conservative party’s shameful record. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—and, yes, my hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman). He and I may not agree on the process being followed by the Government to tackle child poverty wherever we see it, but I do not doubt his commitment and support to tackling it.
I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for his powerful personal testimony about his upbringing, and about the stigma of poverty and the shame that many parents feel when they require extra support. Like him, I grew up in modest circumstances, as one of five children. For a period, in a single-parent household, we were dependent on tax credits, child tax credits and the education maintenance allowance—remember that? I will not allow privately educated Conservative spokespeople to lecture us on the plight of struggling families up and down the country when they have shown no care at all about the part they played in putting many of those families into crisis.
Andrew Western
What is low is scrapping the Child Poverty Act in 2016. The Conservatives’ record on child poverty is cheap and low. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) can continue to chunter from a sedentary position; I could reel off their record all day.
Andrew Western
I am afraid I will not take any further interventions, as I only have a couple of minutes left. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) tempted me to speculate about decisions around taxation. He will appreciate that that is way above my pay grade, and I hope that he is patient enough to wait for the next fiscal event to get an answer to his question.
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given collective responsibility, is it in order for a Minister of the Crown to argue against a policy of his own Government? If I have understood correctly, it is the policy of the Government and the Labour party to maintain the two-child benefit cap.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that that is not a matter for the Chair, and he is seeking to drag me into the debate.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsWednesday 9th July 2025
(1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 View all Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at as at 9 July 2025 - (9 Jul 2025)
Debbie Abrahams
Let us be clear: this will apply to newly acquired conditions in particular. My argument is that by delaying the changes, we can ensure that people with a newly acquired disability or condition can receive treatment and care quickly by making sure that the NHS ramps up its treatment process. I do not think it is ideal, but it is a reasonable compromise, and I hope the Government will listen.
As I said, people with both new and existing severe conditions will be protected. This, I understand, is covered in Government amendment 2 and new clause 1.
There is significant evidence of the harms that disabled people would potentially have experienced if the Bill had remained in its previous form, but the concessions that have been made over the past couple of weeks have addressed that. I applaud the Government for that; it was definitely the right thing to do when the evidence was provided. When our fiscal rigidity is set to cause harm and undermine what we are trying to do in the longer term, it is right that we think again, and Iusb therefore urge the Government to consider my amendments.
There is strong evidence that the Government will make savings in social security spending in the long term through case off-flows. As I have mentioned before, that will be achieved naturally through the additional capacity in the NHS, the realignment of the labour market and, of course, the bringing forward of the employment support.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.
The Bill is being rushed through by a Labour Government desperate to paper over the cracks in an economy that they themselves have brought to a shuddering halt. So many of the questions that are coming before the House at the moment are the result of that economic flatlining and the flailing of a Government who are casting around desperately to see how they can get themselves off that economic hook.
Put simply, the Bill is unaffordable. The Prime Minister’s latest concessions to his unruly Back Benchers—now happy and victorious—have left the Exchequer with a £5 billion gap to plug, which inevitably means higher taxes for hard-working families who are already feeling the pinch. Far too few of those voices will be heard today. Too often in debates in this House, Members are consumed with the idea that more spending is a better thing that can always be afforded, and therefore no responsible decisions need to be made. That was the decision of the Labour Back Benchers who wrested from those on the Front Bench control of one of the flagships of this Government’s agenda, leaving the Government—massively endowed as they are with Members of Parliament—like some gigantic ship that has lost all power and propulsion, listing at sea, waiting for the next wave to come along.
Graham Stuart
As we in this Chamber know, the next wave that comes along and buffets this Labour Government from the left comes all too often from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), to whom I am happy to give way.
Graham Stuart
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that we should consider such people. I think of the lady who came to see me on Saturday at my street surgery. She was concerned about the brutality of the PIP process and the way that she and her husband, who has a degenerative, progressive disease for which there is no cure, are put through the wringer to justify their situation, which anyone with any common sense would see deserves support. But the hon. Lady will be aware of the mushrooming in claims from those with various levels of mental health challenges.
Ultimately, we must balance looking after people with degenerative, progressive diseases in a humane and civilised manner with making sure that we have a system that cuts out fraud, and that seeks to minimise those who do not need aid seeking it and getting it. If only we could have a system in which people did not claim for money that they do not deserve and need, we would be able to look after the people whom I think—this is one area of commonality between the hon. Lady and me—both she and I would agree require fairer and more generous treatment.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Does the right hon. Member agree that the reduction in investment in the NHS and in mental health service support for the people of our country has led to an epidemic of people who have had to wait for support, sometimes for nearly two years, which worsens their condition and makes it harder for them to recover and go back to their normal daily life at work? That also leads to an increased demand on PIP.
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. We on the Conservative Benches know that throwing money at a problem without proper safeguards is not leadership, is not generous and is not kind, but is an abrogation of responsibility and economic negligence.
Let me be clear: this Bill in its current form locks in billions of pounds of additional welfare spending year after year. Under the current Chancellor, we have already seen Britain’s debt interest forecast soar and the bond markets become jittery—more than that, they are charging far more than after the mini-Budget to which Labour Members so love to refer. And inflation, of course, has proven stubbornly high. Now we have yet another unfunded spending commitment, with no plan to pay for it except reaching deeper into taxpayers’ pockets. The Chancellor might not say it outright, but families in Beverley and Holderness and across the country know exactly where this ends up—with them paying more.
The Prime Minister can indulge in his favourite hobby of U-turning his way throughout his time in office, but that is not governing in the national interest, which is what he promised to do. It is the latest example of the Prime Minister bending to pressure from the left of his party, which is so well represented on the Government Benches today, desperate as he is to shore up support for a drifting Government who have lost all propulsion.
Instead of fixing the underlying problems in our economy—or fixing the foundations, as has oft been repeated—Labour has chosen the easy political route of higher spending, higher borrowing and, inevitably, higher taxes. Those higher taxes will be imposed not on some mythical class of super-rich people, which the Greens like to propose, but on ordinary men and women who get up in the morning, work hard, look after themselves and recognise personal responsibility as a central tenet of their lives. That also needs to be a central tenet of our political lives.
That is why I have tabled two amendments to the Bill. Amendment 41 would ensure that Parliament retains control over future annual above-inflation increases. It would mean that the House of Commons must explicitly approve continuing those rates beyond 2027-28, protecting against open-ended commitments that we cannot afford. New clause 9 would require the Government to report on fraud and error arising from these provisions.
Graham Stuart
Given the scale of welfare fraud that we have seen in recent years—it already costs the taxpayer more than £8 billion—it is only right that we get a proper handle on where taxpayers’ money is actually going.
Graham Stuart
I would happily give way if there were Labour Members who had an interest in controlling the public finances rather than running up the national credit card irresponsibly, which is their wont. Those efforts by the Front-Bench team have now come to nought. They have given in to their Back Benchers and they no longer have any control or say on the direction of this Government. Together, these straightforward safeguards to protect the public purse would help reduce waste and misuse.
I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will stand up today and try to paint this as a fair and measured Bill. [Interruption.] Labour Members can shout and scream in frustration, but they will have their time to speak. In reality, this is not a fair and measured Bill. It achieves nothing but a two-tier benefit system, unfunded spending commitments and, ultimately, higher taxes for ordinary working people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member give way on that point about fraud?
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman, who is so energetically rising from his place, can tell us how he is committed to ensuring that the public finances of this country are kept in a healthy state, I and the House look forward to it with bated breath.
Neil Coyle
I am really intrigued, Madam Deputy Speaker, because the right hon. Member suggested that he has a concern about tackling fraud and responsibility in public finances. Can he tell us where he was under the previous Government when fraud in the benefit system hit its highest level ever seen in the history of the UK’s social security system? Where are his references in Hansard? Where was he on Bill Committees and in this House when that fraud was soaring? And where was he when this Government began passing legislation to tackle that horrific level of irresponsible fraud in the benefit system?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman will know that, as the benefit system grows, the likelihood is that fraud will grow within it. I applaud all efforts to crack down on fraud. I want to see greater efforts by those on the Front Bench to do that, but he knows that it is those sitting on the Back Benches who are now calling the shots.
Ultimately, all roads lead back to the Treasury. The truth is that the Bill is not the product of serious policymaking—neither in its inception nor its eventual outcome, gutted and filleted as it has been by a triumphant left in the Labour party. Instead, it is the product of panic—a rushed response to economic pressures caused by a feeble Chancellor who has brought the economy to a halt. It has been written not with reform in mind, but with rebellion in the rear-view mirror. The result is a muddled, mean-spirited piece of legislation that satisfies no one, least of all the vulnerable people who will suffer under it, or the British taxpayer who will pay for it.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The right hon. Member is right to bring his speech back to the vulnerable people who will be impacted. He will know the devastating impact of cancer on many families. One in two face the reality of a cancer diagnosis. Young Lives vs Cancer has said that, on average, the disease costs £700 a month and £6,000 in annual income. Does he agree that the Bill, by ensuring that those people do not get the high rate universal credit health element, will be devastating for many cancer patients right across the country?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy.
The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.
Patricia Ferguson
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is for me to decide what my intervention will be. I was going to say that I am very pleased to hear him sticking up for people who really need help. What part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help?
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government.
When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it was 14 years of a Conservative Government that led us to a 29% disability employment gap, a 17% pay gap, 4 million disabled people in poverty, and the UN telling the last Government over the first half of their decade that they failed on almost every single commitment in the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities?
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I respect her a great deal. She will be aware that under the last Conservative Government millions more disabled people came into the employment market. Around 2.5 million—possibly as many as 3 million—more disabled people entered the employment market and had the dignity of work. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have no credible plan to get our economy growing. Hard-working families in Beverley and Holderness and right across the country deserve better than another Labour Government chasing short-term headlines at the cost of long-term economic growth and stability.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week’s chaos and climbdown has been overshadowed by events of the last 48 hours. The impact assessment published last night shows that £2 billion is still to be stripped from up to three quarters of a million sick and disabled people by 2029-30 through the slashing of the health element of universal credit in two. By the end of this Parliament, some people will lose around £3,000 a year because of these reforms, including those with fluctuating conditions.
If that was not bad enough, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has waded in to protect disabled people where this Labour Government have not. I believe that international laws and conventions must be upheld, but this Government are now under investigation for breaches. No matter what the spin is, passing the Bill tonight will leave such a stain on our great party, which was founded on values of equality and justice. The only way out is to withdraw clauses 2 and 3 so that breaches of the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities are not upheld.
The UN’s contention is my contention; sick and disabled people have not been consulted. If someone with a fluctuating physical or mental health condition such as multiple sclerosis, schizophrenia, cystic fibrosis or a recurring musculoskeletal condition had a period of remission and worked but then relapsed and returned to universal credit, unless unequivocally stated otherwise in the Bill, they would return on to the pittance of £50 a week for their health element.
Olivia Blake
I agree. That is my plea to the Treasury Benchers: There is still time to withdraw the Bill and come back with something better.
These issues should be tackled head-on. It is unjust that, because of the way we have built society, each and every disabled person faces £1,000 in extra costs on average per month. None of that is optional spending; it is the unavoidable price of navigating a society that was not designed with disabled people in mind. There is a whole host of reasons for that spending; they are the non-negotiable realities of having a disability. Disabled people know better than anyone the barriers that keep us from work and what would help, so listen to us.
Graham Stuart
A non-negotiable reality is that we have must economic growth to fulfil the Government’s priorities, be it looking after the poor or the disabled, or any other priority. Yet under this Government, inflation has nearly doubled, and their unemployment Bill, jobs tax and other measures have brought the economy to a halt. Can Labour Members not understand that if they do not prioritise private enterprise and economic growth, they will never be able to serve the most vulnerable, who depend on that growth the most?
Olivia Blake
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting at that point, because I have two suggestions that I think would be good for growth. The first is to ask the British Investment Bank to support disabled people in setting up their own business, as it does women and those setting up a minority-led business. I know many ADHDers who would make great entrepreneurs. Unfortunately, sometimes they end up going down the path of criminality. We should consider how we can ensure that their innovation is enhanced and used properly.
The second suggestion is that we make our economy much more inclusive. There could be a national insurance contribution discount for taking on someone with a disability, who may be in receipt of PIP and may have been out of work for more than six months. I am sure that, through a more inclusive society, we can encourage growth, not discourage it.
I have taken up far too much time, so I will end with this. Disabled people know what is best for us. We should be investing in people’s independence, not leaving them on the sidelines or pushing them into poverty. That is a matter of justice, but in the end, it saves money as well. More than that, it gives people the dignity and freedom to live well. That, surely, should be our purpose.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.
A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should
“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”
in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.
Sir Stephen Timms
We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I will not give way.
Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—
Graham Stuart
On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.
Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill
Graham Stuart ExcerptsTuesday 1st July 2025
(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 View all Universal Credit Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
I will give way to the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) first.
Mrs Badenoch
The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. He needs to get an education and look at the facts.
Graham Stuart
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the chief architect of the fiasco faced by people with disabilities and every member of the Labour party today is the Chancellor of the Exchequer? The fact that she is not here to face up and take responsibility is all we need to know about her and those on the Government Front Bench.
Mrs Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is quite right: this is a fiasco, and it is the Chancellor’s fault. She marches Labour Members up and down the hill all the time, and they are the ones who have to face their constituents. We are trying to help to get a welfare system under control and get people into work.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) is right to raise the Chancellor. When the economic outlook worsened this spring, she chose to force through these changes to welfare, which are designed not to reform or improve the system, but to address a hole in her numbers. Those changes were rushed for Rachel, as we say. I watched when she made that Budget, and it was quite clear that she had no idea of the consequences of her decision. The country should not have to pay for the mess she has made, and neither should disabled people. Even with the changes in this Bill, welfare spending will still be billions higher at the end of the Parliament. Slowing down how much you increase spending is not a cut.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), my fellow Select Committee Member.
I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the need for reform of the social security system. I believe that the social security system, like the NHS, should be there for any one of us in our time of need, whether that need is a result of being in low-paid work or of not being in work at all, protecting us from poverty and destitution. Unfortunately, it did not do that under the last Government. If we become sick or disabled or if we can no longer work, the system should be there for us. I believe that the vast majority of people of working age want to work and do the right thing by their families, and, as the Committee heard, there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. We have just completed our “Pathways to Work” inquiry.
The Leader of the Opposition, who I think was the Equalities Minister in the last Government, did not mention, for example, the inquiry conducted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission—which was subsequently escalated to an investigation—into the DWP’s potential discrimination against disabled people. That is still outstanding. Nor did the Leader of the Opposition mention the investigation of the last Government by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for breaches of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities—not once, but twice. What she said was therefore a little bit rich.
For the last 15 years we have seen a punitive, even dehumanising, social security system in which not being able to work has been viewed with suspicion or worse—with devastating consequences, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Too many people relying on social security support to survive have died through suicide, starvation and other circumstances exacerbated by their poverty. Since 2010, under previous Administrations, 10 prevention of future deaths reports have been issued by coroners because of the direct causal responsibility of the DWP. We do not even know the full number of claimants’ deaths or the full extent of the harms, but my Committee’s “Safeguarding Vulnerable Claimants” report, published in May, defined recommendations to prevent such harms from being done to claimants, and it has been at the forefront of my mind while I have been considering the Bill.
I want to acknowledge some of the positive measures in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper and the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, which I believe will have a significant and positive impact on people’s lives and help them to get into work. Those measures include the reform of jobcentres and the merger with the National Careers Service; the new right to try and the new regulations just announced; the Trailblazer programme, which will increase the opportunity for people to get closer to the labour market by working with community groups, the voluntary sector and health bodies; Connect to Work, providing employment support; “Keep Britain Working”, an essential and independent review undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield on how to reduce the appalling disability employment gap, which was not improved by the Opposition during their 15 years in power and which remains at about 29%; and—this is really important—the commitment to safeguarding, which is one of the key measures in the Green Paper.
There is also, of course, the work that the Government are undertaking in other Departments. They are increasing NHS capacity to ensure that, for example, hip or knee replacements or mental health support are available in weeks, as was the case when I was an NHS chair under the last Labour Government, not the years for which people are now having to wait. They have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy—I could go on. However, the Bill, as it is currently planned, risks undermining some of those excellent initiatives.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is always fair-minded in the Chamber and outside. She will recognise that 2.5 million, or perhaps as many as 3 million, more disabled people entered the workforce under the last Conservative Government. Does she share my concerns that the Bill could undermine the ability of people with disabilities to enter the labour market?
Debbie Abrahams
We have to ensure that that does not happen. There are risks: I am being very honest about that.
As we heard in the evidence that my Committee received as part of our “Pathways to Work” inquiry, ours is an ageing society, with worse health than other advanced economies as a result of the austerity policies of the previous Government, including the cuts in support for working-aged people. According to a very good report—published in 2018, so before the pandemic—if we improved the health of those in the areas with the worst health in the country, we would increase our productivity by more than £13 billion a year. We need to look at that in the round.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend’s constituent will benefit from the big increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which we have talked about, and from free school meals for her children. Somebody who starts work or increases their hours may also be eligible for support with up-front childcare costs. The flexible support fund can award the full cost for up to a month of fees to a childcare provider in advance of the care being delivered, so that may be an option for his constituent.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?
Alison McGovern
This Government will always have the backs of working people, and I believe there will be a statement shortly on our modern industrial strategy. I know that Ministers from the Department for Business and Trade will be extremely engaged in the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just raised.
Winter Fuel Payment
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torsten Bell
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We want to make sure that the vast majority of pensioners can receive winter fuel payments. We want to make that as easy as possible, which means making receipt automatic.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Minister seems unable to say sorry, but does he at least regret that more than 90,000 more elderly people went to A&E last winter than did the year before, in the last winter under the Conservative Government?
Torsten Bell
Over the last few years, since 2020, energy bills have risen for all households, and far too many people have been struggling. That is absolutely right, and the Government are focusing on addressing it through the warm home discount and the warm homes scheme, which provides the insulation that the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) mentioned. We need to do that right across the board, including, in the long run, by fixing our broken energy system.
Statutory Sick Pay
Graham Stuart Excerpts(2 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I will call Imran Hussain to move the motion, and I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the rate of Statutory Sick Pay.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart.
Successive Governments have grappled with statutory sick pay, with report after report saying that we need fundamental, root-and-branch change to a system that is letting workers down every day. Frankly, successive Governments have failed to tackle this important issue head-on, with many actively avoiding or dodging it.
I am therefore glad that, within their first 100 days, this Labour Government delivered on our pledges and introduced a transformative, once-in-a-generation Employment Rights Bill to drag workers’ rights into the 21st century. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is largely responsible for the Bill, is not here today, I put on record my thanks to him. In a previous role, I had the pleasure of working alongside him in developing much of the policy outlined in the Bill, which will mean that workers’ rights in our country are fit for purpose.
The Bill makes welcome changes to statutory sick pay. In 2022, a Trades Union Congress survey found that 80% of those earning more than £50,000 a year receive their full pay when sick, compared with only a third of those earning under £15,000. Around half of all employees in the UK get their full pay, just under a third get statutory sick pay, and one in 10 gets nothing at all. Most low-paid employees—around 8 million—are in the middle group, reliant on statutory sick pay.
For those workers, the measures in the Employment Rights Bill are much welcome: removing the three-day waiting period so that workers are eligible for sick pay from day one; removing the lower earnings limit and extending sick pay eligibility to 1.3 million of the lowest-paid workers currently denied it due to the lower earnings limit of £123; and setting the 80% earnings replacement rate. However, as the TUC, the safe sick pay campaign and many others have said, we must not stop here. We must continue to be ambitious in strengthening workers’ rights.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Western
I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the proposed fraud Bill. The level of fraud in the welfare system is absolutely unacceptable; almost £10 billion was lost last year. Increased use of data will be essential to clamping down on both capital fraud and broader fraud. However, we will do that without sharing any information at all with banks and financial institutions.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her personal commitment to transparency. Further to the question asked by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), will she share with the House how many thousands of people will die as a result of Labour’s choice to cut the winter fuel payment?
Liz Kendall
I am very happy to share the data: there are 200,000 more pensioners living in poverty after 14 years of Conservative government. I am also very happy to publish information showing a 152% increase in pension credit claims, thanks to the big, bold campaign run by this Labour Government.
Social Security
Graham Stuart Excerpts(10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
I am left feeling that that intervention was barely worth the wait.
The fact that we even have a debate today is near miraculous given the resistance from the Labour party—we have it thanks to the scrutiny that the Conservative party is providing to the Government. We know that petitions have been railing against the measures: 100,000 people have signed the Silver Voices petition, a third of a million the 38 Degrees petition, and over half a million the Age UK petition. They are calling on the Government to think again. The press, particularly the Express newspaper, is doing a sterling job in bringing these matters to our attention. Even the trade union movement, including Unite, is pointing a finger at the Government and saying that they are picking the pockets of pensioners.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
There is a sense of disappointment. Yesterday, the Health Secretary was dragged in here because a multimillion-pound-making consultant in the health industry is wandering corridors with access to papers, and today pensioners are being betrayed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when people voted Labour, they thought that they were getting change and transparency? They were promised higher standards; they are getting the opposite.
Oral Answers to Questions
Graham Stuart Excerpts(1 year, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mel Stride)
On reforming welfare, we are increasing the incentives to work and increasing the disincentives not to work or to engage with the system, and we are looking to better target help for those who need it most.
Mel Stride
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and considerable interest and knowledge in this area, and for the discussions he has held with me on these matters. As he will know, we are currently going through a 12-week consultation on how PIP can be reformed. I certainly subscribe to the view that we want to examine the issue of one size fits all and whether there are better ways of looking after people.
Graham Stuart
I welcome the Government’s welfare reforms and celebrate the millions of additional people now in work thanks to this Conservative Government. I note that every Labour Government there has ever been has left more people unemployed and on the dole queue at the end than at the beginning—theirs is a truly disgraceful record. However, can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents who may be chronically ill or vulnerable that, although there will be support in place, they will not be forced back into work if that is not appropriate?
Mel Stride
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Work is essential and is at the heart of the reforms we are bringing through. Indeed the Office for Budget Responsibility has assessed the impact of our measures with the work capability assessment reforms, for example, as leading to over 400,000 fewer people on those benefits by the end of the forecast period. I am very proud of that achievement because, as he highlights, that will mean more people have work and the benefits of it.
Personal Independence Payment Applications
Graham Stuart Excerpts(10 years ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered processing of personal independence payment applications.
It is a novel and pleasant experience to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I welcome to his place the new Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson). As my colleagues know, and as people across the House will find, he will be excellent in this role. He has great ability and compassion, and I am sure that we all wish him well in delivering for disabled people throughout the country.
Over the past several months, I have been contacted by a number of desperate constituents who feel like they have nowhere to turn. They are often severely disabled people who already have to suffer significant physical pain and distress daily. On top of their conditions, they have had to endure months of delays in applying for the personal independence payment. A system designed to help them is instead increasing their hardship and anxiety. I called for this debate to give those vulnerable people a voice.
I begin by saying that I support the underlying principle of the personal independence payment. Under the old system of disability living allowance, half of all claimants never had to undergo an assessment, and 71% of people who received the benefit never had their award reviewed. That meant that people whose conditions worsened were underpaid and those whose conditions improved received more than was necessary. That system was neither effective nor compassionate in supporting disabled people. Clearly, the money was not being well targeted at those who genuinely needed it.
By contrast, the personal independence payment is a more dynamic benefit, capable, at least in theory, of adapting to disabled people’s complex and often changing conditions, and providing them with the appropriate level of support. However, I have dealt with many cases locally of people waiting far longer than the target of 16 weeks to have their PIP claim processed. I have serious concerns that the administration of the new benefit has not functioned as well as it should have done in order properly to support some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
When PIP was introduced in the last Parliament, average delays were as long as 30 weeks. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions rightly acknowledged that those delays were “unacceptable”. Since then, the number of healthcare professionals has doubled, the number of assessment centres has increased and their opening hours have been extended. I understand that that has helped to bring down average waiting times substantially, which is welcome. I commend the Minister, who has been in office for a limited time, and his predecessors on their work in getting to grips with the issue. However, the many letters and emails that I continue to receive from my constituents, including one only yesterday and another as I waited for this debate to start, suggest that there are still unacceptable delays.
To highlight my concerns, I shall describe in detail two cases. After having an accident at work, Mrs Lynn Dodds from Beverley suffers from two chronic pain conditions: chronic regional pain syndrome and fibromyalgia. She has to use crutches to get around her house and needs a wheelchair whenever she goes out. She has a carer for 37 hours a week. She suffers daily seizures, brought on by stress and anxiety.
Mrs Dodds first applied for the personal independence payment in November 2013 and she had to wait eight months before being assessed. In that time, her condition deteriorated. She was then, unbelievably, told by Department for Work and Pensions staff that she had to start the whole application process again. Devastated by that news, she none the less reapplied for PIP in August 2014. She had to wait a further seven months to receive her reassessment. The healthcare professional told her that the decision could have been made on paper, without a face-to-face assessment. That is what she was told after all that time.
Mrs Dodds was then told that she would receive a decision within four weeks. It has been nine weeks and she is still waiting, although I think that something may have happened in the last few days, coincidentally or otherwise. When I raised the case with the DWP, I was told that the delays in her application were due to a heavy workload. When Mrs Dodds inquired herself, she was informed that the reason was that Atos had not yet sent her assessment forms to the DWP. She is frustrated that whenever she phones up to try to register a complaint, she is told that she must wait five working days for a call-back—call-backs that of course do not come within the five days, or at any time. After her initial attempt to lodge a complaint four weeks ago, she is still waiting for the DWP to call back. So much for five days.
Mrs Dodds says that following her experiences over the past two years, she suffers from depression and anxiety. We can easily understand why. She has gone from being a wife and mother looking after her family full time to being completely dependent on the care of others. I understand there are inherent difficulties in introducing a whole new benefit. I also understand that PIP’s more rigorous and improved assessment process will lead to an increase in work for DWP staff, but the length of time it has taken to process Mrs Dodds’ claim is unacceptable and completely wrong.
The second constituent’s case that I want to highlight is that of Mr Terry Read, also from Beverley. He lives with his 16-year-old daughter and is unable to work because of his disability. Following a deterioration in his condition, he applied for a reassessment of his personal independence payment to reflect his change of circumstances in October 2014. It was not until April 2015 that he was given a medical assessment. Every day his condition was deteriorating. Every day he called the DWP to ask why the decision was taking so long. When he contacted me, he said he was at his wits’ end. When DWP eventually awarded him the benefit last week, it did not backdate it to when the decision was made, so even after months of delays, he was given less money than he was entitled to in order to support the costs of his deteriorating condition.
Although I have named only two examples, many others have contacted me in the last few months about delays in receiving the personal independence payment. Mr Davies, you may be aware of a recent verdict in the High Court: the judge ruled that the delays experienced by two PIP claimants were unlawful. In that case, the claimants had to wait more than seven months for their benefit applications to be processed. The benefit should assist with the additional costs of disabilities, but the delays make disabled people reliant on family, friends and carers, when they want to be able to support themselves. In many cases, the delays cause added stress and anxiety, which aggravates claimants’ conditions.
From October this year, those still claiming disability living allowance will be invited to make a claim for the personal independence payment. That is why it is so vital that problems in the system are resolved now, and that average delays continue to decrease. What steps has the Minister taken to reduce delays in processing applications? What lessons can be learned from the roll-out so far, as October will be the beginning of a large and doubtless challenging process? What is his analysis of what has gone wrong?
I am aware that there are particular difficulties in setting up and running assessment centres in sparsely populated rural areas. I chair the Rural Fair Share campaign and the all-party group on rural services. It is easy to design policies in this place that do not work very well for vulnerable disabled people in rural areas, where there might be few, if any, public transport services and there is a real challenge in getting to cities to be assessed. I have spoken on numerous occasions in this place about the need for the Government to ensure that their policies are rural-proofed. A disabled person who happens to live in a rural area should not have to wait longer for an assessment for the financial support on which they rely for their independence.
Is the Minister investigating the feasibility of pop-up assessment centres that have shorter opening hours, but that enable people living in rural areas, such as my constituents, to have their assessments carried out locally? If further work could be done, or if there were guidelines on what such a pop-up centre might require, perhaps communities including those in my area could look at them and identify premises where such provision could be made available.
Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He seems to be implying that rural constituencies such as his and mine suffer more delays than urban constituencies. Has he been able to conduct any research into this, because one would assume that it is more difficult to employ assessors in urban areas than in rural areas?
Graham Stuart
I cannot claim to have done such research, but perhaps the Minister can cast some light on the matter. Perhaps we could jointly request further work to see what can be done to try to make sure that we have a balanced system that serves everybody as equitably as possible.
I do not know whether it is wise to pick up something from Facebook at the last minute, but in response to a notice about this debate, a constituent posted this a few minutes ago:
“8 weeks to decide if you are eligible. Another 8 weeks to receive the form. You have 2 weeks to complete it. It then takes then another 8 weeks to arrange someone to visit you and a further 8 weeks for them to decide. That was what I got told this morning when I rang up! That's 34 weeks!!!! How on earth can they justify that????? We will back date it to the date I applied. It will be no good by then....!! Idiots and that's being polite”.
I hope the Minister will be able throw light on that and make sure people are not given such messages, because that is not my understanding of what the situation should look like.
I conclude by stressing again that I support in full the principle behind the Government’s reform of disability benefit. It is right that we target financial assistance at those who need it most, in a way that takes into account the changing nature of many people’s disabilities. I commend the Government’s success in bringing down the overall average processing time in recent months, albeit from unacceptable heights. However, my constituents’ cases show that significant further progress is still required in implementing this reform effectively and ensuring that the system is capable of handling the 1.5 million claimants who still need to migrate from DLA to PIP later this year. I look forward to working constructively with the Government to address the remaining delays that compound the despair and anguish felt by many of my disabled constituents.
Philip Davies (in the Chair)
I intend to go to the Front Benchers no later than 5.25 pm. Five people are seeking to catch my eye. You can do the maths yourselves, but if everyone is to get a fair crack of the whip, there will be about five minutes each. I am not imposing a time limit, but I hope people will be mindful of that, so that everyone gets a fair chance.
Graham Stuart
I thank Members from all parties for their contributions, and the Minister for his extremely constructive response. My final message to those listening or viewing this debate is that they should contact their Member of Parliament with any problems because we will take them straight to the Minister and ensure that his aspirations are real and delivered on the ground. We must all work together to ensure that that happens so that disabled people everywhere are treated fairly.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered processing of personal independence payment applications.