Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This is a crucial moment for a lot of people in this country. This Bill did not come from the demands of the disabled community or from an understanding of the inequality and injustice in our society; the whole origin of this Bill was a demand to save £5 billion. That £5 billion was wanted by the Defence Secretary for more armaments—no doubt other Departments were making demands—so the whole thing has been driven from a bad source at the very beginning.

It would be much more honest and much better if the Government simply withdrew the Bill altogether and allowed the review of the Minister for Social Security and Disability to take place and look at the issues of poverty facing people with disabilities and the huge levels of stress that many others face. That includes children with special needs that are not met in schools and children with autism or other special needs not being housed in decent-sized homes. There is a whole area of discrimination against people with all forms of disabilities that could and should be addressed.

As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith) just pointed out, it was a previous Labour Government who introduced the disability discrimination legislation that made such an enormous difference. Going back further, it was the Labour MP Alf Morris who introduced the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, which made a phenomenal difference to a lot of people’s lives. What has happened is that that whole tradition seems to have been stood on its head.

We are now presented with a piece of legislation that was going to take the personal independence payment away from a very large number of people, but instead, after the failed rebellion by some Labour MPs, it was changed to say that only future generations will be denied access to the payments they absolutely deserve. That means that in future, there are going to be very serious levels of poverty—much worse than there are now—among every family that includes someone with a level of disability.

[Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, entitled to his opinion regarding this proposed piece of legislation, but would he concede that voting against it also means voting against £725 extra in cash terms for those on universal credit, against denying those people the ability to try work, and against investing £1 billion in the health and skills of people who wish to try work?

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Voting against this Bill will be a clear message to the entire community that we believe in the equality of people’s needs, and that we will bring in new legislation that will meet those needs. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that he will have to face people in his own advice bureau who will be asking why they cannot get a personal independence payment, yet their brother, their sister or their neighbour still gets it because they got it before the cut-off date. He knows full well the anomaly that, presumably, he will be voting for this evening. Perhaps he would care to reflect on that, and how to represent the people who have sent us to this place.

At the present time, the levels of poverty among the disabled community are absolutely huge. According to Scope, the cost for any family with levels of disability is around £1,000 per month. That is what will be removed if this legislation goes through. I ask Labour MPs—because it is in their hands at the present time—to reflect on what was said in the Labour manifesto last time, what was said in previous Labour manifestos and the history of the Labour party with respect to disability, and not to turn that history on its head by deliberately impoverishing the next generation. Are we to be a society that is a welfare state, with universality of benefits and support for people whoever they are and whatever their needs are—that is the whole tradition of the welfare state—or in 10 or 15 years’ time are we all going to be supporting charities, trying to raise money for people who are in desperate poverty because they have a disability that is absolutely no fault of their own?

We are going to move into a two-tier benefits system, in which those who got PIP before 2026 will seem to be relatively all right, but the rest will not. This is a ridiculous situation for the Secretary of State and the Government to have put the House in, and the only sensible thing to do is to withdraw the Bill now, allow the review to take place, and recognise the needs of all people with disabilities. If that costs us more money, so be it. As a society, are we content not to have a wealth tax, to have massive levels of inequality, and to accept that those with disabilities live economically much poorer lives because of the system we have? Surely, our function as Members of Parliament is to recognise a problem and be prepared to grasp that nettle and, above all, change it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Imran Hussain]

Absolutely, and I will come on to that point. I have already touched on the seismic nature of the Bill. To be frank, I have spent a decade in this place, and I have never seen a Bill of this seismic nature and with these direct consequences being rushed through in one week. The motion that goes to the House of Lords will be a money motion, which will not allow it to make any amendments before the Bill comes back.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Would it not be a sensible way forward if the House simply passed the excellent reasoned amendment moved by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and parked the issue there? We would then have the necessary consultation and preparation for a more effective Bill.

[Imran Hussain]

Courageous political leadership sometimes demands that we admit it when we get it wrong, like we did with the winter fuel allowance. I sincerely think that people respect us when we get something wrong and come back to it. We have had concession after concession, and that is admission enough that we have got this wrong. My view remains that it would be dignified for the Government to say, “We will go with the reasoned amendment. We will have meaningful consultation with disability groups, and then we will come back.”

Everything I say is said in absolute sincerity, and I finish by making a point that has been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, many of whom are acting in good faith for the collective good of the people they represent, which is this: all of us will have to go back to our constituencies and justify the decision we make today. I have always promised my constituents in Bradford East that I will never vote for anything that will increase poverty and deprivation or deepen the health inequalities in my constituency, because it is not this place that sends me to Bradford, but the people of Bradford who send me to this place. I will remain true to them, I will remain accountable to them, and I will make sure that their voice is heard. I will be voting for the amendment, and I will be voting against the Bill today.

Welfare Reform

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

We will absolutely ensure that the views and voices of disabled people right across the country, including in the north-east, are fully involved in our process of co-production. My hon. Friend is a powerful champion of that, and I hope that she, too, will get involved with our plans. The Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), will develop the process of co-production in close conduct with disabled people and their organisations, and I am sure that he will update the House shortly as those plans progress.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On page 3 of her statement, the Secretary of State asked herself a rhetorical question about a two-tier system. Somebody who is now eligible for personal independence payment gets it, but can she simply confirm that somebody who suffers the same kind of condition whenever this Bill becomes law will not be eligible for the personal independence payment? Their support will be from friends or family, or they will have no support at all. Is she really happy that we are deliberately creating a two-tier system for people with profound needs and disabilities who quite rightly expect the community as a whole to recognise and support them?

[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.

Welfare Reform

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. As I said earlier, we will publish the equality impact analysis and the poverty impact analysis around the time of the spring statement. It is really important that we look at how more people will benefit from being in work and improving their incomes—that is essential. We will also come forward with our child poverty strategy, because we have a clear manifesto commitment to drive child poverty down. Children growing up in poverty could have their life chances damaged for years to come, and we are determined to put that right.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This whole statement is predicated on saving £5 billion at the expense of people with disabilities in our society. Anyone who has been through the trauma of trying to apply for a personal independence payment knows about the intrusive nature of the questioning, and about the great difficulty of obtaining that payment and then continuing to receive it in future. The Secretary of State’s statement has caused consternation and dismay to many people around the country—particularly those with disabilities—who are understandably alarmed that their benefits will go down and that they will live in greater poverty as a result. Can she say with hand on heart that no disabled person will be worse off after her statement, or will that £5 billion be taken at the expense of those in our society who already live the most difficult lives?

[Liz Kendall]

This statement is predicated on stopping people being written off—denied opportunities, denied hope and denied a future. It is about making the social security system sustainable for the long term, which is so important to me. When we have 1,000 new PIP awards every single day, many of those driven by mental health and young people, we have got to look at that. We cannot duck this challenge, because I want a social security system that will be there for centuries to come.

Social Security Benefits

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have seen representations along those lines. It is not something that we are considering at the moment, but we are, as I have mentioned, committed to reviewing universal credit, and we will do so over the course of this year. I imagine that we will be looking at a very wide variety of representations, and the hon. Gentleman and others will be very welcome to make submissions to us along those lines. Lastly, let me say a word about the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Before the Minister gets on to the pension issue, may I just say that the order requires the Secretary of State to examine the effects of benefit uprating and the effects of the existing payment of benefits? What studies has he done on the effect of the two-child benefit cap? Secondly, last week we passed a welfare spending cap—a cap that, obviously, could be breached in the future. Will the Government revisit the whole idea of the welfare cap, with a view to abolishing it, so that we ensure that the motive force in deciding on benefits is the level of need, rather than an arbitrary figure decided by the Treasury?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

On the two-child limit, as the right hon. Member knows, we very quickly set up after the general election the child poverty taskforce, which is looking in a very ambitious way at the whole range of levers that the Government have at their disposal for tackling the problem of child poverty. We would very much like to repeat the success of the last Labour Government in reducing child poverty so dramatically in when in office. I say that with particularly strong feeling, having taken the Child Poverty Act 2010 through the House towards the end of that Government’s term. Under consideration certainly will be social security changes—we will look at what changes might be appropriate. We are not able to say whether the two-child limit will be removed, but all those things will be considered carefully during production of the report, which the taskforce will bring forward.

We are not looking, I do not think, at changing the arrangements around the overall welfare cap. Of course, there is always some confusion between the individual benefit cap and the overall welfare cap. As the right hon. Member said, there was a debate last week on the overall cap. There is certainly scope for debate about that and, indeed, the benefit cap as well, but we are not proposing any changes to those arrangements in the short term.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the yearly amount by which the GMP part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between April 1988 and April 1997 must be increased if it is in payment. The increases paid by occupational pension schemes help to provide a measure of inflation protection to people who are in receipt of GMPs earned between those two years. Legislation requires that GMPs earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices, as measured the previous September, capped at 3%. This year, it means that the order will increase the relevant part of the GMP by the September 2024 consumer prices index figure, which is 1.7%.

The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, if Parliament approves it this afternoon, commits the Government to increased expenditure of £6.9 billion in 2025-26. The changes will mainly come into effect from 7 April and will apply for the tax year 2025-26. The order maintains the triple lock, benefiting pensioners who are in receipt of the basic and new state pensions; raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices; increases the rate of benefits for people in the labour market; and increases the rate of carer’s benefits and support to help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formerly contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 1.7% on GMPs in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997, providing people with a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by their scheme. I commend to the House the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.

Welfare Cap

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

The NHS is the bedrock that ensures people can thrive and contribute to society, economically and in every other way. We also need to ensure that the health support people get is the right support. At the moment, we are not doing enough on occupational therapies and other things that provide health support tailored to people’s work. We will have more to say about that in the near future, I am sure.

A huge number of people are turning to a social security system that is not geared up to meet the huge employment challenge. At the moment, social security cannot cope. Hon. Members may ask themselves how on earth we got to this place, after 14 years of so-called benefits crackdowns by the Conservatives. Well, I invite everybody to look at their record. When universal credit was introduced 12 years ago, the Government of the day made all sorts of promises. They said it would

“break the cycle of benefit dependency”

and offer

“greater incentives to find a job”.

The former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), said that universal credit

“will ensure that work always pays and is seen to pay”,

but what have we seen since? A disastrous series of wrong-headed choices that have achieved precisely the opposite effect.

New data, which we are publishing today for the first time, shows the extent of the effects of universal credit on incapacity benefits. There has been increase of 800,000 people receiving incapacity benefits between 2018 and 2023. Around 10% of that increase is because of the rising state pension age and another 10% because of the way changes were made in the move from employment support allowance and other benefits to universal credit, a situation that should have been foreseen and planned for by the previous Government. That leaves an increase of over 500,000 people, to which I will now turn. The Conservatives need to take a long hard look at the changes they made to universal credit.

We must consider how people transitioned between the “looking for work” group in the universal credit health journey, where they are told that they have limited capacity to do any work or work-related activity, to “actively looking for work”. How did people move between being told they cannot work and being told to actively look for work? People moving between those two groups used to receive a top-up to their benefits, but that was removed in 2017, creating a hard barrier between those categorised as incapable for work and those looking for work. In addition, there was a four-year freeze to the rates of universal credit in the late 2010s, except the highest tier of health-related benefits. As a result, the income of those trying to find work was squeezed, and the barrier between those on universal credit actively looking for work and those who had been told that they were unable to work was hardened.

We have seen a steady rise in the number of people on the highest tier of health benefits, where there are no requirements to look for work or to get any help to make the steps on that journey, and no support to find jobs when many people actually want to work. All the while, there have been more and more conditions and box ticking in a system that has failed.

Social security was designed to smooth people’s incomes over time and to take account of life events that could happen to any of us, but the result of all the changes is that either by design or mismanagement—probably both—the previous Government created a social security system that segregated people away from work and forgot about them. There was no helping back to work, and only the promise that they would be left alone.

The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that

“the wider benefits system—in particular the conditionality and generosity associated with incapacity benefits relative to other parts of the system—has affected incapacity benefits flows over time”.

Unfortunately, that situation, created by the last Government, is far from the only problem, because social security will only ever function where the Government take their wider duties seriously.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

On the point of support for people who are on benefits, the Social Security Act 1986 ended the requirement on the now Department for Work and Pensions to provide advice and welfare support to people. Will it now be the policy of the DWP to automatically offer advice and support to people on the benefits they are entitled to claim, or to give more support to voluntary advice agencies so that people get what they are entitled to?

[Alison McGovern]

We published in November an extensive reform programme for the Department to get Britain working. We showed how in some parts of the country—I will come to this in more detail shortly—people have been abandoned and their labour market has not supported enough good jobs for a very long time. We showed how, by acting on better health and better local support services, we will reintroduce ambition into our support services.

We want to help people get into a job that will support their family finances and help our economy thrive. We have a huge change programme underway in the Department for Work and Pensions, and we will be doing even more than we set out in that White Paper. The challenge is huge, but the potential is also massive. I worry about everybody who is out of work, but particularly our young people, who have effectively been thrown on the scrapheap. It is a disaster now in exactly the same way that it was a disaster, brought about by the economic turbulence that I grew up in, in the 1980s, which is the period the right hon. Member refers to. We will therefore take the challenge of restoring employment—proper employment—in this country extremely seriously.

In doing that, I want to talk about the Government’s wider responsibilities, not just in reforming the social security system but far beyond that. You will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I return to the founding document of our social security system, the Beveridge report. In 1942, William Beveridge identified the

“establishment of comprehensive health and rehabilitation services, and maintenance of employment…as necessary conditions of success”

in social security.

That lesson is forgotten again and again in this country, and we will never have a social security system that functions well unless we have an NHS that works and we maintain policies designed to move towards full employment. Social security cannot soak up every single problem in this country if the Government forget their wider responsibilities. I note that the Beveridge report considered the consequences of war and the injury to the nation that that had brought about. In many ways, we ought to learn the lessons of the pandemic: that the health of the nation can never be taken for granted and that, in setting us on the right path in terms of both health and employment, we can plot a course towards a more sustainable future. As I have said, is it any wonder that our social security system is broken given the health of the nation, given what we have been through and given the last Government’s neglect of the NHS and the state of our labour market?

To look backwards again for a moment, we know that in our country’s economic history, we had periods when whole towns and cities were deindustrialised and left to fend for themselves. Economies simply failed, and while great progress has been made, including in my constituency, in my city region in Merseyside and in other places whose economies have moved on greatly since that time, sadly, too many have never properly recovered. As a result, we have a labour market that simply fails to offer good work everywhere.

As part of our “Get Britain Working” White Paper analysis, we found that when students are not counted, the inactivity rate, to give the example of Blackpool, is 29%. That is nearly a third of working age people. That can never be a good platform on which to build a thriving economy, and I am determined that we will turn it around.

More than half of the 20 local authorities with the highest rates of inactivity in England are in the north, while none are in the south-east. It is, however, far from a north-south divide. We have identified 14 types of labour markets in the United Kingdom and considered their features: what they share and what divides them. We want to identify those places that are furthest behind, precisely so that we can help.

It is not just the prevailing economic circumstances or what has happened in the recent past to a local authority that defeats people, but, unfortunately, the jobcentres that are supposed to be there to help. When we did our analysis for our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, we uncovered the record of the last Conservative Government. I was shocked to find that only around 8%—only 8%—of universal credit claimants in the “searching for work” group move into work from one month to the next. In the “no work requirements” group, 92% were still there after six months. That is the very definition of being on the scrapheap: no work and no help to get work. That is just failing people.

Then there is the price tag. Spending on universal credit and disability benefits was £10.9 billion higher than anticipated when the level of the welfare cap was calculated. That is a dreadful record. For the reasons that I set out earlier, the breach of the cap is unavoidable this year, but this Government are taking the action necessary to drive up opportunity in employment while driving down the benefits bill. Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper, as I have mentioned, set out the biggest reforms to employment in a generation, with a radical new approach backed by £240 million of investment. We are overhauling our jobcentres and creating a new jobs and careers service, doing away with needless admin and freeing up work coach time, so that my colleagues can give real, high-quality support to people.

Although I am often disappointed in the help that people receive in jobcentres, I am never disappointed by what our work coaches do. The thing that lets the work coaches down is the system in which they work. For example, they are told that they can see someone for only 10 minutes. How are they supposed to help in 10 minutes? They have to carry out numerous admin checks that could be done with modern technology, when the person in front of them is just sat there waiting, not receiving any help. Our work coaches are full of ideas, full of local knowledge and full of determination that we will make a new system work. I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to every single DWP member of staff who has embraced change with gusto.

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with the hon. Lady. Can we just take this moment to thank the DWP team in St Albans? They sound like they are doing a great job and they are also briefing their local MP, which is really good of them. I encourage all colleagues in the House to ensure that they have a regular catch-up with their jobcentre colleagues so that they know the kind of things that our work coaches have to deal with. Often, Members of Parliament can be quite helpful in putting people in touch with other organisations, so I encourage all colleagues to do as the hon. Lady has done.

On the point that the hon. Lady makes about SEND, she is absolutely right: this is a major barrier. If Members want to understand what a struggle to get to work and to stay in work looks like, they should ask the parent of a disabled child. This issue of where the effect of poverty and the SEND crisis can compound is being considered by the child poverty taskforce in particular. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: good public services and a good, strong economy go hand in hand. It is not “public services or a strong economy”—we called that ideology “austerity”, and it did not work. The two go hand in hand. We need to look in that rounded way to see how we can help people, and that is the approach that we are taking. We want to make every jobcentre in the country a place that people who are looking for work, and employers, will actually want to use. We know that what happens early on in a career echoes down the years; as I have said, our young people—the pandemic generation—were failed. That is why our youth guarantee will give every 18 to 20-year-old access to quality education, training or employment.

On top of that, we are working with local leaders who know their towns and cities best, supporting them to produce their own local “Get Britain Working” plans that join up work, health and skills to support their communities. I have mentioned the major fractures still in the UK economy following previous economic events that were not managed properly. That is how we know that the same thing just will not work everywhere. The DWP will reform itself so that we are able to localise support services, and we will work with local leaders to do that.

All of that will ensure that we help people to enjoy the benefits that good work brings to wellbeing—and I do mean “good work”. The choice in this country should never be between the scar of unemployment and the scar of poor work that does nothing but keep people poor. Poor work does not reduce the pressure on our social security system; it just means more people working too hard for their poverty. That is why we will improve the security and quality of work through our plan to make work pay. We will create more good jobs in every part of the country with a modern industrial strategy and local growth plans. Together, they will help us to meet our long-term ambition for an 80% employment rate.

We will create the conditions for success in social security. As I have outlined, the changes made to social security were ill-thought through. A fresh approach is needed to make our social security system sustainable, and we will build that system to give people the help that they need to find great jobs and feel the benefit of work. We want to tackle poverty and target support at those who need it most. We will set out our proposals in a Green Paper on reforming the health and disability system in the spring. We will work with disabled people and their organisations to get that right.

A strong social security system needs the confidence of us all. Anyone might suddenly find themselves unwell or with the extra costs that children bring, and we all hope one day to enjoy the benefits of the state pension, so we must protect the social security system now and in the future. Not only did we confirm at the autumn Budget that we would keep a welfare cap in place with a margin of 5% to account for the volatility of recent forecasts, but later this year we will publish a new annual report on social security spending across Government, setting out the DWP’s plan to ensure that it is on a sustainable path. The days of setting spending targets without a proper plan to meet them are over.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

If next year’s report recommends an increase in welfare spending, would that be impossible within this cap, or will she come back to Parliament to ask for a change in the cap well ahead of its 2029 expiration?

[Alison McGovern]

In the specifics of our proposal, we will publish a Green Paper on health and disability in the coming months. With regards to the financial controls, we will do all that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out some moments ago on allowing the Office for Budget Responsibility to perform its function. That is the best way to ensure that we take fiscal decisions within the guardrails that he set out.

The results of 14 years of failure are unfortunately only too obvious, as I said earlier. Everywhere we look in this country, we can see the impact of what the previous Government did. Too many people in far too many places were neglected and failed, starved of opportunity, and left to turn to a social security system that just is not working. Everybody in this country suffers the consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am pleased we are having this debate, although I am sorry that it is relatively short. My concern about the proposal before us is that it recognises an overspend on the welfare cap—I support the idea that we should be allowed to overshoot the cap—but hardwires decisions on welfare spending for the next five years. It therefore restricts any future changes to any element of welfare spending.

The cap does not include pensions and work-related benefits. What it does include, in particular, is disability living allowance, housing benefit and personal independence payments. Those benefits relate to the areas in which, it seems to me, there are often the greatest levels of poverty and people face the greatest problems in simply trying to survive. The Government have already removed the winter fuel allowance, which is included in the estimates for the next five years, and are maintaining the two-child benefit cap, which restricts the amount of money paid on benefits to families. I understand all the points the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) made and the passion with which he made them, but the reality of not removing this ridiculous cap, put in place by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is that we have a lot of children living in desperate poverty.

Any Member who goes to a food bank—we all have food banks in our constituencies—and talks to the parents picking up food will find a wholly disproportionate number of, usually, mothers of children in very large families who cannot make ends meet because their benefits apply only to the first two children. We need to get rid of the two-child benefit cap, but what we are being invited to support today will ensure that we keep it, while maintaining the removal of the winter fuel payment and boxing us in when it comes to what we can do to improve both the take-up and the availability of disability benefits as a whole. I must therefore caution the Minister and question her optimism. I recognise the need to overshoot the cap today because I understand why it has come about, but we need to look at the levels of poverty in our society.

I also understand all the points that have been made about the role of the Department for Work and Pensions in relation to people seeking work. In 1986, I was a member of the Bill Committee that took a sledgehammer to the then Department of Health and Social Security’s methods of supporting people who were out of work and helping them into work. We have suffered ever since as a result, and I am pleased that the DWP is reforming its ways of doing things and will help people into work by providing more advice and support. The reality is, however, that many people in this country suffer because of the mental health crisis that we are in, have suffered industrial injuries or are living in great poverty, and they need support. Surely we should be measuring the levels of poverty, the increased levels of child poverty and the educational underachievement of children living in poverty, rather than saying that the most important thing to do is limit the level of welfare spending.

There is a reason for that. I meet many people, in my constituency and in other places, who are receiving DWP benefits. Some are in work, some are unemployed and some have sickness problems and cannot work. They are not shirkers. They are not skivers. They are people who need help within our society. For too long we have had a culture of blaming anyone who seeks help within the law through our benefits system. I hope that we will hear a reply from the Government in which they accept the need for a re-examination of the levels of poverty in society and demonstrate a preparedness to change the welfare cap in the future to accommodate any increased needs that result from it. The thinking behind the cap was not about eliminating poverty from our society; it was all about limiting the level of welfare payments and the benefit that people gain from them.

In an intervention in the earlier debate, I pointed out to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that huge infrastructure projects had gone massively over budget and had been financed. I support the Elizabeth line—it is a wonderful thing—but it was way over budget, like plenty of other projects. There seems to be one approach to investment in major infrastructure projects that run way over budget, and another when it comes to a welfare budget: anything that might go over will be prevented from going over by the Treasury. We cannot predict who will be injured next year, what illnesses will come or what needs will arise. Surely the principle of the welfare state must be that we help and support people when they need that help and support—and yes, help them to be available for work and get back into work, and say to employers, “You need more flexible working arrangements so that people can work part time.” We must look at the levels of unemployment among people with disabilities who simply cannot get work because the employment laws are not strong enough to require employers to provide work for people who, despite having disabilities, are well able to work.

I think we should be more cautious, rather than adopting a gung-ho approach and saying, “We are cracking down on welfare.” I want to crack down on poverty, I want to crack down on unemployment, and I want to crack down on those who prevent people from achieving the best that they can in their lives and in our society.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Torsten Bell]

I really must make some progress because we are about to run out of time.

It would not be a reasonable or fair use of taxpayer money to pay compensation to people whose circumstances would be the same today even if the maladministration had never occurred. A compensation scheme would cost up to £10.5 billion, less than the scheme previously proposed by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) but still a significant amount.

The ombudsman is clear that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. The Department considered at length whether a tailored scheme could be delivered, but it was simply not a viable option. The ombudsman’s report acknowledges the cost and administrative burden of assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s. Indeed, it took the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate just the six sample cases. To set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take years and thousands of staff.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Torsten Bell]

I must make some progress.

We also do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money. I want to address the questions asked by several hon. Members about the specific research findings. It is important to say that the evidence on what women knew about the state pension age changes is robust. The same research was used by the ombudsman, who clearly did not have concerns about its validity.

I have heard hon. Members make powerful speeches today and I understand the strength of feeling on this issue, not least from my aunt. Many women born in the 1950s worked hard in paid jobs, often balancing that with raising a family. The Government have a responsibility to take their concerns seriously, which is why Ministers listened, reflected and carefully considered this complex decision. As custodians of the public purse, however, we must also ensure that decisions are rooted in evidence and are fair to everyone.

The fact remains that the vast majority of women knew that the state pension age was increasing. Even for those who did not, we know that sending letters earlier would not have made a difference in most cases. [Interruption.] Although I know that that decision will be disappointing, as we are hearing, and many have been frustrated by watching this debate drag on for years, we believe it is the right course of action. Of course, it is also right that the Government should be held to account for that decision, as is happening today.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I think I am right in saying that it is unprecedented for the Government to reject in its entirety an ombudsman’s report and offer absolutely nothing. Those women were led up the garden path in the last election, and before that, by people saying that compensation was going to be paid. The Minister needs to explain why the Government are simply ignoring the plight of those women.

[Torsten Bell]

It is an important issue, and we have been listening to the plight of those women for many years—and rightly so. Important and powerful cases have been made by many hon. Members, but I have set out why the Government have made that decision.

We will continue to help women born in the 1950s and pensioners across the UK by investing a crucial £22 billion into NHS England this year and next, with consequentials for the Welsh and Scottish Governments.

Disabled People on Benefits: EHRC Investigation

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I am indebted to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for obtaining today’s urgent question, and she is correct to say that policy should be based on fairness, dignity and respect. In dealing with cases, I find that those with mental health conditions, including sporadic mental health conditions, are often unfairly sanctioned, go through much deeper stress and sometimes end up in desperate poverty as a result. In advance of the inquiry, could the Minister tell us what the Department is doing to ensure that the sanctions regime against people with disabilities, particularly those with mental health conditions, operates in a much more respectful and inclusive manner that helps them to deal with the horrible problems they are trying to cope with?

[Mims Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about fluctuating conditions and needs, which he is absolutely correct to identify. We have a growing number of visiting officers—500—and a growing number of colleagues with a trauma-informed approach, and there is close engagement with wider safeguarding. Having a trusted relationship with one’s work coach, job coach and disability employment adviser is so important, and this is at the heart of our safeguarding protocols, which are in place for healthcare professionals who undertake assessments. If they identify a new condition or concern, they will ensure that the individual’s healthcare team are aware and communicating directly with them. Again, that is why we have the trauma-informed approach. I recently saw it being used at the Hastings service centre, where decisions are made on child maintenance, and at jobcentres. The approach is being rolled out in order to be at the heart of what we do.

Women’s State Pension Age: Ombudsman Report

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I agree. The Government have said that they will respond without “undue delay”, and that they are considering the report in detail. Can the Minister tell the House this afternoon whether the Government will bring forward proposals for remedy, as the Work and Pensions Committee believes that they should, before the summer recess? We should set a clear timetable.

We need a scheme that is easy to administer. The ombudsman said that, in principle, redress should reflect the impact on each individual, but it recognised that the need to avoid delay, and the large numbers involved,

“may indicate the need for a more standardised approach”.

Jane Cowley, the WASPI campaign manager, told the Work and Pensions Committee that given the need for action

“within weeks rather than years”,

the scheme should be based on three principles: speed, simplicity and sensitivity. The evidence that has been gathered points to a rules-based approach to working out the compensation that should be paid.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I have read the evidence given to the right hon. Member’s Committee, which was taken in April this year. If the Government agreed that they had to accept responsibility for this issue and to go forward with it, how quickly could we start to see the highly justified compensation being paid to these women?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would hope quite quickly, and I will explain why.

The payments involved would be adjusted within a range, based on the ombudsman’s severity of injustice scale. It would depend on two variables: first, the extent of the change to the individual’s state pension age—how much it increased by—and, secondly, the notice that the individual received. The less notice someone had of the change, and the bigger the change to their state pension age, the higher the payment they would receive. An arrangement like that would not be perfect, but it would be quite quick and relatively inexpensive to administer compared with a more bespoke system, because it would involve applying known data to a formula to work out the amount that was due. I ask the Minister whether he accepts that, in principle, a rules-based system would be the best way forward.

Beyond that, it was suggested to the Work and Pensions Committee that there should be some flexibility for individuals to make the case, after the standard payment has been calculated, that they experienced direct financial loss as a result of the maladministration, and that they should therefore be entitled to a higher level of compensation. Flexibility would be needed, because although the ombudsman did not see direct financial loss in the six sample complaints that it looked at, it did not exclude the possibility that there could be in other cases. For example, Angela Madden, the chair of the WASPI campaign, suggested to us that somebody whose divorce settlement was less than it would have been because it was based on the expectation that she would receive her state pension at the age of 60, might well be entitled to a larger amount because of that particular development.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

This has been a timely and very powerful debate. We have heard some incredible contributions from many Members, who have shared first-hand knowledge of their constituents and the way they have been treated. I was very moved by what was said by the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) about the couple in his constituency who have basically lost everything because of this whole sorry saga. Some 3.8 million women have been affected by this issue, and many have now died—possibly over 270,000.

This debate would not be happening if it was not for the bravery of the WASPI women campaigners over many years. I have always been impressed by their verve and the demands that they bring to any occasion, and by their dressing appropriately in suffragette colours—one cannot miss them at any event or meeting anywhere. We should pay tribute to all of them for the incredible work that they have put into drawing attention to this grotesque injustice over many years. They deserve to know that they will get an answer that will give them some comfort and hope.

In the last decade, only three or four ombudsman’s reports have gone to Parliament because the Government have refused to acknowledge or accept them. The whole principle of the ombudsman is that it is an independent, non-political office that makes recommendations on the basis of the evidence it has collected. It went to a great deal of trouble to collect evidence and chose a sample of cases to give a holistic view on the situation, so the very least we can do is expect that the Government will undertake to act on the report.

I was very impressed by the Work and Pensions Committee’s evidence session on 7 May. I was impressed by the campaign’s detail, by the evidence it presented and by the commendable speed with which it responded to the Committee and to the all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality for women, chaired by the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) and my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey). We need to thank the campaign for its work.

The WASPI women came up during the last two general election campaigns, and let us be absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and I committed that an incoming Labour Government would have dealt with this issue, compensated the WASPI women and accepted that a grotesque injustice had been done. That would have been expensive but, as I tried to explain in my interview with Andrew Neil, it would only have redressed an injustice. It would not have been throwing Government money around willy-nilly. Treating people properly is a moral issue.

Many would say that Parliament is now confronted with a problem not of its own making, and that it has to do something to try to resolve the issue. Well, we are always confronted with problems not of our own making. We do not make problems—[Interruption.] Well, I hope we do not make problems, but we have to deal with them. In the case of the problems that have recently come before us—the injustice of the mineworkers’ pension scheme, the injustice of freezing the pension rate for overseas pensioners, the Horizon scandal, and the enormous question of the contaminated blood scandal—we are here to resolve those problems and secure justice for people who have suffered a grotesque injustice. People look to Parliament to achieve that.

We have the report, the information and the knowledge. We understand the injustice that has been done, the poverty that many people have been forced into and the insult when a person in their 60s finds that they cannot access their pension and is told by a DWP job adviser to take an apprenticeship, which is ludicrous. They know full well that they are not going to get it. Those people feel a sense of hurt. They believe that they did the right thing, and they believe that the Government and the DWP have done the wrong thing by them.

Rebecca Hilsenrath answered question 51 of the Work and Pensions Committee’s evidence session, on whether information should have been made better available, which obviously it should have been, by saying that services should be “user-focused”. She thought that the information system was poor, and that the advertising of it was poor.

Clearly many very well informed people were not aware of the dangerous situation they were moving into with their own personal finances. There is an opportunity to resolve this, and it could be resolved with a statement from the Government today undertaking that, by 18 July, when I understand the summer recess starts, they will put forward a proposal for a simple compensation scheme based on a formula, as the Chair of Work and Pensions Committee set out, to ensure that compensation can be speedily paid. If compensation was individualised, we would clearly have to deal with several million individual cases, which would take a very long time.

What we need is justice, and it is up to this Parliament to deliver that justice for women who worked so hard to deliver the services from which we have all benefited. We owe it to them, and we can do it now.

Women’s State Pension Age

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is a question that in various forms has now been asked a dozen or more times. The answer will always be consistent: there is no desire to delay matters, and there will be no undue delays in our deliberations.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

There cannot be a Member of this House who has not met women affected by the issue or WASPI campaigners, and who has not been moved by their awful stories, and the pain that they have been through as a result of the maladministration by successive Governments. Anyone watching this lengthy, convoluted statement from the Secretary of State will be left confused about what will happen now. Could he tell us, in words of one syllable, when women who are victims of this maladministration can receive the compensation that they deserve?

[Mel Stride]

With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that is just another version of the same question about timing, and I have given a very clear answer on that.

Disability Action Plan

Jeremy Corbyn Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that important point. Something announced here in Westminster might sound great, but what does it mean in Rutland and beyond? That is an important part of the next steps. Of course, we have support in our jobcentres, with further work coach support and disability employment advisers offering advice and expertise, and I have mentioned Access to Work, Disability Confident and our future employment goal. If she sent me an invite, I would be delighted to listen in on what her constituents and those advocating would like to hear and understand.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

I note that the Minister mentioned in her statement the aim to

“promote better understanding across Government of the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities”,

which is very welcome. How exactly will she do that with each Department, both in their roles as employers of a large number of people around the country, and in the policies that they promote, such as disability benefits—including those relating to mental health—and the provision of housing for people with disabilities? If she finds that the Departments are not coming up to the mark in achieving what she wants of them, how will she ensure that they are forced to carry out her policy, to ensure that there is real equality for people with disabilities in our society?

[Mims Davies]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about cross-Government working and delivering on the action plan. I stress to him and to those watching that the plan is one pillar of the work that we are doing. We will, for example, work to increase disability-inclusive approaches to emergency and resilience planning and climate adaptions, through working strategically with teams on that. We will always work with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to ensure that disability inclusion is increased. As I have said, it is increasingly vital that ministerial champions deliver and are accountable in their Departments—that is what I will be doing. It will mean that disabled people can benefit from everything that Government and community do, and can rightly contribute to every aspect of our society.