Households Below Average Income: Statistics Release
Liz Kendall Excerpts(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has today published its annual statistics on incomes and living standards covering 2023-24.
This includes households below average income (HBAI), which contains estimates of household incomes and a range of low-income indicators for 2023-24, derived from the family resources survey.
Further publications in today’s release are: income dynamics, pensioners’ income series, children in low-income families, improving lives indicators, separated families statistics and the family resources survey. These publications cover the four statutory measures of child poverty required to be published by DWP under the Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016.
Today’s statistics underline how poverty and hardship increased substantially under the last Government. A total of 1.2 million more people were living in relative poverty after housing costs in 2023-24 than in 2010-11. That includes 900,000 more children and 200,000 more pensioners in poverty.
The statistics also show that median household incomes fell by 2% in 2023-24 compared to the year before, both before and after housing costs. Child poverty saw the biggest increases between 2022-23 and 2023-24, rising across all four measures: relative and absolute poverty, both before and after housing costs.
Nearly 1 in 5 children—2.6 million—were living in a food insecure household in 2023-24, up from 17% to 18% on the previous year. The number of individuals in households using a food bank in the previous 12 months increased by 500,000 to 2.8 million people in 2023-24, over 4% of the population. These are the highest numbers since records began.
The levels of poverty and food insecurity we inherited are unacceptable. The last Labour Government lifted 600,000 children and over a million pensioners out of poverty. This active Government are determined to drive down poverty, drive up living standards, and grow the economy—this Government’s No.1 priority.
We know that good work is the best route out of poverty. That is why, since the election, we have hit the ground running to get Britain working:
Delivering the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation with our £240 million get Britain working plan: creating a new jobs and careers service, giving Mayors and local leaders new powers and resources to join up work, health and skills support to drive down economic inactivity; and delivering a new youth guarantee so that all 18 to 22-year-olds in England are earning or learning.
Setting out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system to protect people who need support and help those who can into employment through our Pathways to Work Green Paper—including £1 billion a year in employment, skills and health support for disabled people.
Creating more good jobs in every part of the country in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy.
Investing almost £26 billion in the health and social care system to get people back to health and back to work;
Alongside this, we have taken action to support people on the lowest incomes and those struggling the most, including by:
Boosting the national minimum wage for 3 million of the lowest paid full-time workers, putting up to £2,500 a year in their pockets from this April.
Announcing a permanent, above inflation rise to the standard allowance in universal credit, for the first time ever—increasing it from £92 per week in 2025-26 to £106 per week by 2029-30.
Introducing from April a new fair repayment rate that caps the level of debt repayments that can be taken from universal credit. This puts £420 a year on average into the pockets of 1.2 million of the poorest households.
Extending the household support fund in England until 31 March 2026, with £742 million for local authorities to help families and pensioners facing hardship and additional Barnett funding for the devolved Governments.
Poverty scars the lives and life chances of our children—because you cannot fulfil your potential without food in your belly or a decent roof over your head. So, in addition, we are bringing forward a child poverty strategy to ensure every child has the best start in life.
With our commitment to the triple lock, we are also protecting pensioners who have worked all their lives and deserve security in retirement. Unlike the previous Government, who left over 800,000 pensioners missing out on the pension credit they were entitled to, we are protecting the poorest pensioners by delivering the biggest ever drive to increase uptake. This has seen an 81% increase in applications since July 2024 compared with the same period last year, and 46,000 more awards compared with that period.
Today’s statistics serve to underscore the chances and choices that were denied by the last Government and our determination to support those who are struggling and unleash the potential of the British people.
[HCWS553]
Welfare Reform
Liz Kendall Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are ambitious for our people and our country. We believe that unleashing the talents of the British people is the key to our future success. But the social security system that we inherited from the Conservatives is failing the very people that it is supposed to help and is holding our country back.
The facts speak for themselves. One in 10 people of working age are now claiming a sickness or disability benefit. Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training—one in eight of all our young people. Some 2.8 million are out of work due to long-term sickness, and the number of people claiming personal independence payments is set to double this decade from 2 million to 4.3 million, with the growth in claims rising faster among young people and those with mental health conditions. Claims are up to four times higher in parts of the midlands, Wales and the north where economic demand is weakest. These places were decimated in the ’80s and ’90s, written off for years by successive Tory Governments and never given the chances that they deserved.
The consequences of that failure are there for all to see. Millions of people who could work are trapped on benefits, denied the income, hope, dignity and self-respect that we know that good work brings. Taxpayers are paying millions more for the cost of failure, with spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits up £20 billion since the pandemic, and set to rise by a further £18 billion by the end of this Parliament to £70 billion a year. It is not like this in most other comparable countries, where spending on these benefits since the pandemic is either stable or falling, while ours continues to inexorably rise. That is the legacy of 14 years of Tory failure.
Today, we say, “No more”. Since we were elected we have hit the ground running to get more people into good work through our plan for change. We are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS to drive down waiting lists and get people back to health and back to work.
We are improving the quality of work and making work pay with our landmark employment rights legislation and increases in the national living wage; we are creating more good jobs in every part of the country in clean energy and through our modern industrial strategy; and we are introducing the biggest reforms to employment support in a generation, with our £240 million Get Britain Working plan. Today, our pathways to work Green Paper sets out decisive action to fix the broken benefits system, creating a more proactive, pro-work system for those who can work and so protecting those who cannot work, now and for the long term.
As a constituency MP for 14 years, I know that there will always be people who can never work because of the severity of their disability or illness. Under this Government, the social security system will always be there for people in genuine need. That is a principle we will never compromise on. Disabled people and people with health conditions who can work, however, should have the same rights, choices and chances to work as everybody else. That principle of equality is vital too, because, far from what Conservative Members would have us believe, many sick and disabled people want to work, with the right help and support. Unlike the Conservatives, that is what we will deliver.
Our first aim is to secure a decisive shift towards prevention and early intervention. Almost 4 million people are in work with a work-limiting health condition and around 300,000 fall out of work every year. We have to do far more to help people stay in work and get back to work quickly, because their chances of returning are five times higher in the first year. Our plans to give statutory sick pay to 1 million of the lowest-paid workers and provide more rights to flexible working will help keep more people in work. The WorkWell programme is trialling new approaches, such as GPs referring people to employment advisers instead of signing them off sick. Our Keep Britain Working review, led by former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, will set out what Government and employers can do together to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces. We will therefore help more employers to offer opportunities for disabled people, including through measures such as reasonable readjustments, alongside our Green Paper consultation on reforming Access to Work so it is fit for the future.
Today, I can announce another step. Our Green Paper will consult on a major reform of contributory benefits, merging contributions-based jobseeker’s allowance and employment support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance paid at a higher rate, without someone having to prove that they cannot work in order to get it. Therefore, if someone has paid into the system, they will get stronger income protection while we help them get back on track.
Our second objective is to restore trust and fairness in the benefits system by fixing the broken assessment process and tackling the perverse incentives that drive people into welfare dependency. Labour Members have long argued that the work capability assessment is not fit for purpose. Going through the WCA is complex, time-consuming and often stressful for claimants, especially if they also have to go through the PIP assessment. More fundamentally, it is based on a binary can-or-cannot-work divide, when we know that the truth is that many people’s physical and mental health conditions fluctuate. The consultation on the Conservatives’ discredited WCA proposals was ruled unlawful by the courts. I can therefore announce today that we will not go ahead with their proposals. Instead, we will scrap the WCA in 2028.
In future, extra financial support for health conditions in universal credit will be available solely through the PIP assessment. Extra income is therefore based on the impact of someone’s health condition or disability and not on their capacity to work, reducing the number of assessments that people have to go through and providing a vital step towards derisking work. And we will do more, by legislating for a right to try, guaranteeing that work in and of itself will never lead to a benefit reassessment and giving people the confidence to take the plunge and try work without the fear that that will put their benefits at risk.
We will also tackle the perverse financial incentives that the Tories created, which actively encourage people into welfare dependency. They ran down the value of the universal credit standard allowance. As a result, the health top-up is now worth double the standard allowance, at more than £400 a month. In 2017, they took away extra financial help for the group of people who could prepare for work, so we are left with a binary assessment of whether people can or cannot work, and there is a clear financial incentive for someone to define themselves as incapable of work—a factor the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others say is likely to be driving people on to incapacity benefits. Today, we tackle this problem head-on.
We will legislate to rebalance the payments in universal credit from April next year, fixing the value of the health top-up in cash terms for existing claimants and reducing it for new claimants, with an additional premium for people with severe, lifelong conditions that mean they will never work, to give them the financial security they deserve. Alongside that, we will bring in a permanent, above-inflation rise to the standard allowance in universal credit for the first time ever. This means a £775 annual increase in cash terms by 2029-30, and it is a decisive step to tackle the perverse incentives in the system.
We will also fix the failing system of reassessments. The Conservatives failed to switch reassessments back on after the pandemic, so they are now down by more than two thirds, and face-to-face assessments have gone from seven in 10 to only one in 10. We will turn these reassessments back on at scale, shift the focus back to doing more face-to-face, and ensure that they are recorded as standard, to give confidence to claimants and taxpayers that they are being done properly.
I can also announce that, for people on universal credit with the most severe disabilities and health conditions that will never improve, we want to ensure that they are never reassessed, in order to give them the confidence and dignity they deserve. We will also fundamentally overhaul the Department for Work and Pensions’ safeguarding approach to make sure that all our processes and training are of the highest quality, so that we protect and support the most vulnerable people.
Alongside these changes we will also reform disability benefits so that they focus support on those in greatest need and ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term into the future. Social and demographic change means that more people are now living with a disability, but the increase in disability benefits is double the rate of increasing prevalence of working-age disability in the country: claims among young people are up 150%; claims for mental health conditions are up 190%; and claims for learning difficulties are up by over 400%, according to the IFS. Every day there are more than 1,000 new PIP awards. That is the equivalent of adding a population the size of Leicester every single year.
That is not sustainable in the long term, above all for the people who depend on that support, but the Tories had no proper plan to deal with it—just yet more ill-thought-through consultations. So today I can announce that this Government will not bring in the Tory proposals for vouchers, because disabled people should have choice and control over their lives. We will not means-test PIP, because disabled people deserve extra support, whatever their incomes, and I can confirm that we will not freeze PIP either. Instead, our reforms will focus support on those with the greatest needs. We will legislate for a change in PIP so that people will need to score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify for the daily living element of PIP from November 2026. That will not affect the mobility component of PIP and relates only to the daily living element.
Alongside that, we will launch a review of the PIP assessment, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, in close consultation with disabled people, the organisations that represent them and other experts, so that we can ensure that PIP and the assessment process are fit for purpose now and into the future. This significant reform package is expected to save over £5 billion in 2029-30; the OBR will set out its final assessment of the costings next week.
Our third and final objective is to deliver personalised support to sick and disabled people who can work so that they can get the jobs they need and deserve. We know from the last Labour Government’s new deal for disabled people, young people and the long-term unemployed the difference that proper employment support can make. More recent evidence from the Work Choice programme and additional work coach time shows that support can make a significant difference in the number of people getting and keeping work and improving their mental health and wellbeing.
This Labour Government believe that an active state can transform people’s lives. We know that because we have done it before. Today I can announce that we will invest an additional £1 billion a year in employment support, with the aim of guaranteeing high-quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work—the largest ever investment in opportunities to work for sick and disabled people. Alongside that, for those on the UC health top-up, we will bring in an expectation to engage and a new support conversation to talk about people’s goals and aspirations, combined with an offer of personalised health, skills and employment support.
We will go further, because being out of work or training is so damaging for young people’s future prospects. In addition to funding our youth guarantee through the £240 million Get Britain Working plan, we will consult on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until someone is aged 22, reinvesting the savings into work support and training opportunities, so that every young person is earning or learning and on a pathway to success.
The Conservatives left a broken benefits system that is failing the people who depend on it and our country as a whole. The status quo is unacceptable, but it is not inevitable. We were elected on a mandate for change to end the sticking-plaster approach and tackle the root causes of problems in this country, which have been ignored for too long. We believe in the value and potential of every single person: we all have something positive to contribute and can make a difference, whether that is in paid work, in our families or in our communities alongside our neighbours and friends. We will unleash potential in every corner of the land, because we are as ambitious for the British people as they are for themselves. Today we take decisive action, and I commend this statement to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. She and I agree on one thing: the welfare bill is too high. Left unchecked, it will rise to £100 billion by the end of the decade. Spending more on sickness benefits than we do on defence is not the sign of a strong country.
This is not just a question of money. We have 3 million people of working-age who are not in work due to ill health, not filling the roles businesses need, not contributing to our economy and not fulfilling their own potential. The best way to get the welfare bill down is to get people off benefits and into work. That is what we did year after year after taking office in 2010. Despite the once-in-a-century pandemic, 4 million more people were in employment when we left office than when we inherited Labour’s mess. Before the pandemic, economic inactivity was at an historic low, but it is true that we then started to see a new phenomenon: growing numbers of people, and—particularly worryingly—young people, claiming sickness benefits. A system set up with good intentions to protect the most vulnerable in society has over time morphed into something broader, driven in part by a well-intentioned but not always helpful medicalisation of life’s ups and downs.
In government, we identified the problem and worked up plans to tackle it, but at every point Labour Members opposed them. In fact, the now Chancellor said that not one single penny could be saved from benefits. When they came into office, not only did they cancel or delay pretty much everything we handed over, but they had no plans of their own. They walked into the Department with empty notebooks. All they had done in opposition was oppose, instead of the hard work of coming up with their own answers. That is why the country has had to wait another eight months for this announcement. In that time, taxpayers have shelled out £7 billion in extra sickness benefits, and nearly half a million people have been signed off sick. In fact, 60 people were signed on to sickness benefits while the Secretary of State was talking.
None the less, I have been looking forward to hearing what the right hon. Lady would announce today and which of the many things briefed to the media her spinning policy wheel would eventually land on. Governing is hard—we know that. In the last few weeks, the Government have made it look really hard, but that is nothing compared with how hard life can be for a severely disabled person, somebody for whom getting up, getting dressed and getting breakfast—things most of us found easy this morning—are hard if not impossible. For some people, the last few weeks have been deeply frightening. They will be glad of the uncertainty finally ending.
I genuinely want the right hon. Lady to succeed, and I welcome her commitment today to increasing the number of reassessments and to having more of them face to face and recorded. I welcome the investment in employment support for disabled people. I welcome, of course, her reannouncing a host of things that we were doing in government. Scrapping the work capability assessment and creating a single assessment is already Government policy that is due to come in in 2026-27. Her big idea seems to be to delay that until 2028. Merging new-style jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited higher rate is a proposal that we worked up in government. We launched a consultation on tightening up eligibility for PIP and, by the way, we would have gone much further with that. We consulted on ending reassessments for people whose health conditions will not improve, and the right to try guarantee sounds remarkably similar to our chance to work guarantee. Of course, on the Secretary of State’s continued support for WorkWell, I launched that programme with the now shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). In fact, the only original idea I can see in the entire announcement is increasing the rate of unemployment benefits—a Labour policy if ever I have heard one.
This is a now-or-never chance to seize the moment—a now or never for millions of people who will otherwise be signed off for what could end up being a lifetime on benefits—but today’s announcement leaves me with more questions than answers. How many people will be helped back into work and by when? Surely we have not been waiting eight months for just another Green Paper. Where is the fit note reform crucial to stem the flow of people on to benefits? Where is the action on people being signed off sick for the everyday ups and downs of life? Why is the right hon. Lady planning to save only £5 billion when the bill is forecast to rise to over £100 billion? Do the savings she is announcing today include the £5 billion we had already agreed with the OBR for reforming the work capability assessment? If so, she has made virtually no savings of her own. What is the net saving given the additional expenditure planned?
Fundamentally, this is too little, too late. The fact is that £5 billion just does not cut it with a bill so big going up so fast. She needed to be tougher. She should be saying, “No more hard-working taxpayers funding the family next-door not to work, no free top-of-the-range cars for people who do not need them, no more sickfluencers helping people to claim money they do not need.”
Before the right hon. Lady puts on her angry voice and leans across the Dispatch Box to shout at me about “14 years”, I gently say to her that everybody in this Chamber and around the country knows that we lost and Labour won. Her job now is to govern and mine is to hold her to account. Our country needs everybody who can work to do so. That principle should be at the heart of our welfare system. It is good for the taxpayer, good for the economy and good for the individual and their family, who benefit from security, dignity and purpose that work brings, and it means that those who genuinely cannot work get the support that they deserve.
The fact is that fewer people work under Labour. That has happened every time Labour has been in office, and it is already happening now. The Government should have taken their time in opposition to come up with meaningful reforms, but they did not, and the country is already paying the price.
Liz Kendall
I personally like the hon. Lady a great deal, but her entire response seemed to be railing against her own party’s failings and lamenting action that her party failed to take. “Too little, too late,” will indeed be the epitaph of the Conservative party. One thing on which I agree with her that this is a now-or-never moment, and I am proud that this Government are taking it. We are taking decisive action, ducking the challenges that have been ignored for too long.
I am not interested in being tough. This is about real people with real lives, and we must be careful in how we talk about it. I am interested in taking the right steps to change the system in order to transform people’s lives and, crucially, ensure that we have a social security system that lasts. One in three of us will have a health condition in our lifetime, and one in four is disabled. Unless the country, the welfare state, the world of work and all our public services wake up to that fact, the welfare state that the Labour party created will not be there for future generations. That is what we are determined to secure. This is a substantial package of measures that will save around £5 billion by 2029-30. We will have to wait until the OBR comes up with its final costings on all this at the spring statement.
I leave hon. Members with this: a decade ago, former Chancellor George Osborne said:
“Governments…let…unemployed people get parked on disability benefits, and told they’d never work again. Why? Because people on disability benefits don’t get counted in unemployment figures that could embarrass politicians.”
The Labour party is not embarrassed about this situation; we are ashamed of the state the Tories left the country in. We will face up to our responsibilities; it is time that Conservative Members did the same.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. I absolutely agree: our social security system is not fit for purpose. The measures, particularly those to increase employment support by £1 billion a year and to increase the standard allowance of universal credit, which the Opposition failed to do in government, will be positively felt.
I appreciate the difficult financial circumstances that we face. Despite the Opposition’s assertion that £5 billion is not a huge figure, this is the largest cut in social security support since 2015. There are alternative and more compassionate ways to balance the books, rather than on the backs of disabled people. I absolutely and fundamentally believe that my right hon. Friend is on the right course, but I implore my party to try to bed in our reforms before we make the cuts, as others have asked.
There is so much evidence of the adverse effects that the Conservative party had through cuts to support and restrictions to eligibility criteria when it was in government, including the deaths of vulnerable people. That cannot be repeated. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend published as a matter of urgency the Government’s analysis of the impacts, particularly mental health impacts, and outlined when we are expected to respond.
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her response. We will publish the equality and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I know that she is a lifelong champion of sick and disabled people, and she has rightly raised concerns, including through the Select Committee, of vital issues such as safeguarding. I look forward to receiving the Select Committee’s report on that in order to learn from the evidence that it received. Although this is a substantial package with those estimated savings, spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits will continue to rise over this Parliament. The last forecast was that they would continue to rise by £18 billion. As she says, these are important issues, and we need to work to get this right to ensure that proper support is in place for people. I genuinely look forward to working with the Select Committee to get all these proposals right.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for sharing her statement in advance—that was extremely welcome.
The Liberal Democrats want to see more people in work, including those with disabilities. Sadly, the significant blocker to those people getting into work is the appalling state of the health and social care system left behind by the Tories—to my mind, in more ways than one. We desperately need the new Labour Government to drive forward with reforms to invest in and improve our health service.
The devil is in the detail of these proposals. I fear what we will find as we turn over rocks over the next few days, particularly for the most vulnerable. The Secretary of State has described the system as broken, so how will she drive significant change through the measures? I fear that this is just tinkering around the edges when we need real culture change within the DWP and investment in our NHS. That is absolutely essential.
Liz Kendall
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need extra investment in the NHS and to overhaul the culture of the DWP, and that is precisely what we are doing. We are investing an additional £26 billion into the NHS, an extra £172 million into the disabled facilities grant to help disabled people to live independently, and £3.7 billion into social care, which is such an important issue.
We need a decisive cultural shift in the DWP. That is why our Get Britain Working plans include proposals to overhaul jobcentres. We have also said today that we need to look fundamentally at our safeguarding approach. Our Pathways to Work programme is genuinely just that. For some people, getting out of the house is an achievement; for others, it is maybe going along to a community group, doing voluntary action or getting skills. That is what we mean, and we will work closely not only with the NHS and social care—and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—but with voluntary organisations, which have such a vital role in helping people on to a pathway to success.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to ensuring that no one is on the scrapheap when it comes to work and that everyone gets the support that they need. I note that she is consulting on delaying access to the health top-up in universal credit until the age of 22. Will she explain the rationale for that age, and what savings does she expect to make if that consultation goes forward?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. Patience is not my greatest virtue, but Members will need to wait until the spring statement for the OBR’s full assessment of individual measures and the savings they make. On delaying access to the health top-up for people under 22, there will be a specific exemption for those who are never able to work because their disability is so severe. This is all about matching it with our youth guarantee, announced in the Get Britain Working plan, to make sure every young person is earning or learning. If someone is not in education, employment or training when they are young, the impact can be lifelong and scarring on their health, job prospects and earnings, so we have to put that right.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
How precisely will these benefit cuts be realised, given this Government’s anti-business Budget, which has seen businesses close at the fastest rate since Labour was last in office? Of those still standing, 30% are planning to cut staff to cope with the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. Where are the jobs? We know Labour is the party of the magic money tree; is Labour now the party of the magic jobs tree, too?
Liz Kendall
The only party that believes in magic money is the Conservative party, who wrote a cheque that they could not pay. Unlike Conservative Members, we believe that good work and rights at work are of benefit to businesses, because the best businesses know that they help retain people and reduce the costs of recruitment. We are overhauling our approach in the DWP to employers, because only one in six ever uses a jobcentre to recruit. We want to have a single account manager for all businesses. We are going to make sure our jobcentres are much more embedded in their local communities, so that they have detailed knowledge of individual employers. That is the way that we get Britain working and growing again.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
When the Government made the decision to go down this route, did they understand the pain and difficulty that it will cause millions of our constituents who are using food banks and social supermarkets? These people are on the brink. This £5 billion cut is going to impact them more than her Department gives credence to. I would like to be able to look my constituents in the eye and tell them that this is going to work for them. As things stand, my constituents, my friends and my family are very angry about this, and they do not think this is the kind of action that a Labour Government take.
Liz Kendall
I have great respect for my hon. Friend, but let me say this to him. I have spent years chairing Feeding Leicester, the programme to end hunger in my city, and I know that I can look my constituents in the eye and say to them: I know that getting more people into better paid jobs is the key to their future success, and I know that dealing with their mental health problems, which are so prevalent, is essential. If someone can work, we will give them the help to get back on their feet, because that is the long-term route to tackling poverty and tackling inequality, which is what this Labour party is all about.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
Like the Secretary of State, I was elected in 2010, and I need to tell her that our recollections differ. When I came into this role, after 13 years of Labour government, 7.5% of young people in the Gosport constituency were not in education, employment or training. That number was down to 3% last year. Since Labour has taken office, 83,000 more people across this country of working age are now unemployed. Businesses in the sectors that take on so many young people across our constituencies, from adult social care to childcare to hair and beauty, are telling me that they are not taking on more staff as a result of her Chancellor’s changes to national insurance contributions. Surely the two are mutually incompatible.
Liz Kendall
Unless we cut waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS, people cannot get back to health and back to work—many employers have said to me that they are deeply concerned about that—and that is the reason we are investing an extra £26 billion into the NHS. We are dealing with precisely those key sectors—health and social care, construction and so on—where employers want people with the skills to do those jobs. We are overhauling our approach in DWP and setting up sector-based work academy programmes specifically tailored to employers’ needs. I know there is more we need to do to work with employers and help them get people back into work, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
After 14 years of Conservative failure, there is a 29% employment gap and a 17% pay gap for disabled people in this country. We must therefore ensure that the social model of disability is central to Government decision making, to achieve inclusive growth that enables disabled people to fulfil their potential. I welcome the Secretary of State’s proactive approach to reasonable adjustments and the £1 billion support package to get disabled people back into work where they can work, as well as her recognition that PIP is designed as an in-work benefit to enable people to live independently. Research shows that supportive, incentive-based approaches massively outperform cuts or sanctions in getting disabled people into sustainable employment. What work has she done to develop inclusive growth strategies across all employment sectors, to close the disability employment gap and the disability pay gap?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. At the heart of our mission is providing equal rights and choices for disabled people to work. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to develop our pathways to work employment support so that we get it right, because we will not do that unless we work closely with disabled people. We are also working right across Government—we have disability Ministers in every single Department who are driving this agenda forward—and I know that my hon. Friend will give much valued advice and help to make sure we get it right in every part of Government.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Encouraging and enabling people to get back to work is a laudable aim, but how can the Secretary of State assume £5 billion of success in advance of actually rolling out the programme? Surely the right approach is to let the reforms generate savings naturally by a concrete reduction in need, rather than to set an arbitrary target beforehand.
Liz Kendall
We are not setting an arbitrary target. We are fixing a broken system, and we are taking action immediately, because we believe we have to put in place employment support, health support and social care support at the same time as fixing a broken benefits system. I always start with people—what do we need to do to give people the opportunities they deserve if they can work? What do we need to do to make sure the social security system lasts? We cannot put that off any longer, because it is not good enough for the people we were elected to serve.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
PIP is a devolved benefit, known as the adult disability payment in Scotland. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that she will work with partners, including the Scottish Government, to ensure that disabled people across the whole UK get the support they need?
Liz Kendall
Absolutely—that is very important for me personally and for the Government as a whole. We want people in Scotland to have the same chances and choices to work if they can as everybody else and to make sure people have proper protections. That is essential for us, and I will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government, as I know other Departments will.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
Youth unemployment stood at 642,000 as of the last quarter of 2024—a rise of 136,000 on 2023—with a youth unemployment rate of 14.8%. The Secretary of State talked about earning and learning. Does she agree that one way of attracting some people back into work would be to get more young people into His Majesty’s armed forces—the Air Force, the Navy and the Army—and will she discuss that with the Defence Secretary?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree. Indeed, before I was appointed to this position, as a constituency MP in opposition I discussed with my local jobcentre and the armed forces recruitment team precisely these issues, because the exciting careers and opportunities that are available are really important for young people in my constituency and the right hon. Gentleman’s. I will certainly have more conversations with colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to make sure we put this plan into action.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I have heard many people make a moral case for the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced today, but does she agree that over the last 20 years those with large amounts of wealth have done extremely well while average household incomes have stagnated and the standard of living for the overwhelming majority has gone down? So while we make a moral case for changes to the benefits system, should we not also be making the case for how we can tax wealth as opposed to income?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden, which is why I am very proud that we have closed loopholes in the non-dom tax status, looked at the profits of the energy companies and tackled issues in many other areas. Fairness in the tax system is an absolute principle of the Labour party.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Government say they will not change our fiscal rules because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their tax policies because of their manifesto. They say they will not change their position on the single market because of their manifesto. Perhaps the Secretary of State could outline to me and to people right across the UK where in her manifesto it stated that they were going to take £5 billion away from disabled people?
Liz Kendall
I am very happy to send a highlighted version of our manifesto to the right hon. Gentleman, where we said we would reform or replace the WCA, we said we would make sure we dealt with the backlogs in Access to Work, we said we would make work pay, we said we would invest more in the NHS, we said we would improve employment rights, and we said we would create jobs in every part of the country. I am very proud that we are delivering on it and I just ask the right hon. Gentleman to take a look at what is happening in Scotland and at the Scottish Government’s record, because there is probably more they could do.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
I am delighted to hear my right hon. Friend announce additional investment in high quality, tailored and personalised support to help people on a pathway to work and the recognition that for so many it is indeed a pathway, not just a series of referrals that merely lead back to square one. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that joint working with local support services like those in Clwyd North, which are already doing great work, will form part of this reform so that a truly local, person-centred approach can be achieved?
Liz Kendall
Yes. We will not get this right unless we draw on the huge strengths of our voluntary and community organisations. I have never believed that there are hard-to-reach groups; it is just that we need to change what we do. There is a lot we can learn from groups like those my hon. Friend mentions, because it really is a pathway to work. We have got to end this false divide between those who can and cannot work, and instead understand that there are steps towards a better life. That is what this Government want to deliver.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I have two practical questions. First, the Secretary of State said she is joining jobseeker’s allowance and employment and support allowance into a new time-limited unemployment insurance; what is that time limit? Secondly, she said there would be an expectation on people to look for work; what happens when they do not meet that expectation and what discipline is faced if they do not take that up?
Liz Kendall
The time limit is one of the things we are consulting on in the Green Paper and I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s views on that. On the expectation to engage, it is interesting that when we have started to free up our work coach time and offer support on the phone and in person, many people have come forward, because we are trying to change the culture. The Conservatives always leap straight to a position where people refuse to get involved. We have got to change that culture; that is the way that we will get more people on to that pathway to success.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the Secretary of State that many disabled and sick people want to work, but the reality is that cutting PIP will not address the reasons why they do not. She outlined that the reasonable adjustments framework for disabled people is very hard to navigate. It took me six months to navigate it for a member of my staff here in the place where we legislate, so how hard is it going to be for disabled people in the workplace to try to get employers to make those adjustments? Will the Secretary of State outline how she is going to make sure that the workplace is ready for the people who will be accessing it? Can she reassure me about the disability employment gap, which in a sense has nothing to do with benefits, but is to do with the reasonable adjustments that are not being made at the moment?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate of these issues and she is right: we have to do far more to work with employers to ensure that those basic reasonable adjustments are made. That is one of the issues that Sir Charlie Mayfield is looking at in our “Keep Britain Working” review, precisely because we know that good employers understand the need to make these changes. I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend to go through this in more detail because she is right: we have to get this absolutely nailed.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
First it was the pensioners and their winter fuel allowance, then it was the WASPI women and broken promises, and now it is the sick and the vulnerable. We believe in protecting the taxpayer but also in protecting those who need our support the most, yet there was not a word about abuse or about those who are taking money out of the system when they are not entitled to it. How can the Secretary of State rationalise in her own mind saying in the statement that, on the one hand, she accepts that people’s health and wellbeing can fluctuate but that, on the other hand, she is going to do away with the accumulation of points? To require an applicant to get four points in any one box does away with the ability to recognise that mental ill health in particular manifests itself in many different ways. That accumulation of points has been incredibly important in getting support for those who need it most. If it fluctuates, how come she is doing away with that accumulation?
Liz Kendall
There is very clear evidence that good work is good for mental health. That is the case for people with anxiety and depression, but also for those with more severe conditions such as psychosis and schizophrenia. There is really clear evidence from the NHS individual placement and support programme that if we can help people get into work, that is not only better for them and their incomes, but it reduces their relapses and spending on the NHS. The right hon. Gentleman asks how I rationalise this; I do so because I am not prepared to accept a system that is miserable for people, that traps them in poverty, and that denies them the chances and support they deserve. I am also not prepared to accept an inexorable rise in costs and spending, much of which is on the costs of failure, precisely because I want to ensure that the social security system lasts for the long term.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I think all Government Members understand the scale of the financial bin fire left by the previous Government, but there are those who are worried and are seeking assurances at home. For the 1 million people potentially losing disability support, what guarantees can my right hon. Friend give that those who are unable to feed or toilet themselves will not lose out on personal care? For the 1 million who can and do want to work, of course we welcome that £1 billion of extra support, but how are the Government going to hold unco-operative employers’ feet to the fire in giving disabled people an equal chance of employment and career success?
Liz Kendall
I agree with my hon. Friend: I know people are worried and concerned and that is a really important issue. It is why I disagreed with the Opposition spokesman saying that we need to be tough; I am not interested in that because this is about real people and real lives. The changes to PIP are not coming in immediately; they will be coming in from November 2026 for new claimants. Those with severe conditions who will never work will be protected. If people do have a reassessment, it will be done by a fully trained assessor or a healthcare professional and will be based on their individual needs. In order to ensure there is greater confidence in those assessors and the decisions that are being taken, we will overhaul our safeguarding and training and we will record those assessments as standard, because that is essential.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Because working is so beneficial to mental health, will the Secretary of State require claimants to undertake socially useful work in order to retain their benefits?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for listening to disabled people and their organisations about ending needless, wasteful and extremely expensive repeat reassessments for those with progressive conditions. I hope that has been welcomed by those who have campaigned for it for many years. Will the Green Paper include plans to tackle the disincentives to work for disabled people and others in supported housing? If they work for more than 15 hours a week, it can result in financial penalties. That system was not only ignored by the Conservatives, but actually put in place by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties in coalition, when they fumbled the introduction of universal credit. Will this Government fix tax allowances to ensure that work always pays, including for disabled people in supported housing?
Liz Kendall
My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability is looking at that. I am sure that he will discuss those issues with my hon. Friend, if he would like that.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I have heard nothing today that shows that the Government have listened to disabled people. Any changes to PIP should have been co-produced, but this week, 25 disabled people’s groups and charities wrote to Ministers begging for their opinions to be included, and not as an afterthought. Will the Secretary for State explain why disabled people are feeling so disregarded and scapegoated, and why impoverishing them to the tune of £5 billion is a higher priority than a simple wealth tax?
Liz Kendall
I think that many disabled people felt disregarded and ignored under the Conservative Government. We will be working with disabled people and the organisations that represent them on many—not all—aspects of what I have announced today. If the hon. Lady has particular issues and concerns that she would like to raise, she can write to me, or I would be very happy for her to meet me or the Minister for Social Security and Disability.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
Mr Speaker, you know that there are decisions made in this House that stay with you for the rest of your life. This is one of them. We all agree with the Secretary of State’s objectives of trying to ensure that disabled people have the resources they need for a decent quality of life, and that those capable of work have support to get into work. However, trying to find up to £5 billion of cuts by manipulating the PIP rules and criteria will result in immense suffering and, as we have seen in the past, loss of life. What independent monitoring will take place and be reported to the House, and what threshold of suffering is needed before an alternative route is taken to supporting disabled people?
Liz Kendall
I take the issues relating to the measures I have announced today very seriously. We want to ensure that all the assessment processes and training are properly scrutinised, and we are overhauling our safeguarding processes. My objective is to improve the lives and life chances of sick and disabled people by supporting into work those who can work, and by protecting those who will never work, through switching off reassessments to give them dignity and respect. I believe that the mission to ensure that those who can work do, and to secure the sustainability of the social security system for the long term, is the responsibility of the Labour party that founded the welfare state.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
One of the first acts of this Government was to take away the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners on incomes as low as £13,000 a year, including 44,000 who are—or were—terminally ill. Will the Secretary of State reassure all our constituents that in making these changes, she will not be going after those who have a terminal illness?
Liz Kendall
That is absolutely essential for me personally, and for the Government as a whole, and I give that assurance to the hon. Lady. However, I gently say to her that pensioner poverty increased under the Conservatives, and they left 880,000 pensioners not getting the pension credit they deserve. The Conservatives are suddenly converted to caring about pensioners on low incomes. In contrast, we have decided to act.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As a physio, I know that optimising somebody’s function and independence, whether they are in work or not, saves the system so much money, because it prevents dependency. However, I find that incongruous with the cuts of £5 billion and the changes to the eligibility criteria. Will the Secretary of State ensure that before the measures are brought to the House, disabled people are consulted and involved in the decision making? We must ensure that people maintain their independence, psychological safety and dignity, and that they are not pushed further into poverty.
Liz Kendall
I agree with my hon. Friend that keeping older people physically independent for as long as possible is vital. That is one of the reasons why we are investing an extra £26 billion in the NHS. Not only are we rolling out employment advisers in talking therapies and mental health services, but we are starting to do so when it comes to physical health, too, including for people with musculoskeletal conditions, because getting people back to health and back to work is so important. We will legislate for the PIP changes, and the House will have the full ability to debate them. Crucially, we will consult disabled people on the employment support programme and how we get that right, so that it is much more joined up with the health support that many sick and disabled people need.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
Many of my Hazel Grove constituents are keen as mustard to get back to work, but they are waiting for either a diagnosis or treatment on the NHS. That is made more difficult because of the capital spending needed at Stepping Hill hospital, and because mental health services across Greater Manchester are stretched too thin. What assurance can the Secretary of State give my constituents that her announcements today will not make an already difficult time in their lives even more difficult?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady is right to champion her constituents’ needs. We recently undertook a survey of people on sickness and disability benefits, and two in five of them said that they were on a waiting list. That really concerned us, and it is why we are putting extra investment in place. We need to go further, faster, on driving waiting lists down. We have already achieved the 2 million extra appointments that we said we would deliver in our manifesto—we did that seven months early—and we will do even more to ensure that her constituents get back to health and back to work.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
Nearly 1 million young people leaving school are not in employment, training or education. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) and I both represent St Helens. A couple of weeks ago, we received a letter from college tutors who were having difficulty getting young people to take up employment, training or education, asking if we could we do anything about that. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the guarantee of employment for young people, and how we will get them to accept training? Those young people were afraid of a cut in universal credit. I have to admit that I did not know that young people were on universal credit.
Liz Kendall
I promised I would keep my answers shorter, because so many colleagues want to get in. Our youth guarantee will be rolled out from next month. Mayors and local leaders will bring together work, health and skills support locally. I am very happy to talk to my hon. Friend personally about what more we can do in her constituency, because she is right that we have to get those young people on a pathway to success.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
When I fought the last election, I was honest with my electorate, telling them that we would save £12 billion from the welfare budget. Was the Minister honest with her electorate when she talked about Labour’s plans to cut disability welfare, or is she making this policy on the hoof because the Chancellor has destroyed economic growth?
Liz Kendall
The Conservatives did not have a plan. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), admitted during the general election campaign that the money had already been scored. I will listen more to the hon. Member when the Conservatives put forward a plan that works, instead of having it discredited in the courts.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Too many carers of disabled people end up with physical and mental health disabilities themselves, and end up trapped in the same system as their loved ones. What more can the Secretary of State do with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to end that trap?
Liz Kendall
I have been a lifelong champion of family carers, who give their all to looking after the people they love. My hon. Friend will know that we have already boosted the carer’s allowance earning threshold by £45 a week to £196, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by ’29-30—the biggest ever cash increase in the earnings threshold for carers. We need to do much more to support family carers, including enabling them to balance their work and caring responsibilities. I look forward to talking to my hon. Friend about that.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Secretary of State says that she will legislate for a change in PIP, so that in future, people must score a minimum of four points in at least one activity to qualify. That means that an individual who needs supervision or assistance with therapy for three and a half hours a week, prompting and assistance with washing, assistance to get into the bath or shower, supervision to manage their toilet needs, and assistance to dress and undress their lower body would no longer qualify for PIP. How many such individuals are there?
Liz Kendall
It does not mean that. Every single case is assessed on individual need. It is really important that the hon. Lady and her constituents understand that we will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. Anyone who goes through a reassessment will have it done based on their personal needs.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will agree that under the managed decline of the SNP, people in Scotland are more likely to be economically inactive than those in the rest of the UK. She will further agree that we have greater ambitions for the people of Scotland, particularly young people, than the Conservative party. Does she agree that these reforms are absolutely necessary to put more Scots back to work, and back on the road to prosperity?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I would. People in Scotland deserve the same chances and choices to work. They deserve to get skills and training, to not have young people leaving school without the qualifications they need, to have an NHS that is reducing waiting times, and to have overhauled jobcentres—absolutely. We will continue to work with the Scottish Government to put all those problems right, because we want people in every part of this country to benefit.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s shift towards prevention. Last May, my constituent Alexander McRandal was riding his motorbike on the lanes of east Devon when he struck a pothole and was thrown from his bike. His collision resulted in permanent nerve damage. He has had to leave a 40-year career, and his wife Louise has given up work to look after him. While they will be reassured to hear that the Government will not freeze PIP, does the Secretary of State recognise that more investment in local government is needed to prevent situations like theirs?
Liz Kendall
I am really sorry to hear about what has happened to the hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family, and the impact it had on them. There is absolutely more that we need to do to provide local support, which is why the Get Britain Working plan is not all being determined by Whitehall. Local leaders know best what local areas need, which is why we are devolving more resources, powers and responsibilities to local areas to ensure that we shift the focus towards prevention and early intervention and help people get back on their feet.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
When cuts to incapacity support were introduced by the last Government through the work-related activity component, we saw severe rises in poverty, no significant increase in employment, and cases of mental ill health skyrocketing. In the north-east, we already have some of the highest rates of poverty and ill health in the country, so what assurances can the Secretary of State give me that these changes will not push people in areas like mine further into poverty and ill health?
Liz Kendall
This is absolutely about areas like those represented by my hon. Friend—areas that have been written off and denied opportunities for so long. It is really important that we look at this in the round. We are taking action to create more good jobs in every part of the country through the modern industrial strategy, clean energy and building 1.5 million homes. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is sending specific teams into the 20 areas with the highest levels of economic inactivity to drive down waiting lists. There is much more that we need to do to focus this on the areas that need help the most, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make that happen.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Today, across the United Kingdom and in my constituency of Upper Bann, so many genuine benefit recipients are fearful of what lies ahead—people who are vulnerable and need a compassionate welfare system to assist them in their day-to-day living. Regrettably, no reassurance has been given to those people today, particularly on the four-point minimum requirement. There has been little mention of fraud and the genuine need to tackle it head-on. Does the Secretary of State not believe that equipping our benefit fraud officers with resources and powers to catch and deal with those committing fraud would be a better starting point than sweeping changes that will be unlikely to outsmart the fraudster, but will hit the most vulnerable?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady may not know, but we have a fraud Bill going through Parliament right now, because we believe that £8 billion being wasted on fraud every single year is unacceptable. I am more than happy to write to her to set out the contents of that Bill; we can then have another discussion.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The reality remains that over the last few weeks, thousands of the most severely disabled people in my constituency and millions across the UK have watched in disbelief as politicians debate cuts to the support that enables their very survival, leaving many at breaking point. Does the Secretary of State understand the real fear and distress that that has caused? Will she today commit at the Dispatch Box to ensuring that not a single person who currently receives PIP will be unfairly punished or left struggling by these plans?
Liz Kendall
I do understand the worry and anxiety. I hope I have made it clear to the House today that I do not start from a position of being tough: I start precisely from a position of compassion for people who can work and are being denied opportunities and for severely disabled people who will never work. That is one reason why we are overhauling our safeguarding processes to ensure that those who can never work are never reassessed, to give them the confidence and dignity that they deserve.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I welcome any initiative that will see more people getting back into work. Although I have some concerns about the wrong people being targeted—and the fact that there will not be the jobs for them to go to, because of the national insurance contributions increase—I will press the Secretary of State on the detail. I find it strange that she can tell us that this will save £5 billion, but she cannot give us even a ballpark figure—I do not expect it to the penny—for how much she will spend beyond and above the £1 billion she has already announced. I know that it will come out through the OBR, but can she not give us a rough idea of how much her changes will cost?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman may know that Government Members strongly believe in and support the independence of the OBR and the processes behind it. We can give overall figures today, but he will have to wait until the OBR assessment is published at the spring statement for the individual costings, how many people will be affected and by how much.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me because they are afraid of losing their benefits. After 14 years of Tory neglect and chaos and several months of scaremongering, there is real vulnerability and fear in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm that we on the Government Benches believe that those who cannot work are nevertheless entitled to a decent standard of living? Like her, I believe that good work is good for us; it is good for mental wellbeing, a sense of worth and economic security, and disabled people are entitled to those. Will she write to me and set out in detail the incremental support, including tech support, that disabled people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West can expect as a result of these measures, and when they can expect them?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In her statement, the Secretary of State referred to right-to-try legislation being brought forward and to de-risking work, but the Treasury’s NIC rises make employing more expensive and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more risky. What assessment has her Department made with other relevant Departments of the impact of recent Government policies on job creation and opportunities for sick and disabled people to try work?
Liz Kendall
Labour Members believe that good work and employment rights make it more likely that people will take work, and that they will keep people in work—that is why we are bringing those changes forward. We have a lot of employers who want to work with us to get the people they need because they are struggling to fill vacancies. We are overhauling our approach to that, because we want to serve employers to better meet their needs.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Of course, everyone in our country who can work should work, and should receive appropriate support to do so. It is of the utmost importance to many Labour Members that Labour ensures that disabled people who can never work are supported and protected to live the best possible life in dignity. Can the Secretary of State tell me how an adult who cannot work—however much they would have liked to—because, for example, they have cerebral palsy, a visual impairment and learning difficulties, and who is on enhanced PIP and has limited capability for work and work-related activity, will be affected by these changes? What will be the impact on their finances?
Liz Kendall
I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues, and I have spoken to her about them many times. I absolutely agree, and we commit that people who will never be able to work because of the severity of their disability or health condition will be protected. In fact, by never going back and reassessing those people, I hope that we will make a positive improvement, giving them the dignity and respect they need and deserve.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Culture matters. Those who have been victims of the carers’ overpayment scandal describe the culture at the DWP as spirit-crushing, but the culture of the Government matters too. Last week, I spoke to my constituent Geoff, who lives in Haywards Heath and is partially sighted. He told me that he and the partially sighted community have been sick with worry about what is being brought forward today. Does the Secretary of State think that the pitch rolling that has gone on over the past 10 days is the right way to make these kinds of announcements?
Liz Kendall
I hope that from now on, hon. Members will focus on the proposals that we are actually putting forward. Culture really matters—that is why we launched an independent investigation into the carer’s allowance overpayments; we want not just to be told that we are putting things right but for independent voices to say that. Many of our work coaches in jobcentres are absolutely wonderful, but I have heard from other hon. Members about work coaches ringing deaf people. We must start changing that, looking at our training processes and putting all these things right so that everyone is treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
In Erewash, there are many disabled and sick people who can never work, but who are forced to jump endlessly through hoops for the benefits they need to survive. I welcome the Secretary of State’s plan to switch off reassessments and end the needless stresses that these people must endure. Will she elaborate on those plans?
Liz Kendall
This is something that is personally important to me and the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We have seen cases in which, unbelievably, people whose disability will never change, or whose health condition will only get progressively worse, are being reassessed. While we switch reassessments back on and make them more face-to-face for people on the health top-up, we really want to ensure that there is dignity and respect for those who can and will never work. I would be more than happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about that proposal in the Green Paper.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Has the Secretary of State ever been diagnosed with depression? I have—I have been in a situation where just getting up in the morning, having a shower and brushing your teeth feels like the biggest fight. Does she think that putting people who have been diagnosed with a mental health condition through more reassessments will make their mental health condition better or worse?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I do not talk about any health issues I may or may not have had in the past, although she is brave enough to talk about them in this House. People’s mental health conditions affect them in many different ways; there are people with anxiety and depression who say to me that work has actually given them structure and purpose and helped them deal with the problems, while others have said that sometimes they just cannot get out of bed, let alone out of the house. We need a system that recognises the different and fluctuating nature of these conditions and does whatever is right for that person, to get them back to health and—if they can—back to work.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I was a manager in the employment service. It has always needed reform, whether that is telling people that they have to come back in six weeks to get help or—under the Tory Government—being told to move people from employment benefits on to incapacity benefits in order to say that there are more people in employment. How we go about reforming it is fundamentally important, and I do not think it should be linked to saving money—that is rather crass, and it has caused lots of anxiety for my constituents and for people elsewhere. Patriotic Millionaires has said that a tax of just 2% on assets over £10 million will bring in £22 billion a year. That is a better way to bring money in to help fill the black hole that we have found ourselves in because of the disaster of 14 years of Tory Government. Does the Minister agree that aspiration, compassion, care and fairness will be the hallmarks of this Labour Government?
Liz Kendall
Aspiration, compassion, care and fairness are absolutely the hallmarks of this Government—that is why we are bringing forward these reforms. As I said earlier to the House, I do not start from a spreadsheet; I start from my belief that everybody has a value and a contribution to make, in whatever way, and that we want people to fulfil their potential. That is what these reforms are about.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Given the announced changes to the personal independence payment, what assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact on injured service personnel claiming the personal independence payment as an interim measure while their compensation claims are processed prior to the awarding of the armed forces independence payment, and will the armed forces independence payment also be within the scope of these changes?
Liz Kendall
I will look into that issue in detail, and will respond to the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend co-chairs the child poverty taskforce. Can she tell the House what analysis she has undertaken of the impact on child poverty of the reforms she is announcing today? Will she publish that analysis, and can she assure the House that these reforms will not make child poverty worse for any child living in a family where their parents or carers are in receipt of benefits?
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.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
My constituents will welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment today to protecting with dignity those who cannot work because they are so severely disabled or because of illness. There are many sick and disabled people who can work with the right support, so can my right hon. Friend confirm that those people will get the support they need to get into work to build a better life for them and their families?
Liz Kendall
Yes. Members have rightly said that PIP is not a benefit related to work, but a contribution to the extra costs of living with a disability. Actually, 17% of people on PIP are in work. I want to expand opportunities for disabled people who can work to get into work, because the disability employment gap, which actually fell under the last Government, has flatlined. We want to sort that out, because we believe that disabled people should have the same rights and chances to work, if they can, as everybody else.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Can the Secretary of State offer some reassurance to Sue from Wareham about her 45-year-old son, who is permanently disabled through childhood illness? She told me that he has great abilities and works part-time with support, but every time there is a change of circumstance, he has to prove his permanent disability again. The Secretary of State has confirmed that there will be changes to reassessments by DWP, but will that also apply across other Departments, including the Department for Transport, for matters including bus passes and blue badges? Those reassessments cause huge mental health issues.
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady raises an important point. I will look at that and write to her to make sure we address it properly.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
While I accept that it is perfectly possible for people with severe mental health conditions to work with the right support—in Warrington, we already have an employment rate above the Government’s national target—is there not a risk that these proposals are premature and that we are legislating for the mental health services we might hope to have in the future, rather than where these services are today? Does the Secretary of State accept that the issue is not over-diagnosis, but the broken mental health services we inherited?
Liz Kendall
I have always believed we should follow the evidence on this. We have a clear commitment to recruit 8,500 new mental health workers and to have mental health support in every primary and secondary school to prevent problems from happening. We also need to roll out individual placement and support within the NHS. I have seen in my own constituency that it can be life-transforming, but we need to go further and faster to ensure that all people with mental health problems who can work do so.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Wales will be hit hard by these cuts, with the second-highest proportion of disabled people of working age in the UK. Stripping £5 billion from the system will only increase pressure on other services. Has the Secretary of State secured the approval of her Labour Welsh Government colleagues, as they will be the ones who will have to shoulder the cost of these damaging cuts?
Liz Kendall
Welsh Labour wants to see more people having the chances and choices to get good jobs. That is why we have a modern industrial strategy to create good jobs in every part of the country, why we are building 1.5 million new homes and why we want to see clean energy support. All those things will make a huge difference. We do not believe that the status quo is acceptable or inevitable. That is why our plan for change will create more good jobs in every part of the country. I hope that the hon. Lady and her party will welcome that.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I support the measures set out in this statement to get people who can work into work. I have been contacted by constituents who are worried, such as my constituent Lisa, who has a son with a severe disability. He will never be able to work and relies on support. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that people like my constituent, who cannot work and will never be able to work, will not be worse off under these proposals?
Liz Kendall
We absolutely will protect those who can never work. One thing I have not said to the House so far is that we are consulting in the Green Paper on whether we should increase the age until which children get DLA from 16 to 18. That is an important point to give people the reassurance they need and deserve.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Parity in our welfare benefits is a key feature of our Union. When the last Government introduced their welfare reforms, the Northern Ireland Executive saw fit to introduce mitigations for which they had to pay by taking money off health and education out of the block grant. If the Northern Ireland Executive decide to mitigate these cuts on this occasion, can the Secretary of State confirm that that money would again have to come out of needed services, such as health and education?
Liz Kendall
Full details on the impact of these changes on the block grant will be available at the spring statement. The last Budget provided the biggest ever block grant settlement since devolution. I will be working closely with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure we do everything possible to help people in Northern Ireland into work and off benefits, to ensure that they have the same chances and choices as people right across the United Kingdom.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Peterborough is a youth unemployment hotspot. I know not many Members are left on the Opposition Benches, but one of the most shameful parts of their record has been writing off a generation, with one in eight young people not in education, earning or training. There is nothing progressive or good about a Government who write off young people and put them on benefits. I welcome the work that the Secretary of State has announced about employment support services for young people. Will she speak more about my passion, which is the Government’s youth guarantee and how we put into reality youth jobs for the future?
Liz Kendall
Young people in my hon. Friend’s constituency are much more likely to be unemployed than young people in the rest of the country, and I know his passion for the youth guarantee. We are investing extra support into the youth guarantee in his area, and I look forward to launching that youth guarantee very soon.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I of course applaud the intention of getting people back to work, but my inbox—like those of everybody else here, I am certain—is full of emails from petrified disabled constituents. The recurring theme is the absolute disbelief that once again, welfare cuts are being imposed by none other than a Labour Government. What will the Secretary of State say to my constituent, Jason, who lives in our city? He has been told by Leicester city council that it will now consider his PIP payment as income and so has increased the council tax he has to pay. How does the Minister expect Jason to find that additional £900?
Liz Kendall
I am happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me about that constituent so I can look at the issue.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Three quarters of the people who claim universal credit and disability have gone without essential items in the past six months. The £5 billion cut is likely to make that worse for them. I have had lots of emails from my Liverpool Riverside constituents. As others have asked already this afternoon, will the Minister speak with the Chancellor about looking at a wealth tax? We need a wealth tax and not to be attacking the most vulnerable.
Liz Kendall
I know that my hon. Friend cares passionately about these issues. Her constituents will not only benefit from the £1 billion investment into employment support, but the first ever above-inflation permanent increase in universal credit, if people are on universal credit and PIP. We have already taken action to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders take a bigger burden, including our action on the non-dom tax status and a tax on the profits of utility companies. That principle of fairness is vital to us all.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I go on the tube twice a week, and the disability seat in the carriage says “Not every disability is visible”. Bearing that in mind, those with severe mental health issues, such as paranoid psychosis, anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder, already fear phone calls from withheld phone numbers. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that they will not be impacted or hounded in the attempt to root out fraudsters? Does she accept that those with severe mental health issues may not understand their illness, or be able to explain it or grasp it? How will these people—my people; our people—be protected?
Liz Kendall
I think that everyone’s situation and condition is individual and personal to them, and that is why it is important that any reassessments are done on an individual case-by-case basis. There will be people with psychosis and schizophrenia who can never work, but I have met people in Leicester with precisely those conditions who have got work through the employment advice provided by the NHS’s individual placement and support service. That is why, as I have said, the pathways to work employment support is personalised and tailored to individual need.
Given the size and complexity of the social security system, it is not easy for me to provide an answer now for the people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why we must have those personal assessments, and I want much more to be done to ensure that they are carried out properly.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Last night I received a response from the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to a written question that I had asked about the average payment for the daily living component of PIP. It revealed that the average payment was just £12 a day. The purpose of the daily living component is to cover the cost of extra help needed with everyday tasks such as washing, eating, using the toilet and getting dressed, but the Secretary of State’s proposal to tighten the eligibility criteria could mean that even those who are assessed as needing help on every criterion may not be entitled to PIP. Is it not wrong to balance the books on the backs of sick and disabled people in such a way?
Liz Kendall
I can confirm that we will focus PIP on those with the greatest needs by changing the assessment so that people will need to score a minimum of four points to qualify for the daily living component. That will apply to new claimants from November 2026. Reassessments will be conducted on a personal, case-by-case basis, and therefore, while I entirely understand why Members raise issues about individuals, we cannot determine those cases from the Dispatch Box.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I represent the second most deprived constituency in the United Kingdom, where nearly one in two children are living in poverty, and I worry about the impact that these measures could have on child poverty numbers. Moreover, the number of young people in my constituency who are not in work, education or training is double the national average, but they cannot gain access to the mental health support that would enable them to get into work. That is happening throughout Blackpool, but it is also happening across the country. What can the Secretary of State do to turbocharge the health service while also putting representatives of the voluntary sector, the third sector and the charity sector into jobcentres, so that people can find mental health support immediately rather than waiting for us to rebuild the NHS that the Conservatives left in such a terrible mess?
Liz Kendall
We are considering putting jobcentres into GP surgeries and community centres. I believe in a jobs and careers service going to where people are, rather than always expecting them to come to us. I think I am right in saying that authorities in some parts of the country, such as the combined authority in Manchester, have commissioned specific talking therapies for people who are looking for work. That is the direction in which we want to move, and I should be more than happy to discuss it with my hon. Friend in more detail.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Hundreds of disabled people in my constituency want to work, but they often face absolute poverty pay and feel that they would be better off on benefits. On average, disabled workers are paid £2.35 an hour, or £4,300 a year, less than other workers. How will Labour’s commitment in the King’s Speech to a new equality Bill ensure that disabled workers will finally receive equal pay at work, and can choose a good job over being—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I call the Secretary of State.
Liz Kendall
I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that today we launched a consultation on equality pay gap reporting, and I hope that that will make a huge difference.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
If we do indeed believe in the social model of disability described earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), may I encourage the Secretary of State, and indeed everyone, to find a different language in which to talk about this? When we describe disabled people as being unable to work, we ignore the fact that most disabled adults are in work, while many of those who are not are desperate to get into work but are held back by low pay and lack of opportunities. Can we look again at Access to Work to ensure that the largest and most profitable employers are bearing more of the costs of adequate—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that there are a great many more for me to get in? I ask them please to help each other, and keep the questions and answers short.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right: there are more disabled people in work than ever before, and we need to recognise that and go further. We are launching a consultation on Access to Work to ensure that more people are able to secure that vital support, and that it goes to the right place at the right time.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I agree with the Government that welfare reform is necessary, but many of my constituents are very worried about the removal of support on which they rely. Fourteen years of austerity under the Conservatives took its toll on our nation, with public service cuts and the cost of living crisis pushing people to the brink. What are the Government doing to address the root causes of people’s inability to work, rather than just focusing on the symptoms?
Liz Kendall
We are focusing precisely on the root causes. We are focusing on what more we can do to change the world of work, get people back to health and back to work and give them the skills that they need, and on tackling the disincentives in the benefits system. I am not interested in tinkering around; it is too important for people, and life is short. I want to get it right, tackle the root causes, and put the country on a pathway to success.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Many organisations, including our own NHS, use punitive capability processes when scoring the illnesses of people who become sick while in work, which causes additional stress to those who need support the most. How will the Government help employers to ensure that their employees are supported properly when they experience ill health?
Liz Kendall
Our Keep Britain Working review, led by the former John Lewis boss Sir Charlie Mayfield, is dealing with precisely that issue: what more we can do to help employers to give sick and disabled people more opportunities to obtain work and stay in work.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
The Resolution Freedom has warned that as a result of cuts in PIP, 62,000 people could lose about £675 a month, with the poorest families hit the hardest. Given that 870,000 children live in PIP-receiving households and 290,000 of them are already living below the poverty line, how can the Government justify pushing more disabled people and children into poverty rather than pursuing fairer alternatives, such as a 2% wealth tax on assets worth more than £10 million, which would raise £24 billion—five times as much as the suggested savings from the proposed cuts? Is “austerity 2.0” really the change that people voted for?
Liz Kendall
Spending on working-age sickness and disability benefits will still rise substantially over the current Parliament. The full assessment of the numbers affected, and by how much, will be published alongside the spring statement.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Cuts in social security for disabled people under the last Government led to their living in poverty with little or no increase in employment rates. What assessments have been made of the impact of these changes on their income, and will the Secretary of State ensure that any reforms are compassionate and disabled people have a voice?
Liz Kendall
Many other Members have asked that question. We will publish the equality impact and poverty impact analyses alongside the spring statement. I believe that we need to treat people with dignity, respect and compassion, but must also face up to the challenges of a failing system that is currently not sustainable, not for the public finances—although that is relevant—but for the very people who will depend on this in future. That is what we are trying to change.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for reassuring my constituents with profound disabilities that they will be protected under these reforms. My niece, who herself has autism and has faced significant barriers to work, is a health coach in a local jobcentre, where she is helping other people with disabilities, neurodiversity issues and mental illnesses to find work. However, she is frustrated by her lack of access to fit notes. Will the Secretary of State ensure that jobcentre staff have the time, information and resources that they need to help people with disabilities and health problems to find suitable and rewarding jobs?
Liz Kendall
As always, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. We want to free up our work coaches’ time from tick-box benefit administration so that they can spend more time with sick and disabled people who need support, and can refer them to, for instance, mental health or debt advice services. When we do that, more people get into work, and both their finances and their mental health improve. We have already announced that we will free up 1,000 work coaches’ time to help more than 60,000 sick and disabled people, and that is just the start: we want it to be rolled out throughout the land.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I am one of the 6% to 8% of people living with a serious mental illness in employment, despite 80% of us wanting to work. I am here despite a mental health system that I have always found unsupportive, and because I went out of my way to forge my own pathway of support and care. Although I welcome the Secretary of State’s offer of a package of support, my plea to her is that she work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that those of us who suffer with a severe mental illness have the true support that we need to access employment.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right. One of the things we learned during the pandemic is that a healthy nation and a healthy economy are two sides of the same coin. I believe we need to do much, much more to join up what the DWP does with what the NHS and, crucially, local skills and voluntary organisations do. That is not the way we have worked in the past, but that is what we want to change.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
Having worked for all his adult life, my dad had a life-altering stroke in 2013. He was just 55, and PIP kept him alive for 10 further years. As the person who helped to fill in his PIP forms, take him to assessments and make the telephone calls, I can tell the House that, without a doubt, the system is already incredibly difficult to access. Will the reforms help speed up the process for PIP assessments and decisions, which take far too long under the current process?
Liz Kendall
Yes. We have announced in the Green Paper that, alongside the changes for which we will legislate, we will have a review of the PIP assessment process, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. We will work with disabled people, the organisations that represent them, and others to sort this out. One of the great tragedies is that it is a miserable system for everybody. I do not want it to be like that—we need to change it—and I really look forward to talking to my hon. Friend to get more of his ideas.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Labour believes in the value and dignity that having a job gives people, but too many disabled people who want a job are being let down and trapped by the current system. Organisations such as SWEDA—the Skills Work and Enterprise Development Agency—in West Bromwich help people with disabilities and long-term conditions into employment with tailored, local support. Can the Secretary of State confirm that this package of reforms will support people into good, fulfilling work via local organisations, and that we will protect people with long-term conditions who will never be able to work?
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
The system is clearly broken, and I welcome the urgent work to get it fixed. What reassurance can the Secretary of State provide to children living in households that receive PIP but are in poverty? What reassurance can she provide to the one in five people in receipt of universal credit and disability benefit, who are reliant on food banks already? What reassurance can she give to my constituents, 6,000 of whom claim PIP, which they need for dignified lives?
Liz Kendall
Having chaired Feeding Leicester for years—unfortunately, I had to give it up when I got this job—I know only too well the issues that people face right across my city and my hon. Friend’s constituency. Our objective is to get those who can work into good work, because that is the sustainable way to tackle poverty and inequality in this country. We are also committed to developing a bold, cross-Government child poverty strategy, which we hope to publish shortly.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Being healthy is shaped by the world around us, from the homes we live in to the air we breathe and the money in our pockets. Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a moral case for tackling the social determinants of ill health and the causes of poverty, rather than cutting the benefits of the most vulnerable people in our society?
Liz Kendall
I have worked in health, and one of my first jobs involved tackling health inequalities when I worked at the King’s Fund charity. We are looking at building not only more homes, but more decent homes. We want people not just to get jobs, but to get good jobs. We are looking at raising the income of the poorest people with our new fair repayment rate, which gives an average of £420 a year extra to the 1.2 million poorest families. There is much more that we can do but, right across Government, our purpose is to tackle poverty and inequality by getting more people into good jobs. That is the Labour way.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I strongly congratulate the Secretary of State on the £1 billion package of employment support. Many active labour market policies have been shown to have considerable economic impact. Historically, it has been difficult for the Office for National Statistics to score the positive impacts of active policies, as opposed to the more straightforward impacts of budget reductions. Will the Secretary of State commit to working cross-departmentally to ensure that we have long-term investment in the health of our nation, which is so fundamental to the wealth of our economy?
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I welcome the reforms outlined today and the commitment to make sure that our most vulnerable disabled people are protected from these changes. In Darlington, we know the value of work, but I have come across constituents with learning difficulties who have been out of work for a long time. They have been in work placements and could work, but they were badly bullied and have been scarred by 14 years of rhetoric about how they are workshy. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give that they will be offered safe and secure work placements?
Liz Kendall
I am not interested in blaming people to grab easy headlines; we have had that for too long. I know that many people with autism and neuro-divergent people have been treated badly, which needs to change. If my hon. Friend would like to send more case studies and examples from her constituency, I will look at them to see what we can do. We will try to put things right.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)
Many will see the removal of £5 billion from the social security system not as reforms, but as the continuation of the failed ideology of Tory austerity, which has already cost thousands of lives. I have had hundreds of disabled constituents tell me that they are absolutely terrified by what the Government are planning to do. Does the Secretary of State really believe that it is fair to balance the books on the backs of disabled people and the poor, rather than introducing a wealth tax on the super-rich?
Liz Kendall
Let us be honest: that is not what we are doing. I do not accept the status quo—it is miserable for people who can work, and miserable for those who cannot. That is what I want to change.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the tone that she has struck today. We are talking about people’s lives, not figures on a spreadsheet, and I hope to see that reflected in the delivery of these plans.
Disabled people’s trust in the system is low following 14 years of a failed punitive approach by the Conservative party, and speculation in recent days has left my constituents feeling fearful. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that those with the most severe disabilities—those who are genuinely unable to work—will be no worse off under these plans?
Liz Kendall
I can absolutely give that commitment. Many hon. Members have raised the issue of culture, which is about how people feel they have been treated and the headlines that they see in the papers. It is really important that we change that. I know that we cannot do so overnight, but the entire team in the DWP—our Ministers and officials—want to change things so that we can get people on a pathway to success.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. Welfare reform must ensure that incentivising people into work does not produce unintended health consequences, not least by generating fear and uncertainty, as she rightly points out. Does she agree that we need to address the health inequity issues that are delaying treatment of mental illness, and our underlying public health and inequality issues? Welfare reform and NHS transformation must complement each other, to make sure that no one is left behind.
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree that we need to tackle these issues, but there is more and more evidence that good work is good for the mental health of people with anxiety and depression, and for those with serious conditions, if support is provided in the right way. I have seen it for myself in my constituency, including through the work that the NHS is doing. We have to spread that far more widely.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
We know that helping people to stay well and manage long-term conditions or disabilities is almost always cheaper in the long term. Can the Secretary of State tell me how she will account for the potential wider system costs of changing the amount of money that is available to people with disabilities or long-term conditions?
Liz Kendall
For many years before I was appointed as a shadow DWP Minister, I worked in health and social care, and I know that helping people to manage their long-term conditions is absolutely essential. We must give people power, control and agency over their lives, rather than telling them that a doctor or somebody else always knows best. I deeply believe in that principle, and I will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, because I know he believes that, too. There is much more we can do, but we will definitely make a start.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently held a child poverty roundtable in my constituency, and one of the issues raised repeatedly was that many people who want to work find themselves worse off when they lose benefits and find themselves pushed into hardship. What assurances can my right hon. Friend provide for my constituents that under these changes they will be better off in work and will no longer be penalised for wanting to improve their life’s circumstances and those of their families?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises a really important point, and it would be really good if she talked to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is reviewing universal credit, as we promised in our manifesto, to tackle poverty and make work pay. We have to make that a reality for everybody in this country, and I am sure that, if she talks to him, he will speak more about what we are doing in this regard.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Last week, my constituent Ellie, who is visually impaired, visited the local jobcentre, but as a full-time student seeking part-time work, she was belittled, spoken over and told that she could not get help because she was on PIP, not on UC. She left feeling devastated by that experience. Can the Secretary of State reassure me and Ellie that such an experience will become a thing of the past for people like her who are desperately seeking work?
Liz Kendall
That is absolutely my intention. I ask my hon. Friend to send me the details, because I will look into that personally.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the clue is in the name of our party? Because we believe in dignity in work and enhanced workers’ rights; dignity and far more support for disabled people and people with health conditions seeking work, particularly with the right to try; and dignity and compassion for those unable to work, especially in ending reassessments. Does she also agree that this Labour Government will get Britain working and get welfare working better, with compassion and support at its heart?
Liz Kendall
I very much agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. I do not pretend that this will change overnight, and I know it is a huge agenda, but we are in politics to make a difference—and a big difference—because, as I have said, life is short, and there is much we need to do.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Many of us in this place have fought alongside parents of severely disabled people, not least against our broken SEND system. Can the Secretary of State reassure those parents, who may be looking at the proposed changes to UC health eligibility for under-22s and feeling deeply dismayed right now?
Liz Kendall
We are consulting on this proposal, and we want to make sure that those severely disabled people who will never work will be protected. However, I also know that there are many young people with special educational needs and learning difficulties who, with the right support, can make a contribution, live independently and get work. I am working closely with my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to get this right, because it is really important that we ensure all young people get the support and opportunities they deserve.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend will know that the Tory legacy in coastal communities such as mine in East Thanet is a broken welfare system and a broken economy. The number of people claiming PIP has more than doubled in my constituency since 2018, and the statistics on young people claiming for mental health conditions are particularly heartbreaking. However, two things can be true at once: too many people are being written off without a path to wellness and work; and there must be reliable support for those who cannot work. Can my right hon. Friend explain how reducing support for those who struggle to wash and dress themselves will help tackle either of these challenges?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend, as always, speaks passionately about her constituency and the need to make sure that the support for people who can work is there, but also that we protect those who cannot. I would say that every case needs to be judged on an individual basis, and we will make sure that that happens.
I say to the House, and to you, Madame Deputy Speaker, that I know many people would have wanted to ask more questions and to say more, but my door is always open. We want and need to get this right, and we will have more debates about this, but if any hon. Member on either side of the House wants to contact me with more questions, I and the team will do everything we can to address those openly, honestly and quickly.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
The final question from the Back Benches will come from Chris Vince.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think we all know that the current system is not only broken, but unsustainable. I welcome her focus on supporting the long-term unemployed, and I would point to some good examples of the work we are doing in my constituency. However, would she agree that we need to support those constituents in Harlow, many with severe disabilities, who cannot work, and end this merry-go-round of constant reassessment?
Liz Kendall
Madam Deputy Speaker, you were saving the best till last, as always, with my hon. Friend.
We absolutely will protect those with severe disabilities who can never work. I do not want to see them having to go through deeply worrying reassessments, and we want to put that right. For people in Harlow who can work but have been denied such opportunities, we will fix the broken system, tackle the perverse incentives left us by the Conservatives, and give people the hope and opportunity that there are better days ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Just to let Members know that about 100 Members have asked questions on the statement.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Kendall Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I want to begin by saying that there has understandably been a lot of speculation about the Government’s social security reforms. I assure the House and, most importantly, the public that we will be coming forward with our proposals imminently to ensure that there is trust and fairness in the social security system and that it is there for people who need it now and in the years to come.
Almost 1 million young people are not in education, employment or training. That is terrible for their living standards, their future job prospects and their health. That is why our new youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning. Our trailblazers, backed by £45 million of additional funding, will lead the way and will start in eight areas next month.
Amanda Martin
Each of those 1 million people is a real person, and I was contacted by a young man in my constituency who studied an early years education T-level and wanted to enter a desperately understaffed profession but has been struggling ever since to access a starter job. Being out of work while young can have a scarring effect that impacts people’s job prospects for a lifetime. Will the Secretary of State work to identify people at risk of becoming NEET and ensure that my constituents are supported to find meaningful work?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Her constituent deserves to fulfil his potential and live his hopes and dreams, like everybody else. We will be working hard with the Department for Education to identify those young people who are at risk of becoming NEET, to ensure that we put in place the skills training they need to get the jobs of the future and fulfil their potential, as they deserve.
Emma Foody
I suspect there might be quite a spike in the number of Geordies not in work today, given the cup final at the weekend.
I recently visited Azure, a charity in my constituency that provides learning and work opportunities, especially for young people with learning disabilities, and heard about the incredible work it does to provide young people with hands-on experience in a hospitality-based learning environment. Will the Secretary of State detail what more the Government can do to support charities such as Azure to provide these vital opportunities?
Liz Kendall
I congratulate Azure on its brilliant work. I believe that charities and voluntary organisations have an essential role in getting people on the pathway to work and success. I know from the supported internship programmes that have been run in my constituency, including through my local hospital, that young people with learning difficulties can, with the right support, get those jobs and get that work. That is what this Government want to deliver.
Chris Curtis
I am increasingly concerned by the rising number of young people in Milton Keynes who are out of work due to mental health issues, which I think is a key factor behind the nearly 12% increase in young people claiming unemployment benefits in Milton Keynes since 2024. Can the Secretary of State outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that these young people have the support and opportunities they need to continue to improve their health, secure stable employment and live independently with better living standards?
Liz Kendall
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the number of young people not in work due to mental health conditions, which has increased by over 25% in the last year alone. The number of young people who are economically inactive due to poor mental health now stands at 270,000. That is why we are focusing on early intervention, providing mental health support in every school and recruiting an extra 8,500 more mental health staff, and from April we will be launching our youth guarantee and trailblazers to ensure that every young person is earning or learning.
Baggy Shanker
The Derby Promise recognises that children and young people are the future of Derby by bringing together businesses and organisations across our great city to give children meaningful, aspirational experiences, whether at iconic factories, or cultural or sports venues. We know, however, that children already face limits on their future career aspirations by the age of seven. Will the Minister outline what work her Department is undertaking to support children in Derby and across the UK from an early age to raise their future career aspirations? Will she also agree to visit Derby to see the Derby Promise in action?
Liz Kendall
I or one of my team will definitely visit the Derby Promise. I share my hon. Friend’s concern that young people are ruling out future careers at a young age. I met with the Careers and Enterprise Company on Friday, and they told me that children are ruling out careers by their gender at age seven and by their class by age nine. For the Labour party, that is not good enough. I hope the Derby Promise will be involved in the youth guarantee in the east midlands, led by the mayor, Claire Ward, because we have to unlock the potential of every young person if they and this country are to succeed.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Like young people in Portsmouth North, in Cramlington and Killingworth, and in Derby South, young people in Glastonbury and Somerton face barriers to their employment, education and training due to poor public transport infrastructure. Research has shown, however, that a 1% improvement in public transport time could support a 1% reduction in employment deprivation. What steps is the Minister taking, alongside Cabinet colleagues, to remove barriers to employment, education and training in rural areas?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady makes a really important point, and it is one that mayors and local leaders raise with us regularly, as well as families who are struggling and children and young people in poverty. That is why we believe it is so important to put mayors and local leaders in the driving seat of change, so that they can link up transport, skills and job opportunities, as part of our plans. My hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and I have been working closely with local leaders to ensure that happens, because if people have to get work, the transport must be in place.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability was kind enough to come to the launch of the “What comes after education?” report by National Star and the Together Trust. One key finding of that report is that young people with disabilities face particular problems when trying to access work. The system is set up against them and workplaces are set up not to work for them, yet many of them want to do whatever they can to find meaningful employment. When Ministers are making decisions about upcoming welfare changes, I hope that report will be on their desks and that it will be properly considered.
Liz Kendall
Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman will indeed be hearing more about our plans, which will include proper employment support to help people on a pathway to success. We also have our “Keep Britain Working” review, led by the former boss of John Lewis, Charlie Mayfield, which is looking precisely at what more employers can do, with support from Government, to create healthier, more inclusive workplaces and to guarantee that disabled people who can work have the same rights and choices to work as everybody else?
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Much like the constituencies that have been mentioned, my young people in Chichester are struggling to find work and that is no more apparent than for those with learning difficulties, so will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Together Our Community, or TOC, which provides work experience for young people with learning disabilities aged 18 to 35 to show that they do have something to offer the workforce? TOC is about to open its own café and centre for these young people. Will the Secretary of State outline what support is available for such charities and join me at its opening next month?
Liz Kendall
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating TOC; it sounds like it is doing fantastic work. On Friday, I was talking to the headteacher of a special needs school near my constituency, who was saying we absolutely have to ensure that work experience, careers advice and working with voluntary groups are all part of the package of support we put in place. If possible, I or one of my colleagues will certainly come and see the work that TOC is doing, because charities and voluntary groups are absolutely critical to this Government’s plans.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Back in the autumn, the right hon. Lady said
“we will not allow young people not to be in education, employment or training.”
How is it possible then that since Labour has been in office there are 100,000 more young people in exactly that situation?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady had 14 years to solve the problem and the Conservatives’ record is clear: nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, which is one in eight of all our young people; and the number of young people with mental health concerns who are out of work has now reached 270,000. That is the legacy of 14 years of Conservative government, and it is a legacy that this Government are determined to change.
Helen Whately
I asked about what has happened “since” the right hon. Lady’s party has been in government: it is her Chancellor’s tax on jobs and economic mismanagement that are costing young people opportunities. Instead of taxing jobs, Labour should have been ready with a plan for welfare reform at the time of the Budget. They have spent nine months trying to cobble one together and still we wait. Why did the right hon. Lady not make any plans in opposition, and does she regret that?
Liz Kendall
Conservative Members had no plan. Even their own former Chancellor admitted that the numbers were made up. The only thing they put forward were proposals on the work capability assessment, which have recently been ruled illegal by the courts. They had no plan, but they had a clear record: leaving people behind, writing them off and putting them on the scrapheap. This Labour Government will turn that around and get people, and our country, on the pathway to success.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Many disabled people want to work but were written off and failed by the last Government. Our work aspirations survey of health and disability claimants found that a third wanted to work at some point in the future if their health improved or the right job was available, and 200,000 said that they would work now if they got the right support. This Government will ensure that disabled people who can work have the same rights and chances to work as everybody else, because that principle of equality is what this Labour Government are for.
David Williams
Christopher, a resident of Talke in my constituency, was badly let down by a flawed PIP assessment—one that lacked basic humanity and empathy. With reports of welfare reforms in the media, he is now deeply worried about what the future holds. What steps will be taken to ensure that people like Christopher are treated with fairness and dignity, and given the support that they need?
Liz Kendall
I say to my hon. Friend and his constituent that treating people with dignity and respect is absolutely at the heart of this Government’s plans. Having been a constituency MP for 14 long years under the Conservatives, I know that there will always be people who cannot work because of the severity of their disability or illness, but I also meet—day in, day out—disabled people who are denied the chance to work, for many different reasons. That is what we want to put right, to ensure that the social security system is there for those who need it, and not just now but for years to come.
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
As the Secretary of State looks at reform, is she considering the PIP reassessment process? For people whose conditions will not get any better, would it not be sensible to relieve them of the burden of that reassessment process unless they wish to be reassessed? That would be less distressing for them, it would save money in the system, and it would allow people who do need reassessment to be reassessed faster.
Liz Kendall
I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman says. Patience is never my greatest virtue, but I ask him and the House to be patient and to look at the full proposals, which we will put forward imminently.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This week is Sign Language Week, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be speaking in the Backbench Business debate to mark Sign Language Week on Thursday.
This week is also Neurodiversity Celebration Week. Neurodivergent people face particular barriers to employment, with less than one in three in work. Everyone deserves the chance to fulfil their potential, so we recently launched a new independent panel to advise us on these issues. The experts on the panel, including neurodivergent people themselves, will present their recommendations to us later this year, and I very much look forward to their findings.
Jessica Toale
Last week I visited the Crumbs project in my constituency. Crumbs provides training for people with disabilities and mental health conditions to get the professional skills they need to go into the hospitality industry, and the personal skills they need to live independently, and 90% of its trainees move into employment. Given the Secretary of State’s commitment to bringing people with long-term health conditions and disabilities back into work, what more support can she give to successful programmes such as Crumbs?
Liz Kendall
I welcome the work that Crumbs is doing in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I want to ensure not only that we overhaul our jobcentres, have a new youth guarantee, and join up work, health and skills support through our “Get Britain Working” plan; but, crucially, that our jobcentres and others work closely with organisations such as Crumbs, because only by working together will we get the right support to help people on the pathway to work and to success.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
We heard yesterday that the Cabinet had not yet seen the welfare plan that the right hon. Lady is apparently due to announce tomorrow. Given all the media briefings, the apprehension of disabled people and the growing number of people not working, none of us would want to see that delayed. Can she assure us that she has got collective agreement so that she can announce her plan here in this Chamber tomorrow?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady will have to show a little patience. She talks about plans, but we have seen her and the shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), making claims in various newspapers about their plan—but there never was a plan. The former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), actually admitted that during the election when he said that the numbers had already been scored. The only thing that the previous Government ever put forward was ruled illegal by the courts. They had 14 years to put this right; this Government will act.
Helen Whately
I listened hard to the right hon. Lady’s answer but, given everything I heard, I still do not think she has the support of Cabinet colleagues, with less than 24 hours to go. It was a no.
There is never a good time for millions of people to be out of work, but as the world gets more dangerous we can afford neither the benefits bill nor the waste of human potential. Given the opposition of the right hon. Lady’s party to welfare reform, can she assure me that her planned reforms will grasp the nettle and bring the benefits bill down?
Liz Kendall
That from a member of a Government who left one in 10 working-age people on a sickness and disability benefit, one in eight young people not in education, employment or training, and 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness. That was terrible for them—for their life chances, incomes and health—and terrible for taxpayers who are paying for an ever-spiralling bill for the cost of failure. Unlike the Conservative Government, who wrote people off and then blamed them to get a cheap headline, we will take decisive action, get people into work and get this country on a pathway to success.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
We will never get this country growing again unless we provide good jobs, hope and opportunity in every part of the country, including my hon. Friend’s constituency. He knows that his region has one of the highest levels of people not in education, employment or training. Our youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning, and I look forward to working with him to deliver that on the ground.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Will the Secretary of State confirm that those people in receipt of disability benefits who profoundly cannot work will not face a cut in their benefits?
Liz Kendall
I say to the hon. Gentleman, just as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability has said, that we know there will always be people who cannot work because of the nature of their disability or health condition, and those people will be protected.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
Yes, we are not only working together closely to expand the number of apprenticeships for young people, but looking at changing the rules so that they do not always have to have the basic GCSE maths and English to get a new foundation apprenticeships. I think we need to go further by working closely with schools. On Friday, in my own constituency, I visited a school that is looking closely at the risk factors for becoming NEET—not in education, employment or training—which is where we really need to take action.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Liz Kendall
Absolutely. The child poverty strategy is looking widely at how we can: increase people’s incomes, including through work; reduce costs; ensure families are more financially resilient, looking at issues like debt and savings; and give all children the best start in life, no matter their background or where they live.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Government announced billions of cuts to the Department; then, over recent days, Ministers have made U-turn after U-turn, and in the media round over the weekend were spinning out of control. Is there anything meaningful left to announce from the Secretary of State’s original welfare plans?
Liz Kendall
The Conservative party, which left a broken welfare system that is failing the people who depend on it and taxpayers, had 14 years to put it right. We know what their legacy is. Hon. Members will see the proposals soon, but we will not shy away from the decisions that we believe are right to give opportunities to people who can work, security for those who cannot, and to get the welfare bill on a sustainable footing.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Today’s Telegraph has done a right hatchet job on the most socially deprived ward in my constituency. The people of the East Marsh are sick and tired of journalists taking a day trip to write their poverty porn stories about people who are proud and keen to play their part in society in every way that they can. They have sought to pit older people against younger people, highlighting the NEET record. The young people in that ward are as keen to work as anyone else, but they need the jobs to do it. What discussions is the Secretary of State having about that?
Liz Kendall
There will be no greater representative for her constituents than my hon. Friend, who rightly said that they want the right chances, choices and support to work, as anyone else does. That is why we are creating good jobs in every part of the country through our modern industrial strategy. We are improving the quality of work and making work pay through our Employment Rights Bill. Our get Britain working plan will give the work, skills and—
Mr Speaker
Order. It is topical questions. I have a few Members still get in.
Household Support Fund
Liz Kendall Excerpts(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
This Government are committed to a sustainable, long-term approach to drive up opportunity and drive down poverty across the UK.
At the autumn Budget, we announced a one-year £742 million extension of the household support fund in England, from 1 April 2025 until 31 March 2026. The devolved Governments will receive consequential funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way, to be spent at their discretion.
We know that local authorities have the experience and relationships to determine how best to support those in their local areas. This extension of the household support fund will enable local authorities to provide everything from immediate crisis support such as food vouchers or warm winter clothing to more preventive approaches to tackling poverty, such as referring people to debt and other advice services, working with community and voluntary organisations to signpost people to wider support, and helping with costs of energy bills and white goods.
We also encourage local authorities to consider how their provision of crisis support could have a longer-term, sustainable impact, such as providing insulation or energy-efficient household items which reduce bills and repairing or replacing white goods and appliances.
The scheme guidance and funding allocations for the forthcoming extension will be shared with local authorities imminently.
[HCWS495]
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Kendall Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to his post as Pensions Minister, and to place on record my personal thanks to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), for all her hard work.
Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will update the Department’s powers to tackle fraud for the first time in more than years, including enabling our serious and organised crime investigators to apply for a warrant; enter and search premises for evidence; seize items such as computers and phones; and bring criminal gangs to justice.
Luke Akehurst
Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling fraud against the taxpayer is key to setting the country’s finances on a sustainable footing and allowing the investment in public services that my constituents are so desperate to see?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a responsibility and a duty to use every possible measure to ensure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent, on our schools, hospitals and police and on supporting those who are in genuine need. Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, along with fraud measures in the Budget, will save £8.6 billion over the next five years. That is the biggest fraud package ever. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the press today there is a reference to a criminal gang who defrauded the DWP by more than £1 million and were able to abscond to a certain eastern European country. Without mentioning too many things that are happening, can the Secretary of State tell me whether there is a way, within the law of this land, of chasing those people up, getting them back here and finding out where all that misappropriated money has got to?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this despicable case. The new powers in the Bill—the existing powers have not been updated for 14 years—will bring us into line with other public bodies and ensure that we can investigate this properly, secure the evidence and get our money back.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
To get Britain growing again, we have to get Britain working again, and supporting employers is critical to achieving that goal. That is why last week I announced an overhaul of how the DWP helps businesses, including the introduction of a dedicated employers’ team in the DWP, ensuring that there are single account managers for businesses, so they do not have to have multiple conversations with different jobcentres, and the expansion of the number of training programmes tailored to employers’ individual needs. We are working in partnership with businesses: that is how we all go for growth.
David Taylor
The last Labour Government reduced child poverty by nearly half, from 3 million to 1.6 million, and legislated to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Instead, under the Conservatives, the number of children in relative poverty significantly increased between 2010 and 2023. Does the Secretary of State agree that working with employers to help people, particularly parents, into decent, well-paid jobs, is essential not only to growing our economy, but to reducing poverty, including child poverty?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that having more parents, including lone parents and second earners in couples, in better paid jobs is critical to tackling child poverty. There has been a big shift in the nature of poverty since our success during the last Labour Government, when we lifted over 600,000 children out of poverty, as there are now more children growing up in poverty in a working household, so improving the parental employment rate is critical to driving down those numbers.
Gill German
Tu Mundo, or Your World, is a growing independent business that recently opened its third coffee shop, in Rhyl. Tu Mundo has a distinctive style, not just with the toucan motif that graces everything, including its teapots, but with its commitment to economic growth in the local area. In partnership with the local employability service, Working Denbighshire, Tu Mundo hosts work-start placements for those entering or re-entering the workplace, with several graduates going on to become permanent employees. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Tu Mundo and Working Denbighshire on that work? Does she agree that that is exactly the sort of partnership work that will bring fair economic growth across the UK?
Liz Kendall
Yes. I would like to say a massive thanks to Tu Mundo for all the work it is doing. There is a lot of evidence that work placements or work experience are a really important way to encourage more people into work. Last week, I visited B&M, the fastest growing retailer in the country, to look at what it is doing with short work experience placements, which are a form of “try before you buy” for the company and the employee. The placements have a huge success rate and B&M now recruits 85% of its workers through the scheme. We want to continue such success in the future.
Melanie Onn
Apprenticeships, training and reskilling in new energy technologies will be essential to deliver growth in the hard-working Humber region. Can the Secretary of State tell us more about the training programmes that she mentioned, which will support businesses in expanding opportunities in Grimsby and Cleethorpes?
Liz Kendall
I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about helping more people into work. Youth unemployment in her constituency is almost twice the national average, so it is essential for her constituents that we sort this out. Alongside work experience, we want to expand the number of sector-based work programmes, which have tailored courses for employers. We will also hold summits in three key growth areas—construction, health and social care, and clean energy—to bring employers together with local areas so that we can really go for growth.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The ambition of the Secretary of State for an 80% employment level is bound to be made more difficult by the findings in the impact assessment of the Employment Rights Bill, which foresees a £5.4 billion increase in costs and a 53% increase in strike action, is it not?
Liz Kendall
Government Members are ambitious for people right across the country. We do not accept the situation that we inherited from the Conservative party, as the only country in the G7 whose employment rate had not gone back to pre-pandemic levels. Creating more good jobs in every part of the country and narrowing the employment gap between different areas is tough, but we believe that it is achievable, and it is no less than the British people deserve.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On economic growth, what does the Secretary of State say to businesses in my constituency that fully support fair pay and national insurance contributions for employees, but whose ability to grow, create employment, and invest is being impacted by the cumulative effect of the changes?
Liz Kendall
I say that in order to put the public finances on a secure footing, we had to take difficult decisions. I understand the pressures that businesses are under, but they know that if we do not balance the books, we cannot grow in future. We are taking action not just to put the public finances on a secure footing but to have a genuine programme to get Britain working again. We do not accept the situation that we inherited from the Conservatives, in which so many people were locked out, denied the right to work, and denied a good, well-paid job in every part of the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
As the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), likes to say, the Department for Work and Pensions is the HR department of the Government’s growth mission, yet we inherited a situation in which only one in six employers has ever used a jobcentre to recruit. That is not good enough, which is why I announced last week five steps to put it right by overhauling what we do for employers. That includes a new dedicated employers team that has already brought more than 30 companies on board, including Swissport, Home Bargains and KFC. Soon we will host summits with businesses in key growth sectors such as construction and clean energy, as part of our plan to get Britain working and growing again.
Perran Moon
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is one of 15 WorkWell pilot regions, which are a core element of the Government’s “back to work” plans to reduce economic inactivity due to ill health. I invite the Secretary of State to visit Cornwall to see how WorkWell is already making a tangible difference in helping those with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work, and to confirm that the spending review will provide the multi-year funding necessary to sustain and expand that vital service.
Liz Kendall
I would love to visit. That is an important programme focused on keeping people in work and getting those who have recently left back into work as soon as possible. In my hon. Friend’s area, WorkWell provides advice on workplace adjustments, access to physiotherapy, and employment advice and counselling, and is working closely with the voluntary sector and employers, backed by £2 million-worth of funding. That is critical because, with more than 15,000 economically inactive people in his constituency, we must start turning that situation around.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Last week, the right hon. Lady described herself as the HR manager for the Government’s growth plan, so can Liz from HR tell me which of her colleagues should be fired for the addition of 47,000 people to the unemployment figures in December?
Liz Kendall
I am proud to say that I want to get Britain working again after we inherited a situation in which a record 2.8 million people were out of work due to health problems, because the Conservatives pushed the NHS to its knees and failed to have a proper plan to get people back into work. Our mission is to get Britain working and growing again, and that is what our plan will deliver.
Helen Whately
Wishful thinking is all very well, but let us talk about the facts. Those 47,000 people probably spent Christmas worrying about how they would pay the bills without a job, and they are now looking for work in an employment market decimated by Labour’s jobs tax. How high does the right hon. Lady forecast unemployment will get under her Government?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady wants to talk about the facts. The facts are that we inherited a situation in which we will be spending £20 billion more on working-age, incapacity and disability benefits because of the mess her Government made, and in which there has been a doubling of the number of young people out of work due to health conditions, so people are more likely to be out of work due to poor health in their 20s than in their 40s. Our radical reforms will give people the right to work and the support they need, and will get the benefits bill on a sustainable footing.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have launched the “Keep Britain Working” review led by Charlie Mayfield, the former chair of John Lewis Partnership. He is doing precisely that—looking at how we can better support employers to help keep people in work and get them back to work. Mental health is a real concern for me, with so many young people not in education, employment or training, primarily driven by mental health problems. This is an issue we have got to sort, because it is terrible for them and for their future, and terrible for the economy too.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
Yes, I do commit to that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on the issue. With almost 1,000 young people unemployed in his constituency, or almost one in 10, I know what an important issue it is. His area is part of one of our youth guarantee trailblazers, meaning that every young person is earning or learning. I commit that the whole Government will continue to work with him and partners in his constituency to make sure that no young person is left behind.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Jamie from my constituency is a full-time carer, but he is also in full-time education and is therefore not entitled to carer’s allowance. Will the Government confirm that they will extend carer’s allowance to those in full-time education?
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Liz Kendall ExcerptsMonday 3rd February 2025
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill will help deliver the biggest ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse, which has now reached an astonishing £55 billion a year. That includes fraud against our public services, such as by those who abuse the tax system; fraud by dishonest companies that use deception to win public contracts and manipulate invoices; and benefit fraud by criminal gangs and individuals, which now stands at a staggering £7.4 billion a year.
There have always been people who commit fraud against the state—tragically, this is not a new problem—but at a time when families across the country are working so hard to pay their bills and put food on the table, when more than 7 million people are stuck in pain and discomfort on NHS waiting lists, and when a shameful 4.3 million children in Britain are growing up poor, it is simply unforgiveable that the Conservatives allowed fraud to spiral out of control. During their 14 long years in government, they failed to put in place a proper plan to crack down on fraud, and there is no better symbol of this than their failure to update the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions to properly crack down on benefit fraud. Just let that sink in for a moment.
Over the last decade, fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated in the techniques that they use to steal people’s money, using data, technology and all manner of scams. In response, banks and other companies have transformed their ability to spot and stop fraud, and to protect their customers’ money, but the last Government completely failed to do the same for taxpayers. In all their time in power, and with all the developments in technology and the ability to share data and information, they failed to update the DWP’s powers. The Conservatives will no doubt claim that they did introduce measures, but, in truth, they put forward one poorly thought-through measure that was tagged on to another Bill at the tail end of the last Parliament, without any of the proper safeguards or oversight in place. Today, all that changes with our new fraud Bill.
This Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the large companies and dodgy businessmen who try to defraud our public services, it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system, and it is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. Taxpayers deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely and that benefits are there only for those who need them, not fraudsters who take advantage.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is absolutely correct to say that we need to pursue criminal gangs that are engaged in widespread organised theft. I put a written question to the Department for Work and Pensions to ask about the amount lost through personal independence payment fraud, and I was told that only 0.2% of such claims were fraudulent in 2022-23. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we pursue organised criminal gangs, it is really important that we make it clear that there cannot be a hostile approach to disabled people claiming PIP or disabled people more widely who are using the benefits system as they deserve to?
Liz Kendall
People who are genuinely entitled to claim benefits have nothing to worry about from this Bill, but we believe that the £7.4 billion wasted every year through benefit fraud must be cracked down on.
To the corrupt companies with their dodgy covid contracts, to the organised criminal gangs and to every single individual knowingly cheating the system, our message today is clear: we will find you, we will stop you and we will get our money back.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
No one denies that there are those who are blatantly cheating the system, as I referred to in my oral question to the Secretary of State earlier today. On her point about fair play, however, can she give an assurance to me and to the House? I am concerned that if officials in the Department seek out low-hanging fruit, people who have a genuine disability could be denied their rights. I am concerned about the anxiety, the depression and the physical effects that that might cause.
Liz Kendall
Actually, the Bill will do the precise opposite. Through the measures relating to the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are saying to the large companies and corporations and to the individuals cheating, “We will treat you equally. We do not allow fraud against the public purse. We want to stop it and get our money back.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Liz Kendall
I will make a bit of progress.
I want to start by setting out the measures in the Bill that give the Public Sector Fraud Authority the powers that it needs—further to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised—to fight modern fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public bodies.
Liz Kendall
I will set this out first. The Bill will provide the authority with new powers to obtain search warrants, to enter premises and seize evidence as part of fraud investigations, to compel businesses and individuals to provide information where there is a suspicion of fraud, and to enable it to better detect and prevent payments made as a result of fraud or error. It will also bring in new debt recovery powers, so that we can get public money back for taxpayers, and new financial penalties that the PSFA can use as an alternative to often lengthy criminal prosecutions.
What happened during the pandemic was completely unacceptable, with billions of pounds squandered by the Conservatives on dodgy deals with their covid cronies. This Bill will help us to get that money back. It will double from six to 12 years the time limit for civil claims to be brought in alleged cases of covid fraud, giving the PSFA and our new covid counter-fraud commissioner more time to investigate complex cases relating to those who exploited a national emergency for personal profit.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have spent more than a decade studying fraud and error in the DWP. The Secretary of State is right that levels of fraud have been intransigently high, but my concern is about where there are errors. Quite often, they are made by the Department. My constituent received a £5,000 overpayment. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House that people in that situation will not have money taken out of their bank account, and that they will be treated properly if there is a small error on their side or a big error by the Department?
Liz Kendall
I will come on to that point in a moment, but I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend. In fact, I think that the measures in the Bill will help us to spot such errors and prevent them from happening in the first place. People make genuine mistakes. We do not want them to build up errors and build up debt that they have to repay. I think that the Bill is part of solving that problem. I will say more about that in a moment.
I turn to fraud and error specifically in our welfare system. The Bill will modernise and extend the DWP’s anti-fraud powers, bringing it into line with other bodies such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that we can use technology and data to find and prevent fraud more quickly and effectively; so that our serious and organised counter-fraud investigators have the powers they need to search premises and seize evidence, including from criminal gangs, and bring offenders to justice; and so that we can ensure that when people owe us money and, crucially, when they can pay, we get that money back for taxpayers. That all comes with strong and new safeguards and with independent oversight on the face of the Bill, as I will set out in detail.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Conservatives did not do much on this issue except tagging on a Bill at the very end of their tenure. The Information Commissioner’s Office was very critical of the approach taken in that fraud Bill. Can she reassure the House that she has addressed those concerns?
Liz Kendall
I can indeed reassure the House. The Information Commissioner was rightly critical of the last measure introduced by the Conservatives—the third-party data measure. He has written to us today, and we will make sure that his letter is published. He says that he has reviewed our proposals and is very clear that the current measure more tightly scopes the type of information that can and cannot be shared; specifies much more clearly those in the power’s scope; requires a statutory code of practice before measures are taken; and includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of these functions. I am more than happy to publish that and share it with the House, because I think it shows the changes this Government are making.
We are serious about getting these measures through. We understand people’s concerns, and we have addressed them. The Information Commissioner’s letter should reassure the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has the House’s wholehearted support in pursuing the recovery of funds taken by fraud and error. The National Audit Office estimates that, in the last financial year, £39 billion of tax revenue was not received due to fraud and error, compared with £7 billion in overpaid benefits classed as fraud, which we want to pursue. Can she reassure the House that an appropriate level of resources will be targeted at recovering this large sum of money, which will bring better dividends back to the Treasury?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which he knows the Chancellor and the Treasury team are looking at seriously. The clear message from this Government is, “If you are getting money to which you are not entitled or owe money to the taxpayer through either unpaid taxes or fraud, that is wrong.” We treat everything the same, large or small. We believe in our public services and our social security system, and we want people to know that every single penny of their money is wisely spent and goes to those in the greatest need.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As a Member of the party that introduced the state pension, I am behind the Government on this Bill because we all want to cut down on tax fraud and evasion. But I am concerned that pensioners are included under this blanket of Government scrutiny, and it seems that the only thing they have done to deserve it is to get a bit old.
Liz Kendall
One of the new measures introduced by the Bill, the eligibility verification measure, explicitly excludes the state pension. I reassure the hon. Lady on that point.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In places like Telford, it is a basic principle that people pay into the system and then take out of the system, or their neighbours do, when they are in need. The companies and individuals that are defrauding national benefits are often also defrauding local authority benefits and schemes. Will we extend these powers so that local government is able to work with national Government to pursue this fraud?
Liz Kendall
I reassure my hon. Friend that local authorities will be able to put examples to the Public Sector Fraud Authority for scrutiny. The new powers introduced by the Bill will enable the PSFA to crack down on precisely those issues.
Liz Kendall
I will crack on a little, and then I will be happy to take an intervention.
I will now spell out each of the Bill’s measures in turn. First, there are powers to investigate potential fraud. The Bill will mean that, for the first time, the DWP’s serious and organised crime investigators will be able to apply to a court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters and criminal gangs to seize items for evidence, such as computers and phones. At the moment, our investigators have to rely on the police to do this. The Bill will enable us to act much more quickly to gather evidence, to take control of and speed up investigations, while also freeing up police time. These powers will be used only when approved by the courts, and the police will continue to be responsible for arresting suspects.
Secondly, the Bill will update the DWP’s information-gathering powers for investigating fraud. At the moment, we have the power to require information from only a limited list of third parties. This does not include key organisations and sectors that could help to prove or disprove suspected fraud, such as airlines.
To add to that, there is limited ability to require responses to requests to be sent electronically. Instead, quite unbelievably, they have to be sent in writing or physically collected, which is time consuming and cumbersome, to say the least. That limitation on our powers completely underlines how the changes in the Bill are long overdue, and the lack of action by the previous Government. The Bill widens who the DWP can compel information from, and it will enable us to require the information to be provided digitally by default.
Thirdly, our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to require banks or other financial institutions to provide crucial data to help identify incorrect benefit payments people might be getting, including fraudulently, such as if someone has too much in savings, making them ineligible for a benefit, or if they are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK. People should not be getting benefits they are not entitled to, and the alerts will make the process of identifying potential fraudsters much simpler, quicker and easier.
However, we know that people lead busy lives and sometimes genuine mistakes happen. The measure will help there too, by finding and putting errors right quickly, preventing people from building up large debts that they then need to repay. I am absolutely determined to reduce benefit mistakes by stopping them from happening in the first place and to avoid debts building up, with all the worry and distress that causes. That is why I have launched the independent investigation into the overpayment of carer’s allowance, in order to learn lessons about what went wrong and ensure that does not happen again.
I want to stress to the House that, under our eligibility verification measure, the DWP will not be able to access people’s bank accounts or look at what they are spending. We will not share any personal information with banks. Once an alert has been issued, any final decision about someone’s benefits will always be taken by a human being and the state pension will be excluded from the measure. There will also be independent oversight of the power on the face of the Bill, with the requirement to produce reports and lay them before Parliament, which I will say more about in a moment.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is outlining the actions she intends to take to ensure that errors do not happen and that humans will conduct any reviews. However, once a decision has been made—whether the error was genuine or not, the person should not have received the money—the Bill sets out that the person is still subject to all the measures that would be imposed on people who have deliberately engaged in fraud. That is the real worry. Despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, errors will still be made. Judgments will have to be made about whether the money, given in error, is recoverable, and if it is recoverable, it will be treated as if that were fraud.
Liz Kendall
No, it will not be treated in the same way. There is much more we can do to use technology to prevent genuine mistakes and errors building up in the first place, but we also have to use all the technology and information-sharing abilities we have to crack down on fraudsters who will use anything they can to try to defraud the system. I will come to the wider safeguards in the Bill towards the end of my speech, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Transformation and I will be more than happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman in more detail about any other concerns he may have.
Ben Maguire
I am interested to hear about the measures in the Bill relating to local authorities and public authorities. Has the Secretary of State considered expanding remit of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate cases of serious mismanagement of funds by local authorities, such as the recent botched sale of Newquay airport by Conservative-controlled Cornwall council, which reportedly cost Cornish taxpayers over £1 million in consultancy fees and the like?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman has made his point simply and clearly. The Bill is about tackling fraud and people who have defrauded the public purse. I am sure his local newspaper will write his comments up very clearly.
The fourth chapter of part 2 of the Bill is about widening our ability to punish fraudsters using a financial penalty as an alternative to seeking prosecutions. At the moment, we can issue financial penalties only in cases of benefit fraud. The Bill extends our ability to use them in cases of fraud against any type of DWP payment—for example, if we had any future scheme like the kickstart employment scheme. That will ensure that more fraudsters committing a wider range of fraud can be dealt with swiftly without going to court.
Last but not least, the Bill gives the DWP more power to get back public money that someone owes in cases where they can repay it but repeatedly refuse to do so. This power does not cover people on benefits or in payrolled employment, because money can already be recovered through the social security or pay-as-you-earn systems, but for people who have moved off benefits and are not on PAYE—for example, because they are self-employed or now living off savings—the Bill will enable the DWP to request the bank statements of people we know owe us money but who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, to verify that they have sufficient funds to repay. We can then recover the money from their bank account through either a one-off lump sum or regular deductions. That will be done in a fair and manageable way, with time for the person to make any representations and the right to appeal.
As a last resort, if someone owes us more than £1,000 and continues to repeatedly refuse to engage with us and agree how they will pay the money back, we can go to court and get an order to disqualify that person from driving for up to two years. This is the same power that the Child Maintenance Service has been able to use for the last 25 years in cases where a parent repeatedly refuses to make payments to support their child. In considering a disqualification order, a court will always check whether the person needs a driving licence for work, because taking it away would be totally counterproductive if they do, and look at other reasons why a license may be essential, such as if the person is disabled or a carer. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with the system. It is an important power that the DWP should have to bring people to the table for a discussion about how they will repay the money that they owe. We are clear that someone keeping public money to which they are not entitled is serious, and will result in serious consequences.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining some of the Government’s thinking behind clause 91. Will she elaborate on whether the Government have considered the fact that such a disqualification would have a disproportionate impact on somebody living in a remote area, compared with those in more urban areas, where there is much greater access to public transport?
Liz Kendall
As I said, the court will always look at whether the person needs a car for their job, but we cannot say that people are allowed to get away with fraud in different parts of the country. This is about getting money back. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, and who we know have the money to repay what they owe. We can bring them to the table and have a discussion about that repayment. I think that most members of the public would think that that is totally reasonable and fair, and that is the new power that we will have.
Let me turn to the strong new safeguarding measures in the Bill. First, as I have said, there will be independent oversight in the Bill for the eligibility verification measure, and new powers for the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate fraud. I will appoint an independent person to oversee how the EVM is being used and its effectiveness. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), will also appoint an independent person to review the use of the PSFA measures. Both will be required to provide reports to the Government, which will be published and laid before Parliament. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will oversee the investigation powers of the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. Any complaints about the use of the new search and seizure powers in the Bill will be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is a genuine question on the power to request information: will the DWP be able to request information from charitable organisations that are perhaps providing support to people, or from Members of Parliament, who may be providing support to constituents who come through our door?
Liz Kendall
The eligibility verification measure is for banks and financial institutions. It has been tightly defined, which is one of the reasons the Information Commissioner has written his response now. The last Conservative Government just referred to third-party data. That was not a serious proposal, narrowly defined with proper independent oversight. We want the legislation to pass and be used proportionately and effectively. That is why we have included the proposals as drafted.
The second important point is that there will be a statutory code of practice on how the powers can be applied, which we will consult on during the passage of the Bill, to clearly define the scope and limitations. Thirdly, there will always be vulnerability checks for each individual under the new debt recovery powers to ensure that people are not forced to pay back money that they cannot afford. Last, but by no means least, final decisions affecting benefit entitlement will always be made by a human being. Those decisions will sit alongside the right to reviews and appeals—no ifs, no buts. Put together, I believe that those new safeguards will provide the reassurance that the public and some Members of this House need that the Bill’s powers are proportionate, safe and fair.
The Bill delivers the biggest upgrade to the DWP’s anti-fraud powers in more than 14 years. It brings in new powers to tackle fraud right across the public sector by empowering the Public Sector Fraud Authority, and not before time. Our approach is tough but fair: tough on criminals who cheat the system and steal from taxpayers; tough on people who refuse to pay back money; fair on claimants, by spotting and stopping errors earlier, helping to avoid people getting into debt; fair on those who play by the rules and rely on the social security system; and fair on taxpayers, by ensuring that every pound is spent wisely, responsibly and effectively on those who need it. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what the Bill will deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Welfare Cap Breach Response
Liz Kendall Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
The Office for Budget Responsibility has made a formal assessment that the previous Government’s welfare cap and margin for 2024-25 is on course to be exceeded by £8.6 billion and is therefore not met. Under the terms of the charter for budget responsibility, I am required to lay a paper before the House proposing measures to reduce spending to within the level of the cap or to explain why the breach is considered justified.
The forecast breach, due in particular to expected higher expenditure on universal credit and disability benefits, is unavoidable given the inheritance from the last Government.
The likely scale of the eventual breach has been known since March 2023. No action was taken by the previous Administration to avoid it. While this Government have already shown that they will not shy away from difficult decisions, this breach could only have been addressed through implementing immediate and severe cuts to welfare spending. This would not have been the right course of action.
The forecast breach underlines the previous Government’s failure to control welfare spending and failure to bring forward genuine reform to get more people into work. It is a result of the previous Government’s legacy of low growth and high inflation, which is driving the cost of living crisis felt by so many. Additionally, growing levels of economic inactivity, exacerbated by the pandemic but never gripped by the last Government, have led to a higher-than-forecast rise in benefit spending, particularly on universal credit and disability benefits. It is a symptom of a failed approach to employment support and a broken health and disability benefits system that does not incentivise or support people who could work into work and is not geared up to deal with the fact we are an older, less healthy nation. It is also a symptom of previous failures to think across public services and to establish shared goals across health, training and skills and social security.
The UK is the only G7 country whose employment rate has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. A total of 2.8 million people are locked out of the workforce due to poor health. Millions are stuck in low-paid, insecure work. Some 420,000 more households are predicted to claim universal credit health benefits by the end of the decade, increasing from a third to a half of all universal credit claims. Nearly one in eight of all our young people are not in education, employment or training. All of this has contributed to a higher welfare bill and the breach of the welfare cap.
It is not just the economic cost of this failure that is unacceptable, but also the human cost to individuals and communities denied the opportunity to improve their living standards through work.
That is why, with our ambition to achieve an 80% employment rate, we are delivering radical reforms to drive up employment and living standards, getting a grip of the benefits bill and making the system fairer.
Our “Get Britain Working” White Paper is transforming the DWP from a Department for welfare into a Department for work and devolving funding and powers to mayors and local leaders to drive down economic inactivity in their areas.
In the spring, we will bring forward a Green Paper on reforming the health and disability benefits system to put spend on a sustainable footing and ensure disabled people and those with health conditions have the same rights as everybody else, including the right to work. We will shift the focus to early intervention to support people into work and respond to the complex and fluctuating nature of today’s health conditions.
Alongside these radical reforms, we are also bringing forward the biggest welfare fraud and error package in recent history, including our new, recently announced powers to identify, prevent and deter fraud in the welfare system.
Our welfare system does not exist in isolation. Much of the increase in welfare spending is influenced by wider policies such as health, housing and education. For this reason, my Department will be working across Departments to deliver our key goals, including creating a more sustainable welfare system.
The new charter for budget responsibility establishes a new welfare cap for this Parliament and the Department will, later this year, also publish a new annual report on welfare spending, which sets out the Department’s plan to ensure welfare spending is on a sustainable path as well as progress against the cap.
This Government are committed to working more closely between Departments on common goals, particularly supporting people into work, safeguarding taxpayers’ money and delivering value for money for every pound, which is why we are building a fairer and more sustainable social security system.
[HCWS398]
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Liz Kendall Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I would like to inform the House that today the Government are taking steps to deliver on their manifesto commitment to safeguard taxpayers’ money through the introduction of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
This Bill brings forward reforms to help identify, prevent and deter public sector fraud and error, and enable the better recovery of debt owed to the taxpayer. This Bill is expected to deliver benefits of £1.5 billion over the next five years, as scored by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Fraud against the public sector is a significant and constantly evolving challenge which requires a robust and resolute response. This Government will not tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in public services.
I previously informed the House on 8 October 2024 of the Government’s plans to bring forward legislation that will extend and modernise the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions to stop fraud in its tracks, recover money lost to fraud and, crucially, help protect claimants who may already be on the edge financially from racking up debt. These powers will be tough on criminals, fair for claimants and provide confidence to the taxpayer that money spent is reaching those who need it, and not those who seek to exploit the system.
Fraud and error in the social security system currently costs the taxpayer around £10 billion a year and, since the pandemic, a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been incorrectly paid to those not entitled. This Government are committed to preventing fraud and error from happening in the social security system and, where it cannot be prevented, we will identify those committing fraud and recover the debt owed. Just as we do not tolerate tax evasion, this Government will not tolerate fraud against the social security system.
The DWP measures in this Bill will:
Modernise DWP’s investigation powers to help prove or disprove suspected fraud more quickly. Some of the powers which DWP relies on to investigate fraud are over 20 years old—DWP needs to keep pace with offenders who exploit the social security system and improve our access to information. New independent oversight will review and report on the use of the new investigation powers.
Allow DWP to take greater control in our investigations into serious organised crimes through new powers of entry, search and seizure. New independent inspection and complaints procedures will be included to ensure the appropriate use of these powers.
Bring greater fairness to debt recovery by allowing DWP to recover debts from individuals who can pay money back but have avoided doing so. It will also enable DWP to apply to the court for a suspended driving disqualification order, to disqualify a debtor from holding a driving licence, where all other attempts at recovery have failed.
Through our eligibility verification measure, require banks and other financial institutions to examine their own data sets to highlight where someone may not be eligible for the benefits that are being paid. This will help us to identify incorrect payments and prevent debts accruing for claimants. DWP’s use of the powers will be overseen by an independent person whose report will be laid before Parliament. The powers will not give DWP access to any claimant’s bank accounts, or any information on how claimants spend their money. DWP will not share any personal information with banks or other financial institutions and a member of DWP staff will always be involved in any further investigations and decisions.
Update the penalties regime by extending the penalties we can apply for fraud to non-benefit payments—for example, grants—to ensure there is fairness in dealing with fraud across the social security system.
Introduce new and important safeguards on the face of the Bill, including reporting mechanisms and independent oversight to ensure the powers are used proportionately and effectively. As is the case now, any decision taken about someone’s benefit entitlement will always be made by a human being.
We will ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money is spent with the same care with which working people spend their own money.
Today I can also confirm that this Bill will now go further to tackle fraud, error and debt across the public sector by also giving the Public Sector Fraud Authority within the Cabinet Office powers to investigate and address fraud against the public sector on behalf of other departments and public bodies. These powers are based on similar powers held by other Government Departments, specifically His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Work and Pensions. The public sector response to fraud and error has historically focused on the areas with the highest known losses—generally tax and social security. This remains a priority. However, this focus has meant that some Government Departments have limited powers and resources to act on fraud and error. As a result, outside of tax and social security at least £3 billion per year is being lost to fraud and error.
Fraud against the public sector remains unseen, and all too often, those who attack our public services for their own gain face limited consequences, but it is not a victimless crime. Public services suffer, and the taxpayer is the victim. These losses are unacceptable, and waste enormous sums of public money that could be put to good use to improve lives. It is essential that all parts of Government have access to the capabilities and tools required to tackle fraud, error and debt.
The PSFA—within the Cabinet Office—measures in this Bill will:
Give the Cabinet Office information sharing and information-gathering powers that will enable the PSFA to compel the production of information from information holders as part of a fraud investigation.
Allow the PSFA to take control of investigations into public sector fraud at the request of the affected public authority, reducing reliance on the police and ensuring that all parts of Government have access to the capabilities necessary to tackle fraud.
Improve the Government’s ability to recover losses, as a result of fraud or suspected fraud against public authorities, through new debt recovery and enforcement powers. This could be directly from an individual’s earnings or bank accounts to recover fraud-related debt identified through PSFA investigation, or from an application of a penalty on behalf of a public authority.
Introduce new clear, strong non-criminal sanctions to provide an alternative to prosecution to reduce the dependence on costly, time-consuming criminal routes. This will also serve as an important deterrent against fraud in the public sector.
Extend the time limit for covid frauds so that we have 12 years to take action, preventing the time period for claims against some fraudsters ending potentially as early as March 2026.
Introduce independent oversight to ensure the powers are used proportionately and effectively.
This Bill will provide confidence to taxpayers that the Government are taking every step to protect public services and taxpayers’ money by stopping those who exploit the system.
[HCWS383]
Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report
Liz Kendall Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman into the way that changes in the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s.
The state pension is the foundation for a secure retirement. That is why this Government are committed to the pensions triple lock, which will increase the new state pension by more than £470 a year from this April and deliver an additional £31 billion of spending over the course of this Parliament, and it is why Governments of all colours have a responsibility to ensure that changes to the state pension age are properly communicated so that people can plan for their retirement.
Before I turn to the Government’s response to the ombudsman’s report, I want to be clear about what this report investigated, and what it did not. The report is not an investigation into the actual decision to increase the state pension age for women in 1995 or to accelerate that increase in 2011—a decision that the then Conservative Chancellor George Osborne said
“probably saved more money than anything else we’ve done”.
That comment understandably angered many women and sparked the original Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. The ombudsman is clear that policy decisions to increase the state pension age in 1995 and since were taken by Parliament and considered lawful by the courts. This investigation was about how changes in the state pension age were communicated by the Department for Work and Pensions, and the impact this may have had on the ability of women born in the 1950s to plan for their retirement.
I know that this is an issue of huge concern to many women that has spanned multiple Parliaments. Like so many other problems that we have inherited from the Conservatives, this is something that the previous Government should have dealt with. Instead, they kicked the can down the road and left us to pick up the pieces, but today we deal with it head-on. The Pensions Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds)—and I have given the ombudsman’s report serious consideration and looked in detail at the findings, and at information and advice provided by the Department that was not available to us before coming into Government.
The then ombudsman looked at six cases. He found that the Department provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004, including through leaflets and pensions education campaigns and on its website. However, decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s. The ombudsman says that these delays did not result in the women suffering direct financial loss but that they were maladministration.
We accept that the 28-month delay in sending out letters was maladministration, and on behalf of the Government, I apologise. This Government are determined to learn all the lessons from what went wrong, and I will say more about that in a moment. We also agree that the women suffered no direct financial loss because of the maladministration. However, we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy, and I want to spell out why.
First, the report does not properly take into account research showing that there was actually considerable awareness that the state pension age was increasing. It references research from 2004 showing that 43% of women aged over 16 were aware of their state pension age, but it does not sufficiently recognise evidence from the same research that 73% of women aged 45 to 54—the very group that covers women born in the 1950s—were aware that the state pension age was increasing, or research from 2006 showing that 90% of women aged 45 to 54 were aware that the state pension age was increasing.
Secondly, the report says that if letters had been sent out earlier, it would have affected what women knew about the state pension age. However, we do not agree that sending letters earlier would have had the impact that the ombudsman says. Research given to the ombudsman shows that only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving them or reading them, so we cannot accept that, in the great majority of cases, sending a letter earlier would have affected whether women knew that their state pension age was rising or increased their opportunity to make informed decisions.
These two facts—that most women knew the state pension age was increasing and that letters are not as significant as the ombudsman says—as well as other reasons, have informed our conclusion that there should be no scheme of financial compensation to 1950s-born women in response to the ombudsman’s report.
The ombudsman says that, as a matter of principle, redress and compensation should normally reflect individual impact. However, the report itself acknowledges that assessing the individual circumstances of 3.5 million women born in the 1950s would have a significant cost and administrative burden. It has taken the ombudsman nearly six years to investigate the circumstances of six sample complaints. For the DWP to set up a scheme and invite 3.5 million women to set out their detailed personal circumstances would take thousands of staff years to process.
Even if there were a scheme in which women could self-certify that they were not aware of changes to their state pension age and that they had suffered as a result, it would be impossible to verify the information provided. The alternative put forward in the report is a flat-rate compensation scheme at level 4 of the ombudsman’s scale of injustice. This would provide £1,000 to £2,950 per person, at a total cost of between £3.5 billion and £10.5 billion.
Given that the vast majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, the Government do not believe that paying a flat rate to all women, at a cost of up to £10.5 billion, would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, not least when the previous Government failed to set aside a single penny for any compensation scheme and left us a £22 billion black hole in the public finances.
This has been an extremely difficult decision to take, but we believe it is the right course of action, and we are determined to learn all the lessons to ensure that this type of maladministration never happens again. First, we want to work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan out of the report, so that every and all lessons are learned. Secondly, we are committed to setting clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age, so that people can properly plan for their retirement. Thirdly, I have tasked officials to develop a strategy for effective, timely and modern communication on the state pension that uses the most up-to-date methods, building on changes that have already been made, such as the online “check your state pension” service that gives a personal forecast of a person’s state pension, including when they can take it, because one size rarely fits all.
As I said, we have not taken this decision lightly, but we believe it is the right decision because the great majority of women knew the state pension age was increasing, because sending letters earlier would not have made a difference for most, and because the proposed compensation scheme is not fair or value for taxpayers’ money.
I know there are women born in the 1950s who want and deserve a better life. They have worked hard in paid jobs and in bringing up their families. Many are struggling financially with the cost of living and fewer savings to fall back on. They worry about their health and how their children and grandchildren will get on.
To those women I say: this Government will protect the pensions triple lock, so your state pension will increase by up to £1,900 a year by the end of this Parliament; we will drive down waiting lists, so you get the treatment you need, with an extra £22 billion of funding for the NHS this year and next; and we will deliver the jobs, homes and opportunities your families need to build a better life. I know that many 1950s-born women will be disappointed about this specific decision, but we believe it is the right decision and the fair decision. I commend this statement to the House.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for advance sight of her statement, and I thank the ombudsman and his team for their work on this important matter.
In March this year, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman published its final report into the way that changes to the state pension age were communicated to women born in the 1950s. The report took over five years to produce and reflects the complexity of the issue. It spans a 30-year period across different Governments, dating back to Parliament’s decision in 1995 for the state pension age for men and women to be equalised, in a long-overdue move towards gender equality.
As the chief executive of the ombudsman set out, the Department for Work and Pensions fully co-operated with the ombudsman through its investigation and provided thousands of pages of detailed evidence to support it. It is because we took the work of the ombudsman so seriously that it was right for the Government to fully and properly consider the findings, and we were committed to working with Parliament to provide an appropriate and swift response. However, as the House will know, the general election was called less than two months later. Given that it has taken Labour five months since the general election to provide its findings, I am sure the Secretary of State would agree that there was insufficient time to take a considered and fair decision between the publication of the report and the election.
I am glad that the Secretary of State has picked this issue up since coming into office and has brought her statement to the House today. I will be considering it in more detail in the days and weeks to come, as well as the basis on which she has reached her conclusion. I am sure that the Government’s statement today will be a huge disappointment to WASPI women, and I recognise the strength of feeling about the issue.
As a constituency MP, I have met WASPI women who live in Faversham and Mid Kent and heard their personal stories. No doubt campaigners will note the Government’s apology for the decisions made between 2005 and 2007 that led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters, which the ombudsman identified as “maladministration”. But let us be clear: the decision to provide no compensation is the Government’s decision, and they need to own it. I am not going to let them get away with saying that there is no compensation because of a fictional black hole in the public finances. The country’s financial position now is a result of their political choices. They should not try to dodge responsibility by suggesting to WASPI women that, if times were different, they might have come to a different conclusion. Government compensation should always be based on what is fair and just.
That brings me to some questions. Given the announcement that they will not be providing financial compensation, will the Government put forward any other non-financial form of remedy for the women affected? Will the Secretary of State be involving the WASPI campaigners in the action plan she has referred to and what is the timeline for that?
The Secretary of State claimed that pensioners are better off under Labour, but let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who introduced and protected the triple lock, which has seen the state pension increase by £3,700 since 2010, and there are now 200,000 fewer pensioners living in absolute poverty. Does the right hon. Lady know how many women affected by her decision are on pension credit?
Labour’s own impact assessment shows that its decision to scrap the winter fuel payment will see 5.2 million women lose out. How many of those hit by those cuts to the winter fuel payment are also affected by today’s announcement?
Finally, given that the Government have dismissed the recommendations of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, will the Secretary of State set out what implications she sees for the future of the ombudsman?
Liz Kendall
I welcome the overall tone of the hon. Lady’s comments. I am glad that she is finally considering her party’s response to the ombudsman’s report, and I am sure that the whole House looks forward to its detailed response to the findings and recommendations, which were not provided when the Conservatives were in Government.
I am sorry that the hon. Lady still fails to take responsibility for the state of the public finances. We have taken full responsibility for that and have taken difficult decisions on the public finances. We have also taken this very difficult decision in response to the ombudsman’s report and have provided that to the House as quickly as we have been able, given the huge amount of information we have had to go through.
The hon. Lady asks about next steps. We have three clear things that we intend to do. We will produce a detailed action plan. We want to work with the ombudsman on that so that we can ensure that the delay, the maladministration and the 28-month delay in sending out notifications never happens again, and I am perfectly happy to consider working with the women to make sure we get that right. It is extremely important that, wherever possible, we provide personalised, tailored information. Pensions are a hugely complicated area, and we want people to be empowered with that information and knowledge. We have to do it in all sorts of different formats, because it is individual to the person, and we need to get that right in future.
The hon. Lady also mentioned pension credit and the winter fuel payment. I will say to her, as I did yesterday, that we have seen a 145% increase in the number of claims for pension credit since we launched our campaign. More than 42,000 more people are claiming pension credit now. We want to deal with yet another thing the Conservative Government left us with, which was 880,000 pensioners not getting the pension credit or the winter fuel payment they are entitled to.
These are difficult decisions. We are a responsible Government and we face up to our responsibilities. I look forward to Members on the Conservative Benches finally doing the same.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
This is clearly not a decision that the Secretary of State has taken lightly, and an apology on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions is long overdue, but let us make no mistake: the responsibility for this lies squarely with the Conservative party, which oversaw the maladministration and kicked the can down the road yet again, for us to clear up the mess. That must be put right. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that a serious case like this will not occur again, and that this Government will continue to do everything we can to support pensioners going forward?
Liz Kendall
I can assure my hon. Friend’s constituents in Clwyd North that we want to learn all the lessons from the maladministration that we accept took place. We have to get people timely, effective and personal communication, and not just about their state pension age but about all aspects of pensions, so that they can properly plan for their retirement. The Pensions Minister and I will go through that with a fine-toothed comb to do everything possible to make sure it does not happen again.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
First, and for the record, the Liberal Democrats played a significant part in government in introducing the triple lock for our pensioners—it is important that people acknowledge that.
The Government’s decision is nothing short of a betrayal of WASPI women. I know that, as in my constituency of Torbay, across the United Kingdom there will be millions of women who are shocked and horrified at that decision. That the Government have inherited an awful state for our economy is no excuse. That the women are being hit by the mistakes of the Tories and that the Labour Government are now using that as a shield is utterly wrong-headed. Will the Secretary of State reflect on the decision?
The matter went to the ombudsman for its considered review, and the Liberal Democrats have long supported the ombudsman’s findings. I am shocked that the Government are taking a pick-and-mix approach to those findings, and we therefore ask the Secretary of State to seriously reconsider the decision.
Liz Kendall
I gently say to the hon. Gentleman, who I know was not in the House at the time, that the decision to accelerate the increase in the state pension age in 2011 was taken by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. It was that which angered and annoyed many women and led to the WASPI campaign. We accept that there was a 28-month delay in sending out letters and we apologise for that, but we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy. We do not believe that the letters would have had an impact on most, as the ombudsman said, and when 90% of women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot accept that that flat rate of payment of up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. I know that will disappoint some women born in the 1950s, but we believe it is the right and fair decision.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the Secretary of State’s concern about the black hole that was left. This will have been a difficult decision for her to make and bring to the House today. However, I think about the many people across all our constituencies who have contacted us about the matter, including my constituent Valerie, who wrote to me and said:
“We simply cannot afford to wait any longer for justice given that more than 20,000 WASPI women have tragically died since the ombudsman’s findings were published more than 6 months ago.”
I know that Valerie and many others in my constituency will be very disappointed. The Secretary of State says that she accepts the maladministration. Does that not then mean accountability?
Liz Kendall
We do indeed take responsibility for the maladministration between 2004 and 2007 and a 28-month delay in sending the letters out. I want to reiterate to my hon. Friend and to the House that this is not a decision about the increase in the state pension age, which so many women were aggrieved about; it is about how that was communicated. We accept that those letters should have gone out earlier, but even if we had sent those, it would not have made a difference for most. When 90% of those 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not think that the proposed compensation scheme is fair or proportionate. That is why we have taken this extremely difficult decision.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report says what many WASPI women across my constituency have been saying for years, which is that between 2005 and 2007 the DWP and the last Labour Government let them down. I am therefore grateful to the Secretary of State for her apology, but that will come as cold comfort to those who are in this situation in the face of no financial compensation. If I am right in what I hear, she says mitigation is too complicated and that it is someone else’s fault. That will be no comfort to those impacted. What conversations does the Secretary of State plan to have with the WASPI women to see what more support can be put in place for those most impacted?
Liz Kendall
I met the WASPI campaign in opposition when I was appointed shadow Work and Pensions Minister. The Minister for Pensions was the first of her kind to meet the WASPI campaign for eight years, and she is happy to meet them again. I say to the hon. Lady, who feels very deeply about the issue, that we will learn all the lessons from what went wrong with the delay in sending the letters out, but we do not agree that even if we had done that, they would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. This is not about the matter being too complicated; we do not believe that, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion would be a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Ind)
The all-party parliamentary group on state pension inequality has found that huge numbers of women have suffered significant financial hardship; many have even lost their homes. The Secretary of State must realise that her apology is welcome, but that it is not enough for them. Frankly, it is unprecedented for a Government to agree with the findings of an ombudsman on the one hand, but, on the other, to refuse to initiate redress when clear injustice has occurred. What will the Secretary of State say to reassure those women who have lost everything?
Liz Kendall
I understand the concerns that my hon. Friend raises, but I reiterate the findings from the ombudsman’s report that there was no direct financial loss. We agree that those letters should have been sent out earlier. We will learn all the lessons needed to put that right. I am more than happy to discuss precisely how we will do that with the all-party parliamentary group, so that that kind of maladministration of sending out letters never happens again.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Last month, the word “WASPI” made it into the Collins English Dictionary, which is a credit to the campaigners behind it. Does the Secretary of State agree that she has gone through the ombudsman’s report with, to use her own words, a fine-toothed comb, in order to get the answer that she always wanted to find in the first place?
Liz Kendall
No, I do not agree with that. It was only when we got into government that we were able to see all the information and advice provided by the Department. I did not go into it in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests; that is not correct. This report is not about the policy decision and women against state pension age increases. That decision was taken in 1995, agreed to by subsequent Parliaments and deemed lawful by the courts in 2020. The ombudsman’s report is not about the state pension age increases; it is about how they were communicated. I take responsibility for that and will make sure that we do everything possible to put it right.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
This is undoubtedly a tough choice. It is welcome that the Government will seek to learn the lessons and develop a new strategy for clear and timely comms. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House not only that the strategy will be comprehensive, but that those with accessibility requirements are properly informed of any changes?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point, which is that a one-size-fits-all approach will not work—even if it ever did. We need to provide tailored information in an accessible way—in an easily understood and available format. We will work extremely closely with all the necessary groups to develop that information, and, crucially, give sufficient notice. The ombudsman’s report deals with the decisions made between 2004 and 2007, but what greatly concerned many women and led to the original WASPI campaign was the decision in 2011 to accelerate and bring forward increases in the state pension age. Therefore, that other commitment to give sufficient and timely notice so that people can properly plan for their retirement is extremely important.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State says in her statement: “Research given to the ombudsman shows only around a quarter of people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remember receiving and reading them.” I would like to know the terms of that research. Did it, for example, say on the envelope, “Important financial information affecting your pension”? If something like that were on an envelope, I think that there would be a very different response rate. Given that she is having trouble accepting that people look at serious letters that really affect them, perhaps the Chancellor could use some of her ability to get these messages across, as was so successful in the case of advising pensioners that they would be losing the winter fuel allowance.
Liz Kendall
I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman about this research and its findings, which are robust. I reflect on the fact that three of the sample cases that the ombudsman looked into had received a letter, but I am more than happy to provide him with the details of that research.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
In the framing of my question to the Secretary of State, I first wish to say that I am appalled by this announcement. I have campaigned with WASPI women, as have many parliamentary colleagues, and this is an incredible let down for them. In my opinion, WASPI women certainly do not need words of disappointment and hollow statements. What they need is justice. Does the Secretary of State not agree with that?
Liz Kendall
I believe that this is a difficult decision, but the right and fair one. We accept that there has been maladministration. Once the Department had reached its decision, those letters should have been sent out. For the reasons that I have explained, we do not accept the ombudsman’s approach to injustice, remedy or compensation. We have to take difficult decisions in government, but this is about what I think is right and fair. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter in more detail if he so wishes.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is a gross understatement for the Secretary of State to say that 1950s women will be disappointed, especially given that this new Government are setting a precedent by ignoring an independent resolution process. I signpost constituents to the ombudsman on a regular basis; we all do. It is one of the ways that we hold the Government and Government bodies to account, and it is a core part of our democracy. Can the Secretary of State explain how we can have faith in that process if the Government choose to ignore the ombudsman’s findings? Given the fact that, as a constituent MP, the Secretary of State herself supported the WASPI campaign, can she advise whether the £22 billion black hole has had any consequence on her decision making?
Liz Kendall
We did campaign against the acceleration of changes to the state pension age brought forward by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Government, but that is not what this decision is about. The decision on the state pension age has already been taken. I do value the ombudsman’s role; I refer many cases myself. We accept his findings on maladministration, but we do not accept his view on injustice. None the less, the ombudsman continues to have an important role to play for many constituency MPs, and I for one will continue to refer cases to the ombudsman, as I always have done.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Government are right to have apologised to WASPI women today and my right hon. Friend is also right to have acknowledged the significant disappointment that will be felt. What is important is that this Labour Government are acting to boost pension pots across the country. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that, through the measures the Government are taking, we not only protect pension pots but actually enhance them, so that pensioners are better off?
Liz Kendall
The pension schemes Bill will do precisely that. One of the really important things that we want to do is to consolidate smaller pension pots, so that they deliver better value and better results for those in retirement. That is exactly what that Bill will do. We want to see the very best for pensioners and also the very best for UK plc, which is why our pensions reforms are so important. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for pensions will be delivering on that in the months and years ahead.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
Anas Sarwar said that, under his leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve. Is the justice they deserve being paid less than their male counterparts throughout their career? Is the justice they deserve being sacked or forced to resign from their jobs when they had children? Is the justice they deserve the removal of the winter fuel payment? Why are the Labour Government absolutely determined to take every opportunity to screw over 1950s-born women?
Liz Kendall
I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record on helping the lowest-paid women pensioners and of the improvements that we delivered. This is not about that issue; this is about the way that the state pension age was communicated. If the hon. Lady wants a different approach, the SNP Government in Scotland can provide that by using the £4.9 billion settlement—the biggest ever in the history of devolution—that we have provided.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This will be a sad moment for the 4,000 women in Stoke-on-Trent Central who I have campaigned alongside for justice and a fair transition. I understand the Secretary of State’s need to balance the budget, given what was left by the previous Government, but is this a case of no compensation now because of the economic circumstances that we find ourselves in, or is it no compensation ever? If we find ourselves in the future in a much better economic state, will she consider re-addressing this issue and seeing what compensation might be available for the women who were affected?
Liz Kendall
We do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or compensation. We do not believe that sending those letters earlier, even though we should have done, would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. We do not believe that, given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, a flat-rate compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money. However, we will learn lessons from that maladministration to ensure that it never happens again.
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
Every single one of us in this House relies on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to ensure that our constituents get redress. When the PHSO made a similar judgment against Equitable Life, the Government came forward with a compensation programme. Will the Secretary of State commit to having a binding vote in this House on the decision, so that the House can decide whether what the Government are proposing is justice for WASPI women? I certainly do not believe that it is.
Liz Kendall
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman could have encouraged his party to do a compensation scheme when he was in government. The reason the ombudsman actually referred the report to Parliament was because he did not believe the last Government when they were running the Department for Work and Pensions would deal with it properly. This Government take our responsibility seriously, and that is why we have come to Parliament today to make this difficult decision.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
A Conservative Member said to me this morning that being the Secretary of State for the DWP is probably the hardest job in Government, and I think today we can really see that. I pay tribute to the WASPI women in my constituency, and in particular Gina, who emails me regularly about this issue. What reassurances can the Secretary of State give WASPI women such as Gina that we will do everything we can to support them and to ensure that issues like this do not happen again?
Liz Kendall
As I said in my statement, I understand that many women born in the 1950s face a real struggle and, on this specific decision, they may well be disappointed, but our commitment to pensioners and to the pensions triple lock will deliver an extra £30 billion into the basic state pension over this Parliament. Our investment in the NHS, about which many 1950s-born women are desperately worried, of £22 billion this year and next, shows our commitment to the issues that matter to those women. As I say, they may be disappointed and, indeed, angry about the decision, but we believe that it is the fair and right decision. However, I would be more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend in further detail so that he can pass on comments from WASPI women in his constituency.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
I speak on behalf of Helen from my home town of Bampton and the 5,500 WASPI women in my constituency. They are not disappointed; they are devastated, as am I because—mistakenly, as it turned out—I believed that this Labour Government, who were supported by millions of women across this country who rightly turned their backs on the Conservatives, had some probity and decency. Does the Secretary of State agree that it turns out that they have neither?
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
Many former Ministers and current shadow Ministers have made clear that they do not support a compensation scheme, so is this not just another example of this Labour Government having to take the difficult but necessary decisions that those Members ran away from?
Liz Kendall
It is true this was a long-running issue, spanning multiple Parliaments, that was delivered to the last Government, and we have dealt with it. We have dealt with it seriously, but also as quickly as we can. We take our responsibilities seriously. It is a difficult decision, but I believe it is the right and fair one.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
How long will we have this Government giving the excuse that they cannot do things because the last lot did not do them? Will the Secretary of State remember that she is now in government? When she was in opposition, she and other members of her party campaigned for WASPI women. The facts have not changed: administratively, mistakes were made and, financially, there is still an impact; and now the ombudsman has found in favour. She cannot hide behind saying that “We have no money”. We just had the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero in questions boasting that he is bunging billions of pounds to power companies, yet we cannot honour the commitments made to people who were wrongly treated in the pensions system.
Liz Kendall
I hate to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but I did not say it was only about there being no money. I said it was because we do not agree that if we had sent those letters earlier, it would have made the difference that he says, and because, when 90% of women aged 45 to 54 knew the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe a flat rate is pertinent. I say this to him: we do take the public finances seriously. We have to make difficult decisions, and we cannot spend more than we have. We will continue with that approach, but based on our values. We do not believe that what has been set out is the right or fair way forward. I have come to the House honestly to make that decision plain, but I would be happy to talk to him in more detail if he would like.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Secretary of State says the report is about the way this was communicated to those 1950s-born women and that earlier letters would not have made a difference, but they would have made a difference to individuals’ financial planning, their retirement dates, the notice they gave to their jobs, and the wider family arrangements and commitments they had made. There have undoubtedly been losses for those 1950s-born women. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) just gave the Government an opportunity to reconsider that at some point in the future. Is she sure that she will not take that offer?
Liz Kendall
I know my hon. Friend cares passionately about this issue and many other issues related to pensioners. I repeat what I said in my statement and, indeed, what the ombudsman said, which is there was no direct financial loss for the women. This is not about the increase in the state pension age; it is about how it was communicated. The research shows that only one in four people who get an unsolicited letter remember receiving or reading it, so sending those letters out earlier would not have made the difference. We cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme or, indeed, an individualised compensation scheme on that basis.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
When the Secretary of State was in opposition, she said she was a “long-standing supporter” of WASPI women. Given that, what would she say to the WASPI women in my constituency, the 3,300 in her constituency and those across the country who will be disappointed at her rejection of any compensation, even if not at the level the ombudsman recommended?
Liz Kendall
My party opposed the Conservatives’ decision to accelerate increases in the state pension age, but that is not what the report is about. It is about how those changes were communicated and, at the risk of repeating myself, that is why we have taken this decision.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is no small thing for a Secretary of State to stand up with the sincerity that my right hon. Friend has and to offer an apology on behalf of the Government and accept maladministration, and I know she takes that responsibility seriously. I understand her position regarding the 90% of women who knew the pension age was going to change, but among the 10% who did not realise, people made individual decisions about their financial circumstances. Will she say more about why she did not feel that it was possible to put an individualised compensation scheme in place for that 10%?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question. The difficulty is we estimate that going through 3.5 million women to find out which ones knew about their state pension age increasing and would have made different decisions on that basis would take 10 times the number of staff who administer the state pension for 12 million people, and many years. We do not think that is an affordable or possible programme. The ombudsman himself goes through that point, and that is why he proposes a flat rate, but I have already said why we think that is not justified when 90% of those women knew their state pension age was increasing.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
One of the very first constituents who came to me after I was elected in 2017 was Helen, whose decision on her financial future was taken just before she received the letter, which came late—so it did have an impact on her. It also had an impact on the thousands of WASPI women in my constituency who have contacted me over the past seven and a half years. How does the Secretary of State think that any pensioner in this country, regardless of the triple lock, which was the creation of the Liberal Democrats with the Conservatives, can have faith in a Government who have taken away their winter fuel allowance and now do not respect the injustice done to them in not compensating the WASPI women?
Liz Kendall
Our commitment to the pension triple lock, which will deliver an increase of £470 in the new state pension from this April and up to £1,900 extra over the course of this Parliament, backed by over £30 billion of investment, is a serious investment in pensioners. We believe that the basic state pension is the foundation for security in retirement. If the Liberal Democrats want to come up with a costed proposal to do what the ombudsman says, they are perfectly at liberty to do so, although we think that that is the wrong approach.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend has noted, many women will be disappointed by this decision—including women I have met in Central Ayrshire when campaigning, since I have been an MP, and at constituency surgeries as recently as Friday—even though they know that we are cleaning up 14 years of Tory mess, dither and delay and failure. Caring responsibilities often fall on women, and an awful lot of 1950s women have spoken about the financial, emotional and physical pressures that they face in caring for a loved one. Will my right hon. Friend set out how the Government plan to support carers over the coming months and years?
Liz Kendall
I have been a lifelong champion of family carers, which is why I have launched an independent review of the overpayment of carers allowance, led by Liz Sayce, and why the Government have introduced the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance. That will make a huge difference in enabling those who look after the people they love to work at the same time. I understand that many women born in the 1950s will be disappointed, but, for all the reasons I have set out, we think this is the fair and right approach. However, we will learn lessons from the maladministration—the delay and the failure to send out letters for 28 months—to ensure that it never happens again.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
This is a very harsh statement. It admits wrongdoing but offers a bitter dose of nothing to a generation of women who already faced prejudices and disadvantages in their careers and were caught out by Government decisions. If the Secretary of State will not reconsider her decision despite being urged to do so by Members on both sides of the House, what else will she do to ensure that those women can enjoy levels of security in retirement closer to equal those of their male counterparts?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady raises a valid point about the state pension itself and the difficulties for women who have taken time out to look after children. We took that seriously when we were last in government, and we still do now, because we want to ensure that there is proper equality for those women. The report and this decision are not about the acceleration in the increase to the state pension age, which was at the heart of why so many women felt angry about what happened. We will ensure that we give proper notice so that people can plan for their retirement, we will support women through the pension triple lock and all the investment that we are putting into the NHS, and we will ensure that equality for women is at the heart of our proposals for pensions.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
WASPI women in my constituency will have listened to the statement with some difficulty, as I know my right hon. Friend has accepted, but they will also have heard her offer a heartfelt from the Dispatch Box, which is quite right. Will she assure them that the maladministration that underlined this case will never happen again, and that this injustice will not be repeated by this or any other Government?
Liz Kendall
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. It is most important, first, that in future people have proper notice of any changes to the state pension age so that they can properly plan for their retirement, which is not what happened in 2011 under the previous Government; secondly, that we ensure that people get effective, timely and personalised information about their state pension and, I would argue, about their second pensions; and thirdly, that we reach people in many different ways, not just by sending letters, precisely because we know that the great majority of people who get unsolicited letters do not remember getting them or reading some or any of them. That is why we must ensure that our communication strategy is much more personalised, timely and effective.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
At a time when public confidence in politicians is so low, has the Secretary of State made an assessment of whether overruling the ombudsman’s decision at a stroke will undermine trust in that process?
Liz Kendall
I hope that I have been direct, straightforward and honest about why we agree with the finding of maladministration but not with the approach in other areas. People will make their judgment, but I would just say that I believe in facing up to responsibilities, looking at the facts, going through the detail and putting forward a response that is fair and proportionate, and that is what I believe the Government have done today.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the apology of behalf of the Government. As she has acknowledged, many of the brave and courageous WASPI women in my constituency will feel bitterly disappointed by this decision. Does she agree that the cornerstone of pensioner finances is this Government’s commitment to the triple lock? That stands in stark contrast to the Conservative Government’s breaking of the triple lock in 2022, which cost many pensioners in my constituency hundreds of pounds a year.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend states the fact that the Conservatives broke the triple lock two years ago. Indeed, their shadow Chancellor says that it is unsustainable. I am sure that his constituents will hear those comments loud and clear.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Today’s announcement is a huge blow to 1950s-born women affected by state pension changes, who have campaigned tirelessly for justice and accountability, including on the maladministration that the Secretary of State has admitted took place. She promised jobs, homes and opportunities in her statement, but given that one affected woman dies every 13 minutes, can she explain exactly how that will benefit 1950s-born retired women?
Liz Kendall
I know that a number of women expected to be able to retire earlier than they could, but the decision to increase the state pension age has been taken. It was taken by Parliament, agreed by subsequent Parliaments, and deemed legal by the courts in 2020—that issue is settled. This is about the communication of it. As I say, we have accepted the finding of maladministration, but we do not accept the approach to injustice or compensation for all the reasons that I have set out. The Government are taking difficult decisions so that we can invest in the pension triple lock and the NHS, build homes, and get people the jobs that they need—many 1950s-born women are very concerned about those things, not just for themselves but for their families. On this specific issue, I know that many people will be disappointed and angry, but we believe that it is the right and fair decision for all the reasons that I have set out.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
WASPI women across the UK have been let down time and again, including by this statement. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced £20 billion of additional borrowing this year, and an average of £32 billion over the next five years. How does the Secretary of State expect WASPI women to believe that the Government cannot afford a single penny of compensation?
Liz Kendall
Given that sending out letters earlier, which we should have done, would not have made the difference that the ombudsman claims it would, and given that 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that a compensation scheme costing up to £10.5 billion is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
When it was politically convenient to do so, the Secretary of State chose to back and support WASPI women. Today, she chooses to betray them. The public voted for change, but instead they have been given more of the same—shame on you. If she is so confident in her position, why does she not let us all decide through a vote in this House?
Liz Kendall
I am sure that there could be a vote in the Scottish Parliament if the SNP Government decided to do that.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am shocked and staggered that the Secretary of State has made this decision in the week before Christmas—“Bah humbug,” springs to mind. She has talked several times about making sure people get due notice in the future. Does the Secretary of State have plans to increase the pension age further?
Liz Kendall
No. What I am saying is that we have to be able to give people sufficient notice in future. That was at the heart of the problem with the former Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s decision to accelerate the increase in the state pension age, which caused so much anger among many people. We campaigned against that, including in the 2019 election in which we proposed compensation, but we lost that election, and the courts have since ruled that that decision was legal. That is why the ombudsman’s report is not about that decision, but about how changes were communicated. We will learn all the lessons from that maladministration to make sure it does not happen in future.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
I stand here today on behalf of my many constituents who will feel utterly betrayed by this decision. Just months ago, people were promised a fresh start—a new change. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only will my constituents feel short-changed, but this decision will further compound a lack of trust in politics?
Liz Kendall
We are delivering change, with £22 billion of extra investment in the NHS and a substantial rise in the minimum wage that will deliver a pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid workers, as well as the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance to help family carers and a new flat repayment rate for universal credit to give an average of £420 per year to the poorest 1.2 million households. However, we also promised that we would be responsible with taxpayers’ money and take fair and appropriate decisions. I hear what the hon. Lady says about her constituents, but the ombudsman’s report is not about the increase in the state pension age for 1950s-born women. We will learn the lessons from the maladministration, but we do not agree with the ombudsman’s report to injustice or to remedy, which is why we have taken this decision.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
On the Secretary of State’s website is a picture of her holding a sign that reads,
“I will work with WASPI to identify and deliver a fair solution for all women affected”.
Does she think that today’s announcement is a fair solution?
Liz Kendall
May I say gently that I know what is on my website? We did campaign with WASPI women, including in 2017 and 2019, but we lost those elections. This decision is not about the increase in the state pension age, which was what that campaign was about—that decision has been taken—but about how that increase was communicated. I know that it will cause disappointment and anger among many 1950s-born women, but we do not believe that the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or remedy is right, which is why we have taken this decision.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
In July, this country overwhelmingly voted for a change, but it is getting more of the same—more failure and more austerity. Nothing has changed apart from the excuses. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister’s approval rating has plummeted to minus 66%. Given that Labour has recently removed even more money from our pensioners’ pockets by taking away the winter fuel payment, will the Secretary of State please reconsider this betrayal and compensate the WASPI women, such as my constituents Ruth Smith and Rev. Elizabeth Maitland?
Liz Kendall
I am sure the hon. Gentleman supports an increase in the minimum wage that will deliver a £1,400-a-year pay increase for someone who is working full time on the minimum wage in Leicester. I am sure he agrees with the £22 billion additional investment in the NHS this year and next, and with a boost of £420 per year on average for people on universal credit in Leicester through the fair repayment rate. Those are the changes we are delivering, but on this issue, we do not believe the ombudsman’s approach on injustice or remedy is right. When 90% of 1950s-born women knew that the state pension age was increasing, we do not believe that giving flat-rate compensation is a fair or appropriate use of taxpayers’ money.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The constituents I represent include thousands of WASPI women who will be disappointed by today’s statement. A number of references have been made to the campaigning that the Secretary of State has done with WASPI women. Does she feel regret that she has led them up the garden path towards believing that they might get some compensation, and while she has apologised for the Government’s part in the maladministration, will she apologise directly to the WASPI women in her constituency?
Liz Kendall
We were campaigning against the increase in the state pension age, and we had all sorts of proposals in our 2019 manifesto. We lost that election, and the courts have since decided that the increase in the state pension age was legal, so this decision is not about that. All I would say to WASPI women in my constituency—I have no doubt that they will contact me—is that I believe this is the fair and right decision. We are committed to supporting the lives of 1950s-born women, but we do not believe that the ombudsman’s approach on injustice or remedy is the right way forward, which is why we have taken this decision.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Many, many WASPI women will be appalled by the Secretary of State’s statement. When they look at today’s proceedings, would they be right in concluding that this Government were prepared to resolve the pensions of mineworkers, but not those of WASPI women?
Liz Kendall
We are prepared to take difficult decisions if we think that they are fair and right. That is why we have taken this approach to the issue of how the state pension age increase was communicated between 2004 and 2007. We agree with what the ombudsman says about maladministration, and I have set out our three action points: to make sure we have a clear and detailed action plan to learn all the lessons, to give people sufficient notice in future if their state pension age increases, and to have a detailed programme of communication about the state pension going forward. Those are firm actions to show that we have learned the lessons from this report.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
I am sure that the 69-year-old who contacted me explaining how she had missed out on being able to care for her dying mother due to needing to work longer would have welcomed a letter giving her enough notice to plan her finances to allow otherwise. What support can the Secretary of State offer WASPI women, who are still disproportionately taking on caring responsibilities?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. As we get older, many of us are working while caring for our elderly loved ones or for children—sometimes both—and those family carers need support. I have already set out the action we have taken, including the biggest ever boost to the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance and a serious, independent review of carers’ overpayments, but we can and should be doing more to support family carers. I am very happy to meet the hon. Lady to talk through her ideas that she thinks would benefit her constituents, if she would like.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I do not think I have ever seen quite so many glum faces on the Labour Benches, not for the two-child benefit cap or the winter fuel payment—this is beyond the pale. A handful of Labour Members have stood up and spoken their mind on this issue, and I commend them on that, but the Secretary of State has not answered the question of whether this House will be given a debate and a vote, which should happen in Government time. It is not just Scottish MPs who are asking for this; other MPs from other parties have done so. I urge the Secretary of State to reconsider.
Liz Kendall
Back Benchers can put forward proposals for debates, as can Opposition parties. If the main Opposition party wants to do so, it would be perfectly at liberty to do so.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches thought that today’s statement might be an early Christmas present for the WASPI women in my constituency and across the country. All those women will now be understandably devastated, and will be asking the same question: if the ombudsman has ruled that they were to have financial redress because of the maladministration and the Government are willing to ignore that finding, what else are this Government willing to ignore?
Liz Kendall
We do not ignore the ombudsman; we just do not agree with the approach he takes to injustice or to remedy. We provided research that showed that only one in four people who receive an unsolicited letter remember getting it or reading it, so even if we had sent those letters out earlier—which, as we have said, we should have done—we do not believe it would have made the difference that the ombudsman claims. When 90% of women aged between 45 and 54 knew that the state pension age was increasing, we cannot justify a flat-rate compensation scheme of up to £10.5 billion. We do not believe that that is a fair or proportionate use of taxpayers’ money.
The ombudsman plays a really important role, and will continue to do so. I know that, as I have sent countless constituents to the ombudsman to try to get redress in the 14 years that I have been an MP. We continue to back their work and effort.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Secretary of State has repeated time and again what this statement is not about, but what it is about is this Government not listening to the WASPI women and this Government not listening to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. In the Secretary of State’s statement, she said she will
“develop a detailed action plan out of the report”.
Considering that the report missed two thirds of this, especially the financial redress scheme, what action plan is she developing?
Liz Kendall
This is about how we make sure in such a situation that, once a Department has decided it needs to provide information and to send out letters, we actually do that, and do not have a 28-month delay. It is about asking what, in the 21st century, is the modern way to get personalised information and tailored advice to individuals about their state pension, their state pension age and, I would argue, all of their pensions. It is precisely about those issues, which matter so much, and dealing with the issues about the maladministration. If the hon. Member has any ideas about what more he thinks we should do on that issue, I am sure either I or my hon. Friend the Pensions Minister would be more than happy to meet him to hear his ideas.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
Maladministration is a serious charge. I know the Secretary of State has taken a 360° pummelling on this, but she has declined to say that she would have compensated women if the economy were stronger, and she said it would not have made any difference if the letters had been sent. Surely, however, the overall charge of maladministration applies to the broader fact that women born in the 1950s did not know about these changes. Does she therefore agree with me that the failure is about not the channel, but the message?
Liz Kendall
No, I do not, because the ombudsman used the research that was provided to him—he looked at those aged 16-plus and found that 43% of them knew what their state pension age was—but he did not adequately reflect the research on the specific group of women affected. I think that is an important consideration, as part of our overall decision, which is not based on money alone. In Government, we have to look at what is a fair and proportionate use of taxpayers’ money, which is one of the elements along with the others—the impact of letters, the fact that the great majority of women knew—that has informed our conclusion, which I have set out.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Is not the appalling message from the Government today that maladministration pays? If, as here, we have nationwide maladministration and no consequences, what other conclusion could one reach? What is the point of an ombudsman if the Government can be the judge in their own cause and dispense with the findings? Surely, the whole purpose of finding maladministration is to ensure that the maladministrator pays.
Liz Kendall
I think it is the precise opposite. We accept what the ombudsman found about the maladministration, and we apologise and we will learn the lessons to put it right. However, if Parliament itself decides it wants to put the parliamentary ombudsman on a different footing, it can do so.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
I say to the Secretary of State that this is neither fair nor right; this is a betrayal. Today, my thoughts are with the brave, dogged campaigners of WASPI Argyll and the Isles, particularly Ann Greer, who has worked so hard for so many years seeking justice. The Secretary of State said in her statement that the Government are choosing to do what they are doing because it would be a “significant cost” and an “administrative burden” to do the right thing. Does she not see that that is an incredibly lame excuse for denying natural justice to women who are asking for nothing more than to receive what is owed to them and to which they are entitled?
Liz Kendall
I would say that the ombudsman’s report itself says there would be a huge cost and administrative burden of going through 3.5 million women individually, but I am sure the hon. Member can read the ombudsman’s report and see that quote for himself. This is not about increases in the state pension age, which is what many of the women in the campaign have been very concerned about. It is about the communication, and for all the reasons I have set out, we have decided on this approach.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is with great sadness that I rise to ask a question, and I am very disappointed by the statement. As the right hon. Lady will know, I stood shoulder to shoulder with many Labour Members, including the Secretary of State, in calling on the Government to do the right thing by the WASPI women. However, here we stand, six months into the new Government, and these women are poorer than ever, given the removal of the fuel allowance. Pensioners are borrowing more and paying off less, and the statement implies that the Government will do nothing. Will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what has changed for Labour Members? Six months ago, they stood up for the pensioners. I say that with great respect; the right hon. Lady will know that I speak with respect in this House. After taking advice not relevant to the report’s findings, why will the Government suppress the rights of these women once again? More importantly, when can the 5,000 WASPI women in my constituency of Strangford expect their relief—not an apology, which will not heat their room by 1°? How sad it is that today, in this House, the ombudsman’s recommendations are being ignored, and right and justice have been denied.
Liz Kendall
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the tone of his questions. As he knows, I have huge respect for him. While many 1950s-born women will be deeply disappointed by this specific decision, our commitment to the pensions triple lock, our investment in the NHS, our support for family carers through the carer’s allowance, and all the other things that we are doing to help people deal with the cost of living crisis—including getting family members into jobs, and then better jobs, and into better homes—means that, on the whole, we are delivering change. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), who has responsibility for pensions, or I would be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman—that goes for many other Members—to go through this in more detail.
Oral Answers to Questions
Liz Kendall Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Our ambition is an 80% employment rate over a decade of national renewal. We will get Britain working by creating a new jobs and careers service in our overhaul of jobcentres. We will bring forward a new youth guarantee, so that every young person is earning or learning, and will give local areas the power to join up work, health and skills support to help the 2.8 million people who are out of work due to long-term health conditions.
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my right hon. Friend for her response, not least given the dire inheritance from the previous Government: the worst performance of an employment rate in the G7 since the pandemic. I see that inheritance in my community, in Barry in the Vale of Glamorgan, where individuals carry not the indulgence, and not the offence, but the misfortune of ill health. What is the Secretary of State doing to tackle economic inactivity, so that we give hope again, not just to those individuals, but to my community?
Liz Kendall
In the Vale of Glamorgan, the economic inactivity rate is almost one in four people. That is higher than the rate for Wales as a whole, and certainly higher than the UK average. From spring next year, we will launch eight trailblazers to support more people with long-term health conditions into work, including in Wales. That is backed by £125 million of additional funding. We will design the programme jointly with the Welsh Government, and we aim to launch it in the spring. We are determined to boost jobs and growth in every corner of this great country.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
Fedcap, a national organisation, is running a scheme to get economically inactive people to become the next generation of solar panel engineers. More such schemes will be necessary to plug the skills gap that developers report, especially if the Government are to meet their ambitious housing target. Will the Secretary of State commit to continued funding for schemes that are delivered by such organisations via jobcentres?
Liz Kendall
I congratulate organisations such as the one that the hon. Lady mentions for their brilliant work, not only to keep energy costs down but to support people into work. I will work closely with the Minister for energy consumers, and others in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, to support those organisations, including through jobcentres. More jobs and lower bills are key to improving people’s living standards.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
In communities like mine in East Thanet, there is above-average youth unemployment. It is important to be reassured that the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will be designed to help young people, particularly in coastal communities like mine, where we need a year-round economy, and support and activity to get young people into work.
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to deliver better jobs in every part of the country, including coastal communities like hers. We need to give young people the skills that they need, and job opportunities, so that they can build a better life. I look forward to working with her as we deliver our youth guarantee and “Get Britain Working” plans.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State confirm whether she will maintain strong sanctions against those who are capable of working but choose not to?
Liz Kendall
If you can work, you must work, and if you repeatedly refuse to, sanctions will remain, but I know from young people in my constituency that they are desperate to get the skills and opportunities that they need. Unlike the Conservative party, that is what our youth guarantee will deliver.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to hear Front-Benchers being so positive about their White Paper, much of which we are pretty familiar with. Let us look through some of the measures. The integration of employment and health support—we were doing that when we were in government. It was called WorkWell. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) led on it. What is the youth guarantee that we have been hearing about? According to the White Paper, it
“brings together a range of existing entitlements”.
It is a very familiar set of policies. The fact is that the Government’s White Paper is just a rehash of existing support, and a bit of money with no strings attached. There is, however, one thing that the last Government were doing that this Government are not: strengthening the conditionality for benefits. The Secretary of State says that she will continue the existing sanctions, but what new measures will she introduce to ensure that people who can work will work?
Liz Kendall
I am not sure where to start. If the Conservatives’ programmes were so successful, why do we have a record 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term health problems, and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training? I love the 15 WorkWell pilots, but we want to join up health, work and skills support in every corner of the country, not just a few places.
There will be a different approach for young people under our youth guarantee. There will be the opportunities people need, but also a requirement to take them up, not only for those on unemployment benefit, but for those young people who can work but are out of work due to a health condition. That is the difference a Labour Government make: there is work for those who can, and proper opportunities.
Danny Kruger
I applaud that soundbite, but we did not hear about any new measures that will be introduced, or any additional sanctions that we need. The right hon. Member talks about what the last Government were doing. We were reforming the work capability assessment. The Office for Budget Responsibility said that our reforms would have seen 400,000 fewer people on long-term sickness benefits, saving £5.4 billion over this Parliament. The Labour Government have paused that work while they hold a review. They have had 14 years. I do not know what they were doing to plan for government—not very much, it looks like. [Interruption.] They had all that time. What were they doing? I do not know where their plans are. The Chancellor is counting the savings to the welfare budget that our party would have delivered. Will the Minister commit to implementing the reforms, and if not, how will she make the savings that she is counting on?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Member is laughing at his own chutzpah. I am happy to talk about the past 14 years, but the work capability assessment is not working. It needs to be reformed or replaced. That is what we said in our manifesto, and we will bring forward our proposals in a Green Paper in the spring. That has to be part of a bigger programme to help people with long-term health conditions and disabilities into work. That is what our “Get Britain Working” White Paper does, and I am happy to discuss it with him more in future.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I hope the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Chris McCausland and Dianne Buswell on their victory on “Strictly” this weekend. In the light of that victory, how does she plan to make the Access to Work scheme more fit for purpose, so that it can help more people with disabilities reach their full potential?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely join in the hon. Gentleman’s comments. It was a great joy to see that victory at the weekend. We want to see Access to Work working better. We want to get the backlogs down, and for that support to be available to more people.
Labour Members believe that disabled people have the same rights as anyone else to work, socialise and take part in life. That is what we are determined to achieve, not just through the Department for Work and Pensions, but through every part of Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that we recently announced lead Ministers for disability in every Department. That shows how important we take this issue to be.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Our new youth guarantee will ensure that every young person is earning or learning, tackling the scandal that we inherited of almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. Young people in Harlow, Derby North and across the country deserve the opportunity to work, get skills and build a better life, and that is what this Labour Government will deliver.
Chris Vince
In my constituency of Harlow, lots of fantastic organisations provide transferable skills for young people, and I thank the right hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) for reminding me of the name Jason Shaves, who is an incredible champion for that kind of work. Does the Secretary of State agree that giving local areas such as Harlow the flexibility, power and funding to engage with young people in the way that best works for them will get them back into employment quicker?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are going to give new powers, responsibilities and funding to local areas to deliver our youth guarantee. They know their communities best. They know the voluntary organisations, schools, training providers and businesses, and the mental health and other support that many young people need. In Harlow, I know that that approach will be key to giving young people the opportunities that my hon. Friend wants and that they deserve.
Catherine Atkinson
Mel was out of work and homeless, but YMCA Derbyshire saw only her potential, not her disadvantage. Now, she is at Toyota and on track for a leadership role. Its working assets programme has a 70% success rate in supporting homeless young people into employment. How will the youth guarantee help the Government join up with, enhance and champion local programmes like that?
Liz Kendall
That sounds like a fantastic programme by the YMCA in my hon. Friend’s constituency. That is precisely why we need to join up with what local colleges are doing, with the support provided by local councils and with supported employment programmes run by the NHS. If we join that up and base it on local needs, her young constituent and many others like her will get the chance they need and deserve to build a better life.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Disabled people and people with long-term health conditions deserve the same rights as everybody else, including the right to work. Many of the 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness say that they want to work, if they can get the right help and support. That is what our “Get Britain Working” plan will deliver.
Liam Conlon
A core objective of the “Get Britain Working” White Paper is to support disabled people into employment. As the Secretary of State knows, the blue badge scheme is an important provision in enabling people to get to work, but data released this month shows a sharp rise in blue badge theft, with badges being sold on by criminals for upwards of £500 to people who use them to avoid parking charges. Will the Minister back my campaign to tackle this injustice?
Liz Kendall
Yes, I think it is disgusting that some people think it is all right to steal the blue badges that so many disabled people rely on to work, but also to socialise and to see family and friends. I know that the Minister for Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is responsible for this issue, is a strong supporter of the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon). I will contact her to stress my support and that of my entire Department.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
The “Get Britain Working” White Paper rightly says that
“people deserve the opportunity to thrive and that sports, arts and culture are crucial to achieving this goal”,
especially for those with disabilities. The Sovereign centre in Eastbourne, where I learned to swim, provides vital sports and leisure opportunities that will help serve that aim. With the future of two of its pools being considered, does the Minister agree that to best honour the aims of the White Paper, Eastbourne borough council should engage with all interested providers who may be able to protect our fun and training pools at the centre before making any final decisions on the next steps?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am not sure that was a relevant question, as well as the hon. Member shoehorned it in. Secretary of State, do you want to answer? It is up to you.
Liz Kendall
I believe that sport, as well as art and culture, can play a huge role in engaging and inspiring people, helping them on the pathway to skills, confidence and jobs. I want to see that provision enhanced in future, because we are determined to have that at the national partnership level, and it needs to happen locally, too, to get people working and earning again.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
Our plan to get Britain working is crucial to tackling low pay and increasing living standards in every corner of the country. When only one in six people ever fully escape low pay, the Labour party believes that is not good enough, so our new jobs and careers service, backed by £55 million of additional funding next year, will kick-start our reforms to help more people get work and get on in their work so that they boost their living standards, too.
Connor Naismith
Average wages in my constituency of Crewe and Nantwich—a place with a proud industrial heritage—lag behind the regional and national averages at just £686 a week before tax. Will the Secretary of State outline how the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will support growth as well as high-skilled, well-paid jobs in my constituency, not just the biggest cities?
Liz Kendall
The Government share my hon. Friend’s determination to boost the living standards of his constituents, so the “Get Britain Working” White Paper will ensure that every local area—including in his constituency—produces its own get Britain working plan. Alongside our industrial strategy, our plan to make work pay, the national wealth fund and Skills England, that will help people to get work and progress in their careers, with good opportunities for employment right across the country.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
As a lifelong champion of family carers, dealing with the problem of carer’s allowance overpayments is a priority for me and for my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability. Last week we set out the next steps in our independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK. It will report by the summer and will look at how and why overpayments were built up, the changes we can make for the future and how best to help those affected. Along with the biggest ever cash boost to the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance announced in the Budget, it shows our determination to give family carers the support they need and deserve.
Alison Griffiths
In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton more than 23,000 people have lost their winter fuel allowance—more than 90% of former claimants. Does the Secretary of State think that it is fair that someone who has paid tax all their working life will now be taxed on their state pension as well as losing their winter fuel allowance?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady talked about the winter fuel payment, but she failed to mention our determination to ensure that the 880,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit, but are eligible, claim it so that they can get their winter fuel payment. The £4.9 million allocated from the household support fund to West Sussex, which covers her constituency, can be used precisely for those pensioners just above the pension credit threshold who have worked hard all their lives but need extra support with the cost of heating.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
How many people who should get the winter fuel payment will get it this winter?
Liz Kendall
We intend to ensure that everybody who is entitled to pension credit, and therefore the winter fuel payment, claims it and gets it. We have seen a 145% increase in claims—far more than was ever achieved under the last Government. If the hon. Lady was so concerned about that, perhaps she should have taken action during her party’s 14 years in government.
Helen Whately
Unfortunately, the right hon. Lady simply will not give a straight answer. She will not tell the House what she knows; she knew that the Government’s choices would push 100,000 pensioners into poverty and she did not tell the House that, either. Let us try this question instead. The Government’s own figures show that pensioners applying now will have to wait until the spring to find out whether they will get winter fuel money. What is her advice to a pensioner sitting in the cold and wondering if they can afford to turn on their heating this Christmas?
Liz Kendall
If the hon. Lady cared so much about pensioners in the cold, why did her Government leave 880,000 not claiming pension credit? Why did they first promise to bring together housing benefit and pension credit in 2011 and never deliver it? This Government are taking action—42,500 more people are receiving pension credit now than when she left government. We are determined to act; perhaps she should apologise for her failure.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)