Welfare Reform

Debate between Liz Kendall and Florence Eshalomi

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Debate between Liz Kendall and Florence Eshalomi

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[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.