Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I was pleased yesterday to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the anxiety of disabled people in her comments from the Dispatch Box. If we really want to understand why changes such as this cause such anxiety and fear in the disabled population, then just sit and listen to the speech that was completely without empathy from the Leader of the Opposition at the start of this debate. Areas such as the north-east of England where, over decades, industry has declined are the same places that have the highest levels of poverty, poor health outcomes and consequently the highest need for social welfare support.

The right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the lack of productive capacity. I can tell him that it was successive Conservative Governments who stripped the productive capacity from seats such as mine. That is why Professor Peter Kelly, a former director of public health for Stockton North, when asked what would be the best way to improve the health of our residents, said it would be for

“everyone who can to have a secure, well paid job that they like doing”.

We see it time and again: a physical health condition is left untreated due to long NHS waiting lists and the resulting inactivity leads to musculoskeletal problems, which turn to isolation, anxiety and depression. Our benefits system often compounds that hurt, forcing people to prove and reprove their disability, creating a climate of doubt rather than dignity. I am pleased to see that the Bill will address that by removing the need for reassessment and protecting existing claimants.

I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability as well as other Ministers for listening to me when I have raised the concerns of my constituents. There have been some really meaningful concessions on the Bill, such as the protection of existing claimants, support for new claimants and inflation-proofing of annual increases, but as the Minister knows, a major concern for me has been clause 5—I was pleased to hear about the withdrawal of that clause—as well as the Timms review on PIP assessments.

I am also concerned about mental health being made worse by debt and unemployment. I welcome the Government’s investment in expanding access to occupational health and the almost 7,000 new mental health workers since last July. Those are not just policies; they are the foundations for a healthier and, I think, more hopeful society.

We have heard a lot about work and Labour’s commitment to work, with the purpose and dignity it offers as well as the improvement in mental resilience. I want to be clear that there is a value judgment behind that, but it is not one that chooses to separate people in work from those who are not. People’s lives have equal value regardless of whether they work, but work does in and of itself improve the quality of people’s lives.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is giving a passionate speech about our region. Does he agree that although lots of people would like to contribute, for too long the workplace has not been disability-friendly? My experience as a trade unionist is of seeing time and again people who really needed support and wanted to be in work being managed out of the workplace, despite that being illegal. They have told me that they were bullied out of the workplace because of the weak reasonable adjustments clause.

[Chris McDonald]

I agree that accessibility to work is important, both through buildings and transport, as well as Access to Work. It is not just about supporting people to get into work but whether they can physically get into work.

To reiterate, people’s lives have equal value regardless of whether they work, and it is our duty to ensure that as many people as possible are supported into secure, purposeful, well-paid work, and that employers satisfy their duty to make necessary adjustments for people with disabilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) outlined some things that the Government are doing to try to reduce unfairness. I would add to that investment in our NHS, which will help deal with people’s long-term health problems, and the employment support measures announced by the Government, which will offer a pathway to work. The Employment Rights Bill and the industrial strategy will create more opportunity for work.

I also want to speak directly to those who may never return to work. They deserve dignity, and they deserve unconditional support. They offer more to society than previous Governments have ever recognised. This is the time to turn a page on Conservative Governments who treated claimants with suspicion and to work hard to build trust with actions rather than words.

I would like to conclude by quoting a few words that I heard on the “Today” programme last week from the former welfare Minister, Lord Blunkett. He said:

“Labour is the party of supporting people into work, not the party of keeping people on benefits.”

I have got faith in the intrinsic value of everyone in our society and their ability to contribute. So long as the voices of disabled people continue to be heard and they remain at the table, the Government’s plan for changing the country will enable everyone to thrive regardless of their ability.

Mother and Baby Institutions Payment Scheme: Capital Disregard

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaigning on this issue. I know that she is a tireless advocate of the Irish community in Salford, of which she is part. She is absolutely right, and I discussed this issue with Patricia Carey, the survivors’ advocate, in Dublin over Easter.

There are survivors who will not make an application at all until the picture becomes clearer, and that is contributing to the incredibly low take-up of the scheme by eligible survivors in Britain. At just 5%, the take-up rate here falls far behind that in Ireland. Unfortunately, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in making applications or accepting offers risk people not living long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due.

Let me give just one recent example. A man who was born into a mother and baby home became so concerned about the impact that any compensation would have on his benefits that he held off making a decision for as long as possible. Sadly, after finally accepting the offer, he passed away within a matter of months, unable to benefit from the compensation that he was due. I think we can all agree that the situation is unjust.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. It is clear to me and to all of us who support his campaign that it is about justice. Does he agree that the low uptake of the scheme might also be down to a significant amount of internalised shame, as expressed by my own family members who have been affected by this? What he is doing today is putting a full stop to that shame and drawing a line to say that this will never happen again in any of our institutions, in Ireland or in the UK.

[Liam Conlon]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend, and I know that she has a strong personal connection to this issue. She is right to note that for decades women lived under a cloud of secrecy and shame. Having the conversation publicly in this campaign is partly to deliver justice and also to tackle the stigma of being in a mother and baby home.

Philomena’s law seeks to right that wrong. It proposes the introduction of what is called a capital disregard, which would mean that any compensation from the scheme is ringfenced. It would enable survivors to apply for and accept the payments without fear that doing so would negatively affect their benefits. There is strong precedent for such a solution. The same mechanism has been used for many other special compensation schemes in the past, including supporting the victims of Windrush, those affected by the 7/7 and Manchester bombings, the blood contamination scandal and many more. One change in the law could have a significant impact on the lives of thousands of survivors, and that is what the campaign seeks to deliver.

Before I conclude, I want to turn to the many Irish community and civic society organisations, some of which are represented here today. For many years, they have done vital work to support survivors across the country. I am delighted that we are joined by Rosa from Irish in Britain, Patrick from the Fréa Network, Séan and Katie from the London Irish Centre, Noelette from the Luton Irish Forum, Manisha and Simon from the Coventry Irish Society and so many more. From family tracing to support groups and counselling, to practical help with payment scheme applications, those groups are on the frontline, working around the clock to get the best possible outcomes for survivors.

Ireland’s mother and baby homes were cruel institutions. More than 100,000 women and children were either placed in them or born there. Thousands of them suffered horrific mistreatment and abuse and were forced to live under a cloud of secrecy and shame. After decades of campaigning, survivors finally received an apology from the Irish Government and access to a redress scheme, but 13,000 survivors living in Britain today are at risk of not being able to access compensation without the fear of losing means-tested benefits.

That is by default rather than by design, but it is firmly within our gift to correct it. Philomena’s law, named after the courageous Philomena Lee, and in tribute to every survivor in Britain, will do just that by ringfencing payments. We can do it; we have done it already for victims of other scandals, including blood contamination and Windrush. Although I appreciate that it is unprecedented to ringfence payments from a foreign Government, everything is unprecedented until it happens. We have an opportunity, through Philomena’s law, to help to deliver justice and, in doing so, show thousands of women and children survivors the empathy, kindness and respect they have so often been denied throughout their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) for securing today’s debate and congratulate him on bringing forward a ten-minute rule Bill on Philomena’s law. I am proud to put my name to that Bill as a co-sponsor, particularly as I represent a significant Irish diaspora in my constituency, with close ties between the UK and Ireland. I hope the Minister understands the importance of those ties.

As has already been outlined, Philomena’s law is named after Philomena Lee, who was 18 when she became pregnant and was sent to the Sean Ross Abbey mother and baby home in Roscrea, County Tipperary, where she gave birth to her son Anthony and lived for three years before being forced to give him up for adoption. We have heard about the Oscar-nominated film “Philomena”, which told the story of her painstaking search to be reunited with Anthony.

Philomena’s story sadly struck a chord for thousands of mothers and their children who not only suffered in those cruel institutions, but were ever changed by the lasting mark it made on their lives. With great thanks to Luton Irish Forum, which does brilliant work supporting our Irish diaspora, I am honoured to share a snippet of the story of my constituent, Christina, who is here today. She has been really courageous in sharing her story and allowing me to mention her in my speech.

Christina was born in a mother and baby home in Rathdrum, County Wicklow. Christina’s mother escaped and ran away with her just weeks after her birth, but subsequently left Christina on the doorstep of a church in Dublin. Christina spent much of her life being passed from foster family to foster family, where she experienced physical abuse, taunting and humiliation, including from those caring for her and neighbours on the street where she lived. She eventually reconnected with her mother during her teenage years, after hiring a detective to track her down, and realised that she was living in Dublin, just minutes from where Christina was working in a factory.

Unfortunately Christina and her mother never forged a close relationship, but it is important to ensure that these stories are heard, because the trauma Christina endured and the shame associated with mother and baby institutions in Ireland unfortunately mirrors the story of tens of thousands of women and children who experienced harsh conditions and mistreatment, with many fleeing to England to escape. It is right that the Irish Government opened the mother and baby institutions payment scheme for survivors of mother and baby homes in March 2024 to recognise the impact of the time they spent in those institutions. However, for those now living in England, further hurdles remain and are preventing those eligible for the scheme from accessing the compensation they are entitled to.

Survivors who accept an offer of payment from the scheme could lose a range of means-tested benefits, including housing benefit, pension credit and financial support for social care, as the payment would be treated as savings. This complicated and unfair situation has made the payments scheme, which was supposed to be a token of apology from the Irish Government, into an additional burden and hurdle for many. The uncertainty and stress involved is causing yet more trauma for survivors, and many eligible applicants have delayed accepting the money they have been offered or not made applications in the first place as a result.

Sadly, the age profile of many eligible applicants means that delays in accepting offers or making applications run the risk that many people will not live long enough to benefit from the compensation that they are due. I support my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge in his efforts to implement Philomena’s law, which would put right this unfair situation through the introduction of an indefinite capital disregard and would ringfence any compensation accepted through the scheme so that it would not impact benefits or social care calculations.

[Lola McEvoy]

I thank my hon. Friend for her eloquent articulation of Christina’s story. Does she agree that the capital disregard functionality could be extended to future compensation schemes? Instead of each campaign group going through the trauma of trying to get an exemption for people on means-tested benefits, it could be stipulated that, when a compensation scheme is deemed to come into law, the capital disregard is automatically part of it.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for making a hugely pertinent point; I know the Minister will have heard it very well.

Although compensation for survivors will not reverse the damage and trauma inflicted, the least we can do is to ensure that those who are eligible get the payments they deserve, that the process is as easy and stress-free as possible and that we provide them with the kindness and respect that they have too often been denied.

Welfare Reform

Lola McEvoy Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Yes.

[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.