Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Debate between Marie Tidball and Danny Kruger

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Wednesday 9th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

So here we are. Labour has had 15 years, including 14 years spent complaining about welfare reform while the Conservative Government fixed the catastrophic mess of unemployment benefits that we inherited—the alphabetti spaghetti of welfare that we had in 2010, if any of their Members can remember it. We fixed all those benefit traps, introducing universal credit, making work pay and supporting people off welfare and into jobs. In the first decade of our time in government, 100,000 fewer people were economically inactive every single year of the 2010s. In 2019 we had the lowest number of workless households since records began. Then covid hit, and Labour were clamouring for more welfare throughout that period. After the covid incident, as we left office we were introducing reforms to fix the health and disability benefits system. All of that was opposed every step of the way by Labour.

[Dr Tidball]

Does the shadow Minister really believe that anyone could truly think that the Conservatives ensured that disabled people were well paid when 14 years of their government led to a 17% disability pay gap?

[Danny Kruger]

The fact is, in our time in government we increased the number of disabled people in work significantly. Two million more disabled people were in work at the end of our time in government than before. There is much to regret about the last years of our time in government, and I was a critic of them myself, but on welfare throughout our time in government we have a proud record of improving the broken system that we inherited.

We are now a year into Labour’s time in government. They have had all this time to come up with a plan and we have absolutely nothing. Clause 5 did have some changes to the system, but they are going to scrap that today. I want to pay tribute to the rebels on the Labour Benches for finding their voice and showing what Parliament can do, and I particularly pay tribute to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell)—the real Prime Minister sitting there on the real Front Bench. I respect and honour them all.

As for the Government Front Bench, they are chopping the Bill’s title in half. It is now nothing to do with PIP, so we have no reform to welfare and certainly no savings. This is now a spending Bill, not a savings Bill. Looking at the impact assessment that has just been published—the third in the last three weeks, I think—if we add up the savings from cutting UC health for new claims, which is a little over £5 billion, and minus the cost of raising the standard allowance, which is a little over £5 billion, we get £120 million of extra costs over the next four years, plus the £1 billion of extra employment support. Labour’s idea of saving money on welfare is to spend more by the end of the Bill’s passage. The Government have also spent the money that they thought they were saving from the PIP changes before they did the U-turn. Even now they are on a wing and a prayer financially.

The Office for Budget Responsibility, on which the tottering Chancellor has relied to hold up her sums, assumes that the on-flow to benefits will fall halfway back to their 2019 levels over this Parliament. If they do not, the Chancellor will have to find another £12 billion. Why should new claims reduce under this Government when there is still an incentive of £50 a week to get on to UC health, and there is no reform to PIP for at least another year? The Minister has also said that his famous eponymous review is not aimed at saving money anyway. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) challenged him earlier to confirm that, and I think he has confirmed from the Dispatch Box that there will be no savings from his review.

Meanwhile, the UK is haemorrhaging jobs thanks to the national insurance rise, and we have the Employment Rights Bill coming down the track. The OBR did not even include in its forecast the likely impact of the unemployment Bill that Labour is introducing. That is something we can look forward to in the autumn.

We are in a deep fiscal hole, and of course we need welfare reform—in fact, we need welfare cuts. That is why the Opposition wanted to support the Government when they set out their intentions, and we said that we would support the Bill if they reduced spending, got more people into work and pledged that there would be no new taxes, but they did none of that, so we do not support it. We do, however, have a further set of proposals.

My friend, the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), challenged me to come up with some alternatives, and we have some amendments to that very effect. First, amendment 45 would improve the quality of assessments. There is a bigger piece of work to be done, and I welcome the Government looking closely at the assessments process, but right now we could make one clear and simple improvement. In 2019, 84% of PIP assessments were conducted face to face; last year, the figure was 5%. That was a covid change—[Interruption.] That was absolutely a covid change that was not changed back in time; I totally agree. The fact is, the work-from-home culture really took off at the DWP and with its subcontractors, and that does need to change. I recognise that. Why are the Government not doing that?

As a result, in the system we have, which is not being changed by the Bill, people are at the mercy of some distant, faceless assessor on the end of the phone. Of course, there will be people who cannot manage a face-to-face assessment, and we would authorise the Secretary of State to specify circumstances for that. It is also right not to call people back for repeat assessments. That was a change that the Conservatives were introducing, and I am glad that the Government are sticking with it. But, for the great majority of cases, we have got to get back to face-to-face assessments for the sake of claimants as well as the taxpayer.

Secondly, I turn to amendment 50. We have 1,000 new PIP claims a day—that has doubled since covid—and more than half the increase is in mental health cases. For UC health claims, it is more like three quarters. Of course, distress is real in our society and it is rising—I do not disparage the reality of many of these claims—but as the Minister has said the incidence of disability in our society is rising by 17% while benefit claims are rising by 34%. For some of the less severe mental health claims, it is far worse. In January 2020, there were 7,000 claims for people with anxiety disorders; this year, there are 31,000. In January 2020, there were 155,000 claims for anxiety and depressive disorders mixed; now there are 365,000. Autism was 60,000 and has gone up to 183,000. The hon. Member for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake) mentioned ADHD, which has gone up from 29,000 to 115,000 over the last five years.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twenty-third sitting)

Debate between Marie Tidball and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady must not apologise for intervening on me. I can hardly be one to object to people intervening. This is a very good forum for the kind of exchanges we are having, so I am very happy to take interventions. She is absolutely right that lots of evidence has been presented. I cite it myself all the time. Further evidence is coming in, and much of it is very critical of the new proposals. That is an absolutely fair point, but my point remains that we invited witnesses and had three days of evidence on a Bill whose core safeguard has now fundamentally changed—well, it has not changed yet, but I suspect it is about to.

[Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

I supported the Bill on Second Reading on the basis of the High Court proposal, but then read very closely the evidence from Justice Munby on the need for a strengthened evidentiary process so that this is not just a rubber-stamping exercise. He said, secondly, that it would be better to replace the High Court with another system because of the position that it would place judges in. Having listened to 50 witnesses, I am satisfied with this proposal; I was persuaded through this cross-party process, which is an incredible example of deliberative decision making. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that our ability to amend the Bill where the evidence shows that we must do so demonstrates the strength of this process, and has enabled us to produce something much better and more in alignment with public opinion?

[Danny Kruger]

I greatly respect the position that the hon. Lady has come to. She has been persuaded that this is an improvement on the Bill, and I respect that. I recognise that that is what the hon. Member for Spen Valley and others think, but I am afraid I do not accept that the process has been adequate. The hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge cites Justice Munby and others who criticised the High Court proposals. I also have my criticisms of them—I think they were inadequate—but the response to that is not to scrap them all together, but to strengthen them, as Justice Munby suggested. The hon. Lady will know that Justice Munby is not supportive of the new proposals either; he thinks they also fail the essential test of being an effective safeguard. Nor does the new proposal—the panel—provide the opportunity for evidentiary investigation, which would indeed be appropriate if we were to have a proper safeguard at this stage. I respect the hon. Lady’s position, but I am not persuaded.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Debate between Marie Tidball and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

I am delighted to hear it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have indicated their sympathy for the amendment. I look forward to the Division and to the Minister’s decision.

May I follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley would like to intervene to help me understand the point. Amendment 181 would redraft clause 3(2) to make it clear that a person does not qualify as terminally ill

“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder”.

It would add to clause 3(2) the following additional sentence:

“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if…the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b)”.

Does the hon. Member for Spen Valley agree that that will essentially mean that the clause does nothing? It confirms the terms of eligibility set out earlier in the Bill, and confirms that a person would still be eligible to receive an assisted death if they had conditions that were a consequence of a mental disorder or a disability. If she feels like intervening on me, I would like her to help me understand what that additional sentence adds. To my mind, it negates the purpose of the clause.

[Dr Tidball]

I stand here as a disabled woman. Under the Bill, as a disabled woman, I would not —by reason only of being a disabled woman—be eligible to have access to assisted dying. The amendment clarifies that I would not be eligible only through being a woman who has a disability. However, if I develop a condition that means that I have a terminal illness, leaving me with only six months left to live, I would be permitted to have that choice. It is right, I think, that I should have that choice. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this is about giving people access to a good death and living a good death. This is about giving that choice, where they choose to make it, to disabled people, while building in sufficient safeguards so that this is not something pressed upon them—

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Marie Tidball and Danny Kruger

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Danny Kruger]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Tidball]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who asked first.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that statement. That is not the assumption. As I will say later, the term “ableism” is very much grounded in a deficit model of disability, which assumes that somebody is not capable of doing something themselves—for instance, making important decisions—whereas the Mental Capacity Act starts from a different perspective: it presumes that the person will have the ability to do something until proven otherwise. That is why I feel that the concept of ability does not align well with what is needed in understanding and providing autonomy to people making very difficult decisions at the end of their lives.

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Lady accurately quoted clause 2(3) about a person not being considered to be terminally ill “by reason only” of having a mental disorder or a disability. That word “only” is very important, as she acknowledged. Does she recognise that that explicitly allows for somebody whose judgment might be impaired by a mental disorder still to be eligible for an assisted death, because they would still be judged to have capacity under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act? That term “only” is in fact not a safeguard; it is an access to an assisted death for somebody with impaired judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

That is absolutely right. I do not think best interests can apply in this case. That is why the Mental Capacity Act is being abused. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, it is supposed to be cumulative. We are supposed to consider all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act, and best interests should be part of a consideration—but how on earth does one make a best interests decision about somebody deciding to commit suicide? The hon. Gentleman is right that best interests are excluded in the Bill, so the Mental Capacity Act is not being used, except for this most basic, low-level bar to cross, which is the capacity decision.

[Dr Tidball]

For clarity, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on what would strengthen the Bill. The exceptions only apply where the right and proper Mental Capacity Act process has been gone through and the person doing that assessment has arrived at the point that that person does not have capacity. It is only in that very narrow set of circumstances where they have determined that the person before them does not have capacity to make the decision at hand that they then go to the second look at whether making such a decision would be in the individual’s best interest. The specific exclusions listed in the MCA only apply in that stage.

What my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central is suggesting is that we table an amendment that would add to the list of specific exclusions; that would further strengthen the two stages. First, there would be the full Mental Capacity Act tests that may determine that the person does not have capacity. Such an amendment would give us belt and braces in circumstances where the person does not have capacity. Under the Bill currently, the person would fall out of scope and not be able to seek assistance if it had been determined that they did not have capacity. A belt-and-braces approach would make sure that there is no circumstance in which it could be determined by a medical practitioner or any other that it was in their best interests to follow this course of action.

Under the Bill as currently drafted, those people who have not got capacity as a result of the Mental Capacity Act would not be able to have access to the provisions in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central suggests that we augment that even further so that there can be no doubt that, where it has been determined that the person does not have capacity, following the Mental Capacity Act, we should also add a very clear exception—