Disabled People in Poverty

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Most hon. Members present will be aware that this debate takes place in the shadow of the publication of the welfare Bill, probably tomorrow, which could usher in some of the deepest and most severe cuts to disability benefits since 2010.

We already know that the current benefits system is not working. Some 700,000 families with a disability are already living in poverty, and 75% of people who turn to food banks are disabled or live in a disabled household. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions in March this year revealed that 4.7 million people in disabled households are facing hunger, and unsurprisingly, women make up the majority of those disabled people and carers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I withdrew my name so that other Members would have time to speak, but I will make a small intervention. In Northern Ireland, over a fifth of the population aged 16 to 64 are disabled. Among the UK regions, Northern Ireland has the lowest disability employment rate and the largest unemployment gap between disabled and non-disabled persons. The fact is, if someone is disabled and in poverty in Northern Ireland, they are really in trouble. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is up to this Government, and this Minister, to give us the changes that we need to help those disabled people in poverty in Northern Ireland and elsewhere?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Yes, I agree, and later I will talk about disabled people and how employment may be a route out of poverty.

Any losses through changes to benefits will overwhelmingly fall on those who are already the poorest in our society. The Government are right that the social security system is in need of reform, but benefits are far from generous, and they often fail to cover the essentials of living. The process of claiming support can also be extremely complicated and confusing, and that often leads to individuals incorrectly filling in the forms or finding the process too difficult to even start. The assessment process, which is outsourced to five private companies, can be slow and is often open to appeal.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

My constituent in Langport, Samantha, is a recipient of personal independence payment. She had treatment for endometritis and is struggling with cancer. Her PIP review was submitted in 2024. It comprised 100 pages of evidence—an onerous process that took six weeks to complete—and she is still awaiting a decision. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise my concern that the Government’s intention to make what is already a burdensome process more challenging will discriminate against the most vulnerable in our society?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member.

All the things I described need to be addressed, but the fear among disabled people is that the changes outlined in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, which may or may not find their way into the Bill, amount to piling more cuts on to an already broken system.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

In my constituency, 23,000 people receive universal credit and 11,000 receive PIP. I have asked what impact the changes will have on people going into poverty or being helped into work, and I have had very few answers. Estimates from Health Equity North show that the changes will amount to about £22 million a year being taken out of the local economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is utterly unconscionable for us to decide to produce that outcome without any evidence to demonstrate the benefits? We are effectively voting blind, and that is simply not acceptable.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will later talk about the evidence that we need to see before we come to a vote.

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong case. Further to the previous intervention, 44,000 disabled people in my constituency risk losing PIP. They are absolutely horrified, because they will not only lose their dignity but be pushed into serious poverty. This is not the right way to do things, and it is certainly not the Labour way to do things. Does he agree that the right choice would be to tax the super-rich, so they pay their fair share?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

We absolutely have to look at our taxation system and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, rather than saving money on the back of disabled people.

Even the Government’s own assessment shows that the changes are likely to have a significant financial impact on claimants. For example, tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment so that individuals will be required to score four points in at least one category will mean that 800,000 people lose the daily living element of PIP, with an average loss of £4,500 a year. The points system is already deeply flawed, especially for those with dynamic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The domino effect of tightening PIP eligibility will be severe, because it acts as a passport to other support—150,000 people are set to lose their carer’s allowance if someone they care for no longer qualifies. That could mean a loss to a household of £10,000 a year.

We know that having a disability is expensive: on average, households that have someone with a disability need over £1,000 a month more to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. The proposed changes to the health element of universal credit will freeze the benefits of over 2 million people, and an estimated 730,000 new claimants will get a lower rate of £50 a week.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the sensitivities involved in considering, discussing and voting on such a serious matter require, at the very minimum, an equality impact assessment? It is only through such assessments that we can understand the impact on residents up and down the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I agree. I will come on to that later in my speech.

Those individuals I mentioned—the 730,000 new claimants who will get the lower rate of universal credit—will see an average loss of £3,000 a year. The health element of universal credit will also be cut for those aged under 22, removing vital support that helps young people into work, education and training. The Government cannot claim to want to help young people into work while taking away their safety net. People in all those groups are already struggling to make ends meet so, in reality, the figures are likely to be an underestimate of the scale of the pain being proposed.

A recent freedom of information request revealed that 1.3 million people who currently get the standard daily living award will no longer qualify, which is significantly higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimated 800,000 people. As a result, 350,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line. In total, over 3 million households will lose out, with as many as 100,000 children being pushed into poverty.

I have heard Ministers repeat the claim that only one in 10 PIP recipients will be affected by the proposals, but that is based on the false assumption that people will get better at filling in the claim forms and that more people will be successful in scoring four points. There is absolutely no evidence to show that that will be the case. The one in 10 figure also does not take into account the potential new claimants who will lose out.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

On the suggestion that there is no evidence, does the evidence not come from when the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee looked at previous assessment changes?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I have not seen that evidence, but what I have seen points me in a different direction.

We already know that PIP is an underclaimed benefit, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, and that fewer than half of the disabled people who are eligible to make a claim do so. I would therefore argue that the recent increase in the number of claims is largely the result of declining public health in this country combined with the increased financial hardship that disabled people are facing.

The Government have suggested there has been an unsustainable rise in the benefits bill, but as a percentage of GDP, we are spending the same amount on working-age benefits as we were in 2015. Cuts to social security are not an economic necessity; they are a political choice. It has been suggested in the media recently that the transitional arrangements for someone who loses their PIP will be extended from four to 13 weeks, but that only delays the fact that the Government will be making people permanently poorer.

It is right for Ministers to say that work can be a route out of poverty, and that disabled people should be supported to find a job, but the proposed £1 billion of support comes in only at the end of the Parliament—three years after the cuts have been introduced. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 45,000 to 90,000 people might find work through that proposed employment support, which cannot possibly offset the 3.2 million people who are having their benefits cut. It is a completely false equivalence.

As hon. Members know, PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so cutting it is likely to undermine efforts to get people into employment, rather than supporting them into gainful work. Too often, the attitude of employers is the real barrier to disabled people finding a job. Reluctance to offer flexible working patterns, harsh sickness absence policies and disability discrimination are the blockers that many disabled people face. Tackling those would be an important place to start.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I will give way to somebody who has not already spoken.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The hon. Member is talking about barriers to disabled people, particularly those in poverty. I am running a campaign calling on the Government to make sure that people with disabled bus passes can use them at any time of the day, rather than just after 9.30 am. Does he agree that that would be a great way to alleviate the poverty of disabled people?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a campaign that I would put my weight behind.

[Neil Coyle]

On the hugely important issue of discrimination that my hon. Friend touched on, does he agree that it is completely unacceptable that the Government inherited a position where the Department for Work and Pensions was being investigated for unlawful discrimination against disabled people? That is another of the issues that the ministerial team and the Government are having to fix—issues that they inherited from the chaotic and incompetent Governments of the previous 14 years, five of which were in coalition with the Lib Dems.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward.

There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that these proposed or suspected cuts to PIP and other benefits are a sword of Damocles hanging over disabled people in this country? Although the savings are expected to be about £4.5 billion across Britain by 2029-30, that does not factor in any of the broader systemic costs, especially those borne by the NHS and local authorities, which could well negate or even exceed that sum.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say.

According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care.

Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published.

Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

My constituency is the home of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Army Training Centre Pirbright, and is just next door to Aldershot, so veterans, many of whom have career-acquired disabilities, are an integral part of our community. According to recent statistics, 16% of disabled veterans are unable to heat their own homes, and the Trussell Trust says that more than half are considered to be food insecure. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is vital that we offer disabled veterans bespoke support to compensate them for their careers and the lives they have given in the service of our country?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Veterans, like every disabled individual, should get the support they deserve.

Labour created the modern welfare state, underpinned by universalist principles, to provide dignity and fairness to people when they need a helping hand. That, in my view, is what we should be doing now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]