Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

It is safe to say that the topic of today’s debate has been my overriding focus in recent months. I thank my constituents and all organisations for their input, as well as the Secretary of State and the wider DWP team for listening to concerns, and indeed for acting on them with recent amendments.

The Bill will raise the universal credit standard allowance by the largest increase since the 1970s. It will help 3.9 million families with an average gain of £265 a year, bringing us closer, finally, to ensuring that every family can afford the essentials without relying on charity or community support. I wholeheartedly welcome this as part of the Government’s wider efforts to rebalance universal credit to better reward work and improve basic adequacy, along with an end to reassessment for those with the most severe conditions and an end to work capability assessments, as well as the right to try work without the risk of losing existing entitlements and crucial increased investment in health and into work pathways.

However, the undeniable focus of the Bill has been changes to the personal independence payment. I truly thank my Clwyd North constituents for their time and their trust in sharing their stories so openly. To them, I say: I hear you, and will continue to represent you. So many of my constituents have been desperately worried about what the eligibility changes mean for them; this concern is real, and it must be taken seriously. One constituent said to me:

“Every time I turn on the news, it’s there. I’ve looked at the changes and I know they won’t affect my payments, but I keep wondering if I’ve got it right…and it’s causing me real anxiety.”

That level of fear is hugely regrettable, and is a responsibility we all share.

Thanks to the incredible support of advice organisations in Clwyd North, many of my constituents have navigated the complex PIP system—one, by the way, that is too reliant on appeals and outside agencies—and now have some stability in meeting daily costs, which remain far too high for far too many. It is right that the Government have listened to these concerns, and I welcome the Government’s amendments to protect existing claimants and the accelerated review of PIP assessments with a stronger commitment to co-production with disabled people.

However, it is also right to recognise that the system is not working as it should be. It is right that we recognise that too many believe that they have nothing to offer and that their health, and particularly their mental health, defines what they can do. It is also right that we stop that belief being passed on to the next generation—something I have seen far too often as a teacher—and stop too many young people feeling that they do not belong in the social networks and financial independence that good work provides.

The expected soaring reliance on PIP reflects the woeful lack of health and local support that has been offered until now. Areas such as mine have sought to fill this gap, with services that create bespoke pathways to work—like the pathway trod by my constituent whose life changed forever when he was helped out of his bedroom, which he had stayed in for years while struggling with his mental health, and into stable work in our local hospitality sector. There are many more like him. We must turbocharge that support, working closely with health services to provide the wraparound care that people need. And, as an inactivity trailblazer area, Clwyd North is determined to lead this effort.

Reform is endlessly challenging, but it is necessary as the system we inherited is not working. It is a hugely ambitious challenge and requires us to be bold and determined. I came into politics to be bold, and I will work tirelessly to make real change happen. And it is with that belief that I support this Bill today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Steve Witherden—not here. I call Ian Byrne.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We have run out of time. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In the light of the shambles this afternoon, with the Bill being ripped apart literally before our eyes in this Chamber and the Minister unable even to tell us how much it will now save, can you please advise me whether it should still be rushed through to be debated next week in Committee of the whole House, or whether the Government should in fact withdraw it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member has put her point on the record. She has been a Minister in the past and so will know that the scheduling of business is a matter for the Government, and not for the Chair.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings in Committee of the whole House are commenced.

Programming committee

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any increase in the administrative expenses of the Secretary of State that is attributable to the Act;

(b) any increase in sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided that is attributable to increasing—

(i) the standard allowance or limited capability for work and work-related activity element of universal credit;

(ii) the personal allowance, support component, severe disability premium or enhanced disability premium of income-related employment and support allowance.—(Chris Elmore.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

That was a powerful and long question, and I am glad that Conservative Members listened to every word of it, because they left us 1 million young people not in education, employment or training—that is what a disgrace looks like. What is happening now? We have seen falling numbers of NEETs over the past quarter and the past year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

Two weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman’s Government told people they were U-turning on winter fuel payments because the economy is on a “firmer footing”. The next day, the unemployment figures were released, showing that a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the Chancellor’s job-taxing Budget. The country is now losing 100,000 jobs a month. These figures are worse than even the most pessimistic forecast. Is that what a firm footing looks like to the hon. Gentleman?

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlotte Cane]

Over 4,500 people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire claim PIP, and they are not just anxious, as you put it; they are seriously worried that they are going to lose the payments and, with them, their independence. Contrary to what you said—sorry, contrary to what the Minister said—the Government’s own data suggests that 85% of people getting standard payments and 11.5% of those getting enhanced payments will lose support under the proposed changes. What steps is the Minister taking to support those who will be affected, including to make sure that their health and eligible care needs are met and, most importantly, that they can maintain their independence?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is really important for claimants of PIP that its funding should be sustainable into the future. The trajectory of the past few years has been unsustainable. We are taking action to put that right. The hon. Member is wrong to say that because people did not get four points last time, they will not keep their PIP. As I said, the view of the OBR, which I think is correct, is that most of them will. We are consulting on how to support those who will lose their PIP as a result of the changes that we have announced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No. Members will be voting for reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far too long. We are putting that right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not sure whether the shadow Minister wants me to go further or not so far—he seems to be facing both ways. He is right that we are not at this point proposing any changes to the Motability scheme.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

I congratulate, through my hon. Friend, those in his constituency on the fantastic work that he has described. I recently visited an incredible supported internship programme that helps young people with learning disabilities to get work and stay in work, including in our local NHS and with our local hotel voco in the heart of Leicester. This Government are determined to tackle the disability employment gap, which fell under the last Labour Government, although movement stalled under the Tories. We are going to turn this around with the biggest ever investment in employment support, introducing mandatory disability pay gap reporting and looking at what more we can do to support brilliant employers, like the one my hon. Friend described, to recruit and retain more disabled people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call shadow Secretary of State.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

More than half of new health and disability benefits claims are now for mental health, yet under the Government’s welfare cuts Bill the personal independence payment could be stripped from three quarters of claimants with arthritis and two thirds of those with heart disease but fewer than half of those with anxiety. Does the right hon. Lady believe this is the right decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Kendall]

Let me tell the hon. Lady what we are doing to improve mental health support for people in this country and to make sure that it is treated with equal importance to physical health: we have made significant progress towards recruiting the additional 8,500 mental health workers we said we would recruit in our manifesto to reduce delays and provide support; we have confirmed funding to help an extra 380,000 patients get access to talking therapies; and we are investing the biggest ever amount in employment support for sick and disabled people. I say to the hon. Lady, who left 2.8 million people out of work due to long-term sickness and 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, that it is about time she apologised to the country and made up her mind about whether she will back our reforms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I remind Members that topical questions and answers should be brief.

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T2. My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I commend my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, including his seminal 2022 independent review. He is right that care leavers need support as they move to independent living. The Department for Work and Pensions at the moment exempts care leavers from the shared accommodation rate, and provides support toward sustained employment and career progression. We will certainly consider if there is more that we can do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Andrew Rosindell—not here.

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

T7. Emma from Tring is one of my constituents who has said that these changes to disability benefits will mean that they will have to come out of a career in the NHS. What does the Secretary of State have to say to those who are terrified about losing their work after changes to disability allowance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

I am very sorry to hear about the plight of the hon. Member’s constituent. If she would like a meeting with me, I am very happy to give her that, and I am also happy to look into the matter, as she suggests.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Previous changes in eligibility for disability benefits have resulted in significant adverse health impacts, including an additional 600 suicides in 2010 and 130,000 more people with new onset mental health conditions in 2017. What estimates have the Government undertaken of the impacts on health of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading next week?

Winter Fuel Payment

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)]

On 21 May, the Prime Minister told this House that the Government wanted to extend eligibility for winter fuel payments to a wider range of pensioners in England and Wales. Today we are setting out how this will happen for the coming winter and the years ahead. This will provide certainty for pensioners and ensure that payments can be made swiftly and automatically, which is our priority. I hope this statement will also answer many of the questions that hon. Members have raised with me and others in recent weeks.

Let me set out for the House how this system will work. All pensioners with incomes up to and including £35,000 will benefit from support, as will all those on pension credit and other income-related benefits. The payment of £200 per household, or £300 per household where there is someone aged over 80, will be made to all pensioner households in England and Wales. Individual pensioners with taxable income above £35,000 will have any winter fuel payment automatically recovered via His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs without the need for them to take any action. This will be via PAYE for the majority, or in their self-assessment tax return for those who already complete one. No one will be brought into tax or into self-assessment just to repay their winter fuel payment. Those that prefer not to receive a payment can opt out of receiving it. As was previously the case before July 2024, where the household is not getting an income-related benefit and there is more than one pensioner in the household, shared payments split across the recipients will be made.

This Government have had to make tough decisions. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment—[Interruption.] I thought the Conservative party supported means-testing the winter fuel payment. We will find out in this debate shortly. We have had to make take tough decisions because of the disaster left by the Conservative party. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment on grounds of fairness and fiscal sustainability. Most people accept that it makes no sense to pay hundreds of pounds to pensioners irrespective of their incomes. Those on the highest incomes do not need it, and there are many other calls on public spending.

The Government have, however, listened to concerns about the level of the means test. We are acting to ensure that all lower-income pensioners receive support. The new individual £35,000 threshold is significantly above the income of pensioners in poverty, and broadly in line with average earnings. It will mean that the vast majority—over three quarters, or 9 million pensioners—will benefit from a winter fuel payment. This change ensures that the means-testing of winter fuel payments has no effect on pensioner poverty.

Means-testing the winter fuel payment in England and Wales like this will save around £450 million a year, subject to certification by the Office for Budget Responsibility, compared with the system of universal payments. It will cost around £1.25 billion in England and Wales, compared with the position last winter. Decisions about the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland remain for their devolved Administrations in the usual way. As the Prime Minister has previously set out, these are changes that will be fully funded at the next fiscal event, the autumn Budget. That will ensure that final costings and funding decisions come alongside the latest forecast from the OBR. We will ensure that the Government’s non-negotiable fiscal rules are met.

We are setting out these changes before the summer to ensure that more pensioners receive support this winter. Regulations will be laid in the coming months to ensure that the payments are made, and tax changes will be legislated for in the Finance Bill.

I want to spell out clearly today that pensioners do not need to do anything. Winter fuel payments will be paid automatically this winter to all pensioners who receive the state pension, pension credit or anyone who has previously received a winter fuel payment. Similarly, payments will be recovered automatically through the tax system for those with an income of over £35,000.

Pensioners will also continue to receive wider support. Our pension credit take-up campaign has seen almost 60,000 awards made. I thank hon. Members on both sides of this House, local authorities and charities for their work on that campaign. Over 12 million pensioners right across the UK are also benefiting from the triple lock. The full new state pension is set to increase by up to £1,900 a year over this Parliament as a result. I commend that support for pensioners, and this statement, to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend sets out the principle case for means-testing the winter fuel payment very well indeed. I do not think that anybody with common sense thinks it right that millionaires receive each year from the Exchequer hundreds of pounds towards their winter fuel payments—people have recognised that for years. The Government are making the tough choice of saying that that we will no longer pay the winter fuel payment in that way.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Our country needs stability. I fear that this policy is from the book on how to botch running the country. Although last year’s decision was wrong and this change is right—the Liberal Democrats had long campaigned against those proposals, and it is important to acknowledge Independent Age, Silver Voices and Age UK, which have all driven the change—a Government who wobble do not give us the stability we need for our economy.

Some 300,000 pensioners in Devon and Cornwall have been worried sick about the proposals, so why did the Government not implement this approach 12 months ago? The Government comms have not been clear on single pensioner households, about which there are grave concerns, so will the Minister provide clarity on that matter? What about households in which there are pensioners on higher and lower rates—how will they be treated? Finally, may I have assurances that the Government will continue to push hard on pension credit? For the poorest pensioners, it can offer a boost of £11,000 a year to their income, which is the real way to tackle pensioner poverty in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

This is why I am confused. What is the position of the Conservative party? Is it to support means-testing of the winter fuel payment—yes or no? Are you going to send out the shadow Chancellor to give a speech—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. “Are you going to send?” I do not think the Minister is speaking to the Chair.

[Torsten Bell]

Is the Conservative party going to send out the shadow Chancellor to give a speech in which I cannot tell whether he is apologising for Liz Truss, then come to this House the very next week and call for universal winter fuel payments? If the Conservatives are calling for universal winter fuel payments, they need to set out how that will be funded. This is a Government who have made their choice. It is right to means-test the winter fuel payment, because millionaires should not receive it. If the Conservatives do not know what their policy is on that, they will not know their policy on anything else.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pamela Nash (Motherwell, Wishaw and Carluke) (Lab)]

I welcome the decision today, and I am delighted to hear the announcement from the Minister. Let us be crystal clear: this is a direct result of the progress that this Labour Government are making in turning around our economy. For my constituents, however, the future of the winter fuel payment—or its equivalent—lies in the hands of the Scottish Government. Can the Minister confirm that the Barnett consequentials to Scotland resulting from today’s announcement will exceed what the Scottish Government are already planning to spend on their equivalent of the winter fuel allowance? [Hon. Members: “Will the hon. Lady give way?”] Will he join me in urging the Scottish Government to follow suit and ensure that the additional funds that are provided due to today’s decision will restore the full winter fuel payment to all those who need it in—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Please be seated. I do not need any help with managing the Chamber, but questions need to be short. Minister, let us have a short, sharp answer.

[Torsten Bell]

My short, sharp answer is that wages have grown in the first 10 months of this Government faster than in the first 10 years of the last Conservative Government. Interest rates have been cut four times. My hon. Friend is right to say that progress is being made, and that needs to continue. We need to ensure that more people feel the benefits of that growth in their pockets. The changes we are making to winter fuel payments today are one of those benefits. I can confirm that there will be a block grant adjustment exactly as she sets out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I give another reminder to colleagues that questions must be short, as must answers. Otherwise, many colleagues will be disappointed.

[Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)]

I share the deep concerns of my constituents about the loss of the winter fuel payment, which the Minister will know I relayed to the Department. I am glad that the Government have acted on those concerns and reviewed the threshold so that the majority of pensioners will receive the payment this winter. Does the Minister agree that in stabilising the economy we are now in a better position to do what Labour Governments have always done best: protecting the vulnerable in our society?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, which I know will be greatly welcomed by my constituents. Over 14 years, we became used to a Government who did not listen and did not change course when circumstances changed, so I for one am grateful for a Labour Government who do so.

While there was an uptick in pension credit—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Question!

[Kirsteen Sullivan]

Will the Minister commit himself again to working with local government and devolved Administrations to increase the number of people receiving pension credit, so that pensioners on the lowest incomes do not lose out but receive the support that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We could have gone faster in the past hour and 10 minutes if the Minister was faster with his answers.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

I have worked hard with Citizens Advice Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole in my constituency to get pensioners on to pension credit. However, on the doorstep, I have met far too many people, especially single women, who are £10—or even £1—over the threshold for pension credit. I welcome the statement, and thank the Minister for listening to my constituents’ concerns about the threshold. Does he agree that this policy shows the difference between this Government and the previous one? This Government are doing what is necessary to get stability in our economy, what is fair to get money back into our public services, and what is right to protect the vulnerable in our society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the statement. I will allow the Front Benchers a moment to shuffle over.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 18—Consequential amendments to the Social Security Fraud Act 2001.

Government new clause 19—Devolved benefits.

Government new clause 20—Powers of Scottish Ministers.

New clause 1—Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance—

“The Secretary of State may not exercise any of the powers of recovery under this Act in relation to a person who has received an overpayment of Carer’s Allowance until such time as—

(a) the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent review of the overpayment of Carer’s Allowance;

(b) the review has concluded its inquiry and submitted a report containing recommendations to the Secretary of State;

(c) the Secretary of State has laid the report of the independent review before Parliament; and

(d) the Secretary of State has implemented the recommendations of the independent review.”

This new clause would delay any payments being taken from people who the Government may think owe repayments on Carer’s Allowance until the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

New clause 2—Impact of Act on people facing financial exclusion—

“(1) The independent person appointed under section 64(1) of this Act must carry out an assessment of the impact of this Act on the number of people facing financial exclusion.

(2) The independent person must, after 12 months of the passing of the Act—

(a) prepare a report on the review, and

(b) submit the report to the Minister.

(3) On receiving a report the Minister must—

(a) publish it, and

(b) lay a copy before Parliament.”

This new clause would look into the impact of the Act on people facing financial exclusion.

New clause 3—Audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments—

“(1) An independent audit of algorithmic systems used in the assessment, detection or recovery of Carer’s Allowance overpayments must be conducted at least once every six months.

(2) Any audit under subsection (1) must be conducted by persons with relevant expertise in data science, ethics and social policy who have no direct affiliation with—

(a) the Department for Work and Pensions, or

(b) any person or body involved in the development or operation of the algorithmic systems under review.

(3) An audit conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the accuracy of the algorithmic systems in identifying overpayments, and

(b) the fairness of the systems’ design, application and operation, including any disproportionate impact on particular groups.

(4) After every audit a report on its findings must be—

(a) published;

(b) laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of publication; and

(c) made publicly available in an accessible format.

(5) If any audit identifies significant inaccuracies, unfairness or biases in any algorithmic systems, the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the publication of the report outlining these findings, present an action plan to Parliament which outlines the steps which the Government intends to take to address the identified issues.”

This new clause would provide for an audit of algorithmic systems used in relation to Carer’s Allowance overpayments.

New clause 4—Inclusion of systems within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard—

“(1) For the purposes of this section, “system” means—

(a) algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems; and

(b) artificial intelligence, including machine learning;

provided that they are used in fulfilling the purposes of this Act.

(2) Where at any time after the passage of this Act, the use of any system is—

(a) commenced;

(b) amended; or

(c) discontinued;

the Minister must, as soon as reasonably practicable, accordingly include information about the system in the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.”

This new clause would require the use of algorithms, algorithmic tools, and systems, and artificial intelligence, including machine learning, to be included within the Algorithmic Transparency Reporting Standard.

New clause 5—Duty to consider domestic abuse risk to account holders—

“(1) Before any direct deduction order under Schedule 5 is made, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider its effect on any person who—

(a) is a victim of domestic abuse, or

(b) the Minister reasonably believes to be at risk of domestic abuse.

(2) In this section “domestic abuse” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021.”

New clause 6—Review of whistle blowing processes in relation to public sector fraud—

“(1) Secretary of State must, within one year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of whistle blowing processes in relation to fraud in the public sector.

(2) A review conducted under this section must consider—

(a) the appropriateness and efficacy of existing whistle blowing processes;

(b) barriers to reporting fraud and reasons for under reporting of fraud; and

(c) recommendations for change.

(3) The Secretary of State must publish a report containing—

(a) the findings and conclusions of the review, and

(b) a timetable for the delivery of any recommendations for change within six months of the completion of the review.”

New clause 7—Overpayments made as a result of official error—

“(1) Section 71ZB of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for “The” substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), the”.

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) The amount referred to in subsection (1) shall not include any overpayment that arose in consequence of an official error where the claimant or a person acting on the claimant’s behalf or any other person to whom the payment is made could not, at the time of receipt of the payment or of any notice relating to that payment, reasonably have been expected to realise that it was an overpayment.””

This new clause would provide that, where universal credit overpayments have been caused by official error, they can only be recovered where the claimant could reasonably have been expected to realise that there was an overpayment.

New clause 8—Offence of fraud against a public authority—

“(1) A person who-

(a) commits,

(b) assists or conspires in the committal of, or

(c) encourages the committal of,

fraud against a public authority commits an offence.

(2) A person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is liable-

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the general limit in a magistrates’ court or a fine (or both);

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years.”

New clause 9—Application of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigations conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, introduce regulations for the purpose of applying certain powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, subject to such modifications as the order may specify, to investigations of offences conducted by the Department for Work and Pensions.

(2) The powers to be applied must include–

(a) the power of arrest;

(b) any other such powers that the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(3) Regulations made under this section shall be made by statutory instrument.”

New clause 10—Liability orders—

“(1) Where a person–

(a) has been found guilty of an offence under section 1 or section 11 of the Fraud Act 2006, or the offence at common law of conspiracy to defraud,

(b) that offence relates to fraud committed against a public authority, and

(c) has not paid the required penalties or not made the required repayments,

the Secretary of State must apply to a magistrates’ court or, in Scotland, to the sheriff for an order (“a liability order”) against the liable person.

(2) Where the Secretary of State applies for a liability order, the magistrates’ court or (as the case may be) sheriff shall make the order if satisfied that the payments in question have become payable by the liable person and have not been paid.

(3) The Secretary of State may make regulations in relation to England and Wales—

(a) prescribing the procedure to be followed in dealing with an application by the Secretary of State for a liability order;

(b) prescribing the form and contents of a liability order; and

(c) providing that where a magistrates’ court has made a liability order, the person against whom it is made shall, during such time as the amount in respect of which the order was made remains wholly or partly unpaid, be under a duty to supply relevant information to the Secretary of State.

(4) Where a liability order has been made against a person ("the liable person"), the Secretary of State may use the procedure in Schedule 12 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (taking control of goods) to recover the amount in respect of which the order was made, to the extent that it remains unpaid.”

New clause 11—Publication of results of pilot schemes—

“Within three months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish the results of any pilot schemes run with banks to test the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 2.”

New clause 12—Report on cost implications for banks—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the expected cost implications of the provisions of this Act for banks.”

New clause 13—Annual reporting of amounts recovered—

“(1) The Secretary of State must publish an annual report detailing the amount of money which has been recovered under the provisions of this Act.

(2) A first report must be published no later than 12 months after the passing of this Act with subsequent reports published at intervals of no more than 12 months.”

New clause 14—Impact of Act on vulnerable customers—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on vulnerable customers.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “vulnerable customers” means someone who, due to their personal circumstances, is especially susceptible to harm, particularly when a firm is not acting with appropriate levels of care.”

New clause 15—Publication of an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish an Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy.

(2) An Anti-Fraud and Error Technology Strategy published under this section must set out–

(a) how the Government intends to use automated technologies or artificial intelligence to tackle fraud against public authorities and the making of erroneous payments by public authorities, and

(b) a series of safeguards to provide for human oversight of decision making that meet the aims set out in subsection (3);

(c) how rights of appeal will be protected;

(d) a framework for privacy and data sharing.

(3) The aims of the safeguards in subsection (2)(b) are—

(a) to ensure that grounds for decision making can only be reasonable if they are the result of a process in which there has been meaningful human involvement by a human of adequate expertise to scrutinise any insights or recommendations made by automated systems,

(b) to make clear that grounds cannot be reasonable if they are the result of an entirely automated process, and

(c) to ensure that any information notice issued is accompanied by a statement—

(i) setting out the reasonable grounds for suspicion that have been relied on, and

(ii) confirming that the conclusion has been formed on the basis of human involvement.”

New clause 21—Offence of encouraging or assisting others to commit fraud—

“(1) The Social Security Administration Act 1992 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 111A (dishonest representation for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1G) insert—

“(1H) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1I) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1J) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.”

(3) In section 112 (false representations for obtaining benefit etc), after subsection (1F) insert—

“(1G) A person commits an offence if they—

(a) encourage or assist another person to commit an offence under this section, or

(b) provide guidance on how to commit an offence under this section.

(1H) An offence under this section can be committed where the encouragement, assistance or guidance happens online.

(1I) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or an unlimited fine.””

New clause 22—Impact of Act on people with protected characteristics—

“The Secretary of State must, prior to making regulations under section 103 to bring into force any provision of this Act, lay before Parliament an assessment of the expected impact of the Act on people with protected characteristics who are in receipt of social security benefits.”

This new clause would ensure any impact of the Bill on people with protected characteristics in receipt of social security benefits was examined prior to the Act’s implementation.

New clause 23—Report on public sector fraud during COVID-19 pandemic—

“(1) The Minister for the Cabinet Office must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a report evaluating the extent of public sector fraud that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic.

(2) The report must include—

(a) an account of fraudulent or erroneous payments made by or on behalf of public authorities, including but not limited to the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England,

(b) a review of how public procurement practices in place between March 2020 and December 2021, including—

(i) the use of high priority and expedited contracting for suppliers, and

(ii) the role of political appointments and personal connections in procurement decisions,

may have contributed to fraud against public authorities,

(c) the cost to the public purse of fraud against public authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and

(d) an assessment of the adequacy of Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities.

(3) Where the report finds or concludes that there were—

(a) failings in Government oversight and other measures then in place to prevent fraud against public authorities, or

(b) any action or inaction by the Government which enabled fraud against public authorities,

the Minister must make a statement to the House of Commons acknowledging these findings and setting out actions planned to ensure any failings are not repeated.”

Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 3, line 10, leave out “10” and insert “28.”

Government amendments 23 and 24.

Amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 33, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 13, page 3, line 33, after “notice” insert

“or of the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a)”.

Amendment 80, page 3, line 34, leave out “7” and insert “28”.

Amendment 17, page 3, line 36, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 18, page 3, line 38, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 14, page 4, line 2, after “notice” insert

“, including by extending the duration of the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) where satisfied that the person is reasonably unable to comply with the requirement to provide the information within the time required by the notice”.

Amendment 19, page 4, line 3, leave out “Minister” and insert “First Tier Tribunal”.

Amendment 81, page 4, line 10, at end insert—

“(7) Where a person has applied for a review of an information notice, the period mentioned in section 3(4)(a) is to be treated as beginning on the day after which the outcome of the review is notified to the person to whom the information notice was given.”

Government amendments 25 to 29.

Amendment 1, in clause 64, page 34, line 15, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 30, 31, 76, 75, 32 and 33.

Amendment 2, page 40, line 36, leave out clause 74.

This amendment removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 3, in clause 75, page 41, line 21, at end insert—

“(1A) Prior to appointing an independent person, the Minister must consult the relevant committee of the House of Commons.

(1B) For the purposes of subsection (1A), “the relevant committee” means a committee determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.”

This amendment would provide for Parliamentary oversight of the appointment of the “Independent person”.

Government amendments 34 to 43.

Amendment 8, in clause 89, page 55, line 6, leave out from “unless” to the end of line 14 and insert—

“(a) the liable person agrees, or

(b) there has been a final determination by a court or tribunal that it is necessary and proportionate to exercise a power under Schedule 3ZA.”

This amendment would mean that the Secretary of State can only exercise powers to recover amounts from a person where the person agrees or where a court or tribunal has determined that such recovery is necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 10, page 56, line 16, leave out clause 91.

Government amendments 79, 78, 77, 74, 73 and 44.

Amendment 4, in clause 103, page 63, line 29, leave out from start to “following” in line 32 and insert—

“Subject to subsections (1A) and (2), this Act comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may by regulations appoint.

(1A) No part of this Act may come into force until the recommendations of a report commissioned under section [Recovery of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance] have been implemented.

(2) Subject to subsection (1A), the”

This amendment which would delay the implementation of the whole Act until the findings of the independent review into Carer’s Allowance overpayments has been published and fully implemented.

Amendment 20, page 64, line 1, at end insert—

“(3A) Before bringing into force any of the provisions of Part 1 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with banks as to the costs which will be incurred by banks upon application of the provisions of Part 1.

(3B) Where consultation finds that the expected costs to banks are at a disproportionate level, the Secretary of State may not bring into force the provisions which are expected to result in such disproportionate costs.”

Government amendments 72 and 45.

Amendment 5, page 73, line 6, leave out schedule 3.

This amendment is related to Amendment 2 and removes the requirement for Banks to look into relevant claimants’ bank accounts.

Amendment 11, in schedule 3, page 73, line 25, leave out from “accounts” to the end of line 31 and insert—

“which belong to a person who the authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect has committed, is committing or intends to commit a DWP offence.”

This amendment would limit the exercise of an eligibility verification notice to cases where the welfare recipient is suspected of wrongdoing.

Amendment 22, page 84, line 12, at end insert “(d) housing benefit.”

Amendment 6, page 84, leave out line 12

This amendment would remove pension credit from being a “relevant benefit” for the purposes of the Act.

Amendment 71, page 84, line 13, leave out from “to” to end of line 17 and insert—

“remove types of benefit from the definition of”.

This amendment would mean that benefits could not be added to the list of “relevant benefits” by regulations.

Amendment 7, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 17.

This amendment ensure that the bill can only be used in relation to benefits listed in the Bill.

Amendment 21, page 84, line 25, after “money” insert

“or such an account which is held by a person appointed to receive benefits on behalf of another person.”

Government amendments 46 to 67.

Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 98, line 10, leave out from beginning to end of line 24 on page 99.

This amendment would remove the requirement for banks to provide information to the Secretary of State for the purposes of making a direct deduction order.

Government amendments 68 and 69.

Amendment 12, page 111, line 18, leave out schedule 6.

Government amendment 70.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is my pleasure to bring this Bill back to the House. I start by thanking all Members who have made contributions so far, and extend a special thanks to Members of the Bill Committee, some of whom are present today, for their detailed scrutiny.

This Government have an ambitious plan for change. To deliver everything we want to achieve, we must spend taxpayers’ money wisely, which is why we committed in our manifesto not to tolerate fraud or waste anywhere in our public services. The Bill delivers on that commitment. It is part of the biggest crackdown on fraud against the public purse in a generation. Nothing less will do, given the appalling position we inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Western]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that we have a problem with so-called “sickfluencers”, but as we will hear in the debate more broadly, the Government do have existing powers through the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2007 to take action in those areas if necessary. He is right to suggest that we should be doing more, and I encourage Conservative Members to reflect on what they did in this space during their period in power. He will be reassured to know that I have commissioned work within the Department to look at what further we can do, but in legislative terms—[Interruption.] I do believe that we have somebody crossing the Floor, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Just for the record, in case Hansard did not pick that up, that was Jenny the dog crossing the Floor, not a Member of Parliament.

[Andrew Western]

I am sure the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) is grateful to you for that clarification, Madam Deputy Speaker, even if I am not, as Jenny would always be most welcome on this side of the House.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we do have the legislation required to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Over the past few months, it has been one thing after another for the vulnerable, the sick and disabled people. The recently announced cuts to welfare will affect 6% of the population in Wales, according to Policy in Practice, punishing the sick and disabled. This Bill adds to that punishment by increasing state financial surveillance of welfare recipients. It is full of intrusive measures, from granting access to three months of bank statements, to allowing direct deductions from bank accounts without court orders and providing police with powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to enter and search a property. That is not just my opinion: numerous charities and organisations from Age UK to the Child Poverty Action Group support Big Brother Watch’s recommendation to oppose eligibility verification powers under clause 74, for example.

Similar powers were proposed by the previous Conservative Government and considered a potential breach of privacy under the Human Rights Act. Labour MPs at that time were among critics of those powers. It is disappointing to see so few Labour MPs here today, but I thank those who have once again spoken up. I am glad to see amendments, including amendments 8 and 9 tabled by the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), that seek to address such concerns, including by limiting or removing powers to compel banks to provide sensitive financial information.

Even the thought of this provision is causing real anxiety and distress, such as for my constituent Simon Mead and his family. Mr Mead’s daughter, who receives PIP due to the long-term effects of brain cancer as a child, and his son, who suffers from psychosis and schizophrenia, are extremely worried about the Government accessing their private financial decisions. It is already affecting their day-to-day life and decisions. When I wrote to the Government outlining Mr Mead’s concerns before the Bill was published, I was told that the Bill is

“not designed to cause distress or to undertake covert surveillance of disabled people, or any benefit claimant”.

Well, that is obviously not the case, is it?

Combined with restricting winter fuel payments, the refusal to abolish the two-child cap and the sweeping welfare cuts, many vulnerable and disabled people genuinely feel that they are being disproportionately targeted. This is a reality that the Labour Government must accept and address. The Bill further stigmatises people who we are supposed to protect—those who are entitled to state support—who are already suffering following recent UK Government decisions. As Members of Parliament, it is our job to better people’s lives and ensure that everyone in our community feels supported. We are here to serve and to serve all our constituents, which includes the vulnerable, the elderly, the disabled and the infirm. We are not here to cause further distress and hardship. We need to ensure that constituents have access to the help and services they need. Sadly, this Bill does the opposite.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is the end of the Back-Bench contributions. We come to the Front Benches and first the shadow Minister.

[Rebecca Smith]

With the leave of the House, I will make a few additional comments. This is the perfect opportunity to respond to some of the points made about Conservative amendments and new clauses.

The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was on a short time limit and was not able to take any interventions, but I want to speak to the points he made on including our new clauses—for example, new clause 12. He rattled off the other amendment numbers quickly, so I hope he will forgive me if I did not hear them all, but I believe that new clauses 12 and 15 were included. His implication was that the new clauses we tabled would delay the Bill being put into law. That would not be the case, because each of them is worded for after the Act comes into force. The new clauses would be additional safeguards on the cost implications for banks, annual reporting and the publication of an antifraud and error technology strategy that would make the Bill even better, rather than essentially being wrecking amendments. Regardless of the other amendments included in the hon. Member’s list, ours are certainly not in that vein.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said that she was slightly unhappy about new clause 21 because those who genuinely help benefit claimants get what they are entitled to may inadvertently be caught by it. That is not our intention. We want only those who push people towards committing fraud to be caught. Citizens Advice and Improving Lives Plymouth, for example, which help people claim what they are entitled to, would not be caught by the new clause, because they would be involved in error only if a mistake were made, rather than through fraud. I appreciate what she said, but that was not our intention. The wording of our new clause covers that.

Concern was raised in Committee about the extent of bank account searches. In our view, other bank accounts used by those who commit fraud would not be checked under the Bill, so we probably need to go further to ensure that fraud is properly tackled. To be more light-hearted for a moment, if I may, anybody reading the report of the debate will see plenty of references to cheesecake, and I think I should explain why. Concern was raised in Committee about the fact that, under the Bill, an account’s individual transactions could be assessed and judged, so everybody would feel terrible if they bought a cheesecake from Waitrose—other shops are available—and that would be a problem in future. If anybody was wondering why we were talking about cheesecake, it related to concern about transactions being checked. At the time, the Minister kindly reassured us that the Bill would not provide for individual transactions to be checked; it would deal just with benefit payments and whether someone has capital that they should not have while claiming benefits. I hope that that is helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

This Labour Government were elected on a mandate for change—to create more good jobs in every corner of the country, to drive up living standards for working people and to get our vital public services back on their feet. Delivering our plan for change means ensuring that every single pound of taxpayers’ money is wisely spent and goes to those in genuine need. That is what this legislation will help to deliver, with the biggest-ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse.

It is unacceptable that the Conservative Government allowed fraud against the public sector to spiral to £55 billion a year. That includes a staggering £7.4 billion a year of benefit fraud alone. It is unforgiveable that they failed to ensure that the Public Sector Fraud Authority was fit for purpose, or to properly update the DWP’s anti-fraud powers for 14 long years. When we think of all the new ways in which fraudsters and scam artists rip people off, including by using data and technology, that simply beggars belief. Today we say: no more.

Our Bill updates the powers of the Public Sector Fraud Authority so that it can effectively fight fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public authorities. It also makes vital upgrades to the DWP’s fraud powers and sets out new powers to investigate fraud, so that for the first time, our serious and organised crime investigators can apply to the court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters, and can seize evidence such as computers and phones. There are updated powers to gather information, so that we can compel third parties such as airlines to give us information, and can require it to be delivered electronically, so that we can tackle fraud as quick as possible. Our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to get crucial data from banks and financial institutions to check if people are getting money they are not entitled to, and if they have more savings than the rules allow, or are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK.

The Bill extends financial penalties to people who have fraudulently claimed any type of DWP payment, including grants and loans, not just benefits, and it gives us new powers to get money back from people who can pay but who have repeatedly failed to do so, bringing our powers in line with those of other parts of Government, such as the Child Maintenance Service and HMRC. All this is being done in a fair and proportionate way; the measures are tightly defined in the legislation, and there are strong safeguards and independent oversight, including through annual reports to Parliament and codes of practice, which we will bring forward in Committee in the other place.

I thank the Minister for Transformation and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, for steering the Bill through its Committee and Report stages, supported by excellent civil servants and House of Commons staff. I thank all members of the Public Bill Committee from right across the House for their detailed questions and thoughtful scrutiny of the Bill. They have done this country a good service, because this Bill provides us with the tools we need to tackle modern fraud in the benefit system and across the public sector, helping to save £1.5 billion over the next five years as part of the DWP’s wider action to save a total of £9.6 billion from benefit fraud and error.

People who work hard and play by the rules, and people who depend on our public services and vital benefits, deserve to have trust and faith in the system, and they are rightly angry when they see people abuse it. Our message is clear: if you knowingly defraud the benefit system or cheat our public services, whether you are a large or small company, a criminal gang or an individual, we will find you; we will stop you; and we will get our money back. This Labour Government will restore trust and fairness in the system and ensure that every pound of public money delivers for the British people and our country. I commend this legislation to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Members will need to move a little faster, as will the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for young carers and young adult carers. Does the Minister agree that the role of young carers is critical not only to those who are cared for, but to the economy? Although young carers under 16 do not receive carer’s allowance, will he consider the impact of any plans on young carers and how we might better support them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Before the Minister responds, I remind the hon. Member that this is an urgent question, not a statement.

Social Security Benefits

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:

That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025, which was laid before this House on 16 January, be approved.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

In my view, the instruments are compatible with the European convention on human rights.

The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.1%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2024. It will increase most other benefit rates by 1.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2024. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by whichever is highest out of the growth in earnings, the growth in prices, or 2.5%. That will mean 4.1% for 2025-26. From April this year, the basic state pension will increase from £169.50 per week to £176.45, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £221.20 to £230.25.

We are fully committed to maintaining the pension triple lock. There is some confusion about the position of the Conservative party, and I hope that the shadow Minister will clarify the position when he speaks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

On the two-child limit, as the right hon. Member knows, we very quickly set up after the general election the child poverty taskforce, which is looking in a very ambitious way at the whole range of levers that the Government have at their disposal for tackling the problem of child poverty. We would very much like to repeat the success of the last Labour Government in reducing child poverty so dramatically in when in office. I say that with particularly strong feeling, having taken the Child Poverty Act 2010 through the House towards the end of that Government’s term. Under consideration certainly will be social security changes—we will look at what changes might be appropriate. We are not able to say whether the two-child limit will be removed, but all those things will be considered carefully during production of the report, which the taskforce will bring forward.

We are not looking, I do not think, at changing the arrangements around the overall welfare cap. Of course, there is always some confusion between the individual benefit cap and the overall welfare cap. As the right hon. Member said, there was a debate last week on the overall cap. There is certainly scope for debate about that and, indeed, the benefit cap as well, but we are not proposing any changes to those arrangements in the short term.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order sets out the yearly amount by which the GMP part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between April 1988 and April 1997 must be increased if it is in payment. The increases paid by occupational pension schemes help to provide a measure of inflation protection to people who are in receipt of GMPs earned between those two years. Legislation requires that GMPs earned between those two dates must be increased by the percentage increase in the general level of prices, as measured the previous September, capped at 3%. This year, it means that the order will increase the relevant part of the GMP by the September 2024 consumer prices index figure, which is 1.7%.

The draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, if Parliament approves it this afternoon, commits the Government to increased expenditure of £6.9 billion in 2025-26. The changes will mainly come into effect from 7 April and will apply for the tax year 2025-26. The order maintains the triple lock, benefiting pensioners who are in receipt of the basic and new state pensions; raises the level of the safety net in pension credit beyond the increase in prices; increases the rate of benefits for people in the labour market; and increases the rate of carer’s benefits and support to help with additional costs arising from disability or health impairment.

The draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order requires formerly contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 1.7% on GMPs in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997, providing people with a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by their scheme. I commend to the House the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

The hon. Gentleman reflects the experience that many of us have had in our surgeries. Nevertheless, I do not think that health reform on its own will do the job. As I mentioned, the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has looked into the matter and reported last week, pointing out that the increase in welfare claims cannot be attributed to longer waiting lists or, indeed, to worsening health conditions. The welfare problem is outstripping the problems we see in the nation’s health, so we have to do more in the DWP. We wait with bated breath to see some movement on that front.

In fact, it was in this debate last year when we were uprating benefits that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), now a ministerial colleague of the right hon. Member for East Ham, said that, “Labour has a plan”. That was a year ago. Seven months ago, Labour won the election. She did not say that the plan was oven-ready, but she implied it. I know the Minister says that the delay is because of a court case that happened two weeks ago, but I do not quite understand how that explains the delay that has been going on for seven months.

Here we are approving a measure that will increase expenditure by nearly £7 billion, as the right hon. Gentleman said, and we have no idea how the bill will be brought down over time. But after much head scratching in the DWP—and, we are told, people pulling their hair out in No. 10—we are getting closer to the big reveal. We hear exciting hints in the media that the Government might scrap the limited capacity for work category altogether, scrap the work capability assessment, merge employment and support allowance into the personal independence payment system, or require people on sickness benefits to engage with work coaches. I am encouraged by all that pitch-rolling.

If the Government are softening up their Back Benchers for serious reform, I applaud them for it, but I will believe it when I see it, because Labour opposed every step towards tougher conditions, more assessments and more incentives to work. They opposed reforms that we were introducing to the fit note system. In fact, I see from a written answer to a question in the other place that the Government say they have no plans to reform the fit note system, which I regret. I wonder whether the Minister could help clarify if that is the case.

On universal credit, it appears that the sinner repenteth, or sort of repenteth. The Government are on some kind of journey. In the last Parliament, they said they would scrap universal credit, then they said they would replace it, and now, as we have heard, they are reviewing it. I am glad to hear that, although the right hon. Gentleman just said that they are reviewing it over the course of this year, so that seems to be unrelated to the Green Paper process, which we are expecting in the spring. I would like to understand how those two processes are aligned.

Rather than scrapping, replacing or reviewing universal credit, I invite the Government simply to use it. It is a flexible system, as we saw during the pandemic, and it works; it just needs to be adapted to the new challenge. In conclusion, let me make a few suggestions for the right hon. Gentleman to consider as he prepares his Green Paper and his universal credit review.

The back to work plan that we announced before the general election would have got 1.1 million people into work, using more support and tougher conditions—“more support” meaning more of the WorkWell pilots that my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) introduced. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State praising those pilots yesterday, although sadly without attribution. In our view, the work capability assessment should be face to face, and it should be asset-based, not deficit-based; it should be asking what a claimant can do, not what they cannot do. The claimant should begin the journey of recovery—the journey back towards work—then and there. Rather than budgeting for ever higher welfare, as we are doing today, we should be investing in a universal support system to run alongside universal credit.

We also need tougher conditions. We simply cannot have people with a bad back or anxiety being signed off sick for the rest of their lives; they need to know that we believe in them, and that believing in them means having high expectations of them. In exchange for benefits paid for by working people, claimants should take active steps, when they can, to address their physical and mental health needs, and they should work meaningfully on their own health and wellbeing. That will not look the same for everyone and it must not be a tick-box exercise. That is why we need the help of civil society, not just coaches and therapists, providing the human touch and the range of help and opportunities that people need.

Most of all, we need a clear message to go out from the Government that unless a person is so severely disabled or ill that they genuinely can never work at all, they will not have a life on benefits. That clear message, enacted through reform that the right hon. Gentleman’s Department must bring forward urgently, is the only way to get our exorbitant welfare bills under control, and to get our workforce and our economy moving again.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Debbie Abrahams]

No, I am not going to give way. [Interruption.] I am not going to give way.

I welcome the social security order and, in particular, what my right hon. Friend the Minister has said about it. It was an absolute pleasure to serve on the Select Committee when he was its Chair, and in this respect I agree with the shadow Minister: my right hon. Friend’s transfer from the Select Committee to his ministerial position is very welcome. We all appreciate his gravitas and experience, but also his common decency in the role.

I want to talk about the context of this uprating order and the importance of our social security system in providing, at the very least, a safety net for people when they need it, and from cradle to grave, like the NHS. Unfortunately, though, over the past 14 to 15 years, the adequacy of support for people on low incomes has been dramatically eroded, particularly for people of working age—again, contrary to what the shadow Minister has said. Between 2010 and 2012, the uprating was about 1.5%; between 2012 and 2016, it was 1%; and between 2016 and 2020, it was zero. The average annual consumer prices index increase for each of those years was about 3%.

There has been a steady and consistent erosion in the value of social security support, which has affected the value of universal credit, jobseeker’s allowance, employment and support allowance, income support, housing benefit, child tax credit, working tax credit and child benefit. The Resolution Foundation has estimated that this erosion was equivalent to a cut of £20 billion a year from social security support for working-age people. That is clearly not well understood by the Conservative party.

Something else that is not well understood is that these are predominantly people in low-paid work. The vast majority of people in receipt of working-age social security support are, or have been, working people—that is something for us all to consider. Only a tiny proportion of DWP spending is spent on jobseeker’s allowance, for example—it is 0.001% of the current budget. As is evidenced in the Work and Pensions Committee’s report from last year, which I invite shadow Ministers to read, out-of-work support is at the lowest level in real terms since 1912. This is not a generous system; according to OECD comparisons, we are not supporting people in the way that a civilised society as well off as we are should do.

The consequences of inadequate social security are clear. Last week’s Joseph Rowntree Foundation poverty report made for bleak reading—again, I invite people to read it. Over one in five people in the UK are in poverty; that is 21%, or 14.3 million people. Of those, 8.1 million are working-age adults. Some 4.3 million children are in poverty—three in 10 among the population as a whole, while in my constituency the figure is one in two—and 1.9 million of those in poverty are pensioners.

Disabled people are at greater risk of poverty, partly by virtue of the additional costs that they face due to their disability and ill health, and partly due to the barriers to work that disabled people face. Disability employment has flatlined; when it comes to being in work, the gap between people who are not disabled and those who are has been about 30% for the past 14 years or so. It went down by about 1%. Some 16 million people in the UK are disabled—nearly one in four—and almost four in 10 families have at least one person who is disabled. The poverty rate for disabled people, which is 30%, is 10 percentage points higher than it is for non-disabled people. The rate is even higher—50%—for those living with a long-term, limiting mental health condition, compared with 29% for people with a physical disability or another type of disability.

Other groups of people are also disproportionately more likely to live in poverty, including former carers, people from ethnic minority communities and lone parents, but given the media speculation there has been about the future of disability support, I want to focus on that. Last year’s Select Committee report on benefit levels set out a wide range of evidence suggesting that benefit levels are too low and that claimants are often unable to afford daily living costs and extra costs associated with having a health condition or disability. Although the Select Committee supports the Government’s ambition to get Britain working and a social security system that supports work, these ambitions are not achievable within a few months. Meanwhile, people are barely clinging on.

The DWP does not have an expressed objective for how it will support claimants with daily essential living costs. In the Select Committee’s report we recommended building a cross-party consensus to take this forward, and for the Government to outline and benchmark objectives linked to living costs to measure the effectiveness of benefit levels, and to make changes alongside annual uprating. I would welcome my right hon. Friend the Minister revisiting this Select Committee report, particularly our recommendations.

I would like to set out the consequences of our currently inadequate social security system. From peer-reviewed articles, we know that for every 1% increase in child poverty, six babies per 100,000 live births fail to reach their first birthday. That is the consequence of living in poverty for children. The hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), because of his medical training, will know much of this, but a rewiring of the brain of children living in poverty affects them for the rest of their lives.

In another peer-reviewed piece published in 2016 in a BMJ journal, entitled “First, do no harm”, a metadata analysis of the impacts of the changes to and reassessment of the work capability assessment between 2010 and 2013 in 149 local authority areas in England found that, for each additional 10,000 people who were reassessed, there were an additional six suicides, 2,700 additional cases of mental health problems and over 7,000 more antidepressant scripts. This is evidence.

Many Members will know of my previous campaigns, and I want to refer to the deaths we have seen of social security claimants whose benefits have been stopped. I mention again Errol Graham, a 52-year-old Nottingham man with a severe mental health condition, who basically starved to death after his social security support was stopped. There are so many others I could mention, and I pay tribute to the families who have campaigned on their behalf for justice, because it is quite horrific.

Talking about people surviving our social security system, there is the case of TP—I will use his initials—also a 52-year-old man, who had worked all his life. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma and, sadly, his diagnosis was terminal. He was trying to be migrated from his particular incapacity support to universal credit, and he lost all his disability premiums. He was one of the litigants in a case about transitional protections when migrating from ESA and disability premiums to universal credit. This is an example of somebody who has worked all their life, and four out of five disabilities and health conditions are acquired—it could happen to any one of us, and I would just like us to consider that.

In another case, AB was born with congenital cerebral palsy and worked for 25 years, but then could not go on. If I read out the whole story, we would all be in tears, because it is just heartrending, describing the indignity of having to rely on such low-level support.

I will leave it there, but I know my right hon. Friend the Minister takes this very seriously, and I hope all of us here will work towards making the social security system more adequate for those people.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrats spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

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

You are making a very powerful case. Would you agree with me that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Member is not intervening on me, so the word “you” is not appropriate. Interventions should be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shockat Adam]

I could not agree more; that would be vital for pensioners. Ever since I was elected, emails from pensioners on that issue have been in the top three issues—it is a real issue. If alongside increasing pensions we could reverse the cuts to the winter fuel payment, that would save lives.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That concludes the Back-Bench contributions. I believe that the Minister would like to do a short wind-up.

Income Tax (Charge)

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Sadik Al-Hassan to make his maiden speech.

[Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate hon. Friends who have made excellent and moving maiden speeches so far—they have set a high bar today and over the past few weeks—but we have, as they say, saved the best until almost last. I thank the people of North Somerset for the trust that they have placed in me. I promise them that I will not, for a moment, stop fighting to fulfil the promises that I have made to them.

As a pharmacist, I campaigned on a platform of rebuilding the NHS. Having worked in pharmacies across the area over the past two decades, I have seen at first hand the decline of community pharmacies in many towns across the country. That is why I was proud to see in the Budget such a strong commitment from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to rebuilding our NHS, with the largest increase in funding—outside the pandemic—since 2010. No one on the Labour Benches doubts the enormity of the task ahead, or the challenges that we may encounter along the way, but the Chancellor has put us on a road to renewal with this Budget, and I am sure that many of my colleagues in the healthcare sector will be grateful to her for that.

North Somerset is more than just where Somerset gives up and Bristol begins. We are the home of the first mass production of penicillin, of one of the oldest cinemas in the UK, and—perhaps our proudest achievement—of the discovery of the Ribena blackcurrant. In the west of my constituency lies Portishead, known across the country for its beautiful marina and lively fish and chips trade, which, rumour has it, stretches all the way back to the town’s Roman founders.

Next, I pay tribute to Clevedon in the south of my constituency. As a pharmacist, I take great pride in telling the House that Clevedon has the distinct honour of being the site of the first large-scale production of penicillin, enabling its use as a vitally important medicine in world war two and undoubtedly saving countless lives. Although the world of pharmacy has matured somewhat since then, Clevedon continues its proud pharmacological heritage with a number of truly outstanding local pharmacies that do the community proud, such as the Well pharmacy, where I had the distinct honour of working not too long ago.

Finally, but by no means least of the major towns in North Somerset, there is of course Nailsea. A little-known fact about Nailsea is that it is so named because at one point it was an island, which is somewhat surprising given how far inland it is. Leaving behind its ancient island status, Nailsea really began to boom in the 19th century, when it became home to one of the largest glassworks in the country, relics of which are still treasured by collectors across the world.

Although all those who have had the pleasure of visiting North Somerset agree that it is a beautiful and blessed place, it is also an unequal place. Neighbourhoods in my constituency are among the most and least deprived areas of England. Among our countless idyllic villages is Long Ashton, the birthplace of Ribena—a drink much beloved across the country, not least by my children. Another of our gems is Pill, which, despite the name, does not have a pharmaceutical history. At one point, Pill’s small footprint boasted 21 pubs, which would no doubt have celebrated the Chancellor’s cut to alcohol duty at the weekend. No tour of our green and pleasant land would be complete without Tyntesfield, which is, in my unbiased opinion, the greatest National Trust site—and that is really saying something. That beautiful Georgian house is a delight for all across the south-west.

North Somerset boasts the unique honour of being home not only to one of the busiest airports in the country, but to a major port. Those twin pillars of infrastructure in the south-west are the foundations of our local economy. In recent years, Bristol airport overtook Glasgow airport to become the eighth busiest airport in the UK. The Royal Portbury dock is no slouch either, handling over 7 million tonnes of cargo a year. I am sure that both have a long and prosperous future ahead of them.

I pay tribute to my predecessor, Dr Liam Fox. Although I may not have shared his views on Europe, I know that we were aligned in our mutually held passion for the North Somerset constituency, which he represented for 32 years and through eight elections—a record that many of us who are new to the House are no doubt keen to replicate. My predecessor was particularly proud of his championing of Down’s syndrome, for which he shepherded a private Member’s Bill through Parliament.

No maiden speech on North Somerset would be complete without a mention of the Portishead railway line. First opened in 1867, the line proved a vital link in connecting the people of North Somerset to Bristol, and then to the wider country. For nearly 25 years now, the campaign to reopen the line has raged fiercely in my constituency, and I want to reassure my constituents that I intend to fight tooth and nail to see that project across the line after decades of false starts.

I first got into politics as a town councillor in Emersons Green, only for my wife to become a district councillor shortly thereafter. Now that I am an MP, I dread to think how she will one-up me this time. [Laughter.] I jest, and in reality, during the long weeks of campaigning this summer, my dad, wife and two children proved to be my bedrock, providing me with an endless source of strength, and I am and always will be eternally grateful to them.

I thank the House for indulging me and the people of North Somerset for putting their trust in me. Every day I will come to this Chamber and fight to put North Somerset on the map and deliver for all those who call that beautiful green pocket of England home.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

One should never underestimate one’s wife.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman has hit the nail exactly on the head. In its briefing, which I am sure all Members have received, the National Farmers Union points out that the Treasury’s own figures on who will get caught up in the APR changes are fundamentally wrong, because they include a lot of very small-scale areas—perhaps a private residence with one or two fields or a very small number of livestock. That is not what any of us would define as a working farm. In reality, when all those family farms are brought into the numbers, the vast majority of our food producers who contribute to food supply chains will get caught up in those changes.

When the Chancellor was on the BBC on Sunday morning, she said that the individual claim for agricultural property relief is now £1 million, but if a farm is owned by two people, that allowance could be transferred to the other person. Some confusion needs to be ironed out here, because unlike the nil-rate band and residential nil-rate band, the policy paper entitled “Summary of reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief” published on 30 October this year states that

“any unused allowance will not be transferable between spouses and civil partners.”

Perhaps in summing up the Minister can clear up that confusion caused by the Chancellor on the Kuenssberg show.

The APR changes are not the only changes that will hammer our farming families and agricultural communities. I am sure there is a joke somewhere along the lines of “When is a pick-up truck not a pick-up truck?”, but it is no laughing matter for farmers. For them, it is just a basic bit of equipment that they need to operate, but this Government are hammering them on the cost of that equipment if it happens to have rear seats. As I raised earlier today in this House during the urgent question, the Government’s carbon tax will put up the price of fertiliser by between £50 and £75 a tonne. Either that is going to have a direct impact on the cost of food, or the Government are asking farmers—already operating on incredibly tight margins, often with no profit at all—just to swallow that extra cost. I urge them to reconsider.

Other measures in the Budget that are clearly wrong and the Government must U-turn on include VAT on private school fees. The vast majority of parents I talk to in my constituency who choose to send their children to independent schools scrimp and save and make sacrifices in order to give their children that opportunity. An additional 20% in fees makes that unaffordable for those parents, and when I talk to representatives of independent schools in my constituency some are saying that they can see a path to having to close their doors. I know that a lot of Labour Members would probably quite like that outcome, but the reality is that it will be denying children opportunity and denying parents choice, and it will have the knock-on impact of class sizes in my kids’ school—and, I am sure, every other hon. Member’s kids’ school in the state sector—going up. That will cause overcrowding and put pressure on our state schools. This is all before I come on to the other problems in this Budget, not least the cruel attack on our pensioners through the withdrawal of the winter fuel payment.

Lastly, just to prove how bizarre and simply unserious the Government are about value for money, they have chosen someone as their new value-for-money tsar who is inextricably linked to one of the most inefficient and wasteful projects ever to come out of the British state: HS2. How on earth can someone so linked to that project be considered an arbiter of value for money?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now come to another maiden speech. I call Andrew Ranger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. After the next speaker at six minutes, I will drop the limit to three minutes each.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)]

I could not have been more pleased to hear the Chancellor’s game-changing Budget last week, putting an end to the cynical short-termism of the previous Government and taking on the long-term challenge of rebuilding Britain to be the fairer, more equitable society that we know it can be. Today, what an absolute tonic it was to hear from our Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is serious about driving up opportunity and driving down poverty and has a serious plan to do so. No more tinkering at the edges and no more blame game with the very people who deserve our support, but a practical, people-centred plan to get Britain working and to support and empower the most vulnerable for the long term.

People in my constituency of Clwyd North have much to welcome in what the Secretary of State said. There is the £470 rise this year alone in the state pension through retaining the triple lock, despite the financial inheritance left to us by the Conservatives. The significant increase in the earnings threshold for eligibility for carer’s allowance is welcome news for 3,000-plus family carers in my constituency, as are the valuable consequential funds gained by Wales through the extension of the household support fund to support those struggling most with household costs.

If I may, I would like to celebrate the two measures that resonate most with me as a result of my journey to this House through teaching in our classrooms and working with our communities in local government. They are the £240 million package to open up opportunities to all those left behind to get into work and to get on in work, and the fair payment rate for universal credit, which is relied on so much by those in and out of work. Deductions will be capped at 15% rather than the crippling 25%, which stops too many families from ever getting their heads above water.

Our children, families and communities deserve a fighting chance. Only a joined-up, person-centred approach can achieve that, which is why I am delighted to see the dawn of the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, enabled by this Budget. At last, we have a Government who are putting investment front and centre of rebuilding our country—investment in infrastructure, business and, crucially, in our people. It is about time. Our people are our greatest asset. This is a Budget—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Chancellor not only on being the first woman ever to deliver a Budget to this House, but on being the first Chancellor to deliver a joined-up, grown-up Budget in 14 years.

Representing a Welsh constituency, I am proud that this Budget provides the largest funding boost—£21 billion —that Wales has received since devolution. That is proof, if ever that were needed, that only two Labour Governments working together will ever properly listen to, understand and fight to meet the needs of the people of Wales, who have been ignored, belittled or attacked by generations of Conservatives. We all know that our broken public services would collapse overnight without the selfless dedication of the countless women and men who, day in and day out, serve as unpaid carers. I am particularly pleased that the Budget has raised the amount by nearly £200 a month that carers can earn before losing out on carer’s allowance.

Turning to agriculture, as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for farming, and having grown up on a small family farm, I know there has been much disquiet over the changes to agricultural property relief. I have been in constant communication with our excellent local NFU policy staff since the Budget, and I am listening to their concerns and feeding them directly back to DEFRA. It is unsurprising that farmers are worried, given that many journalists and the Conservative party have unfortunately been selectively focusing on a £1 million figure that does not reflect the reality of the policy.

Let me seek to reassure small family farmers and repeat the words of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray) last week, who said:

“The total value of a farm should not be confused with the value being passed on at death. Multiple family members can own part of a farm. For example, if an individual jointly owns a farm worth £3 million with their partner, only £1.5 million is in their estate at death.”

Those are wise words, which will give comfort to many who have been misled by selective and mischievous comments on the Budget. With the additional £500,000 relief for each partner if there is a property on the farm, a farm worth up to £3 million may still pay zero inheritance tax. Yes, this Budget recognises that family farms form part of the backbone of rural communities, but it also recognises that our rural communities rely every bit as much on strong, functioning public services.

This historic Budget calls time on austerity, and brings stability back.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Susan Murray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

That illustrates my point. It shows how impossible and unfair it is to say to family farms—and it does not take a lot of acreage to be worth £1 million—“You may have the assets, you do not have the income, but you must pay the inheritance tax to HMRC.” What do those farmers do? They sell off part of the farm, and what does that do? It diminishes the food production, and it diminishes the viability of the farm. That will be how this Budget will be felt in many family farms. Similarly, it will be felt in a negative way by new homebuyers because of the stamp duty threshold reductions: new purchasers will now pay significantly more in tax to buy a new home.

As for the Budget allocation for Northern Ireland, back in 2012 the Government accepted a national barometer of need. Through Professor Holtham, it set out what was needed in each part of this nation. What £100 could buy in public services in England was then translated—because other areas were smaller—into what it would cost to buy the same amount in the rest of the United Kingdom: £105 in Scotland, £115 in Wales and £121 in Northern Ireland. Yes, according to the block grant transparency document this Budget provides for Wales £120 per £100 in England, but in Northern Ireland we continue to be just at need. Why is there that uplift for some parts of the United Kingdom and not for others? We in Northern Ireland also have no guarantee of meeting need beyond 2026-27. That is not assured in this Budget. I ask for my constituents what has been afforded to the constituents of Wales, an uplift on need so that they can see their public services provided properly.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Interventions prevent other colleagues from contributing, so let us be mindful.

Carer’s Allowance

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

Our country is in a very serious financial situation indeed. As I said at the beginning of my speech, anyone who thinks that the issue of care ought not to be right at the top of the political agenda is labouring under a serious misapprehension.

This is an important subject, which is why I am proud of the first steps that this Government have already taken to improve support for carers and to address the overpayment of carer’s allowance, which has caused so much distress for thousands of people. This shows our commitment to recognising and valuing the vital role that carers play in our communities. Of course there is much more to do, so it is my hope that, as we deliver the fundamental change that we need, we can work together with carer organisations and with carers themselves with a renewed sense of purpose to ensure that carers get all the support they need to carry out the incredible work of caring and to live full and fulfilled lives.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. This is a heavily subscribed debate and I am determined to get everybody in, so this is fair warning. After the next speaker, Back Benchers will be limited to three minutes and maiden speeches will be limited to five minutes. These will be hard limits to ensure everybody gets in after our next speaker, Wendy Chamberlain, who has unlimited time.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I declare an interest as I am in the process of joining the board of Fife Carers in an unpaid capacity; it is a privilege to join the organisation. I have worked with unpaid carers throughout the past few years, as constituency MP for North East Fife and through the passage of my private Member’s Bill that became the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. If hon. Members want to learn more widely about carers, they may wish to read my Adjournment debate on the subject, which took place in the first few weeks of this Parliament, where I talked about the need for a strategy on carers to ensure that carers get the cross-cutting governmental and departmental support they need.

I will not touch on the overpayments scandal specifically, but I welcome the announcement of the review after months of campaigning by my dear friend the Leader of the Liberal Democrat party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), as well as by the Liberal Democrats, carer charities and journalists. However, I want to raise some points about the carer’s allowance more generally.

I recently asked the Minister responsible for carer’s allowance, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), a written question about a review of how carer’s allowance is working. The response said:

“This government will keep eligibility criteria and processes of Carer’s Allowance under review, to see if it is meeting its objectives.”

That response poses more questions than it provides answers. What are the Government’s objectives for carer’s allowance? Are they ever reviewed? How do they know if they are meeting them? What metrics are being used? What would happen if it was found that the objectives were not being met?

I assume that the objective of carer’s allowance is to keep unpaid carers out of poverty, given the additional barriers they face to working and the additional costs they face through their caring. I also assume that we want to help unpaid carers to stay linked to the workplace, if possible, through part-time work or training. On any assessment, carer’s allowance is failing these objectives. It is a failure when a third of households in receipt of carer’s allowance are classed as food insecure, compared with 10% of households as a whole; when Carers UK research from 2019 found that 600 people per day who were caring were giving up work; and when the rate of poverty among unpaid carers is 50% higher than among non-carers.

One immediate remedy that could be considered, as is set out in our motion, is an increase in carer’s allowance. It may not seem much in the big scheme of things, but during the pandemic we saw the impact of the £20 uplift to universal credit, which delivered an immediate and marked fall in food bank use.

We must do all we can to support people into work and to stay in work, so that they are not relying on carer’s allowance to get by. That point refers to the earnings allowance, which stops carers from working more than 13 hours a week on the minimum wage before losing carer’s allowance. As has already been discussed, there is no taper rate, so as soon as carers earn a penny more, the allowance goes.

Bizarrely, yearly increases to the allowance are not pegged to changes to the national minimum wage. Historically, people could work for 16 hours before they lost carer’s allowance; some of the scandal we have seen could be because people have continued to make those assumptions. We need to take the complexity out of the system. It is completely reasonable for people to assume that if they are earning national minimum wage and receiving carer’s allowance in one financial year, they can continue to do so in the following financial year, as long as they do not increase their hours, but that is not how the system works. The national minimum wage went up by 9.8% this year, but the earnings allowance did not go up at all. That sounds to me like a system set up to make people fail.

Should we not be enabling people to take on more hours and to progress in their jobs if they can? We know that often people—especially those who are below or near the poverty line, as too many unpaid carers are—are scared to risk losing their benefits in case that does not work out. One of the unseen outcomes of the scandal is that people are simply not looking for work or to get into employment because they are scared about the consequences.

Many young carers have high levels of absence from school and there are barriers to them accessing education. Potentially, if we do not help them to claim carer’s allowance when they are entitled to do so, they will never go into work and be able to make a contribution. Fife Young Carers, in my constituency, supports people up to the age of 25. We want to encourage young carers to complete their education so they have the best possible options later.

To return to my cross-cutting strategy, the Department for Work and Pensions may think that it is for the Department for Education to support young people. However, as the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, under the under-21 rule, doing a vocational qualification could preclude somebody from receiving carer’s allowance, as T-levels are one of the qualifications that falls into that trap. She is right that we need to think about how we are potentially inhibiting those young people in employment and training from moving forward. We need to ensure that we improve young people’s outcomes.

The Minister will know that employment among unpaid carers is about more than just benefits. We welcome her reference to the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 in her opening remarks and the fact that the Government are looking for that leave to be paid, which has long been a party policy of the Liberal Democrats. However, I do have to express my disappointment that there was no sign of paid leave in the Employment Rights Bill, because there was a real opportunity there to move the matter forward. I would appreciate it if, in her closing remarks, the Minister provided an update on the likely timescales in relation to the Carer’s Leave Act. I am concerned that, since the implementation of the Act, we do not actually know what the take-up of carer’s leave is. I am hearing worrying anecdotes that, six months after the legislation was fully implemented, some companies are still not aware of, or properly recording, carer’s leave. Part of that is because the communication from the then Government was not good enough. Unless somebody was starting a small business, or actively looking for these details, they would not find anything on carer’s leave.

I would like to raise one final point with the Minister. Again, the hon. Member for Salford highlighted this. I am often contacted by constituents who are upset to find that, having retired, they have lost their carer’s allowance—or, in Scotland, the carer support payment—because they are claiming their state pension. We know that female pensioners are more likely to be in poverty because of the working life that they have had—or not had—as a result of raising their families, and that unpaid carers are more likely to be female and older. I would like the Minister to pick up on that point, because too many pensioners are in poverty this winter as well as carrying caring responsibilities.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Gill German to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Colleagues have outlined the scale of the crisis, so I shall focus on a story of one of my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington. She was told that she had to repay more than £2,300 in carer’s allowance over- payments. This constituent already makes huge sacrifices to keep her family afloat, while caring for her disabled son. She gave up her full-time job to take on caring responsibilities and has limited her part-time hours to ensure that she remains qualified for carer’s allowance. It made me so angry to hear how meticulously she tried to manage her pay cheques each month, only to have it thrown in her face. She turned down pay rises, turned down overtime and turned down Christmas bonuses to ensure that she stayed under the limit. Her employers agreed to keep her on an advance rota to help her plan her earnings. Despite her diligence, she received no notice, no warnings and no forgiveness when one day the payments stopped and the bill came in for over two grand.

Here is the bit that really gets me. The repayment demand that she received is for the entire entitlement for each occasion when she earned too much. That means that the smallest indiscretions come with the heaviest of consequences. In one month, it was because she earned £28 too much. In another, it was £20. It gets worse: one November, she was £8 over the limit—not even an hour’s work in London. Finally, and most depressingly, she once dared to earn £2 too much. She owes the whole of the allowance back for each of those periods, and then a £50 fine to boot from the Department for Work and Pensions. This is nothing short of a national scandal, and the DWP should be ashamed of itself.

Today, the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to right this wrong, to stop pursuing hard-working carers for these innocent overpayments, and then to fix the system that let this scandal emerge in the first place. We need to taper the allowance, raise the earning limits and treat carers with the compassion they deserve.

I am conscious of time, so finally, I welcome and am encouraged by the Minister’s comments about the review. However, for it to be successful, carers need to play a big part and have full input. We also need to make sure that carers now in debt distress get some immediate reassurances and support and do not have to wait until the end of the review.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Dan Aldridge to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I welcome the debate, brought by the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), and pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German) and for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) on their maiden speeches. I welcome the Minister’s announcement of the independent review into how overpayments of carer’s allowance have occurred, what can be done to support those who have accrued them, and how to reduce the risk of overpayments occurring in the future.

Around 175,000 carers in receipt of carer’s allowance are combining paid work with care, and in 2023-24, there were 34,500 overpayments as a result of earnings and carer’s allowance. That means that around one in five carers who are doing paid work and claiming carer’s allowance have had an overpayment in the last year. That the previous Government allowed this situation to occur is, frankly, utterly shameful. It has pushed many unpaid carers, including many in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire South, to breaking point for the sole crime of caring for somebody they love and saving the taxpayer thousands of pounds in doing so. Without their contribution, our country would grind to a halt. That this has happened to them through no fault of their own is not okay. We must provide carers with the support that they need, at the time they need it.

The Carers UK “State of Caring” report estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers are living in poverty, and 400,000 are living in deep poverty. It also found that 75% of unpaid carers receiving carer’s allowance are struggling with cost of living pressures, while almost half are cutting back on essentials that they need to survive. That is the legacy of 14 years of Tory Government. While it is right that the review will look at getting a grip of the carer’s allowance overpayment issue, there is an urgent need for the Government to consider the broader question of how to provide wider support for unpaid or family carers. That includes support for carers on low incomes through universal credit, and through carer’s allowance.

While carer’s allowance is a devolved matter in Scotland, I urge the Government to discuss with the Scottish Government the position with respect to people in Scotland who are, or have been, receiving carer support payment while the DWP has been delivering it there on behalf of Scottish Ministers. We need a long-term vision for social care that considers how we best support unpaid carers. I know that our Government are committed to building consensus for the longer-term reform needed to create a sustainable care service.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order.

[Johanna Baxter]

Just to finish—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

No, I am standing now. Thank you. I call Steve Darling to make his maiden speech.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a great honour to stand here as the MP for Torbay. It is right and proper that I acknowledge the hard work of my predecessor, Kevin Foster. I also reflect on his predecessor, Adrian Sanders, with whom I worked for 18 years to support constituents in Torbay. I learned from Adrian how to put the community at the heart of all one does as a constituency MP. I look forward to building on that over this parliamentary term.

I want to thank Pam Bagnall, Hans Windheuser and Frankie Ranwell-Jones for their support at the general election. I also acknowledge the support of family members throughout my 30 years as a councillor. My mother Penny, who is here, my wife Mandy and my two sons George and William have been very, very supportive.

Other people who have been extremely supportive are the staff at Westminster, who have been an absolute delight to me and Jennie, who is planning to become the “leader of the o-paw-sition”. She is doing very well and living the true life of a parliamentarian: turning up in the Chamber and having a good sleep. She is also being a parliamentarian by making sure that she receives lots of love from wherever she can get it throughout the estate. The customer service that we have received stands in stark contrast to that in “Fawlty Towers”, for which Torquay is famous, but Members can rest assured that if they do choose to visit the English riviera, the service they receive will be of high quality.

What makes Torbay special? We have six blue flag beaches. We are somewhat challenged by the sewage in our seas, and I look forward to challenging and holding the Government to account on that particular issue. We are also a UNESCO-registered geopark, with Kents cavern at its heart. That is perhaps the oldest dwelling along the south coast of England, yet we have a wicked housing crisis in Torbay, which is, again, something that I look forward to challenging over this parliamentary term.

Torbay has been one of the wealthiest places over 100 years or so, but now we are somewhat more challenged. Oldway mansion is perhaps a prime example. It was modelled on Versailles and used as a hospital during the first world war, but it has seen better days, as has our hospital in Torquay, only 6% of which is considered standard A. We have had almost 700 sewage leaks in our hospital, affecting clinical services at times. I am shocked and horrified that the previous Government allowed our hospital to get into that state, and I cannot believe that the new Health Secretary will allow such a hospital to remain on the Government’s books unsorted.

The managing director of the steam railway in Paignton, John Jones, does something amazing every year for carers. Our “Train of Lights” service starts up in late November, and the first night is free for almost 2,000 carers. Families with disabled youngsters, foster families and those with care experience are all welcome. I thank John for doing that. That reflects what we are discussing today. I hope the Government will forgive the liabilities that some carers have. We need to enhance the payments and ensure that there is a guarantee of respite care.

I conclude by saying to the people of Torbay that this is the honour of my life, and I look forward to championing Torbay throughout the Parliament ahead of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Superb timekeeping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Sophie, Clare, Oliver and Wendy are some of the most resilient people I know. They are all Eastbournians, they would all do anything for their families, and they are all carers. They are among the 9,415 carers in Eastbourne, and I promised them that I would use opportunities such as this debate to recognise their resilience and give them and their families a voice. Today, I strive to do exactly that. I strive to do it particularly with respect to the need for wider support to carers, which the motion mentions.

Sophie Ticehurst and her family care for Sophie’s 24-year-old brother Jack, who has autism and is non-verbal. They rely on the Linden Court day centre—which supports people with learning disabilities—for Jack’s care, but also for their respite; but the centre faces closure after years of Conservative underfunding, and it would be devastating for them if that went ahead. As would the proposed closure of Milton Grange day centre, particularly for people with dementia—again, down to the Conservative county council. That place serves as essential respite to Clare, whose 82-year-old mum benefits from its amazing care. Where is the care for the carers? We urgently need the Government to intervene to properly fund our local authorities, so that these essential care resources can be protected.

I also pay tribute to Oliver Davis, a young carer in my constituency. He is a 14-year-old Eastbournian, and since the age of eight has cared for his mum, who lives with significant cardiac issues and the long-term effects of a stroke. His mum said that

“he never complains about being a young carer.”

Oliver does us all proud. In fact, he also won a BBC Make a Difference award for being a young carer across Surrey and Sussex, and he also does the local charity Care for the Carers proud, which he works with to advocate for young carers like him.

Lastly, I want to mention Wendy Turner, a different type of family carer—a kinship carer, whom you know, Madam Deputy Speaker. She stepped up to take her two grandchildren into her care when she was 53, but she is short-changed by our system, which unjustly offers her a lower kinship care allowance than the local fostering allowance. That needs to change. Where is the care for the carers?

Our carers do so much to lift people up, but time after time, our system wears them down. Enough is enough, so I say to the Government: dignify their experiences with action; honour their stories with reform; and never take our carers for granted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I do not want to be seen being too kind to a fellow Sussex MP, but kinship carers are indeed visiting here today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)]

There are many honours in this role, and one is to be able to take part in important debates such as this and hear the expertise and passion of hon. Members across the House. I will start by paying tribute to the many carers who do incredible work in my constituency. At times of immense need, they step in, day after day, supporting family members and making such an important contribution to those they love and to our community. Our country simply would not function without them and their contribution, and I wish to share my immense gratitude to those carers from my area and beyond. Their selflessness and dedication makes this scandal all the more unfair, with carers pushed to breaking point and stress piled on stress. Sadly, like too many issues, this crisis was totally ignored and left to grow by the previous Government.

At Wirral carers’ week earlier this year, I met carers who have been impacted by this issue, and I know the anxiety it has brought them, as they have had to juggle their caring responsibilities with the uncertainty it has brought. Stability is long overdue. Carers need to know that lessons will be learned and that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.

I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that she will launch the independent review into carer’s allowance overpayments, led by the disability rights expert Liz Sayce. We all wish her well with that important review. I also welcome the announcement by the Minister for Employment of the launch of a pilot to support carers further. With these steps, I truly hope that carers feel valued and listened to, that the issues they feel are important are brought to light and that there is support for them. I welcome today’s announcement, and I hope that with it, our brilliant carers know that this Government are on their side.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We got everybody in who wanted to participate, so well done. We now come to the Front Benchers. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I start by congratulating those hon. Members who made their maiden speeches this afternoon. The hon. Member for Clwyd North (Gill German) gave a brilliant description of her time teaching and the inspiration she provided to her pupils. As someone who grew up in Gloucestershire, I say to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) that his town was our destination of choice for seaside days out. My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) represents another seaside town, and he and the honourable Jennie are both dear to the Liberal Democrat group.

I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) in bringing forward her private Member’s Bill in the last Parliament on unpaid carer’s leave. We are truly proud of her achievement in bringing that into law as the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) for all his work on care and carers, and for bringing this debate to the House today.

The carer’s allowance scandal has been overlooked for years. It is astonishing that it has taken a Liberal Democrat Opposition day for this critical topic to finally receive the attention it deserves. The fact that we have had to bring this debate today—late in 2024, after a change of Government and five years after MPs looked into the carer’s allowance scandal and concluded that there was no evidence of mass fraud—is shameful and a stain on the legacy of the previous Conservative Government.

The Conservatives failed to take the action needed. The Conservatives failed to tackle the cultural problems at the DWP. The Conservatives failed to care about carers. Today, Members from across the House have given voice to unpaid family carers, whom we should be thanking, rather than punishing. We have heard about how the DWP’s actions left people feeling insulted, bullied, harassed and crushed. That is not right. We should be lifting up these people. We should be thanking them, not hounding them, for the love and care they give to their loved ones.

The population of my Mid Sussex constituency is older than the average. Across the country, the population is ageing. We cannot shy away from the fact that we will as a society increasingly rely on carers. Just because care often happens in homes—in private and behind closed doors—that does not mean that it is not important or that we can ignore it. I welcome the Government’s announcement on commissioning an open and transparent report to review the carer’s allowance overpayments, but questions remain. Will the Minister stop the shameful attempt to recoup overpayments? Will there be an amnesty on pursuing past overpayments? Will they consider tapering carer’s allowance? Will they consult on whether 35 hours of care a week is the right threshold for claiming carer’s allowance? How will they set about changing the culture of the DWP, so that people never feel like criminals simply for caring for their loved ones while trying to work to pay the bills?

It is disappointing that the Government are seeking to amend our motion to delete what carers are crying out for. After years of Conservative neglect, we cannot afford yet more dither and delay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) said, unpaid carers save the taxpayer an astonishing £162 billion a year. The Government’s financial worries would stretch far beyond the current £22 billion black hole were it not for those unsung heroes. That is not just a statistic; it represents a profound debt of gratitude that we owe to those who provide care. The social, emotional and financial value that unpaid carers bring to our communities cannot be overstated. This afternoon, Members from all parts of the House have made that point loud and clear.

Carers are not just caregivers; they are a lifeline giving support that our healthcare system would struggle to replace. There is, however, a danger in viewing care as merely transactional. Care is far more than just fulfilling a basic physical need; it is about enabling individuals to achieve their potential and live fulfilling lives—lives that they deserve to enjoy. Family carers support loved ones in ways that help them thrive, not just survive.

I close by thanking the Government for their response today and for engaging so constructively in this debate. I thank the charities that advocate for carers for the vital work they do. Most importantly, I thank the 5.7 million unpaid carers across the country for all that they do, day in, day out, with love and compassion. They are the very best of us. We see what carers do, we hear what carers are saying, and I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues will continue to speak up for them in this place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As the hon. Lady will be aware, there are a whole host of exemptions that do allow 18 to 21-year-olds to access housing benefit, if those exemptions apply to them. I have to come back to this point, which the Labour party does not seem to accept: the best way in which we can sustainably lift people out of poverty is to have a welfare system that encourages them to work and to progress in work. That is what universal credit does and it is what the legacy system failed to do, which is why we are making these changes.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of trends in youth unemployment.

[The Minister for Employment (Damian Hinds)]

Unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds is 523,000—down 60,000 on the year and down 416,000 since 2010.

[Ms Ghani]

I welcome that news from the Minister. I am a strong campaigner for apprenticeships, including in my constituency, where we have just 70 young unemployed people. Does the Minister agree that making apprenticeships far more available helps young people into jobs, not only in Wealden but throughout the country?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend has indeed been a great campaigner and a great champion for apprenticeships. Apprenticeships—including the 620 starts in Wealden in 2016-17—are one of the key policies that have contributed to our successful labour market, in which employment now stands at 75%.

Universal Credit Project Assessment Reviews

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Let me turn to the substance of universal credit then. Universal credit is the biggest modernisation of the welfare state in a generation. The old system traps people in a cycle of benefits dependency, incentivising working only 16 hours or fewer a week and preventing people from reaching their potential. Universal credit frees people from those hours limits and lets them keep more of what they earn. Under universal credit, people are moving into work faster and staying in work longer than under the previous system. Once universal credit is fully rolled out, it will boost employment by around 250,000, which is equivalent to 400 extra jobs per constituency. It is improving the welfare system and the lives of those who use it.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was talking about transparency. One thing that we do know for certain is that, in each constituency, 400 people are able to go back to work when they are on universal credit. The new system helps people back into work. There is nothing more demoralising for people than to be told to lower their gaze, stay in line, stay on welfare, and not even to try to go for a job, because the risk is too great that if they try to secure a job, they might lose their benefit. If people lose their job, the palaver of getting their benefits back can be incredibly demoralising and time-consuming.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One problem with the legacy system is that it does not cope with those people whose hours might fluctuate below and above 16 hours. The difficulties of moving from one regime to another can discourage people from taking extra hours. That is why it is so disappointing that we do not have cross-party support for these reforms. The Labour party has consistently called on us to pause and fix universal credit. It has done it again today, but in doing so, it has, on more than one occasion, resorted to scaremongering. It is increasingly clear that when it says pause and fix, it means scrap and rewind to the failed system of the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement on making available the reports requested by the Labour party. I am pleased to speak in this debate and to challenge the belief among some Opposition Members that helping people into work and away from relying on state welfare is just too difficult and too complicated. I accept that our work as MPs is not easy. We all do our best for our constituents, and I accept that most often they come to us in the last resort and expect our help. But the privilege of being elected as an MP is to take on and tackle sensitive subjects and to unravel bad policies which hold people back, regardless of how complicated they seem.

I do not need to reference emails and surgery cases to know that the only way to help people out of poverty is through work. I grew up in social housing, where families had not worked for two or three generations, with households in which children had never seen their parents go out to work, and where they were told—where I was told—time and again to “lower your expectations and stay in line for welfare.” Aspirations to work were met with cliff-edge drop-offs and the loss of benefits. Why would someone take a risk to secure a job that may or may not work out when that is weighed up against losing benefits and the drama it takes to get back on to welfare to make sure they have a home? For too many people, the risk is too great. That is why universal credit works. It tapers as a person secures more work and does what welfare is meant to do: it provides a hand up and a safety net.

[Mike Amesbury]

The Labour party is what it says on the tin: we are the party of work. Many of those in receipt of universal credit, and tax credits before that, are actually in work, with many of them on low pay.

[Ms Ghani]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. There are now more people with better opportunities—whether children going to better schools, more working-class kids going to university or people on lower incomes taking more of that income home to support their families. I grew up in a Labour stronghold where I was told repeatedly to know my place, which was to remain on welfare like everybody else in my community. That is why the Conservative party introduced universal credit, and why it is so important that we ensure that it is successfully delivered. Universal credit is founded on the belief that work should always pay, and it encourages people to find work and not stay trapped in the vicious cycle of the benefits system.

The request for the publication of the reports in the motion has been granted. I am, though, a little perplexed about why we need to see reports on assessments from back in 2012 when we have facts and figures that we can rely on today. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that. Here is what is already in the public domain. Critics should welcome the fact that each person on universal credit is treated as an individual and provided with tailored support, working around their personal needs. For the first time, people have a named work coach. This is the first time that their personal requirements and unique needs are being assessed. It is the first time that their childcare, housing or work support is being assessed. More importantly, this will be the first time that many people from my community have had real support that tackles their needs and supports their aspirations to improve their and their families’ lives. They are no longer just a number to be told to get to the back of the queue.

Let us not forget that the previous welfare system created cliff edges, discouraged people from working for more than 16 hours a week and, most damning of all, trapped 1.5 million on out-of-work benefits for nearly a decade. I challenge anyone who would disagree that those people had been failed by the system.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

I have wanted to make a comment for some time, so I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way.

On the supposed blocks in the previous system, I have been contacted by constituents who were previously nursing students in receipt of a nursing bursary and, under the old system, tax credits. Because that bursary was not considered an income, they were still able to get tax credits, so they could continue to pay their rent, bills and so on. Now, under universal credit, someone is doing a teaching degree and is in receipt of student finance, which counts as an income, so they are not eligible for any other benefits and they are already three months behind on their rent. Is that a demonstration of somebody being able to move on?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Lady has made a speech; we will have short interventions.

[Ms Ghani]

That is where the work coach should be able to help. The hon. Lady should be challenging the work coaches in that community. People are moving on: they are able to get a loan to get an education and change the life choices available to them.

With its one simple payment and gradual introduction, universal credit is flexible enough to respond to any technical issues. Previously, the existence of six different benefits was an overbearing and bureaucratic mess. The system was expensive to administer; it was confusing to understand; and, most of all, it was demoralising to boot. The results so far show that universal credit is working: people claiming universal credit are 13% more likely to be in work than people claiming jobseeker’s allowance, and they are earning more money and are more likely to take on a job.

Such drastic reform will always come with complications, and over the past four years, imperfections have been uncovered and brought to light. I am pleased that the Government have listened and acted to improve universal credit, by ensuring that it achieves its original goals. The £1.5 billion package to address the delivery concerns will be welcomed across the country in places where universal credit has yet to be rolled out. The removal of the seven-day waiting period will mean that applicants will be entitled to receive universal credit from the first day of application. Those who need it can also now access up to a month’s worth of universal credit within five days via an interest-free advance. I cannot be the only Member of Parliament who has struggled to deal with constituents who have been made to feel insecure and afraid to access the welfare to which they are entitled, because they are made to feel that, somehow, it will work against them. The free support phone line is also welcome. These important changes mean that we are not letting down those who need our support the most.

Universal credit is committed to helping people into work, and, once in work, to help them progress and increase their earnings, providing security and opportunities for them and their families. It is important that the Government are fully committed to the gradual roll-out, giving the ever reducing numbers of unemployed people a greater chance of the security that only a job can provide. We must not revert to the old failing system where 1.5 million people were trapped in out-of-work benefits for a decade.

If people are not convinced by my arguments, let me quote the chief executive of St Mungo’s:

“We have been calling for a new strategy to tackle homelessness. I welcome the opportunity to work with the taskforce to end the national scandal of rough sleeping altogether. We are also pleased to see a number of changes to Universal Credit that St Mungo’s had been calling for, particularly the removal of the seven day waiting period and the extension of the repayment period for advances to 12 months.”

I will end by quoting someone from Citizen’s Advice, because we all reach out to them when we are dealing with difficult constituency work. The chief executive said:

“The £1.5 billion package for Universal Credit announced in the Budget last week will directly help millions of the most vulnerable people.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Like other hon. Members, I congratulate the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) and the Labour party on securing the debate.

I am delighted that the Secretary of State will provide the assessments to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Work and Pensions and to the Committee. That will be valuable, though it would probably have been more helpful to provide them sooner because I suspect that many of the issues that the Secretary of State’s predecessors saw coming—certainly some that I flagged up when I was on the Work and Pensions Committee between 2010 and 2015—appear in the assessment documents. If that is the case, and the documents contain some of the issues that have caused so much difficulty that the Government have had to U-turn on them, I ask Committee members who are in the Chamber, and certainly the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), to point them out very directly to the Government. It would be ridiculous if some of the problems that I and the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth put to the then Secretary of State when I was last in this place have come to pass. If they were in the assessment documents and ignored, I would be extremely disappointed.

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a U-turn. When he was previously the MP for Eastbourne, is it correct that he voted in favour of universal credit in all its forms?

[Stephen Lloyd]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s intervention because it gives me the opportunity to remind the House of the numerous times on the Select Committee that I pointed out to the then Secretary of State that if he did not change things around the auto-payment default to landlords and the six or seven-week delay, the policy would be a disaster. Explaining why I still went through the Lobby leads me to the Government’s most disastrous mistake on universal credit. In 2015, the then Chancellor gutted universal credit on the work allowance by £3 billion per annum. That shattered the making work pay principle. I see in the Budget that the Government are taking some lessons from our reminding them that the whole process was undermined.