Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

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

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the plight of cancer sufferers and the need to have a system that is more generous to those who genuinely need it, but is also tougher in ensuring that the funding goes to the places where it is most required. Under this Chancellor, as we know, Britain risks a return to the same old Labour habits: spend today, tax tomorrow and leave the mess for someone else to clear up. We saw that under Gordon Brown, and we are seeing it again today. The public deserve better than another Labour tax-and-spend spiral that leaves less money in their pockets and less resilience in our economy.

The Bill in its current form is a short-term fix with long term costs. It fails to tackle fraud, fails to address getting people back into work, despite all the protestations from Ministers that it had anything to do with that, fails to guarantee value for money and fails working families by paving the way for inevitable tax rises. If Labour wants to be taken seriously on economic credibility, it needs to start by showing some discipline on spending and not indulging in a spending spree that Britain simply cannot afford. The Prime Minister promised a serious Government—remember that?—a grown-up Government, yet here we are debating a confused, divisive Bill whose main achievement so far is to split the Prime Minister’s own Benches.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

If the hon. Lady wants to tell me that the Bill is not confused or divisive and has not been driven by the ructions on the Back Benches, I look forward to hearing her intervention.

[Patricia Ferguson]

The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is for me to decide what my intervention will be. I was going to say that I am very pleased to hear him sticking up for people who really need help. What part of new clause 9 actually makes things better for people who need help?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady should recognise that looking after the public finances, minimising fraud and ensuring that this House keeps control of public expenditure is exactly in the interests of the most vulnerable. Who will pay the highest price as this economic spiral goes downwards? As always under a Labour Government, it will be ordinary working people, the increasing numbers of unemployed people and vulnerable and disabled people—they are always the ones who pay the price for a Labour Government.

When the last Labour Government left power in 2010, youth unemployment was up 45%. That is their record on young people, who are most vulnerable to the negative impacts of unemployment. It is those vulnerable groups who are always let down by a Labour Government—and most of all by a Labour Government that is run not by those with some sense of public finance control but by their Back Benchers who are out of control.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie]

Again, I understand from my helpful conversations with the Minister that this is taking existing guidance and applying it to law, but I understand the hon. Member’s concern.

My final point is to ask the Minister to keep this issue under active review. If any new evidence comes to light to show that the primary legislation is acting as a barrier to the Government’s position being reflected in reality, I hope he will consider opportunities to correct that in due course. We all hope that the Government’s clear intention that people with Parkinson’s and other conditions are in no way—

[Patricia Ferguson]

rose—

[Graeme Downie]

I am happy to take one final intervention.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a further intervention. As a signatory to his amendment, I wonder whether his discussions with the Minister have included someone with a condition such as relapsing-remitting MS who can spend long periods appearing to be perfectly healthy, but then have other periods when a crisis occurs and they are debilitated by their condition. Will the provisions that the Minister describes be sympathetic to those sorts of situations?

[Graeme Downie]

As my hon. Friend will know, my amendment specifically mentions MS, and she and I have had shared friends who have suffered with that condition. We must ensure that there is a clear understanding of the reality of such conditions on the ground, so that when these provisions are delivered in reality by assessors, people are able to access the additional support that they need.

Welfare reform is undoubtedly needed after the mess of a system that we were left by the previous Government, but wherever possible we must ensure that the wording of the Bill is as clear as possible. We must ensure that those affected are in no doubt about what our intent is, so that that is indisputable and we truly give effect to the intentions behind the Bill. I again thank the Minister for his incredibly helpful intervention, but we will ensure that the reality reflects the Government’s excellent intentions.

Welfare Reform

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, which is precisely what we want to look at in the PIP review, because it does not take into account fluctuating conditions. That is an important issue moving forward, and we will be absolutely determined to involve him, his constituents, and organisations that represent those with fluctuating conditions in the process of the review.

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my colleagues on the Front Bench for listening to what Back Benchers have been saying for months, and for making so many changes. However, I did not see any changes that affect young people, particularly care-experienced young people. Will the Secretary of State cast some light on what discussions are ongoing with young people about the processes involving them?

[Liz Kendall]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. As part of the process of the Green Paper we are establishing a youth panel to ensure that young people’s voices are heard in our future reforms. Many of the youth guarantee trailblazers that we are putting in place as part of our £240 million Get Britain Working plan are looking to provide extra support for young care leavers, because they are in different circumstances and need extra help. I am sure there is far more that we could be doing in future, and I urge her to work with us to ensure that their views are at the heart of our plans.

Poverty: Glasgow North East

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Butler. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Maureen Burke) on securing this important debate and on being such a doughty champion for her constituents.

Poverty is experienced by many communities across Glasgow, as we have heard, and my constituency of Glasgow West is no exception. In 2022-23, 19.3% of all people in Glasgow were income-deprived, compared with 12.1% in Scotland across the board. In Glasgow in 2023, 41.1% of secondary pupils were registered for free school meals. The figure for Scotland is just 13.2%. The Drumchapel/Anniesland ward in my constituency has the greatest depth of poverty in Glasgow. That is a lot of statistics, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East says, there is a family or an individual behind every single one.

Earlier this year, I held a child poverty taskforce event. The submission from that has been fed into the Government’s taskforce. It was attended by many organisations that work with children and families in Glasgow West. The stories they told and the evidence they offered were truly shocking. One participant, a volunteer with a youth club, reflected on her experience of taking a group of children on a day out and giving each child £5 to buy lunch. One child asked if he could forgo lunch and give the money to his mum so that she could buy bread and milk for the family. As you will gather, I find that story horrific, but that is the reality for many children who are all too aware of the financial pressures that their parents are facing. In effect, it takes away their ability to enjoy their childhood and be children.

As we have heard, since 2013-14 the funding received by Glasgow city council has reduced significantly, putting severe pressure on services across the city. Hopefully, the record settlement that this Government has passed to the Scottish Government will allow them to address what is now chronic underfunding. Over recent years, I have been disappointed that the SNP administration in Glasgow has not seemed to feel it either necessary or required that it should challenge its colleagues in the Scottish Government at Holyrood about that funding situation, because it should not have been allowed to continue.

We have heard a lot about the mortality rate in Glasgow. I will not rehearse that; I will just say that we have known for a very long time that health inequalities, housing conditions, educational opportunities and poverty are all connected. A lifetime ago, I worked in the health service, and we were proud of but challenged by the Black report, which drew attention to all those facts. We have known about them since 1980, and have had the opportunity to do something about them over the years. We made some progress under the Blair Government, and we began to look at poverty, particularly child poverty, in the early days of the Scottish Parliament, but we need to do much more. All these issues are connected. If one part of that jigsaw is in the wrong place, the life chances and life opportunities of all those families and young people are badly affected.

I close by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East again. She was absolutely right to be challenging about what we all have to do, what all Governments have to do and what all local authorities have to do. It is only by working together that we will begin to make a difference for the people who rely on us to do that.

[Dawn Butler (in the Chair)]

I would like to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the mover of the debate to wind up. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Patricia Ferguson Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to work under your chairmanship Sir Edward. I am pleased that the Petitions Committee has brought this debate to the House, especially given that as many as 160,000 signatures have been recorded, with some 266 of them from my own constituency. I thank all those who have written to me and all those who have campaigned and fought so hard over the years to try to bring the issue of WASPI women to a successful conclusion.

I should probably make a declaration—not one that is required by procedure, but one that is relevant to this debate. I am a WASPI woman, one of over 4,000 in my constituency. Clearly I am still working, and in a fairly privileged position as a Member of the House, but I have watched the various increases in the state pension qualifying age with great interest over the years.

I understand why it is necessary to equalise the pension age for men and women, but it is important to see that in context. In 1995, Parliament legislated to increase the pension age for women from 60 to 65 and bring it in line with the retirement age for men. That was meant to happen in stages between April 2010 and 2020, but in 2011, new legislation accelerated the timetable, meaning that women’s state pension age reached 65 by November 2018. The same legislation brought forward the increase in the overall state pension age to 66, which happened between December 2018 and October 2020 for both men and women. Many women of my age felt as though the qualifying age was becoming more and more distant the closer we got to our 60s. As we know, many women did not receive notification of the changes in the qualifying age, and many others did not receive it timeously enough to allow them to make adjustments and changes.

The ombudsman considered the case of the WASPI women and concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2006, with a 28-month delay before beginning a direct mail exercise to notify affected women. Personally, I do not know whether I ever got a letter about the raising of the state pension age. I tend to keep that kind of thing, but I do not have such a letter. I do remember a friend telling me about it. I went on to the website and looked at the online calculator, and I found out that I would get my pension at 66, but not everyone has the opportunity to do that. Not everyone has access to the internet, and not everyone is literate enough with IT to be able to make those calculations.

As the ombudsman said, such women lost opportunities to make informed decisions about their finances, which diminished their sense of personal autonomy and financial control. It seems to me that when an ombudsman records such findings and suggests a course of action, we should follow it, but the ombudsman clearly had an idea about the thinking within government—and I mean government in the generic sense, as the report predates this Government. I say that because the ombudsman concluded that it should lay the report before Parliament, and hoped that parliamentarians would implement its findings. That is what I hoped and expected would happen, and I cannot say how disappointed I am that it did not. But I say gently to the Minister that it is not too late to put it right.

I mentioned earlier that I am in a privileged position, and I am: I am privileged to have been sent here to represent my constituents, and I will continue to use that privilege to support and fight for WASPI women until such time as the ombudsman’s recommendations are implemented.