Welfare Reform

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I think that everyone’s situation and condition is individual and personal to them, and that is why it is important that any reassessments are done on an individual case-by-case basis. There will be people with psychosis and schizophrenia who can never work, but I have met people in Leicester with precisely those conditions who have got work through the employment advice provided by the NHS’s individual placement and support service. That is why, as I have said, the pathways to work employment support is personalised and tailored to individual need.

Given the size and complexity of the social security system, it is not easy for me to provide an answer now for the people whom the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why we must have those personal assessments, and I want much more to be done to ensure that they are carried out properly.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Last night I received a response from the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to a written question that I had asked about the average payment for the daily living component of PIP. It revealed that the average payment was just £12 a day. The purpose of the daily living component is to cover the cost of extra help needed with everyday tasks such as washing, eating, using the toilet and getting dressed, but the Secretary of State’s proposal to tighten the eligibility criteria could mean that even those who are assessed as needing help on every criterion may not be entitled to PIP. Is it not wrong to balance the books on the backs of sick and disabled people in such a way?

[Liz Kendall]

I can confirm that we will focus PIP on those with the greatest needs by changing the assessment so that people will need to score a minimum of four points to qualify for the daily living component. That will apply to new claimants from November 2026. Reassessments will be conducted on a personal, case-by-case basis, and therefore, while I entirely understand why Members raise issues about individuals, we cannot determine those cases from the Dispatch Box.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700765 relating to compensation for women affected by state pension changes.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce this e-petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank the petitioners for making this debate possible, and all the WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality—campaigners for their tireless efforts, especially Jane Cowley, Angela Madden and Debbie de Spon.

The Government’s refusal to compensate WASPI women is both shocking and disheartening. The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman found clear maladministration in the Department for Work and Pensions’ communication of state pension age changes and recommended that each affected woman should be awarded £2,950 as compensation.

The facts of the matter are that, despite a 15-year lead-in period, women were informed 21 years after the legislation passed, leaving many unaware of the impact on their retirement and life plans. Shockingly, some women never received any notification at all. The DWP has yet to explain why it concluded that written notification was necessary, yet failed to provide it. The ombudsman’s instruction for Parliament to ensure compensation is extremely rare, and the DWP’s refusal to comply with those recommendations is almost unprecedented, occurring in less than 1% of cases. More than 200 MPs have criticised the Government’s inaction, including 50 Labour MPs.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on opening this important debate. Some 74% of the public support fair compensation for WASPI women. What does it say about this place and our democracy if, when 74% of the public have that opinion, we as a Parliament do not act to give WASPI women fair compensation?

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Richard Burgon Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

This Bill will help deliver the biggest ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse, which has now reached an astonishing £55 billion a year. That includes fraud against our public services, such as by those who abuse the tax system; fraud by dishonest companies that use deception to win public contracts and manipulate invoices; and benefit fraud by criminal gangs and individuals, which now stands at a staggering £7.4 billion a year.

There have always been people who commit fraud against the state—tragically, this is not a new problem—but at a time when families across the country are working so hard to pay their bills and put food on the table, when more than 7 million people are stuck in pain and discomfort on NHS waiting lists, and when a shameful 4.3 million children in Britain are growing up poor, it is simply unforgiveable that the Conservatives allowed fraud to spiral out of control. During their 14 long years in government, they failed to put in place a proper plan to crack down on fraud, and there is no better symbol of this than their failure to update the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions to properly crack down on benefit fraud. Just let that sink in for a moment.

Over the last decade, fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated in the techniques that they use to steal people’s money, using data, technology and all manner of scams. In response, banks and other companies have transformed their ability to spot and stop fraud, and to protect their customers’ money, but the last Government completely failed to do the same for taxpayers. In all their time in power, and with all the developments in technology and the ability to share data and information, they failed to update the DWP’s powers. The Conservatives will no doubt claim that they did introduce measures, but, in truth, they put forward one poorly thought-through measure that was tagged on to another Bill at the tail end of the last Parliament, without any of the proper safeguards or oversight in place. Today, all that changes with our new fraud Bill.

This Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the large companies and dodgy businessmen who try to defraud our public services, it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system, and it is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. Taxpayers deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely and that benefits are there only for those who need them, not fraudsters who take advantage.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

The Secretary of State is absolutely correct to say that we need to pursue criminal gangs that are engaged in widespread organised theft. I put a written question to the Department for Work and Pensions to ask about the amount lost through personal independence payment fraud, and I was told that only 0.2% of such claims were fraudulent in 2022-23. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we pursue organised criminal gangs, it is really important that we make it clear that there cannot be a hostile approach to disabled people claiming PIP or disabled people more widely who are using the benefits system as they deserve to?

[Liz Kendall]

People who are genuinely entitled to claim benefits have nothing to worry about from this Bill, but we believe that the £7.4 billion wasted every year through benefit fraud must be cracked down on.

To the corrupt companies with their dodgy covid contracts, to the organised criminal gangs and to every single individual knowingly cheating the system, our message today is clear: we will find you, we will stop you and we will get our money back.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Torsten Bell]

We have already had a long statement in the main Chamber. The point of debates like this one today is to make sure that the Government are held accountable for their decisions.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I will make some progress and give way later on. There has also been, as has been raised, the opportunity for all parties to call for more time and for votes in the main Chamber. I am sure the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings will take that up with his party in the months ahead. I will make some progress and take more interventions as we proceed.

The ombudsman’s investigation concerned the more specific question of how changes in the state pension age were communicated to women, like my aunt, born in the 1950s. The Government started sending personalised letters in April 2009, but the ombudsman concluded we should have started 28 months earlier. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has apologised for that delay. We are determined to learn the lessons so that we avoid similar mistakes happening again. First, we will work with the ombudsman to develop a detailed action plan, identifying and addressing lessons from this and other PHSO investigations. Secondly, we are committed to providing clear and sufficient notice of any changes in the state pension age so that people can plan for their retirement. Thirdly, the Secretary of State has directed the Department to develop a clear and transparent communication strategy for state pension changes; work on that has already begun. This will build on changes that are already under way, such as our online “Check your State Pension forecast” service, which provides a forecast of the level of state pension, but also information about when people can take it.

The ombudsman looked at six cases and concluded that DWP provided adequate and accurate information on changes to the state pension age between 1995 and 2004. However, they also found that decisions made between 2005 and 2007 led to a 28-month delay in sending out letters to women born in the 1950s, many of whom are here with us today. The ombudsman said that those delays did not result in women suffering from direct financial loss, but that there was maladministration, and we agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Burgon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Torsten Bell]

I think I should make some progress and give way later. I want to get on to the bit that most Members might not agree with, but at least will explain what we are doing, because we do not agree with the ombudsman’s approach to injustice or indeed to remedy. The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly noted that is unusual, and it should be unusual. However it is also not unprecedented.

The decision not to introduce a compensation scheme was difficult and complex. The ombudsman assumed, despite evidence to the contrary, that sending letters earlier would have fundamentally changed what women knew and how they acted. However research from 2014 shows that only one in four people who are sent unsolicited letters actually remembers receiving and reading them. The ombudsman does not address this evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Torsten Bell]

I was not going to go into this detail, but the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is inviting me to return to some of my past lives with the details of surveys. The 43% figure that he is referring to refers to all women. What the ombudsman did not do is look at the same survey and look at the women who were affected by this change, who were obviously slightly later in life and much more likely to know about their state pension age. That is where the higher figures I am quoting come from. It is from the same survey as used by the ombudsman, but it is focused on the women who are actually affected by the change.

[Richard Burgon]

I thank the Minister for giving way and I congratulate him on his appointment. However, to get to the crux of this: when the decision our Government have made on this was announced—and there is much to be proud of in what it has done since the general election—my jaw hit the floor. I was flabbergasted. It is my belief that the vast majority of Labour MPs could not believe it when it was announced. That pales into insignificance compared to the reaction of the WASPI women who I and others have been proud to support in my Leeds East constituency and elsewhere. My last point is that, before this decision was made, I said to the WASPI women outside Parliament that justice delayed is justice denied. This is worse than that. I thought I was just trying to compel our Government to hurry up and make a decision. This is not justice delayed is justice denied. As it stands, unless we do something, this is justice denied full stop.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for his brief congratulations on my appointment prior to his wider comments. I would say gently that he and I both stood on the same manifesto which did not promise to provide compensation, and lots of Members have talked about trust in this Chamber. There was a clear choice not to make that promise in the manifesto.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

I am very sorry to hear that Diana’s daughter has not received the level of support that she had before. It is clear that with the right support she will be able to engage with the world of work as well as leading an independent life, which is what she wants. Our reforms are intended to ensure that such support is available everywhere. If the hon. Lady wishes to forward the details of that case, I shall be happy to take a look at them.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

It is vital that people are helped into fulfilling, well-paid work so that they can realise their potential. The Secretary of State rightly mentioned the importance that she places on discussing these changes and reforms with disabled people and disabled people’s groups. In the course of her discussions, will she ask those people and groups about the work capability assessment? Many people who visit my constituency surgery feel degraded and demeaned by the WCA tests, and many of the decisions that are made turn out to be wrong and are successfully appealed against later.

[Liz Kendall]

As my hon. Friend will know, that is why the manifesto on which we were all elected said that we would reform or replace the work capability assessment. People wait for that assessment, and for the personal independence payment, for an average of between 14 and 18 weeks, and about 70% of decisions on the WCA and PIP can be overturned at tribunal. We need a system that gets the decision right first time, because that is what disabled people need and deserve.

Social Security Advisory Committee: Winter Fuel Payment

Richard Burgon Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I do apologise for the delay in responding to the committee’s letter; it is regrettable. The initial delay, as I set out, was because we were waiting for the OBR to come forward with its costings of the policy. Then there was another, unexpected delay. There has been a delay—[Interruption.] I do not know why I am being heckled; I am trying calmly to explain why there has been a delay, for which I do apologise. We will issue a response very shortly, and certainly by the end of the week. It is important that we respond to that letter. I respect that the hon. Lady is asking that question.

Regarding the public sector equality duty, we have done everything in line with the duty, which is to provide an equality analysis of the decision that we have taken. As hon. Members will know, that analysis was published in September. However—I say this gently—after the election we found ourselves in a situation of having a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. The OBR has said that its assessment of the previous Government’s Budget would have been materially different had it known the pressures on spending and the real situation in the Treasury. I note that the hon. Lady does not come with an apology.

We have had to take the decision to means-test winter fuel payments. We did not want to do that, but we have had to take some difficult decisions to clear up the mess, to tackle our fiscal inheritance and to start rebuilding our public services, which pensioners across the country and many others rely on.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)]

Government Members will obviously not take protestations about poverty from the Conservative party with anything other than a mountain of salt. But the Government spend £1,300 billion per year and the cut to winter fuel allowance will save the Government about £1.4 billion per year, so that cut will save about 0.1% of Government spending. On that basis, as we look at all the welcome advances made in the Labour Budget—all the great stuff that we can talk about—and we consider that this measure saves only 0.1% of Government spending, I really urge the Minister to think again. I think the public would welcome that as a sign of real leadership. Not anyone or any Government always gets it right, and I believe we got it wrong on this occasion. Could the Government rethink on this issue?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am proud of the last Labour Government’s record of lifting over a million pensioners out of poverty. We do expect to make savings of about £1.4 billion this year through means-testing the winter fuel payment. That is not an insignificant proportion of the £5.5 billion of savings that the Chancellor set out on 29 July.