Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

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

[Kirsty Blackman]

That clear information from the Dispatch Box is what I was asking for. Hearing that will give people a lot of comfort. As the Minister is aware, a commitment from the Dispatch Box will be looked at when it comes to any sort of legal challenge in relation to the descriptors. If people are not asked if they can or cannot do something reliably on other days, I will expect disabled people’s charities to use the Minister’s comment from the Dispatch Box when they bring mandatory considerations or challenges to say, “The Minister was utterly clear that I have answered the question correctly, in line with the legislation.” I encourage them to do so.

Given the way the legislation is written, I will still not support the severe conditions criteria and the cut. I agree with colleagues who have said that 750,000 people are expecting to lose money as a result of this. As one of my Labour colleagues, the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), has said, this is still £2 billion of cuts on disabled people that the Labour party has chosen to make, or that is what it says in the impact assessment. It has chosen to make that cut to 750,000 people, asking itself, “Where can we make £2 billion of cuts? I know, let’s do it to disabled people.” We could have an additional £2 billion in taxes on the very richest people who do not rely on that money for the everyday items that they desperately require.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I completely agree with that contention. This is how we judge a society: by how it takes care of the most vulnerable. As the hon. Lady says, and not to discredit anybody, but it appears on the face of it that people have simply decided to say, “This is where we will go”, when in actual fact there are other avenues that can be explored, and people want us to do that before we get into any of this.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Member has been a real champion for her constituents in this and she is absolutely correct: this is not the first place that I would expect any MP to look to save money, and especially not the first place where I would expect a supposedly progressive Government to look to save money. I am deeply disappointed that we have ended up in this situation and unlike what was said before, I do not think there are victorious faces on the Back Benches. I think people on the Government Benches are absolutely heartsick, no matter what side of this debate they are on. They wish that those on the Government Front Bench had not put this forward and that they were not in the position of having to pick a side, because it should never, ever have come down to a Labour Government choosing to make cuts on older people, children in poverty and disabled people as their first matter of business.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House, whilst noting the need for the reform of the social security system, and agreeing with the Government’s principles for providing support to people into work and protecting people who cannot work, declines to give a Second Reading to the Universal Credit and Personal Independent Payment Bill because its provisions have not been subject to a formal consultation with disabled people, or co-produced with them, or their carers; because the Office for Budget Responsibility is not due to publish its analysis of the employment impact of these reforms until the autumn of 2025; because the majority of the additional employment support funding will not be in place until the end of the decade; because while acknowledging protection for current claimants, the Government has yet to produce its own impact assessment on the impact of future claimants of Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Universal Credit limited capability for work and related activity and the number of people, including children, who will fall into poverty or experience worsening mental or physical health as a result, nor how many carers will lose carers allowance; because the Government has not published an assessment of the impact of these reforms on health or care needs; and because the Government is still awaiting the findings of the Minister for Social Security and Disability’s review into the assessment for PIP and Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent review into the role of employers and government in boosting the employment of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.

I put on record my thanks to you, Mr Speaker, for selecting the reasoned amendment that stands in my name and those of other Members, and—most importantly—in the names of 138 deaf and disabled people’s organisations that backed it and co-produced it, working alongside us. It is about time that we all recognised the ableism within our systems that has made disabled people feel so far away from policymaking. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability will be looking at changing that—once and for all, I trust. On these big decisions, it is so important that disabled people are involved.

My constituent sat in front of me with his gorgeous little girl, who thankfully had headphones on and was playing a kiddie’s game. He said that he would not get through this. He just about manages now—some days he gets up, others not, as his mental health is failing. He cannot work. Everything else has been taken from him, and the loss of this little bit of funding to help them get by—to give him just one ounce of dignity—was more than he could bear. Then the words came: “It would be better that I wasn’t here.” That was also his expectation. He has tried before. He will be safe now, but the one who follows will not.

Another constituent felt dehumanised, as they would lose their independence to shower and dress, and others could not balance their books, as Scope’s disability price tag is £1,095 of extra costs every month. They face changes that would switch independence to dependence—dependence on social care, food banks, and pleading for emergency funds or seeking charity. Those with fluctuating conditions who came to see me just do not know where their future lies.

These Dickensian cuts belong to a different era and a different party. They are far from what this Labour party is for—it is a party to protect the poor, as is my purpose, for I am my brother’s keeper. These are my constituents, my neighbours, my community and my responsibility, and I cannot cross by on the other side, as one who is better known than the 150,000 who will be pushed further into poverty. As so many of us fear and as the evidence shows, since 600 people took their lives under the Tories’ brutal reforms, the tragedy of this ideology could be worse. I will fight for the purpose of politics—for these people’s livelihoods and for their lives. It is a matter of deep conscience for me to ensure that for once, these precious people are treated with dignity, so that they matter for being and not just for doing.

Sixteen million; in the chaos and confusion, where the sequence of consultations on the Bill makes no sense to them, no sense to me and, if we are honest, no sense to any of us, they beg the Government to just stop and start again by listening to their voices. At this 11th hour, I plead for the Bill’s withdrawal, which would be met with relief and praise. Let us consult, co-produce, incorporate the Mayfield review findings and accommodate those of the Timms review first. We should let the voices of older women, whose physical health is declining as they work into later life, come to the fore. Refuge says that disabled victims of domestic violence will not be able to leave to find their place of safety without PIP. They should be heard.

The olive branch of grace for current claimants offers no mercy to those who are to come. Disabled people have fought all their lives not to have the ladder pulled up behind them. We are talking about 430,000 people on PIP losing £4,500, 730,000 people on universal credit losing £3,000, and 150,000 people being pushed into deeper poverty. There is a reason that we are a dystopian state of excessive wealth and abject poverty: Governments focus on what they value most, and these people never get the attention. When people are left behind, it pressures services, shortens lives and breaks societies.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I am proud to put my name to the hon. Lady’s reasoned amendment. Does she agree that we have a decision to make in this House today? Do we stand alongside some of the most vulnerable—people who feel that politics cannot deliver for them? Surely we have a moral duty, across this House, to stand with those people, to pause and to show them that we care.

[Rachael Maskell]

What the hon. Member says is so powerful. I urge all my colleagues to take with them the stories of their constituents. We are here because of them, and they expect us to serve them in this difficult vote. I, too, find it hard, as I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) for 30 years, and I know that he comes from a good place, but this Bill is just wrong. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) is absolutely right.

If we can afford not to have a wealth tax, not to equalise capital gains and not to draw on the excess profits of corporate greed, we can afford PIP for a disabled person. We must clear the waiting lists, prevent people falling out of work, get physio to the injured, hold employers to account for their failings and make them open their doors. In assessments, we need to look not just at what somebody cannot do but at empowering them to do what they can. We should optimise health and opportunity and take a public health approach with social prescribing and advancing adaptive technology.

Why not have a bridge between what we have now and where we are heading at the end of this process, so that nobody falls through the net? When they are managing discomfort, despair, pain and prejudice, are isolated and lonely, or their life has spiralled out of control, disabled people want anything but this Bill. They are already discriminated and dehumanised, so I plead that we do not leave them desperate, too. There is a heavy duty on us all, and it starts with compassion, kindness, safety and support. Disabled people want reform, but not by this broken Bill. My vote weighs heavy on me, as this is a matter of deep conscience, as it should be and will be for us all. As Nelson Mandela said:

“May your choices reflect your hopes, not your fears.”

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Hayes]

I had alluded a moment ago to the choices that Government make about how they spend money. Of course it is true that Government priorities will determine where money is spent. The issue is clearly not a priority for the Government. It is difficult, of course: Governments face all sorts of challenges that require investment, and this Government have chosen not to invest in this area. Frankly, it is as plain as that.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

With respect, I am going to conclude because I know so many want to speak; I do apologise. [Interruption.] All right, I will briefly give way, but it is the last time.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I am so grateful to the right hon. Member for giving way and indulging me. I simply want to add to his conclusion. These women have been part of a generation of women who have been discriminated against by statutory provisions over their lifetimes—whether by the reprehensible marriage bar, the gender pay gap or now this. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree. [Applause.]

[Sir John Hayes]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady; I am slightly jealous that I have not managed to attract any kind of applause, but no doubt that will come at the end of my peroration. The hon. Lady is right: that generation of women, born after the war, did not have straightforward lives. That was a difficult time in this country, particularly for women. I talked earlier about their hard work and diligence, and their role as homemakers, mothers and grandmothers. They just deserve better; that is what has driven and inspired me to bring this debate.

I will end on this note. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I am mindful of the words of Edmund Burke, who said:

“Your representative owes you not only his industry, but his judgement”.

In the end, this is a matter of judgment. Do we think the issue matters or do we not? Exercising judgment, I leave him with this further quote, from J.R.R. Tolkien:

“False hopes are more dangerous than fears”.

We gave these people false hope. I fear that we will not now put this matter right by realising the rightful hope that they had in thinking they were going to retire at a certain time but then ended up doing so at an entirely different time due to a change of Government policy. That was because of nothing they did, nothing they changed, nothing they chose; it was a change in the law.

I hope that when the Minister sums up he will recognise the strength of feeling across the House, and across this country: that this injustice must be put right, in the name of democratic legitimacy and the trust that I set out at the beginning of my peroration.

Children and Young People with Cancer

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing this matter to the House today. Many people will know my own personal story, and that my husband has cancer. One thing we have found on this journey is the number of young people who are currently in hospital beds across Northern Ireland and every other part of the UK. Many of those children, whenever they undergo treatment, will become neutropenic, which involves, as the hon. Member just mentioned, the issue of hygiene, cleanliness, food and everything else. There are numerous charities across Northern Ireland such as Powered by Poppy, inspired by Poppy Ogle who sadly passed away from cancer, and there is Adam’s Army, which operates close to my constituency in Lagan Valley. Families go out of their way to provide services because the state will not step up, and that situation cannot continue. Does the hon. Member agree that cancer is the worst thing that can ever come across a family’s door? Yet whenever the state does not step in, it makes an awful situation a million times worse.

[Clive Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right: cancer is the worst thing that can ever cross a family’s doorstep. It affects every family, every person, very differently. Financially we need something called Hugh’s law, which I will talk about later. That could give a family £700 every month from diagnosis. At the moment people have to wait at least three months, then fill in the forms and wait another three or four months. But Hugh’s law, for not an awful lot of money, could change all that very quickly. I will come on to that.

I hope I have made it clear that the costs are overwhelming; and yet the existing support from the Government is woefully lacking. I would go as far as to say it is downright cruel. Disability benefits are vital for children and young people with cancer because of the costs associated with diagnosis. They come in the form of personal independence payments, disability living allowance and, subsequently, carer’s allowance. Despite those benefits’ being so crucial and the effects of cancer being so immediate, children and young people face a three-month qualifying period before they can claim PIP or DLA. I would just like to repeat that: children and young people are subject to a three-month qualifying period, which for most is from the point of diagnosis, before they can access support.

The very purpose of welfare or social security is to deliver support for the most vulnerable. Young cancer patients go through some of the toughest, unimaginable pain—pain that even I, as a cancer survivor, could not contemplate. They do it with perseverance, with diligence, and somehow they do it with hope.

Tragically, some families lose their child to cancer. To be told at the start of that journey through hell that patients and families need to wait three months before applying for vitally needed funds is simply inexplicable. The evidence shows that the costs are immediate, and yet patients and families are deprived of support that they urgently need from day one. Can the Minister please clarify why it is necessary to have a three-month qualifying period? Can he explicitly put it on the record whether he thinks that that is appropriate in the case of children and young people with cancer? Alternatively, could he please publish the advice from civil servants that are insisting on the three-month qualifying period?

The argument has to be made that the impact of a condition needs to be evidenced for three months before DLA or PIP can be provided to avoid benefit fraud, but it is very clearly established that children and young people with cancer will be significantly impacted by their cancer from the start, even before it is diagnosed. Surely a confirmed medical diagnosis is enough. The Minister may claim that someone with cancer might have been impacted by the condition before their diagnosis was given and therefore their qualifying period will have begun prior to diagnosis. However, experts make it clear that until the diagnosis is given, it is almost impossible for children and young people to know that they have a serious condition that qualifies them for benefits and to evidence the impact. The diagnosis is key. That is simply the reality.

In the experience of charities that I have talked to, children and young people who apply for disability benefits are nearly always successful. Very, very few are rejected at the point of initial application or subsequent appeal. However, I recognise that it may be concluded that that is anecdotal. Therefore it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister could confirm that the majority of children and young people with cancer are successful in their applications for PIP and DLA and that very few, if any, are rejected for benefits. If he could provide the precise statistics, I would be very grateful.

Research also shows that once the three-month qualifying period has concluded, there are significant delays in applications’ being processed after they are submitted. This period currently sits at up to 20 weeks. The qualifying period and these additional delays are leaving children and young people without benefits support for several months. For the application processing, the benefits can be backdated, but only to the point of application rather than diagnosis. That leaves people missing out on benefits support for the first three months of their illness. Based on data from Young Lives vs Cancer, it concludes that children and young people with cancer and their families will have incurred additional costs of on average £2,100 before they can even apply for any benefit.

Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report

Sorcha Eastwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

No. What I am saying is that we have to be able to give people sufficient notice in future. That was at the heart of the problem with the former Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition’s decision to accelerate the increase in the state pension age, which caused so much anger among many people. We campaigned against that, including in the 2019 election in which we proposed compensation, but we lost that election, and the courts have since ruled that that decision was legal. That is why the ombudsman’s report is not about that decision, but about how changes were communicated. We will learn all the lessons from that maladministration to make sure it does not happen in future.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I stand here today on behalf of my many constituents who will feel utterly betrayed by this decision. Just months ago, people were promised a fresh start—a new change. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only will my constituents feel short-changed, but this decision will further compound a lack of trust in politics?

[Liz Kendall]

We are delivering change, with £22 billion of extra investment in the NHS and a substantial rise in the minimum wage that will deliver a pay rise for 3 million of the lowest-paid workers, as well as the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance to help family carers and a new flat repayment rate for universal credit to give an average of £420 per year to the poorest 1.2 million households. However, we also promised that we would be responsible with taxpayers’ money and take fair and appropriate decisions. I hear what the hon. Lady says about her constituents, but the ombudsman’s report is not about the increase in the state pension age for 1950s-born women. We will learn the lessons from the maladministration, but we do not agree with the ombudsman’s report to injustice or to remedy, which is why we have taken this decision.