PIP Changes: Impact on Carer’s Allowance

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the changes to personal independence payments and how that will impact those who receive carer’s allowance.

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

The “Pathways to Work” Green Paper sets out our plan to fix a broken system, providing proper employment support for those who can work, and a strong and sustainable safety net for everybody who needs it. We will change personal independence payments to focus support on those in the greatest need. That change will be in primary legislation, with a full debate and scrutiny in Parliament. The cost of personal independence payments has increased by £2 billion above inflation in each of the past five years, and those increases are carrying on. That is simply not sustainable.

In the Green Paper, we are consulting on how best to support those affected by the changes to eligibility, for example with transitional protections for those no longer eligible for PIP and for the entitlements linked to it, including carer’s allowance, as referenced in the hon. Member’s urgent question, and the universal credit carer element, which is an increasingly important part of the picture. The PIP changes will be implemented from November next year. They will apply to new claimants and to people at their award review after that date, and those with severe conditions who will never work will be protected.

I pay tribute to the millions of unpaid carers across the country. We recognise and value their vital contribution, providing care and continuity of support, including to many people with disabilities. The 2021 census indicated that approximately 5 million people in England and Wales are doing some unpaid care. As the hon. Member knows, we are delivering the biggest ever cash increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance, increasing it by £45 a week to £196, benefiting more than 60,000 carers by 2029-30. Our reforms will build a system that is fairer and more sustainable so that it will always be there for those with the greatest needs to live with the dignity and support that they are entitled to.

[Steve Darling]

Yesterday saw the biggest cuts to carer’s allowance for decades. Although we need to manage down appropriately the benefits budget, that needs to be done in a way that is caring, compassionate and far from rushed, which is what we saw yesterday. We are looking at approximately 150,000 carers losing allowances under these proposals. Half a billion pounds will be taken away from those who care. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation suggests that some couples will lose £12,000 a year, when PIP cuts and carer’s allowance cuts are taken into account. While I welcome the apology that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury gave yesterday in relation to his references to pocket money, will the Minister agree that it is inappropriate to compare cuts to PIP with cuts to pocket money?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I very much agree that this all needs to be done in a managed and compassionate way, which is exactly what we are doing, so I do not agree that it is being rushed. As I have said, the changes will not happen for more than 18 months—they will not take effect until November 2026. They will not affect current recipients of personal independence payment until their first award review after November 2026, and review periods are typically three years, so this is definitely not being rushed. It will happen in a properly planned, staged and careful way.

The hon. Gentleman referred to couples losing £12,000. I think he must be referring to instances of people who receive personal independence payment and also receive carer’s allowance for caring for their spouse—he is right that there are some instances of that. There are couples for whom that happens both ways. The transitional arrangements we are consulting on, which are referred to in the Green Paper, need to take account of that incidence, but it is absolutely the right thing to do, to ensure that personal independence payment continues in the long term as part of a sustainable benefit system.

We do have to make some reductions, as I think the hon. Gentleman acknowledged. If he has another idea on how that can be done, I am interested to know what it is. By concentrating on those whose impairments are the most severe, which the proposed changes will do, we will be able to ensure that the benefit is there for the long term and that it is sustainable.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to safeguard the future of the welfare system, we must ensure that it is sustainable?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we have to do that. Five years ago, we were spending £12 billion on personal independence payment, and this year, in current prices, we will spend £22 billion. The Government have to address that, precisely as he says, in order to ensure that this crucial safety net is there for the long term. We will not be means-testing it, freezing it or converting it into vouchers, as the Conservative party suggested; we want it to be a cash benefit that can meet the needs of those who depend on it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) on bringing this important matter before the House. In government, my party supported carers: we increased carer’s allowance by £1,500 and, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, introduced carer’s leave. We are united again today in dismay at what this Government are doing.

The Government had 14 years to prepare their welfare reforms. We had nothing for eight months, and then everything in a rush, because the Chancellor crashed the economy. With growth this year cut in half, inflation rising further, unemployment up, productivity down, debt interest soaring, a record tax burden and 200,000 people being pushed into absolute poverty by the measures taken by this Government, they have had an emergency Budget containing cuts to benefits for disabled people. Perhaps if they were not in such a rush, they would have realised that these crude reforms also impact carers. Some 150,000 people who gave up income to look after a loved one, and who rely on carer’s allowance to make ends meet, are now going to lose it.

The Government are balancing the books on the backs of the people least able to take the weight. That is Labour: making other people pay for the fiasco of their Budget. First they came for the farmers, then for the pensioners, and now it is the carers—the most important people in our society, doing the most important job a human being can do, not for the money but for the love. The least the Government can do is to give them our support. That is what we did in government, so why will they not?

Can the Minister confirm whether carer’s allowance was a deliberate target of the Government’s reforms, or did they not realise the impact of what they were doing to PIP because of the rush they were in? Do they think that taking £500 million from carers while giving above-inflation pay awards to the trade unions is the right priority, and does the Minister share the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s view that cutting support for carers and disabled people is like taking pocket money from children? Is that what he believes carer’s allowance is—pocket money?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I suppose the hon. Gentleman has no choice but to attempt to defend his party’s record in government. As I have referred to already, the Conservative party’s plan was to convert PIP into vouchers—that really frightened people who were dependent on that system—and they also wanted to make some big cuts to the work capability assessment, which were ruled out by the courts as unlawful. We announced in the Green Paper that we are going to abandon those cuts. For example, the Conservatives were proposing to remove the mobility descriptor from the work capability assessment on the grounds that people can now work from home, but it is clearly ludicrous to claim that a mobility impairment does not affect a person’s ability to work. I remind the hon. Gentleman that in responding to the Green Paper on behalf of the Opposition, his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) demanded further cuts, so the outrage he has expressed is a bit inappropriate.

We have a proper plan, set out in the Green Paper. It has been well thought through—as the hon. Gentleman will find if he reads it properly—including a reference to unpaid carers on its very last page. We are well aware of the impact it will have, which is why we are consulting on the transitional arrangements.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for coming before the House and calmly laying out some of the facts on this matter, as I would expect from him, given his experience. However, there has been a lot of fear out there, and confusion among MPs, advisers and—most worryingly—people who are in receipt of PIP and other benefits and are affected by these changes. Does my right hon. Friend agree that clear communications at all times about this matter are very important, and that every Minister should be very careful about clumsy and inappropriate language, because of the impact it has on the people who are most affected?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the sensitivity of this issue. I particularly regret the anxiety that has been caused by press speculation over the past several weeks—that has certainly been regrettable. From my postbag, the thing that particularly frightened people was the point I have already referred to, which was the previous Government’s proposal to switch PIP from a cash benefit to vouchers. That caused a great deal of concern, but my hon. Friend is right: we now need to be absolutely clear in our communication about these matters. I think the Green Paper is clear. The accessible versions of the Green Paper will all be published by the beginning of next month, and we will then have a 12-week consultation period. As a result of those versions, including the easy-read version, being available, I hope that everybody will be able to see clearly what is proposed and will be able to respond to the consultation with their views.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

The analogy of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has proved to be controversial, but the Minister agrees with the point he was making, does he not?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I did not hear what my right hon. Friend said. What I can say is that a very large number of people are dependent on the personal independence payment. We want it to be a sustainable benefit that will be there for the long term. Because of the changes we are making, which will reduce the future increase in spending on personal independence payment, we can be confident and recipients can be confident that that will be the case.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I am potentially one of the few Members of this House who has been a recipient of the higher rates of living allowance. I was a recipient of the higher rate of mobility allowance, and I relied on a Motability car for many years, too. On the flipside, I remember, after my second hip replacement in my early 30s, having to try to navigate the Access to Work scheme, which was pretty impossible. In fact, it locks people out of work, rather than letting them in.

There are many good things in the Green Paper that has been brought forward that address some of those points. When I think back to what I had to go through from age 13 to 17, I am also pleased that those benefits will be protected for people in that situation. PIP is also what we call a passporting benefit. Such things as access to the blue badge scheme and carer’s allowance are often dependent on PIP, so one potential implication is that people could be locked out. Will the Minister consider carrying these things forward and meet me to discuss access to the blue badge scheme and carer’s allowance for people who might lose PIP, but would still be entitled to those benefits?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s testimony to the value of the support that the system provides and the importance of maintaining that into the future. He is right about passported benefits. The availability of blue badges is not affected by anything in the Green Paper, because the mobility component of personal independence payment is not changed by any of the proposals we have made. Access to carer’s allowance, as we have said, certainly will be, and I would welcome a discussion with him about that.

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

I declare an interest as an honorary vice-president of Carers UK, and I sit on the board of the Fife Carers Centre. Last September, I had the Adjournment debate on support for unpaid carers. In that, the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), promised that we would

“forge ahead together with the promise of that future in which unpaid carers are visible, valued and supported.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 288.]

That is not how unpaid carers are feeling today. The Minister referred to how the earnings limit for carer’s allowance has increased, but there is still a cliff edge. Are the Government planning to bring forward plans to link the earnings limit to the 16 hours of employment at the national minimum wage? We know that those are some of the things that caused the overpayments for carer’s allowance in the first place.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, the earnings threshold will in future be set at 16 times the hourly rate of the national living wage, and that will continue indefinitely. In addition, the Chancellor announced in the Budget last year that we will look at the idea of an income taper in carer’s allowance to replace the cliff edge, which, as the hon. Member rightly says, is a feature of it at the moment. We are looking at that assessment.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for how he is responding to this urgent question. The Conservatives, after 14 years in government, broke our social security system and created a hostile environment for disabled people, and therefore it is for us—Labour in government—to fix our social security system. I would like to press my right hon. Friend on this: 30% of disabled people already live in poverty, and the proposed changes to personal independence payment could see more being pushed further into poverty and many being pushed out of work. Indeed, the Government’s impact assessment highlighted that 150,000 people could lose carer’s allowance or the carer’s element. May I press him again to think about how we ensure that we support ill and disabled people as we fix the mess that the Tories have created?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we were left with a broken system. May I pay tribute to her for her work on the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, which focuses on supporting people into employment? That is the crucial element of this package. We will invest substantial sums, rising to £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament, in supporting people who are out of work on health and disability grounds into work, and I very much look forward to working with her in that endeavour. When somebody who is out of work moves into a job, the likelihood of their being below the poverty line is halved, so there will be a very positive poverty impact from that commitment.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I have already been contacted by carers in my constituency who are scared about what will happen to them and the people they care for. I welcome the Minister’s explanations thus far, but there will clearly be a problem with encouraging people who care for others to go out to work, who will say, “Who’s going to care for the person I care for now?” What message does the Minister have for those who look after very vulnerable people and cannot leave them alone, and who cannot work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. Given his description of the people being cared for, they will continue to receive personal independence payments. Once the changes have taken effect from November next year, those who do not score at least four points on any of the 10 daily living activities that the benefit conditions set out will not be eligible for personal independence payments. I would need to look at the particular cases that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but I imagine that people who cannot be left alone at home will continue to score at least four points. Therefore, the carer’s allowance for their carers will continue as at present.

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

I have the highest respect for my right hon. Friend, but I am afraid he is not right on this policy. As a former physiotherapist, I know that many people will not be able to claim carer’s allowance. Now that we have had the impact assessment, we have seen that nearly 400,000 disabled people will be pushed further into poverty, including 50,000 children, and that 150,000 carers will lose the lifeline of carer’s allowance. We do not have a social care system to replace it; besides, social care is more expensive. Today, I want to speak truth to power. Sometimes Governments get things wrong, and I ask the Government to seriously reflect on these policies. The first half of Pathways to Work is good, but the second half will let a lot of people down. Please reflect, and please withdraw this policy.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but we will not withdraw the policy. We will certainly reflect on it, and we will consult properly on the content of the Green Paper. The figures published by the Office for Budget Responsibility yesterday showed that the benefit changes, on their own, will take 250,000 people, including 200,000 adults, below the poverty line, but that is before any consideration of the impact of the big commitment that we are making to employment support —up to £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament. That will clearly have a very positive effect in reducing poverty. The Office for Budget Responsibility will look at all of this over the summer and then update its figures in the autumn. We will see what it concludes, but I think the balance of this package will be very positive for reducing poverty in the UK.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

To help families, the last Government put in place the household support fund, which this Government have continued. However, it is due to run out in 2026, when the Minister’s changes are coming in. What hope is there for households who need emergency support if the household support fund will be dropped when his changes come in?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have retained the household support fund, as the hon. Member rightly points out, and the future arrangements will be set out in due course. However, I can reassure him of the absolute commitment of this Government to supporting families who need our support. The child poverty taskforce is working on this issue at the moment, and will bring forward a strategy to address the problem of child poverty. The figures published this morning on households below average income show just what a huge challenge there is, given the very high level of child poverty left by the previous Government. We will be addressing that.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for paying tribute to carers for the economic and social contribution they make, and for the biggest ever increase in the employment earnings threshold for carers. There is a lot of worry about the changes, so could the Minister confirm that nobody on PIP will be impacted by them until November 2026 at the earliest? In the meantime, I will be working with disabled groups in my constituency to understand the impact on individuals, and the impact of the investment on supporting disabled people into work. The Minister spoke about transitional arrangements. How can I ensure that the views of disabled people in Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West feed into decisions about the implementation of these changes?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to underline again the hugely important contribution, not least economic contribution, made by carers. The consultation is under way, and it will run for a full 12 weeks from the time when all the accessible versions of the Green Papers are published, which will be in early April. I would be very grateful if she encouraged the organisations that she is working with to respond to that consultation, and I would also be very interested to hear and see her response to it. We will take those contributions extremely seriously as we finalise the details of these proposals.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Before I put my question to the Minister, I am sure that the House will want to join me in offering condolences to Keith Brown, our deputy party leader, on the death of his wife Christina McKelvie, who was a very distinguished and long-serving Member of the Scottish Parliament and a Minister.

The impact assessment snuck out yesterday under cover of the spring statement confirmed what the SNP has been warning about for some time. Labour’s austerity cuts will have a devastating effect, with the poorest and most vulnerable in society forced to foot the bill for the Chancellor’s incompetence. Some 150,000 people will be affected by the changes to carer’s allowance, but also—at an absolute minimum—250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will be forced into poverty. These are very modest assessments; I heard the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) give a figure of 400,000 people. Labour promised that it would improve living standards, but with the full extent of the damage now spelled out, does Labour’s promise not lie in tatters? What will it take for the Government to change course before irreversible harm is done?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s condolences. The figures were certainly not snuck out yesterday; I do not think anyone can accuse the Office for Budget Responsibility of sneaking them out. They were published on the day of the spring statement, as they always are and always have to be. Let me make it clear that spending on the personal independence payment will continue to increase above inflation. It will not increase as fast as it would have done if we had done nothing, but the advantage is that the funding for that benefit will be sustainable, and that is vital because so many people depend on it. It is not going to be means-tested and it is not going to be frozen. It will be there for the long term.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

There is real fear among many of my Calder Valley constituents with disabilities and with caring responsibilities about the proposed changes to PIP, and that fear has been exacerbated by some of the reporting. Can the Minister please give me a categorical assurance that the consultation on these measures is genuine, and that the Government will ensure that the responses of disabled people and of disability rights campaigns such as Scope will be given the weight they deserve?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise those points. I can give him the assurance that he seeks. Indeed, I spoke to Scope yesterday, and to other disability charities. Yes, this will be a proper consultation, and we will listen very carefully to what people say to us in response.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Terminal illness devastates people’s finances. More than 100 terminally ill people every month are refused PIP, and every day 300 people die in poverty, having fallen through the cracks of our benefits system. Many family carers in the midst of bereavement are then left with nothing. The Government’s plans in the Green Paper say nothing about how the terminally ill or their carers will be affected by these cuts. Can the Minister guarantee today that they will not be plunged into deeper poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for raising that point, but the Green Paper is very clear about the protections provided for people who are terminally ill. There are special rules in place, and they will absolutely be maintained. She can be very much reassured about what the Green Paper says about that group. If there is a point that I have missed that she has spotted, I would be grateful to hear about it, but we have very robust protections for those people for exactly the reasons she sets out.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I grew up caring for two disabled parents. As I said in my maiden speech, I would not be here if it was not for the sacrifices they made when they had so little in the first place. I have seen both my mother and my father forced out of work by their poor health. I have seen their mental health suffer, because they could not get a foot in the door of the NHS. I have seen the consequences in our family home; they suffered significant bouts of depression. I know the dignity and importance of work to people who want to and can work. When my parents’ health got worse, they could not work, so I know the importance of protections for people like them. I am pleased that the Government are emphasising both parts of the issue. Will the Minister please assure my constituents, who are concerned because of the leak, into which an official inquiry is under way, that the Government are truly listening to our constituents? Will he give the assurance that, through the pathways to work consultation, the Government want to hear from disability groups in my constituency, including the Cambian Wing college, whose representatives I met on Monday, and other organisations? Will he also reassure the public that the Government are committed to closing the disability employability gap? We need employers to support people into work, too.

[Mr Speaker]

I understand that this is a very important urgent question—that is why it was granted—but I need to try to get everybody in; that is what I am bothered about. If we can speed up questions and answers, that would help us all.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing his experience to this debate. I can absolutely give him the reassurance he seeks.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

Earlier in the week, I wrote to the Secretary of State, asking her to confirm that the plans would not go ahead if the proposals were assessed as being harmful to disabled people. The equality analysis says that the families who will lose out are estimated to represent 20% of all families who report having someone with a disability in the household. Given that PIP is not related to work, and that the money cannot be made up through work changes, does the Minister agree that proceeding is not acceptable when there is this level of harm?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The assessment published yesterday is that 90% of those receiving the daily living PIP component will continue to receive that benefit after the changes take effect, so I think the concern that the hon. Lady raises is not entirely appropriate.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

Like thousands of others, I carried out my caring responsibilities this morning before I came to this place. I have first-hand experience of worrying about paying the bills every month due to caring responsibilities—something I no longer have to worry about. Will the Minister consider whether we need a plan across Government Departments to identify the support available to ensure that carers can work, and that they and their loved ones do not fall into poverty as a result of the announcements made?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am working with the Minister for Care in the Department of Health and Social Care on this. I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to work across Government on these issues. We need to be concerned about the effect on young carers in the education system, so the Department for Education needs to be involved as well. His point about cross-Government working is absolutely right.

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

Almost a third of all unpaid carers in Wales live in poverty. That is over 100,000 people caring for the sick, the elderly and the disabled. The Labour First Minister in Wales, Eluned Morgan, has already asked for a Wales-specific impact assessment of welfare cuts. She has not even had the courtesy of a reply. Can the Minister tell me how many more unpaid carers in Wales will be pushed into hardship due to losing their entitlement to carer’s allowance?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As the hon. Lady will have gathered, the impact assessment was published yesterday. The figures are there for everybody to see, and the impacts are across the UK; that is correct. I want the support that we provide to be sustainable in the long term for those who depend on it. That will be the impact of our changes to the personal independence payment. I also want better support for carers who want to combine working with caring. That is not always easy for people to do. We made a commitment to providing up to £1 billion in better employment support by the end of this Parliament. If we can use that to support carers as well as people who are sick and disabled, we could see a significant reduction in the number of people living in poverty.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Like many Members, I have had emails from constituents who are worried about these changes. Can the Minister confirm that the most disabled people, who will never work, will be protected; that he is consulting on a new higher rate of universal credit for those who are most severely disabled; and that the Chancellor’s £1 billion investment in employment support will help those disabled people who could work to find good-quality jobs, which are the best route out of poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work on disability employment, which has been an important contribution. I can give the reassurances she seeks.

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

As someone who lives with ulcerative colitis, I am all too acquainted with the fact that health conditions can vary wildly. We know that people with conditions such as Crohn’s and colitis and their carers already have issues accessing PIP and carer’s allowance. What consideration has the Minister given to conditions such as those in the context of these cuts?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is very important that the system properly handles fluctuating conditions. One of the benefits of the proposal in the Green Paper to record by default PIP assessments is that we will be able to provide better assurance that the assessments get these judgments right, particularly in the case of fluctuating conditions.

[Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)]

I know from speaking to charities, local groups and people from brilliant projects such as JobSmart in my constituency about the increasing complexity of the relationship between different forms of benefit, including carer’s allowance, and the rules around working. That makes it increasingly difficult for people to use the options they have. Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the record amount of employment support will address the issue of the flexibility that we need to support sick and disabled people into some form of work, and will not just be for mentoring for those in other categories?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I join him in paying tribute to organisations such as JobSmart in his constituency. When the previous Labour Government introduced the new deal for disabled people in 1998—I was the Minister then, as I am now—the disability employment gap started to fall, and it fell steadily all the way until 2010, when it stopped falling. I want to get us back to that positive downward trajectory.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Minister is an honourable man. I have known him a long time, and I know that he tries to be compassionate and helpful, but I have deep concerns about this. It would appear that the books are to be balanced on the backs of the vulnerable. I have a genuine concern that the outworking of the spring statement may push some people with severe mental health problems over the edge. How will the Government put in place greater support for those who have to battle their recognised illnesses and live—not just survive—in this pressure-filled world? That will be even harder after these changes are implemented.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words at the start of his question. Our proposals fully protect the personal independence payments of those with the most severe impairments. I think those are the people that he is concerned about, and they are fully protected under these plans.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

Obviously, the work of carers is important, as we have been hearing. Can the Minister help me with one constituent’s case? He is a carer, but is now suffering from long covid and would be due PIP. What will happen to him under the points system?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

An assessment will be carried out by a properly trained health professional. If the person to whom my hon. Friend refers scores more than four points on any one of the 10 daily living activities, they will be eligible for personal independence payment, as at present.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

It is shocking that one in eight of our young people is not in education, employment or training. I want this to be a country in which all working-age people, including young people, feel that sense of opportunity again. I know how important work is in lifting people out of poverty. I also know that it is in our DNA as a Labour party to be there for people who are disabled, vulnerable or not able to work. Will the Minister share how that £1 billion-a-year support package will help those who can work get into work? And does he agree that we will always have the backs of those who cannot work, and those who care for them?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We will be working with disabled people over the next few months on the plans for how that commitment should be taken forward. We said in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, before Christmas, that we will be setting up a disability employment panel specifically to work on those plans. I will be very keen to work with her on those details as we draw them up.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many of my constituents will welcome the reforms to get more people off benefits and into work. Many recognise the urgent need to make our welfare system more sustainable, but many also deeply worry about not just the impact on carers, but the impact assessment that suggests that 50,000 more children will be pushed into poverty by 2029. Can the Minister assure me not just about the transitional arrangements to help both parents and children, but that this summer’s child poverty taskforce will take urgent steps to correct the impact assessment and that parents and children will be scored urgently in any future impact assessment that the Government come up with?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenge of high levels of child poverty. I certainly can give him the reassurance that he seeks. I think the employment impact will be very positive on future child poverty, but the work of the child poverty taskforce will be as well. And, yes, that will be fully scored once the policy has been announced.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Government for focusing on getting people back into work because it gives them pride, power and ownership, but, as ever, it is not what you do, but how you do it. I say to the Minister that, rather than allay my concerns, the impact assessment has actually given me several more. I ask him to find time to meet me so that we can go through two things: the concerns that my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme have, and those that I have, too.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will gladly meet my hon. Friend and look forward to the meeting.

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

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to improving the experience of people going through the assessment process, as I am regularly shocked by some of the experiences of my constituents. Can he say a little more about how he will improve claimant experience, particularly for the most vulnerable claimants?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The key proposal in the Green Paper is the default recording of assessments, so that when something goes wrong, we can check back and see what happened. I have had the experience, as my hon. Friend probably has, of talking to people who have been through the assessment and then seen it and said, “Well, that wasn’t me. It is unrecognisable.” That should not be happening, and we want to change that.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the needs of young carers. I have spoken to young people who started caring in their primary school years. It takes a while for them to be recognised as carers. We need to speed things up.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

I have spoken to Jobcentre Plus in Rugby about its excellent work to support people into work, including young people with special educational needs whom I have met. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the package of employment support announced last week—something that charities in my constituency have long been calling for—is one of the biggest ever amounts of money to give disabled people and those with long-term conditions the help they need to find work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Absolutely, it is. The people that my hon. Friend described will be the beneficiaries of the big commitment that we have made.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the constructive and thoughtful way in which he has engaged with Members over the past week. I have written to him in the past couple of days on two matters, and I would like to take the opportunity to put them to him. First, he is leading a review of the PIP assessment—will its terms of reference be made public? Secondly, there is a case for looking again at the PIP criteria, as set out in secondary legislation, which were opposed by Labour 12 years ago. Will he continue to engage in the manner that he has been doing with Members now that we are in the consultation period, including on that point?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will be very glad to. My hon. Friend is right that the indicators used in the current personal independence payment assessment were drawn up in 2013. It is high time that we had another look at them, and I will be happy to put the terms of reference for that work into the public domain. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss it with him.

Seriously Ill Children: Financial Support for Parents

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) on securing this important debate, commend his consistent advocacy on this topic, and welcome the thoughtful and passionate speech he has made this afternoon.

I have now met my hon. Friend twice, and his constituents Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, who founded It’s Never You—which I think is also what they said when they received their son’s diagnosis. I thank them for telling me what had happened and telling me frankly about the journey they went through with their son Hugh, who was in hospital with a very serious illness. Their heartfelt reflections and the Hugh’s law campaign help people like me to understand and appreciate much better the emotional and financial impacts that parents experience at an extremely difficult time. I commend the outstanding work that that charity and others do to support the parents and families of children with cancer and other very serious health conditions.

Many parents caring for children and young people with serious illnesses are likely to need additional support through social security. Caring naturally has an impact on work and therefore, very likely, on household income. Financial support is available through universal credit, and if needed support can be available on day one through a universal credit advance. Alongside the universal credit standard allowance, additional amounts—the child element, the disabled child addition, the carer element and housing costs—are added as appropriate. Of course, universal credit is means-tested, and I recognise that it will not help households with greater financial resources, but it is there as a safety net if those financial circumstances change.

In the tragic circumstances of a child dying, the universal credit bereavement run-on is in place. It is designed to ensure financial stability for the initial period following the bereavement, and it can last for up to three months. Universal credit elements—the child element, the disabled child addition, the carer element and housing costs—will all remain in payment for the assessment period in which the child died and two further assessment periods beyond that. To support parents at this very difficult time, benefit conditionality is switched off for six months, which ensures that bereaved parents do not have to work or search for work during that period. After three months, a work coach will be in touch to offer additional voluntary support, which may or may not be taken up.

There is also disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and personal independence payments for those over 16. They are available if a child or young person’s condition or illness is of a long-term nature and gives rise to care, daily living or mobility needs. They are not means-tested. We are currently consulting, following last week’s Green Paper on pathways to work, on raising the age at which young people move from DLA on to PIP, the adult disability benefit, from 16 to 18. That proposal has been quite widely welcomed since we published the Green Paper.

Comparing January to February 2020, just before the pandemic, with September to October 2024, the number applying for DLA for children has increased by 193%—it has nearly tripled in that period. As a result, I am afraid the average journey time for DLA claims has risen; it is up now to about 20 weeks. I very much regret those delays and the Department is working to reduce them. We have increased the number of staff dealing with applications; they are clearing cases in date order, to be fair to everybody.

These benefits are a contribution to the extra costs that may arise as a result of a disability or health impairment. They are assessed on the needs arising, not on the condition itself, so they are available irrespective of the diagnosis. The highest level of benefit is over £9,500 per year. The benefit is generally paid to the child’s parent or guardian, so it can help with overall family finances and be used as the family choose to meet their needs. Many children and young people with serious illnesses may spend a lot of time in hospital. For those under 18, DLA and PIP continue to be paid in full, which is a difference from the adult benefit.

I will now address the three-month qualifying period—which my hon. Friend rightly referred to in his remarks—that applies to disability benefits such as DLA and PIP. Payment begins once the three-month period has been completed, which helps to establish that the disability and resulting care and support needs are of a long-standing nature and provides a division between short and long-term disability. Claims can be submitted during the three-month qualifying period. Consideration will always be given to whether the qualifying period has already been served, at least in part, before the date of claim.

I want to highlight this point: the three-month qualifying period begins when the care needs began, and we depend on the parents to tell us when that was. It could well be a week or a significant period before the diagnosis or the hospital admission, and before the benefit application was submitted. It is important to look at when the care needs began, because that could have been well before the application was made. If the child sadly has an end-of-life diagnosis, as my hon. Friend knows, special rules apply: claims are fast-tracked and the three-month qualifying period does not apply. The highest rate of the DLA care component or the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component will be paid from the date of the claim.

My officials are currently exploring the legal implications of another measure that has been proposed, which would introduce a run-on for child DLA and extend disability living allowance for a period after the death of a child. They will report on their conclusions once they have reached them. Receiving DLA and PIP can passport to a range of additional support, such as premiums in income-related benefits, carer’s allowance, the Motability scheme and exemption from the benefit cap, providing further help for families.

Help from social security is part of a wider commitment on the part of the Government. For children and young people who have cancer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has relaunched the children and young people cancer taskforce, which is focused on identifying tangible improvements for that particular patient group. I commend the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who co-chairs that taskforce and will spearhead its work on patient experience alongside her co-chair, Professor Darren Hargrave of University College London and Great Ormond Street hospital.

The taskforce will examine a wide range of issues across both clinical and non-clinical care, early diagnosis, genomic testing and treatment, research, innovation and, importantly, patient experience, looking at issues such as travel, food and psychological support. Ceri and Frances will be in a position to say a good deal about that, drawing on their own experiences in hospital with their son.

The cost of travel can be a real problem for families of children with serious illnesses. The healthcare travel costs scheme provides financial assistance to patients in England who do not themselves have a medical need for transport, but need help with the costs of travelling to NHS services. The Government recognise that some patients and their families who one might think should benefit from that scheme are in fact unable to do so as it is currently configured. The Department of Health and Social Care is looking at that issue and whether more should be done, alongside its wider work on cancer.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) and I have just been talking about something that we all feel is very important. When a child is experiencing terrible bad health—bad health that, as the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire said, could lead to their death—the pressure on the parents and immediate family is enormous. All they want to do is be with their child and love their child all the time. They need someone there to help—“Here are the forms you need to fill out; here is the help we can give you”—to take the pressure off so that they can focus entirely on their child. That is the issue.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the pressures on the family in those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire referred to the fact that from April this year, the Department for Business and Trade is introducing a new entitlement of up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay for those with babies in neonatal care, to make sure that parents have appropriate support during that time—for exactly the reason the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has just set out. That new entitlement was introduced under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which started as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament and received cross-party support. When opening this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire said that he will speak to Ministers in that Department about some ideas along those lines.

It is important that all parents of children with serious illnesses are supported to return to or remain in work, if that is what they choose to do. Carers for seriously ill children are already protected from employment discrimination under the Equality Act 2010 and parents are entitled to up to 18 weeks’ unpaid parental leave to look after their children for any reason.

The Government’s new Employment Rights Bill will make it easier to access that entitlement, and will make the leave available from day one of starting a new job. It will also make it more likely that flexible working requests will be accepted by employers. To support existing, new and potential unpaid carers to make informed decisions about combining work and care, the Job Help website provides advice and information all in one place, and our new deal for working people will provide further support and help.

This debate has reminded us all that having a child who is seriously ill is surely one of the most worrying and stressful situations a parent can experience. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire for the initiative, which has given us the opportunity to talk about that today. There are no current plans to introduce a day one, non-means-tested grant for parents in this situation, like that proposed in the Hugh’s law campaign and supported in this debate, but I underline that there is already significant support offered by my Department. That is just part of the very important work across Government to improve support for parents in these circumstances, including, in particular, the relaunched children and young people cancer taskforce.

Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. It is an important and sensitive subject, and I commend him for pursuing it so energetically, the cause having been raised with him so effectively by his constituents. I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate, and I have no doubt at all that we will return to this subject.

Question put and agreed to.

British Sign Language Week

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We have had a wide-ranging and thoughtful debate. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing it during British Sign Language Week and on the initiative of establishing the all-party parliamentary group.

It is not very well known that the Deputy Prime Minister is BSL qualified to level 2. She has this morning posted on social media a signing message in support of British Sign Language Week. She sets out in the message the Government’s commitment and her own commitment to championing BSL and to tackling the barriers that face people in Britain with hearing impairments.

[Rachel Taylor]

Does the Minister agree that there is still a long way to go to make BSL accessible for everyone who needs it and that it is important that deaf people not only are included in the conversations, but lead them? Does he share my delight in seeing BSL interpreters here today in Westminster Hall, which sends a message to deaf people that they are welcome here?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am very glad to do so; I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

This week gives us a chance to celebrate British Sign Language and Irish Sign Language. As we have heard, 151,000 people use BSL; 87,000 have it as their first language, and it is the UK’s fourth most widely used indigenous language. That is a very large group of people, with a great deal to contribute to our economy and our society.

It is right to take this week as an opportunity to highlight, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, the rich culture around BSL, of which many people are unaware. I was intrigued that American Sign Language is completely different from BSL; I think that arises from its origins not long after American independence when—I suppose understandably—Americans wanted more to do with the French than the British. That has shaped American Sign Language today.

We have heard about the 2022 Act, and I echo the tributes to our former colleague Rosie Cooper and to Chloe Smith, the then Minister. The Act is driving improved accessibility of Government communications and in this Government we are going to implement it in full. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock very reasonably asked why the BSL version of Tuesday’s Green Paper has not yet appeared. I can only apologise for that. The 12-week consultation clock will not start until all the accessible versions are published in early April, with a BSL version among them, so that BSL users will have a full 12 weeks to respond.

The BSL Act requires the Government to publish a British Sign Language report setting out each Department’s steps to promote and facilitate the use of BSL in public communications. The first, as the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) reminded us, was published in July 2023. The second was a bit delayed by the general election and appeared in December. I echo the commitment that she set out to annual publication in those first five years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock said, BSL activity has more than doubled across Government since that first report, but there is still a long way to go, and I have noticed impatience in some quarters about the speed of progress.

The new Lead Ministers for Disability will have an important role here. We discussed the BSL Act and its reporting framework at our first meeting in December, and we did so again in our second meeting last week. We will keep progress under review, and of course I will have the opportunity to discuss there a number of the issues raised in this debate. We will also publish a BSL plan for each Government Department with the third BSL report, which we will be publishing in the summer.

In line with the commitment in our election manifesto, I work closely with disabled people and representative organisations to put their views and voices at the heart of all we do. Since July, I have met a wide range of deaf people’s organisations, along with other disability organisations. We have heard about the independent BSL Advisory Board, set up in the wake of the Act; it is co-chaired by Craig Crowley, chief executive of Action Deafness, who has done a fantastic job. The board has 15 members, mainly BSL users and all with lived and/or professional experience of the barriers facing deaf people.

I have been very impressed with the board’s work, drawing on the experience of its members and their knowledge of those barriers to develop priorities and a focus for its work, including setting up sub-groups on specific issues. For example, the health and social care sub-group is compiling recommendations based on deaf people’s experiences in the health service—we have heard about a number of those in this debate. I have also spoke to SignHealth, which has made the point to me that BSL users often struggle even to make a GP appointment and to communicate basic health information with the NHS. The report of that sub-group, with its recommendations, will appear later on this year.

Over the last year, the board has also discussed deaf access to sport with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. It presented at the British Deaf Association conference in Manchester, the theme of which was BSL in the early years, and I am grateful to the board co-chairs and other members for their commitment to improving the lives of deaf people and collaborating in order to do so.

I attended the education summit that the BSL Advisory Board organised at the Frank Barnes School for Deaf Children at King’s Cross last year. There were powerful contributions from senior leaders on the barriers that deaf children and their families face in education. That school is really interesting; it has a bilingual model of education and shares a playground with a hearing school, encouraging interaction between deaf and hearing children, contributing to the inclusion of everybody.

We want to enhance the status of BSL, and I agree with the points made in this debate that the GCSE will benefit BSL users generally, as well as those individual students who take it.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

My constituent Sarah has been unable to afford a British Sign Language course for her son, which costs up to £400. I welcome the prospect of a GCSE in BSL, but that support is often unavailable where skills funding is not devolved. Can the Minister outline what steps he is taking to ensure that families in areas not yet devolved, such as Cornwall, can also affordably access BSL courses?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The situation in Cornwall has also been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon). My understanding is that the adult skills fund will be devolved in Cornwall under the recent devolution agreement that has been reached. The fund will be devolved from the coming academic year 2025-26, so there is an opportunity for local decision making in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth rightly made points about the way in which that funding has typically been used in the past, and the fact that the decision has certainly not always been made to provide courses along those lines. Following that devolution deal, there is at least the opportunity to do that.

I assure the House of our continuing commitment to the GCSE. Ofqual is now finalising the assessment arrangements for it, working closely with exam boards and BSL organisations to ensure that there is a fair and reliable assessment process. Ofqual met the BSL Advisory Board on 5 February to discuss that, and I think the board was generally reassured about the progress being made and the commitment to deliver. I am advised that the technical consultation that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) asked about will be launched in the next few weeks.

[Mims Davies]

I am grateful to the Minister for the reassurances. The message from the Chamber this afternoon has been about a postcode lottery, and different experiences for families in different parts of the country. I am grateful that the Minister is seeking to reassure and to work with Craig and others. Could the Minister undertake to work with our devolved nations—I mentioned the challenges in Wales and there is further progress in Holyrood—so that the postcode lottery does not extend despite the good efforts of his office?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I would be very glad to meet representatives of the devolved Governments, and to co-operate with them on this, as we do in many other areas.

[Jim Shannon]

The Police Service of Northern Ireland has a 24/7 video system, so that those who have hearing problems can contact them and somebody can come out immediately. Is that something that the Minister could push forward with police forces on the mainland?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I welcome that innovative arrangement; if the hon. Member drops me a line about it, I would be interested to look at it further. That is a similar example to what we heard about some energy companies operating for their customers, and I welcome it.

Another main focus for the advisory board this year is the use of artificial intelligence to reduce barriers. How long will it be before we have a handheld device that will be able to interpret BSL both ways? What might be the pitfalls of that happening? Yesterday I chaired an interesting roundtable at Tata in Bishopsgate, attended by the co-chairs and members of the BSL Advisory Board, representatives of the British Deaf Association, the RNID, Professor Richard Bowden from the University of Surrey, and Professor Kearsy Cormier, professor of sign linguistics at University College London.

At the roundtable Dr Charudatta Jadhav, the principal scientist and head of the accessibility centre of excellence at Tata in India, told us that, while Tata is focusing initially on Indian and American Sign Language, it expects to have a BSL interpretation product within five years. We discussed the ethical and cultural issues around that: how can software interpret the nuances in facial expressions, which I believe are much more important in BSL than in Indian Sign Language? How do developers decide which version of BSL to implement? How will regional accents, which can provide a BSL user with valuable information about the signer, be handled? Those are interesting topics, and as Members have said, deaf people need to be in driving seat in resolving them.

Tech can certainly help deaf people to overcome barriers that too often and needlessly block opportunities that others take for granted. We want more of that potential to be realised. The Government have taken important steps around equal pay and flexible working. On Tuesday, we launched our 12-week consultation on mandatory disability pay gap reporting—including, I am pleased to say, a BSL version of the consultation document. We want deaf people to get the support they need to thrive in the workplace, and we recognise that too many do not at the moment.

Implementing the BSL Act is only just beginning. Let us all keep working together to deliver the access and inclusion for deaf people that all of us want to see. Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock and to everyone who has contributed to this important and welcome debate. I am grateful to those in the Public Gallery for their interest. I express particular thanks to the interpreters who have supported us today, and I thank Mr Speaker for enabling them to be with us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

1. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her policies of recent trends in levels of disability living allowance cases that have been incorrectly reduced to a lower rate without an explanation.

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

There should be no benefit decisions without explanation. Claim decisions should always be set out with the reasons. If a decision is unclear, or if the reasons for it are unclear, a further detailed verbal or written explanation can be requested and will be provided.

[Will Stone]

Will the Minister please outline how this Government will support young disabled people to have a positive engagement with the benefit system alongside work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to press for improvements. We want to change how we think about jobcentres and the benefit system. Our youth work coaches talk a lot to disabled young people and are very keen to help more. Our reforms are making that possible, by giving better help and support, and by opening up new opportunities for disabled young people up and down the country.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My staff member, alongside me, does benefit applications, appeals and tribunals at least five days a week. She overturns 75% of applications in favour of the applicant, which tells me that there is something wrong with the system. I am worried sick for my constituents who suffer from mental and physical issues because of our 30-year conflict. There must be a system that protects my constituents and the people we all represent.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Again, the hon. Gentleman is right to call for improvements. We want to see improvements in assessments, and he is probably well aware that we will shortly be publishing a Green Paper with proposals for reform to the health and disability benefit system. We will have something to say about this in that document.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

2. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in the Portsmouth North constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)]

15. What steps she is taking through the benefits system to support disabled people.

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

We will be reforming the current broken system of health and disability benefits. We will bring forward a Green Paper with proper plans very soon, setting out how we will help disabled people who can work to do so, while fully supporting the most severely disabled as well.

[Mr Brash]

Work is good for us: it is good for our physical and mental health, and for our general wellbeing. When someone can work, it is essential that they are given all the support to do so. That said, it is also imperative that those who are sick, vulnerable or disabled are always protected. Does the Minister agree that striking the balance between supporting those who can work and protecting those who cannot work must be central to any welfare reform?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That balance will be at the heart of the Green Paper that we are bringing forward. We will deliver proper employment support for disabled people, which has been taken away since 2010. We will deal with the incentives to inactivity that the current system presents. Of course, there will always be people who are unable to work through disability or ill health, and we are committed to fully supporting them too.

[Liz Jarvis]

My constituents in Eastleigh who support and help to care for disabled family members are desperately concerned about any potential cuts to benefits, including personal independent payment. They include Laura, whose son is registered blind, and Debbie, who helps to care for her disabled daughter and is herself disabled. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that disability benefits for people who are unable to work will not be cut?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am concerned about the level of anxiety and speculation that has been around over recent weeks. I am sad that that has happened and that people have been concerned, but the current welfare system is failing the very people it is supposed to help—the people it is there for. Our aim is to make the system sustainable so that it will be there for people now and in the future. When the hon. Lady sees the proposals, I think she will see how we will deliver on that commitment.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can confirm to my hon. Friend that we will produce a full impact assessment in due course.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

When I was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, working with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on reducing welfare dependency, getting 1,000 more people into work each and every day, and delivering record numbers of people into work, the Labour party opposed us every step of the way. Can I take it that the Government’s recent conversion to reducing the benefit bill is only about conning the Office for Budget Responsibility into thinking that they will balance the books after their disastrous Budget, rather than because they really believe in it?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I remember extremely well when the right hon. Lady was a Minister in the Department—it was very striking how the disability employment gap, which had been falling up until 2010, suddenly stopped falling and plateaued from that moment on. We will deliver a decisive shift to early intervention, helping people to stay in work, and renew fairness and trust in the system. We will provide personalised support so that those who can work can get the jobs that they want.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

7. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of incentives to seek employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

T10. My constituent Heidi recently moved off benefits and back into work, only to find she is earning less than when she was on benefits. Meanwhile, my constituent Tyrone is blind, autistic and has cerebral palsy, and, although he is an aspiring DJ, may struggle to find permanent work. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that we take a balanced approach, supporting those who cannot work with protection, dignity and security while ensuring that those who can go back into work?

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

My hon. Friend sets out exactly the balance that we need to strike with our plan: proper employment support on the one hand, which has not been available in the past, and dealing with work disincentives in the current system on the other. When he sees the proposals shortly, I think he will welcome the measures we are planning.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Can the Minister reassure people who have had an amputation or have schizophrenia, terminal cancer or uncontrolled epilepsy that tomorrow’s announcements will not mean a cut in their social security?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As we have already made clear today, we are absolutely determined to protect those who need to be protected in the proposals we are bringing forward. I think the hon. Lady will welcome and be reassured by the proposals when she sees them.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

There are currently thousands of disabled children and adults across the country, including in Hyndburn and Haslingden, who cannot access their childhood tax funds. How is the Minister working to address this issue with the Ministry of Justice to help families to gain quick and easy access to these funds? Will he give further consideration to increasing the scope of the DWP appointee scheme to cover child tax funds and junior individual savings accounts up to £5,000?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this subject, which she and I have met to discuss. She is absolutely right: there should be no barriers to young people and their families accessing these funds. The Ministry of Justice has made some progress already. I do not think the answer will be altering the DWP appointee scheme, but there will be further progress to make things easier.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

What is the Minister’s estimate for the number of pensioners who would qualify for pension credit but have not applied in North Durham?

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

Supporting people back into work is not only the right thing to do for the UK economy, but the fair and compassionate thing to do for people stuck in the welfare system. However, over the past few days, a significant number of people have contacted my constituency office with profound concerns about what they have heard and read in the press. Does the Minister agree that by removing the culture of fear and creating a nurturing environment, we can help people back into work and give them the support they need not just to survive but to thrive?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are determined to provide proper support, which existed in the past, but disappeared after 2010. We want to provide that support again because so many people would thrive if they had it. At the moment there are 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who would love to be in a job if they just had the support. We will provide it.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

For weeks, the Government’s active trailing of welfare cuts has generated genuine fear. Disabled people in Brighton Pavilion are writing to me in terror. Will the Secretary of State apologise for this and reassure the public that benefit changes will not take place this calendar year or without parliamentary votes in this House?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

First, I recognise that there has been a good deal of anxiety, and I regret that. But there will not be long to wait. The proposals will soon become clear. The hon. Lady will welcome a great deal of the changes that we want to make.

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

As a human rights city, York believes that disabled people should be at the heart of all decision making. How have disabled people formed the Minister’s views in making these changes? Have they been at the heart of the decision making?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right. Our manifesto has a firm commitment that the views and voices of disabled people should be at the heart of everything that we do. Over the past week I have had discussions with a number of disabled people’s fora. When we come forward with our proposals shortly, we will consult extensively with disabled people and their organisations about the right way forward.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

The Government announced billions of cuts to the Department; then, over recent days, Ministers have made U-turn after U-turn, and in the media round over the weekend were spinning out of control. Is there anything meaningful left to announce from the Secretary of State’s original welfare plans?

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

Given that nearly half of families in poverty have a disabled member and that without PIP an additional 700,000 disabled households could be pushed into poverty, I am concerned that the rumoured cuts will not help people into work but instead drive them further into destitution. What assurances can the Minister give me that the voices of disabled people have been heard and reflected on in the upcoming Green Paper?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I give my hon. Friend a firm assurance that not only have we been listening, but we shall continue to listen once the proposals have been published.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

I have previously urged the Secretary of State to liaise with the Department for Communities in Northern Ireland over its pitiful pursuit of benefit fraud. In the same vein, is the Minister aware that of the 39,000 new vehicles registered in Northern Ireland last year, 18,000 were under the Motability scheme? Is that not indicative of appalling abuse of that scheme? Will he raise with the Department for Communities what it is doing about that?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The Motability scheme is highly valued by disabled people around the UK. If the hon. and learned Gentleman has examples of misuse of that scheme, I would very much like to see them, but it is a scheme that is greatly prized right across the House. I think he would discover that if he talked to other Members about it.

Draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 Draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Mesothelioma Lump Sum Payments (Conditions and Amounts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship for the first time this afternoon, Sir Jeremy. This debate, which happens every year, gives us a good opportunity to consider not only the uprating instruments, but the wider topic of dust-related diseases that are covered by these schemes, and to consider the impact that the diseases have on sufferers and their families.

The instruments increase the value of one-off lump sum payments made under two no-fault compensation schemes administered by the Department for Work and Pensions. The two schemes are the one under the Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) Act 1979, which I shall refer to as the 1979 Act scheme, and the 2008 diffuse mesothelioma scheme—under the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008—which I shall refer to as the 2008 Act scheme. There is no statutory requirement to increase these rates in line with prices each year. I am following the long-established approach of previous Governments; the instruments increase the value of the awards by 1.7%, in line with the consumer price index of last September. The new rates will apply to those who first become entitled to a payment from 1 April this year. The increase will, as previously, be in line with the proposed increases to industrial injuries disablement benefit, alongside uprating for all the main working-age benefits in the coming year.

Let me say a bit about the background to the two schemes. The 1979 Act scheme provides a single lump-sum compensation payment to eligible people with the diseases covered by the scheme, including pneumoconiosis, a disease associated particularly with coal mining, and diffuse mesothelioma, caused by exposure to asbestos fibres. The schemes cover people who are unable to claim damages from an employer—for example, because the employer has gone out of business—and who have not brought any action against another party for damages.

To be eligible for a lump-sum award, a claimant must be awarded industrial injuries disablement benefit for a disease covered by the 1979 Act scheme, or would be awarded IIDB but for their low percentage disablement. To have payment of IIDB, someone must have been assessed as having at least 14% disablement, but someone with less than that can still be eligible for one of these payments.

The 2008 Act scheme was introduced to provide compensation to people diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who are unable to claim compensation under the 1979 Act. That could be because they were self-employed at the time, or because their exposure to asbestos was not at work. The 2008 Act scheme therefore filled in a bit of a gap in the former provision. It provides no-fault support to sufferers of diffuse mesothelioma quickly, at a point when their need is typically quite pressing.

To recognise the terrible suffering that these diseases can bring to whole families, claims can be made to either scheme by a dependant, if the person with a disease dies before being able to make a claim. They are both very important schemes. Between April 2023 and March 2024—the latest financial year for which data is available—there were 1,620 awards under the 1979 Act scheme and 320 under the 2008 Act scheme, so there were nearly 2,000 between them both. Expenditure on lump sum awards under both schemes totalled £30 million in 2023-24.

Timely financial support through these schemes, following a diagnosis, is very important. We also need to ensure that fewer people succumb to these awful diseases in the future. The Health and Safety Executive, which reports to my Department, has a very important role in enabling employers to act to prevent and reduce the most common causes of work-related ill health. Exposure to asbestos remains the largest single cause of work-related deaths in the UK, in the order of about 5,000 a year. The Work and Pensions Committee published an important report on the Health and Safety Executive’s approach to asbestos management three years ago, and the Department is currently having another look at its recommendations.

Following the asbestos awareness campaigns of previous decades, HSE makes a wide range of information available on its website. In January last year, HSE launched a communications campaign on the duty to manage, which was called “Asbestos—Your Duty”, to raise awareness and understanding of the legal obligation to share information on asbestos in any workplace to those who might disturb it.

There is particular concern about the presence of asbestos in schools—there is a lot of asbestos in many schools across the country—and there has been a growing number of retired schoolteachers among those succumbing to mesothelioma, which is a serious concern. The Department for Education expects all local authorities, governing bodies and academy trusts to have robust plans in place to manage asbestos in school buildings effectively, in line with their legal duties, drawing on appropriate professional advice. The Department is also increasing investment in the next financial year to improve the condition of school buildings, lifting the total investment to £2.1 billion. That is on top of the continuing school rebuilding programme, which is replacing or refurbishing buildings in the poorest condition at over 500 schools.

I am confident that everyone will join me in recognising the continuing importance of the compensation offered by these two schemes. I am required to confirm, and gladly do so, that these provisions are compatible with the European convention on human rights. I commend the increases to the payment rates under these two schemes, and I ask the Committee’s approval to implement them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for the support across the Committee for the regulations. Let me have a go at answering the questions that the shadow Minister raised. I do not think we have a better estimate for the numbers in the coming year than the ones I gave for the previous year.

It is likely that the numbers over time will decrease. It is 26 years since the use of asbestos in new buildings was banned in the UK. It was quite a tough fight to deliver that in 1999. The Canadian Government strongly resisted because Canada was largely where the asbestos was coming from. It is interesting that we banned it in the UK, and then it was banned right across the west very quickly after that. So there is perhaps a downward trend, but it is not entirely clear. The figure I cited of 5,000 fatalities a year from asbestos-related diseases has been at that level for quite a long time, but the expectation is that it will fall. The pneumoconiosis figures are probably flatter. It may be that we have fuller information on that, and if we have, I would be pleased to drop the shadow Minister a line and copy that to the other Committee members.

I have done a quick calculation, and I think the average payment amount comes to £15,000—as there are roughly 2,000 people and £30 million in total. I would expect that kind of figure to be maintained. As for the long-term cost of the scheme, in line with what I was saying, I expect that it will generally decline. If we look at the numbers each year, they have tended to drift downwards, and the expectation is that that will continue.

The shadow Minister asked what we are doing about prevention. I am very concerned about this issue, and asbestos, in particular, is something that we need to take seriously. There is a lot of asbestos still in schools and hospitals, so it is not only retired teachers that we are seeing in the fatality statistics nowadays, but retired medics and nurses. The Work and Pensions Committee, in its report three years ago, recommended that a deadline should be set for the Government to ensure the removal of all asbestos from UK workplaces, and suggested a target of 40 years to do that. We have an enormous amount of asbestos in the UK; I think we have more per head than any other country. That recommendation has not been adopted, but as I mentioned in my opening remarks, I am talking to the Health and Safety Executive at the moment about what more might be done in this area. I hope we will be able to say something about that very soon.

I welcome the support for and interest across the House in these schemes. They are very important, and as the shadow Minister pointed out, the regulations will ensure that the payments maintain their value. Of course, other help is available to people with these diseases, such as the industrial injuries disablement benefit, which I mentioned, universal credit and the new-style employment and support allowance.

The Department for Health and Social Care is taking these matters very seriously. NHS England has 13 respiratory clinical networks across the country, and the NHS will invest in more and better rehabilitation services for patients with respiratory diseases in its long-term plan. Research is very important; the National Institute for Health and Care Research, through the Leicester Biomedical Research Centre, has a long-standing programme of research to develop treatments for mesothelioma. That includes looking at personalised treatment pathways to identify which patients are likely to get the greatest benefit from differing types of drug therapies.

I will drop the shadow Minister and members of the Committee a line with the additional data that she asked for. I commend the amendments to the schemes to the Committee, and hope that it will approve of their implementation.

Question put and agreed to.

DRAFT PNEUMOCONIOSIS ETC. (WORKERS’ COMPENSATION) (PAYMENT OF CLAIMS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 2025 

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workers’ Compensation) (Payment Of Claims) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.—(Sir Stephen Timms.) 

Social Security Benefits

Stephen Timms 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.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

On clarification, can the Minister clarify for how much longer the state pension will be taxed? The Conservative Government stood for election on a commitment to the triple lock plus. We lost the election, but we were going to take out that fiscal drag. Can the Minister explain how long that tax will stay in place?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My understanding, from what the Leader of the Opposition has said, is that the Conservative party is no longer committed to the triple lock, let alone the triple lock plus. I can tell the hon. Member that we do not have any plans to do what he suggests.

[Dr Evans]

I believe that under the Budget, the Government are not looking to review the position until 2028, so those on the state pension have to submit a tax return, because the state pension is being taxed.

[Dr Evans]

Agreed. That was brought in by a previous Government, and we in the Conservative party campaigned to remove it. Can the Minister confirm that the situation will remain in place until 2028?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I simply point out to the hon. Gentleman that his party appears to no longer be committed to the triple lock. We look forward to clarification on that point from the shadow Minister.

Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built up under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 1.7% in line with prices. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes, so the safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.1%. For single pensioners, that means an increase from £218.15 to £227.10 per week; for couples, the increase is from £332.95 to £346.60 per week. We want everybody entitled to that support to receive it, which is why we launched the national pension credit campaign. We received around 150,000 pension credit applications in the 16 weeks after the winter fuel payment announcement.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way one more time to the hon. Gentleman.

[Dr Evans]

I am very grateful. We do indeed want more people to take up pension credit. However, one of the biggest problems is the processing time. The response to a written question that I tabled before Christmas showed that there was a 75% success rate in getting that done within 50 days, which means that that did not happen for one in four. I later re-tabled the same question, and it turned out that the standard had got worse. What work are the Government doing to make sure that applications are processed within 50 days? Especially when it is cold and people have had their winter fuel payment taken away, it is important that those who need that support get it as soon as they can.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is quite right; it is important that applications are processed speedily, and I am pleased with the number of applications. I can confirm—I think he knows this—that everybody who applied before 21 December will receive, if they are successful, their winter fuel payment. We have also moved extra staff on to pension credit processing. However, the hon. Gentleman is quite right to raise that point.

Universal credit and the legacy means-tested benefits that it replaces provide support for people of working age. We have committed in our manifesto to reviewing universal credit, so that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we will set out shortly how we plan to fulfil that commitment. For those below state pension age, the order increases the personal and standard allowances of working-age benefits, including universal credit, by 1.7%, in line with the increase in prices in the year to September 2024. In the Budget last November, the Chancellor announced that the maximum repayment deduction from universal credit payments will be reduced from April, from 25% of the universal credit standard allowance to 15%—the fair repayment rate—and 1.2 million households are expected to benefit from that change by an average of £420 per year.

In addition, the order increases statutory payments by 1.7%. That includes statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory sick pay. Benefits for those who have additional costs as a result of disability or health impairments will also increase by 1.7%. That includes disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment. The order will also increase carer’s allowance by 1.7%. The Chancellor announced in the Budget that, from April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings threshold will be pegged to the level of 16 hours’ work at the national living wage. That means that, from April, unpaid carers will be able to earn up to £196 per week net earnings and still receive carer’s allowance, compared with £151 now. I am pleased to say that that move has been very widely welcomed, and we expect it to bring an additional 60,000 unpaid carers into eligibility for the benefit, and, crucially, to reduce the likelihood that carers who manage to combine some work with their caring responsibilities will inadvertently fall foul of the earnings limit, because, in future, that threshold will keep up with changes in the national living wage.

On disability and carer’s benefits, we will continue to ensure that carers, and people who face additional costs because of disability or health impairment, get the support that they need, and we will set out proposals for reform of health and disability benefits in a Green Paper in the spring.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In my constituency of Horsham, food bank usage increased by 25% last year, and it has increased by 700% over six years. In the light of that evidence of the pressures, will the Government consider putting a minimum level on universal credit?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have seen representations along those lines. It is not something that we are considering at the moment, but we are, as I have mentioned, committed to reviewing universal credit, and we will do so over the course of this year. I imagine that we will be looking at a very wide variety of representations, and the hon. Gentleman and others will be very welcome to make submissions to us along those lines. Lastly, let me say a word about the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

Before the Minister gets on to the pension issue, may I just say that the order requires the Secretary of State to examine the effects of benefit uprating and the effects of the existing payment of benefits? What studies has he done on the effect of the two-child benefit cap? Secondly, last week we passed a welfare spending cap—a cap that, obviously, could be breached in the future. Will the Government revisit the whole idea of the welfare cap, with a view to abolishing it, so that we ensure that the motive force in deciding on benefits is the level of need, rather than an arbitrary figure decided by the Treasury?

[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]

Clearly, there are questions about the long-term sustainability of our pensions system and our national insurance fund, but I think the shadow Chancellor was talking about the very long term, rather than the immediate situation that we are in. There is no intention, on the Conservative Benches anyway, to review the triple lock at this stage.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

To clarify the position further, what happened was that the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party was asked on LBC whether she would look at the triple lock, and her reply was,

“we’re going to look at means testing. Means testing is something which we don’t do properly here.”

What did she mean by that?

[Danny Kruger]

My right hon. Friend replied, “No”, to the interviewer. We are not looking at means-testing the triple lock. She was talking more generally about the challenge of means-testing in our social security system, which is a legitimate question for us all to consider, as I shall go on to discuss.

I did not want to get too partisan in this debate, but—[Interruption.] Here we go! No, I won’t, genuinely, because the challenge of our welfare system is a shared problem that we face across the House. I will note in passing that our party’s record on welfare is a good one. We introduced universal credit, rationalising the spaghetti web of benefits that we inherited from the right hon. Gentleman when he was last in office. We made work pay and helped people off welfare and into work, and we succeeded in that, with 4 million more people in employment in 2024 than in 2010.

Let me point out that we had another mess to sort out in the public finances. When we took office, the Government were running a deficit of 9% and the Treasury was spending way more than it was earning. By the time the pandemic struck, the deficit was down to less than 1%. We were living within our means and were able to afford the generous uplifts made to benefits and pensions in the last Parliament, as well as the huge package of support that we provided during the pandemic.

I want to be fair and admit that, as the Minister suggested, the welfare system is not working properly at the moment. Too many people are being consigned to a life of inactivity and dependency, especially via the categories of sickness benefit. It is bad for those people, their communities and the country as a whole, including the taxpayer, who spends £65 billion a year on incapacity and disability benefits, rising to £100 billion a year unless reforms are made by the end of this Parliament.

So what is going on? Those terrible figures reflect the fact that we have bad rates of physical ill health, including obesity and, as is strongly evidenced in the statistics, bad backs because we simply do not move around enough in the day. The figures also reflect a rise in mental ill health, which we see in alarming rates in schools and among young people. We have to do more on those issues through all sorts of interventions that lie more with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care than with the Department for Work and Pensions. However, as the Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last week, the rise in welfare claims cannot be attributed to worsening health or longer NHS waiting lists; the problem is growing far faster than that.

Perhaps the problem is low wages that do not attract people into employment, and that is certainly a reality. Low wages have driven demand for the immigration that we have seen get so out of control in recent years. Profound changes are under way in the world of work, away from secure employment towards a more precarious jobs market. Labour is destroying jobs, taxing employment and discouraging new hires with its new Employment Rights Bill. However, the fact is that wages have risen sharply above inflation in recent years, which is why pensions are going up by earnings this year. Employers are offering good wages but are not filling vacancies.

The issue is not health, although we have problems in health; the issue is not work, although we have big problems there—the issue is welfare. People are not being incentivised to take jobs because the offer from the welfare system is better. When I say welfare, I do not mean unemployment support. Thanks to universal credit and the last Government’s reforms, we saw record numbers of people move off unemployment benefit and into work. That is because we offered support to people to find work and imposed strict conditions that meant people had to actively look for a job. If they did not, they lost the benefit. That worked for a lot of people, but we found—here is the issue—that for a lot of other people, the incentives made them go the other way, further away from work into the sickness category, because that is where the good money is. In some cases, the money is double what they can get on unemployment benefit, and sometimes £3,000 more than the minimum wage. People almost certainly get it because the approval rates are high at over 90% for the limited capacity for work category.

This is big and unconditional money. There is no expectation to do anything about the health conditions that mean someone is signed off sick. There is no expectation of being reassessed any time soon or, indeed, ever. That is the challenge, and I hope the Government will rise to it in the same way that we rose to the crisis in unemployment benefit in the last decade.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

With the leave of the House, I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate. There have been some helpful contributions on important issues. I am grateful for the support expressed for the measures in the orders, and for the kind things said about me, which I will enjoy while they last. Let me thank in particular the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), for drawing attention to the contributions of others who spoke in such debates in the past. He named Paul Maynard, David Linden and Nigel Mills, and he was absolutely right to do so.

I am particularly grateful to Nigel Mills for his help in the work of the Work and Pensions Committee, and I am delighted that the Committee is now in the good hands of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams). She made an important contribution to the work of the Committee in the last Parliament, and had an important and positive influence over the whole direction of the Committee. She highlighted, as she often does, the position of vulnerable benefit claimants and how they are looked after. I look forward to giving evidence to her in the Committee next week as work resumes on an inquiry of the Committee from the last Parliament.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who called for a taper in carer’s allowance. As he will have heard, the Chancellor announced in the Budget in November that we would look at the case for a taper. I hope to be able to update the House on that reasonably soon.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) for what he said. He was right to draw attention to the high level of support among young people for the triple lock policy, which matters right across the age range.

The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) was right to call for certainty about pensions. People need to know what the position will be when they reach retirement age. The last Labour Government reduced the number of pensioners below the poverty line by a million. Sadly, as we have been reminded in this debate, it has gone up again over the last few years. We want to get back on the better track that we were on before. That was picked up in the remarks of the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam).

[Seamus Logan]

Does the Minister agree that two measures that the Government could take that would make a serious impact on the levels of poverty would be to restore the winter fuel payment and abolish the two-child cap?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have already spoken in the debate about the two-child cap, and we will be coming forward with the report and strategy proposed by the child poverty taskforce. On pensioner poverty, I think that substantial measures will be needed, and we will come forward with those in due course.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking another intervention. He talked about planning for the future and people understanding what is going on with their pensions. We have the WASPI example where that was not seen to be the case. The new Government are making changes to inheritance tax and where pensions fall, but much of the public do not realise that that will have big implications for them as their pensions will be subject to tax and inheritance tax. Would he consider a campaign to let people know that that change is coming in the next year or so?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not quite sure what change the hon. Gentleman is referring to, but I certainly agree that people need to be confident about what the arrangements will be in the future so that they can plan accordingly. That is the one of the reasons why the pensions triple lock is important, as it gives people confidence about how things will be in the future.

We are: increasing the basic state pension and the new state pension in line with earnings growth by 4.1%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock; increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings growth by 4.1%; increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs and carers’ benefits in line with prices; and increasing working-age benefits in line with prices as well, at 1.7%. This year, GMPs accrued between 1988 and 1997 must by law be increased by 1.7%, which is the increase in the consumer prices index in the year up to September 2024. The GMP is important in giving people assurance about a level below which their scheme pension cannot fall. I commend both orders to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

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

Pensions

Resolved,

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

5. What steps she is taking to support vulnerable people into work.

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

We are fully committed to helping vulnerable people into work. It is good for them, it provides firms with great workers, it reduces the benefits bill, and it boosts economic growth. Connect to Work, which will be rolled out this year, will greatly improve support.

[Max Wilkinson]

One of my constituents is a highly educated, high-earning civil servant who has serious care needs as a result of a bad accident about 30 years ago. His needs have been assessed as health-related, which means that the NHS pays the £81,000 cost of his care. If they were reassessed as social care needs, he would be forced to exhaust his savings. Each year his disability is reassessed, and during that reassessment his ability to work is unfairly treated with suspicion. The Government say that they want to help disabled people into work, which is a good thing. My constituent is working already, but fears that a huge disincentive will appear on the horizon if his status changes. Do Ministers understand his concerns?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I definitely do understand his concerns. Our view is that disabled people should have the same chance to work—the same opportunities—that everyone else takes for granted, and we want to work with disabled people to reform the system to ensure that that is what they get. In the spring, we will publish a Green Paper on reforms to the health conditions and disability benefits system.

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

My constituency faces high levels of economic vulnerability: 4.4% of my constituents are not in education, employment or training, and, worse, one in 10 are either NEET or unaccounted for. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that they are helped into both employment and skills development?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I think my hon. Friend will greatly welcome the youth guarantee announced in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper. We want to ensure that every single young person gets the same chance. We have seen a dreadful increase in the number of NEET young people over the past few years, and we are getting to grips with that and tackling it.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

6. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of the Pensions Regulator on economic growth.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

23. What steps she is taking to support people with disabilities and long-term health conditions into work.

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

We will champion disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. Our “Get Britain Working” plan will support many more who were failed by the last Government to enter and stay in work. We will devolve power to local areas for a joined-up work, health and skills offer.

[Katrina Murray]

I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; prior to my election, I represented disabled members on the national executive of Unison. There are many barriers that prevent disabled people and those with long-term health conditions from not only entering but staying in the workplace, from a strict and punitive approach to attendance and sickness to a failure even to consider adaptations that make work possible. It is clear that employers have to be supported to make high-quality work accessible to disabled people. What work is my right hon. Friend therefore doing to engage employers in making work a positive and constructive experience for disabled people?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I commend my hon. Friend for her previous work. She raises a very important point. We have launched the “Keep Britain Working” review, which is being led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the ex-chair of the John Lewis Partnership. It will look at exactly the point that my hon. Friend raises: how to make workplaces and the wider labour market more inclusive, because we know, and employers know, that that is good for businesses and good for disabled people.

[Alex Ballinger]

As we all know, the last Government were far too quick to write off people who wanted to work but who had health conditions or were suffering with disabilities. Many people in Halesowen tell me that they want to work, and with the right help and support, they can. This will also bring huge physical and mental health benefits. How will the Government reset our relationship with people with disabilities, who for far too long have not been given the support that they need, but have instead been demonised by the Conservative party?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The manifesto on which he and I fought the election committed us to putting the views and voices of disabled people at the heart of what we do. In the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, we announced the establishment of a disability employment panel to enable us to work with disabled people, ensure that we provide the necessary support and give them the chances that my hon. Friend rightly calls for.

[Adam Thompson]

In 2019, my close friend and constituent Jim was at his desk, working as a web developer, when out of the blue he felt a sudden pain. Jim was having a spinal stroke. He has never since been able to walk. The pain medication that Jim must take to manage his condition limits his ability to work, but sometimes he has unpredictable bursts of productivity. However, Jim’s benefit arrangements mean that the work that he could occasionally be able to do might result in sanctions to his benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Jim can get back into work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend’s important point, which to some extent has already been raised, shows how the health and disability benefits system needs to be reformed. Disabled people should have the same right to work and the same opportunities and chances as everybody else. Many disabled people like Jim want the chance to work, but they face barriers, including in the benefits system, that make it very difficult for them to do so. We are determined to change the system to get over those barriers.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am sure that the Minister appreciates the important role of learning disability nurses in maximising the potential of people with learning disabilities. Will he therefore have a word with his Treasury colleagues about the differential effect of the rise in national insurance contributions? Learning disability nurses who work directly for the NHS are exempt; those who work for agencies contracted by the NHS are not exempt. That is an anomaly, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered talking to his colleagues about it.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am sure that the right hon. Member will raise that concern with the appropriate colleagues of mine. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the value of the work of learning disability nurses, whoever their employer is. We are determined that they should have better support to enable people with learning disabilities who want to work to do so.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The experience of my constituent Julie from Heaviley highlights the unfairness of the employment and support allowance application process for those with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis. She was assessed by a physiotherapist who lacked any expertise in neurological disorders; she thereby received inaccurate reports that denied her vital financial support. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure fair and timely support for those with progressive conditions that do not necessarily fit neatly into a box, as other disabilities or conditions may?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We want to improve the assessment process, and there will be proposals in the Green Paper on how to do that. If the hon. Lady would like to drop me a line about this particular case, I will be happy to have a look and comment further.

[Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)]

For 23 years, my constituent Timothy has attended Eastbourne’s Linden Court day centre for people with learning disabilities. Timothy’s mum, who is his sole carer, has spoken about how damaging it would be if Conservative-run East Sussex county council decided later this month to close the centre. Will the Minister join me in urging the county council to ditch this short-sighted cut, which would leave many Eastbournians and their families without the local provision they deserve?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I very much hope that people in Eastbourne will continue to get the support that, by the sound of it, has done a very good job for a very long time. I obviously do not know the details of this case, but it is important that we not only maintain but improve support for disabled people.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

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

I welcome the “Keep Britain Working” review but, according to last year’s DWP accounts, £4.2 billion of benefits were underpaid to claimants, and the claimants most affected were disabled people. What will the Government do to ensure that disabled people who may not be able to work get the money to which they are entitled?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is very important that disabled people get the money to which they are entitled. There will always be people who are not working, and we need to make sure there is good support for them. As I said a moment ago, we will set out our proposals on improving the assessment process in the upcoming Green Paper, but we are also very interested in hearing about the Select Committee’s proposals.

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

People living with disabilities in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton face many barriers to finding work, including lack of opportunities, poor transport and high childcare costs. How will the Minister support individuals living in rural areas to overcome the barriers to employment and help them to improve their overall quality of life?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We will be doing a lot to support disabled people into work and to remove the barriers that are too often in their way, as the hon. Lady rightly says. I have already referred to the disability employment panel we are setting up. We want to work alongside disabled people to make sure that we get this right and remove the barriers. The Connect to Work programme, which is being rolled out over this year, will do a lot to help. However, if there are particular problems in the hon. Lady’s area that she would like to draw to my attention, I will be very interested to hear about them.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

The media report that people in No. 10 are tearing their hair out in frustration at the DWP taking so long to come up with welfare reforms. We have already been waiting seven months, and now we are told it will be March before there is a Green Paper, and presumably there will be no actual legislation until the end of the year at the earliest—they will be totally bald in No. 10 by then! Given the constant rise in the welfare bill, what is the financial cost so far of Labour’s inactivity?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The inactivity bequeathed to us by the previous Government had a huge cost. The shadow Minister may not have noticed that, the week before last, a judicial review was lost on the previous Government’s handling of the work capability assessment changes. The judge found that the consultation was, frankly, dishonest—it did not tell people what the changes entailed—and was too rushed. People did not have a chance to give their views.

We will do this exercise properly. This spring, in the Green Paper, we will set out the full details of what we propose, and there will be a very full consultation so that everyone has a chance to have their say.

[Danny Kruger]

The answer to my question is £1.8 billion. That is the cost of Labour’s economic inactivity and its failure to reform welfare since the election. The sum is the same as the saving from cutting the winter fuel payment plus the income from taxing family farms. In opposition, Labour opposed imposing conditions on people claiming incapacity benefits. Does the Minister still rule that out, or will the Green Paper face reality and require people to take action, where they can, to address the health needs that mean they are signed off work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The Green Paper will face reality square on. It will set out a very full set of clear policies, it will be frank about what they entail and we will listen to people’s views in response. The money that the hon. Gentleman refers to as having been forgone, will probably have been forgone as a result of the judicial review the week before last, which was because of the previous Government’s failures in consultation.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

9. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the adequacy of levels of maternity and paternity pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

T3. Thank you, Mr Speaker.“We’re saving the government millions.”Those are the words of Stephanie from Burgess Hill, a full-time carer for her 89-year-old mum. With carer’s allowance not even covering Stephanie’s petrol costs, what assessment has been made of the adequacy of carer’s allowance in meeting the true costs of care?

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

The hon. Member will know that we introduced the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance for those who are able to combine some work with caring. We are determined that carers should get the support they need—there is a premium in universal credit as well, for example—but of course, we will keep all these matters under review.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

T5. As we have heard today, the Government have recently launched their “Keep Britain Working” review. Developments in treatment for incurable cancers such as the one I have mean that many of us with incurable cancer might live, and live reasonably well, for many years. How do the Government plan to engage with people with incurable cancers as part of that review, to ensure we are enabled to continue to thrive in our careers and our workplaces?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I commend the resilience of my hon. Friend. Before Christmas, I spoke at a report launch with the charity Working with Cancer, which focuses on exactly the issue she has raised. She is right: employers have a key role in supporting people with cancer to continue to thrive in work, and the “Keep Britain Working” review will engage with people with lived experience as well as employers.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

It is now nine years since the Scotland Act 2016 transferred a swathe of welfare powers to the Scottish Government. Are Ministers in a position to give a finite date by which the Scottish Government will actually have taken on all those powers and responsibilities? That is still not the case.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

T6. Many people with mental health conditions rely heavily on personal independence payments so that they can continue in work and remain active in their communities. Can the Minister provide advice to the many constituents of mine who have contacted me terrified by the rumours that the Government are about to scrap this vital support for those who already have mental health issues?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right that there has been a particularly big increase in mental health problems among young people. Given what the last Government did, I can well understand people being worried. We will continue to support people with mental health problems in the health and disability benefits system. The proposals for reform we will bring forward in the spring will make sure the system is fit for purpose and fair to the taxpayer, and they will deliver the support in work that people such as my hon. Friend’s constituents need.

[Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)]

The Child Poverty Action Group has reported that 4.3 million children in the UK are living in poverty. In a classroom of 30, that is nine children living in poverty. Given that the Government have ruled out scrapping the two-child benefit cap, will the Minister commit to publishing measurable targets for reducing child poverty during this Parliament?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Jamie from my constituency is a full-time carer, but he is also in full-time education and is therefore not entitled to carer’s allowance. Will the Government confirm that they will extend carer’s allowance to those in full-time education?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I recently met a very impressive group of young people who have managed to navigate their way through education while also having very heavy caring responsibilities. We are working closely with the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Carers Trust and the Learning and Work Institute to make sure that we are providing the support young carers need.

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

T8. My constituent Darren, an unpaid carer, was wrongly refused a refund for prescription charges when moving from income support to universal credit. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that there should be no gap in support in such circumstances?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for highlighting that case. We have asked the Department for Health and Social Care to review its decision in that case—I hope with a positive outcome.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The Minister will have heard several references to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report this afternoon. The report demonstrates not only that extreme poverty is rising, but that the only part of these islands where child poverty will fall in the next four years is Scotland. Is it not time that the Westminster Government took a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Hundreds of farmers and other small business owners in Westmorland who earn less than the minimum wage are not eligible for universal credit because of the failure of that system to take account of variability of income. Will the Minister look to put that right so that we can support the people who support us?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are committed in our manifesto to a review of universal credit and I expect to set out shortly the details of how that review will go forward. I will be very happy to look at the particular case the hon. Gentleman raises in the course of the review.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

We all know that the best route out of poverty is through well-paid work, but for families in my constituency, where a third of children grow up in poverty, low-paid and insecure jobs are a massive barrier. What will the Department do to help more families back into work and to alleviate poverty for children growing up in Southampton Itchen?

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Marie Curie research has found that 15% of the three quarters of a million end-of-life carers are living below the poverty line, rising to 22% a year after bereavement. Given these statistics, will the Minister consider extending the time that carers can claim carer’s allowance from two months to six months after bereavement?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We keep these matters under review. I have not looked at that particular proposal before, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line I will certainly give it a careful look.

[Mr Speaker]

Final question, Dame Meg Hillier.

Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme Levy 2024-25

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Written Statements

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

The Diffuse Mesothelioma Payment Scheme (Levy) Regulations 2014 require active employers’ liability insurers to pay an annual levy, based on their relative market share, for the purpose of meeting the costs of the diffuse mesothelioma payment scheme. This is in line with the insurance industry’s commitment to fund a scheme of last resort for persons diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma who have been unable to trace their employer or their employer’s insurer.

Today I can announce that the total amount of the levy to be charged for 2024-25, the 11th year of the DMPS, is £28.6 million. The amount will be payable by active insurers by the end of March 2025.

Individual active insurers will be notified in writing of their share of the levy, together with how the amount was calculated and the payment arrangements. Insurers should be aware that it is a legal requirement to pay the levy within the set timescales.

I am pleased that the DMPS has seen 10 successful years of operation, assisting many hundreds of people who have been diagnosed with diffuse mesothelioma. The ninth annual report for the scheme, along with the annual statistics, was published on 27 November 2024 and is available on the gov.uk website. I hope that members of both Houses will welcome this announcement and give the DMPS their continued support.

[HCWS401]

Children and Young People with Cancer

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Like everybody else, I am delighted to find you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Lewell-Buck

I welcome this debate, as well as the speech that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) made and the consistent attention he has paid to this issue since he was elected last year. I also welcome what all the others who have spoken in this debate have said. There is a lot that I would like to say in response, but unfortunately I have only four or five minutes in which to say it. I will have to cut my remarks rather short, so I might need to write to the hon. Gentleman with some of my responses, rather than putting them on the record now. However, I am glad that he has drawn attention to the fact that the Secretary of State has said he is reinstating that taskforce in our 10-year plan for the NHS, within which he has made it clear that he wants a separate cancer plan. It will be very helpful for the children and young people cancer taskforce to focus on identifying ways to include outcomes for this particular group of patients.

The debate has focused on the contribution of the social security system in supporting families of children and young people with cancer through the disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and the personal independence payment for those who are 16 or above. Those benefits are available if a child or young person’s condition or illness is long term and gives rise to care, daily living or mobility needs. The benefits contribute to the extra costs arising as a result of a disability or health condition. I will not claim that the support meets all the costs, as that would be incorrect, but they are a contribution—that is intention behind them.

The assessment for those benefits is based on the needs of the individual rather than on the condition, and many with cancer are eligible. The highest level of benefits can mean an extra £9,500 a year tax-free—the order of magnitude that the hon. Gentleman refers to. The benefit is usually paid to the parent of the child, and so can help with overall family finances, as they see fit. We are currently supporting about 3,000 children under 16 and 2,000 young people between 16 and 24 with cancer, with an average award of around £155 per week.

[Clive Jones]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way, but I will not have very much time.

[Clive Jones]

I apologise for leaving the Minister with only a few minutes. I have no idea what he is going to say, but I would like him to make some comment about Hugh’s law, and whether or not he supports it, because it would make a huge difference to every single family.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not able to announce a big change this afternoon along the lines that the hon. Gentleman has suggested, but I do want to comment—and would have done, if I had had a little longer—on the qualifying period. I have met the campaigners with their MP, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). They make a compelling and vivid case about their own experience, as well as the financial and emotional difficulties that they suffered as a result.

The qualifying period is there to distinguish between a short-term and long-term condition. It is not about fraud, as the hon. Member for Wokingham suggested might be the case; it is there to make that distinction, and it is quite an important part of the eligibility process for benefits. I am not able to announce a big change in that. Of course, we will keep these things under review. I have met the campaigners, and we will certainly listen to representations that come forward—

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

British Sign Language Report 2023-24

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to removing barriers and increasing opportunities for deaf and disabled people. The British Sign Language Act 2022 provides us with the ability to do this by creating a greater recognition and understanding of BSL, and also by requiring the Government to report on what each Department listed in the Act has done to promote or facilitate the use of British Sign Language in its communications with the public.

The publication of the first BSL report in 2023 provided a snapshot of the activity that had already been delivered by Government Departments in the first year since the Act gained Royal Assent, while also highlighting the areas of Government communication that needed further improvement.

The second BSL report, covering the period from 1 May 2023 to 30 April 2024, has been published. A copy of the second report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.

This second report summarises the progress Government Departments have made, and highlights where we have further to go. It shows that there has been an increase in the use of BSL compared to the first report—the overall number of BSL communications produced by Government Departments has more than doubled, from 76 in the first reporting period to 176 during the second reporting period. This represents encouraging progress but also shows that there are still improvements to be made.

This Government want to ensure disabled people’s views and voices are at the heart of all we do and ensuring that Government communications are made accessible to deaf and disabled people is essential in supporting us to achieve this goal.

This Government are committed to going further. We will be working with the BSL advisory board, deaf people and their representative organisations, and with Ministers across Government to continue to make tangible improvements for the deaf community.

We will publish a report every year for the next five years, going further than the frequency required by the Act. The next report will be published in July 2025.

[HCWS347]