Workplace Exposure to Silica Dust
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) on securing this important debate. I also pay tribute to her for her consistent work on this issue in supporting her constituent, Caroline Hudson, whose brother-in-law, George Elliott, tragically died of silicosis, as we have heard.
I am very pleased to see my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) in his place, as he invariably is for debates on health and safety matters, and to see the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), too.
I am the Minister responsible for health and safety in the workplace and for the Health and Safety Executive, or HSE. There has rightly been a lot of interest and correspondence lately about the increased dangers of silicosis resulting from engineered stone, the concerns that have been raised in this debate. Workers—often quite young people, as we have heard—who have worked with engineered stone have been made seriously ill or even, on occasion, lost their lives. I want to extend my deepest sympathy to all individuals and families affected.
We have been rightly informed that respirable crystalline silica—RCS—is a fine dust. It cannot normally be seen by the naked eye when airborne, but it does generally arise in visibly dusty processes. It is breathed in through the nose and mouth, can stay in the lungs for years and can cause irreversible lung damage before any symptoms become apparent. The illness it causes can continue to worsen after exposure stops. Breathing in RCS can lead to silicosis and the very serious harms we have heard about. It can also lead to other problems, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, as the hon. Member for Eastleigh said.
Every worker should be able to return home safe from work without fear of succumbing to a preventable deadly lung disease. Silica dust risks have long been recognised but we now know that engineered stone can contain very high concentrations of crystalline silica, as we have been reminded. What is particularly alarming in the past couple of years is the emergence of accelerated silicosis, which is linked to the processing of engineered stone containing high levels of silica at a much higher throughput without effective exposure controls being in place.
As one might expect, engineered stone can be processed much more quickly than natural stone and that means that the volume of silica dust a worker can be exposed to is much greater. As a result, we have seen across the world rapid onset of illness after quite short exposure periods, with severe and irreversible lung damage occurring. As we have rightly been told in this debate, all of that is preventable where exposure to silica dust is controlled. We are determined that it should be prevented. It is well known, as we have been reminded, that Australia introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, and California is now considering a similar approach.
It is worth noting, though, that the danger of silicosis arises from natural stone, not just engineered stone. Having introduced a ban on engineered stone in July 2024, Australia then introduced restrictions on the use of natural stone in September of that year. We are not currently proposing a ban in the UK, because we do not think that is the right approach. HSE is working closely here with the Worktop Fabricators Federation. That has developed, in conjunction with the British Occupational Health Society, for which I have a high regarded, a quality mark for worktops, to reassure consumers that they are buying a worktop that has been produced safely, not putting workers at risk. It has a logo and the wording
“strict silica safety standards applied”.
Being able to display that quality mark is dependent on the fabricator demonstrating to a registered occupational hygienist compliance with a 16-point list, including, for example, point number 3:
“The use of lower silica products (below 30%) wherever possible.”
Accredited products can now be bought from some retailers listed on the Worktop Fabricators Federation website.
As I said, we are going to keep this closely under review, though we are not currently proposing a ban on engineered stone in the UK. It would not solve the problem in workplaces that did not have adequate safeguards, because as I have said, problems can arise with natural stone. And the evidence is clear that workers can be protected from the dangers of engineered stone if the right control measures are in place. Those controls need to be in place now to make sure that exposure to harmful dust does not occur.
One difference with Australia is the concern there about the safety of people installing the worktops. That has not been raised with me as yet. The risk that we have identified here is to people in workshops cutting the materials ahead of installation. There is a serious problem there, but of course it is possible that the problem could arise in installation as well, and we will keep this closely under review.
A ban could lead to unintended consequences with alternative, less well-known materials introducing new risks. Last week, the Health and Safety Executive met Safe Work Australia—the body responsible—to discuss the impact of the ban there. It did an initial review and it identified potential concerns that the ban had led to complacency about the safety of other products that are not prohibited, suggesting that they were assumed to be safe to use without control measures when actually they are not. Control measures are needed for those products as well. But we are going to keep in touch with Safe Work Australia and keep the experience of the ban in Australia under review.
A lot of workers in Britain work with these materials every day. Workers and their employers need to understand that controls to prevent exposure are essential, not optional. For many decades, we have had in place a robust regulatory framework—the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations, known as COSHH. That includes the need for control measures, substitution with less harmful materials, and health surveillance. There is also a workplace exposure limit of 0.1 mg per cubic metre for working with silica. That ceiling must not be exceeded, but those with duties are required to minimise exposure below that level. The HSE has published a range of practical guidance—some of it very recent—for those where risks are highest. That is focused on the need to control the dust at source. But the law and guidance are effective only when followed, and it is here that the HSE is now focusing its efforts.
Over the last two years, the HSE has been building the evidence base, working with suppliers and developing an effective response. I was pleased to see the hon. Member for Eastleigh welcome that activity recently.
Sir Stephen Timms
Not just at the moment. I may be able to later.
Last month, the HSE launched a campaign specifically on this area of risk, with dedicated pages and resources on the HSE’s Work Right website. Media activity supported the launch; there was coverage in national publications and trade media, as well as the HSE appearing at the Natural Stone Show at the Excel centre in London.
Also last month, the HSE published new COSHH guidance for those working with engineered stone. Businesses now have unambiguous instructions on what the law requires for compliance to be achieved. The guidance sets out what is expected to protect workers: water suppression of dust and mist control, appropriate respiratory protective equipment and effective ventilation. Those are not optional extras; they are what is required to comply with the law. Dry cutting of engineered stone is not acceptable. It must not happen anywhere. When dry cutting happens, workers will be inhaling significant quantities of silica dust. Where it remains on their clothing, they are also potentially spreading that silica dust to others.
The HSE has also strengthened its guidance on health surveillance to make it clear that where there is a risk of exposure, employers must ensure that workers’ health is regularly monitored. That addresses the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh correctly raised.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for his comprehensive response. The dangers are significant for those who visit factories and quarry sites. The Minister outlined that there is a strict statutory need for protective clothing and respiratory mouth covers. Is that the true for people who visit these sites, so they are not affected by this as well?
Sir Stephen Timms
Employers need to take care that visitors to their premises are protected. What is being done includes making sure that workers at risk are having respiratory health checks, lung function testing and X-rays at intervals decided by an occupational health professional, and that employers have clear processes for identifying and reporting symptoms. In this debate, the importance of carrying out reporting has rightly been identified. The HSE is currently consulting on expanding the requirements in the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations to include silicosis once again. The consultation on that is under way, and it will conclude at the end of the month. The hon. Member for Eastleigh was quite right to raise that issue.
For those who choose not to comply with the law, we need effective enforcement. Starting in April and throughout the summer, HSE will be carrying out more than 1,000 inspections across the industry. It will inspect every place that we know of where this stone is being cut— if anyone knows of a place that we may not be aware of, please let me know; I want to make sure that HSE can go and look at it. HSE has carried out 13 inspections since they started at the end of April. Those were visits to places that concern was expressed to us about. Out of the 13 inspections so far, two businesses had ceased trading, but six of the remaining 11 were made to stop processing immediately. Prohibition notices were served for dry processing, unguarded machinery or both. Eight businesses received improvement notices for failing to provide the correct respiratory equipment, while eight received them for failing to provide health surveillance for employees. Just one of the 13 was operating in an exemplary way.
Through the programme, HSE will inspect every site it can identify in the country that works with engineered stone. HSE’s inspectors are being briefed on the programme this week. The resources are available to do the job properly, and inspections are under way across the country. Wherever standards are not met, enforcement action will be taken, including a prohibition notice if necessary. As a result of the inspections, HSE may give a duty holder advice or, where there are more significant concerns, issue improvement or prohibition notices that require a duty holder to make improvements or stop dangerous activities altogether. The inspections are now under way, and we are determined to drive out the poor practice behind the problems we have heard about in this debate.
We remain committed to ensuring that every worker in every sector is properly protected from this entirely avoidable harm. I welcome the contributions of Members who spoke today. I commend the campaign of The i Paper on this issue and all those who are working to highlight this important and alarming development. I will continue to monitor the evidence available in this country and keep an eye on what is going on elsewhere in the world. I will be very happy to consider further measures if it becomes clear that they are needed.
Question put and agreed to.
Historical Personal Independence Payment Claims
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
On 28 May 2026, DWP published statistics about two exercises which reviewed historical personal independence payment claims for people affected by the MM Supreme Court judgment or the LB upper tribunal decision.
MM judgment
The MM judgment was handed down in July 2019 and related to daily living activity 9 of the PIP assessment. It found that prompting should be considered social support when it is provided by a person trained or otherwise experienced in assisting people to engage in social situations. It also found that DWP should take account of social support given before and after a social situation, not just at the time of the interaction itself, depending on the needs of the claimant. DWP updated the guidance for new claims from 17 September 2020 to reflect the judgment.
On 20 September 2021, DWP launched an exercise to review historical claims from 6 April 2016 to 16 September 2020 that may have been affected by the MM judgment. DWP looked at cases where people with a psychiatric condition had previously been assessed as needing prompting and cases not previously awarded points for daily living activity 9 because of the timing of any support. A progress update on this exercise was previously published at: PIP administrative exercise for MM: progress report to 31 August 2023 - GOV.UK.
This exercise concluded on 17 November. The release sets out management information related to the exercise. DWP reviewed 350,000 cases and made 48,000 payments in arrears, totalling £270 million.
LB upper tribunal decision
The LB upper tribunal decision was handed down in November 2016 and related to daily living activity 3 of the PIP assessment. It changed how managing therapy or monitoring a health condition should be interpreted. The upper tribunal found that a combination of time spent supervising, prompting and assisting with medication and monitoring a health condition must be considered as therapy. The tribunal also made comments on when paying attention to the timing and nature of food and drink constitutes diet as therapy.
DWP updated guidance for new claims from 17 June 2019 to reflect the decision.
On 15 October 2019, the Department launched an exercise to review historical claims made between 28 November 2016 and 16 June 2019 that may have been affected by the LB decision. DWP looked at cases of people with diabetes and another condition, such as a learning disability or severe visual impairment.
The exercise concluded on 31 January 2024. The release sets out management information related to the exercise. DWP reviewed 44,000 cases and made fewer than 100 payments in arrears, totalling £188,000.
All reviews have been carried out by a case manager within the Department and no one should have seen their PIP reduced because of these exercises.
Although DWP has completed both exercises, claimants can still ask the Department to conduct a review of their case if they think they are affected.
[HCWS68]
Access to Work Backlog
Stephen Timms Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
The Access to Work scheme plays an important role in supporting disabled people and people with health conditions in, and into, work. The core ambition of the scheme is to ensure that disability is never a barrier to, or in, the workplace. The scheme is highly valued by the many disabled people it supports, disabled people’s organisations and employers.
Demand for Access to Work has risen sharply since the pandemic, with more than double the number of applications in 2024-25 than in 2018-19. Alongside this, we inherited a substantial backlog of around 57,000 cases awaiting a decision beyond the expected timescales.
I know how frustrating these delays are, and the impact they can have on the recruitment and retention of disabled people and people with long-term health conditions.
That is why we have already increased the number of staff working on Access to Work by around 30%—from 500 in March 2024 to 657 in March 2026—and continued to prioritise applications where a customer is due to start work within four weeks.
Thanks to the action and hard work of our colleagues, we have eliminated delays in making payments and cleared around 96% of cases where a customer was due to start work in four weeks within 28 days.
This is important progress, but there is more to do.
Today I am announcing a clear plan of action to clear the backlog in applications by September 2027.
We will recruit an additional 480 case staff to process the higher volume of applications. When recruitment is complete, we will have more than twice as many staff working on Access to Work as in March 2024. The recruitment process has already begun, and new case managers will receive extensive training to handle complex applications with confidence. This will ensure that disabled people and people with health conditions can receive timely support to secure and sustain employment.
This comes alongside wider work on Keep Britain Working, where Government are partnering with employers and stakeholders to develop practices and approaches to better support disabled people and those with health conditions in the workplace.
It is also important that we consider wider changes to the Access to Work scheme. We are keen to ensure that the scheme remains fair and sustainable. I know how important Access to Work is to the people it supports, so it is important that we take the time to get reforms right to deliver real improvements.
I have taken the time to consult widely and to collaborate with and gather evidence from disabled people, employers and representative bodies. I am now considering the insights from the collaboration committee process, the recent National Audit Office report and work with the independent disability advisory panel to help shape potential wider changes to the scheme.
This announcement is a great step to help deliver an Access to Work that is timely and efficient and can meet the new levels of demand. It will restore confidence in the capability of the scheme to award the right support at the right time, and sets a pathway towards wider improvements.
[HCWS34]
Legacy Benefits: Appeals
Stephen Timms Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Universal credit is modernising the social security system, improving value for money for taxpayers and ensuring people are better supported to move into work where they can.
As I set out in my statement on 20 April, the full transition from legacy benefits is due to complete by the end of June 2026, with the exception of a small number of customers who require time to find an appointee.
The Department’s “Move to Universal Credit” official statistics, published in May 2026, show that—as of 31 March 2026—2.4 million people across 1.8 million households have been notified of the need to make the transition to universal credit. Of these, over 1.5 million households went on to make a claim and approximately 815,000 households have been awarded transitional protection.
In 2020 the upper tribunal court determined that a customer claiming UC, even where a decision that resulted in benefits ending was later reversed, should not be reinstated onto legacy benefits. However, it also identified some such customers experienced a financial loss where their benefit entitlement was lower on UC.
Today we are launching the successful legacy appeals scheme. This compensation scheme follows the upper tribunal decision in R (on the application of TD, AD and Patricia Reynolds) v. Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2020] EWCA Civ 618. It aims to compensate certain people who had to claim UC due to a decision to end their means-tested legacy benefits including housing benefit, tax credits, employment and support allowance, jobseeker’s allowance or income support, and on claiming UC received a lower entitlement than their previous legacy benefit entitlement, and who later had the decision to end their legacy benefit reversed.
The scheme constitutes the response of the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to the determination of the upper tribunal and means that customers affected by similar circumstances do not need to seek redress through the courts or a tribunal.
[HCWS1176]
Work and Pensions
Stephen Timms Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Stephen Timms
Taking them one by one, the BRP extends the expiry date for the up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. That will prevent them from lapsing through no fault of the suppliers and will avoid very severe disruption. It also reforms emergency provision so that essential biocidal products such as aviation fuel preservatives and drinking water disinfectants can remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term. Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen between now and June, because then they would become non-available.
[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 April 2026; c. 5.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):
Sir Stephen Timms
Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen before then, because then they may become non-available.
Daisy Cooper
I had two separate questions. The first was whether any of the 173 active substances have faced sustained calls to be banned already. I recognise that none are banned, but have any of them faced calls to be banned because of potential damage to biodiversity or human health?
Sir Stephen Timms
I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June.
[Official Report, Third Delegated Legislation Committee, 21 April 2026; c. 9.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability:
Sir Stephen Timms
I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved until 31 July 2031, provided renewal applications are submitted.
Oral Answers to Questions
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
In the six months up to March last year, we appointed an additional 111 case managers to help deal with increased demand for child DLA. The current target is to clear 90% of new child DLA claims in 45 days. Performance has steadily improved, and I am pleased to say that in March we did hit that target.
Sarah Olney
Over the past two years, only 3.5% of applications for disability living allowance for children have been approved by the Department for Work and Pensions within its own target timeframe. Parents of children with disabilities work tirelessly to ensure that their children can have the same opportunities as everyone else, and the disregard the DWP has shown towards supporting their claims is unacceptable. One of my constituents has experienced those lengthy delays first-hand and an administrative error meant she did not even receive her first payment award. Will the Minister commit to urgent action to ensure that the DWP’s pathetic processing time for children’s DLA applications does not continue?
Sir Stephen Timms
As I said to the hon. Member, we did hit the 90% target last month. That reflects a steady improvement over the last few months. We are also introducing a new online evidence portal to improve evidence gathering, in particular from schools and people in education professions. That will also reduce delays, and we plan to roll that out fully in autumn. We are on the case and making significant improvements.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are determined that disabled people should have the confidence to try work. Our “right to try” legislation will come into force on Thursday. People claiming universal credit, new style employment support allowance and personal independence payment can take steps towards employment and be confident that doing so will not automatically trigger benefit reassessment.
Ben Coleman
I thank the Minister for that positive answer. Could he reassure my disabled constituents under the age of 22, many of whom are in education and low-paid work, that they will not lose their universal credit health payments? This financial support is vital to helping young disabled people, because they face the greatest barriers to work. Does he share my concern that removing it could push them further away from employment and deeper into poverty? Has an assessment been made of the impact on poverty of removing that support?
Sir Stephen Timms
There is an urgent need to address the big rise in the number of young people not in work, education or training that took place before the last general election. We think that better support might help young people more than extra cash. Alan Milburn’s review on the NEET problem more broadly will report in September; we will wait until then to decide whether to delay access to the universal credit health element until the age of 22. If we did do that, there would need to be exceptions.
Tom Rutland
Thanks to grant funding from DWP, my local Labour councils in Adur and Worthing are joining the Connect to Work programme, helping local people get into good local jobs. But for young people, including those with disabilities, being not in employment, education or training remains an issue. What more is being done to work with businesses and get more young people into the opportunities that they can thrive in?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much welcome the fact that my hon. Friend’s local authority is joining up with Connect to Work, which will be available across the whole of England and Wales by this summer. These regulations are a very important step forward. More needs to be done to give people confidence that moving into work or embarking on volunteering will not trigger a benefit reassessment. I also point him to our Pathways to Work guarantee, giving tailored personalised support to young people in the position that he described, and to the “Keep Britain Working” review by Charlie Mayfield, making employer vacancies accessible to my hon. Friend’s constituents and others in the position that he described.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
My disabled constituent Joanne was holding down a good job, but delays in Access to Work resulted in her not receiving the necessary support to stay in it. The Government’s new “right to try” initiative is a positive move, but will the Minister commit to resourcing vital support services like Access to Work, and to eliminating its backlog of over 62,000 cases as a matter of urgency? If not, we will find ourselves in the same position a year from now.
Sir Stephen Timms
The support provided by Access to Work is absolutely vital. There has been a big surge in demand for the scheme over the last few years, which has led to some significant delay. I am very sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent has been affected in the way that he described. We said last year that we wanted to reform Access to Work, and that reform is much needed given the greatly increased demand. We are working on proposals and as soon as we are able to put them before the House, we will do so.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It was a great joy to spend time last month in Kendal for the Disability Confident employer scheme. It is gaining more and more members in our community and is helping people with disabilities into work. Around 20% of working-age people live with a disability; many work, and many more wish to. What is the Minister doing to support Disability Confident employers, to make it easier for them to employ people with disabilities and to support those with disabilities into the workforce?
Sir Stephen Timms
I point the hon. Gentleman to the Keep Britain Working review, which Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading; it addresses exactly the issue that he rightly raises. We are also looking at reforming Disability Confident, which has huge potential—19,000 employers have signed up, I think. There is a lot of enthusiasm on the part of employers. We want to make sure that those who sign up to the scheme then progress up the levels so that Disability Confident makes a really significant difference. I am very hopeful that it will.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Department for Work and Pensions is currently reviewing over 200,000 cases of overpayments for carers, some of whom have accrued up to £20,000 through a situation not of their own making. In the light of this, will the Secretary of State stop applying carers penalties until the Department has completed this review?
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
As the hon. Gentleman has rightly said, we have now started reviewing those 200,000 cases. We anticipate that there will probably be 25,000 people among the 200,000 who could have debts cancelled, or could possibly be refunded. If carer’s allowance has been overpaid and should not have been, we will of course need to recover the money. The problem has been that the previous Government’s guidance in the Department was wrong. We have now corrected that, so I am hopeful that that particular kind of mistake will not occur again.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
The Timms review is supposed to be shaped by disabled people and disabled groups, but I am hearing constantly that this is not the case, and that they are feeling sidelined. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that there is true co-production, and that this is not just a tick-box exercise, and how the regions and diverse groups will be represented?
Sir Stephen Timms
I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that we are ensuring genuine co-production. Two co-chairs, Sharon Brennan and Dr Clenton Farquharson, were appointed last October. The three of us have recruited a steering group of 12; they are almost entirely disabled people. Our fifth full-day steering group meeting was in Manchester last Thursday. We have issued a call for evidence, which is open until 28 May. We have had over 10,000 responses so far, and I hope we will receive many more. That is just step one in a programme of wider engagement. This is genuine co-production that will deliver.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
Sir Stephen Timms
I welcome the hon. Member’s consistent interest in this important topic, and he will know that the SEND reforms that have been announced have been well received. Our youth guarantee will apply to young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and the trailblazers that we have set up are trying out new approaches, but I would be delighted to meet him and discuss how we can do this job.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I welcome the £2.5 million funding boost recently awarded to South Essex college; that will help equip even more residents from Southend and Rochford with the skills needed for fulfilling, lifelong careers. Following my conversations with Louisa Strachan, founder of Song School in Southend, on their desire for greater support for creative apprenticeships, can the Minister outline the steps that his Department is taking to support young people into the creative and music industries?
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Disabled people in England face a postcode lottery when it comes to the time in which they can use their bus passes. What conversations have been had with colleagues at the Department for Transport and the Treasury about removing those unfair time restrictions?
Sir Stephen Timms
I regularly meet the lead Ministers on disability from all Departments, including the Department for Transport; I know that my colleague there is particularly interested in transport accessibility for disabled people. I would be very happy to pick up with them the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
When a child is diagnosed with an illness such as cancer, their caring needs start immediately. Such a diagnosis upends any household; there are appointments, and often families are unable to work. Will the Minister review again the question of whether child disability living allowance should be paid immediately on diagnosis, as opposed to the family having to wait three months, and will he meet the Watson family from my constituency, who have, sadly, lived with this barrier to support?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member is right; there is a three-month period to wait after the onset of the incapacity or impairment. Sometimes I think there is a bit of confusion; people think it is three months after the application, but it is not: it is three months after the issue arises. That is to make sure that it is a long-term incapacity; that is what the benefit is there to support. I would be happy to have a conversation with the hon. Member about this. Of course, this matter is devolved in Northern Ireland, but Northern Ireland conventionally keeps in line with England.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Last week was Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Week. I recently met my constituent Rob Denham to discuss the issues he has had with claiming the personal independence payment in the past—he compared the experience with being put on trial. Will the Minister assure me, Rob and all those suffering with MS that the review that the Government are now conducting will not just make the system more effective and efficient, but make it fairer and more humane?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes. I was recently at a roundtable with someone who has multiple sclerosis who described to me the process of applying for PIP as “retraumatising”, rather like when she was initially diagnosed with MS. The steering group is determined to deliver a better system and when we report our recommendations to the Secretary of State in the autumn, I very much hope that that is what we will be able to do.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
One of my constituents in North Devon is a Royal Marines veteran who was just awarded over £2,700 in backdated universal credit, after the DWP failed to disregard his war pension from his monthly income. What can be done to ensure DWP staff understand armed forces pensions? Will the Minister assure hon. Members that this is not happening to other veterans across the country?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am very sorry to hear that the system was not properly understood in the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent. He is absolutely right that there is special treatment for compensation payments of this kind within the universal credit system. I will certainly talk to my officials about ensuring that those arrangements are properly understood in the Department.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The potential rapid closure of St Andrew’s hospital in my constituency puts over 3,000 jobs at risk. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what package of support we can put in place for those people to ensure they can find good quality work in my constituency?
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I welcome all Members to the Committee. I am very pleased to introduce this instrument, which was laid before the House on 24 February.
The draft regulations are important to keep our post-Brexit chemicals regime robust, proportionate and fit for the long term. They amend three pieces of chemicals legislation that we assimilated from the European Union, putting right things that could not be put right at the point of EU exit due to the limited powers available then under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am satisfied that they are compatible with the European convention on human rights.
The draft regulations maintain high standards of protection for human health and the environment, making sure that the regulatory system works efficiently for businesses, and supporting economic growth. In combination with the commitment of the Health and Safety Executive to aligning with the European Union’s regulatory decisions other than in exceptional circumstances, the draft regulations create a framework for adopting EU chemical hazard classifications more quickly in Great Britain. Chemicals stakeholder groups across the board broadly share the wish to stay as aligned with the European Union as possible, to support trade and to maintain the high standards of protection that we share with our closest trading partners, and this statutory instrument reflects those wishes.
It is very important that this legislation has been laid now, because the powers provided for in the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 expire in June, and no other suitable powers are available. The changes being made here are about keeping on the market things that are currently available. New things that are not currently available will still be subject to existing classification and approval requirements, and will be permitted in Great Britain only if the HSE has undertaken an evaluation of them, as is the case at present. There will be a fast track for classification evaluations, but only if the substance has already been subject to classification by a regime that adopts the United Nations globally harmonised system on the same basis as the UK—which means, at present, only the European Union’s. Substances approved elsewhere will not be eligible for fast-tracked evaluation in the UK.
The measures strike an important balance, giving more certainty and flexibility, with a more proportionate system for chemicals suppliers and the regulator, while protecting the natural environment from the risk of chemical pollution, protecting people who use and work with hazardous chemical substances, and retaining the benefits of important biocidal products, such as those used to provide clean drinking water.
The Health and Safety Executive’s chemicals supply framework is overseen through three regimes. First, there is the Great Britain biocidal products regulation, BPR, which controls the placing on the market and use of biocidal products—disinfectants, insecticides, and so on. Secondly, there is the Great Britain classification, labelling and packaging—CLP—regulation, which provides for the identification and communication of chemical hazards, adopting the UN globally harmonised system of classification and labelling. Thirdly, there is the GB prior informed consent—PIC—regulation, which governs the export and import of some hazardous chemicals.
Those regulations were carried over from EU law under the 2023 Act, which enables sensible amendments to keep those regimes operating effectively. The regulations before the Committee apply to England, Wales and Scotland, whose Ministers earlier this year consented to the making of the regulations. In Northern Ireland, EU chemicals legislation continues to apply under the Windsor framework.
The chemicals supply framework that we inherited from the European Union provided a high level of protection, but there are some structural and operational problems in applying it in a single country. We used, for example, to share access to the testing resources of all European Union countries; now we just have access to our own. Without these regulations, we would very quickly run into serious problems. Up to 173 active substances used in essential biocidal products would very soon lose approval and have to be removed from the market.
Those products include insecticides used to remove disease vectors from aircraft, disinfectants for infection control in hospitals, anti-fouling coatings needed by ships at sea, wood preservatives that protect businesses and homes, and other biocides that are important for public health. There would also be inadequate powers to issue temporary permits for critical products, so that it would no longer be possible for essential products such as aviation fuel preservatives and chemicals used to disinfect public drinking water supplies permitted under those powers to be supplied and used legally.
Businesses would continue to face unnecessary administrative burdens such as notification requirements that no longer serve any purpose, and the ability of the Health and Safety Executive to prioritise more quickly and flexibly chemical hazard assessments relevant to the Great Britain market would remain limited. At the moment, the HSE has by law to consider EU risk assessment committee classification proposals, including those that are irrelevant to this country. Exporters of hazardous chemicals would continue to have to carry out pointless tasks such as obtaining a special reference identification number that customs authorities do not use. I also want to make clear that there would be no corresponding benefits at all to health or to the environment.
Taking them one by one, the BRP extends the expiry date for the up to 173 approved active substances to 31 July 2031, provided that renewal applications are submitted. That will prevent them from lapsing through no fault of the suppliers and will avoid very severe disruption. It also reforms emergency provision so that essential biocidal products such as aviation fuel preservatives and drinking water disinfectants can remain available until an authorisation decision is made, where the need for use is long term. Of course, at some point it may be that a decision will be made that these products should not be available, but we do not want that to happen between now and June, because then they would become non-available.
The regulation clarifies and extends data protection rules to ensure that businesses investing in scientific data can recover costs consistently across all relevant approval routes. On 9 March, the Government announced that the biocides regime would be in scope of a new UK-European Union sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—agreement as part of the reset negotiations for the relationship between us and the European Union. We do not know the outcome of those negotiations, but the direction of travel, as the Government have made clear, is that the UK will follow a model of dynamic alignment with the European Union for biocide products.
The measures maintain important disease prevention and public health protections while enabling SPS agreement negotiations to conclude and any agreement to be implemented. The changes do not allow the introduction of new biocidal products that have not been evaluated and approved under the rigorous biocides regulatory framework, but rather maintain the availability of existing biocidal active substances and products that are already permitted under the current rules. The changes deliver certainty and continuity, not deregulation.
The regulation on classification, labelling and packaging introduces a streamlined procedure for seeking the consent of devolved Governments to update the mandatory classification and labelling list—the MCL list—by removing duplicative actions. It removes the obligation to automatically consider all initial EU hazard classification proposals—even those for products that nobody is interested in using in the UK—so that the HSE can prioritise what matters for this country and introduce a bespoke GB work plan, setting out the classification priorities for the HSE over a three-year period. The plan will be subject to annual review and agreed following consultation with the devolved Governments.
The regulation will also allow the Health and Safety Executive to respond to changes resulting from later European Union decisions; flexibility that the current regime does not allow. It creates a faster evaluation pathway for adopting EU classification proposals other than in exceptional circumstances. It relocates technical notes to the HSE website so that updates will no longer require legislation, making technical guidance more up-to-date and accessible, and revokes unnecessary notification requirements, eliminating the need for businesses to submit data that is no longer needed.
The changes simplify regulation and introduce greater flexibility to direct limited resources to hazard classification evaluations that are relevant in Britain. They maintain high standards of protection, and do not in any way change the legal requirement for the Health and Safety Executive to evaluate chemicals for mandatory classification on the basis of their being carcinogenic, mutagenic or toxic for reproduction. It will also be possible to legally require the assessment of other types of hazards, such as those in the new EU hazard classes, on a case-by-case basis, until the future legislation is introduced. That allows us to adopt EU measures if we need to and maintain coherent trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The regulation on the export and import of hazardous chemicals removes the redundant requirement for exports of small quantities of chemicals for use in research, analysis or emergency situations from Great Britain to have special reference identification numbers. It harmonises conditions for granting waivers where importing countries fail to respond to consent requests, removing a barrier to legitimate trade. It makes the Health and Safety Executive, as the designated national authority, responsible for reviewing and updating the GB list, reducing administrative delays and ensuring faster implementation of international obligations. It also aligns our updates more closely with the Rotterdam and Stockholm conventions, giving exporters greater clarity on prohibited substances. All those changes will streamline export procedures and maintain our strong commitment to our international obligations. They will not affect the import of chemicals to this country.
I want to comment on the situation regarding the UK internal market. Under the terms of the Windsor framework, EU chemicals regulations continue to apply in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland’s place within the UK internal market is important. The more efficient regulatory process and the more timely decision making, which enable alignment with decisions made in the European Union, are expected to have minimal impact on trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland within the UK internal market. There may be exceptional circumstances in which a different regulatory decision is made in Great Britain, but the potential impact on the supply of chemicals to Northern Ireland will continue to be a consideration in making such decisions.
Regulatory divergence has been a big concern following EU exit. In December 2024, the Northern Ireland Assembly applied to trigger the Stormont brake to ask the UK Government to prevent the application of new measures adopted into EU classification, labelling and packaging legislation. It was decided that the conditions for application of the brake were not met, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has committed to addressing the impact of regulatory divergence and to consider how to apply a consistent classification, labelling and packaging regime across the United Kingdom.
The powers in the 2023 Act, to which I have referred a couple of times, have not permitted us to make changes to introduce a consistent regime for classification, labelling and packaging now, in this statutory instrument. However, the HSE has committed to further work, throughout this year and next, on how to make updates to deliver a consistent classification and labelling regime in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within the UK internal market, using powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful for the Committee’s support for this statutory instrument. I will have a go at answering the questions raised. Is there a possibility that any of these 173 substances will be banned at some point? Did I understand that correctly?
Daisy Cooper
I had two separate questions. The first was whether any of the 173 active substances have faced sustained calls to be banned already. I recognise that none are banned, but have any of them faced calls to be banned because of potential damage to biodiversity or human health?
Sir Stephen Timms
I cannot say how many of the 173 have had such calls made in relation to them, but my guess is that some of them probably have because of the nature of the substances. As the hon. Lady says, they all have current approval. The statutory instrument just ensures that they carry on being approved beyond June. However, science is developing our understanding of the impacts of these substances on the environment and our health, and there may be a case to make about some of them. As I said, I do not have the information for the 173, but it would not surprise me if there were significant calls for some of them to be considered for removal. The point is that we do not want that to happen by accident because we did not have the powers to enable them to continue being used.
In terms of the exports that we are addressing in the third of these measures, the UK is a very responsible supplier, and those who supply from the UK are well regulated and behave conscientiously. As I set out earlier, the SI makes sure that if something is ordered to be exported from the UK, and there is no problem with it and there is no response when one has been requested from authorities, the export can continue. That is if there is no response. Clearly, if the response is, “No, this is not approved here”, or something similar, that product would not be supplied. We just want to ensure that what could be an impediment to legitimate trade is not imposed.
I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) has had the opportunity to contribute to the debate, given her a long-standing interest in this area. I did not catch all six of the questions, so perhaps she and I should correspond separately about some of them. She asked why all six new EU classes are not covered here. The question is what will happen at UN level, because our commitment is to align properly with the UN globally harmonised system. There is a question about how the six EU classes will relate to the UN system, and I do not think that we quite know the answer yet. Perhaps I can send my hon. Friend a fuller response on that point.
Ruth Jones
I would very much welcome that opportunity to talk to the Minister outside this Committee. In terms of the UN alignment, that is fine, but what happens when the UN has countries that have lower and weaker chemical regulations than the EU and the UK? What happens with the alignment then? Do we align down or up?
Sir Stephen Timms
No, we are only aligning with the very highest standards worldwide. The question is: what is the framework for that? We are adopting the UN framework, and we think that is the right one. There is still a question about what the EU will do in relation to the UN classification, but I would be very happy to discuss that further with my hon. Friend. It is not the case that, as she was concerned about, we might permit some things because it is a good idea on industrial production grounds, even if it is not a good idea in terms of human health, animal health or the environment. We are maintaining in these regulations—and indeed in future regulations in this area we are determined to maintain—the very highest standards of protection for human health and for the environment. There is no weakening there at all.
On my hon. Friend’s point about whether we should be aligning more closely, as I have indicated, it is our view that our chemicals regulatory arrangements should be aligned with EU arrangements in the future. This instrument is a step in that direction. There will no doubt need to be further debate and discussion once the current negotiations are concluded, but it is interesting to me that across the whole spectrum, from those whose primary focus is on maintaining human health and safety and the environment to those who are concerned about how much we can export from the UK and how much we can manufacture here and sell elsewhere, pretty much everybody agrees that we should be very closely aligned with the EU.
There are, as I said earlier, some areas where, given that we have quite constrained testing resources, we do not want to be required to test every product that is tested in Europe, if it is a product that is of no use or interest in the UK. There will therefore be instances in which our arrangements are not absolutely identical to the EU arrangements, but we want to align for very good commercial and also environmental and health reasons.
The regulations that the Committee is considering are a practical and necessary set of amendments. They prevent disruption to critical biocidal products that safeguard public health; they reduce unnecessary burdens on business while keeping protections in place; they enable the regulator to focus its resources on the hazards that matter to Great Britain; they strengthen the coherence, efficiency and future readiness of the chemicals regulatory system; they maintain the protection to human health, animal health and the environment; and they make the regulatory process more efficient by delivering a proportionate regulatory environment aligned with the country’s needs. I commend them to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026.
Legacy Benefits: Abolition
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
Transforming the way the Department for Work and Pensions delivers its services is key to ensuring that we improve the customer experience while delivering value for money for taxpayers.
The purpose of the “move to universal credit” programme was to modernise and simplify the benefits system by replacing older legacy benefits with a single, monthly payment. Completing the implementation of universal credit is critical to that outcome. Universal credit is now claimed by more than 8 million people and therefore plays a hugely significant role in the fabric of our society.
On 31 March 2026, we completed the transition of customers receiving income support and income-based jobseekers allowance to universal credit, allowing the Department to close these outdated systems. In addition, I am setting out my intention to close income-related employment and support allowance and applicable housing benefit on 30 June 2026. Giving sufficient notice and support to some of our most vulnerable customers was important in enabling everyone who wanted to transition to universal credit the time needed to make the move.
The DWP recognises that, for many people, engaging with universal credit is a very different experience from ESA, with the transition process highlighting changes to appointees for customers as well. I am therefore further setting out that the DWP intends to exempt customers who require time to find an appointee from the initial abolition date. The DWP will provide customers with the additional time needed while a personal appointee is found, or a corporate appointee is agreed, finalising a later date for final closure when it is safe to do so.
The DWP will proactively engage with customers and their representatives to support them in making the move to universal credit.
The Department’s “move to universal credit” official statistics, published in February 2026, show that—as of 31 December 2025—2.4 million individuals across 1.8 million households have been notified of the need to make the transition to universal credit across all legacy benefits, with over 1.5 million households going on to make a claim to UC.
The continued engagement and collaboration of our external stakeholder network has been invaluable in ensuring that we continue to move those who remain on legacy benefits across safely.
It is right that we now continue to review carefully the support that universal credit provides, that we make sure we understand our customers fully, and that universal credit remains fit for the next decade and beyond.
Leading the UC review, I have engaged with a wide range of organisations and people, including those with first-hand experience of claiming universal credit, those who support them, and those with expertise in the system and how it works. The DWP has hosted workshops, roundtables and focus groups, and undertaken research, including a survey of nearly 10,000 customers. This insight has proved invaluable and I thank those whose time has gone into fulfilling our manifesto commitment.
[HCWS1524]
Carer’s Allowance Overpayments
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) on securing this extremely timely debate, which is a welcome opportunity to set out some of the work that the Government have been doing in response to the concerns that she has raised. She is a very strong advocate for unpaid carers; she was before entering Parliament, as she said, and she is now as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. I echo her remarks about the significance of this year, which is the 50th anniversary of the introduction of carer’s allowance by Harold Wilson’s Government. It is right to mark and celebrate that.
My hon. Friend has spoken previously of how her mother cared for her grandmother for nearly 30 years. I think all of us can grasp how important and valuable the heroic scale of the contribution made by unpaid carers is, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Rushanara Ali) is right to draw our attention to the economic value of that contribution. The contributions of unpaid carers are vital to the family members, friends and neighbours they look after, but also to our communities, our country and our economy.
We inherited a dreadful situation in which some very busy, hard-pressed carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with large, unexpected debts due to alleged overpayments of carer’s allowance. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley gave a particularly clear example of the problem that arose, and I will comment on it a moment.
The Work and Pensions Committee, among others, including the Public Accounts Committee, looked at this problem when I was the Chair, and I am pleased to now be a part of a Government who are able and willing to do something about it. We made a very early move after we were elected—I think that it was in the first Budget after the general election—to increase the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit, as my hon. Friend said, to match 16 hours of work at national living wage levels.
As my hon. Friend said, that change from April 2025 resulted in the largest ever increase in the limit. It means that more than 60,000 additional people will be able to receive carer’s allowance between 2025-26 and 2029-30, but it is also important to note, particularly in the context we are discussing, that the chance of inadvertently slipping above the earnings limit is greatly reduced, because the limit will keep track with increases in the national living wage in the future. As my hon. Friend said, the earnings limit rose again to £204 per week from the beginning of this month.
People had a real problem in the past when the national living wage was increased, because their earnings that had been below the earnings limit went above it, and there was nothing to alert them to that; they had to monitor it themselves. Quite a lot of people were tipped inadvertently above the earnings limit, leading to an overpayment of carer’s allowance. I am very confident that the change we have made to keep the earnings limit in line with the national living wage will be a big step forward in reducing the incidence of overpayments in the future.
Anna Dixon
I had understood that we were also looking into opportunities to alert carers of potentially having breached the earnings limit. Is there anything in place to help communicate information from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP to carers?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I will come on to that, because there is some progress in that area.
As my hon. Friend said, having made the change to the earnings limit, we commissioned the independent review led by Liz Sayce, the former chief executive of Disability Rights UK and a well-respected and widely recognised expert in disability benefits. Her review was published in November and, in my view, she did a brilliant job. She really got to grips with what had gone wrong, and I echo my hon. Friend’s thanks to her. The report found that many carers had faced unexpected debts because of errors in the way that the DWP had applied averaging rules on fluctuating earnings. The guidance used by DWP staff since 2015 had not properly reflected the law, which permits averaging over a period when assessing whether earnings are above or below the earnings limit.
The case that my hon. Friend mentioned of somebody who was receiving income once every six months is a clear example of the problem. I do not know what the figures were in that case, but it may well be that if Helen’s earnings had been averaged over six months instead of being taken into account in one month, they would have been below the limit. That is exactly the sort of instance that we will examine in the reassessment exercise, which I will say more about in a moment.
We accepted 38 of Liz Sayce’s 40 recommendations in full or in part, and we have already made progress on more than half of them. I will set out those recommendations and what we have done in response, and I will pick up on a couple of my hon. Friend’s questions. The review recommended putting right historical overpayments caused by flawed guidance on the averaging of earnings. I am pleased to say that new and correct guidance has now been in place since the start of September 2025, but it was wrong from 2015 for 10 years.
We are now delivering the reassessment exercise that Liz Sayce recommended: reclassifying affected overpayments as “not recoverable”, refunding carers where appropriate, and applying a fair approach where records are no longer held by the Department. The reassessment exercise began yesterday, so this debate is particularly well timed, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having secured it.
As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set aside £75 million of funding for refunds under the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29. That is a three-year period; we are hoping we can complete the exercise in two, but just to be sure, we have allowed three years to ensure we can complete it properly. We are expecting to review more than 200,000 cases, so it is a major undertaking. As she said, we estimate that we will be reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for perhaps some 25,000 carers in the course of the exercise.
Rushanara Ali
I draw the Minister’s attention to a point about reassessment made in yesterday’s Guardian:
“the government has admitted its existing ‘business as usual’ overpayment recovery policies will be maintained while a full overhaul of the benefit is completed, in effect ensuring that carer’s allowance penalties will continue to be imposed.”
Can the Minister assure us that that is not the case and that these penalties will not continue to be imposed?
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me come to that point in a moment. I saw the article that my hon. Friend refers to. It is an important point, and I will address it in a couple of minutes.
My hon. Friends have quite rightly raised questions about accountability for the review’s delivery. We have appointed a senior responsible officer, and we have committed to update both the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on progress every six months. The review highlighted the need for clearer guidance and better communication with carers, particularly on earnings averaging, overpayments and reporting responsibilities, so we have revised the decision letters so that carers are clearer on how their earnings have been averaged and on exactly what changes they need to report and when.
We have also redesigned the overpayment communications to be clearer and to show more empathy, I hope, than was shown in communications previously. We have strengthened the signposting to independent advice and debt support, including to charities and free money guidance, and we have made it clearer how carers can ask questions, challenge decisions or agree affordable repayment plans. We are continuing to test and develop the letters and the guidance, and there has been recent user research to assess clarity, understanding and impact.
We are planning further improvements. I want to express my appreciation for the carers organisations, particularly Carers UK and the Carers Trust, that we have been working with. They have put a good deal of work into this, together with the Department, to try to ensure we get these communications right. I hope that is going to be a significant improvement.
The Sayce review pointed to the lack of awareness and take-up of carers’ national insurance credits. We want to make sure that carers understand what they are entitled to, so we have been reviewing our letters and guidance to increase awareness. The review recommended reducing the impact of the earnings cliff edge while longer-term reform is developed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley quite rightly pointed out, if someone is a penny over the earnings limit, they are not entitled to any carer’s allowance; that has been the case ever since 1976.
We have commissioned research on the impact of the higher earnings limit, which is now being regularly updated, unlike in the past, and commissioned behavioural research to inform future policy decisions, including changes to regulations, short-term mitigations and longer-term reform, including a taper. In the end, I think that will be the answer: instead of an earnings cliff edge or cut-off limit, there should be an arrangement so that the carer’s allowance reduces in a tapered way. It will take some time to develop that and put the IT in place and so on, so we are looking at what we can do in the meantime.
As my hon. Friend touched on, the review recommended better join-up between carer’s allowance, universal credit and other benefits. We are aware that a considerable burden is placed on carers, requiring them to resolve offsetting issues themselves. We have accepted Liz Sayce’s recommendation, and we will put in place an automated solution. While we develop that—again, that will take a while—we will put in place a manual workaround.
The review recommended tackling backlogs and identifying overpayments earlier. We have reduced the backlog of automated earnings notifications from HMRC. We now process those alerts much faster, allowing issues to be identified more quickly—another point raised by my hon. Friend. In future, we want to follow up on all those alerts, not just about half of them as we did in the past, so that we can draw people’s attention to problems as they arise. Taken together, those actions are about listening to carers, fixing what went wrong, supporting people better and modernising carer’s allowance in the future.
In response to the review’s recommendations on faulty averaging guidance, we will reassess carer’s allowance cases that might have been affected. A number of people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, have raised the question of why we did not pause all carer’s allowance earnings overpayments action pending the review’s outcome. My answer is that we have been clear about our approach all along: we have to balance fairness for carers with our duty to taxpayers. If money has been paid out incorrectly, it needs to be recovered. We have retained that position as the review was under way.
In most cases, the Department already holds enough information to carry out the reassessment, and affected carers will not need to take action unless the DWP asks for additional details. For older overpayment cases, dating back to 2015 or perhaps a few years after that, the DWP may no longer hold the relevant data and information: we are required to retain data only as long as it is needed for the purpose for which it was collected. The Department will open a simple online form to allow people to submit the relevant information. We are aiming to do that in November this year.
The Department will work closely with organisations supporting carers who think they may have been affected to register for reassessment on gov.uk. Everybody whose case is reviewed will be notified of the outcome, including whether their overpayment has been confirmed or changed. Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is, or might be, involved in the reassessment exercise will be available, at no cost, from the Department or trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust—I thank them again.
Hon. Members have asked how progress will be tracked. The reassessment exercise is part of our broader response to the independent review and, as I have said, we have committed to updating the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee on our progress every six months. Those updates will include statistics on progress, and they will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. We will also put some information in our annual report and accounts.
Rebuilding trust requires honesty, accountability and action, and that is the approach we have aimed to take throughout this process. We have to fix the problems and correct the mistakes; the work of unpaid carers is too important and too valuable not to do so. More broadly, we want to improve and modernise carer’s allowance to make it easier for unpaid carers to combine their caring responsibilities with paid work where they are able to, and better reward them for doing so. We will also ensure that those receiving carer’s allowance and universal credit receive a more joined-up service than they have in the past. We owe that to those who provide such a vital service to our fellow citizens.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, the all-party parliamentary group and the Committees represented in the debate will scrutinise how we deliver on those aims very closely. They are absolutely right to do so.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Independent Review of Carer’s Allowance Overpayments: Progress on Response
Stephen Timms Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Government published the report of the Independent Review of overpayments of Carer’s Allowance linked to earnings, and the Government’s response to its recommendations, on 25 November 2025—the review can be found on gov.uk. Today I am providing an update on progress in responding to those recommendations, including more detail on our plans to reassess cases that may have been subject to faulty guidance on the averaging of fluctuating earnings.
The Government inherited a system where some busy carers, already struggling under a huge weight of caring responsibilities, found themselves with unexpected debts due to overpayments of carer’s allowance. The independent review, undertaken by Liz Sayce, showed that mistakes were made, and we are determined to put them right. We welcomed the report and accepted, or partially accepted, 38 of the 40 recommendations. We have already made around half of the changes that the report recommended. Work has begun on the others, but some changes will take more time to put in place.
As part of their response, the Government committed to reassessing carer’s allowance cases that may have been affected by faulty guidance on the averaging of irregularly fluctuating earnings. This guidance, which was in place between April 2015 and September 2025, did not accurately reflect the statutory position. I am pleased to announce that the reassessment exercise will begin today, 13 April 2026. Funding of £75 million has been provided for the exercise in the financial years 2026-27 to 2028-29.
The Department for Work and Pensions expects to review over 200,000 cases, potentially reducing, cancelling or refunding debts for around 25,000 carers.
For the vast majority of cases, the Department has all the information it needs to reassess the case, so there will be no need for most people to do anything. The Department will contact them by SMS and letter if it needs any further information in order to conduct the reassessment.
For other, older cases, the Department may no longer hold information because GDPR rules state that personal data must be kept only for as long as necessary for the purpose for which it was collected. For these cases, the Department will open access to a straightforward online form for people to complete. We aim to do this in late 2026, building on learned lessons from the reassessment of cases for which we already hold the relevant data. The Department will work with organisations supporting carers to encourage people who think they may have been affected to register via the online form for a reassessment.
We will also let people know once their cases have been reassessed and whether any overpayment has been reduced as a result of the reassessment.
Although the independent review covered England and Wales, at the request of the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, the reassessment exercise will include relevant carer’s allowance cases in Scotland, including those that were administered by the Department on behalf of Scottish Ministers between September 2018 and September 2025.
Advice and support for anyone whose carer’s allowance case is or might be involved in the reassessment exercise will be available—at no cost—from the Department or from trusted partner organisations such as Carers UK and the Carers Trust.
The Department has committed to update the Public Accounts Committee and the Work and Pensions Committee every six months on progress in the implementation of the Government’s response to the independent review. This will enable the Committees to scrutinise progress and hold the Department to account. Information will also be included in the Department’s annual report and accounts.
[HCWS1488]