Third British Sign Language Report: 2024-25

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to ensuring that our communications are accessible and inclusive, and to reducing the barriers deaf people face in their everyday lives. The British Sign Language Act 2022 supports this by creating a greater recognition and understanding of BSL, and requires the Government to report on what Departments listed in the Act have done to promote or facilitate the use of BSL in their communications with the public.

The first report, published in July 2023 under the previous Administration, set out a baseline of activity delivered by Government Departments, highlighting the areas of Government communication that required further improvement. The second report, delayed due to the UK general election, was published in December 2024 and showed that there had been an increase in the use of BSL compared with the first report.

Although the BSL Act requires a report to be published every three years, this Government are committed to increased reporting frequency to ensure we drive progress. The third BSL report, covering the period from 1 May 2024 to 30 April 2025, has now been published. A copy of the third report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on www.gov.uk.

This third report demonstrates an increase in the usage of BSL by Government Departments in public-facing communications since reporting started in 2023. The overall number of new BSL communications produced by Government Departments has not increased since the last reporting period—it was 176 in the second reporting period, falling to 140 in this reporting period—due to a pause in Government activity through the pre-election period in 2024. This still represents an overall increase since the first reporting period, when the overall number was 76. In addition, although they are not counted in the data for the third reporting period, it is important to note that some of the content and publications produced in earlier reporting periods remain valid and are continuing to provide up-to-date information to BSL users. It is also encouraging to see that some Departments have published BSL activity for the first time. However, it is clear that there is still more that can be done.

This year, each ministerial Department has been asked to produce a five-year BSL plan, setting out how it plans to improve the use of BSL within its Department. For many, this includes increasing awareness of BSL across the Department. These plans are published by each Department alongside the third report.

This Government want to ensure that disabled people’s views and voices are at the heart of all we do. Government communications being 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, with deaf people and their representative organisations, and with Ministers across Government, including our lead Ministers for disability, to continue to make tangible improvements for the deaf community.

We will continue to publish a report on an annual basis up to 2027, going further than the frequency required by the Act. The next report will be published in July 2026.

[HCWS861]

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

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

[Rachael Maskell]

The hon. Member advocates powerfully for his constituent and all those with fluctuating conditions, who never know how they will fare, perhaps because of the season of the year. Some people may develop more chest infections over the winter while being well for the rest of the year, yet they will be receiving a health element of just £50 a week, not £97 a week.

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

Will my hon. Friend recognise how the Bill protects people in exactly the situation that she describes? Those who receive the universal credit health premium at the moment will be fully protected, and once they go into work they are likely to continue to receive universal credit, so their protection will carry on. If their income exceeds the universal credit level, there will be a further six months when they are earning at a significant level when if they come out of work afterwards they will come straight back on to the position they were in at the start. There are very strong protections for exactly the people she is describing.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for that intervention from the Minister. This is where this gets incredibly technical. There cannot be an assumption that all of those people are on low wages. Many of them have worked all their lives as their condition has developed and are therefore in the later stages of their career, so their salary perhaps does exceed the thresholds. With many of the conditions I have listed and many more, someone could have a period of remission for eight or nine months, or even more, and they would therefore not be able to continue with the six months of support. They will exceed that and would be seen, according to our previous discussions, as a new claimant, and would drop to £50 a week rather than remaining on £97 a week.

My amendment will protect those people. It will also protect people with cancer, who could recover, go back to work and then receive the news that the cancer has returned or metastasised. If they then lose their job, do they go back to £97 a week or £50 a week? Can they eat or not eat? As if life was not hard enough for them, they may then receive that shattering news. My amendment would be a remedy for those people and for the many who need this support.

I worry that without such a guarantee—and with the single assessment, to be co-produced by the Timms review, according to “Pathways to Work”—we do not know either whether the eligibility criteria for qualifying for the UC health element, because of its association with PIP, will be more or less stringent than they are now; the Bill does not say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

No! The Timms review is about personal independence payment; I am talking here about are the descriptors relating to limited capability for work—they are totally different things. I do not understand how the Timms review could possibly cover this paragraph, because it is about personal independence payment and the assessment process for that. If it is covered by the Timms review, why have the Government not removed it from the Bill? Why is there not a clause in the Bill right now that removes the severe conditions criteria and that specific paragraph?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The form of words in the Bill, including the word “constant”, exactly replicates the way the severe conditions criteria are applied at the moment. The “constant” refers to the applicability of the descriptor. If somebody has a fluctuating condition and perhaps on one day they are comfortably able to walk 50 metres, the question to put to that person by the assessor is, “Can you do so reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable time?” If the answer to that question is no, the descriptor still applies to them. The question is whether the descriptor applies constantly. If it does, the severe conditions criteria are met.

[Kirsty Blackman]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

I will speak to amendment 17, which I tabled with the support of 62 Members from across the House. It would ensure that if a person has a fluctuating condition such as Parkinson’s or multiple sclerosis, that is a factor in considering whether they meet the severe conditions claimant criteria.

I have been working with Parkinson’s UK, and as the new chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Parkinson’s, I have heard concerns from those living with the condition, and their carers and families, about the problems they already face in accessing support through the welfare system, because of fundamental misunderstandings about the fluctuating nature of the condition. Those concerns have been exacerbated by the Bill, particularly paragraph 6 of schedule 1, which states that in order to meet the severe conditions claimant criteria,

“at least one of the descriptors…constantly applies.”

Someone with Parkinson’s, MS, ME or other similar conditions may be able to carry out one of the activities in the descriptors such as walking for 50 metres or pressing a button in the morning, but then not be able to do so by the afternoon. Under my initial reading of the Bill, that means that someone with Parkinson’s could never be a severe conditions criteria claimant because they would not meet the descriptor “constantly”.

I thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement with me on this matter, but the language used in the Bill has caused concern and fear for those with Parkinson’s. As the Minister has helpfully said, and as he explained to me prior to the debate, much of the explanation that I have received centres around existing guidance that a person must be able to undertake the activity in the descriptor “repeatedly, reliably and safely”. If they cannot, the criteria will count as applying constantly and they will be considered a severe conditions criteria claimant.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for all the work he has done on this, and for helpfully highlighting that concern. It might help if I read briefly to him what the current training material for people applying the severe conditions criteria says about what level of function will always meet limited capability for work and work related activity:

“Although this criterion refers to a level of function that would always meet LCWRA, this does not in any way exclude people diagnosed with a condition subject to fluctuation or variability.

The key issue is that the person’s condition is not subject to such variability that their function would ever be significantly improved from the LCWRA descriptor identified”.

I hope that that, together with my earlier intervention, will give some reassurance to my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. If someone can work, they should. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) was absolutely right to remind the House that that principle underpinned the creation of the welfare state by the post-war Labour Government. If someone needs help into work, the Government should provide it, and those who cannot work must be able to live with dignity. Those are the principles underpinning what we are doing.

The UK, uniquely in the G7, has a lower rate of employment today than we had before the pandemic. My hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) and for Hendon were right to point out that that is uniquely a UK problem. In large measure, it is because of the traps in the universal credit system that this Bill addresses. The system needs to be fixed and it is urgent to get on and do that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) was right to point out to the House that delay is not the answer. The delay being called for by the Conservatives is not the right way forward. Abandoning people, in the way the system has for years, has been catastrophic. There are 2.8 million people out of work on health and disability benefits, and hundreds of thousands want to be back in work and say they could be, if only they had the support to get back into a job. We are determined to provide them with that support.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

When the Bill started its life, the Government were advocating for cuts for PIP and UC health claimants now and in future. They conceded that now was not right and that it was only for future claimants. Then they conceded that it should not be PIP claimants in future, leaving only UC health claimants. Does my right hon. Friend understand the anxiety and confusion that this has caused people in the disabled community? Would it not be better to pause, wait for the review and do it properly?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, because reform is urgently needed. We were elected to deliver change and that is what we must do.

It is particularly scandalous that the system gives up on young people in such enormous numbers, with nearly 1 million not in employment, education or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) was absolutely right to highlight that point. We need to get on and tackle the disability employment gap.

The Bill addresses the severe work disincentives in universal credit. It protects those we do not ever expect to work from universal credit reassessment, and the poverty impact assessment, which has now been published, makes it clear that 50,000 children will be lifted out of poverty. We are rebalancing support here.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s generosity, which he always shows in this Chamber. Based on the poverty assessment, he now says that 50,000 children will be uplifted and taken out of poverty. Given that the decision was taken because of the fiscal impact of the Chancellor’s Budget, I asked him last week about the £5 billion of savings that then became £2.5 billion. He then said that he had not costed his decisions, which would have put an extra 150,000 children into poverty. Will he tell the House how much extra the measures on which he has capitulated will cost the taxpayer?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the same answer that I gave him last week, which is that the figures will be published by the OBR in the usual way.

A number of amendments that have been discussed relate to clause 5, which, as the House knows, we are removing through Government amendment 4, so the Bill will make no changes to PIP. Parallel amendments to schedule 2 cover Northern Ireland and, as has been pointed out, Government amendment 5 changes the Bill’s name, once enacted, to the Universal Credit Act 2025. We will now make PIP fit and fair for the future with the wider review to conclude by autumn next year. The Opposition’s amendment 45, on face-to-face assessments, therefore no longer fits in the Bill, but I would say to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), that we are indeed going to get ahead with increasing the number of face-to-face assessments, and the point that he needs to recognise is that that should have been done after the pandemic and it was not done. We are getting on and fixing the problems.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for giving the House, in her new clause 11, a helpful checklist of the desirable features of our co-produced review. I have committed to Disability Rights UK and to others that I will shortly discuss these matters with them, but let me set out my thinking now in response to my hon. Friend’s new clause. I accept subsection (1) of her new clause. The UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities has featured a bit in this debate—my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) referred to it, as did others. To quote article 4.3 of the convention, we should

“closely consult with and actively involve persons with disabilities”

in carrying out the review. I accept the point, made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, that that is what co-production entails.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Ms Creasy]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me make just a little more headway. I will give away a little bit later.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge and I have discussed, I do not agree that the review must be finished within 12 months. We want to complete the review by autumn of next year, and with no four-point threshold, I do not think it is in anybody’s interest to rush it. I accept her proposal, in subsection (4) of her new clause, for a group to co-produce the review, not so much to provide independent oversight as to lead and deliver it. I will chair the group, and we will work with her and others to include disabled people with lived and professional experience in its leadership and in shaping its meetings, with around a dozen members and with capacity to engage others as needed on specific topics.

My hon. Friend has made helpful suggestions for who some members of the group might be. We will want disabled parliamentary representation to be involved in the process as well, and arrangements to involve disabled people more broadly. I agree with her that the majority of the group’s members need to be disabled people or representatives of disabled people’s organisations, and that they need to be provided with adequate support, including towards their costs of travel and taking part.

[Dr Tidball]

I am grateful to the Minister for accepting so many aspects of new clause 11 and for his assurances from the Dispatch Box. I will not be pressing the new clause to a vote if he can offer further assurances that there will be sufficient links between the Timms review recommendations and subsequent legislation on PIP to ensure accountability and that the voices of disabled people are heard.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance, yes. The outcome of the review will be central to the legislation that follows.

[Steve Darling]

I really welcome the fact that disabled groups are going to be meaningfully engaged, according to the Minister’s proposal, and I look forward to seeing the full details of that, but how will carers’ groups be engaged as well? I would welcome some assurance on that.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman raised that point very reasonably in the debate, and it is certainly something we need to consider as well.

[Ms Creasy]

I welcome the commitment to work with disabled people. The Minister will know that the difference between consultation and co-production is that every participant has to have a veto of the outcomes in order to co-produce. Otherwise, with the greatest will in the world, it is just another form of consultation. Can he give us an assurance that disabled groups will have a veto over the proposals, to engage the consultation process?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We will aim for a consensus among all those taking part, and that is what I hope we will achieve.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Vicky Foxcroft]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will not give way for a moment or two.

On Parliament’s handling of the review outcome, which is also raised in new clause 11, I would envisage a ministerial oral statement. I can commit on behalf of the Government that there will then be a general debate on it, in Government time, and that the legislation to implement the review outcome will not be brought forward until that has happened.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Not just at the moment.

Clause 1 introduces the first ever sustained above-inflation rise to the universal credit standard allowance. The previous Government ran universal credit down. They did not uprate it; they froze it, forcing mass dependence on food banks. The increase is accompanied by a reduction, as we debated, in the health top-up for most new claimants, as set out in clause 2.

Clause 3 set out that the health top-up would be frozen until 2029-30 for existing claimants and for those with the most severe lifelong conditions or those near the end of life. The Government amendment means that, for existing claimants, the standard allowance plus the health top-up will rise at least in line with inflation up to 2029-30. That also applies to people with severe lifelong conditions who we do not ever expect to work and those near the end of life. Clause 4 and the amendment to it mirror the universal credit changes in employment and support allowance.

The Bill will protect existing claimants in a powerful way, including those with fluctuating health conditions, but it will move decisively to a more proactive, pro-work system. That is what we need, and the protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment—

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Foxcroft]

rose—

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me make just a little more headway.

The protection for those who are on universal credit at the moment and who are on the LCWRA rate is that if they go into work, they are likely—depending, of course, on their income—to stay on universal credit, so that protection will continue while they are in work. If their income rises to the level where they are lifted off universal credit, for six months they will retain that protection, and if they go back, they will return to their original rate, so there is very strong protection there.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, I will not give way.

Some amendments seek to change the new universal credit arrangements. The increase to the standard allowance—the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of out-of-work benefits for decades—is an important step forward, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) highlighted. Balancing that with a lower health top-up for most new claims is key to tackling—

[Graham Stuart]

On a point of order, Madam Chair. We were told that the Bill was going to bring a £5 billion saving to the Exchequer, then it was £2.5 billion. Is it in order not to have any idea what this will cost the taxpayer?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

That is a point of debate, not a point of order. Continue, Minister.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

Will the Minister ensure that the universal credit health element forms part of the co-produced Timms review when reviewing the assessment process, as the UC health element will be assessed under the new PIP assessment? Furthermore, can we ensure that all disability benefits and support are in scope, so that we can truly get an assessment process fit for the future?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right that the Green Paper set out our proposal that the PIP assessment will in future also be the gateway to the universal credit health top-up, giving it indeed a broader role. Our aim is specifically a co-produced benefit assessment. If that works well, there may well be a strong case to apply the same approach, maybe even using the same or a similar group to other challenges, and perhaps including other aspects of the health and disability benefits system, but that would need to follow successful completion of the task immediately in hand.

Let me finally make an important point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and others. The severe conditions criteria in the Bill exactly reflects how the functional tests are applied at present. That is in guidance. It is being moved in this Bill into legislation. It does take account of Parkinson’s and MS because people need to meet these descriptors reliably, safely, repeatedly and in a reasonable timeframe, so I can give a firm assurance to those concerned about how the severe conditions criteria will work for those with fluctuating conditions. The word “constantly” here refers, as I said in my earlier intervention, to the functional criteria needing to apply at all times, not to somebody’s symptoms.

This Bill begins to repair a broken system that holds people back, by removing work disincentives from universal credit. We will provide record employment support for disabled people, for people with health impairments—

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

Stephen Timms Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Pakes]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point. I would, if possible, give my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability Duracell batteries to turbocharge his work in this area.

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

During this debate, my hon. Friend and others across the House have raised concerns that the changes to PIP are coming ahead of the conclusions of the review of the assessment that I will be leading. We have heard those concerns, and that is why I can announce that we are going to remove clause 5 from the Bill in Committee. We will move straight to the wider review—sometimes referred to as the Timms review—and only make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors following that review. The Government are committed to concluding the review by the autumn of next year.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would be grateful for your clarification. We have just heard that a pivotal part of the Bill, clause 5, will not be effective, so I ask this: what are we supposed to be voting on tonight? Is it the Bill as drawn, or another Bill? I am confused, and I think Members in the Chamber will need that clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

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

We have had a passionate and eventful debate. We have heard the concerns, and the Government will amend the Bill, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have set out, but the system we have inherited does not work. Uniquely in the G7, our employment rate is still lower than before the pandemic. Every other G7 country has got back to where it was before, or better, but we have not. The system is trapping hundreds of thousands of people needlessly in low income and inactivity. It tells people that they cannot work, and for many of them that is simply untrue. We have to change that.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

I am sorry to come in so early in the Minister’s peroration, but we have limited time. Can I have the assurance, on the concession given this evening with regard to the Timms review, that its outcome and recommendations will be in primary legislation, not delegated legislation?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me say a little about the announcement I made in my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) earlier on. We have listened to the concerns expressed in the debate, specifically about the new four-point threshold being implemented before the outcome of my review. As I have said, we will in fact move straight to my review and make changes to PIP eligibility activities and descriptors only following that review.

[Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister to confirm at the Dispatch Box that clause 5, which specifically references the need for claimants to score four points in order to receive the daily living allowance, will be removed from the Bill?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that is the case. We will table the amendment to do that.

Let me say in answer to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who raised this point perfectly properly in the debate, that we will also remove the parallel provisions for Northern Ireland. He suggested that that would mean removing clause 6, but it does not mean that, because there are a lot of other things in schedule 2, which is referenced in clause 6. Paragraph 4 of schedule 2 addresses the points that we are dealing with.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me make a little further progress. I still have not quite answered the question put to me in the first place in the intervention by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). His question was about whether the outcome of the review will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation. That depends on the outcome of the review and the form of the assessment we take forward. We will come back to that when we have concluded the review.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Let me make a little bit of headway before I give way again.

Under the last Labour Government, in the 12 years up to 2010, the disability employment gap fell steadily. In 2010, as soon as the Tories and Lib Dems took over and scrapped the new deal, it stopped falling, and it has barely shifted since. This Bill opens up the chance for proper support into work once again for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds. We will provide that again, recognising that with—for example—far more mental health problems among young people, the needs post pandemic will be different from those of the past. I listened with great interest to the powerful speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball), calling for a target for the disability employment gap. She makes a strong argument, and that is the kind of approach that we need to develop as we bring forward our plans for employment support.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will not give way at the moment. The Bill opens up that possibility, and it deals with work disincentives inserted into universal credit by the previous Government. The current system forces people to aspire to be classified as sick in order to qualify for a higher payment, and once so classified, it abandons them. We have to change that system.

[Simon Hoare]

The House knows that not only is the Minister an honourable man, but he has spent the largest proportion of his parliamentary career looking at these issues. He must surely understand, however, that the confusion that has been expressed in this place is now being felt and expressed in the country at large. I have never seen a Bill butchered and filleted by its own sponsoring Ministers in such a cack-handed way—nobody can understand the purpose of this Bill now. In the interests of fairness, simplicity and natural justice, is it not best to withdraw it, redraft it, and start again?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman one of the things that the Bill does. Part of the problem is that it is very hard to bring up a family on the standard allowance of universal credit. The Tories reduced the headline rate of benefit to the lowest real-terms rate for 40 years. Families have to rely on food banks, and people aim to be classified as sick for the extra benefit. The system should not force people into that position; it needs to be fixed, and the Bill makes very important changes in that direction.

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

I came here today with the intention of voting against the Government on this Bill. I have to say that with clause 5 having been removed —which, as I am sure everyone at home will be delighted to know, completely withdraws PIP from the scope of the Bill—there is consequently nothing to vote on. However, could the Minister give me some comfort by confirming whether or not the Timms review is going to take place within a spending envelope?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can assure my hon. Friend that the review is not intended to save money—that is not its purpose. The review is to get the assessment right and make sure we have an assessment that will be fit for the future.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I need to make a little more progress. As a number of Members highlighted in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd North (Gill German) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey), a key step in this Bill is the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the standard allowance of universal credit. Actually, it is the first permanent real-terms increase in the headline rate of benefit for decades, and of course, the Tory party is against it. The Tories froze benefits time and again, and created the work disincentives and mass dependence on food banks that this Government are determined to now erase.

We are, of course, also concerned that the future cost increases of PIP should be sustainable. Let me just look back at the record of those cost increases. In the year before the pandemic, 2019-20, PIP cost the then Government £12 billion at today’s prices; last year, it cost £22 billion. We want the system to be sustainable for the future. That is extremely important, because many people with large costs arising from ill health or disability depend on PIP. Those people need to be confident that the support will be there in the future, as well.

[Paul Holmes]

The Minister is doing an admirable job defending the farcical. Last week, there were £5 billion of savings. Today, there were £2.5 billion of savings. Then he came to the Dispatch Box and did three more U-turns. As he stands at that Dispatch Box today, how much will these new measures save the taxpayer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We will set out those figures in the usual way.

The last Government wanted to change the personal independence payment from cash to vouchers. They wanted to take the independence out of the personal independence payment, and we opposed them. It has been suggested that the benefit should be frozen, but the costs that the benefit is contributing to are continuing to rise along with all the other costs, so we oppose that, too. Some argue for means-testing, but disability imposes costs irrespective of income. We reject all those proposals.

Let me just make a comment about the concern that has been expressed—it does not arise now, given what I have announced—about a two-tier system. A two-tier system is completely normal in social security. PIP replaced DLA in 2013, but half a million adults are still on DLA today, and that does not cause problems. Parallel running is normal, and actually it is often the fairest way to make a major change.

[Barry Gardiner]

I think that Members on the Government Benches appreciate the concessions that the Minister has already made. When he is talking about whether measures will be put in primary legislation, he must understand that Members will not be able to amend things if they are not in primary legislation. That is a key concern when we do not know the outcome of the review.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My answer to my hon. Friend is the one I gave earlier: we need to await the outcome of the review and the assessment that it develops to determine whether it will be implemented in primary or secondary legislation.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I want to make some further headway. In her speech, my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) drew attention to the fact that she and I had known each other for a long time, and that is correct. She urged us to listen to the voices of our constituents. In February, someone I had not met before came to my constituency surgery. He explained to me that he lost his arm aged six in a road accident. As a result, on leaving school at 16 he could not find a job. He tried really hard, but he could not find an employer that would take him, until in the year 2000 somebody told him about the new deal for disabled people, which found him a job. He then worked for 23 years without a break in a whole series of different jobs. He brought up his children and he paid his taxes, until in October 2023 he was in an unsatisfactory zero-hours job and he left it. To his dismay, he has not been able to find a job since. He came to me as his local MP to ask where to get help again, like he had from the new deal, but unfortunately that was all scrapped by the Tories and the Lib Dems after 2010. We are determined now to provide proper support again, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday announced further early funding for that support.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will not be giving way again. The Tories were never really interested in the disability employment gap. They had a brief flirtation in the 2015 general election campaign, when David Cameron suddenly announced a target to halve the gap. Unfortunately, as soon as that general election had been safely won, that target was immediately scrapped, and they reverted to type.

We do care about disability employment. That is what we are making changes to address. In this Bill, we are making the changes to deliver.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Work and Pensions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Written Corrections

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.

[Official Report, 23 June 2025; Vol. 769, c. 822.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms):

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

12. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the personal independence payment application process.

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

The current PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to follow. Alongside proposed legislative changes, the Department’s health transformation programme will greatly improve the experience of applying and, I hope, increase confidence in the outcomes of the assessment as a result.

[Victoria Collins]

The response to my recent written question on disability benefits applications listed the 18 most common disabilities and health conditions and showed that hundreds of thousands of people were awarded fewer than four points in all living activities and will miss out on the daily living component of PIP. They include people like Jemima in Harpenden, who suffers from severe physical disabilities and thyroid cancer and finds even walking very difficult. Will the Government please commit to reforming the criteria to better reflect the full complexity of claimants’ conditions?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I recognise that many people who are on the PIP daily living component who did not get four points on anything at their last assessment are feeling rather anxious. However, what they need to know—I hope the hon. Member will reassure her constituents on this—is that it is the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility that most of them will nevertheless still have their PIP after their fresh assessment once the changes have been introduced. They will be introduced in November next year and an individual’s assessment will take place whenever their first award review is after that date. The OBR is confident and clear that most of those people will keep their PIP.

[Charlotte Cane]

Over 4,500 people in Ely and East Cambridgeshire claim PIP, and they are not just anxious, as you put it; they are seriously worried that they are going to lose the payments and, with them, their independence. Contrary to what you said—sorry, contrary to what the Minister said—the Government’s own data suggests that 85% of people getting standard payments and 11.5% of those getting enhanced payments will lose support under the proposed changes. What steps is the Minister taking to support those who will be affected, including to make sure that their health and eligible care needs are met and, most importantly, that they can maintain their independence?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I suggest that, in future, shorter questions might prevent mistakes such as “you”.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is really important for claimants of PIP that its funding should be sustainable into the future. The trajectory of the past few years has been unsustainable. We are taking action to put that right. The hon. Member is wrong to say that because people did not get four points last time, they will not keep their PIP. As I said, the view of the OBR, which I think is correct, is that most of them will. We are consulting on how to support those who will lose their PIP as a result of the changes that we have announced.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Ministers have highlighted that the PIP recipients who are expected to lose payments make up one in 10 of the total PIP caseload. That suggests that the impact of the cuts will be limited, but it still represents 370,000 current recipients, who are expected to lose £4,500 on average. However, those numbers rest on a set of assumptions that the OBR has described as “highly uncertain”. DWP data shows that 1.3 million people currently receiving PIP daily living payments would not meet the new criteria. Before MPs are asked to vote on imposing such appalling poverty, will the DWP or the OBR provide further evidence underpinning those claims?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The OBR has published its assessment, and my hon. Friend is right that it has assessed that one in 10 of those receiving PIP in November next year will have lost it by 2029-30—one in 10; not the much larger proportion that we were hearing about earlier. Following that, we will be able to introduce the biggest ever investment in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds. We do not want any longer to trap people on low incomes for years and years; we want people to be able to enter work and fulfil their ambitions. That is what the investment will allow.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

Is it not the simple and sad truth that any MP who votes for the upcoming welfare Bill will be voting to take PIP from disabled people who need assistance to cut up their food, wash themselves and go to the toilet?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

No. Members will be voting for reforms to open up opportunities for people who have been denied opportunities for far too long. We are putting that right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

I respect the Minister very much, and I know that he cares deeply about people who rely on the social security system. That is why it is such a tragedy that he is presiding over these profound reforms without having consulted disabled people. Can he explain why so many benefit claimants feel that these reforms have been rushed through, not to make a fairer system but because the Treasury demanded cuts to meet the fiscal emergency created by the Chancellor’s job-destroying, growth-stopping Budget? They are right to think that, are they not?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We are putting in place a fairer system. Action was urgently needed. In the year before the pandemic, PIP cost the Government £12 billion at current prices, and last year it cost £22 billion. It also went up last year alone by £2.8 billion. PIP required urgent action, and that is what we are taking.

[Danny Kruger]

I am just sorry that there has been so little consultation with the victims of the changes that the Government are introducing. One area where the Government do not seem to be looking for savings is in the Motability scheme. It was supposed to help physically disabled people get around, but now we have 100,000 new people a year joining the scheme, many of them not physically disabled at all. One in five of all new car purchases are bought through this scheme, and it is costing taxpayers nearly £3 billion a year. I know that the Minister will blame us for the system, but the fact is that the Government are not even looking at Motability. They have had a year, and it is their policy now. Will the Minister commit to a proper review of the Motability scheme, and if not, why not?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am not sure whether the shadow Minister wants me to go further or not so far—he seems to be facing both ways. He is right that we are not at this point proposing any changes to the Motability scheme.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

Recently I met Kathryn from my constituency who had to give up a £90,000-a-year job in order to care for her husband. With 150,000 carers set to lose their allowance due to PIP eligibility reforms, some of our country’s most hard-pressed households face losing £8,000 a year. Will the Minister confirm that even if the welfare reforms work out to the most optimistic expectations, there will be far more net losers that net gainers among PIP claimants?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Among households as a whole, there will be more net gainers than net losers from the package. The reason for that is the increase to the standard allowance of universal credit, which according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies is the biggest increase to the headline rate of benefit since at least 1980. We are consulting on support for those who will lose carer’s allowance because of the changes and considering what additional help they may need, including for health and care needs. The hon. Member will have seen in the Bill we have published that we have committed to a 13-week run-on of benefit after an assessment decision so that people have time to adjust to the new situation.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to support people on universal credit into work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T2. My constituent, Nicola Smith, works for NHS Fife. Like many people across the country, she is not paid on the same date each month. This leads to incorrect calculations for her husband Steven’s universal credit, often leaving the family without a payment or being sanctioned before the system catches up the following month, and I am aware of thousands of others in a similar position. What reassurance can the Minister provide that he is addressing these issues, ensuring smooth and fair payment for NHS workers and their families on universal credit, and will he meet me to discuss this issue in more detail?

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

We are reviewing universal credit to ensure that it makes work pay and tackles poverty, and we are looking at exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend highlights. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it, because Nicola, Steven and all 7,000 households claiming universal credit in his constituency will benefit from the standard allowance increase proposed in the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which we will be debating next week; it is the biggest increase in the headline rate of benefits since at least 1980.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

In her March Green Paper, the Secretary of State promised to provide an additional £1 billion in funding to help benefit claimants back into work, but only £400 million has actually been allocated, and even that will not come until 2028-29. We have heard some talk of efficiency savings, which is practically the definition of a magic money tree if ever there was one, so will the Minister confirm that the promised £1 billion for employment support will be all new money, and not cannibalised from other vital DWP services?

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

T5. When the under-25 universal credit rate was first introduced, the justification for it was that young people were more likely to be living at home, but there is a group—care-experienced young people—for whom that is often not the case. A transformational decision by this Government would be to build on and go further in the work that we are already doing with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill and decisions at the spending review by making this change for that very important group of young people.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I commend my hon. Friend for all his work on this issue, including his seminal 2022 independent review. He is right that care leavers need support as they move to independent living. The Department for Work and Pensions at the moment exempts care leavers from the shared accommodation rate, and provides support toward sustained employment and career progression. We will certainly consider if there is more that we can do.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Andrew Rosindell—not here.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

T9. A single parent in my constituency has worked full time for more than 20 years but is now in personal crisis because universal credit is unable to reimburse the childcare costs she has paid in advance. I hope the Minister agrees that it is deeply unfair that my constituent is left short every month despite working incredibly hard. Will he set out ways in which the Government are supporting hard-working women with childcare needs?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend’s constituent will benefit from the big increase in the universal credit standard allowance, which we have talked about, and from free school meals for her children. Somebody who starts work or increases their hours may also be eligible for support with up-front childcare costs. The flexible support fund can award the full cost for up to a month of fees to a childcare provider in advance of the care being delivered, so that may be an option for his constituent.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

At the weekend, Vivergo and Ensus workers learned that UK negotiators had successfully protected the UK bioethanol industry until President Trump called the Prime Minister and he sold out that industry, allowing a genetically modified bioethanol to flood the market and put all those jobs at risk. What can the Secretary of State tell those workers who feel that they have been sold out by our Prime Minister when negotiators had successfully protected an industry of the future?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Previous changes in eligibility for disability benefits have resulted in significant adverse health impacts, including an additional 600 suicides in 2010 and 130,000 more people with new onset mental health conditions in 2017. What estimates have the Government undertaken of the impacts on health of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill, which is due to have its Second Reading next week?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am looking forward to answering questions about these matters in front of the Committee on Wednesday morning. We are working very closely with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the health and care needs of people who lose benefits as a result of this process are met.

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

Do Ministers agree with the Trussell Trust’s recent estimate that the weekly cost of basic essentials is £120 for a single person and £205 for a couple?

Asbestos Removal: Non-domestic Buildings

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western—for the first time, I think—and I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell) for bringing this important debate to the House. She made the point that this is the first time under the current Government that we have had the opportunity to debate this issue, so I congratulate her on securing this debate.

I share in the grief of all those who, like my hon. Friend, have lost somebody close to them as a consequence of exposure to asbestos. As she and others reminded us, it is still by far the biggest cause of work-related deaths in the UK—it is responsible for 5,000-plus deaths per year—and many people live with the impact of asbestos-related disease. I join my hon. Friend in commending the work of the journalist Steve Boggan, who has highlighted this topic very helpfully.

Hanging in my office in the House of Commons, a few yards from here, I currently have a portrait of Mavis Nye and her husband, Ray. Ray Nye became an apprentice in the Chatham dockyard in 1953 and worked there for a number of years. Asbestos was everywhere. In 1957, during his apprenticeship, he met Mavis. He refers to that encounter as

“the most wonderful thing ever to enter my life”.

They married, and Mavis used to launder his overalls. At some point she breathed in asbestos dust. Fifty years later, in 2009, she was diagnosed with mesothelioma.

We have heard about very long latency periods. It appears that in Mavis’s case, it was 50 years before she was diagnosed. Thanks to pioneering treatment at the Royal Marsden hospital, she lived for another 14 years. She and Ray established the Mavis Nye Foundation to inspire mesothelioma victims. She was a force of nature. She sadly died in 2023, but it was her wish that her portrait should be hung in the House of Commons. In fulfilment of that wish, it hangs in my office this afternoon. It will soon be returned to Ray, but I am glad that we have been able to fulfil that wish and help celebrate the contribution of a remarkable woman—just one of the many thousands who have died as a result of earlier asbestos exposure in the last couple of years.

In Britain we have a mature and well-established approach to the management of asbestos in buildings. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive and other regulators, requires duty holders to assess whether asbestos is present, what condition it is in and whether it gives rise to a risk of exposure. The duty holder must then draw up a plan to manage the risk associated with asbestos, which must include removal if it cannot be safely managed where it remains. There is an existing legal obligation for duty holders to remove degrading asbestos and to share details of asbestos in their premises with people who work regularly in a building and may potentially disturb or damage materials which contain asbestos.

[Ian Lavery]

I place on record my sincere thanks to my right hon. Friend for the sterling work that he has done with regard to mesothelioma and asbestos-related disease in the past, but what has been mentioned is not working. We need the same as in other parts of this nation, where there has been a programme of statutory removal, but we are not doing that here in England. I wonder if my right hon. Friend can say why we are different from other nations of the UK.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will come on to address exactly the point that my hon. Friend raises. He is absolutely right to do so. Let me just make the point that asbestos does need to be removed before any major refurbishment work or before demolition. Under current arrangements it will eventually be removed, albeit over an extremely long time.

There are around 40,000 notifications of asbestos removal jobs every year. The HSE inspects to check that duty holders are managing asbestos effectively, both in the public and commercial sectors. Those inspections, I am pleased to say, have been significantly stepped up since the Select Committee on Work and Pensions report published in April 2022, at a time when I was Chair of the Committee, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields referred. That report was critical of the decline in the number of asbestos inspections and enforcement notices since 2010. The report pointed out that between 2011-12 and 2018-19, while the total number of enforcement notices from the HSE fell by 10%, the number of asbestos enforcement notices had fallen by 60% to less than 200 in the year 2018-19.

Increased activity by the HSE on asbestos since then has seen the overall number of enforcement notices climb to over 300 under the Control of Asbestos Regulations in 2024-25. Inspection activity is a means of providing assurance that the regulations are effective and that those with duties are complying with them. For example, between September 2022 and March 2025, HSE inspectors have visited over 1,000 schools to inspect their arrangements for managing asbestos. They found good levels of compliance in those 1,000 schools with the responsibilities to manage the risk of asbestos—albeit with 8% requiring enforcement notice action to improve their performance. This is particularly important given, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the proportionately higher number of cases of asbestos-related diseases among retired teachers compared with other professions. So it is right to focus on schools as a particularly pressing issue, along with hospitals and NHS premises, which she also mentioned. In the last year—2024-25—this work was expanded to include inspections of local authority head offices and premises. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) referred to council buildings as being of concern, and he is absolutely right to do so, so current plans for this year—2025-26—include a further 600 visits to schools and local authorities to be completed by March next year.

The HSE is also focused on the management of asbestos in commercial sectors. In 2024-25, its inspections dealt with the management of asbestos more than 2,330 times. Of the buildings found to contain asbestos, 40% required either written advice or an enforcement notice. This was the first year of a multi-year focus on asbestos in commercial sectors.

Together with the guidance on asbestos published on the HSE website, communications campaigns are important in raising awareness and understanding. The Asbestos—Your Duty campaign was launched in January last year to reach those responsible for the maintenance and repair of non-domestic buildings built before 2000 and to raise awareness of the legal duty to manage asbestos. In his intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington made the point that the current arrangements are not always working, and we need to draw people’s attention to their legal responsibilities. That campaign is running alongside the Asbestos & You campaign, which focuses on reducing exposure to asbestos for tradespeople.

[Ian Lavery]

Can my right hon. Friend say if there are any records of the children who were in the same working environment as a lot of the teachers who, sadly, have passed on? Is it the duty of the inspectorate or a responsibility of a Department to hold records of the children in that working environment who might wait 10, 20, 30, 40 or 50 years before a little tick of asbestos dust triggers mesothelioma?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises a very interesting point. I am not aware of any data about that. From time to time, however, one hears of or comes across people who have succumbed to mesothelioma in their 20s or 30s, and an obvious possibility is that they were exposed at school to the dangerous asbestos that led to that catastrophic outcome.

Both my hon. Friends have pressed the case for asbestos to be removed, and I want us to have a better understanding of the size and scale of the asbestos legacy in the built environment and an evidence base for future strategic decisions on removal. I have been working on this with the HSE since last July. I chaired a roundtable event with stakeholders last October to explore the issue and consider what we need to tackle Britain’s asbestos legacy effectively.

As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields pointed out, the Work and Pensions Committee made a strong and compelling case for the establishment of a national digital register of all workplace asbestos, bringing together into one accessible place all the separate records maintained—all over the place—by law at the moment. The Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 already require duty holders either to survey premises constructed before asbestos was banned or assume that it is present. A lot of duty holders commission external consultants to fulfil their obligations under the regulations, and they maintain records on their own databases, so compiling a national register would be a less gargantuan task than may initially be assumed. Establishing a national register would require significant resource from duty holders and the Government, at a time when resources are tight. With the HSE, I am looking at how we can develop better information on asbestos in buildings, and on ways of gathering a robust and reliable dataset to provide the foundation to inform longer-term strategy for the removal of asbestos.

If we cannot at this stage commit to a national register, a one-off asbestos census may be the way to start, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields suggested. The solution is likely to be a phased approach to improving information on buildings containing asbestos, to help us build an objective and reliable evidence base. A better understanding of the costs and associated impacts for the Government’s own estate—schools, hospitals and so on—would be a good place to start, before considering wider roll out. HSE is considering how best to take that forward in a way that will ensure we can obtain reliable, standardised data.

Alongside that, HSE is supporting digitalisation of built environment data, using building information modelling, or BIM. That approach enables improvements to the identification, recording, sharing and use of information on health and safety risks such as asbestos. The possibility of a surge in asbestos removal, triggered by actions on the part of the Government, needs to be planned for. Asbestos requires specialised waste disposal and removal, in many instances by licensed contractors. We would need to avoid the risk of duty holders removing asbestos without proper controls, and not disposing of it at licensed sites. That would present a significant exposure risk in itself.

In March, I attended part of the HSE’s asbestos research summit, which took place in Manchester. That brought together world-leading experts on asbestos, with duty holders, employer groups and mesothelioma support groups. I am pleased to say Liz Darlison was there. The summit was to inform where we should focus our efforts to ensure we continue to understand the nature of the asbestos exposure risk across the country.

[Emma Lewell]

I can tell the Minister is coming towards the end of his comments. I know resources are tight but people are dying, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) said, at a rate of 5,000 a year. As the Minister knows from the start of my speech, that is happening in my constituency at a faster rate than anywhere else in the country. Could he consider beginning a census in my patch of South Shields so that we can trial it and see how it works?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I welcome the opportunity to discuss that proposal with my hon. Friend, to see what we can do. At the research summit, we talked about the need to ensure that everybody involved in the asbestos ecosystem understood their role and the impact their behaviours can have in preventing exposure for themselves and others through their activity at work.

[Ian Lavery]

I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the Asbestos Victims Support Group’s case against Cape plc, the producer of asbestos, and the claim for £10 million for research and development. If so, does the Minister support the claim?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am aware of that claim, and think there is a strong case. The HSE is working through the suggestions from the research summit to develop a broader programme and will publish the areas of focus for research later in the year. The aim is that that prospectus will shape work in this field for decades to come. There is a lot of work to do, a lot of work under way and a lot more progress still to be made. My hon. Friends are absolutely right to make the case for the goal of an asbestos-free Great Britain and a plan for asbestos to be removed across the country. I am grateful to them and others for continuing to press the case and for their support. I look forward to further discussions with them, and agree that we still need to do a great deal.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

10. What estimate her Department has made of the potential impact of changes to the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment on the number of people receiving that payment who will move into employment.

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

Pathways to Work sets out reforms to stop people falling into inactivity. They include tailored employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds, including those claiming personal independence payments, so that they can fulfil their ambitions like everybody else.

[John Milne]

The Government say that their PIP reforms will help people into employment, but the Multiple Sclerosis Society says that 60% of sufferers believe those reforms will make it harder for them to find work, not easier. An estimate must have been made of what percentage of claimants will feasibly enter employment as a result of these reforms. Will the Minister share those figures?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

This is a very important set of reforms, for exactly that reason—to make sure people do have the opportunity to move into work. One in five working-age PIP claimants were in work in March last year; we want many more to have that opportunity. We are going to improve employment support substantially, Connect to Work is being rolled out across the country this year, and there will be an additional £1 billion per year for employment support by the end of the Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the impacts of these changes will be set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the time of the autumn Budget, and there will be very big improvements for those who are intended to benefit from them.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Helping those who can work to find meaningful employment is an important way to tackle poverty among disabled people, but it will require investment in employment support programmes, incentives for employers to recruit disabled people and enforcement of anti-discrimination rules. Given the importance of these measures, is it not appropriate that Members are asked to vote on any changes to the benefits system only after all the information about the impact of the proposals has been provided?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right about the scale of the ambition and the changes that need to be made to deliver on it. Sir Charlie Mayfield is leading the Keep Britain Working review at the moment, looking at what more employers can contribute to those goals. We have committed an extra £1 billion a year for employment support, but we need to get on with the changes we have announced in order to ensure that the costs of PIP in particular are sustainable in the future, as it is very important they should be.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is six weeks since the Government cobbled together an emergency plan for welfare cuts to rescue the Chancellor from the consequences of her job-destroying, economy-shrinking Budget, but we are still waiting for some information. Can the Minister tell the House how many more people will be in work as a result of these measures?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As I have just told the House, the Office for Budget Responsibility will publish its assessment in the autumn—that is what we said at the time of the spring statement. This is a very big programme; the commitment of an additional £1 billion a year to employment support will open up opportunities for a very large number of people, in the way that the new deal for disabled people did under the last Labour Government all those years ago. We want to get back to providing the support that people need. At the moment, 200,000 people who are out of work on health and disability grounds say that they could be in work today if they had the support they need. We are committed to delivering that support.

[Danny Kruger]

I look forward to the OBR’s report, and also to its assessment of the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. We know that many tens of thousands of jobs are going to be lost because of the national insurance rise, and we know from the OBR that because of the changes that the Government have introduced and the scrapping of the measures we were introducing, 16,000 fewer people will be in work and almost half a million more will be on long-term sickness benefits.

However, let me ask the Minister about disability benefits. Is he aware that half the number of people who receive PIP who have multiple sclerosis will no longer be eligible for that benefit under the plans that the Government are bringing forward? A quarter of people with cerebral palsy and three quarters of people with arthritis will also be ineligible. Is the Minister happy with that, and if not, what hope can he give the hundreds of thousands of people who are being abandoned that the Government will look after them?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is completely mistaken. These changes will not take effect until November next year and following each claimant’s award review after that date. Who receives the benefit will depend on the outcome of the assessment at that time. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the view of the Office for Budget Responsibility is that about 10% of those who are currently claiming PIP will lose their benefit as a result of these changes—a much lower proportion than the one he has just referred to.

[Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Colne Valley constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

T3. According to Sense, there are over 2,500 people with complex needs in North West Cambridgeshire, many of whom will never be able to work because of their conditions. Does the Minister agree that dignity for severely disabled people needs to be a priority for the welfare system, and can he update the House on progress towards ensuring that people whose conditions mean they will never be able to work are no longer subject to the appalling repeated reassessments that we saw all too often under the previous Government?

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

My hon. Friend raises a very important subject. Social security must always be there for those who cannot work. The changes announced recently to the rates of universal credit protect the incomes of those with the most severe lifelong conditions who will never be able to work. We will also guarantee that, for both new and existing claims, those in this group will not need to be reassessed in future. Those are baked into the Green Paper proposals.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

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

T4. I have been in touch with a constituent who has a disability and needs help with showering and dressing. She is concerned that, under our proposed reforms, she will not score enough points to continue receiving the daily living portion of PIP. I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that the Government are reviewing the PIP assessment, including the descriptors, but can she confirm that cases like that of my constituent will be considered as part of the review?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s concern. We will engage stakeholders to consider the scope of the review before publishing terms of reference. In the review we will consider whether the assessment criteria effectively target the right people at the right level. We will look at the descriptors and consider the points allocated to them.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

With 300,000 people set to be plunged into poverty through the proposals in the Green Paper and 700 families set to go deeper into poverty, will the Secretary of State advise how changes to PIP will ensure that people with disabilities are living their best lives?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The crucial thing is to improve the employment support for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an ambitious programme, Connect to Work, which is being rolled out this calendar year, building up to an additional £1 billion a year in employment support by the end of the Parliament. At the moment there are 200,000 people out of work on health and disability grounds who say they would like to be in a job now, and could be in a job now, if they had the support they need. We are determined, through the changes, to provide exactly that support.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

T5. My constituent Charlie Vernon was happily benefiting from the Access to Work scheme until redundancy. He found a new job and did a fresh application last autumn, but since then, well beyond the 24-week timeframe, there has been nothing. Will my right hon. Friend look into these sorts of delays and have a more joined-up system, because assessors are apparently dealing with applications from August at the moment?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is right that there are currently delays with the Access to Work scheme, reflecting the very large increase in demand and applications for it over the past year or two. We are making changes to speed things up. We are also, in the Green Paper, consulting on the future of the Access to Work scheme. I would really welcome input from my hon. Friend, and perhaps her constituent as well, about the changes we should be making.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

T6. The Government claim to be the party of business, but speak to businesses today and they are hurting. Reduced opportunities for wealth creation and entrepreneurship, employee national insurance contributions and the Employment Rights Bill are destroying opportunity. What are the Government doing to incentivise our wealth creators and encourage job creation?

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

T9. What assessment has the Minister made of the merits of increasing local housing allowance to alleviate the pressure on housing authorities?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I just point out that the April 2024 one-year local housing allowance increase has cost an additional £1.2 billion in the last financial year, and it will cost about £7 billion over five years. We keep local housing allowance rates under review. He is right to stress the importance of those, but future decisions on them will need to be based on the Government’s priorities and reflect the difficult fiscal conditions that the Government are dealing with.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

T7. Helping more people off welfare and into work will require the support and good will of employers, which I fear those on the Government Benches do not fully recognise. How will the Minister achieve that move, having clobbered businesses with the jobs tax, which covers all sectors of businesses, hospices, charities and many employers?

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

T8. Carers UK reports that unpaid carers are still receiving debt notices over carer’s allowance. Between May 2024 and February 2025, the number of notices increased by 9,000, so we are now talking about 144,000 people. Will the Secretary of State halt the creation of those overpayment debts until her independent review has taken place and the recommendations are implemented?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a problem over a long period with overpayments—often inadvertent—of carer’s allowance. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State appointed Liz Sayce to undertake her independent review. I know she is making good progress, and I have regularly kept in touch with her. We are looking forward to receiving her recommendations, which will cover those who have been affected, and will recommend changes for the future, too.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

What analysis has been done of how the changes proposed in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper will affect those who rely on PIP not just for employment support, but for their daily living and mobility needs? Can my right hon. Friend please assure my constituents in Wolverhampton West who are disabled and will never be able to work that their financial support will not be restricted in a way that affects their quality of life, so that they can live with independence, and the dignity that they deserve?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

That is an important concern. As my hon. Friend knows, we are determined to open up opportunities for people who have been out of work, often for a long time, on health and disability grounds, and to give them the chance to get into work through much better employment support. However, we recognise that there will be people who will never be able to work. Under the proposals for claims for the new universal credit health element, from next April, a higher payment will protect those with the most severe lifelong conditions that have no prospect of improvement, and who will never be able to work. Eligibility for that will be through the work capability assessment conditions criteria.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

How is the Minister working with the Department for Education to ensure that when young people leave education, they have the skills they need to thrive in the world of work?

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

Recent analysis by Health Equity North shows that more than £13 million will be stripped out of the local economy in the City of Durham every year due to PIP changes. That comes on top of the already worsened health conditions for people in the north-east due to Tory austerity. Would it not be more constructive for the Government to start by listening to the calls of disability groups and disabled people, and supporting them into work, rather than cutting the benefits first and pushing those people further into poverty?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that we are listening. We are consulting precisely on how best to deploy the additional £1 billion a year for employment support that we have committed to in the Green Paper. However, the assessment of those measures needs to take account of the significant impact that supporting many more people into work will have on reducing poverty.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

My constituents are extremely concerned about changes to the PIP assessment system, and particularly how they will affect people with mental health issues and fluctuating long-term conditions. Those people may not be able to show the required evidence of how their ability to function is impacted, since their experiences do not always fit within the daily living and mobility assessment criteria. Can the Minister assure me that the assessment system will be updated to take those genuine challenges into account?

--- Later in debate ---

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

What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the financial reparations that will be made to LGBT veterans following the Etherton review are not taken into consideration when assessing entitlement to other benefits?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There is an issue with compensation payments more widely, and the right hon. Gentleman gives an example of a current case. We are looking at how we can ensure that people who receive those payments are protected.

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

South Shields will be the 15th most negatively impacted constituency if the Government’s proposed welfare changes go ahead, yet there are no in-person consultation events in the north-east at all. Can my right hon. Friend please rectify that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I recognise that there is a good deal of concern at the moment, and we want to ensure that people respond fully to our consultation set out in the Green Paper. We have said clearly in the Green Paper that we will ensure that those who will never be able to work will not go through repeated reassessments. That will be built into the system. Initially, the people who will benefit from that will be those who meet the work capability assessment’s severe conditions criteria.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Today is World ME Day, and I hope that the Secretary of State and her Ministers will recognise the up to 1.3 million people who live with ME and ME-like symptoms, and some of those with long covid. All they want is to have a normal life. I recognise what she has said about making PIP work for fluctuating conditions. Can I ask her to work with her colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to put aside research funding, so that money is available to ensure that those who would love nothing more than to live a normal life and go to work can get better?

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The Middlesbrough Disabled Supporters Association does vital work to support disabled Boro fans, but it is currently being hammered by increased bank charges. Will the Minister for Disability work across Government to help take these banks to task so that non-profit disability groups such as the MDSA can continue their important work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am aware that there are concerns along those lines across the charity sector as a whole. I would be delighted to work with my hon. Friend to address the concerns in Middlesbrough specifically.

Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Like everyone else, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) on securing the debate and on the way she introduced it. I pay tribute to her for her consistent focus on this very important topic for a long time. To everyone who has spoken, I say that it is absolutely right to be passionate about this topic.

The “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, published in March, set out to deliver three things with a properly thought-through plan—contrary to what the hon. Member for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) just said. First, we will provide proper, tailored employment support for people who are out of work on health and disability grounds, with the biggest reforms to support for a generation and a funding commitment rising to an additional £1 billion a year by the end of this Parliament.

Secondly, we will remove the disincentives to work that were left behind in the benefits system by the previous Government’s haphazard benefit freezes, which forced too many people to aspire to so-called limited capability for work and work-related activity status, when it should be supporting people to aspire to work and providing the support to enable them to achieve those aspirations. As has been mentioned, we have announced the first ever permanent real-terms increase in the universal credit standard allowance.

Thirdly—this is where we have focused in the debate—we will make the costs of PIP sustainable and address the unsustainable increases that have led to an almost doubling of the real-terms cost of the benefit, from £12 billion to £22 billion, since the year before the pandemic. Last year alone, it increased by £2.8 billion beyond inflation. I think everybody who has spoken would recognise that we simply cannot let that trend carry on.

I think I am right in saying that 30 years ago my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and I served together on the Treasury Committee. She knows as well as anybody the need for funding to be sustainable. It is not in the interests of those for whom PIP is a lifeline, in anything beyond the very short term, for the Government simply to allow the costs to rise as they have done over the last five years.

[Nadia Whittome]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I will give way just once, as that is all I can manage.

[Nadia Whittome]

Has the Minister seen the latest analysis from the New Economics Foundation, which estimates that fewer than 50% of disabled people are claiming these benefits, and that the acceptance rate has remained static? It is not actually the case that people are claiming who should not be claiming: people are claiming benefits to which they are entitled.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The people who are getting PIP are the people who meet the criteria. My point is that we cannot simply carry on increasing spending at the current rate. That has to be addressed.

I well understand the concerns among people who claim PIP, and I want to take the opportunity of this debate to address those concerns. We are talking to disabled people, disability charities and disabled people’s organisations. The Green Paper consultation will continue until the end of June, and a White Paper will follow later this year. But we need to act ahead of a White Paper. Claims to PIP are set to more than double this decade, from 2 million to more than 4.3 million. That increase is partly accounted for by a 17% increase in disability prevalence, as mentioned, but the increase in the benefit caseload is much higher. It would certainly not be in the interests of people currently claiming the benefits for the Government to bury their heads in the sand over that rate of increase.

Following the Green Paper, we are consulting on how best to support those affected by the eligibility changes. We are looking to improve the PIP assessment; as mentioned, I will lead a review of that. The current system produces poor employment outcomes, high economic inactivity, low living standards and high costs to the taxpayer. It needs to change. We want a more proactive, pro-work system that supports people better and supports the economy as well.

I will turn specifically to the changes to PIP eligibility. PIP is a crucial benefit that contributes to the extra living costs that arise from disability or a health impairment. The changes we have announced relate to PIP daily living; the PIP mobility component is not affected. We are clear that the daily living component of PIP should not be means-tested, taxed, frozen or anything else that has been suggested. We are committed to continue increasing it in line with inflation. For the majority of current claimants, and categorically for the most vulnerable, who have been highlighted in this debate, it will continue to provide, in full, the support that it currently provides. Employment support for those who are able and want to work will be substantially improved as well.

As has been referenced, we have published data that shows that just over half of those who claim PIP today scored four points in one daily living activity in the last PIP assessment. Understandably, as we have heard, almost half of those who currently claim the benefit will be concerned that they will not be eligible in future. However, we have also published the Office for Budget Responsibility’s assessment, which is that by 2029-30 only around 10% of those who currently claim the daily living component of PIP will lose it as a result of the changes. That is the assumption that has gone into the spending forecasts. We are projecting that spending on PIP will continue to increase in real terms every year, but not at the unsustainable rate of the last five years.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am afraid I cannot give way again.

The OBR is right on this. Its assessment is based on previous experience of changes of this kind. The behaviour both of the people claiming the benefits and of those who conduct the assessments changes. For example, I have met people who were awarded two points for one of the activities last time around, when I thought they were entitled to four, but it did not change their award, so it was not challenged and nobody minded. In future, someone in that position could well score four points on that activity and so retain the benefit, even though they did not score four points on any of the activities last time around.

Changes to the PIP assessment will not be immediate; they will take effect from November 2026.

[Imran Hussain]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I cannot give way again; a lot of points were made in the debate.

For a given individual, the changes will take effect only at their first award review after November 2026. Award reviews take place on average at three-year intervals, so for many PIP claimants the change will take effect only a year or two after November 2026. In line with existing practice, people who are above state pension age will not normally be reassessed and so will not be affected at all.

If and when people are reassessed, it will be by a trained assessor, and the assessment will be of their individual needs and circumstances. We are consulting on how best to support those who lose entitlement, including those who will lose carers’ allowance, who are explicitly flagged up in the Green Paper. We set out in the Green Paper our plans to improve trust in the way that both PIP and WCA assessments work, which many of us have heard worries about, through reviewing our approach to safeguarding; recording assessments as standard so that when something goes wrong with the assessment, we can look back at the recording, see what happened and improve the assessment for next time; and moving back to having more face-to-face assessments, while continuing to meet the needs of people who may require different methods of assessment.

I think I have time to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon).

[Anna Dixon]

I apologise for not getting here earlier; I have been listening to carers who have been sharing their stories. I spoke to a woman who is caring for her husband, who has a neurodegenerative disease and currently scores only two points across the board. Their family would be penalised under the tightening restrictions. Does the Minister agree that somebody with a neurological and degenerative disease should be counted as severely disabled and protected from the changes?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I would be happy to talk to my hon. Friend about the details of that particular case. I think the threshold we have set is the right place to set the eligibility criteria in the future. I am happy to discuss that point specifically. Our goal is a system that is financially sustainable in the long term so that it can be there for all of us who need it in the future.

Statutory Sick Pay

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) on securing this debate and on the thoughtful way he set out his case.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that this issue has been dodged for a long time. Proposals for reform of statutory sick pay were brought forward in 2019; they were paused for the pandemic and never brought back. My hon. Friend and I agree that the Government inherited a statutory sick pay system that fosters economic insecurity at work, particularly for the lowest earners. The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for people on low incomes, with many people forced to choose between health, including the health of others, and financial hardship—an impossible position.

My hon. Friend focused on the rate of statutory sick pay, but I want to highlight the actions that the Government are taking to implement the plan to make work pay—the plan that he has referred to and supported—and ensure that the safety net of sick pay is available to those who need it. I think the change will meet exactly the point that the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) raised in his intervention.

Insecure, low-paid and irregular work has been the lot of far too many people for far too long. The Employment Rights Bill, which had its Second Reading in the other place just before Easter—I echo my hon. Friend’s tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—will turn the tide. It is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. It will boost living standards and improve our economic growth prospects, thanks to urgently needed reforms to our economy.

Through the Bill, we are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East set out, extending statutory sick pay to those earning below the lower earnings limit, and also removing the waiting period, making it payable from the first rather than the fourth day of sickness absence. I think those two points, and in particular the removal of the waiting period, will address the concern raised by the hon. Member for Horsham. These are very important steps to strengthen statutory sick pay, and I am glad to hear the strong support from my hon. Friend and others for the changes.

I heard my hon. Friend’s calls for further reform of the system, including the call to increase the flat rate. The rate of statutory sick pay is designed to balance providing a basic level of support for employees when they are unable to work due to sickness with helping to manage the cost to employers. It is very important to get that balance right. That is where the debate is likely to focus.

The changes through the Employment Rights Bill mean that up to 1.3 million low-paid employees will now be entitled to statutory sick pay, and all eligible employees will be paid from the first day of sickness absence, benefiting many millions. As part of removing the lower earnings limit we committed to a fair earnings replacement. We consulted on the percentage rate last year, and the conclusion from that exercise—the new rate: 80% of normal weekly earnings or the flat rate, whichever is the lower—strikes the right balance between providing financial security to employees while limiting additional cost to employers. That is important because, as set out in the regulatory impact assessment, the reforms will obviously increase the aggregate amount of sick pay that employees receive—an estimated increase of £420 million per year.

At an individual level, the removal of the waiting period means that all employees will receive at least £60 extra at the start of their sickness absence; if they work just two days a week, they will get £150 extra compared with the current system. Removing the waiting period has the added advantage of making a phased return to work easier, which has always been one of the aims for reforming statutory sick pay. That can be a very effective way of helping people and making it possible for them to return from a period of absence and stay in work, reducing the flow into economic inactivity and the additional costs to business. The change also means that an employee who earns just below the lower earnings limit could now be entitled to up to £100, compared with nothing under the current system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East set out potential benefits from going further for disabled people and people with health impairments. The concerns he set out are among the reasons we set up the Keep Britain Working independent review, which is being undertaken by Sir Charlie Mayfield, who used to run John Lewis, to consider what employers can do in order better to support disabled people and people with health impairments to work, and what the Government can do to promote improved practices on the part of employers. After conducting an initial phase of “discovery” of the underlying issues, the review has launched a call to all stakeholders to engage with the early review findings and to input views, including via a survey launched on gov.uk. I encourage everyone interested in today’s debate to look at the questions in the survey and respond to it.

My hon. Friend suggested that the system ought to be aligned more closely with the national living wage and referred to the amendment to that effect that he tabled to the Employment Rights Bill on Report. The difficulty is that that would increase costs on business by some £1.3 billion per year on top of the changes that we are already making through the Bill, with no mechanism for employers to reclaim those costs. Given the quite substantial differences in how the national living wage and statutory sick pay are calculated, there would need to be big changes to the statutory sick pay system and further consultation with businesses and employees about that. It would also significantly impact the work and scope of the Low Pay Commission. But the big issue is the additional cost to business of going ahead with a proposal along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests and, for that reason, the Government have decided not to do that.

Sometimes, in debates on this topic—my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East touched on this—the models for sick pay arrangements in other countries are highlighted. They provide a useful and informative comparison, and it is important to look at them. It is also important to recognise that sick pay arrangements sit within the context of different social security systems, different economies and different employment obligations and protections in different countries, so simply comparing sick pay arrangements can be a bit misleading.

Of course, many employers already go beyond their statutory obligations by offering employees occupational or contractual sick pay. Around 60% of employees report being eligible for such arrangements from their employer during sickness absence, but some people will require further support during a period of sickness absence. They may need additional financial support. They may be able to claim more help through the social security system, in particular universal credit—my hon. Friend mentioned PIP as well—depending on their circumstances. We are determined that that support will continue to be available.

My hon. Friend expressed concern that some employees might receive less under the new system than the current one—a point also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). The removal of the waiting period will mean that all employees will be entitled to more statutory sick pay for the first three weeks. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East talked about five weeks, but with a significant payment up front there will clearly be a period during which people will receive more. Absences in the first three weeks represent 87% of all sickness absences, according to the Department’s 2023 employee survey. The number who are out of work on statutory sick pay for the longer period beyond the one that my hon. Friend referred to will be quite small. I am certainly not claiming that there will not be anybody, but it will be quite a small number.

The changes we are bringing forward will help stop people being forced to work when they are unwell. They will also support very effectively the lowest paid employees, who will always receive the highest income replacement rate of 80%, having not been supported in the past. An alternative approach to removing the lower earnings limit has been suggested, and my hon. Friend touched on it, but we think that would create a pretty unfair system, because some employees would receive a greater earnings replacement rate—up to 100%—than people earning less than them. In an extreme case, 1p in average weekly earnings could potentially make nearly a £24-a-week difference in entitlement. I do not think that would be the right thing to do, and I think my hon. Friend would recognise that that would not be a very satisfactory state of affairs. I have not seen a model that guarantees that everybody will be better off that does not have that problem. The Department will, I hope later this week, publish a fact sheet on gov.uk that addresses those concerns in more detail.

There has been discussion about whether there should be a rebate to employers to help them with the increased cost of statutory sick pay. There has been a rebate system in the past, but it was rather complicated, it was expensive to administer, it was not always taken up by small employers and it did not encourage employers to support their employees. By contrast, under the new system, employers stand to benefit from increased productivity among their employees offsetting the additional cost, which is reckoned to be about £15 per employee per year.

I again congratulate and thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. I welcome his thoughtful engagement on the important matters that he has raised, not just in this debate, but in the Chamber on Report of the Employment Rights Bill and, I recall, directly with the Prime Minister. He is raising important points in a constructive and thoughtful way. As the changes to SSP being taken forward through the Employment Rights Bill move closer to implementation, we will continue working closely with employees, trade unions and businesses to deliver a system that is fair, supportive and effective for all. To pick up my hon. Friend’s point, we will monitor the impact of these measures to strengthen statutory sick pay, as well as how SSP is used by employers and how effectively it supports employees. I am grateful for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position and I am sure we will talk about it again.

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

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.