Neurodivergent People: Employment

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I am delighted to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey; you have a long-standing record in this area. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane) on securing the debate and the telling points she made in opening. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to a good debate.

We want to achieve an overall 80% rate of employment, as key to delivering the economic growth and widely shared prosperity we all want. To achieve that, the employment rate among disabled people, those with health impairments and neurodiverse people has to increase. The disability employment gap was first measured in 1998 and fell steadily from then until 2010, when it reached about 30%, but it has been stuck there more or less ever since. It moved around a little bit, down to 28% at one point, but it is pretty much where it was in 2010. That means, as we have rightly been reminded, that many people who have a great deal to contribute and want to work have been denied the opportunity to do so. That needs to change. We specifically need to get the disability employment gap back on to a downward track.

As we have been reminded, the picture is worse still for neurodivergent people. Only 31% of autistic people are in any sort of employment, compared with 55% of disabled people overall. There is a gap within the disability employment gap, to which the Buckland review drew attention. I join my hon. Friends the Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) and for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) and the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray) in highlighting how big a contribution neurodivergent people are making and can make if they have opportunities and if the barriers holding them back are removed. We need to do much better to deliver the economic growth we need and because good work is good for health and wellbeing.

Like others in the debate, I have made a series of visits to look at initiatives supporting people with learning disabilities into work. It is great to hear so many examples read into the record. Last December, I went to New Warlands farm in Durham, to the North East Autism Society’s vocational training centre. I met autistic adults working on the farm doing interesting things, such as making superb juice from apples grown in the orchard. The farm also had programmes on woodworking and IT.

In April, I visited Little Gate farm near Rye, mentioned by the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies) when speaking for the Opposition. I was also impressed by what is happening there. We looked at two social enterprises that equip adults with learning disabilities and autism with skills and pathways into paid work. In June, I visited Northwick Park hospital, which every year recruits autistic people for supported internships, many of whom go on to permanent roles in the NHS. The staff love that impressive programme, which the hospital has been running for years. The hospital chief executive made the point that NHS staff find it extremely rewarding to support the interns and they enjoy that part of the job.

In July, I visited DHL at Heathrow to see how the DHL UK Foundation works alongside charity partners to provide work placements to 16 to 25-year-olds with learning disabilities or autism who are currently out of work. Last month, I went to Yusen Logistics in Wellingborough to see how that global supply chain logistics company is working with Mencap as part of its interns and outcomes programme, giving practical work experience to young people moving from education into employment—a difficult transition as we have rightly been reminded—or on to further study. The colleagues of the person with a learning difficulty I met in Wellingborough emphasised to me both how good he was at his job and, notwithstanding the support he needed, how much they enjoyed working with him.

[Tom Gordon]

The Minister has outlined a plethora of different places he has visited. I invite him to visit some of the fantastic organisations in my constituency, such as the Artizan café, for people who have learning disabilities and neurodivergence; Horticap, a garden centre with a similar scheme; or Henshaws college in Harrogate. I wish to press the Minister a little. He talks about how these are all fantastic organisations and schemes; many of them are charities and they face an increase in employer national insurance contributions. Will the Minister outline how he might support these fantastic organisations in helping and supporting people with neurodivergence?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Unfortunately, I cannot promise to visit all the employers that have been mentioned in the debate, but we certainly want to support them because they are doing a great job. I will say a bit more about what we are doing, and planning to do.

We need evidence for policies to deal with the barriers that neurodivergent people face in getting into work and once they are in the workplace, such as those rightly highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford. We need evidence to establish and clarify the characteristics of successfully inclusive workplaces.

In January, as has been mentioned, we set up an independent panel of academics with expertise in and lived experience of neurodiversity, led by Professor Amanda Kirby. It is reviewing the evidence on neurodiversity in the workplace to assess why neurodivergent people have poorer experiences and a low employment rate, and what we can do about it. Its advice will also focus specifically on how employers can support neurodivergent people at work, which has rightly been an important theme in the debate. We need practicable strategies for employers that are simple for them to adopt, with low cost or no cost at all.

The panel conclusions will build on the Buckland review of autism employment, which focused specifically on autism. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who was the Employment Minister until the weekend, I met Sir Robert Buckland after the election to discuss his valuable contribution to this policy area. I am looking forward to the panel’s findings and recommendations in the coming weeks—I think somebody asked when that would be.

[Mims Davies]

As well as the expert panel and the updates from the Buckland review, will the Minister undertake to use his good offices in the DWP and across government, including the NHS and other public sector employers, to ensure that the learning is used? As we have heard, it is tough in the wider labour market. Support is already given to care leavers across Government and by the Minister’s own Department; will he lead the way in the DWP?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

Yes, there are opportunities to do exactly that. We will look at the recommendations from the independent panel along with the results of the “Keep Britain Working” review, which is led by Sir Charlie Mayfield and is investigating how employers can reduce health-related inactivity. We want to bring all this work together to make a real difference. We are expecting the recommendations from Sir Charlie Mayfield in the autumn, so there will be a lot going on this policy area, with opportunities for improvement.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for his response to all the requests we have made collectively and individually. I am very keen to show that we can have an exchange of views and share ideas. In particular, I want us to share some of those ideas with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, to ensure that the good things we do there can advise Ministers here, and vice versa. Does the Minister intend to ensure that will happen? If so, I would welcome it.

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I have had a number of opportunities to speak to my counterpart Minister in Northern Ireland and I am sure there will be more—I have always enjoyed those conversations. I have not yet had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland but that might also be a possibility.

The new jobs and careers service that we are setting up is a key reform. To echo the points made in the debate, the new service will deliver much more personalised support than has been provided in the past, moving away from the one-size-fits-all, tick-box approach that far too many people think of as characterising Jobcentre Plus. We need to be different from that. The pathfinder we have set up in Wakefield is testing how a personalised offer could be much more responsive to different support needs, including those of neurodivergent people in particular. We are testing how to make the jobcentre environment more accessible for both jobseekers and DWP staff with support needs, including neurodiversity. The findings of the academic panel will also help us to shape the new service.

Our new Connect to Work service, which is being locally commissioned and will cover the whole country by early in the new year, includes a specialist pathway for those with particularly complex barriers, using the IPS—individual placement support—methodology and the supported employment quality framework, which has been overseen by the British Association of Supported Employment, which I think the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) mentioned. There has been close collaboration with BASE in drawing up Connect to Work, which I think will make a big difference over the next few years.

Participants in Connect to Work will be given a dedicated specialist employment support adviser to work alongside them, understand their career goals and help them to address specific barriers to employment. We are taking a very different approach. The methodology is being tightly defined—the IPS and the BASE framework—but the service is being commissioned entirely locally. The decisions about who to involve and which organisations will take part are being made entirely locally by, I think, 42 groups of local authorities around the country. I am hopeful that that increasingly devolved approach will allow us to make substantial progress.

[Mims Davies]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. That commissioning model will be music to most constituency MPs’ ears. How will DWP monitor the local output and changes for people on the ground?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The hon. Member raises a good point. What we will need to do, and what we are committed to doing, is to publish the outcomes from all 42 different programmes so that everybody can see how they are getting on. I am sure that some areas will do better than others, and where there is a problem, we will be able to provide additional support.

[Daisy Cooper]

We would all welcome a framework for monitoring the outcomes and the results, but we have heard today that people face many barriers in trying to access these kinds of schemes. Will the Government consider requiring service level agreements, so that when people apply to the schemes or engage with them, they know what they are going to get, how they are going to get it, and how quickly they are going to get it?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I need to correct myself: there are 47 areas, rather than 42. It will be for each local area to work out how best to engage people and establish the kind of confidence that is needed. I hope Members will watch closely what happens with Connect to Work, because it is a big opportunity.

A number of Members understandably raised Access to Work. There are problems with Access to Work, reflecting the substantial surge in demand for the scheme over the years—I think last year it went up by 30%, and I think it went up by a larger proportion in the year before and the year before that. We have put well over 100 extra staff on to administering the scheme, to try to get on top of the growing delays and waiting lists, but they have continued to grow, so in the “Pathway to Work” Green Paper, published in March, we consulted on the reform of Access to Work. How can we do a better job, hopefully supporting a larger number of people, and certainly without the lengthy delays that people are suffering at the moment? We have set up a collaboration committee, which includes representatives of disabled people’s organisations, to work with us on the proposals. We are currently working on the consultation responses with that committee, and I look forward to bringing forward proposals for reform before too long.

Tailored support is crucial for young people. There are nearly a million people not in education, work or training, which is more than one in eight of all young people. A significant number of them are almost certainly neurodivergent. Our “Get Britain Working” plan includes the new youth guarantee for 18 to 21-year-olds, to ensure that young people can access quality training, apprenticeships or help to find work, and eight trailblazers are testing localised approaches to support young people, including neurodivergent young people who are likely to face additional barriers and who need further support.

A number of Members rightly reminded us of the crucial role of employers in all this, and we heard some great examples of employers committed to providing support for neurodivergent employees. The Government have a range of support in place for that. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) was absolutely right to make the point that employers can find it difficult to know what they are supposed to do. It can be quite nerve-racking for conscientious employers who want to do the right thing. Our digital offer is support with employee health and disability, and tailored guidance on supporting employees, including how to effectively support those who are neurodivergent or have learning disabilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) rightly highlighted the importance of that support.

I hope we are going to see more job carving, whereby an employer takes an existing role and reshapes it to suit the skills of a particular individual. One example that the Department knows of is a firm that had three vacancies for legal secretaries. It wanted to address the under-representation of disabled and neurodivergent people in its workforce, so it created a new support role across the team for tasks that did not require legal expertise, and that role was filled by an applicant with autism. That person did a great job, and other team members said afterwards said that the initiative made them want to stay with the firm. There is an important point here about the support from employees generally for doing the right thing for neurodivergent employees and would-be employees.

The disability confidence scheme that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), referred to encourages employers to create disability inclusive workplaces. I think we can improve it. We need to make the criteria for accreditation more robust, and the Department has been consulting a wide range of stakeholders, organisations and individuals on ideas over the summer. Look out for more on that over the coming months.

In our ambitious programmes of strategic reform—the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, the “Pathways to Work” consultation, the “Keep Britain Working” review and the neurodiversity panel—we are starting to set a new course. We are keen to continue to work across Government—a point rightly raised—as when we jointly provided evidence to the House of Lords special inquiry Committee on the Autism Act 2009 earlier in the year. We all have a part to play—every Department of Government—and I look forward to seeing the report and the recommendations from that Committee on the development of a new strategy later this year.

This subject matters to every single neurodivergent person who has been denied the opportunity to thrive and achieve their best in the past—but it also matters to every one of us, to the whole economy and to our whole society. I hope we see substantial progress in the years to come.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Timms Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

4. What estimate she has made of the level of spending on health and disability benefits by 2030.

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

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in March that incapacity and disability benefits spending would be £90.7 billion in 2029-30. That figure will be updated at the Budget. Better employment support and removing perverse work incentives in universal credit are the key to getting more people into work.

[John Lamont]

Just two months ago, the Secretary of State was left humiliated after being forced to significantly water down her botched welfare Bill. If the Government had pressed ahead with the Bill as originally drafted, how much less would taxpayers be spending on benefits by 2030?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

As I have said, the OBR will update its forecast at the time of the Budget. We inherited a terrible situation, with record numbers of economically inactive people. Economic inactivity is down since the election, and employment is up. Those developments have been encouraging, but our reforms will go much further. The £3.8 billion that we are investing in employment support for people out of work on health and disability grounds—the biggest package ever—will be key.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that we must invest in community mental health services if we are to reduce spending on mental health disability?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I very much welcome the NHS 10-year plan published by our right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, which gives a new priority and commitment to mental health support. I agree with my hon. Friend that that is an important part of tackling the problems that we need to resolve.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)]

It is good to see the Minister back after the break, but I am sorry to hear that there are still no plans to reduce spending on personal independence payments. He has said that he is collaborating with people who would not be working with him on his review if there were to be any reductions in the levels of benefit or eligibility. Given that veto on cuts to PIP, I implore him again to consider the benefits to which PIP is a gateway, such as Motability, disability premiums, council tax discounts and blue badges. Will he promise at least that those entitlements could come down?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have made it clear that we will co-produce our review of the PIP assessment with disabled people and representatives of disability organisations. The review will cover the assessment for the mobility component, which leads on to the Motability scheme, and other entitlements to which PIP is a gateway.

[Danny Kruger]

But with no possibility of any of those entitlements coming down or any of the spending being reduced? We have 1.25 million foreign nationals claiming universal credit, most of whom are not in employment. I hope that the Minister does not plan to co-produce his plans with foreign nationals—although, knowing Labour lawyers, I expect they will say that the European convention on human rights demands that they do just that. Does he think that subsidising more and more foreign nationals is what the British social security system is for? If not, will he restrict sickness benefits to British nationals only, as we have argued for?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

It is crucial that we have a fair system. We are reviewing universal credit at the moment, considering problems such as the five-week wait that was inserted when universal credit was introduced and changes to ensure that universal credit effectively tackles poverty and does the job that we need it to do. Fairness will be at the heart of the system.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Croydon East constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

8. 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 PIP application process is outdated and can be very difficult to navigate. The health transformation programme will deliver radical improvements and much better efficiency.

[Anna Sabine]

In my constituency, I was contacted by a woman who had suffered two strokes, resulting in permanent right-side paralysis and ongoing mobility difficulties. Despite her condition being permanent, she has had to undergo reassessment for PIP and has appealed for it to be reinstated. I welcome the Government changing the reassessment requirement for people with long-term health conditions. Will the Minister clarify what steps the Government are taking to reduce the stress and difficulty of the PIP application process for people with those serious health conditions?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The health transformation programme that I mentioned will allow the introduction of a modern digital service, which is certainly not how the existing arrangements could be characterised. It is a big job—the programme will run until 2029—but the outcome from it will be a process that is simpler and easier to understand, which I hope will reduce the stress to which the hon. Member has rightly drawn attention, and shorten decision times.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

Over the summer, I have been doing a deep dive into children with special educational needs and disabilities, not least the transition points between education and work. As part of the Timms review—the Minister’s own review—will he ensure that that interface is looked at, so that there is a smooth transition for young people, as opposed to the cliff edges that many of them face when making the transition into work?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

The review will look specifically at the PIP assessment, but one proposal in our Green Paper published earlier this year was increasing the age of transition from DLA to PIP from 16 to 18. I think that that change could assist with the concern expressed by my hon. Friend. We are looking at the consultation responses that we have received.

[Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)]

9. What discussions she has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on reducing poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

15. If she will make an assessment of the potential impact of increasing the number of remote personal independence payment assessments on claimants in West Dorset constituency.

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

We will increase the number of face-to-face, rather than remote, PIP assessments, and will increase the number of health professionals in assessment centres in order to deliver that. I think the hon. Gentleman will agree, however, that it is important to keep telephone or video alternatives for those who need them.

[Edward Morello]

Many West Dorset constituents have written to me with deep anxiety about the assessment for personal independence payments, and especially the use of remote assessments. One constituent, despite previously being awarded enhanced PIP, has endured months of repeated phone assessments, which have triggered severe panic attacks and high blood pressure, and caused lasting psychological harm. The Secretary of State has given me a commitment to moving away from phone-based assessments, so what additional resources will be made available to support the roll-out of more face-to-face assessments in West Dorset?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

There was a switch to remote assessments in the pandemic, for obvious reasons, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made the point repeatedly that, as was said in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, we want to move sharply back to face-to-face, while keeping alternatives for those who need them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have spoken to people for whom the prospect of going to an assessment centre provokes the kind of anxiety that his constituent experienced as a result of a telephone call. We are speaking to the assessment providers, and we have already increased the proportion of face-to-face assessments. That work will continue.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

16. What steps she is taking to support young people into employment, education or training in Southend East and Rochford constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

The Government are right to want to see more people with disabilities and long-term sickness get into work. Sadly, this was used to justify the savage cuts to benefits that were proposed earlier this year. My colleagues and I are hearing reports of cuts to current awards through Access to Work, and to new payments, being done by the back door. Can the Minister cast any light on whether guidance has been given to civil servants on such cuts?

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

There has been no change at all to policy on Access to Work. As the hon. Member knows, we did consult, in the Green Paper earlier in the year, on reform to Access to Work. There has been a big increase in demand for it, and reform is needed. We are looking at the consultation responses at the moment. There may have been instances in the past where the published guidance was not always properly applied. It is being applied now, and that may give rise to some of the issues that have been drawn to his attention, but there has been no change at all in the policy.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

T6. I warmly commend the locally led £100 million Connect to Work programme, which supports those facing complex barriers to employment to get into work and to stay in work. A constituent of mine, Charlie, has explained to me some of the barriers to work that he experiences living with autism spectrum disorder and ADHD, but he is a dedicated and focused young man who is to be commended for wanting to be a useful member of society. What support will Connect to Work, and other schemes like it, offer Charlie and other constituents of mine in Dartford?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T5. Last week, Policy Exchange published a very insightful report, “Out of Control”, looking at the pathways to benefit entitlements. It made this point:“Fifty years ago, just one in 2,500 people was said to have Autism; today that has risen to one in 36 children”.Will the ministerial team undertake to look at the implications for the Department of that definitional creep and the specific implications for benefit entitlements?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have set up a panel of experts to advise us on how best to improve employment prospects for people with autism and neurodivergence. As the right hon. Member knows, we will be undertaking a review of the PIP assessment, co-producing it with disabled people, so that we have a clear way forward for who should and who should not be entitled to the personal independence payment.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T9. Can my hon. Friend set out how this Government are reforming pensions long term to help people in Bracknell Forest and across the country to save for their futures?

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The carer’s allowance overpayments review was due to report in early summer. It is now 1 September. In recent weeks, I have become aware of a case where the DWP has informed somebody that they now owe it £18,000. That is a scandal. When will the review report back?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

We have received the report from Liz Sayce, and I want to thank her very much for her review of earnings-related overpayments of carer’s allowance. We are currently considering the findings. We are, as the hon. Lady knows, making a number of changes. We have increased the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance in a way that I think will help avoid these problems in the future. We are looking at the possibility of a taper on carer’s allowance. We will come forward, before very long at all, with both the report and the Government’s response to it.

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

As someone who proudly served the trade union movement for two decades before entering this place, I warmly welcome the Government’s improvement to workers’ rights. Will the Minister set out what steps are being taken to ensure that no one is left behind in the vital reforms to statutory sick pay?

--- Later in debate ---

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

I was delighted to see the establishment of the disability advisory panel a week or so ago. [Interruption.] I am so sorry, Mr Speaker; I have a cold. How will the advisory panel link with the co-production in the Timms review?

[Sir Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We have announced that Zara Todd will be the chair of the Department’s disability advisory panel. The panel was announced in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper last year. Separately, we will set up a group to work with me on the review of the PIP assessment. I will, of course, talk to the disability advisory panel about the arrangements, but they will be separate structures.

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

Despite his new role in riding to the rescue of the Treasury, is the Pensions Minister still available to fulfil in principle the undertaking he gave me before the recess to have a meeting about the plight of ExxonMobil pensioners and the difficulties in them getting the discretionary surplus benefits to which I think they should be entitled?

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.